"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
I have an idea. Why don't you let us know what's in it now?
Haven't finished writing it?
Why don't you finish writing it, let people see it, then pass it?
What? You're concerned it won't pass if people know what's in it?
Why don't you just tell us what's in it?
No?
Why not?
Is this even about healthcare anymore?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 10, 2010, 09:31:41 AM
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
I have an idea. Why don't you let us know what's in it now?
Haven't finished writing it?
Why don't you finish writing it, let people see it, then pass it?
What? You're concerned it won't pass if people know what's in it?
Why don't you just tell us what's in it?
No?
Why not?
Is this even about healthcare anymore?
Elections have consequences, which in this case leads us to a real moron in charge of the House.
I wonder if she ever sold Toyota's? "You have to buy it before you can test drive it"
Shitburgers for lunch, everyone!
Um, isn't the bill up for passage using reconciliation one of the same bills already passed by the House or Senate? As I recall, reconciliation is pretty much standard procedure when House and Senate versions of bills differ.
If so, I think she means that people are upset by the bill largely because of the fake controversy constantly reported by the news media. (I call it fake not because there aren't people opposed to the bill, but because the media is blowing that opposition out of proportion)
I wouldn't call it a smile sandwich by any means, but it could be much better with real cost containment measures with teeth rather than this "hope and pray" BS.
Quote from: nathanm on March 10, 2010, 02:04:04 PM
Um, isn't the bill up for passage using reconciliation one of the same bills already passed by the House or Senate? As I recall, reconciliation is pretty much standard procedure when House and Senate versions of bills differ.
If so, I think she means that people are upset by the bill largely because of the fake controversy constantly reported by the news media. (I call it fake not because there aren't people opposed to the bill, but because the media is blowing that opposition out of proportion)
I wouldn't call it a smile sandwich by any means, but it could be much better with real cost containment measures with teeth rather than this "hope and pray" BS.
It must be tough running around either apologizing for or explaining what other people say.
Quote from: guido911 on March 10, 2010, 02:30:21 PM
It must be tough running around either apologizing for or explaining what other people say.
It's probably tougher not being able to understand what people mean, and tougher still to find yourself unable to apply Hanlon's Razor.
Quote from: nathanm on March 10, 2010, 02:33:04 PM
It's probably tougher not being able to understand what people mean, and tougher still to find yourself unable to apply Hanlon's Razor.
There is not so much that can be attributed to stupidity as to juvenile understanding of reality.
We are simply not "subjects" to be ruled.
The whole healthcare argument has become petty. The debate is no longer focused on the people, but rather a power struggle between an impotent administration and a disastrously out of control congress.
The debate treats the people as no more than pawns in the battle. Flies to be swatted at.
The Speaker and President use stories and analogies to support an ever more ethereal jumble of unfunded promises that no physician, accountant, or legislator understands.
So now they have simply resorted to the lowest authority of government as motivation. . .Force.
We even hear the language.
"Force it"
"Push it"
"Ram it"
This is force being used against the people. This is not representative of the republic.
We have an unpopular bill that is not even a bill. . .an unwritten conglomeration of ideas being sold as a bill that we are not allowed to see. There is no logic here.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 10, 2010, 03:15:18 PM
This is force being used against the people. This is not representative of the republic.
We have an unpopular bill that is not even a bill. . .an unwritten conglomeration of ideas being sold as a bill that we are not allowed to see. There is no logic here.
The people want health care reform. The ramming is referring to the obstructionists in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Also, there
is a bill. In fact, there are two. It is not an unwritten conglomeration of ideas as you claim. Even Warren Buffett thinks the Senate bill is better than what we have now, although he'd prefer they start over and do better. He said something along the lines of "Given a choice between the bill we have and doing nothing, I support the bill."
Quote from: nathanm on March 10, 2010, 03:46:27 PM
The people want health care reform. The ramming is referring to the obstructionists in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Also, there is a bill. In fact, there are two. It is not an unwritten conglomeration of ideas as you claim. Even Warren Buffett thinks the Senate bill is better than what we have now, although he'd prefer they start over and do better. He said something along the lines of "Given a choice between the bill we have and doing nothing, I support the bill."
FAIL
Warren Buffett doesn't live in the same universe as we do. He can afford to pay cash for any medical procedure he needs so he can't possibly have an appreciation for how fortunate middle class citizens like myself feel to have good employer-provided insurance and why people like me fear the government limiting my choices in providers and benefits. Mr. Buffett is also not an elected official, so he has nothing to gain or lose from such legislation, other than if it shifted his burden of providing insurance as a company-sponsored benefit throughout his many holdings.
It makes as much sense for Buffett to pontificate on healthcare as it does Bill Gates on "
global warming" er climate change.
If people wanted healthcare reform as you say, representatives would not be running from it during an election year and would not be subject to intimidation from party leaders and the Executive Branch. If constituents wanted HC reform, everyone in the Senate and HOR would be tripping over themselves to make this pass. What other reason do you see for their reluctance?
Quote from: nathanm on March 10, 2010, 02:33:04 PM
It's probably tougher not being able to understand what people mean, and tougher still to find yourself unable to apply Hanlon's Razor.
What freakin ever. You sorta remind me of the guy at the parade with the broom cleaning up the horse smile as it drops.
Quote from: nathanm on March 10, 2010, 03:46:27 PM
The people want health care reform. The ramming is referring to the obstructionists in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Also, there is a bill. In fact, there are two. It is not an unwritten conglomeration of ideas as you claim. Even Warren Buffett thinks the Senate bill is better than what we have now, although he'd prefer they start over and do better. He said something along the lines of "Given a choice between the bill we have and doing nothing, I support the bill."
Really? I must have read the polls wrong. The latest one I have from Rasmussen is 53% against and 42% in favor. That's down from 58% against in January.
The design of our congressional system is to make bills of heavy consequence difficult to pass. I rejoice in this. If the ideas are firm and well thought out, then let them be written and scored by the CBO. Let the representatives of the people read the very bill they will be voting on. The senate bill is far from complete and they admit as much. They are choosing the procedural "nuclear" gimmick precisely because the bill would never survive otherwise.
Healthcare reform is not the issue. This administration wants to say it has achieved SOMTHING. . .ANYTHING!
Good Lord, this bill is between 6% and 18% of our economy. I WANT IT WELL THOUGHT OUT, WITH ALL OF THE T'S CROSSED AND I'S DOTTED. I WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL COST, WHO WILL PAY FOR IT, AND WHO IT WILL HELP. I WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE IT AFFECTS ME, MY FAMILY, AND THE COUNTRY I LOVE.
Now they are in a rush, because if they delay, more information will come out of the CBO as details are reveled and each time that happens we find out that there is great disparity between what the president says and what the CBO says.
They can't afford to delay, because they can't afford for the people to know any more about it. Funny how that slips from their lips. . . "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Quote from: Conan71 on March 10, 2010, 04:09:58 PM
FAIL
Warren Buffett doesn't live in the same universe as we do. He can afford to pay cash for any medical procedure he needs so he can't possibly have an appreciation for how fortunate middle class citizens like myself feel to have good employer-provided insurance and why people like me fear the government limiting my choices in providers and benefits. Mr. Buffett is also not an elected official, so he has nothing to gain or lose from such legislation, other than if it shifted his burden of providing insurance as a company-sponsored benefit throughout his many holdings.
It makes as much sense for Buffett to pontificate on healthcare as it does Bill Gates on "global warming" er climate change.
If people wanted healthcare reform as you say, representatives would not be running from it during an election year and would not be subject to intimidation from party leaders and the Executive Branch. If constituents wanted HC reform, everyone in the Senate and HOR would be tripping over themselves to make this pass. What other reason do you see for their reluctance?
Support for healthcare reform has dropped due to the obfuscation and outright lies about it promulgated by right wingers (and the drug companies and medical device manufacturers, insurance companies are on board since they will get tens of millions of new customers out of the deal) desperate to make sure that the bill doesn't pass. It's the only way they'll have a chance in 2012, and it will help them significantly in the midterms. It also didn't help that the Democrats dropped the public option at the behest of the insurance companies. The concept is pretty popular.
This stupid fear about messing up your employer-provided coverage is probably the biggest lie of all. The bill specifically does not change anything about your existing plan. It ought to. It ought to scrap the whole bucking system. It is irrevocably broken as it is. I know you don't get it because you have insurance at present, but as a young non-smoker, anything with a deductible I can afford is way out of my price range. (I used to have insurance through my SO's work, until she switched to a company that doesn't offer domestic partner benefits) Moreover, I have a pre-existing condition which would likely prevent me from getting coverage for what is most likely to be the biggest health care expense I see in my lifetime.
Besides, tying insurance to employers is stupid. One of my bigger complaints about this bill is that it does nothing to change it.
And are you really arguing that Warren Buffett, a person whose business is insurance doesn't understand insurance? I dare say he's smarter than anybody pontificating on our little forum. If he, as a person who can easily pay cash for any medical procedure he likes, thinks the insurance system is broken, we probably ought to listen to him. As one of the most successful investors of all time, if he thinks that health care is eating up an already unsustainable portion of our economy, perhaps we should listen to him.
The biggest reason Congress doesn't support it as a whole is that literally billions of dollars has been spent on lobbying by the drug companies and medical device manufacturers. They obviously have no interest in reform, as they're raking in the money already. They are the last people we should be listening to on the subject.
I could go on about what I think a better solution than this bill is, but I doubt you're interested in the least.
It was before I found this place, but were Gas and Guid so strident about crossing t's and dotting i's when there was a trillion and a quarter rushed through to bail out the banks and big insurance companies?
Or when we squandered another trillion + on the wrong war in Iraq? And you do remember that GM and Chrysler were bailed out in 2008 - before the election?
Or when ridiculously irresponsible tax cuts for a handful of the richest population were made that skyrocketed the debt? And then complained when everyone else got tax cuts last year and called that stimulus a bad idea?
I wish I was as rich as they apparently are. Then I could complain about the fact that everyone else got the same kind of tax cuts I got 9 years ago.
It's kinda like arguing with a dining room table.....
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/247151/august-19-2009/barney-frank-refuses-to-talk-to-a-dining-room-table
Can't wait for the Republicans to come up with a worthy opponent for Obama in 2012....
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/zombie_reagan_raised_from_grave
In the interest of bipartisanship.....
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_caught_lip_syncing_speech
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 10, 2010, 08:11:46 PM
It was before I found this place, but were Gas and Guid so strident about crossing t's and dotting i's when there was a trillion and a quarter rushed through to bail out the banks and big insurance companies?
Or when we squandered another trillion + on the wrong war in Iraq? And you do remember that GM and Chrysler were bailed out in 2008 - before the election?
Or when ridiculously irresponsible tax cuts for a handful of the richest population were made that skyrocketed the debt? And then complained when everyone else got tax cuts last year and called that stimulus a bad idea?
No.
Next question.
No surprise.
Gotta love the Onion!
Barney is lawn furniture.
I see the Moon Bats have arrived.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 07:31:15 AM
I see the Moon Bats have arrived.
It still begs the question ... what were you doing when all this other stuff was going on from 2000 to 2008?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 07:31:15 AM
I see the Moon Bats have arrived.
Sorry to interrupt your forum wingnut circle jerk.
Look at the topics/threads posted on this political forum.... a tribute to Planet Wingnuttia.
The TW comments section is more evenhanded..... remarkable feat, congrats, Gassy.
You wanna answer Rwarn's question?
Sound of crickets or smell of rightwing talking points smokescreen in 3 - 2 - 1 ......
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 11, 2010, 08:56:15 AM
It still begs the question ... what were you doing when all this other stuff was going on from 2000 to 2008?
Blaming the Clintons?
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 10:10:31 AM
Blaming the Clintons?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Awesome.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 11, 2010, 08:56:15 AM
It still begs the question ... what were you doing when all this other stuff was going on from 2000 to 2008?
Not really sure how? The Iraq war was started under GHW Bush, and continued under Clinton, lobbing bombs from afar. W just took it to the ground and finished it. I don't really agree with the necessity of the war either, but in hindsite 50 million people were freed from an oppressive dictator, and are quite happy about it.
The tax cuts were across the board for everyone who made an income. Yes they favored those who paid more taxes. They primarily favored those who operated businesses, and small businesses functioning as LLCs. They helped our economy create jobs very quickly.
The "tax cuts" last year were moronic (both the Bush admins, and the Obama admins), first of all, because they were not tax cuts, they were checks given to people regardless of tax burden. Payments designed to quell an angry mob. We can see the result.
Questions answered. Back on subject.
Quote from: nathanm on March 10, 2010, 05:01:53 PM
Support for healthcare reform has dropped due to the obfuscation and outright lies about it promulgated by right wingers (and the drug companies and medical device manufacturers, insurance companies are on board since they will get tens of millions of new customers out of the deal) desperate to make sure that the bill doesn't pass. It's the only way they'll have a chance in 2012, and it will help them significantly in the midterms. It also didn't help that the Democrats dropped the public option at the behest of the insurance companies. The concept is pretty popular.
This stupid fear about messing up your employer-provided coverage is probably the biggest lie of all. The bill specifically does not change anything about your existing plan. It ought to. It ought to scrap the whole frakking system. It is irrevocably broken as it is. I know you don't get it because you have insurance at present, but as a young non-smoker, anything with a deductible I can afford is way out of my price range. (I used to have insurance through my SO's work, until she switched to a company that doesn't offer domestic partner benefits) Moreover, I have a pre-existing condition which would likely prevent me from getting coverage for what is most likely to be the biggest health care expense I see in my lifetime.
Besides, tying insurance to employers is stupid. One of my bigger complaints about this bill is that it does nothing to change it.
And are you really arguing that Warren Buffett, a person whose business is insurance doesn't understand insurance? I dare say he's smarter than anybody pontificating on our little forum. If he, as a person who can easily pay cash for any medical procedure he likes, thinks the insurance system is broken, we probably ought to listen to him. As one of the most successful investors of all time, if he thinks that health care is eating up an already unsustainable portion of our economy, perhaps we should listen to him.
The biggest reason Congress doesn't support it as a whole is that literally billions of dollars has been spent on lobbying by the drug companies and medical device manufacturers. They obviously have no interest in reform, as they're raking in the money already. They are the last people we should be listening to on the subject.
I could go on about what I think a better solution than this bill is, but I doubt you're interested in the least.
Support has dropped because healthcare is not the biggest concern to a healthy individual who cannot find work in the first place, and also because I think there are enough people who are skeptical of even more government intervention in our lives.
Warren Buffett's business isn't insurance, it's investing in profitable businesses. His investment company happens to own some reinsurers and a large auto insurance company. Vastly different from the health insurance game. I respect him as an investor but as a svengali on health insurance?
Here's an issue I have with the governement providing benefits through insurance companies by following a pattern I'm seeing:
Right now the government is cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid benefits. They arbitrarily say they will pay X amount for a given procedure. In light of this, providers must find ways to shore up the difference, therefore the rates for service and supplies are higher in many cases for cash payers and those who have private insurance. Once the government dictates what it's willing to pay in "premiums" to insurance companies and there are cuts, where do you think the insurers will turn to shore up the balance sheet with increased claims? Individual premiums will skyrocket to make up the difference. If you think you can't afford individual coverage now, just wait. That's not GOP fear-mongering, that's my own take on what will happen if it's structured this way.
Healthcare reform started as a sound-bite to a lot of Americans: "Do you favor healthcare reform?" Asked as an innocuous question like that 75% or better will say they do, because nearly everyone has had a negative or frustrating experience with healthcare or health insurance. There's been enough time for discussion to reveal more specifics as to what "reform" means that it's not settling well with voters. Legislators are turning their backs on it because their constituents don't want what is being offered and if they vote for the bill, it means they may no longer have their cushy job as a Congressman this time next year.
Obviously you are colored by a bias that if you can't have the same healthcare benefits I do (which is a basic co-pay and deductible type plan) I should not be allowed to have mine, ridiculous:
"The bill specifically does not change anything about your existing plan.
It ought to. It ought to scrap the whole frakking system. It is irrevocably broken as it is. I know you don't get it because you have insurance at present, but as a young non-smoker, anything with a deductible I can afford is way out of my price range."
Overhaul an entire system for which 80 to 90% of the population appears to have adequate access and coverage? ::) This absolutely, as it stands now, does not keep from having unintended (or intended) consequences for those of us participating in employer-sponsored plans, or self-pay type plans, or those who voluntarily choose pay out of pocket for all HC expenses instead of enrolling in insurance or a government program.
Oh, and by the way, I'm definitely interested in hearing what your solutions are so long as it doesn't take the tack of penalizing me for something you don't have.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 11, 2010, 08:56:15 AM
It still begs the question ... what were you doing when all this other stuff was going on from 2000 to 2008?
We had this little thing going on:
(http://astromuse1.webs.com/twin%20towers%20burning.bmp)
This man was unavailable to comment on your post:
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/30/FallingMan_060829015536020_wideweb__300x430.jpg)
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 10:06:13 AM
Sorry to interrupt your forum wingnut circle jerk.
Look at the topics/threads posted on this political forum.... a tribute to Planet Wingnuttia.
The TW comments section is more evenhanded..... remarkable feat, congrats, Gassy.
Thanks for your critique of this forum. I was up all night wondering what your opinion was.
A responsible Republican party would have rolled back the Bush tax cuts to fund the war on terror.
But they didn't. They could have attempted to find sources of funding for the medicare prescription drug benefit... but they didn't.
Why?
Because, in the words of military-industrial chickenhawk and federal budget pantywaist Dick Cheney,
"Deficits don't matter."
Quote from: guido911 on March 11, 2010, 10:58:51 AM
Thanks for your critique of this forum. I was up all night wondering what your opinion was.
Back at you, freeper boy.
(http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/101st-freeper.jpg)
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 10:59:11 AM
A responsible Republican party would have rolled back the Bush tax cuts to fund the war on terror.
But they didn't. They could have attempted to find sources of funding for the medicare prescription drug benefit... but they didn't.
Why?
Because, in the words of military-industrial chickenhawk and federal budget pantywaist Dick Cheney,
"Deficits don't matter."
What exactly is it the Democrat controlled Senate, House, and Executive Branch are doing to raise revenues to keep up with run-away spending on pet entitlement programs right now?
Let's see, they racked up a record $220 bln deficit last month and they are...whoops...proposing TAX CUTS to stimulate JOB GROWTH. But wait, I thought tax cuts didn't create jobs. Someone forgot to tell Representative Sander Levin that:
"Rep. Sander Levin, the new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he favored giving small businesses a new capital-gains tax break to help spur job creation.
The Michigan Democrat, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, also proposed to restore the estate tax with a more generous exemption than would otherwise prevail next year."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704145904575112044284898012.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_PoliticsNCampaign_4
Damnit though, I keep forgetting the former President and Vice President keep causing all this deficit spending.
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 11:03:21 AM
Back at you, freeper boy.
(http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/101st-freeper.jpg)
Tell us about your military service.
Well the plan is falling apart again today because President Obama offered some lies by omission in his last speech.
Durbin is even calling Obama out on his claims:
"Anyone who would stand before you and say well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down, I don't think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up, but what we are trying to do is slow the rate of increase," Durbin said, speaking on the Senate floor.
. . . and the CBO just published it's report concluding that the Senate health care bill will raise the average family's health care premiums by $2,300. Around $15,200 for a family. Collectively, premiums would rise 10 to 13%. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf
Realistic estimates most likely fall in the 25% range (historically CBO estimates are conservative).
The President Came up with his 14% to 20% savings by ignoring this information and only considering reductions caused by changes to the individual market is structured, and the influx of more people into the insurance market.
So when you boil it all down, your premiums will go up, but if your family makes under $80,000 yr and you are eligible, will receive subsidies that reduce your healthcare expenses by as much as 57%. . .Unless you are on an employer provided program. The better the employer provided program the the more penalty you, and your employer, will have to pay. Additional measures in the plan allow you to "lock in" your existing plan until 2018 if you like it, but you will still be responsible for the penalty and at the whim of whatever the system evolves into by 2018.
The CBO concludes that they cannot accurately score this proposal due to "a substantial degree of uncertainly."
Quote from: Conan71 on March 11, 2010, 11:08:17 AM
What exactly is it the Democrat controlled Senate, House, and Executive Branch are doing to raise revenues to keep up with run-away spending on pet entitlement programs right now?
Let's see, they racked up a record $220 bln deficit last month and they are...whoops...proposing TAX CUTS to stimulate JOB GROWTH. But wait, I thought tax cuts didn't create jobs. Someone forgot to tell Representative Sander Levin that:
"Rep. Sander Levin, the new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he favored giving small businesses a new capital-gains tax break to help spur job creation.
The Michigan Democrat, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, also proposed to restore the estate tax with a more generous exemption than would otherwise prevail next year."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704145904575112044284898012.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_PoliticsNCampaign_4
Damnit though, I keep forgetting the former President and Vice President keep causing all this deficit spending.
Tax cuts to "small businesses" (they called those "The Richest Americans" under Bush) are always the last resort of of failing liberals. When BS fails, resort to tax cuts, get things working again, then shift back to BS.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 11:27:19 AM
Well the plan is falling apart again today because President Obama offered some lies by omission in his last speech.
Durbin is even calling Obama out on his claims:
"Anyone who would stand before you and say well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down, I don't think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up, but what we are trying to do is slow the rate of increase," Durbin said, speaking on the Senate floor.
. . . and the CBO just published it's report concluding that the Senate health care bill will raise the average family's health care premiums by $2,300. Around $15,200 for a family. Collectively, premiums would rise 10 to 13%. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf
Realistic estimates most likely fall in the 25% range (historically CBO estimates are conservative).
The President Came up with his 14% to 20% savings by ignoring this information and only considering reductions caused by changes to the individual market is structured, and the influx of more people into the insurance market.
So when you boil it all down, your premiums will go up, but if your family makes under $80,000 yr and you are eligible, will receive subsidies that reduce your healthcare expenses by as much as 57%. . .Unless you are on an employer provided program. The better the employer provided program the the more penalty you, and your employer, will have to pay. Additional measures in the plan allow you to "lock in" your existing plan until 2018 if you like it, but you will still be responsible for the penalty and at the whim of whatever the system evolves into by 2018.
The CBO concludes that they cannot accurately score this proposal due to "a substantial degree of uncertainly."
Did I not just call this? Who's obfuscating, Nathan?
Reagan substantially lowered tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, then the deficit exploded and Reagan failed to keep his campaign promise to cut the Dept of Education, so instead he put in Bill Bennett.... months of double-digit unemployment... then, while I was a student in college, my taxes were raised and minimum wage frozen..... one summer, I wore a 3-piece suit just to try to get a summer job at Arby's.... and I shouldn't forget Reagan bailouts of banks that were "too big to fail"......
Yet, even Jimmy "malaise" Carter didn't have the crazy liberal chutzpah to leave Reagan two wars to pay for... wars that were kept officially "off budget" ..... the kinds of problems Bush left on Obama's plate....
If and when a healthcare reform bill actually passes, I predict that Mitt Romney will be political toast.
Because Romney will either be forced into a "nuanced position" unpopular with the conservative base; or he will be forced to run against his own Massachusetts healthcare reform policies, thus putting him firmly in the hypocrite catagory.....
I understand the talking points that are used to justify your perpetual rhetoric that Obama is an "empty suit" and a "weak leader." So, I came to the conclusion that you're full of it.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a Creationist.... predetermined dogmatically inflexible positions.... pre-existing political conclusions.... conservative webforum groupthink..... it's a lose-lose.
The picture of Barack Obama that the conservative political chattering classes and the Republican Activist Media try to RAM DOWN OUR THROATS is not close to being accurate or even reasonable....
I'd rather talk with Buzz over at Empire or any of the folks watching soccer over at Fox & Hound.... or any number of reasonable folks, over the rightwing political bias and general craziness that's typical of this forum.
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 12:15:57 PM
Reagan substantially lowered tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, then the deficit exploded and Reagan failed to keep his campaign promise to cut the Dept of Education, so instead he put in Bill Bennett.... months of double-digit unemployment... then, while I was a student in college, my taxes were raised and minimum wage frozen..... one summer, I wore a 3-piece suit just to try to get a summer job at Arby's.... and I shouldn't forget Reagan bailouts of banks that were "too big to fail"......
Yet, even Jimmy "malaise" Carter didn't have the crazy liberal chutzpah to leave Reagan two wars to pay for... wars that were kept officially "off budget" ..... the kinds of problems Bush left on Obama's plate....
If and when a healthcare reform bill actually passes, I predict that Mitt Romney will be political toast.
Because Romney will either be forced into a "nuanced position" unpopular with the conservative base; or he will be forced to run against his own Massachusetts healthcare reform policies, thus putting him firmly in the hypocrite catagory.....
I understand the talking points that are used to justify your perpetual rhetoric that Obama is an "empty suit" and a "weak leader." So, I came to the conclusion that you're full of it.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a Creationist.... predetermined dogmatically inflexible positions.... pre-existing political conclusions.... conservative webforum groupthink..... it's a lose-lose.
The picture of Barack Obama that the conservative political chattering classes and the Republican Activist Media try to RAM DOWN OUR THROATS is not close to being accurate or even reasonable....
I'd rather talk with Buzz over at Empire or any of the folks watching soccer over at Fox & Hound.... or any number of reasonable folks, over the rightwing political bias and general craziness that's typical of this forum.
Ladies & Gentlemen, another USRufnex flashback brought to you by
(http://www.old-time.com/commercials/1930%27s/Ex%20Lax.jpg)
I don't think I got any of Ruff's last post?
Growl. . .growl. . .crazy. . .BUSH'S FAULT. . .anger. . . hypocrite. . .anger. . .full of it. . .Republican. . . Soccer.
They have soccer on TV?
(http://jontangerine.com/media/418-strawman.jpg)
Memories of Conan the Reasonable-- avatars past....
(http://rlv.zcache.com/barack_obama_smoking_poster-p228879103261724256t5ta_400.jpg)
(http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2007-november/hillary_clinton.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MsttoDROu1o/RbUhxWrIrSI/AAAAAAAAAXw/zpHFl3hZjnY/s200/Redefeat+Communism_Hillary+2008.gif)
Sorry to interrupt the conservative Conan-Gas-Guido poliitical circle jerk... please go on.....
Why do some resort to foul language and insults? Is that an indication of weakness?
Raise your voice or strengthen your argument.
Your choice Ruff.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 11:31:18 AM
Tax cuts to "small businesses" (they called those "The Richest Americans" under Bush) are always the last resort of of failing liberals. When BS fails, resort to tax cuts, get things working again, then shift back to BS.
If a person is too stupid to do their taxes correctly, that's not my problem. If they did it right, they would only be taxed on profits paid to the owner. Some people aren't willing to spend the $500 or whatever it costs to form an LLC and choose corporate taxation. ::)
Regarding insurance premium increases, they're
already going up 15% a year. At least that's what my clients who offer their employees health insurance tell me.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 02:03:08 PM
Why do some resort to foul language and insults? Is that an indication of weakness?
Raise your voice or strengthen your argument.
Your choice Ruff.
That's the sound of a vanquished person, Gaspar. He's run out of Googled sources that talk about how great President Obama is that's any newer than his innauguration. He can't point to anything constructive nor list examples of where the current admin is achieving
greatness anything, so it's time to resort to ad-hominems and in a circular fashion trying to blame current problems on a President who left office 22 years ago and all the world's problems on conservatism or Republicans.
Vanquished?
No, that's just wishful thinking on your part, Mr. I've-posted-fifty-times-today. :D
Just because most of TNF's females no longer post here doesn't mean their opinions on national politics are uninformed or irrelevant. For me, I no longer have the time to post, but happened to have an extra day off today.
Some of us work full time and aren't allowed to goof off while we're on the clock.... besides, I have better things to do with my time than to argue with wingnuts who think the country's now being ruled by Saul Alinsky.... shame on you.
My memories of Reagan are used more as comparison, not necessarily blame.
I like to use Reagan's first couple of years in office to point out the blatant hypocrisy from those who think we shouldn't be blaming Bush for the economic crisis this country has had since Obama took office.
When I walk around town, I consider myself a Tulsan.
But when I read some of the unhinged stuff on this site, I wonder out loud if it was the right decision to move here. I sometimes wonder if the oil industry hasn't implanted most of you with a buncha wingnut alternate universe microchips....
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 04:34:01 PM
I sometimes wonder if the oil industry hasn't implanted most of you with a buncha wingnut alternate universe microchips....
You've discovered my secret! I haven't visited a doctor in Tulsa, ever. I get all my medical treatment in a blue state! :o
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 12:15:57 PM
I'd rather talk with Buzz over at Empire or any of the folks watching soccer over at Fox & Hound.... or any number of reasonable folks, over the rightwing political bias and general craziness that's typical of this forum.
Who's stopping you? Clearing the flatus stench from your posts would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and I am still waiting on information about your military service since you found it necessary to call me out.
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 04:34:01 PM
I sometimes wonder if the oil industry hasn't implanted most of you with a buncha wingnut alternate universe microchips....
It's in the water.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 01:00:40 PM
I don't think I got any of Ruff's last post?
Growl. . .growl. . .crazy. . .BUSH'S FAULT. . .anger. . . hypocrite. . .anger. . .full of it. . .Republican. . . Soccer.
They have soccer on TV?
You forgot the favorite.... Reagan raised his taxes.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 02:03:08 PM
Why do some resort to foul language and insults? Is that an indication of weakness?
Ask guido.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 10:44:02 AM
I don't really agree with the necessity of the war either, but in hindsite 50 million people were freed from an oppressive dictator, and are quite happy about it.
In hindsite (sic), you think a trillion or two dollars is worth an unnecessary war? Isn't that glib?
If there were any relevance to that particular Bush/Cheney lie about the "oppressive dictator" excuse for the Iraq war, there are at least a dozen countries that would be more justified than Iraq. And a lot more than 50 million people. Actually, about 31 million in Iraq according to most reality based estimates.
And I do remember the day very clearly where the WTC came down. Do any of the RWRE remember through their Republicontin haze?? The rest of the world, except for those under the influence KNOW where the war was/is and yet, the magic kool-aid bunch still go on and on about Iraq. And now that we are back paying attention to the right place, there are still spewings on the topic.
And the comment earlier about "The Iraq war was started under GHW Bush, and continued under Clinton, lobbing bombs from afar." shows that subconsciously at least, Gaspar realizes that this Iraq war had nothing to do with what the lies said, even if he won't admit it - to himself if no one else.
As far as the Bush II tax cuts creating jobs...yeah, a few. At the slowest rate in at least the last 80 years. Even last months 7.9% increase was dramatically higher than anything under W.
And Gaspar again shows he doesn't draw a paycheck like 95% of the people who actually cash a check every month - the tax cuts were real cuts. $288 billion worth and they continue today. (Ask your accountant about how that is working for your employees. Or ask one of your friends who does draw a check.)
So, last years tax cuts for 95% of the people in this country were "moronic". While the 2001 tax cuts for the other 5% were "good". And those 95% were the "angry mob" to be quelled. That pretty well tells the whole story of arrogance, hubris, complete disregard of the lower 95% that this country has experienced for 8 years under the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch environment.
Sounds like compassionate conservatism to me.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 11, 2010, 09:03:22 PM
So, last years tax cuts for 95% of the people in this country were "moronic". While the 2001 tax cuts for the other 5% were "good". And those 95% were the "angry mob" to be quelled. That pretty well tells the whole story of arrogance, hubris, complete disregard of the lower 95% that this country has experienced for 8 years under the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch environment.
Sounds like compassionate conservatism to me.
I have to admit that the $13 net that I got out of last year's "tax cut" made me go right out and stimulate the economy.
FWIW, the only way to consider my annual salary to be 6 or more figures is to count the numbers to the right of the decimal point.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 11, 2010, 09:03:22 PM
If there were any relevance to that particular Bush/Cheney lie about the "oppressive dictator" excuse for the Iraq war, there are at least a dozen countries that would be more justified than Iraq. And a lot more than 50 million people. Actually, about 31 million in Iraq according to most reality based estimates.
And I do remember the day very clearly where the WTC came down. Do any of the RWRE remember through their Republicontin haze?? The rest of the world, except for those under the influence KNOW where the war was/is and yet, the magic kool-aid bunch still go on and on about Iraq. And now that we are back paying attention to the right place, there are still spewings on the topic.
And the comment earlier about "The Iraq war was started under GHW Bush, and continued under Clinton, lobbing bombs from afar." shows that subconsciously at least, Gaspar realizes that this Iraq war had nothing to do with what the lies said, even if he won't admit it - to himself if no one else.
As far as the Bush II tax cuts creating jobs...yeah, a few. At the slowest rate in at least the last 80 years. Even last months 7.9% increase was dramatically higher than anything under W.
And Gaspar again shows he doesn't draw a paycheck like 95% of the people who actually cash a check every month - the tax cuts were real cuts. $288 billion worth and they continue today. (Ask your accountant about how that is working for your employees. Or ask one of your friends who does draw a check.)
So, last years tax cuts for 95% of the people in this country were "moronic". While the 2001 tax cuts for the other 5% were "good". And those 95% were the "angry mob" to be quelled. That pretty well tells the whole story of arrogance, hubris, complete disregard of the lower 95% that this country has experienced for 8 years under the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch environment.
Sounds like compassionate conservatism to me.
Had no idea I was so rich.
I would like for you to continue heroin. You do a find job in representing liberal philosophy. I enjoy your honesty and the candidness.
I would like to hear more about your philosophy on economic stimulation. What makes the economy move? What is Government's role?
Quote from: guido911 on March 11, 2010, 09:32:40 PM
Ask yourself, you "poor bastard".
Again, if you can't tell the difference between my aside and your "FU, you POS," then you're dumber than I thought.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 12, 2010, 09:19:59 AM
Again, if you can't tell the difference between my aside and your "FU, you POS," then you're dumber than I thought.
That's rich, you calling me"dumb". I'll take my academic bona fides against whatever you got any day. I'll take my professional success against yours any day.
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2010, 09:32:17 AM
That's rich, you calling me"dumb". I'll take my academic bona fides against whatever you got any day. I'll take my professional success against yours any day.
Do we have to separate you two?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 12, 2010, 09:34:56 AM
Do we have to separate you two?
Nope, I am just freakin tired of his double standards. He accuses me of insulting people, and just today calls someone a "damned fool".
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 11, 2010, 09:52:59 PM
I have to admit that the $13 net that I got out of last year's "tax cut" made me go right out and stimulate the economy.
FWIW, the only way to consider my annual salary to be 6 or more figures is to count the numbers to the right of the decimal point.
2 1/2 Marshalls, give or take an ounce or two...
Quote from: JeffM on March 11, 2010, 04:34:01 PM
Vanquished?
No, that's just wishful thinking on your part, Mr. I've-posted-fifty-times-today. :D
Just because most of TNF's females no longer post here doesn't mean their opinions on national politics are uninformed or irrelevant. For me, I no longer have the time to post, but happened to have an extra day off today.
Some of us work full time and aren't allowed to goof off while we're on the clock.... besides, I have better things to do with my time than to argue with wingnuts who think the country's now being ruled by Saul Alinsky.... shame on you.
My memories of Reagan are used more as comparison, not necessarily blame.
I like to use Reagan's first couple of years in office to point out the blatant hypocrisy from those who think we shouldn't be blaming Bush for the economic crisis this country has had since Obama took office.
When I walk around town, I consider myself a Tulsan.
But when I read some of the unhinged stuff on this site, I wonder out loud if it was the right decision to move here. I sometimes wonder if the oil industry hasn't implanted most of you with a buncha wingnut alternate universe microchips....
(http://actingschmacting.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/broken-record.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 09:54:47 AM
2 1/2 Marshalls, give or take an ounce or two...
I'm stimulated by that.
Interesting analysis by Shikha Dalmia in Forbes.
"But the problem is that President Obama believes in his own messianism too deeply for that. His goal is not to remake his party as it could be but "remake this world as it should be." In his book Dreams From My Father Obama gives the distinct impression that his gifts are too great for the smallness of our political stage. He regrets not having been born during the civil rights era when the grandness of the cause would have measured up to the grandness of his ambition. He is in search of something big that will allow him to make his mark on the world as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King did. Hence, the defeat of ObamaCare would not just be par for the course in the rough-and-tumble world of politics for him. It would be sign of his ordinariness, his mortality, and that, to him, is unendurable."
According to Shikha, healthcare reform has decomposed into an ego issue.
Classic political narcissism (that's going to enrage a few I'm sure)
(http://mommylife.net/archives/2008/10/31/verbatim_obama2.jpg)
I've read here articles in Reason before. She tends to hit the nail on the head.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/obamacare-health-democrats-congress-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html?boxes=opinionschannellighttop
Meh. He's trying to tackle a major structural issue (of which we have many). If attempting a large-scale fix gets you labeled a "narcissist" or "messianic" I guess them's the breaks.
Of course, there're a lot of parties interested in maintaining the status quo, so it's probably no surprise that Forbes wouldn't be a big supporter of O's efforts.
EDIT: Here's her first paragraph:
"Even if Democrats extract the votes to put ObamaCare over the top, it will at best be a Pyrrhic victory for them. Regardless of the outcome, this monstrosity might cost the Democrats the Congress this November, ruin the party for a long time and prematurely render Barack Obama a lame duck president for the rest of his term."
That's not biased at all, is it?
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2010, 10:48:03 AM
"Even if Democrats extract the votes to put ObamaCare over the top, it will at best be a Pyrrhic victory for them. Regardless of the outcome, this monstrosity might cost the Democrats the Congress this November, ruin the party for a long time and prematurely render Barack Obama a lame duck president for the rest of his term."
That's not biased at all, is it?
She never pulls punches, and yes she is bias, she's a libertarian and she has commented on the destructive actions of both parties in the past. I would have to say that that paragraph is an accurate observation and prediction. . . But some people think I'm bias too. :o
Quote from: Gaspar on March 12, 2010, 10:42:57 AM
I've read here articles in Reason before. She tends to hit the nail on the head.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/obamacare-health-democrats-congress-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html?boxes=opinionschannellighttop
Shikma is ignoring the polls. Support for health care reform has been rising for weeks.
The Democrats will lose seats in November, but that's normal in an off-year election for the president in power. Her base prediction's sort of like saying that Kobe Bryant will score points in a game.
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2010, 10:48:03 AM
Meh. He's trying to tackle a major structural issue (of which we have many). If attempting a large-scale fix gets you labeled a "narcissist" or "messianic" I guess them's the breaks.
Of course, there're a lot of parties interested in maintaining the status quo, so it's probably no surprise that Forbes wouldn't be a big supporter of O's efforts.
EDIT: Here's her first paragraph:
"Even if Democrats extract the votes to put ObamaCare over the top, it will at best be a Pyrrhic victory for them. Regardless of the outcome, this monstrosity might cost the Democrats the Congress this November, ruin the party for a long time and prematurely render Barack Obama a lame duck president for the rest of his term."
That's not biased at all, is it?
I'd say it's an even-handed account and pretty much spot-on critique of what's happened and what will happen.
Read further, she's got admonishment for Dems and GOPs:
"The only comic relief in the otherwise grim, yearlong ObamaCare saga has been the spectacle of progressive pundits scratching their heads to explain the bill's nose-diving popularity: Betsy McCaughey is a lying grumble whose chatter about death panels has spooked Americans; the bill is too tame for Americans who really want a public option; Democrats are just too damn nice to engage in the gutter partisan politics necessary to push their agenda through; Republicans are nay-saying obstructionists; and, my personal favorite, President Obama, arguably the most gifted orator alive, does not have the communication skills necessary to sell this bill (of goods)."
Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 11:29:01 AM
Democrats are just too damn nice to engage in the gutter partisan politics necessary to push their agenda through;
I find that difficult to believe.
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2010, 10:08:58 AM
I'm stimulated by that.
But after a short while the stimulus wears off. Nice while it lasts though.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 12, 2010, 12:42:46 PM
But after a short while the stimulus wears off. Nice while it lasts though.
Doesn't do much to create jobs either, but SIG's sure love it!
Gaspar,
The only drugs in this arena are the Republicontin and Dummycrat kook-aids being swigged by the barrel.
Less government is better....always.
Unfortunately, we haven't had any of that from any side forever. We are a company...er, uh country...based at its most fundamental level on government intrusion. From the very beginning. We are a country founded by Christians who came here to escape the religious tyranny of the C of E, while imposing their own religious tyranny on the individual colonies they founded. The European knew feudal systems and that is what we have always skirted near and are devolving toward rapidly now.
We live under a delusion of freedom, within which most never 'test' the boundaries of said freedom. And give lip service to that freedom while intruding at every chance. Gun control laws. Abortion restrictions. We even interfere with that most hallowed of "freedoms" - religious observance. From Native American rituals, to polygamy of past orders. And would like to do even more - listen to Pat "Kill Anyone Who Disagrees With Me" Robertson some time.
The single most "free" society the world has seen in hundreds of years - or longer - were the Native American societies that were around some time back. That's one reason the western European settlers had to exterminate as many as they could, so that freedom of thought would not infect the settlers. Oh, and so they could steal the land...
Economic stimulation - I equate to jobs. Not the financial house of cards that has been allowed to re-establish itself of late. Jobs are created by SMALL businesses (I know you already know that), so these BIG multi-billion dollar entities are pretty much worthless toward economic growth on any kind of meaningful scale. Microsoft is classic example. Started out small, grew like crazy, then plateaued and stagnated. Wal-Mart is similar. Yep, they hire many, but proportionally, have stopped growing new. Billionaires are worthless to our economy. Guys like you and me are critical and probably a bunch of the others here. Maybe you can be the next Tony Roma's. I want to grow in my field, but haven't been very successful..yet. Have not given up - still working on it.
Business inspirations - probably the most important;
Management: Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices, by Peter Drucker.
About anything I can find by/about Warren Buffet
W. Edwards Deming
And one step further. The hypothesis is that the second/third generation of many if not most enterprises are a total waste for the company and many times disastrous for the employees who actually built the thing to make it what it is/was. Poster child of that thought; Paris Hilton.
Local companies to which this might apply;
Arrow Trucking
Bed Check
F W Murphy
Centrilift
Oil Dynamics
et. al.
The "second" generation many/most times just doesn't get it. Or doesn't care. Or whatever. Does not deserve the "gift" that is given them.
Tax laws should be structured so that when the person who started company moves on, there is strong incentive to not sell out to outside opportunists (penalize strongly - inheritance tax levels) but let the employees have a shot at purchasing the outfit so their jobs and lives are less likely to be blasted by the "cash out" or worse, milking it to death - of the "Family". This could have a threshold - say any company with more than 5, 10, 15 employees...pick one.
As to your drug reference; legalize marijuana, magic mushrooms, things that grow in the ground and used in their natural state (as picked). License and tax processed items - alcohol, commercially made cigarettes, etc. Enhance penalties for manufacture/distribution of processed chemicals - cocaine, crack, meth, etc. And by enhanced, I mean mandatory 5 yr prison for first time use/possession - no parole. Mandatory 25 years, no parole for manufacture/selling - first time. Mandatory life for second manufacturing/selling event (if 25 years didn't work, nothing will), no parole. And just about the same for DUI, DWI, except that if there is a fatality involved with any of the events, death penalty. Or at LEAST mandatory life with no parole.
There is a quick two minute view. Knock yourself out.
Heron,
Not a whole lot I disagree with. Of course your stereotypes applied to businesses such as Walmart, and Microsoft are incorrect. . .as are the stereotypes applied to the wealthy, but that's all understandable from your viewpoint. You are correct about small businesses, and you almost go far enough to address the problem, but you trip over your need to attack the successful. You find glory in the journey, but wish to punish the achievement.
I enjoy "reading" your thought process. You are passionate and when forced into real critical thought you engage in conclusions that are libertarian in nature. Of course you have to pepper them with a little of the spice of liberal anger, but that's ok.
FOTD was without hope. When pushed into thought, he raged like a wounded animal. You have the ability to surrender to reason.
I wondered if I was the only one who thought that came off incredibly libertarian.
Perhaps some of those in identity crisis should visit:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 80%.
No shocker there: Libertarian
Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 01:55:21 PM
I wondered if I was the only one who thought that came off incredibly libertarian.
I am completely socially libertarian, FWIW. ;)
I also like capitalism very much, I just think that we need sensible regulation to keep the impulses to do things that make lots of money but put our entire economy at risk at bay. And to keep people from shitting on the commons. As far as consumer protection, strict statutory liability as is found in laws like the FDCPA can be a real deterrent, if enough people are aware of it.
Basically, what I want is a baseline of dignity for everyone that lets them go out and take the risk of starting a business without fear of losing health insurance or becoming so destitute they can't recover. I may be biased on that point, as I saw first hand what can happen when market conditions turn against an entrepreneur. I remember very well going from having plenty of money to having no money thanks to the volatility of the natural gas market in the early 90s. (My dad drilled wells for a living)
Beyond that, I want the government the love out of our lives. I like programs that give people a helping hand to get them back on their feet after a failure at business, a run in with drugs, or whatever else. I like it when the government acts as an insurer, and I like it when it's there to rein in the excesses of capitalism. When it tells people what to do beyond that, I don't like it so much. When it gets into legislating morality, I really hate it.
Edited to add: That particular quiz is pretty one dimensional. It doesn't capture the nuance of wanting government to do less in general, but still help forge a society where individual action to improve one's lot is more easily attainable.
Quote from: nathanm on March 12, 2010, 02:26:49 PM
I am completely socially libertarian, FWIW. ;)
I also like capitalism very much, I just think that we need sensible regulation to keep the impulses to do things that make lots of money but put our entire economy at risk at bay. And to keep people from shitting on the commons. As far as consumer protection, strict statutory liability as is found in laws like the FDCPA can be a real deterrent, if enough people are aware of it.
Basically, what I want is a baseline of dignity for everyone that lets them go out and take the risk of starting a business without fear of losing health insurance or becoming so destitute they can't recover. I may be biased on that point, as I saw first hand what can happen when market conditions turn against an entrepreneur. I remember very well going from having plenty of money to having no money thanks to the volatility of the natural gas market in the early 90s. (My dad drilled wells for a living)
Beyond that, I want the government the love out of our lives. I like programs that give people a helping hand to get them back on their feet after a failure at business, a run in with drugs, or whatever else. I like it when the government acts as an insurer, and I like it when it's there to rein in the excesses of capitalism. When it tells people what to do beyond that, I don't like it so much. When it gets into legislating morality, I really hate it.
Edited to add: That particular quiz is pretty one dimensional. It doesn't capture the nuance of wanting government to do less in general, but still help forge a society where individual action to improve one's lot is more easily attainable.
So you basically want government to be like a parent.
You talk of "risk without loss."
You outline a system that stays out of our lives but in the same breath dictates a "baseline," and provides freedom from risk.
People need the freedom to fail. Without it you raise a nation of children who run to government with every skinned knee.
People also need the freedom to succeed without boundary. Without it you remove the very incentive that capitalism is based in. . . the goal to be more than you are. . .to achieve more. . .to acquire more. This is the very reason that no other form of economic system has been as successful in producing innovation.
You are clearly Liberal. Far from embracing freedom.
From what you said, your fear keeps you there. As master Yoda said "Fear is the path to the dark side."
Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 02:23:06 PM
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 80%.
No shocker there: Libertarian
wow
Your PERSO)NAL issues score is 100%
Your ECONOMIC issues score is 70%.
Libertarian as well.
I STILL say we should get an Oklahoma chapter of the Modern Whig party started...
Aren't Libertarians just Republicans who like to smoke pot? ;)
Quote from: azbadpuppy on March 12, 2010, 03:28:25 PM
Aren't Libertarians just Republicans who like to smoke pot? ;)
WHAMMO!!!, I'm a freakin' Libertarian
Quote from: azbadpuppy on March 12, 2010, 03:28:25 PM
Aren't Libertarians just Republicans who like to smoke pot? ;)
Yeah, that's what my friends tell me, I wouldn't know from personal experience... ::)
Get off the drug issue.
It's basically. . .You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .as long as your pursuit does not inhibit or infringe on anyone else's pursuit of the same.
It is not government's part to dictate what you do as long as you cause no harm, or place no limitation on the rights of others.
Libertarians are considered on the conservative side of the fence because we believe in the very conservative application of government. Government represents force, and should only be used to provide protection of citizen's rights, and national security. Any other use of government is perverse, inefficient, and inhibits the rights of the very people it is empowered to protect.
Use of government to take from one group and give to another is looting by definition. No matter what the logical or emotional rationalization. Looting always causes harm and is never a sustainable form of exchange. No looting program created by any government has ever proven to be sustainable. Looting programs always lead to bankruptsy.
Other services such as education and certainly healthcare are far beyond the roll of government. We currently spend $8,701 a year to educate the average elementary student (according to the Census Bureau). That amount increases every year, as the quality decreases. Some states spend as much as $15,000 a year. These prices will continue to go up, because prices always increase, and quality decreases, when competition is absent. It is understood that once a program such as education is put in place it will never go away, so most libertarians embrace the idea of school vouchers, because it forces public schools to compete with private. Most parents would have little problems finding private schools for between $8,700 and $15,000 a year, and thousands of new schools would sprout up to capitalize on the market. This is what happened in Wisconsin, and as a result quality of education across the board increased, both public and private.
There are about a thousand other issues that yield to Libertarian reason, and the analysis is simple because the basic laws of economics, apply and the results are verifiable historically.
Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people. – JFK
Quote from: nathanm on March 12, 2010, 02:26:49 PM
I am completely socially libertarian, FWIW. ;)
I also like capitalism very much, I just think that we need sensible regulation to keep the impulses to do things that make lots of money but put our entire economy at risk at bay. And to keep people from shitting on the commons. As far as consumer protection, strict statutory liability as is found in laws like the FDCPA can be a real deterrent, if enough people are aware of it.
Basically, what I want is a baseline of dignity for everyone that lets them go out and take the risk of starting a business without fear of losing health insurance or becoming so destitute they can't recover. I may be biased on that point, as I saw first hand what can happen when market conditions turn against an entrepreneur. I remember very well going from having plenty of money to having no money thanks to the volatility of the natural gas market in the early 90s. (My dad drilled wells for a living)
Beyond that, I want the government the love out of our lives. I like programs that give people a helping hand to get them back on their feet after a failure at business, a run in with drugs, or whatever else. I like it when the government acts as an insurer, and I like it when it's there to rein in the excesses of capitalism. When it tells people what to do beyond that, I don't like it so much. When it gets into legislating morality, I really hate it.
Edited to add: That particular quiz is pretty one dimensional. It doesn't capture the nuance of wanting government to do less in general, but still help forge a society where individual action to improve one's lot is more easily attainable.
A government acting like an insurer is largely responsible for our huge deficit and debt. It also rewards bad behavior by creating a safety net which rewards risky behavior that Democrats decry as being the result of Bush and Reagan era deregulation. The more the government provides, the better the chances are for fraud and waste. Basically, taxpayers wind up on the hook for other's greed and stupidity when the governemnt acts as an insurer.
I'm all for sensible programs which will help incubate sound small business ideas, don't get me wrong. I also don't have a problem of government offering more in the way of paying for higher education. Those are winning investments most of the time. However, there's no place for government to make life risk-free for everyone. It's bad policy as we can see what it's gotten us into now.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 12:57:43 PM
Doesn't do much to create jobs either, but SIG's sure love it!
Hey, if Marshall's gets big enough, Eric will eventually hire some (more) people. Think Positive!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 12, 2010, 01:25:29 PM
And one step further. The hypothesis is that the second/third generation of many if not most enterprises are a total waste for the company and many times disastrous for the employees who actually built the thing to make it what it is/was. Poster child of that thought; Paris Hilton.
The "second" generation many/most times just doesn't get it. Or doesn't care. Or whatever. Does not deserve the "gift" that is given them.
Tax laws should be structured so that when the person who started company moves on, there is strong incentive to not sell out to outside opportunists (penalize strongly - inheritance tax levels) but let the employees have a shot at purchasing the outfit so their jobs and lives are less likely to be blasted by the "cash out" or worse, milking it to death - of the "Family". This could have a threshold - say any company with more than 5, 10, 15 employees...pick one.
So if you have anything to leave to your kids you would advocate that the government dictate that someone else gets first shot? I'll agree that some offspring don't deserve what they get but to tell someone who/what they can leave the fruit of their labor to is just wrong in my opinion.
So as I understand it, Libertarianism sprang out of the Frontier culture of the 1800's, with a touch of agrarianism thrown in for good measure. It comes from a time and place where American settlements were small and far apart, where the influence of the federal government was almost nil (weeks away by horseback), and the law was what the guy with the tin star and the deputies said it was. Technology was limited to the steam engine, the railroad, the telegraph, and six shooters.
So you get to make a small compact with your neighbors . . .you probably live miles from them so "live and let live" is easy and practical. The economy moves at the pace of harvests and cattle drives. There's no need for anything more complex governmentally than a town meeting, or at best (and as monumentally) a rowdy session at the statehouse. Because there's space and your contact with everyone is limited, you can afford maximum freedom, a completely unfettered economy, and a government that can raise a militia to defend itself if need be . . . and that's about it.
Contrast that with Liberalism, the modern version of which arose out of the cities of the Industrial Revolution. (And it's true: to this day, you won't find libertarians living in most major American cities; out in the suburbs, yes, but definitely not in the city). If you figure that space and resources are limited in industrial cities, it stands to reason that there should exist an entity (government) with enough power to settle disputes and ensure a relatively equitable distribution of those resources. Otherwise, what do you have? Riots, chaos, slaughter.
So, Big City Governments are big, intimate, and pervasive (ward captains on every block). And yeah, they take a bunch of your money for public works. It's the only way the place can function.
Anyway, all of this is to say that the two ideologies grew out of very different historical environments and are each addressing an entirely different set of problems.
Here's my contention: as a society, we're moving towards more complexity (scientifically, technologically, economically), not less, and I don't see complex or achievable solutions from anyone on the Libertarian front. I see idealism, circa 1898. I think we're entering an era where individual liberty is going to be increasingly compromised on every front, by larger and ever more implacable organizations -- primarily corporations -- and the only entity which we have any hope of controlling -- the government -- happens to be the only entity with the levers of power to keep us free.
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2010, 10:48:58 PM
So as I understand it, Libertarianism sprang out of the Frontier culture of the 1800's, with a touch of agrarianism thrown in for good measure. It comes from a time and place where American settlements were small and far apart, where the influence of the federal government was almost nil (weeks away by horseback), and the law was what the guy with the tin star and the deputies said it was. Technology was limited to the steam engine, the railroad, the telegraph, and six shooters.
So you get to make a small compact with your neighbors . . .you probably live miles from them so "live and let live" is easy and practical. The economy moves at the pace of harvests and cattle drives. There's no need for anything more complex governmentally than a town meeting, or at best (and as monumentally) a rowdy session at the statehouse. Because there's space and your contact with everyone is limited, you can afford maximum freedom, a completely unfettered economy, and a government that can raise a militia to defend itself if need be . . . and that's about it.
Contrast that with Liberalism, the modern version of which arose out of the cities of the Industrial Revolution. (And it's true: to this day, you won't find libertarians living in most major American cities; out in the suburbs, yes, but definitely not in the city). If you figure that space and resources are limited in industrial cities, it stands to reason that there should exist an entity (government) with enough power to settle disputes and ensure a relatively equitable distribution of those resources. Otherwise, what do you have? Riots, chaos, slaughter.
So, Big City Governments are big, intimate, and pervasive (ward captains on every block). And yeah, they take a bunch of your money for public works. It's the only way the place can function.
Anyway, all of this is to say that the two ideologies grew out of very different historical environments and are each addressing an entirely different set of problems.
Here's my contention: as a society, we're moving towards more complexity (scientifically, technologically, economically), not less, and I don't see complex or achievable solutions from anyone on the Libertarian front. I see idealism, circa 1898. I think we're entering an era where individual liberty is going to be increasingly compromised on every front, by larger and ever more implacable organizations -- primarily corporations -- and the only entity which we have any hope of controlling -- the government -- happens to be the only entity with the levers of power to keep us free.
So all of our problems are caused by trying to be an urban society. We should return to the rural/agrarian society that we were 100 (or more) years ago. Kind of goes against the philosophy of this forum.
I'm not hankering for the old days, but I get the distinct sense that Gassy is talking about the halcyon days of 1873 when he's pontificating about the free market. And that's what I'm getting at: the way he thinks we should run our country isn't possibly unless there's a rip in the space time continuum and we all are flashed back to Dodge City during the cattle drives.
And hey, I'm the liberal here. I'm all ABOUT looking forward.
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2010, 11:07:09 PM
I'm not hankering for the old days, but I get the distinct sense that Gassy is talking about the halcyon days of 1873 when he's pontificating about the free market. And that's what I'm getting at: the way he thinks we should run our country isn't possibly unless there's a rip in the space time continuum and we all are flashed back to Dodge City during the cattle drives.
And hey, I'm the liberal here. I'm all ABOUT looking forward.
No problem with looking forward. We don't all have the same vision of forward. Makes our country interesting.
Attack the successful?? How is that?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 12, 2010, 02:46:03 PM
From what you said, your fear keeps you there. As master Yoda said "Fear is the path to the dark side."
It's not fear, my friend. It's compassion.
From Red Arrow; So if you have anything to leave to your kids you would advocate that the government dictate that someone else gets first shot? I'll agree that some offspring don't deserve what they get but to tell someone who/what they can leave the fruit of their labor to is just wrong in my opinion.
Not at all. Read it again and I will add some details here. Leave inheritance like it is now. The heirs get to keep up to a few million tax free - just like now. Above that, the estate is taxed just like now. Or maybe even raise it to 70 to 75%. Taxes actually DO put the money back into circulation in the economy, no matter what the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch crew want you to believe. It just isn't as efficient as other means, but hey...what the heck. Got a better idea? I guarantee you that Paris never made much of a contribution at job creation beyond paparazzi.
If however, the choice is made to sell to the company to itself, meaning the people who work there (Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP). the proceeds get a VERY beneficial tax treatment; treat like ordinary capital gains at 15%. Beats the 55% of inheritance over $3million (??) in many cases.
Family farm is exempted from that. But since there are so few family farms left, that won't hurt tax receipts very much.
And a step further. As far as being able to 'give it to the kids', well I listen to O'Reilly occasionally and one of his biggest rants (and a theme in great abundance here) is that "people don't deserve what they didn't earn". I couldn't agree more. What do you suppose Paris did to deserve what she has?? I submit very little.
I also submit the vast majority of the people who DID contribute to that pile of money ABSOLUTELY DID NOT GET WHAT THEY DID EARN from the efforts to assemble that pile of money. So where is the benefit to those who did deserve what was earned, but didn't get?
But then, this makes sense, so will never see anything remotely similar in reality.
And we get little glimpses from time to time of how this directly works in Tulsa with local companies built by talented, enthusiastic, hard working people who then get hosed or are likely to be hosed soon by the acts of the second or third generation. Sometimes this is just pure greed and lack of appreciation for the contribution of the people in the effort. Sometimes it is just lack of the spark that drives the founders generation.
Want some examples?? Answer me this; what is going to happen to the good, hard-working people of some of the list from the original note?
Arrow Trucking screwed by Pielsticker. (Is the woman designer in town his wife?)
Bed Check - well meaning heirs that just couldn't make it go, so sold to Stanley Tools, so can be shipped to China.
Oil Dynamics - sold by Franklin to get Bill some cash after that company had paid off a PILE of debt for him.
FW Murphy - just sold to Texas. Already have been laying off. Will that accelerate??
There are many more. Maybe you know some of them?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 14, 2010, 08:57:04 PM
From Red Arrow; So if you have anything to leave to your kids you would advocate that the government dictate that someone else gets first shot? I'll agree that some offspring don't deserve what they get but to tell someone who/what they can leave the fruit of their labor to is just wrong in my opinion.
Not at all. Read it again and I will add some details here. Leave inheritance like it is now. The heirs get to keep up to a few million tax free - just like now. Above that, the estate is taxed just like now. Or maybe even raise it to 70 to 75%. Taxes actually DO put the money back into circulation in the economy, no matter what the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch crew want you to believe. It just isn't as efficient as other means, but hey...what the heck. Got a better idea? I guarantee you that Paris never made much of a contribution at job creation beyond paparazzi.
If however, the choice is made to sell to the company to itself, meaning the people who work there (Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP). the proceeds get a VERY beneficial tax treatment; treat like ordinary capital gains at 15%. Beats the 55% of inheritance over $3million (??) in many cases.
Family farm is exempted from that. But since there are so few family farms left, that won't hurt tax receipts very much.
And a step further. As far as being able to 'give it to the kids', well I listen to O'Reilly occasionally and one of his biggest rants (and a theme in great abundance here) is that "people don't deserve what they didn't earn". I couldn't agree more. What do you suppose Paris did to deserve what she has?? I submit very little.
I also submit the vast majority of the people who DID contribute to that pile of money ABSOLUTELY DID NOT GET WHAT THEY DID EARN from the efforts to assemble that pile of money. So where is the benefit to those who did deserve what was earned, but didn't get?
But then, this makes sense, so will never see anything remotely similar in reality.
And we get little glimpses from time to time of how this directly works in Tulsa with local companies built by talented, enthusiastic, hard working people who then get hosed or are likely to be hosed soon by the acts of the second or third generation. Sometimes this is just pure greed and lack of appreciation for the contribution of the people in the effort. Sometimes it is just lack of the spark that drives the founders generation.
Want some examples?? Answer me this; what is going to happen to the good, hard-working people of some of the list from the original note?
Arrow Trucking screwed by Pielsticker. (Is the woman designer in town his wife?)
Bed Check - well meaning heirs that just couldn't make it go, so sold to Stanley Tools, so can be shipped to China.
Oil Dynamics - sold by Franklin to get Bill some cash after that company had paid off a PILE of debt for him.
FW Murphy - just sold to Texas. Already have been laying off. Will that accelerate??
There are many more. Maybe you know some of them?
I know of at least one company (where I used to work) that the kids were involved in the company on a daily basis and deserve a chance to get the company at minimal cost to continue the business. The founder had to move out of state to prove he was not involved in the daily transactions of the company to satisfy the IRS. You and I will probably have to disagree but I think that is just WRONG!
What is so different from a family farm than a family business?
Edit: you put so many frickin returns that my response showed up in the quote of your message.
No, I cut and pasted to show your quote. I haven't spent enough time here to figure out how to highlight the quote. Usually heavily multi-tasking when online and just haven't bothered yet. Guess it would help with clarification, huh?
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2010, 11:07:09 PM
I'm not hankering for the old days, but I get the distinct sense that Gassy is talking about the halcyon days of 1873 when he's pontificating about the free market. And that's what I'm getting at: the way he thinks we should run our country isn't possibly unless there's a rip in the space time continuum and we all are flashed back to Dodge City during the cattle drives.
And hey, I'm the liberal here. I'm all ABOUT looking forward.
Why on earth would you believe that Liberalism has anything to do with "looking forward?" Liberalism used to be about the expansion of rights and equality, a noble goal. As our system evolved so did liberal philosophy. Liberals of the past (and those that still exist) encouraged education and outreach to elevate people of all races and philosophies.
Today's liberals use the force of government as hatchet and saw to level society. Anyone who progresses, innovates, or succeeds is target. "Liberal" in today's terms relates more to the liberal application of controls, limits, regulations, tariffs, taxes, penalties, litigation, entitlement, and government general. Each liberal program is designed to provide for those with less by taking from those with more. This is done in the name of compassion.
It has nothing to do with looking forward, because the programs and initiatives have a higher cost than profit. There is nothing sustainable within liberalism. There has never been a single program created by liberals that has been sustainable, and few have been marginally successful.
It brings about the worst aspects of human nature. Once the dependents learn that they can increase their entitlement through vote, they do. They progressively vote themselves into deeper servitude in the name of "fairness":
I want more money because, these people have more. I want better healthcare, because these people have it. I don't want to be responsible for my debt. I want higher taxes, but not for me, for them. I want to be as successful as everyone else, but I don't want to work as hard, think as hard, or take any risks. I want to save the environment, but not by making personal sacrifices. I want everything, and given my choice between WORK, INNOVATION, & FORCE I choose FORCE.The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. – Norman Thomas
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2010, 08:19:14 AM
It brings about the worst aspects of human nature. Once the dependents learn that they can increase their entitlement through vote, they do. They progressively vote themselves into deeper servitude in the name of "fairness":
So what's your definition of "entitlements"?
Is it roads? Water systems? Sanitary systems? Fire departments? Dams? Public schools and universities? Financial aid for college students?
By any definition, these are socialist programs. Many would deny this, but there's little doubt they are. Are you willing to get rid of these?
Or are entitlements, to you, simply things that you don't like?
I strongly suspect that libertarians would loathe to truly have a libertarian style of government if it were foisted upon them. If you want a system where might rules and freedom is unfettered, I think Somalia would fit the bill. And nobody wants their country to be like Somalia.
There are checks and balances to freedom. Without social justice and order, freedom comes nothing more than anarchy.
Wow, Gassy. You're a loon.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 15, 2010, 10:42:17 AM
So what's your definition of "entitlements"?
Is it roads? Water systems? Sanitary systems? Fire departments? Dams? Public schools and universities? Financial aid for college students?
By any definition, these are socialist programs. Many would deny this, but there's little doubt they are. Are you willing to get rid of these?
Or are entitlements, to you, simply things that you don't like?
I strongly suspect that libertarians would loathe to truly have a libertarian style of government if it were foisted upon them. If you want a system where might rules and freedom is unfettered, I think Somalia would fit the bill. And nobody wants their country to be like Somalia.
There are checks and balances to freedom. Without social justice and order, freedom comes nothing more than anarchy.
Infrastructure and entitlements are very different, but I get a kick out of your inferences.
You bring up a good point for discussion . . . the ROLE of government. Where does investment and infrastructure end and entitlement begin?
Infrastructure provides for commerce, safeguards the people, and encourages growth and prosperity. Investment creates a return.
Entitlement is the opposite. It shifts responsibility from the individual to the state, stagnates growth, and encourages deeper dependence. Entitlement creates debt.
Quote from: we vs us on March 15, 2010, 11:59:28 AM
Wow, Gassy. You're a loon.
That's like Al Gore calling me a nut job.
I can't help but say thank you.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 15, 2010, 08:10:18 AM
No, I cut and pasted to show your quote. I haven't spent enough time here to figure out how to highlight the quote. Usually heavily multi-tasking when online and just haven't bothered yet. Guess it would help with clarification, huh?
Extra Line 1
Extra Line 2
Extra Line 3
Extra Line 4
When I quoted you (by using the quote button) and then scrolled to the bottom of your text, the "/quote" command was still off the bottom of the reply area. You probably held the enter/return key down long enough to get a lot of extra blank lines. My response showed up in the highlighted quote area and appeared to be part of your response. I probably fixed it before you saw it. I generally state what I edited when I modify a post.
:)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2010, 12:20:16 PM
Infrastructure and entitlements are very different, but I get a kick out of your inferences.
You bring up a good point for discussion . . . the ROLE of government. Where does investment and infrastructure end and entitlement begin?
Infrastructure provides for commerce, safeguards the people, and encourages growth and prosperity. Investment creates a return.
Entitlement is the opposite. It shifts responsibility from the individual to the state, stagnates growth, and encourages deeper dependence. Entitlement creates debt.
So what are specific examples of entitlement, then?
Based on the examples I gave above, you seem to have no problems with any of them.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 15, 2010, 01:13:10 PM
So what are specific examples of entitlement, then?
Based on the examples I gave above, you seem to have no problems with any of them.
I realize the question was not asked of me but I think you are pulling our leg now.
I don't know of anyone who has a problem with government providing infrastructure, public safety, and national security. Please don't tell me you don't know the difference between infrastructure and an entitlement.
Some entitlement programs by definition would be:
Welfare
Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
Food stamps
Unemployment benefits
Social Security
An entitlement would be a benefit specifically targeted for an individual not for common use or benefit by all. Did you really need someone to spell that out for you?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2010, 01:25:07 PM
I realize the question was not asked of me but I think you are pulling our leg now.
I want to hear what he says. One person's infrastructure might be another's entitlement.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 15, 2010, 01:27:49 PM
I want to hear what he says. One person's infrastructure might be another's entitlement.
Conan is spot on. . .
Welfare
Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
Food stamps
Unemployment benefits
Social Security
I would probably want to add a myriad of thousands of other programs both on the federal and state level, but those are the biggies. The drill down is really amazing when you dig in.
AFDC
Food Stamps
Supplemental Security Income
Lower income housing asst.
Earned Income Tax Credit
Veterans medical care
Stafford loans
Social Services (Title 20)
Low-rent public housing
School Lunch
Pensions for needy veterans
Head Start
Food supplements, Women, infants and children
Training for disadvantaged youth and adults
Low-income energy assistance
Rural housing loans
Indian Health Services
Summer youth employment
Maternal and child health
JOBS and WIN
Job Corps
Child care block grant
School Breakfast
Child care for AFDC
Housing interest reduction
Child and adult care food program
"At risk" child care
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2010, 01:37:47 PM
Conan is spot on. . .
Welfare
Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
Food stamps
Unemployment benefits
Social Security
I would probably want to add a myriad of thousands of other programs both on the federal and state level, but those are the biggies. The drill down is really amazing when you dig in.
AFDC
Food Stamps
Supplemental Security Income
Lower income housing asst.
Earned Income Tax Credit
Veterans medical care
Stafford loans
Social Services (Title 20)
Low-rent public housing
School Lunch
Pensions for needy veterans
Head Start
Food supplements, Women, infants and children
Training for disadvantaged youth and adults
Low-income energy assistance
Rural housing loans
Indian Health Services
Summer youth employment
Maternal and child health
JOBS and WIN
Job Corps
Child care block grant
School Breakfast
Child care for AFDC
Housing interest reduction
Child and adult care food program
"At risk" child care
So what would you do with these programs?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 15, 2010, 01:40:40 PM
So what would you do with these programs?
Ahhh the loaded question I was waiting for. It would be cruel and heartless to suspend programs designed to help the dependent. I'm sure you would agree. . .right?
It's always been nearly impossible to suspend any government program once it has been established, unless you can provide and promote a superior alternative, but instead of seeking alternatives, we simply expand these programs to incorporate an ever increasing base of dependents. Every year we add to the list and increase the cost by billions. We turn more and more free people into wards of the state, and in turn loyal votes for the very programs that keep them imprisoned and well fed. That is cruel and heartless.
To answer your question directly, so that you can get to your next anticipated statement, I don't know what we would do. We've created a tragic situation.
I would certainly stop it's expansion. The backbone of most of these projects was the purchase of a block of votes. The wounded, handicapped, infirm, and insane will have to be cared for, that is our responsibility as a society. But the enslaved will need to be emancipated and that will be painful, there's no getting around it. It will take a long time, perhaps generations. I doubt we are patient enough.
So what WILL happen? The system will bankrupt, and the Band-Aid will be pulled. Then everyone can point fingers, and no one accept responsibility.
It's Regan's fault. It's Bushes fault. It's Obama's fault. Greenspan. Pelosi. Bernanke. Kennedy.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2010, 02:15:57 PM
Ahhh the loaded question I was waiting for. It would be cruel and heartless to suspend programs designed to help the dependent. I'm sure you would agree. . .right?
It's always been nearly impossible to suspend any government program once it has been established, unless you can provide and promote a superior alternative, but instead of seeking alternatives, we simply expand these programs to incorporate an ever increasing base of dependents. Every year we add to the list and increase the cost by billions. We turn more and more free people into wards of the state, and in turn loyal votes for the very programs that keep them imprisoned and well fed. That is cruel and heartless.
To answer your question directly, so that you can get to your next anticipated statement, I don't know what we would do. We've created a tragic situation. I would certainly stop it's expansion. The backbone of most of these projects was the purchase of a block of votes. The wounded, handicapped, infirm, and insane will have to be cared for, that is our responsibility as a society. But the enslaved will need to be emancipated and that will be painful, there's no getting around it. It will take a long time, perhaps generations. I doubt we are patient enough.
Guess what? I agree with you and your "freeze" solution. The entitlements that you described are indeed unsustainable, and a freeze of some sort would be humane and doable.
You have, however, a small bloc that want to eliminate these programs entirely and abruptly, which I am sure the American people won't tolerate. I was checking to see whether you had a sensible stance, or whether you were going to tilt at windmills.
And I disagree partially with your admittedly general statement that these programs do not foster growth. I'd say Head Start and maternal child health have long-term benefits for people in this country. And I'm certainly not against safety-net programs until down-on-their-luck folks can get back on their feet.
But I do agree that there needs to be a gradual scale-back.
See? That wasn't so hard, was it?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 15, 2010, 02:27:59 PM
And I disagree partially with your admittedly general statement that these programs do not foster growth. I'd say Head Start and maternal child health have long-term benefits for people in this country. And I'm certainly not against safety-net programs until down-on-their-luck folks can get back on their feet.
I don't disagree, some programs produce positive results as long and you don't weigh them against the cost. Head Start estimates are between $7,000 and $21,000 per child per year depending on what state and what study you look at. While the result may be justified, the expense is completely out of this world when compared to private alternatives. These are simply things that government does not do well.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 15, 2010, 02:27:59 PM
Guess what? I agree with you and your "freeze" solution. The entitlements that you described are indeed unsustainable, and a freeze of some sort would be humane and doable.
You have, however, a small bloc that want to eliminate these programs entirely and abruptly, which I am sure the American people won't tolerate. I was checking to see whether you had a sensible stance, or whether you were going to tilt at windmills.
And I disagree partially with your admittedly general statement that these programs do not foster growth. I'd say Head Start and maternal child health have long-term benefits for people in this country. And I'm certainly not against safety-net programs until down-on-their-luck folks can get back on their feet.
But I do agree that there needs to be a gradual scale-back.
See? That wasn't so hard, was it?
There's no one in Congress who would ever start an initiative to abruptly end any entitlement programs. It would be political suicide, aside from throwing the country into immediate turmoil. Gaspar touched on one of the bigger fears many of us share who are against government healthcare reform: once a federal program is started it's near impossible to stop it. Government handouts become like crack in many ways- highly addictive and it takes away from productivity.
There are worthwhile programs: Student loans and grants, welfare to work programs, head-start, Job Corps, school lunch programs, social security retirement benefits, veteran benefits, and medicare. There's others, those are just ones which come to mind directly.
There are people who seek to and who do abuse the aforementioned programs. It's impossible to root out all the fraud and free-loaders, therein lies a lot of skepiticism I have about health care reform as well. Frauds and hucksters will always be attracted to entitlement programs. If the government tries to limit payment amounts per procedure, providers simply find ways to increase the number of billable procedures done on a patient to make up the difference. It happens now under Medicare.
Republicans claim to want small government, but they don't seem to have a clue what that looks like in reality, they are just as guilty as Democrats in the expansion of government. Look at increases in domestic spending from 2001 to 2008 under President Bush- sheesh. We are going to have to find ways to start scaling back the availability of social services and social programs to keep all the programs from coming crashing down when we finally can no longer afford the burden to keep them going.
I'd heard on my way into work this morning Moodys is mulling our debt rating. If our rating starts to slip, our interest costs will sky-rocket.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/15/news/economy/moodys.sovereign.fortune/
Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2010, 02:52:08 PM
I'd heard on my way into work this morning Moodys is mulling our debt rating. If our rating starts to slip, our interest costs will sky-rocket.
Whether Moody's is trustworthy is a whole 'nother matter. Moody's was dishing out "A" ratings right up until the brokerage houses and banks teetered on the brink of bankruptcy in 2008 when the housing boom went bust.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2010, 02:52:08 PM
There's no one in Congress who would ever start an initiative to abruptly end any entitlement programs. It would be political suicide, aside from throwing the country into immediate turmoil. Gaspar touched on one of the bigger fears many of us share who are against government healthcare reform: once a federal program is started it's near impossible to stop it. Government handouts become like crack in many ways- highly addictive and it takes away from productivity.
I understand the fear, but the skyrocketing cost of health care is
already hurting U.S. productivity. It, too, is unsustainable on its current track.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2010, 02:52:08 PM
Republicans claim to want small government, but they don't seem to have a clue what that looks like in reality, they are just as guilty as Democrats in the expansion of government. Look at increases in domestic spending from 2001 to 2008 under President Bush- sheesh. We are going to have to find ways to start scaling back the availability of social services and social programs to keep all the programs from coming crashing down when we finally can no longer afford the burden to keep them going.
There's another way, too. Start chopping into defense spending. Talk about something that got bloated in a hurry ...
Regardless, some sort of tax increase is inevitable. The American public expects some levels of services from its government, and won't tolerate much of a cut. The Tea Partier a few months ago who held a sign that said: "Keep your government out of my Medicare" is indicative of that.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 15, 2010, 03:53:30 PM
I understand the fear, but the skyrocketing cost of health care is already hurting U.S. productivity. It, too, is unsustainable on its current track.
Much like you cannot abruptly halt social entitlement programs, you can't arbitrarily and abruptly cap costs on an industry without serious consequences. Health care providers are opting out of Medicare as it is because they say Medicare reimbursement is a break-even or losing proposition.
I've also not read anything much beyond "we will get control of health care costs" other than generalities, have you? I cannot seem to find specifics anywhere as to what this magic mechanism the government has other than vague generalities. I honestly don't think anyone mulling a vote on the House "reform" bill has any idea the exact mechanism they are voting for by which health care costs will drop.
Pardon my cynicism but this has far more to do with legacy-building than it does finding any real solutions that the American voter truly wants.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2010, 03:59:48 PM
Pardon my cynicism but this has far more to do with legacy-building than it does finding any real solutions that the American voter truly wants.
You're not excused from your cynicism. ;)
I think the portion of the bill that's going to have the biggest impact is the pre-existing conditions part. That part of the insurance industry has been so unfair and so sh*tty for so long, something was going to give eventually.
And giving 27 million more people health coverage is no small thing, either.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2010, 02:52:08 PM
It's impossible to root out all the fraud and free-loaders, therein lies a lot of skepiticism I have about health care reform as well. Frauds and hucksters will always be attracted to entitlement programs.
You say that like frauds and hucksters don't take advantage of every pot of money, whether public or private.
(http://images.politico.com/global/news/091029_health_bill_ap_223.jpg)
CBO has revised estimates. . . Obamacare is now to exceed 1 Trillion and climbing.
The additional costs are coming from additional discretionary spending needed to build the huge burocracy.
"The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html#ixzz0nj5gprq5
I'm willing to bet that in another 6 months this figure will be around $250 Billion. Anyone wanna bet? ;)
What would have been the cost to simply put the uninsured on Medicare or Medicaid? Certainly we would not have needed a new massive bureaucracy to administrate 27 million new enrollees. I can understand there would be a need for more manpower to handle the enrollment and claims processing, but what's the point in creating more costly ways of doing this?
You saw that this is, once again, someone's best guess.
Someone guessed and then it was spun in the way people wished it to be.
There will be more guesses and then it will be spun again.
No matter what is released, all that can be posted is guesses.
Once there is another administration and a different congress there will be more "quick, grab that guess and work it so it makes our side look better and their side look worse. The masses won't understand it either."
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 09:59:42 AM
What would have been the cost to simply put the uninsured on Medicare or Medicaid?
Around $340 billion at the current cost per enrollee in Medicare (between $7k and $16K per enrollee).
The new system will spend over $20K per enrollee.
What a hoot! . . . and it will cost that YEARS before the benefits are administered.
Heck, the machine will be more expensive than the product by the time the product is available. LOL! :D
Quote from: Gaspar on May 12, 2010, 10:46:02 AM
Around $340 billion at the current cost per enrollee in Medicare (between $7k and $16K per enrollee).
The new system will spend over $20K per enrollee.
What a hoot! . . . and it will cost that YEARS before the benefits are administered.
Heck, the machine will be more expensive than the product by the time the product is available. LOL! :D
But, Gaspar, I thought I was just a government hater when I was pointing out that government never does anything as efficiently as private enterprise and they sure has heck wouldn't with HC reform.
Sheesh even at $500 a month per individual (and coverage can be bought cheaper) for BCBS, the gov't would be better off to simply write a check directly to an uninsured individual to let them purchase their own private health plan or simply establish an HSA if they wanted an efficient solution. They could also ensure that more people have coverage which was a cornerstone goal of the program. Or they could write checks to small employers to underwrite the cost of insurance as a way to stimulate real job and productivity growth.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 11:23:08 AM
But, Gaspar, I thought I was just a government hater when I was pointing out that government never does anything as efficiently as private enterprise and they sure has heck wouldn't with HC reform.
Sheesh even at $500 a month per individual (and coverage can be bought cheaper) for BCBS, the gov't would be better off to simply write a check directly to an uninsured individual to let them purchase their own private health plan or simply establish an HSA if they wanted an efficient solution. They could also ensure that more people have coverage which was a cornerstone goal of the program. Or they could write checks to small employers to underwrite the cost of insurance as a way to stimulate real job and productivity growth.
You're so funny. You used "government" and "efficient" in the same sentence. :D
Sure an HSA program shielded from taxation would solve the problem, but that doesn't build government or provide a new unlimited source of plunder.
Removal of restrictions that limit insurance competition combined with HSA establishment would only solve the "real" problem, but there are many problems that Obamacare addresses. The primary problem is the establishment, nourishment and growth of government that cannot be revoked. This provides the future funding source, campaign platform, and life blood for members of the current power base.
Social security has simply run out of juice, and the people are weary of leverage against it. The secondary problem is control. Social Security used to provide control over the votes of seniors AND Republicans. SS is now weak and has become more Social than Secure, something new needs to take it's place as a campaign weapon.
Obamacare offers the moochers an opportunity to throw up their hands and surrender a basic personal responsibility to government. It gives the looters a shiny new yolk to fix around the necks of the producers. It's future aspirations are to marinate the public in fear that this politician or that party will take away a persons access to "health". The tactic is well practiced.
The problem is that this type of program is unsustainable, and we know that. President Obama knows that. Speaker Pelosi knows that. The program will however provide a huge power base for at least a decade before it collapses on itself and something new and far more tyrannical is derived.
A tyranny based on ... deception and maintained by terror must inevitably perish from the poison it generates within itself. – Albert Einstein
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. – Albert Camus
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 11:23:08 AM
Or they could write checks to small employers to underwrite the cost of insurance as a way to stimulate real job and productivity growth.
Last I checked, that is one component of the bill. There are tax credits for small businesses that provide insurance but aren't legally required to under the bill.
As far as medicare cost per enrollee, of course it's larger than most private health plans (despite overhead being lower). It consists entirely of the segment of society that most uses health benefits!
100 billion per year over the next 10 years for health care.
Almost sounds like a lot of money. That doesn't bother me near as much as a trillion a year for an overpaid professional paid mercenary army. Especially when we could pay a third the money for a bunch of draftees who could then fulfill their civic duty of service to their country. Instant $300 billion per year savings (or so).
Let everyone gain the confidence, poise and experience of doing something good for themselves and their fellow Americans. Actually live the philosophy of "ask not what your country can do for you...".
New enlistee comes in about $1400 per month. Reaching about E3 after basic and one advanced training, you are looking at about $1700 per month. Count the free housing, food, medical, dental, transportation, training,..well you get the idea... that leaves about $1375 per month disposable cash income, going up to about $1675. Anyone out there have that much extra cash every month??
500 per month is more than enough. Certainly more than I get. And probably most of us here. Well, except for the rich right wing.
Up to probably E4 or E5 it should be draftees only.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 12, 2010, 09:36:57 PM
New enlistee comes in about $1400 per month. Reaching about E3 after basic and one advanced training, you are looking at about $1700 per month. Count the free housing, food, medical, dental, transportation, training,..well you get the idea... that leaves about $1375 per month disposable cash income, going up to about $1675. Anyone out there have that much extra cash every month??
500 per month is more than enough. Certainly more than I get. And probably most of us here. Well, except for the rich right wing.
Up to probably E4 or E5 it should be draftees only.
I was in the US Navy during the transition from draft/volunteer to volunteer in the early 70s'. I was drafted in July 72. I joined the Navy rather than go in the Army. Personal choice, I do not want to belittle anyone's choice of service branch.
Let us not forget that free housing is frequently living in the barracks. After initial training, for shore duty that was mostly a 4 man room with the shower and toilets down the hall somewhere. As an E-5, (my last two years of 4 active duty) I was eligible for a 2 man room if one was available. If some E-6s wanted it, I would get bumped back to a 4 man room. The allowance for quarters if one chose to live off base would only cover a dump in the NAS Oceana (Va Beach, VA) area if you got a roomie.
Food in the chow hall was generally not bad. Thanksgiving they would have real turkey. Breakfast included real eggs. Trying to satisfy tastes from around the country was never quite possible as everyone wanted things cooked just a bit differently. This was all shore duty. Sea duty food depended somewhat on the size of your boat/ship. The allowance for food if you lived off base was enough to eat in the chow hall on a charge per meal basis.
I was fortunate enough to not need much of the "free" medical and dental benefits. I put free in quotes because I was making a LOT less than I would have as a degreed mechanical engineer in the civilian world. (I applied for OCS but they were full.)
Things that were free when my hitch started converted to fees similar to the civilian world by the time I was done. The "Hobby Shop Garage" started by only charging for consumables like the grease gun. By the end of my hitch, they were charging for time on the lift etc.
When I was in the Navy, I paid Social Security and US and Oklahoma (address of record) income taxes. Want to start saving for your future? Take about 10% to 15% of your gross off the top. I don't know if the service has something like a 401K available.
Training? Do you think that private businesses do not provide training? When I got out of the Navy, I went to TU and got a Master's Degree on the GI bill. A friend from my pre-Navy college days got a MBA paid for by his employer.
$500 per month is enough? For what? Living like a hermit? Sure if you are on ship or in a war zone there may not be much to spend your $ on. Not all duty is always that way. Some first hitch people are married and have to support a family. Transportation from the barracks to your work place may be provided (shoes). If you do anything for entertainment, you will at least need to pay for public transportation, if it's available. Most of the bases I've been to are not right next to anything. Our service people deserve better, even if they are draftees.
Do you believe that a select portion of the citizens (universal service would probably be more expensive than what we now have just due to quantity of people) should give up nearly everything for several years while their buddies are out starting their careers? That's hardly a way to convince anyone to stay to become an E-6 or above. All draftees below E-5? Can you imagine the effectiveness of the service if everyone was a beginner. As it is now, we have some talented, dedicated personnel serving our country well past the time of a drafted enlistment. Make the service unattractive enough and all you will have is draftees and personnel that can't make it on the outside. Not the service I want protecting me.
The above mostly covers enlisted ranks. What about Officers? Draftees below what level? O-5? Pay them dirt too? Expect any continuity?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 12, 2010, 09:36:57 PM
Well, except for the rich right wing.
Rich right wing, Kennedys, Algore, Obama, Clintons, Warren Buffet..... There's a lot of money left of center. Enough that they don't mind being taxed at a stupidly high rate. If they can't find an accountant to get around the taxes, they still have well more than $500/month for toys and other fluff.
The number of financially comfortable (have more than $500/month above
basic necessities) people I know or have known is composed of a significant percentage of people left of center.