Distraction
Apparently Feingold is trying to distract everyone away from his support for disastrous fiscal policies.
GOP Senate hopeful Ron Johnson issued a retraction Tuesday of comments he made earlier this summer on licensing firearms after his words became the target of a radio ad by incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold.
Johnson made those comments in a June interview with the Rock River Patriots, a conservative group in Jefferson County.
Asked what sort of gun restrictions he might support, Johnson said: “You know, like we license cars and stuff, I don’t have a real, I don’t have a real problem in minimal licensing and stuff. I mean I don’t.”
Feingold replayed those comments in a new radio ad he launched Tuesday questioning Johnson’s commitment to gun rights and touting his own record on the issue.
The ad’s narrator adds: “So let me get this straight, Ron Johnson believes our right to protect ourselves requires a license from the government? He supports licensing guns like cars? Well, Ron, that ain’t freedom.”
As a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, Johnson’s comment greatly concerns me. It’s certainly something that I’ll be watching. Is it enough to make me vote for Feingold over Johnson? No. Feingold’s record on supporting the 2nd Amendment is mixed. The best you can say is that he’s slightly less anti-gun than your average Democrat, but that’s not saying much.
Furthermore, it is very interesting that Feingold is taking this as an angle of attack. This election is shaping up to about the economy, debt, fiscal policy, bailouts, etc. The gun issue is always important, but it’s certainly not a major factor in this election. Why would Feingold focus on this perceived advantage when the election is all about the economy? Easy. Feingold’s record on the economy stinks.
I’m giving RoJo the benefit of the doubt on this one. I’m certain he was talking about a permit system for those who wish to carry a concealed firearm.
Nothing more to see here…move along.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1135 hrs
Johnson is not a carreer politition. He does not know how not to answer questions with bs. Next time someone asks him about gun restrictions he needs to answer ” Jobs jobs it all about jobs, Why would you not want to save teachers jobs”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1157 hrs
Why would Feingold focus on this perceived advantage…?
I think he’s trying to move right, like most Dems seem to do around election time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1211 hrs
I think Russ is just trying to show that Ron is a rookie at this stuff and doesn’t really know what his positions are. And showing that when you vote for Ron you don’t know what you are voting for because Ron doesn’t know either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1211 hrs
I would tend to agree that he may have been referring to licensing for concealed carry, but that doesn’t necessarily matter, since carry is a state issue…
Johnson will get my vote over Feigold, if he wins the primary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1317 hrs
#4 Maybe I don’t know everything about Ron. But what I know about Russ is enough to make me vote for anyone else. I would much rather vote for a buisnessman that has the smarts to build a company than a life long politician that can only build the national debt.
Hey its almost time for Barry and Shelly to go on another vacation fire up the jet ! With the camera’s there its almost like were all there with them.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1522 hrs
I would much rather vote for a buisnessman that has the smarts to build a company than a life long politician that can only build the national debt.
So I guess Feingold gets no credit for voting against TARP from you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1548 hrs
-
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1548 hrs
Or how about…..
Senator Feingold’s policy agenda is the fifth most cost-saving in the Senate, and would save taxpayers over $42 billion a year.
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=205381
I would really like to see a debate between the republican candidate(whoever that may be) and feingold. I think david westlake would be able to debate fiengold a lot better than johnson.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1605 hrs
But what I know about Russ is enough to make me vote for anyone else.
You and me both. That would include Popeye, Mr. Magoo, or a trained seal.
Posted by dad29 on August 11, 2010 at 1705 hrs
The liberals miss the point on TARP. Feingold missed the boat there as well.
TARP as originally implemented might have worked out as a money maker for the US taxpayers that also happened to stabilize confidence in the financial system.
Most of those TARP funds originally were lent to institutions that have been able to pay them back, with interest. Or institutions that will pay it back within the time period allotted. Will some of those TARP loans go bad? Yes. But add in the interest paid on the overall “portfolio” and TARP as originally implemented by Paulson works. Probably doesn’t add to the deficit at all.
The problem is that then the Washington gang decided to use TARP funds to “bailout” automakers and disperse it to other projects where the odds of repayment are minimal.
In any event, I agree with Owen. Russ Feingold trumpeting that maybe Ron Johnson doesn’t fully subscribe to “gun porn” means Russ has nothing else to run on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1741 hrs
I’ll just add to post 11, that if you want to give Feingold credit for a Maverick financial vote, laud him for being one of 8 guys to vote against the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999. That was a good vote.
Now, bring it to the last two-years. Instead of Feingold leading the charge to bring back Glass Steagall, he instead signs on with the worthless financial reform bill last month that alternately bails out the big, big banks while imposing all sorts of nebulous and damaging regulations on everyone else.
This is the point about Russ. The guy had the power to say “Simple solution—-let’s bring back Glass Steagall. No 2,000 page bill. Just this.” He could have lead the charge both vocally and with his key vote to get to 60 on financial reform.
But Russ is completely INEFFECTIVE as a Senator, so that doesn’t get done. His “maverick” votes are completely worthless throwaways. It is like Randy Wright completing a TD pass in the fourth quarter after the Packers were already down 41-7. Big deal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1754 hrs
Thats exactly the point. It is easy to make the right vote when it does not matter. But every time the dems needed his vote to push thru their crap he fell right in line. He wasn’t even smart enough to sell his vote to benefit Wi. like the other dems did.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 1932 hrs
I give Ron Johnson more leeway in what he’s held accountable for in the media, or by his opposition. He’s new at the game Rusty"s been playing for about 30 years.
It’s more about how a candidate handles the criticism and so far Ron’s been coming across as honest and Rusty hasn’t.
I like honesty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 2009 hrs
Who makes the rules for what an election is about? You’re telling me that if a democrat had called for licensing guns, this wouldn’t be an issue. After all, it was Richard Daley who decided to license guns in Chicago in the latest Supreme Court decision. Ron Johnson clearly screwed up. If you listen to him answer the question, there is no possible way he was responding to concealed carry. When he compared licensing guns to licensing cars, how is it possible he was talking about concealed carry. Unless you think you can conceal an automobile in some bodily cavity, that is an absurd point. It is clear that Ron Johnson does not understand the second amendment. Furthermore, to say that Feingold’s voting record on guns is only marginally better than your average Democrat is an absurd point. He supports concealed carry and voted for the Thune bill, which allowed people to carry concealed weapons across state lines. He voted to repeal the assault weapon ban. While a state senator, he wrote the Constitutional amendment that eventually passed in 1998, giving Wisconsin citizens the right to keep and bear arms. He even took on Ted Kennedy when Kennedy blasted John Ashcroft for saying that the second amendment included the right for Americans to take up arms against an oppressive government. Feingold stood with John Ashcroft, not Ted Kennedy. Let’s face it…right wing talk show hosts and the Republican Party of Wisconsin did no vetting of Ron Johnson. Stop giving him mulligans. U.S. Senators don’t get to have training wheels.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 2014 hrs
Actually, we are licensed to drive. Cars are registered. We should be licensed to carry. Guns should not be registered.
It is a pretty simple mistake to make when you are put on the spot.
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt….
Why?
Yes, because I agree with him on other issues.
Again, however, carry is a states rights issue, so I don’t really know why Johnson would open his mouth on that issue…
We’ll find out more as the campaign goes on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 2041 hrs
U.S. Senators don’t get to have training wheels
Your PRESIDENT does. And they aren’t working.
Posted by dad29 on August 11, 2010 at 2059 hrs
Ron Johnson made the same statement to friends of mine (I was there at the time) just a couple of weeks ago after he had been called on it by several tea party groups. At the beginning of his campaign he also said that Wisconsin does not have an illegal alien issue during an interview with Ed Morrissey on Hot Air.
And then there is this, from a WisPolitics.com. interview with Ron Johnson….....And amid increasing public acceptance of gay rights, Johnson downplays the cultural issues that have dominated past elections. “It’s just not much of an issue here in Wisconsin,” he said in response to a question about gay marriage.
A Federal Court just ruled against California’s Constitutional Amendment on Marriage; an amendment that is very similar to Wisconsin’s and he says it isn’t much of an issue in Wisconsin? I know he said the U.S. Constitution is hard to read and understand so maybe he just hasn’t had time to get to the State Constitution either.He usually tries to justify or excuse his answers by saying that he just hasn’t put that much thought into it. Eventually you have to ask just exactly what he has actually put any thought into.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2010 at 2117 hrs
he instead signs on with the worthless financial reform bill last month that alternately bails out the big, big banks while imposing all sorts of nebulous and damaging regulations on everyone else.
Wow, that is an outright lie. He was one of a few if not the only democrat that voted against it.
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=31466&can_id=53361
Get your lies straight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2010 at 0912 hrs
Apparently Feingold is trying to distract everyone away from his support for disastrous fiscal policies.
And apparently Johnson is trying to distract everyone away from his admitted lack of knowledge and understanding of the Constitution by jumping on the Elizabeth Ackland bandwagon.
He usually tries to justify or excuse his answers by saying that he just hasn’t put that much thought into it. Eventually you have to ask just exactly what he has actually put any thought into.
Exactly. And how long are the voters going to give him a free pass on “I didn’t hear the ‘Great Lakes’ part” “I haven’t given the issue a lot of thought” or his “first time candidate” mistakes? A$ long a$ he can keep pumping the ca$h into hi$ campaign?
Posted by hsgbdmama on August 12, 2010 at 0959 hrs
The astounding level of hypocrisy from the lefties on this issue is ridiculous.
How much experience in an executive position did Barry have? Oh, right none, and you guys made him the most powerful man in the free world…
Iguess you didnt care, as long as big oil and wallstreet were feeding him massive quantities of campaign cas, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2010 at 1120 hrs
Johnson’s got a great rebuttal ad out calling Mr. Feingold out on his anti-gun SCOTUS votes. Once again Johnson’s got the honesty factor, Feingold doesn’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2010 at 1145 hrs
Once again Johnson’s got the honesty factor, Feingold doesn’t.
Except when he flip flops on gun rights, which he did. If you think he was talking about concealed carry you need to think again.
What about the other one where he said he was going to sell his bp stock, but still hasn’t?
The more this guy talks, the more he sounds like an empty suit. He wants to determine his position by having people tell him what to think.
How much experience in an executive position did Barry have? Oh, right none, and you guys made him the most powerful man in the free world…
So in order to qualify to be considered for president, you must have “executive” experience? Interesting twist there. At least Obama had been elected to a position before running. What else has Johnson done beside not knowing how to have a position on something?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2010 at 1316 hrs
What else has Johnson done beside not knowing how to have a position on something?
What a wagonload of crap this whole argument is on both sides. Polished politicians that know how not to answer everything are not my idea of a good or even acceptable candidate these days. The only thing Pres. Obama had going for him was his inexperience(There was a tiny bit of hope that he would change the way things were done…Hey, .002 of 1% of hope is still hope.). The biggest disappointment has been that all his meaningful actions have been right out of the Dem political machine playbook. No humanity, no problem fixes, just re-election grease and reward for his supporters.
Has Feingold ever voted against his party that ended in a defeat for his party… where his vote on the dem side would have won? i.e. has he ever been a swing vote that carried an anti dem policy? I am not singling out Feingold here either. Most politicians ‘play ball’ with their party, it comes with the party label. Voting against something for political re-election capital when ‘the Party’ does not need the vote is very plain fare in the DC trough.
Should RoJo know more on varied subjects? Sure, that would be great. But if he were elected, there is no question that he was elected to try and resolve fiscal matters. Everyone who is elected this round should have been voted for on that overwhelming issue whether you believe in Keynes or Milton.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2010 at 1520 hrs
Johnson may be a swell guy and a personal favorite of owen but he is not ready for Prime Time.
he may need to change his first name to “Gaffe prone”
All this discussion is academic
Russ may be beatable,but not by this guy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2010 at 2313 hrs
Johnson is not ready for prime time if you support Feingold. That’s the bottom line.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 0849 hrs
Johnson is not ready for prime time if you support Feingold.
When is he going to sell his bp stock that he said he would before he said he wouldn’t?
Yeah, Feingold must have made him say that. (insert eyes rolling). It is starting to sound like people who support Johnson are MORE than willing to over look his screw ups because they don’t like Feingold.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 1157 hrs
Perhaps he’ll sell his BP stock right after Barack returns all those campaign donations he took from BP. I guess if it’s good enough for Barack, it’s good enough for Ron.
by the way… do YOU have any 401k funds that might be connected to BP? Have you divested yourself of them? If not, why?
Personally, I could care less what stocks he owns, as long as they go into blind trust while he in office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 1211 hrs
Nationally, Feingold had been getting attention and this is becoming a “must-watch” race.
Will Feingold Get Swept Away by GOP Wave?
Overall, then, it’s not difficult to see why Feingold is in such jeopardy. Of the four most recent surveys in Wisconsin - taken over the last two months by four different polling firms - Feingold has failed to generate more than 46% support in any poll.
Again, to call such numbers - eighty days out from Election Day and against a novice and relative unknown - a sign of weakness is to engage in the art of understatement. Feingold is sailing in very rough political seas and is in real danger of being washed away by a GOP wave in November.
I think Johnson’s ability to keep his mouth shut & voter turnout will be key to this election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 1234 hrs
I think Johnson’s ability to keep his mouth shut
How exactly are we to learn how he handles pressure? How well he debates (providing his handlers will let him)? By how well he clams up?!? Great.
Posted by hsgbdmama on August 13, 2010 at 1240 hrs
Personally, I could care less what stocks he owns, as long as they go into blind trust while he in office.
Maybe you missed a part of my statement. Johnson said he was going to sell the stock. Then, he said he wasn’t going to sell the stock.
See, I never said:
A) I had stock in BP.
B) That if I did, I would sell it.I don’t really see the comparison, but then again I also made the point the first time and apparently need to make it again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 1252 hrs
Obama campaigned pretty well by talking incessantly about nothing specific. Why can’t the tactic of not talking about anything specific serve the same purpose? Anything that is said will be twisted out of context, so not saying much reduces that probability. It’s like the Reid/Angle race - Reid can’t do anything to improve his numbers & all Angle has to do is sit back and keep her ammo dry until later in the race. I suspect Johnson will need to get more articulate once the primary is over, because until then the race is against Westlake.
From the get-go, Wendy compared Johnson’s immediate endorsement by the Republicans as being very similar to Obama’s candidacy.
<a >Isn’t This How We Got Obama?</a>
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 1320 hrs
Here’s that link:
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/isnt_this_how_we_got_obama/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 1321 hrs
Angle has to do is sit back and keep her ammo dry until later in the race.
Except she has said the us should cut ties with the UN, she told fox news reporters should only ask questions the politicians want to answer, she wants to transition out of social security, and people should seek second ammendment remeides if congress isn’t reined in.
Yeah, she is sitting back alright. I thought only democrats made gaffes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 1540 hrs
And Harry Reid helped socialize health care. Sorry, Angle wins…
Posted by Smeety on August 13, 2010 at 1618 hrs
Maybe you missed a part of my statement. Johnson said he was going to sell the stock. Then, he said he wasn’t going to sell the stock.
Irrelevant to the campaign either way. I also don’t care if he sells his McDonald’s stock, or buys more General Dynamics.
Of what relevance is Johnson’s stock portfolio to the race? I suspect most people are WAY more concerned about Feingold’s part in a consortium that illegally seized ownership of an American car company. By all means though, make some BP stock an issue in the race.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2010 at 1932 hrs
We don’t care that he owns BP stock either—it’s the immediate knee-jerk reaction (another “first time candidate mistake”?) then the flipping and flopping—called indeciveness—about it.
Early July—the disclosure is made that RoJo owns BP stock, and that all holdings will be placed in a blind trust.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/blog/article_73d804f4-8b99-11df-b0cc-001cc4c03286.htmlJuly 12—he says he will sell the stock prior to taking office, and perhaps sell it to help finance his campaign (but yet aides say there are no plans to sell the holdings).
http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/07/12/wisconsins-feingold-faces-a-fight/
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/99304369.html
http://www.fox21online.com/news/wisconsin-us-senate-candidate-will-sell-bp-stockJuly 26/27/28—wavers, unsure, saying he might eventually sell it, based on market conditions, but reiterates that he needs help to finance his campaign.
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/99304369.htmlPosted by hsgbdmama on August 14, 2010 at 2119 hrs
Reid socialized healthcare? Really? Nice republican talking point. How is the healthcare bill socialized healthcare? Do you know what socialized healthcare is? I would say that you think he socialized it is an indication that you don’t. Is the va hospital program being installed at ALL hospitals? No.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2010 at 1524 hrs
Are you trying to make the case that the Health Care Reform bill did not drastically increase government involvement in (socialize) health care?
Or are you going to make the case that because it was only ‘so much’ government involvement and not total control it’s not socialization?
Either way, majority of Americans don’t believe your ‘talking point’...
Posted by Smeety on August 16, 2010 at 1553 hrs
http://ifawebnews.com/2010/07/26/senate-majority-leader-says-public-option-isnt-going-away/
Posted by hsgbdmama on August 16, 2010 at 1730 hrs
What programs did the recent bill include that increased the role of government in healthcare?
And polls have shown that when the healthcare bill is actually explained to people, they switch from opposing it to supporting it at a substantial rate. I would include a link, but I am away from my computer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 1059 hrs
How about the government mandate, for starters?
And polls have shown that when the healthcare bill is actually explained to people, they switch from opposing it to supporting it at a substantial rate. I would include a link, but I am away from my computer.
Sure… that’s why Obama’s approval rating is at an all time low…..
Posted by Smeety on August 17, 2010 at 1103 hrs
What programs did the recent bill include that increased the role of government in healthcare?
You can find that answer here:
Chart - 159 New Federal Government Programs, Bureaucracies and Offices Created By the Obama Health Care Law of 2010It’s in PDF, probably need to magnify it to 400%. After you review it, please enlighten us as to which points are inaccurate.
And polls have shown that when the healthcare bill is actually explained to people, they switch from opposing it to supporting it at a substantial rate
Yeah, maybe if more people read the bill and analyzed the flow charts and had the complexities explained to them, they will come around to enthusiastically supporting it. In the meantime, here is reality:
Rasmussen - 55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 1205 hrs
@named, I tried the link, but nothing came up. It could be because I am using my phone. I can tell you that I am already skeptical of it since newts picture is on the webpage. The poll thing is what I already talked about. When first asked, a majority do not support it. But then after the points are explained, a majority support it.
@smeety, I thought the individual mandate was a benefit for the insurance companies? In order for healthcare to be socialized, the government must not only own and operate all hospitals, but must also be the sole provider of health insurance. Requiring people to have insurance doesn’t mean healthcare is socialized. They aren’t involved in healthcare, even if there was a public option, it is still not socialized. The government has to have control over everything. When are people going to get that? And yes, limited involvement is not socialized. And what does approval rating have to do with the topic at hand? A lot more goes into that than healthcare. I would think most people would understand that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 1250 hrs
@smeety, I thought the individual mandate was a benefit for the insurance companies?
Whether it is or not is immaterial. Mandate will force more and more people in private business onto government system. And, don’t worry, we’ll all be charting this for later analysis…
In order for healthcare to be socialized, the government must not only own and operate all hospitals, but must also be the sole provider of health insurance.
This black/white view of health care is not true. Socialism doesn’t take place overnight. It is a process of more and more government involvement….case in point.
———————
... but it is noteworthy that you are trying to make the case that this health care bill did not do exactly what it did. I could provide comments by BHO to retort. I could provide all kinds of polls and graphs and charts and studies to show the implications of the health care bill… but ultimately a majority of Americans are in favor of repeal (see above).... this will ultimately be decided at the polls (and SCOTUS)...
Posted by Smeety on August 17, 2010 at 1306 hrs
Here’s a list of 159 new programs - source is Republican, but I haven’t seen a Democratic point-by-point dispute, so I have confidence in it’s accuracy. :
http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/02/25/159-ways-the-senate-bill
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 1330 hrs
I thought the individual mandate was a benefit for the insurance companies?
Hardly. The increased benefits required by Obamacare, and the enormous new regulatory requirements on insurance companies and providers will drive the cost of private insurance through the roof. Many companies are already complying with the federal mandate, and many consumers will feel that bite in 2011. Employers will either be forced to drop health care coverage, or pass on the cost increases to the employees. Losing subscribers as costs soar will not be a benefit to the insurance companies, but the new wave of uninsured/overcharged workers will be huge benefit to the federal governments plan to provide the public option. With private plans becoming out of reach for the middle class, Barack and Harry and Nancy can ride to the rescue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 1331 hrs
The black and white with anything in regard to socialization is true. If you think there is a grey area and any government input is considered socialization, then everything is socialized. Driving is socialized bc or seatbelts and air bags, builing structures is socialized bc of building codes, walking outside is socialized bc you can’t walk down the middle of the road. If this sounds ridiculous, it is, but this is what you are suggesting.
@sol, but if these supposed new costs exist, the new enrolled people will help to offset them. I doubt your “sky is falling” view.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 1703 hrs
if these supposed new costs exist, the new enrolled people will help to offset them
Obviously you have not taken even a moment to familiarize yourself with Obamacare.
The new costs exist for every subscriber. The static costs to the insurer exist even when people lose their insurance because the employer can no longer afford to pay for health care and opts for the fine instead. There will be quite a few surprised faces this coming January when folks start wondering why their insurance bill is so high. Mine certainly is going to be quite a bit higher. It would be funny to watch the wailing of the Democrats when they get hit in the wallet, but unfortunately I’ll have to join them in the paradise they created.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 1731 hrs
You did notice that the new people to plans that may have been excluded for whatever reason will be placed in high risk pools. As such, they will already pay high premiums regardless if it is actually needed. So, just like the credit cards used to, the higher risk pools will help the benefits of the lower risk people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 1811 hrs
@sol, but if these supposed new costs exist, the new enrolled people will help to offset them. I doubt your “sky is falling” view.
Not to worry, SOL’s sky isn’t falling as he is a recipient tax payer supported health care with his socialistic job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 2028 hrs
What I find so strange is that I’ve recently met a big tea party advocate that has been the recipient of about a million dollars in government subsidies since 1995. I don’t know how people can preach one thing but are more than willing to take as much tax payer money that they can, and yet not feel guilty. It’s easily rationalized away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 2036 hrs
I’m not sure what is more astounding Pat, your complete inability to ever make a good point, your mindless personal attacks in lieu of that missing point, or your complete lack of knowledge on every subject that you comment on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2010 at 2246 hrs
I’m not sure what is more astounding Pat, your complete inability to ever make a good point, your mindless personal attacks in lieu of that missing point,
Do you not work in a socialistic job. Is not your health care tax payer supported? How is stating facts a personal attack?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2010 at 0655 hrs
Oh Pat, when will you learn. The existence of government is not socialism. The existence of some government services is also not socialism. Perhaps you should pop on over to a free online dictionary and research some of those difficult words. You seem to lack a good grasp of the definition of things.
Maybe if you try hard you can put together a good, pertinent and cogent argument on some issue rather than wasting your time and effort making the foolish (trollish?) statements you ordinarily grace us with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2010 at 1003 hrs
Because you make your living working in a tax payer supported government service, you have a hard time coming to grips that it’s a socialist program. It is a service that is run by the government and funded by the tax payers, much like the parks department. The fire department could, and probably should, be privatized. It would be a savings to tax payers in both health care and lavish retirement benefits that need to be paid out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2010 at 1104 hrs
If I thought you could bring even the most minimal ideas the table, I’d be happy to discuss the pros and cons of private fire departments with you… but I know that you have nothing useful to interject into that discussion. As Barney Frank would say, it would be like discussing things with my kitchen table.
If you even understood the simplest things about what socialism is (you clearly don’t), we could have that discussion too.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only real area you seem to display expertise in is vapid and pointless commentary. Sigh. Well, I guess no blog should be without a mindless troll or two.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2010 at 1238 hrs
If I thought you could bring even the most minimal ideas the table, I’d be happy to discuss the pros and cons of private fire departments with you… but I know that you have nothing useful to interject into that discussion. As Barney Frank would say, it would be like discussing things with my kitchen table.
And yet, you’ve never been able to refute that a government run fire department, that forces tax payers to pay for it, instead of allowing the free market to provide one to the public at a competitive cost, isn’t just socialistic tyranny. But I know you’re biased.
Sigh. Well, I guess no blog should be without a mindless troll or two.
Ho-hum, it’s only a troll when you don’t approve what is said. When you do approve, it’s shear genius.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2010 at 1428 hrs
I suppose I overestimated you when I assumed you could look up the definition of socialism. Ok, here it is:
so·cial·ism
? ?/?so????l?z?m/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.If you feel that any governance or execution of services by government in any manner is socialism, then you live in a socialist country… and no other form of government exists that is not socialist, save total anarchy.
I have no clue what definition you use to describe socialism in your mind, but you are seriously deluded, Pat.
I still believe my previous explanation for your behavior… perhaps some firefighter stole your girl friend…. or maybe you tried to become a member of a fire department and were turned away due to a lack of physical strength, slight stature, or perhaps excessive body weight. Maybe you failed the written test… in any case, your ridiculous argument likely stems more from some petty desire to avenge yourself.
Though I suppose you could just simply not be that bright.
Which is it? Ridiculous definition of socialism, petty revenge, or not that bright?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2010 at 1517 hrs
I still believe my previous explanation for your behavior… perhaps some firefighter stole your girl friend…. or maybe you tried to become a member of a fire department and were turned away due to a lack of physical strength, slight stature, or perhaps excessive body weight. Maybe you failed the written test… in any case, your ridiculous argument likely stems more from some petty desire to avenge yourself.
That’s the best juvenilistic insult you can muster up? Pathetic. I’ve just stated facts, which you haven’t been able to refute. Evidently you’re wife hasn’t given you your big boy pants yet and you’re not mature enough to accept the facts as they are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2010 at 1953 hrs
“According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program. For example, publicly owned airports, sports arenas or government-funded universities would be considered socialist operations by that definition.”
This would also include the police department as well as the fire department.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2010 at 2100 hrs
Hi,
Are people more afraid and purchase more insurance or less? Does it make them delay purchasing insurance? Life and Health insurance specifically. More specifically senior medical supplement policies, advantage plans, life insurance, long term care insurance, and annuities. I’m asking for myself. Is it a good time economically in the U.S. today to sell these products? General or specific information will be helpful. Thank you for your experience and thoughts.Posted by seguros auto on September 10, 2010 at 0440 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129829
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 12:30 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 01:47 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).