- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/24/14 at 6:43 am to The Stash
quote:
Tenure
That is exactly why we are in the mess we are in. Vote for incumebents if you want status quo.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 7:09 am to VOR
quote:
The governor's self-serving and illogical response to the ACA probably makes the impact a little more adverse.
Yeah!!!! It so irresponsibe to not explode Medicaid (and the state's [ taxpayers'] responsibility) on the promise that the feds will still pay 90% of the freight beyond 3 years.
This post was edited on 2/24/14 at 7:10 am
Posted on 2/24/14 at 7:26 am to udtiger
quote:
Yeah!!!! It so irresponsibe to not explode Medicaid (and the state's [ taxpayers'] responsibility) on the promise that the feds will still pay 90% of the freight beyond 3 years.
meh. it was a response based upon political ambition that we know will cause financial difficulty not only in the short term but for the foreseeable future. the idea that the fed gov would not fulfill its obligation for future medicaid support is nothing but a scare tactic, imo.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 7:36 am to VOR
quote:Not fulfilling the commitment is a 50:50 proposition. What is the nature of the Feds' medicaid commitment compared with state obligations on a % basis over time. Steady? Inclining? Declining?
the idea that the fed gov would not fulfill its obligation for future medicaid support is nothing but a scare tactic
Posted on 2/24/14 at 7:41 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What is the nature of the Feds' medicaid commitment compared with state obligations on a % basis over time. Steady? Inclining? Declining?
So you're asking me to do actual research?
Posted on 2/24/14 at 7:44 am to Zach
quote:
And will probably get it
the crony wing of the GOP like their short term money gains,
they don't see the mob on the horizon that will take it back from them
Posted on 2/24/14 at 11:28 am to Zach
Mary can afford to vote for oil and gas because she knows the rest of her brethren will vote against. She also supports these dissenters of O&G by sponsoring super pacs that elect those that are opposed to fossil fuels
Posted on 2/24/14 at 1:53 pm to MMauler
you just called someone an ignorant fat count? get out much
Posted on 2/24/14 at 1:56 pm to VOR
i tend to agree with you on this..no i have to go run for cover because i will be called a socialist
Posted on 2/24/14 at 2:05 pm to Zach
quote:
"You can't overstate what it means for this state to have her experience and influence, especially with the energy chairmanship."
Pile of BS......She can't even influence her own party (weak as shite in the state) to denounce the phony baloney lawsuit against the O&G companies.
quote:
her opposition to cap-and-trade legislation
Probably would have sold her vote if it made a difference like she did for obamacare. (thank god it never came up)
quote:
her defense of offshore drilling after the Gulf oil spill
She did a great job getting the moratorium lifted
This post was edited on 2/24/14 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 2/24/14 at 5:47 pm to TJG210
Cannot wait to vote against her. I'd vote for Santorum if I knew it would get her out.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News