|
Post by slappy on Oct 30, 2010 22:12:22 GMT -5
"Among all 2008 voters, 51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his re-election" "Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed."www.seattlepi.com/national/1131ap_us_ap_poll_obama.html
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Oct 31, 2010 10:20:10 GMT -5
What the hell is wrong with dems these days? Obama has actually done a good job. I think we should throw out all of congress who are not willing to compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Oct 31, 2010 10:47:58 GMT -5
What the hell is wrong with dems these days? Obama has actually done a good job. I think we should throw out all of congress who are not willing to compromise.
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Oct 31, 2010 11:09:17 GMT -5
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, just wondering why you feel that way?
|
|
tom
Superstar
Joined on: Oct 23, 2010 22:23:34 GMT -5
Posts: 875
|
Post by tom on Oct 31, 2010 12:54:50 GMT -5
Nobody is going to fix the economy. Obama is doing as well as anyone else would.
|
|
The Doctor
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 3, 2002 19:03:52 GMT -5
Posts: 3,446
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 31, 2010 13:11:29 GMT -5
Let me guess this straight... EVERYONE would have, tried Obamacare, Cap & Tax and AIG, GM, etc?
Yes, forget everything I've said in the past. We will begin testing before voting immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 31, 2010 13:16:08 GMT -5
Let me guess this straight... EVERYONE would have, tried Obamacare, Cap & Tax and AIG, GM, etc? Yes, forget everything I've said in the past. We will begin testing before voting immediately. The problem is that everyone wants everything and they want it right now. People are too impatient. Now, I'm not a fan of Obama, but he hasn't really done anything too ed up as of yet. He hasn't done anything great or amazing either though. So people want "change".
|
|
|
Post by oldschoolsoldier on Oct 31, 2010 21:23:19 GMT -5
If you are going to make a statement that Obama has done a good job...tell us what he has done,and to say he hasnt done anything "f"'d up lets see....1)He and the Democrats rammed through a Health care policy against 65 percent of the American peoples wishes.....a 2000 page bill that he nor congress or the senate read. He claimed it would lead to lower cost insurance,but quite the opposite occured,Average has been a 14 percent INCREASE in policies,many employers are now dropping coverage due to the higher costs...Many idiots believed that you were gonna be able to add 30 million people to the rolls who were previously uninsured with no additional costs?!!get a grip! 2) Passes a 1 TRILLIION dollar stimulus bill that had to be "passed immediately or unemployment would exceed 8 percent by the end of 2009...well were at 10 and counting...still no new job creation and 1 trillion more in the whole...Thats for starters I can keep going if you like.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 31, 2010 21:49:57 GMT -5
Bullshit.
You know why Americans don't like the health care bill? Because it doesn't include a public option. More than 55% of people wanted a public option and yet it wasn't in the bill.
If we are going by public opinion, then same-sex marriage would be legal in the entire country today. The two latest polls on the subject came back and showed about 52% of Americans supported extending marriage to gay couples.
Most of these changes don't go into effect until 2014, so any rate hikes now are the insurance company doing it before they are regulated to keep the rates low.
We are at 9.6 not 10.
The stimulus saved or created nearly 2 million jobs. We've had six or nine months of consecutive private sector job growth.
Remember we used to be losing nearly 3/4 of a million jobs per month before the stimulus.
What about Bush's bail outs?
You know all those Republicans hating the stimulus, yet writing letters requesting money from it to fund their various projects. It must have worked.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 31, 2010 21:54:03 GMT -5
The healthcare bill hasn't even gone into effect yet really. It may never go into effect. There are about a dozen states right now who are sueing the feds right now. Their claim is that the feds can't force people to buy insurance. So far the court seems to be siding with the states.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 31, 2010 21:55:47 GMT -5
The healthcare bill hasn't even gone into effect yet really. It may never go into effect. There are about a dozen states right now who are sueing the feds right now. Their claim is that the feds can't force people to buy insurance. So far the court seems to be siding with the states. Sure, they can't force people to buy health insurance, but they can force people to buy auto insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 31, 2010 22:04:40 GMT -5
The healthcare bill hasn't even gone into effect yet really. It may never go into effect. There are about a dozen states right now who are sueing the feds right now. Their claim is that the feds can't force people to buy insurance. So far the court seems to be siding with the states. Sure, they can't force people to buy health insurance, but they can force people to buy auto insurance. No one is forced to buy auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I don't have to buy auto insurance. In fact, if I do own a car I don't have to buy insurance unless I plan on driving that car. If I want to put the car on blocks in my front yard just to piss off the neighbor, I don't have to buy insurance on the car. Even if I do choose to drive the car, I only have to buy insurance to cover the other person in an accident. I am not required to buy insurance to cover my losses in a car wreck, just the other guys.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 31, 2010 22:06:46 GMT -5
Sure, they can't force people to buy health insurance, but they can force people to buy auto insurance. No one is forced to buy auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I don't have to buy auto insurance. In fact, if I do own a car I don't have to buy insurance unless I plan on driving that car. If I want to put the car on blocks in my front yard just to piss off the neighbor, I don't have to buy insurance on the car. Even if I do choose to drive the car, I only have to buy insurance to cover the other person in an accident. I am not required to buy insurance to cover my losses in a car wreck, just the other guys. Not the case here. I don't drive yet my mom is charged for me and my sister has her own car and my mom is still charged for her as well, because we may drive her car which will never happen.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 31, 2010 22:11:04 GMT -5
No one is forced to buy auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I don't have to buy auto insurance. In fact, if I do own a car I don't have to buy insurance unless I plan on driving that car. If I want to put the car on blocks in my front yard just to piss off the neighbor, I don't have to buy insurance on the car. Even if I do choose to drive the car, I only have to buy insurance to cover the other person in an accident. I am not required to buy insurance to cover my losses in a car wreck, just the other guys. Not the case here. I don't drive yet my mom is charged for me and my sister has her own car and my mom is still charged for her as well, because we may drive her car which will never happen. Because you are a driver. You have a license. Your mom is only required to insure you if you're going to drive her car. If she decides that you will never, ever drive any car that she owns then she doesn't have to insure you. Here's the suit - www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014. 19 states are involved in it claiming it's unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 31, 2010 22:13:00 GMT -5
Not the case here. I don't drive yet my mom is charged for me and my sister has her own car and my mom is still charged for her as well, because we may drive her car which will never happen. Because you are a driver. You have a license. Your mom is only required to insure you if you're going to drive her car. If she decides that you will never, ever drive any car that she owns then she doesn't have to insure you. Here's the suit - www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014. 19 states are involved in it claiming it's unconstitutional. I will NEVER drive her car, yet since I am of driving age, the insurance companies are making her pay to have me on her insurance. She's tried several different insurances companies and told them I will not drive her car and they still said since I am of driving age that I have to be covered.
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Oct 31, 2010 22:13:40 GMT -5
If you are going to make a statement that Obama has done a good job...tell us what he has done,and to say he hasnt done anything "f"'d up lets see....1)He and the Democrats rammed through a Health care policy against 65 percent of the American peoples wishes.....a 2000 page bill that he nor congress or the senate read. He claimed it would lead to lower cost insurance,but quite the opposite occured,Average has been a 14 percent INCREASE in policies,many employers are now dropping coverage due to the higher costs...Many idiots believed that you were gonna be able to add 30 million people to the rolls who were previously uninsured with no additional costs?!!get a grip! 2) Passes a 1 TRILLIION dollar stimulus bill that had to be "passed immediately or unemployment would exceed 8 percent by the end of 2009...well were at 10 and counting...still no new job creation and 1 trillion more in the whole...Thats for starters I can keep going if you like. Im not looking to start any wars, you are completely entitled to your opinion. My thoughts on that would be -You can make polls say whatever you want. The only polls that are close to accurate are the census. All these "nationwide" polls and I've never been asked to participate in anything -People in congress, regardless of the party, often don't read the bills they pass. They have staffs to do it for them. Not saying I agree with the practice it just is. -There is no blueprint for success in the unemployment situation. If Obama could have done something that would have lowered unemployment he would have done it. Do you think he likes having low job approval? Nobody would. This country needs more entrepreneurs and to quit depending on someone else (government or small business or corps) to give them a job. As for the money used for the recovery, if the government hadn't tried it could have been worse, who knows. I'm not expecting to change your mind, just giving you my outlook
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 31, 2010 22:16:16 GMT -5
If we didn't have the stimulus, unemployment would be around 15-20%.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 31, 2010 22:17:23 GMT -5
Because you are a driver. You have a license. Your mom is only required to insure you if you're going to drive her car. If she decides that you will never, ever drive any car that she owns then she doesn't have to insure you. Here's the suit - www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014. 19 states are involved in it claiming it's unconstitutional. I will NEVER drive her car, yet since I am of driving age, the insurance companies are making her pay to have me on her insurance. She's tried several different insurances companies and told them I will not drive her car and they still said since I am of driving age that I have to be covered. Is that the law or the policy of the insurance company?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 31, 2010 22:20:11 GMT -5
I will NEVER drive her car, yet since I am of driving age, the insurance companies are making her pay to have me on her insurance. She's tried several different insurances companies and told them I will not drive her car and they still said since I am of driving age that I have to be covered. Is that the law or the policy of the insurance company? It must be the law, because it happened for every insurance company she looked into getting, they all asked for her children's age and if they still lived with her and they all said that she'd have to get insurance for my sister and I.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 31, 2010 22:21:57 GMT -5
Is that the law or the policy of the insurance company? It must be the law, because it happened for every insurance company she looked into getting, they all asked for her children's age and if they still lived with her and they all said that she'd have to get insurance for my sister and I. Not necessarily. A lot of companies have similar practices.
|
|