You don't believe that...It's simple: It was economically worth while to pay McConnell his extortion money to end the quagmire.
You don't believe that...It's simple: It was economically worth while to pay McConnell his extortion money to end the quagmire.
Nice guess Lag ....I would guess that these areas were closed to prevent vandalism and liability for injury in parks. Museum closure would be to prevent theft of course. If I were responsible for a swimming pool with no life guard, I would certainly close it.
I was talking about national parks and museums being closed, not the open memorials which I think should not have been closed. The majority blame the GOP according to every poll I've seen.Nice guess Lag ....
But, as usual ... you are wrong. Obama closed the memorials, many are what's called "open air" memorials meaning they need no staffing, to simply inflict as much inconvenience on the American people as possible with the hopes of blaming it all on the Republicans and more specifically the TEA Party members.
But, as the polls are showing .... Obama failed in his attempts of the blame game. The majority of Americans blame Obama and his refusal to negotiate with the Republicans and HIS selectively closing the nations memorials and national parks, forcing elderly out of their homes and closing private businesses!
What do you think the senate should have done to stop the madness?You don't believe that...
Yes ....I was talking about national parks and museums being closed, not the open memorials which I think should not have been closed. The majority blame the GOP according to every poll I've seen.
Tried negotiating with the House instead of refusing all offers?What do you think the senate should have done to stop the madness?
Too many people conveniently ignore that in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed. What’s sad is that the Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provided universal coverage. The latest figures from CBO says that when it is fully implemented in 2016, Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history. Consider one of the newest market-oriented health reform plans put on the table by Jim Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Compared to Obamacare, this plan would cost roughly the same amount yet cover 22% more (8 million!) uninsured. If there’s a superior alternative to the slow-motion train wreck now being implemented, why wouldn’t the President and Democrats in Congress want to seriously consider it as a replacement? Instead, Mr Obama decided it was important to completely tear apart American healthcare for 15% of people, when 85% had rather things been left in place.What do you think the senate should have done to stop the madness?
Bush's plan would leave everyone to the mercy of insurance companies. The plan revolved around not paying taxes on the first $7,500 of income or the first $15,000 for a family. There would be a subsidy for those at a low income level and not paying taxes, which is a very large percentage. It is hard to see how this reduction in revenue and subsidies could make a dent in the federal debt.Too many people conveniently ignore that in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed. What’s sad is that the Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provided universal coverage. The latest figures from CBO says that when it is fully implemented in 2016, Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history. Consider one of the newest market-oriented health reform plans put on the table by Jim Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Compared to Obamacare, this plan would cost roughly the same amount yet cover 22% more (8 million!) uninsured. If there’s a superior alternative to the slow-motion train wreck now being implemented, why wouldn’t the President and Democrats in Congress want to seriously consider it as a replacement? Instead, Mr Obama decided it was important to completely tear apart American healthcare for 15% of people, when 85% had rather things been left in place.
C'mon quit being a troll. We are all aware that you are such a right-wing extremist that you view everyone else as being communist.Yes ....
We are all aware you get your news from Obama's propagandist MSM ..... it's more than evident in all your post.
What do you think the senate should have done to stop the madness?
Stating facts about the MSM is not trolling ..... you are the one who is constantly parroting the false talking points from the MSM ... I am merely responding to it.C'mon quit being a troll. We are all aware that you are such a right-wing extremist that you view everyone else as being communist.
You made my point.Stating facts about the MSM is not trolling ..... you are the one who is constantly parroting the false talking points from the MSM ... I am merely responding to it.
And, pointing out the Communist Agenda of the Obama regime does not make me a right-wing extremist as the MSM has told you to say. It makes me informed with facts that you can not dispute .......
I never said it would make a dent in the debt...Bush's plan would leave everyone to the mercy of insurance companies. The plan revolved around not paying taxes on the first $7,500 of income or the first $15,000 for a family. There would be a subsidy for those at a low income level and not paying taxes, which is a very large percentage. It is hard to see how this reduction in revenue and subsidies could make a dent in the federal debt.
Obamacare has a lot of holes, but one big advantage is that it includes regulatory features that give the people better service, such as,
A requirement that insurers offer the same premium price to all applicants of the same age and geographical location.
A ban on droping policyholders if they become sick
A ban on discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
Allowing dependents to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday
Removing annual or lifetime coverage caps
Preventive and wellness services such as mammograms and colonoscopies.
Etc.
It seems that the same myopia is too frequent at many levels.The wrongs of mine and your generation are simple. We seek short term solutions and completely ignore the larger picture.