Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (484493)	5/30/2009 5:56:07 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573696

GOVERNMENT ISN'T SCARY, BUT TAXES STILL ARE.... Near the top of the list of Republican talking points on health care reform is the prospect of government playing too large a role in the system. An interesting new poll from CNN suggests it's the wrong way to attack reform efforts. A new national poll indicates that most Americans are receptive to having more government influence over their health care in return for lower costs and more coverage. Sixty-three percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they would favor an increase in the federal government's influence over their own health-care plans in an attempt to lower costs and provide coverage to more Americans; 36 percent were opposed. The poll also suggests that slightly more than six out of 10 think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, with 38 percent opposed. That's pretty encouraging. If more than six out of 10 Americans want government to have more of a role in the health care system -- nice job, insurance companies -- the right will need to change its focus if it hopes to derail efforts to fix the system and expand access. The poll seems to offer conservatives a hint in this regard. Respondents were asked, "Would you prefer a health care reform plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans, or a plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels?" The result: 47% would accept the tax cut as a tradeoff, 47% would not. With that in mind, expect to hear a lot of "reform = tax increases" in the very near future. I'm curious, though, how much the results would change if people were presented with a fuller picture of the potential tradeoff. In other words, would people concerned about taxes going up feel differently if they knew their premiums would also go down? GOVERNMENT ISN'T SCARY, BUT TAXES STILL ARE.... Near the top of the list of Republican talking points on health care reform is the prospect of government playing too large a role in the system. An interesting new poll from CNN suggests it's the wrong way to attack reform efforts. A new national poll indicates that most Americans are receptive to having more government influence over their health care in return for lower costs and more coverage. Sixty-three percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they would favor an increase in the federal government's influence over their own health-care plans in an attempt to lower costs and provide coverage to more Americans; 36 percent were opposed. The poll also suggests that slightly more than six out of 10 think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, with 38 percent opposed. That's pretty encouraging. If more than six out of 10 Americans want government to have more of a role in the health care system -- nice job, insurance companies -- the right will need to change its focus if it hopes to derail efforts to fix the system and expand access. The poll seems to offer conservatives a hint in this regard. Respondents were asked, "Would you prefer a health care reform plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans, or a plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels?" The result: 47% would accept the tax cut as a tradeoff, 47% would not. With that in mind, expect to hear a lot of "reform = tax increases" in the very near future. I'm curious, though, how much the results would change if people were presented with a fuller picture of the potential tradeoff. In other words, would people concerned about taxes going up feel differently if they knew their premiums would also go down? washingtonmonthly.com

To: steve harris who wrote (484493)	5/30/2009 5:58:03 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573696

AWKWARD.... GOP leaders like Michael Steele and John Cornyn are none too pleased to have so many of the party's most prominent voices using offensive, insulting, and bigoted attacks against Sonia Sotomayor. But if you think they're in a difficult spot, imagine being a Republican strategist responsible for Hispanic outreach. "Of course this disturbs me," said Lionel Sosa, one of the more influential Hispanic media advisers in the GOP. "I'm not surprised at Rush Limbaugh but I'm very surprised at Speaker Gingrich because he is one of the key people who knows the importance of the Latino vote to the Republican Party. He must realize how his rhetoric, if it does influence any Hispanics, how damaging it could be. This [confirmation] is something that is going to happen anyway. For a senator to have strong opposition to her, they are either not aware of the impact Latinos will have on the next election or they don't care." Sosa certainly knows what makes the Hispanic voter tick. He has helped with or worked on seven Republican presidential campaigns since 1980, including John McCain's and both of George W. Bush's. He was joined in his lament by several other Hispanic strategists who spoke to the Huffington Post. Even those Republican Hispanics who have served in government said they were deeply worried about the Sotomayor pushback, though they cautioned that it was coming almost entirely from outside the party establishment. That last point -- it's the party's activists, not the party's establishment that's smearing Sotomayor -- is a very tough sell. Clowns like Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Rove may not hold elected office or maintain official roles in the party, but they clearly have positions of power and authority in the Republican Party (Cornyn hasn't cancelled Gingrich's big fundraiser for the NRSC, for example). Besides, as we talked about yesterday, most Americans are unlikely to make a distinction between Republican activists and Republican officials. When the activists smear the first Latina nominee for the Supreme Court, it's the latter that will feel the electoral repercussions. The takeaway is "Republicans attack Sotomayor, using bigoted tactics." It's not much of a defense to say, "Yeah, but Gingrich is only a GOP leader, not a GOP official." What's more, there's the further complication that Republicans responsible for Hispanic outreach are not only insulted, and not only cut off at the knees, but they're now less likely to appear in the media to criticize Sotomayor. Why? Because they're probably not looking forward to hearing reporters say, "I'd like to get your reaction to the following ridiculous attacks your Republican brethren have directed at Hispanics this week...."