Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

You're wrong.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

 

Probably a topic for another thread, but I couldn't disagree more. SS has probably caused more harm then good. The creation of SS destroyed the pension plan. Before SS a good pension plan was crucial for a successful company to hire talented workers. Now everyone just has a crappy 401(k) (which is primarily made up of your own money) as SS is supposed to take care of you. I also believe that it led to a decrease in personal savings.

 

We will find out in 2010, when people actually get the chance to vote for specific candidates instead of "generic" ones. Until then your polls are meaningless as they can turn pretty much on a whim.

Snook - Do you mean like my pension plan from Circuit City? Try again.

 

See, that is proving my point. I doubt Circuit City even has a pension plan. They probably just have a profit sharing 401(k) plan.

For those who who need help with some definitions.

A pension plan is like social security in which once you meet the elgibility requirements they promise to give you a pension payment every month for the rest of your life. Good plans even had inflation adjustments.

A profit sharing plan 401(k) is a plan in which the company matches a certain percentage that you agree to put in. These plans are normally self directed and you can look it up to see what it is worth. The problem is once it is gone it is gone and the company has no obligation to pay anymore. In other words, they suck compared to a pension plan.

Pension plans are very very rare nowadays.

 

...or the pension plans that quite nearly strangled the auto industry into extinction? Our foreign competitors don't provide medical to their employees. Most of our foreign competitors aren't saddled with pension plans, either*. Burdening American companies with such expenses is going to seriously hamper their ability to remain competitive in our global market.


* What? You thought the US was the only country with a Social Security program?

Spoiler

Sarcasm. I'm not actually implying that anyone is unaware of the fact that most EU member nations have social security programs.

 

I owe you one, Snook. Here I was writing off my pension from Circuit, and after looking it up (since I knew I had a pension plan), my pension is still in effect. Take a look:

http://www.hrworld.com/blog/2009011...ion-benefits-when-a-company-files-bankruptcy/

So it appears that I'll being getting my $230.00 a month after all. Thanks, Snook. I'll have to give you a plus rep for helping me out.

 

Wow, consider yourself lucky. That isn't enough to retire on, but it is a monthly benefit that most people will not get.

 

I think the people would have no interest in returning the Republicans to power if the Blue Dogs were acting a little more Blue and a little less like Dogs. To put it another way, the Democrats should act like Democrats. Right now, these Blue Dogs are posers - they are Republicans in sheep's clothing. But self-preservation is a powerful motivator. The incument runs on their record, and if you're a Democrat and were instrumental in shooting down the major Democratic objective of this Congress, what do you have to show voters? The last two elections definitely proved one thing: If you don't do the job you are elected to do, you will be voted OUT.

 

I think you've actually got it backward, Aldeth. If the Dems took the power they've been given and ran with it, it'd only remind everyone faster why so many didn't like Dems before. Remember, they got into power largely because people were dissatisfied with what the Reps were doing, not because a sizable portion of the population decided to become Democrat. The best thing they can do right now is move modestly moderate and actually work to get things done with the Reps (those willing to do so at least) instead of in spite of them.

 

They didn't elect Democrats to vote like Republicans.

 

Aldeth, they elected the Dems to get out the people that were already in (the Reps). What I mean is, I don't think many moderate Americans recently decided they weren't moderate any more, and were actually Dems. I also don't think many of the Reps that voted Dem this past election decided they weren't Reps any more. Given that the voting population is largely unchanged, it seems reasonable that the Dems who were elected and who want to remain in power should try to cater to their constituents' typical leanings (and avoid the corruption of the past). That means that a lot of Dems elected in typically red or moderate (purple?) areas will likely act like Blue Dogs.

 

NOG,

I disagree completely. If you were elected as a Democrat and act like a Republican (would this be considered a DINO?), then there is very little reason for your typically republican leaning constituents to re-elect you. They'll just elect a Republican instead.

A case in point can be seen in PA. Senator Arlen Specter was elected as a Republican back in 2004, but he voted for the stimulus. He became persona non grata in the Republican party, and actually switched his party affiliation to Democrat. PA as a whole has shifted to a much more blue-leaning state since 2004 as well. Specter is up for re-election this year, and is expected to lose in the primary to a "real" Democrat.

You see, since joining the Democrat party, Specter as continued to vote like a Republican for most issues. Democratic leaning PA doesn't want a republican in sheep's clothing when they can have a real Democrat. Similarly, the blue dog district constituents aren't going to want a democrat in sheep's clothing - they will return to doing what they traditionally have done and elect a Republican.

 

Aldeth, the problem I see with your reasoning is that it's Rep vs Dem with no middle ground. What happened was the Reps gave up any claim to the middle ground by becoming too radical. The Dems moved in and started claiming that middle ground. If they actually take that middle ground, the Reps will have to fight them out. If they end up being just as radical left as the Reps were radical right, then the won't keep anything. The next person to claim the middle ground will likely get the (large) support base that goes with it.

 

Perhaps NOG, but I gave you a concrete, real-life example to support that what I'm saying is actually happening. My belief is based on actual events that are happening in politics today. Your belief seems to be based on supposition, especially since reforming health care is the middle ground. The Blue Dogs actually are pretty radically to the right by opposing it.

 

But what you're showing is a different situation. The constituency has apparently shifted there, whereas I don't think it has in the US as a whole. Additionally, your summary indicates that he wasn't even going middle ground, but was actually a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

 

How is a democrat acting like a republican in PA, different than a democrat acting like a republican in these blue dog districts? They are all "purple" states - just because PA leans blue it's still a swing state.

And yes, the constituency of the US has shifted as a whole. Only 24% of the US populace self-identifies as republican. (Throughout most of the past decade Republicans, Democrats and Independents were about evenly split at 1/3 each.)

And you still haven't shown anything to support your point.

 

It's very much like Ohio, where I used to live: The urban centers are very blue, while the rural areas are mostly red.

 

That's true of nearly every state.

 

I find that rather interesting. Here the urban areas are a lot more right leaning and the rural areas a lot more left leaning. Then again the struggle here tends to be between socialism and liberalism and in urban areas people tend to earn more money while in rural areas there are (or rather used to be) mines, lumber industry and other heavy industry that liked to vote red. We have municipalities here that vote 80% for the communist party!