Huffpost - democrats might take both houses in 2014

[werepossum]

The last time the Democrats had both houses and presidency ... they didn't accomplish shit because there were too many spineless cowards. Have they sprouted functional ballsacks?

They nationalized roughly 1/6 of our economy in roughly five months. How much more do you want to see them do?

 

[boomerang]

The last time the Democrats had both houses and presidency ... they didn't accomplish shit because there were too many spineless cowards. Have they sprouted functional ballsacks?

As long as there are Republicans, Democrats will be blameless for their shortcomings.

In other news, they're cracking. Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat Senator from New Hampshire who just happens to be up for re-election wants Obamacare delayed.

Expect Dem's up for re-election to jump on this bandwagon in droves. They're going to need a bigger wagon.

 

[shadow9d9]

As long as Republicans like you keep hating on women, gays, immigrants, and foreign people, it helps!

 

[shadow9d9]

They nationalized roughly 1/6 of our economy in roughly five months. How much more do you want to see them do?

Only in your fantasy world was ANYTHING nationalized. They also didn't have a supermajority since they only had 59 if you included the one socialist.

 

[Matt1970]

Only in your fantasy world was ANYTHING nationalized. They also didn't have a supermajority since they only had 59 if you included the one socialist.

nationalize, nationalise [ˈnæʃənəˌlaɪz ˈnæʃnə-]
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to put (an industry, resources, etc.) under state control or ownership

This may or may not load for you. https://www.healthcare.gov/

 

[fskimospy]

nationalize, nationalise [ˈnæʃənəˌlaɪz ˈnæʃnə-]
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to put (an industry, resources, etc.) under state control or ownership

This may or may not load for you. https://www.healthcare.gov/

Hey, look who doesn't know what nationalization is despite posting the definition.

Anyone who thinks that the ACA is nationalization seriously needs to take a political economy class.

 

[Fern]

Only in your fantasy world was ANYTHING nationalized. They also didn't have a supermajority since they only had 59 if you included the one socialist.

No, they had 60 votes or it wouldn't have passed. Besides Sanders (listed as "Independent") they had Lieberman who was listed as an "Independent Democrat".

Here's the votes: http://patriotpost.us/pages/251

Lieberman was officially listed in Senate records for the 110th and 111th Congresses as an "Independent Democrat"[6] and sat as part of the Senate Democratic Caucus. But since his speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention in which he endorsed John McCain for president, Lieberman no longer attended Democratic Caucus leadership strategy meetings or policy lunches.[7] On November 5, 2008, Lieberman met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss his future role with the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he would continue to caucus with the Democrats.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

Any claim that the Dems didn't have a super majority is fatuous.

Fern

 

[thraashman]

Any claim that the Dems didn't have a super majority is fatuous.

Fern

I honestly assumed this was a typo and looked it up to double check. Never heard this word in my life. Well, I learned a new word today. Look at you using the obscure words.

 

[Fern]

I honestly assumed this was a typo and looked it up to double check. Never heard this word in my life. Well, I learned a new word today. Look at you using the obscure words.

If you want to see some new words try this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2347760

After looking at that thread for about 2 seconds I decided to leave immediately. 🙂

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

Damn dude, just damn.

Indeed, that is crazy talk..but it would be hard to argue that Reagan was more conservative than Clinton.

 

[Matt1970]

Hey, look who doesn't know what nationalization is despite posting the definition.

Anyone who thinks that the ACA is nationalization seriously needs to take a political economy class.

Are you saying 2500+ pages of regulations and mandating people buy insurance or face fines/taxes isn't taking control in some form? We can argue the severity of it all day long but they have their noses in it whether you like it or not.

 

[Matt1970]

Indeed, that is crazy talk..but it would be hard to argue that Reagan was more conservative than Clinton.

I would say he was but certainly no where near the extremes we see today. Both signed their names to a lot of laws from both sides because Congress and the President actually worked together back then.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you saying 2500+ pages of regulations and mandating people buy insurance or face fines/taxes isn't taking control in some form? We can argue the severity of it all day long but they have their noses in it whether you like it or not.

Guess how many pages of government regulation covered the insurance industry before the ACA. I genuinely have no idea, but I know it was a shitload. Saying that the democrats nationalized health care by definition assumes that it was not nationalized before.

If you want to see nationalization of insurance, look at Medicare. That's a pretty good example. I for one wish the democrats had nationalized health insurance in 2009, but trying to say that increased regulation and a mandate for private insurance purchase is nationalization doesn't fly.

 

[shadow9d9]

nationalize, nationalise [ˈnæʃənəˌlaɪz ˈnæʃnə-]
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to put (an industry, resources, etc.) under state control or ownership

This may or may not load for you. https://www.healthcare.gov/

Yep, I know what the word means. We have nothing like nationalized healthcare. I suggest you do some research! Independent thinking isn't your strong suit though.. if it isn't in those talking points, what are you to do!?

Regulation and taxes are not taking over anything. They are rules and guidelines for others to do.

 

[shadow9d9]

No, they had 60 votes or it wouldn't have passed. Besides Sanders (listed as "Independent") they had Lieberman who was listed as an "Independent Democrat".

Here's the votes: http://patriotpost.us/pages/251


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

Any claim that the Dems didn't have a super majority is fatuous.

Fern

Liberman was kicked out of the democratic party and single handedly dismantled the most important parts of the bill, including both the public option and a medicare buy in.

Yes, they only had 58 democrats and one socialist. Also, you have to remember that a good portion of the democrats are the hick state democrats.

 

[JulesMaximus]

No opposition to raising the debt ceiling. Like Reagan?

No opposition to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. Again like Reagan?

No opposition to the liberal democrat social positions. And what would those be?

It doesn't matter... they're liberal so they must be wrong. :whiste:

 

[werepossum]

Hey, look who doesn't know what nationalization is despite posting the definition.

Anyone who thinks that the ACA is nationalization seriously needs to take a political economy class.

From Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalize

Full Definition of NATIONALIZE

1 : to give a national character to
2 : to invest control or ownership of in the national government

If you wish to substitute a definition more advantageous to you at the moment, no one will be surprised. Most of our health care system was controlled by the state governments; after the Democrats achieved total power for five months, all of our health care system is now controlled by the federal government.

 

[fskimospy]

From Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalize

If you wish to substitute a definition more advantageous to you at the moment, no one will be surprised. Most of our health care system was controlled by the state governments; after the Democrats achieved total power for five months, all of our health care system is now controlled by the federal government.

You realize that 'control' does not mean 'regulated by', it means that they actually control it. Color me shocked that yet again you don't even understand the definitions you are linking to and then try to call me a liar when I expose your ignorance.

You better go edit Wikipedia and bring it up to snuff, btw. First, their definition seems to be way off (despite citing your same source!):

Nationalization is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state.

Second, as for the ACA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_States

Those sloppy editors left it out there too. Seems like you have a lot of work to do. Maybe they are in on the eskimospy conspiracy though.

You appear to be confusing regulatory authority with nationalization, which can be a common mistake. If you would like to learn more about what nationalization actually is, here's a quick couple of paragraph primer for you.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nationalization.asp

 

[raildogg]

It will be the same thing in a different package. Nothing will get fixed and things might get worse. That's all. Now, it's all a gridlock. Maybe then, it will head downhill faster, who knows. Government will only get bigger and make things more cumbersome for the people. Maybe that is what we deserve.

 

[raildogg]

As long as Republicans like you keep hating on women, gays, immigrants, and foreign people, it helps!

Aren't there Republican women too? Aren't there Republicans like Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal? Isn't there a gay Republican association called something or other log cabin?

Anyway, hate isn't exclusive to one group. I'm sure women are full of hate, so are gays, so are immigrants and foreign people. So why do you only mention one group?

Everyone is hateful.

 

[dank69]

Aren't there Republican women too? Aren't there Republicans like Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal? Isn't there a gay Republican association called something or other log cabin?

Anyway, hate isn't exclusive to one group. I'm sure women are full of hate, so are gays, so are immigrants and foreign people. So why do you only mention one group?

Everyone is hateful.

Republicans bake hate directly into their platforms.

 

[raildogg]

Republicans bake hate directly into their platforms.

That might be so but I would rather we talk about people rather than group them into petty and narrow little groups like Republicans and Democrats. They are more than a number belonging to a stupid little party.

 

[ElFenix]

They nationalized roughly 1/6 of our economy in roughly five months. How much more do you want to see them do?

i don't think you understand what that word means.


and even if that were correct, it's also not 1/6 because more than half of medical care spending the US was already .gov.


edit: i see that i'm behind the conversation but that you've doubled down on illiteracy. carry on.

 

[werepossum]

You realize that 'control' does not mean 'regulated by', it means that they actually control it. Color me shocked that yet again you don't even understand the definitions you are linking to and then try to call me a liar when I expose your ignorance.

You better go edit Wikipedia and bring it up to snuff, btw. First, their definition seems to be way off (despite citing your same source!):



Second, as for the ACA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_States

Those sloppy editors left it out there too. Seems like you have a lot of work to do. Maybe they are in on the eskimospy conspiracy though.

You appear to be confusing regulatory authority with nationalization, which can be a common mistake. If you would like to learn more about what nationalization actually is, here's a quick couple of paragraph primer for you.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nationalization.asp

LOL You actually linked wikipedia as a source; I am now melting. Yes, clearly a source that literally anyone in the world can edit is superior to an actual recognized authority on what words mean.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL You actually linked wikipedia as a source; I am now melting. Yes, clearly a source that literally anyone in the world can edit is superior to an actual recognized authority on what words mean.

lol. Just stop while you're less far behind. You said something dumb.

The Wikipedia article and Merriam-Webster are in agreement, you just don't know what the definition is telling you. "Control" means actually controlling it, not regulating it. If control meant regulating it then basically every industry in the US is nationalized.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/nationalization

The involuntary transfer of ownership of a private business or other private property to a national government, either through uncompensated seizure (expropriation) or through forced sale at a government-determined price.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/nationalization

a process in which a government takes control of an industry or company and becomes its owner

I could go on and on. Regulation is not ownership or control.