Post by Mutanatia on Apr 4, 2010 19:00:29 GMT -5
I've decided to do something slightly different than that of what I've seen with other people's threads. I am going to post something about once a week (maybe more), and I'll tell you (based on what I've seen) who I agree with and why. I hope to make this a dialog throughout the week with the rest of you guys so we can get some "Sharing of ideas" flowing here. This isn't really meant to be a debate debate where it gets all heated and you guys go "OMG! U R TEH LIERZ!" 
So, blog with me, and we'll see where people agree and disagree!
For instance, if I said, I agree with Karl Rove on X, Y, and Z, you would post, "Today I saw politician X say Y and Z. I agree with him on these points and here's why." I find that this will keep things more amicable. Furthermore, I must add that this will keep the shouting to a minimum. Bloggers may take what has been said here out into another debate thread if they wish.
The healthcare debate
People I have agreed with in the past few weeks.
A) Karl Rove on This Week
--Assuming that what he said was true since politicians/those politically inclined (in general, not just Republicans) tend to "embellish the truth,"it seems to me that the budgetary numbers for the healthcare bill were wrong. I agreed with him on these facts:
A) You can't really have a bill, or at least it doesn't make sense to me (Being the logical person I am), that both increases the deficit and then decreases the deficit. It either does on or the other. Considering other facts that were revealed, it doesn't seem like Congress (in general) has the guts to go through with this so-called "tax on Cadillac plans," since they left in till 2018.
B) Additionally, it doesn't make sense, assuming that what he says is correct, that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has scored a reduction of the deficit twice. That doesn't make sense at all, and should only be counted once. According to him and his "fanciful chart" (as Plouffe called it), this means that the deficit will actually increase, not decrease.
C) Finally, he just schooled Plouffe in his debate, 'nuff said
I agree with Ed Randell (D, Governor of Pennsylvania), on This Week
The commerce clause does, in fact, justify the mandatory requirement for the purchase of health insurance. Having taken a course in constitutional law and on the Supreme Court in college (the teacher was a conservative), the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The healthcare bill is just that at the core issue: purchasing healthcare effects commerce via interstate venues. Before you get too excited and think that this clause is stupid, consider that the Civil Rights Act was defended via the interstate commerce clause to stop segregation.
(From State of the Union)
I agree with Democrats that the violence against those who voted "yes" on the healthcare bill need to ratchet down their response. Also, I agree with Republicans that you change things at the voting booth. I agree with both sides that some of the rhetoric used during the debate was simply not helpful. There is one thing that I disagree with the DNC on: The bringing up of incidents of violence to help raise funds is, simply put, NOT helpful and quite frankly very stupid.
So, blog with me, and we'll see where people agree and disagree!For instance, if I said, I agree with Karl Rove on X, Y, and Z, you would post, "Today I saw politician X say Y and Z. I agree with him on these points and here's why." I find that this will keep things more amicable. Furthermore, I must add that this will keep the shouting to a minimum. Bloggers may take what has been said here out into another debate thread if they wish.
The healthcare debate
People I have agreed with in the past few weeks.
A) Karl Rove on This Week
--Assuming that what he said was true since politicians/those politically inclined (in general, not just Republicans) tend to "embellish the truth,"it seems to me that the budgetary numbers for the healthcare bill were wrong. I agreed with him on these facts:
A) You can't really have a bill, or at least it doesn't make sense to me (Being the logical person I am), that both increases the deficit and then decreases the deficit. It either does on or the other. Considering other facts that were revealed, it doesn't seem like Congress (in general) has the guts to go through with this so-called "tax on Cadillac plans," since they left in till 2018.
B) Additionally, it doesn't make sense, assuming that what he says is correct, that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has scored a reduction of the deficit twice. That doesn't make sense at all, and should only be counted once. According to him and his "fanciful chart" (as Plouffe called it), this means that the deficit will actually increase, not decrease.
C) Finally, he just schooled Plouffe in his debate, 'nuff said
I agree with Ed Randell (D, Governor of Pennsylvania), on This Week
The commerce clause does, in fact, justify the mandatory requirement for the purchase of health insurance. Having taken a course in constitutional law and on the Supreme Court in college (the teacher was a conservative), the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The healthcare bill is just that at the core issue: purchasing healthcare effects commerce via interstate venues. Before you get too excited and think that this clause is stupid, consider that the Civil Rights Act was defended via the interstate commerce clause to stop segregation.
(From State of the Union)
I agree with Democrats that the violence against those who voted "yes" on the healthcare bill need to ratchet down their response. Also, I agree with Republicans that you change things at the voting booth. I agree with both sides that some of the rhetoric used during the debate was simply not helpful. There is one thing that I disagree with the DNC on: The bringing up of incidents of violence to help raise funds is, simply put, NOT helpful and quite frankly very stupid.