What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Kepler said:
I can see Scott Brown winning, tacking more and more left to hold his job, and eventually switching parties and enraging everybody. MA is a national joke after Dukakis, Kerry, and Romney, and that would about wrap it up for them. :D
Click to expand...

I enjoyed Kerry's speech last night. It was nice for him to get revenge on the GOP for the flip-flop BS he went through.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Kepler said:
Oh, please. :rolleyes: She was reviled by the nutbars because she didn't take their crap and of course the Echo Chamber lampooned her because Oh Noes Woman With Liberal Opinions and Screechy Voice! Jezebel! Anathema!,
Click to expand...

Plus, there's the "War Against Women." All the non-Democrat Party members hate all the wimmin. Even if they are brilliant and gracious. (Unless, of course they stay in the kitchen and don't talk)
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Nancy Pelosi did her job, which was to pass the Obama agenda. Unfairly she lost her majority because the useless Harry Reid didn't have the stones to get things passed through the Senate despite a time of having a filibuster proof majority.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Rover said:
Nancy Pelosi did her job, which was to pass the Obama agenda. Unfairly she lost her majority because the useless Harry Reid didn't have the stones to get things passed through the Senate despite a time of having a filibuster proof majority.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that the Dems would have kept a House majority if more of their agenda had passed? I think they lost their majority because of the agenda they were trying to pass. Also because Americans are having a "War Against Women."
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

geezer said:
Are you implying that the Dems would have kept a House majority if more of their agenda had passed? I think they lost their majority because of the agenda they were trying to pass. Also because Americans are having a "War Against Women."
Click to expand...

I know it. That evil anti-business anti-freedom socialist agenda. Yuck.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

I don't think Pelosi had much of anything to do with the Dems losing the House. Pelosi *was* a competent HML at getting her agenda items passed through, a rarity for Democratic congressional leadership. Win or lose the Senate, the first thing they need to do is rip the leadership from Reid and give it to someone who doesn't have worry about his seat every election. McConnell can do what he wants because he wins 70% every 6 years. The Dems need someone in the same boat to be the firebrand.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

geezer said:
Are you implying that the Dems would have kept a House majority if more of their agenda had passed? I think they lost their majority because of the agenda they were trying to pass. Also because Americans are having a "War Against Women."
Click to expand...

Public turned against Dems IMHO because they had so much trouble getting anything done. I'm still aggravated with them over this. Idiot Harry Reid got rolled by Itch McConnell when he thought he had a bargaining partner. Instead the Senate GOP adopted a run out the clock strategy to pretend they were working on bipartisan solutions but were then sending out campaign letters saying how they were delaying the Dem agenda (Grassley on ACA for example). The Economist said it best. Americans like winners, not victims in politics. Decisive action and bold implementation would have saved them a lot of electoral scorn instead of a year long slog to pass a healthcare bill when you have overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. Bronc is 100% correct. Harry Reid needs to be kicked out of that position because he's in over his head. Put Schumer in charge or someone like that. Reid is a throwback to the Gephardt/Daschle type ineptitude that killed Congressional Democrats from 1994-2006.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Rover said:
Public turned against Dems IMHO because they had so much trouble getting anything done. I'm still aggravated with them over this. Idiot Harry Reid got rolled by Itch McConnell when he thought he had a bargaining partner. Instead the Senate GOP adopted a run out the clock strategy to pretend they were working on bipartisan solutions but were then sending out campaign letters saying how they were delaying the Dem agenda (Grassley on ACA for example). The Economist said it best. Americans like winners, not victims in politics. Decisive action and bold implementation would have saved them a lot of electoral scorn instead of a year long slog to pass a healthcare bill when you have overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. Bronc is 100% correct. Harry Reid needs to be kicked out of that position because he's in over his head. Put Schumer in charge or someone like that. Reid is a throwback to the Gephardt/Daschle type ineptitude that killed Congressional Democrats from 1994-2006.
Click to expand...

Correct. We need STRONG leadership in the Senate and Harry is NOT it.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

bronconick said:
I don't think Pelosi had much of anything to do with the Dems losing the House. Pelosi *was* a competent HML at getting her agenda items passed through, a rarity for Democratic congressional leadership. Win or lose the Senate, the first thing they need to do is rip the leadership from Reid and give it to someone who doesn't have worry about his seat every election. McConnell can do what he wants because he wins 70% every 6 years. The Dems need someone in the same boat to be the firebrand.
Click to expand...

There is more than one Senate Dem who not so secretly wouldn't mind running 49-51 for a couple years because it would obliterate Reid's control.

In all seriousness, even if the Dems eek it out he may decide to step down shortly into the next Congress. Believe it or not he is already the 6th-longest-serving SML of all time, and that job makes more enemies than mafioso don or Red Sox manager.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120907/NEWS/709079931/1694#bob-kerrey-slams-health-insurance-mandate

Notwithstanding that Bob Kerrey has no chance in hell of winning back the seat he gave up 12 years ago and is clearly throwing out a hail mary at this point, can someone explain his logic to me regarding the healthcare mandate causing his company to drop health insurance? I've heard this from other fairly bright people, and I don't get it.

Their premise is that they can either pay $X for healthcare costs for their employees (in the instant case, $7000 per employee) or pay the government a $2000employee fine. When $X is greater thn $2000, they'll choose to pay the fine instead and save $(X-2000). Ok, I'm with them so far.

But then they skip over the fact that they're currently offering insurance to their workers. The tax (fine, incentive, mandate, whatever you want to call it) - doesn't currently exist, which means they could drop the insurance coverage tonight without paying anything. And yet they continue to offer health care even though it costs them $7,000 per employee.

In 2014, they could be saving $5000 per employee by dropping health insurance. Today, they could be saving $7000 per employee. Yet somehow they aren't going to drop insurance now, but will when it saves them less money because...why? spite?
 
Gurtholfin said:
I like this guy. He's got MOXIE!


What did Germans in this country have to do with the slippery slope? If we give student loans, is that a first step on the path towards US citizens of German ancestry...

I'm confused.
Click to expand...
He does have a bunker in WVA
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

unofan said:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120907/NEWS/709079931/1694#bob-kerrey-slams-health-insurance-mandate

Notwithstanding that Bob Kerrey has no chance in hell of winning back the seat he gave up 12 years ago and is clearly throwing out a hail mary at this point, can someone explain his logic to me regarding the healthcare mandate causing his company to drop health insurance? I've heard this from other fairly bright people, and I don't get it.

Their premise is that they can either pay $X for healthcare costs for their employees (in the instant case, $7000 per employee) or pay the government a $2000employee fine. When $X is greater thn $2000, they'll choose to pay the fine instead and save $(X-2000). Ok, I'm with them so far.

But then they skip over the fact that they're currently offering insurance to their workers. The tax (fine, incentive, mandate, whatever you want to call it) - doesn't currently exist, which means they could drop the insurance coverage tonight without paying anything. And yet they continue to offer health care even though it costs them $7,000 per employee.

In 2014, they could be saving $5000 per employee by dropping health insurance. Today, they could be saving $7000 per employee. Yet somehow they aren't going to drop insurance now, but will when it saves them less money because...why? spite?
Click to expand...

Because now there is no decent mechanism for the employees to get coverage on their own, and under PPACA there will be subsidies and exchanges. If he drops the insurance now, he's abandoning his employees; if he drops it in 2014, he's merely shifting the employees' coverage from his insurance plan to a government-run insurance. His employees will then receive subsidies from the feds to help them pay for their government-run coverage.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

FreshFish said:
Because now there is no decent mechanism for the employees to get coverage on their own, and under PPACA there will be subsidies and exchanges. If he drops the insurance now, he's abandoning his employees; if he drops it in 2014, he's merely shifting the employees' coverage from his insurance plan to a government-run insurance. His employees will then receive subsidies from the feds to help them pay for their government-run coverage.
Click to expand...

Right, because employees aren't going to still prefer working for a company which offers a health plan, and won't view an employer dropping them as abandoning them in 2014...

Your post also sounds like yet another reason to simply go to a single payer system, if CEOs really think that kind of attitude is going to fly with the rank and file.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Rover said:
Scott Brown is screwed. When Obama wins Massachusetts by like 60/40 over Mittens the only way Brownie wins is if 20% of Obama voters turn around and vote for him. That's a tall order given that a vote for him is a vote for Itch McConnell and I'm curious how the slow witted Senator is going to fare in the debates with Warren.
Click to expand...

Did that exact scenario play out in Wisconsin?
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Gurtholfin said:
I like this guy. He's got MOXIE!


What did Germans in this country have to do with the slippery slope? If we give student loans, is that a first step on the path towards US citizens of German ancestry...

I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Ask Fritz Kuhn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top