ram-jetted = passed legally abiding the rules of congress....
ram-jetted = passed legally abiding the rules of congress....
I honestly think race has a lot to due with this president's criticism. If he were white a lot of people would be having less of a hard time with what is going on in this country. However, the economy is not the president's fault. If you look at businesses they are making record profits, yet not hiring anyone. This is due to the fact that people are demanding them to make jobs nor is their a reason to hire people. If this country doesn't expand its investments then the businesses will soon crumble. We cannot be so invested in oil anymore and if we are looking to be more of a service country and less manufacturing then people need to go to college (that means everyone). We also spend way to much and not on the poor because that is barely anything it is on the elderly and wars. Social Security has become a supporter of elderly people and not a safety net. With pensions and investments people have made combined with their social security check you should be able to live. Also since we are living much longer people retire and are supported by the govt. for 30 even 40 years. The problem in this country is the contradiction, we have republicans acting as if Reagan never raised taxes and also ignoring the fact that tax cuts do nothing. People also think they are wealthier than they actually are so when they hear taxes might get raised they freak out. How can you be a patriotic American if you only are voting for yourself? That is the main problem, the rich need to sacrifice some of their money and some is not a lot for them, they won't even feel it, it is just a number so they can compare with their friends and feel more powerful. Obama has a good vision for the country and may not be liked for what he is doing, but he is doing things for the future as all great presidents do. Obama is also very centrist and people need to stop throwing around works like communist and socialist. He is neither of the two, plus socialist ideas are not half bad. A very capitalist country is just as wrong as a very socialist country. We need to realize that we need to change. Imagine if Sony just made the ps3 like the ps2, no new features at all, you wouldn't buy it right? So why are we using old ideas for the future when it comes to the way we run our country?
Because the majority of Americans do not favor Obamacare! Shocker. Even a year after the initial polling, the results are near the same.. With a slight decrease in support for it.
Anyways, I was simply disputing what he was saying about "no change happening" due to a split in the Senate. The Dems had a super majority for a very large portion of Obama's presidency. Ergo his statement that "change couldn't happen" is, to me, nonsensical. Obama has had tremendous opportunity, and much of what he has wanted passed was. Like, for instance, Obamacare.
That's irrelevant. The legislation WAS passed, by design it was not meant to kick in immediately. So I'm not sure what you're arguing..
At any rate. hopefully it will be completely torn apart.
Taken from Yahoo:
I think it is time to revisit that law and update it to keep up with the times.Quote:
When Liu Li boarded a plane for the United States, she had a little bit of makeup on, was wearing a loose dress, and had her hair up. She tried to hold her handbag in front of her belly in a natural way, just as the middleman had taught her. She was trying to look as calm as any wealthy Chinese lady would look when travelling abroad. But Liu Li couldn't help feeling terribly nervous: she was six months pregnant when she left for the United States, where she wanted to give birth to an American citizen. (See: "On the Cutting Edge [EM] China's Extraordinary Buildings")
Liu Li knew that going through customs would be a lot easier than obtaining a U.S. visa. In order to obtain the tourist visa that enabled her to go to America for the delivery, she had to carefully choose her clothes, and spend a lot of time practicing her walking and interview techniques. She memorized a host of details about her hotel booking and about famous sight-seeing spots so as to convince the Embassy officer that she was just another Chinese woman going shopping in the States.
The temptation of a 'born in the USA' child
Giving birth to a child abroad is not a privilege reserved to the stars and the very wealthy. An increasing number of expectant middle-class parents also fancy giving their children passports that they can feel proud of. "The return on investment is higher than robbing a bank," the consultancy agent tells women such as Liu. When Chinese children are born in America, they automatically become U.S. citizens. Once they reach 21, their parents will be able to apply for green cards and emigrate.
Those who would prefer a closer destination can go to Hong Kong, whose passport gives access to more than 120 countries without the need of a visa. Advantages include the fact that children will receive bilingual education (which will give them a foothold in the international world), and the fact that they will also enjoy the preferential policies for going to Chinese universities.
After consulting quite a few agencies for expectant mothers, Liu Li chose a reputable one. Airplane tickets, fees for labor, pre- and post-delivery care cost her roughly 20,000. Since most airlines refuse to accept women passengers who are more than 32 weeks pregnant, Liu Li set off for America when she was six months pregnant and then checked into a Chinese birthing center in California.
After her arrival, Liu Li realized that the area was full of facilities set up for Chinese women like herself. On the limited occasions when Liu Li goes to the Punete Hill Mall near her birthing center - the facility limits walks outside its premises to three per week, each time for about three hours - Liu Li bumps into lots of pregnant Chinese women. Birthing centers such as Liu Li's, which are mostly situated in America's beautiful west coastal areas, operate without a business license, and try to be as discreet as possible. In April, a number of illegally converted maternity centers in Los Angeles were discovered and shut down, which makes Liu Li very nervous. (See: "China Stamps Out Democracy Protests")
Going to the United States to give birth and taking a foreign born child back to China usually proves relatively easy. The difficult part starts only later, as Song Jingwen is starting to understand. Because her son has a U.S. passport, the law does not allow him to be registered in his mother's local area, which means that he will not be automatically admitted to Chinese schools. Song will have to register him as a foreigner, and pay an extra fee. His access to education and health care also faces a lot of constraints.
"Some parents obtain fake birth certificates for their children, or cheat the Chinese Embassy to get them Chinese passports. But then they can't get visas or go abroad," Song explains. She is still hesitating on what to do next. If Song gets her son a fake hukou (the Chinese registration system), which would make it easier for him to go to a local school, she fears that all the efforts she has made up to now could be in vain.
A few years ago, Zhao Yong easily obtained a Shanghai hukou for his American born child. "Every time we want to go to the States, we have to get the Hongkong-Macao permit to go though Chinese customs, go to Hong Kong, then fly to the United States and enter the country with the American passport," Zhao Yong says. "The trip is a little bit complicated, but if we fly directly from Shanghai to the States, we won't be able to hide the truth."
Under Chinese law, double nationality is prohibited. According to the American Embassy, once a child has obtained a Chinese hukou, he is considered to have given up his American nationality. The United States is not the only country with strict regulations. A child born in Hong Kong doesn't get the Hong Kong resident identity card right away, but has to go back to Hong Kong regularly - every year or two until he is 18 - in order to register as a "returned resident," and keep his nationality.
The so-called 'citizen's welfare'
According to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution (ratified in 1868), anyone born in United States automatically becomes an American citizen and obtains access to public education, university loans, voting, and so on... Even so, if one does not work in America or pay taxes after the age of 15, one can only enjoy very limited access to U.S. welfare benefits. "The system doesn't totally exclude people who don't pay taxes here, but those who do not pay as much tax as Americans do cannot expect the same benefits. But each state has different regulations," says Mr. Yang, a Chinese born man who works in New Jersey and has a green card.
"Giving birth to a child in the States is a wonderful dream, but a very costly one too," Song Jingwen concludes. "People who choose to go down this path must know that they will not be paying only for birthing and post birthing care, but they will also be paying a lot more for the whole life."
Edit: The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the cash for clunkers program, the home buyer rebate, there really weren't any net gains from these program.
Edit: I am glad to see that the Senate is starting to remove Ethanol subsidies though! To bad it's likely to be vetoed.
if you like I could produce an NBC/CBS poll that most people oppose its repeal... even tho they are dissatisfied with the bill...
Most liberals want single payer
most people in general still don't understand the bill...
and republicans hate it b/c of the guy who passed it... despite having no solutions themselves...
so I'm not surprised it has low marks overall.
I will laugh my butt off if they repeal the thing...
fortunately I SHOULD (knock on wood) be able to "afford" healthcare my whole life... and as the price goes up further (as it was projected to before the Healthcare Law was passed) the money I (and others like me) spend on healthcare... won't go into other sectors of the economy...
...there's a new recession in the making...
good luck folks.
the rebates weren't meant to "cure" the housing crisis. It was meant to soften the blow of the 2008 crash. Which it did.Quote:
Interesting as that theory is, the vast majority of experts don't see this as seasonal. The housing market is a great indicator of economic recoveries, and as you and I both know, the rebates did nothing but give a short term sugar high. So, housing temporarily improved, the people that were going to buy anyway bought a house before the initially planned to, and then they were removed from the buyers market and housing went back to its decline.
I'd like to see your "vast majority of experts"
According to this dude from harvard, this recovery closely follows recoveries from our history:
could have sworn the oil companies proved they don't know wtf they are doing last year...Quote:
Yeah, you know a complete lack of any energy policy helped drive that rise. This rise was not a real supply issue, it wasn't a real demand problem, it was speculators determining that, based on current actions, the price of oil should rise. Had the Gulf Embargo not gone on for more than a year, had the Administration taken a pro production stance, the increase in fuel prices would not have been quite so severe.
LOL. Seriously? Rasmussen polls will never be taken seriously by ANYONE except the "far far" right?
if you don't know... now you know...
And here, from that SAME site:
Most polling groups use slightly different techniques or approaches. That doesn't magically mean they fudge numbers or pressgang people into answering a certain way.
You don't get to be as big as Gallup and Rasmussen by lying your *** off. CNN, ABC, FOX and NBC use Rasmussen polls (along with others).
People can decry a polling group as being "biased" and instantly plug their ears to their results because it doesn't mesh with their world view. If you want to deflate my argument, quote me Gallup. Quote me ABC\NCB or what have you. Compare results.
But please, do attempt to illuminate to me how Obamacare is popular and that the public thinks its a great idea.
If I had quoted you the NYtimes, the Washington Post.. Or something.. You would be unable to use this knee jerk argument of "BIAS!". It's simply the easiest solution, and the laziest, available to you.
Tim Tebow? That's IT? Will get to the rest of the post later, maybe tomorrow, been extremely busy lately!
its folly to quote a poll with a known bias.
its folly to quote a poll with a known bias.
My point was made several posts ago... and I posted a link
I don't subscribe to your twisted definitions of "impartial" "fair" and we certainly don't agree on whats "wrong" and "right" as illustrated by the vast expanse that is the dichotomy of our views.
You decry Rasmussen as horribly biased. Quote me an old link. I quote you another old link, from the same site, defending Rasmussen. Here's my point: You have not concretely proven that they're biased and completely twist facts. Nor have you demonstrated its enough for me to actually warrant paying you any attention.
Your response? You quote me an NBC poll. Which is as equally a controversial (on the left side) polling group as Rasmussen is for the right.
...And I'm supposed to care, why?
The bottom line is anybody can decry a polling group as "Biased" and attempt to discredit their results. Instead of screaming "they're biased" (and being lazy and not painting a flattering picture of yourself) you SHOULD have just kept quiet and posted conflicting polling data to bolster your argument.
But hopping up and down and declaring that Rasmussen is "biased" and that I have to "find a new polling group" is absolutely, 100%, hilarious. I didn't even specifically look for a "Rasmussen" poll, I just googled the issue, saw the name "Rasmussen" (Would have done the same for Gallup or any other big name) and posted it.
I'm sure this is "biased" to you as well:
Here's the link to the aggregate data graph (from Huffington post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/HealthCare.xml&choices=Oppose,Favor&phone=&ivr=&in ternet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=2010-03-23&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=1&lines =1&colors=Favor-000000,Oppose-BF0014,Undecided-A69A37,No%2520Opinion-68228B
And the other (from Huffington)
and another poll illustrating my point from gallup...
republicans hate it... (no solutions)
indy's are split (yet to understand it)
dems like it (tho they wish it went further)
its a free country- you can stick with your boy rassmussen. He certainly subscribes to your ideology...
^ Observe my AGGREGATED POLLING DATA.
you seem to be stuck on the idea that I am arguing that the law is popular... you should re-read and think.
No, the point is I was able to properly illustrate my point without pouting and saying "well they're biased, so there!".
The reason I bolded that font was so that you'd basically stop talking.
a) any statistician would tell you that you can't simply combine/average polling data taken from separate pollsters using different methodology... so FYI those polls aren't too great either. (you also posted multiple links who all cited the same poll- pollster... that doesn't give you "extra" sources)
b) MY point (again back in the initial post) was that while the bill is not celebrated... MOST voting americans don't favor its repeal.
you really need to try and focus on b)...
Ah, so that is not satisfactory for you either. And most staticians would tell me this? Truly?
Somebody tell this poor fool over at Princeton then (Sam Wang).
And he even quotes pollster (the guys who make those charts).
Honestly I'm getting annoyed at your continued posts. Because its becoming a waste of time addressing them.
Provide more substance. IF you disagree with Pollster, give me REAL REASONS WHY. Not blanket statements and fluff. I provided evidence from Princeton that aggregate polling, and Pollster in particular, is pretty awesome. At the very least, no less accurate than single polls or whatever.
And your response would be?