It appears we are all in agreement. Republicans are incapable of compromise.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Well, I agree, 'Nope', that is what the House of Representatives is going to say making this an issue for the 2014 and 2016 elections. If Republicans were willing to compromise on this they could pass a bill raising the minimum wage to $8.50 and the President would be forced to sign it or deny the poor a pay raise. That would take the issue off the table, if only the Republicans could compromise. :>)
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The minimum wage still needs to go up.
See, it's possible to have a sane discussion.
questioner, I think they could raise the upper limit of that a bit. The $51,567 limit seems a little low. However a single person making minimum wage is nowhere near $51.567.
D3, If you're still here. On subject, What about the earned income tax credit? That was supposed to (and is, I believe) boosting earning power. No loss of jobs, it takes into account the whole family's earnings. So why not play more with that?
questioner, I am actually glad you brought that up because I had heard that story before and it did not make sense to me. The European Healthcare system has the same basic tools that we have and possibly better preventative care so it did not make sense that they should not have the same or better outcomes. There was a study by 'The Friends of Cancer Research' in 2011 that said the FDA does release Cancer drugs faster than the EMA but that is the only place I have seen any advantage. Wait times for certain procedures in Canada have been increasing, of course that is completely socialized medicine. While the pundits may claim that is what Obamacare is, we are not even close to that here.
Looks like she's been with everyone.
But really, we don't have cable (or satellite or anything) so I really don't do Fox)
I just got bored--tried to stir things up, but won't do that again!
Google "Fox Ann Coulter" and then you tell me. :>)
I ran out of room and so had to eliminate the most important part--I was quoting a Very Conservative. I don't think it's a Fox person, but couldn't tell you for sure since I don't do Fox.
I didn't even research it. I got tired of waiting for nS tho.
I guess it points out why I don't do Fox or normally quote people/things I can't back up myself.
(So is Ann coulter Fox?)
questioner, One more thing. Your study completely ignores the survival rates for the uninsured in the United States. For some reason those people don't count. In the European study everyone is included. That means that the poorest of Europe are also included in the European survival rates. I wonder if diet and life style affect these survival rates. What do you think?
Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer and executive vice president at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study, said that "this paper has a huge fatal flaw in it."
"When you look at survival from time of diagnosis to time of death and you have a screened population that has a lot of diagnoses, you're filling that population with people who don't need treatment and because they are over-diagnosed, they have very long survival," he added.
These researchers attribute increased survival to the treatment, when it is really over-diagnosis, Brawley said. "So they are looking at a bunch of wasted, unnecessary treatment and then saying it was money well spent," he said.
Also you should check out... factcheck. org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/
Hi Questioner, It did not take long to find something that desputes your numbers. Check out .. sciencebasedmedicine. org/cancer-care-in-the-u-s-versus-europe/
Totally going off-track here, back to health care:
"For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to a 66.3 percent survival rate for American men.
European women have only a 55.8 percent chance of being alive five years after being diagnosed with any type of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent of American women.
American survival rates for breast, prostate, thyroid and skin cancer are higher than 90 percent. Europeans do not have a 90 percent survival rate for one of those cancers.
The European rates are even worse than they sound because many cancers are not discovered until the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. All those cancers were excluded from the study.
So across the world, we'll all be equal, dying of cancer as often as everyone else.
It's not that Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism; it's that he wants to end it."
The proposed cost-of-living trims, now put aside by Obama, had faced significant opposition from Democrats. Just last Friday, 16 Senate liberals called for Obama not to include in his budget any provision that would reduce increases in Social Security benefits to future retirees.
That proposal, supported by many Republicans, would have used a different inflation index to adjust annual benefit payments. Many economists believe the revised formula, called a "chained consumer price index," better reflected consumer spending behavior.
Even though the Obama proposal does not include that significant debt-reduction idea, the White House says that passage of a separate overhaul of immigration law, combined with more slowly growing health care costs, would eventually result in a national debt that is lower
"I am currently more unhappy with where our nation is because of non-compromising than I am unhappy with where our nation is because of compromise."
Disagree all you want, the question is still, "So how's that not negotiating working out?"
"The decision to drop the cost-of-living proposal was essentially an acknowledgement that Obama has been unable to conclude a "grand budget bargain" with Republican leaders, even by including in his previous budget plan a benefit reduction opposed by many Democrats."
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says President Barack Obama's upcoming budget proposal will not include his past offer to accept lowered cost-of-living increases in Social Security and other benefit programs. Those had been a central component of his long-term debt-reduction strategy.
Officials said Thursday that those potential reductions in spending, included in last year's Obama budget, had been designed to initiate negotiations with Republicans over how to reduce future deficits and the nation's debt. But Republicans never accepted Obama's calls for higher tax revenue to go along with the cuts.
So how's that not negotiating working out for ya?
And notSocialist, the "Have you stopped..." question simply means it's a question that cannot be answered yes or no with a good outcome.
I thought that was pretty much universally understood.
I certainly didn't say you were accusing me of anything. (I might have been accusing you... :)
And I did initially answer your question, just not the way you wanted. Sorry I didn't know it was to be a 2 or 3 letter answer--you didn't initially demand that.
Beaumont, I'd label me more republican than democrat, but some of the "true" republicans here probably wouldn't.
And when have I not been absolutely straight with my answers? I don't dodge. I'll defend, I'll concede (altho I still wish the prisoner taken out in -12 degree weather wore more than a short-sleeved hospital smock), and I'll say I could go either way on an issue.
But just because I could come up with something on climate change and weather that we all could agree on (and it was pro US/capitalism too) doesn't make me someone you should write-off. In fact, maybe it shows the the benefits of negotiation. (But if you refuse to acknowledge any benefits there, I guess when you see a positive someone you have to morph it into something negative, just to make it fit your narrow outlook.)
It's just that it seems like it would be a lonely life up on that self-righteous mountain, with no compromising.
Ask a question that can be answered. Don't skew/load a question. (At least when Watchdog asked the last question on climate it was a normal question: What should America do?) But I'll answer your question as it was actually written, even tho I'm sure you did not intend what it actually asks.
My line you quoted, "We would not be a country if the founders hadn't negotiated together."
Your question immediately following, "And are you happy about the state of the Nation this 'compromise' has put us in?"
So the compromise you must be referring to is the compromise the founders made.
So in answer to if I am happy with the state of the nation the founders put us in with their compromising, with a straight yes or no, Yes, I am happy with the state of the nation our nation's founders put us in.
(It would be "yes, but", but you're not allowing that)
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |