Obamacare

[Rizzophil]

A couple more points:

There will be 12 new taxes on working Americans who make less than $120k with ObamaCare.

Libs: name one thing that the government takes over and make it better, more efficient, and better for the economy? Amtrak, USPS, Fannie/Freddie, etc...

 

[BobD]

A couple more points:

There will be 12 new taxes on working Americans who make less than $120k with ObamaCare.

Libs: name one thing that the government takes over and make it better, more efficient, and better for the economy? Amtrak, USPS, Fannie/Freddie, etc...

I'm not a "lib" but the USPS was ok until the internet, Amtrak doesn't have a chance against the passenger jet and everyone loved Fannie & Freddie when they were using their home as an ATM.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

The ACA was Romney's idea. Blame him if you don't like it.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

I'm not a "lib" but the USPS was ok until the internet, Amtrak doesn't have a chance against the passenger jet and everyone loved Fannie & Freddie when they were using their home as an ATM.

BAMMMMM....

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizzophil
A couple more points:

There will be 12 new taxes on working Americans who make less than $120k with ObamaCare.

Libs: name one thing that the government takes over and make it better, more efficient, and better for the economy? Amtrak, USPS, Fannie/Freddie, etc...

I'm not a "lib" but the USPS was ok until the internet, Amtrak doesn't have a chance against the passenger jet and everyone loved Fannie & Freddie when they were using their home as an ATM.

I am pretty tired of the name game. The only ones who label themselves are "conservatives." Progressive people of whatever preference cannot enter into that conversation easily, because it is outside the way their minds work (more limited/black and white). It is like asking what color Gilligan's shirt was on a black and white TV, before the show was shot in color. So the people that call other people liberals or libs, possibly playing on the double entendre, are truly conservative or reactionary; and their "liberal” imaginary adversary is as much a figment of their imagination as the tooth fairy.

But since you brought up taxing, I am 55 years old, and in my lifetime the two highest spending administrations have occurred. With dollars adjusted they beat the FDR administration hands down. The FDR administration only had the Great Depression and the Second World War to deal with. Do you know who these administrations were? Come on. It shouldn't be hard. Number two on the list of the highest spending administrations was the Reagan Administration, and number one was the Second Bush Administration. And look at their track records! Now look at the two administrations in between. The first Bush was on track but they had issues to take care of and never got much off the ground.

The Clinton administration, who some still lambaste did something no other administration from the second half of the twentieth century did. What was that? Leave the Whitehouse with the national debt lower than when they came in. So, if having low taxes means piling up this kind of debt, with such a miserable Return on Investment, count me out. And if I have to pay a little more, for the nation’s health, so be it. These jackal companies in charge of insurance feed off us anyway.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Thank you Bogtrotter. President, I mean Vice-President Cheney said that Reagan's Admin. proved that deficits don't matter. Where's the outrage from the right? Reagan got the deficit ball rolling, it continued under Bush I, less under Clinton, and Dubya killed it. Now they want to blame Obama for the entire $15 trillion. Crazy since the Republican party ran up most of it.

 

[Black Irish]

I am pretty tired of the name game. The only ones who label themselves are "conservatives." Progressive people of whatever preference cannot enter into that conversation easily, because it is outside the way their minds work (more limited/black and white). It is like asking what color Gilligan's shirt was on a black and white TV, before the show was shot in color. So the people that call other people liberals or libs, possibly playing on the double entendre, are truly conservative or reactionary; and their "liberal” imaginary adversary is as much a figment of their imagination as the tooth fairy.

But since you brought up taxing, I am 55 years old, and in my lifetime the two highest spending administrations have occurred. With dollars adjusted they beat the FDR administration hands down. The FDR administration only had the Great Depression and the Second World War to deal with. Do you know who these administrations were? Come on. It shouldn't be hard. Number two on the list of the highest spending administrations was the Reagan Administration, and number one was the Second Bush Administration. And look at their track records! Now look at the two administrations in between. The first Bush was on track but they had issues to take care of and never got much off the ground.

The Clinton administration, who some still lambaste did something no other administration from the second half of the twentieth century did. What was that? Leave the Whitehouse with the national debt lower than when they came in. So, if having low taxes means piling up this kind of debt, with such a miserable Return on Investment, count me out. And if I have to pay a little more, for the nation’s health, so be it. These jackal companies in charge of insurance feed off us anyway.

Clinton did not lower the national debt. Look on the U.S. Treasury website and you'll see that the National Debt has steadily increased every year. Clinton did lower the national deficit/balance the budget. This mostly occurred due to the increase in Social Security taxes that flowed into the federal coffers due to tax hikes and a Republican Congress making spending cuts. The government took that revenue increase and applied it to the then current federal budget and Dems have been crowing about Clinton's phony balanced budget ever since. Except they forget to mention that they did their balancing with Social Security money.

You can't spend the same dollar twice. So if it is SS money, then it's a loan that needs to be paid back and the budget was only balanced with borrowed money, which isn't impressive because it just kicked the can down the road. If the money is considered general tax revenue that goes towards budget reduction and does not need to be re-paid to the Social Security Trust Fund, then what the Clinton Administration was party to would land a private company's accounting department in federal prison.

 

[Bluto]

I am pretty tired of the name game. The only ones who label themselves are "conservatives." Progressive people of whatever preference cannot enter into that conversation easily, because it is outside the way their minds work (more limited/black and white). It is like asking what color Gilligan's shirt was on a black and white TV, before the show was shot in color. So the people that call other people liberals or libs, possibly playing on the double entendre, are truly conservative or reactionary; and their "liberal” imaginary adversary is as much a figment of their imagination as the tooth fairy.

But since you brought up taxing, I am 55 years old, and in my lifetime the two highest spending administrations have occurred. With dollars adjusted they beat the FDR administration hands down. The FDR administration only had the Great Depression and the Second World War to deal with. Do you know who these administrations were? Come on. It shouldn't be hard. Number two on the list of the highest spending administrations was the Reagan Administration, and number one was the Second Bush Administration. And look at their track records! Now look at the two administrations in between. The first Bush was on track but they had issues to take care of and never got much off the ground.

The Clinton administration, who some still lambaste did something no other administration from the second half of the twentieth century did. What was that? Leave the Whitehouse with the national debt lower than when they came in. So, if having low taxes means piling up this kind of debt, with such a miserable Return on Investment, count me out. And if I have to pay a little more, for the nation’s health, so be it. These jackal companies in charge of insurance feed off us anyway.

Good one dude. Seriously if you look at the Obama administrations policies and compare it to past GOP platforms his administration comes off as a moderate to conservative republican one. Ike and Nixon would be dyed in the wool pinkos by today's insane GOP rhetoric.

 

[ACamp1900]

This would be laughable if it weren't so real.... You have conservatives calling Libs names and Libs calling names back... Both sides making simply embarrassing claims about the other.... I suggest everyone go back and read their own posts and breathe. Myself included. Next to no substance from anyone anywhere it's all just 'support the party' and attack the others. The fact is that no one knows what 80 percent of this bill will do in the long run, we all just know a few basic tennants..... if you dislike it it's because you are rightish and if you like it you have no reason other than you are leftish... Case closed...

Beyond that it's the same slamming our heads against the wall....

...

...
...

Beat SC

 

[mgriff]

This would be laughable if it weren't so real.... You have conservatives calling Libs names and Libs calling names back... Both sides making simply embarrassing claims about the other.... I suggest everyone go back and read their own posts and breathe. Myself included. Next to no substance from anyone anywhere it's all just 'support the party' and attack the others. The fact is that no one knows what 80 percent of this bill will do in the long run, we all just know a few basic tennants..... if you dislike it it's because you are rightish and if you like it you have no reason other than you are leftish... Case closed...

Beyond that it's the same slamming our heads against the wall....

...

...
...

Beat SC

This.

I have, ME!! OF ALL PEOPLE!! have resisted the urge to post in this thread because I've realized over the last few months, when I've finally posted in these threads, that we all believe in different things and you can't conclusively prove a point against someone who has different values and beliefs.

I'll tell you what though, this partisan **** is a pox upon both our houses. If the ultimate goal is to divide and conquer, well, it's working. Good people, on both sides of the aisle, are in here arguing about who is better. I would say both of these parties are bullshitters and have done plenty to add to the sorry state our country is in. The sooner we can all pull together and work this out, without the influence of these two bullshit parties, the better.

 

[Rizzophil]

This would be laughable if it weren't so real.... You have conservatives calling Libs names and Libs calling names back... Both sides making simply embarrassing claims about the other.... I suggest everyone go back and read their own posts and breathe. Myself included. Next to no substance from anyone anywhere it's all just 'support the party' and attack the others. The fact is that no one knows what 80 percent of this bill will do in the long run, we all just know a few basic tennants..... if you dislike it it's because you are rightish and if you like it you have no reason other than you are leftish... Case closed...

Beyond that it's the same slamming our heads against the wall....

...

...
...

Beat SC

With all due respect, this bill will fundamentally change the course of our healthcare and economy. "Pooh-poohing" it because the Dems had to pass it before reading it is a little backwards if you ask me.

Also, with all due respect, calling someone a financial conservative is not "attacking them." Just like calling liberal a "lib" isn't taking a swing at them. I think we are getting a little to tied up here. Just take a look at the big picture.

 

[cody1smith]

I am pretty tired of the name game. The only ones who label themselves are "conservatives." Progressive people of whatever preference cannot enter into that conversation easily, because it is outside the way their minds work (more limited/black and white). It is like asking what color Gilligan's shirt was on a black and white TV, before the show was shot in color. So the people that call other people liberals or libs, possibly playing on the double entendre, are truly conservative or reactionary; and their "liberal” imaginary adversary is as much a figment of their imagination as the tooth fairy.

But since you brought up taxing, I am 55 years old, and in my lifetime the two highest spending administrations have occurred. With dollars adjusted they beat the FDR administration hands down. The FDR administration only had the Great Depression and the Second World War to deal with. Do you know who these administrations were? Come on. It shouldn't be hard. Number two on the list of the highest spending administrations was the Reagan Administration, and number one was the Second Bush Administration. And look at their track records! Now look at the two administrations in between. The first Bush was on track but they had issues to take care of and never got much off the ground.

The Clinton administration, who some still lambaste did something no other administration from the second half of the twentieth century did. What was that? Leave the Whitehouse with the national debt lower than when they came in. So, if having low taxes means piling up this kind of debt, with such a miserable Return on Investment, count me out. And if I have to pay a little more, for the nation’s health, so be it. These jackal companies in charge of insurance feed off us anyway.

Perfect!

 

[irish1958]

Who are the uninsured? Mostly children.
Who are the impoverished? Mostly children.
Who suffers the most from lack medical and dental care? Mostly children.
Who are the malnourished? Mostly children.
Who have the poorest educational opportunities? Mostly black children.
I am so sick and tired of the FUIGM (F**k U I Got Mine) crowd. I was a life long republican until a little over three years ago when I finally saw the light when the minority leader of the senate stated that the primary goal of the party was to defeat President Obama not help the above children and other citizens.
They then did their best to limit medicaid (most of whom are children and the disabled), close Planned Parenthood, disable Head Start, severely limit the food stamp program, and so forth.
My father warned me in 1948 and many times later the the republicans don't give a damn for you and your kind. I, of course was much smarter than he was. It amazes me how much more intelligent he has become even though he has been dead for over fifty years.
For all of those who think I am blowing smoke from my posterior orifice, I have worked with these people all my professional life. I am a pediatrician. I have worked in Haiti in the boondocks and in the back hills of Kentucky. I had an affluent practice but I tried to maintain 10% medicaid and10% pro bono for over 35 years, costing me and my family hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. It really p***** me off when millionaires scream that they can't possibility pay the same tax rate as their hired help.
To help mostly children.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Clinton did not lower the national debt. Look on the U.S. Treasury website and you'll see that the National Debt has steadily increased every year. Clinton did lower the national deficit/balance the budget. This mostly occurred due to the increase in Social Security taxes that flowed into the federal coffers due to tax hikes and a Republican Congress making spending cuts. The government took that revenue increase and applied it to the then current federal budget and Dems have been crowing about Clinton's phony balanced budget ever since. Except they forget to mention that they did their balancing with Social Security money.

You can't spend the same dollar twice. So if it is SS money, then it's a loan that needs to be paid back and the budget was only balanced with borrowed money, which isn't impressive because it just kicked the can down the road. If the money is considered general tax revenue that goes towards budget reduction and does not need to be re-paid to the Social Security Trust Fund, then what the Clinton Administration was party to would land a private company's accounting department in federal prison.

From January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2000 the Federal Debt changed from $5.776 Trillion to $ 5.662 Trillion, as of course the deficit was erased by bipartisan legislation. So much for partisan bull shiit. (I don’t care what side is bull shiiting, it still screws my children.)

Further from the US Treasury department a little overview to show spending for each administration from the “US National Debt by Presidential Term: Per Capita and as Percentage of Gross Domestic Product:”

Carter (4) 42%/36.6%; Reagan (8) 189%/168%; Bush 1 (4) 56.6%/49.2%; Clinton (8) 36%/22.5; Bush 2 (8) 89%/75.2%; Obama (3) 41%/37.5%.* This is with the Carter Administration dealing with the highest long-term inflation rates in history, due to the price freezes of the Nixon Admin, and post Viet Nam economic adjustment, as the Obama Administration had to deal with the incredible financial debacle left it by the Bush 2 Administration. In fairness, as I stated earlier Bush 1 was a victim of Reganomics, and crashed and burned before takeoff.

Percent change*

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...
US National Debt by Presidential Term: Per Capita and as Percentage of Gross Domestic Product: Carter (4) 42%; Reagan (8) 189%; Bush 1 (4) 56.6%; Clinton (8) 36%; Bush 2 (8) 89%; Obama (3) 41%...

These statistics are false.


National Debt by Presidential Term - per Capita and as Percentage of GDP

USGovernmentSpending.com Past Debt Briefing

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Dude, the graph you put up just verified my numbers, it is one of the two sources I used!

Sorry, the first time I included the interest they incurred included, which, when I go in and take out a loan for money I don't have, I have to pay that extra interest too, and when it reduces my credit score, and increases my interest rate, I am responsible for that, too! Of all the bull shiit, irresponsible arguments . . .

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Dude, federal debt was never 189% as a percentage of GDP under Reagan. Not even DailyKos could fabricate such a "chart".

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Dude, federal debt was never 189% as a percentage of GDP under Reagan. Not even DailyKos could fabricate such a "chart".

Read the statistics YOU quoted. You don't quite have it right; it is a percent change. But the point is the Reagan Administration started the train wreck with out of control spending, (tax cuts and increased spending are really the same thing. Right?) Sorry I was in a hurry.

But did you look at the table you quoted? It spells everything out, even if I don't!

 

[Black Irish]

From January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2000 the Federal Debt changed from $5.776 Trillion to $ 5.662 Trillion, as of course the deficit was erased by bipartisan legislation. So much for partisan bull shiit. (I don’t care what side is bull shiiting, it still screws my children.)

Further from the US Treasury department a little overview to show spending for each administration from the “US National Debt by Presidential Term: Per Capita and as Percentage of Gross Domestic Product:”

Carter (4) 42%/36.6%; Reagan (8) 189%/168%; Bush 1 (4) 56.6%/49.2%; Clinton (8) 36%/22.5; Bush 2 (8) 89%/75.2%; Obama (3) 41%/37.5%.* This is with the Carter Administration dealing with the highest long-term inflation rates in history, due to the price freezes of the Nixon Admin, and post Viet Nam economic adjustment, as the Obama Administration had to deal with the incredible financial debacle left it by the Bush 2 Administration. In fairness, as I stated earlier Bush 1 was a victim of Reganomics, and crashed and burned before takeoff.

Percent change*

All right, the total debt did decrease under Clinton for one year, my mistake.

I'm not saying that other presidents were models of fiscal responsibility, because they are all screwing us. And of course, it is really Congress that controls the purse strings. Clinton benefitted from a tax increase and a GOP Congress that wanted to cut spending. Reagan had the Senate in his corner for 6 out of 8 years but the House was Democratic his whole term, and headed by arguably the most powerful Speaker of the House (Tip O'Neill) in modern political history. No one party's hands are clean because it takes 2 to tango.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

All right, the total debt did decrease under Clinton for one year, my mistake.

I'm not saying that other presidents were models of fiscal responsibility, because they are all screwing us...

Exactly. Neither the left or the right really has the highground on this one, although Obama is probably going to win this debt "competition"...Reagan added about one trillion in debt in 8 years, H.W. added a trillion, Clinton added 3 trillion and W. Bush added 4 trillion.

Obama's current proposals involve adding another 6 trillion more by 2019.

The sad reality is that it is unlikely that any president will ever reduce the deficit in our lifetime. No president has ever spent less than their predecessor.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I just brought that up because of its significance; using deficit reduction to diminish debt. That is power. And if you remember Republicans and Democrats worked together on it, and a Democratic president held to his guns about a tax increase for the wealthiest among us.

I am so tired of the "newer generation of combative name calling Republicans" and "the liars at Fox News" hijacking the national economic conversation.

I just showed you how there is a difference between lowering taxes and mortgaging the future, and constructive financial policy.

I could use names like some of you do. I could call the people in parenthesis above pap smears or lying pussies, but what good would that do?

Here on this site we just had a man who probably has the highest income of any of us talk about how he is actually taking responsibility (like ACamp and Kissme outlined) and putting hundreds of thousands of his own dollars where his mouth is! Anybody who doesn't get it I don't know what it will take!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Exactly. Neither the left or the right really has the highground on this one, although Obama is probably going to win this debt "competition"...Reagan added about one trillion in debt in 8 years, H.W. added a trillion, Clinton added 3 trillion and W. Bush added 4 trillion.

Obama's current proposals involve adding another 6 trillion more by 2019.

The sad reality is that it is unlikely that any president will ever reduce the deficit in our lifetime. No president has ever spent less than their predecessor.

Where are you getting those figures?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Where are you getting those figures?

cbo.gov has everything you could ever need in terms of data.

If you're looking for a good article, the following shows how, if he is re-elected, Obama will have added 9 trillion to the deficit during his tenure.

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

It will also the the first time since WWII our national debt was 100% or more of GDP. By 2020 national debt will be 20 trillion.

 

[magogian]

CBS is reporting that Chief Justice Roberts switched his vote. The reporter Jan Crawford has historically had excellent sources so I believe her.

Nice to know that we have a spineless Chief Justice.

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law - CBS News

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Okay, both of you, enough. IH, love you man, but talking to you is a lot like talking to my ex-wife. They don't even have the Bush number right. The Treasury accepts 4.97 trillion with qualifications. It may have been higher. That is 5T. The first T of Obama's is promises made under the Bush administration. There is also proof that two to three more tee, are a result of keeping you and me in a job, (the reason the great recession wasn't the great depression II). Let's get beyond that. One war has been ended; the other is being managed down. Ben ***** has been eliminated. No auto company failed (which is far more significant than anyone wants to admit.) Many of their parts suppliers have been saved which puts us in line to retool and start up our industry again. Actually, enough.

Anyone who would make the point that Obama could have gotten any budget passed, with a republican house and a 50/49 senate, with massive new unnecessary spending has to be stupid beyond having a conversation with. That is just like looking at the numbers on that chart and seeing that anything beyond 2010 is an extrapolation!

And magog, we've spoken of these things before. Who gives a fukk whether Roberts switched his vote? Do you think they don't change position regularly? Isn't that their job? Why are you arguing for the same pussified idiotic politicization in the Supreme Court as in the Congress? The same congress that has the lowest approval ratings ever ?

I was thinking about the AHA and realizing that when looking at Obama's past, he would work from a centrist position, using ideas from either side of the aisle to get what he needed. The coolest thing about the AMA is it points out how full of bull shiit both sides are because they both have claimed it as their own in the past!

Fox thought they were the smart ones with their original spin about how it was a victory for the right, but that so cut into ratings, and was rejected by the right, that they even backed off. Maybe this is what it feels like when both "sides" lose, and some poor people win!

 

[NYMIKE6]

Oh... the irony of the term "Obamacare"

 

[Bogtrotter07]

See, that's what I am talking about. Say it now and watch every conservative readjust his skivies, and watch every Democrat give the look of a father that found out that an leanbh, weren't his!

 

[magogian]

Okay, both of you, enough. IH, love you man, but talking to you is a lot like talking to my ex-wife. They don't even have the Bush number right. The Treasury accepts 4.97 trillion with qualifications. It may have been higher. That is 5T. The first T of Obama's is promises made under the Bush administration. There is also proof that two to three more tee, are a result of keeping you and me in a job, (the reason the great recession wasn't the great depression II). Let's get beyond that. One war has been ended; the other is being managed down. Ben ***** has been eliminated. No auto company failed (which is far more significant than anyone wants to admit.) Many of their parts suppliers have been saved which puts us in line to retool and start up our industry again. Actually, enough.

Anyone who would make the point that Obama could have gotten any budget passed, with a republican house and a 50/49 senate, with massive new unnecessary spending has to be stupid beyond having a conversation with. That is just like looking at the numbers on that chart and seeing that anything beyond 2010 is an extrapolation!

And magog, we've spoken of these things before. Who gives a fukk whether Roberts switched his vote? Do you think they don't change position regularly? Isn't that their job? Why are you arguing for the same pussified idiotic politicization in the Supreme Court as in the Congress? The same congress that has the lowest approval ratings ever ?

I was thinking about the AHA and realizing that when looking at Obama's past, he would work from a centrist position, using ideas from either side of the aisle to get what he needed. The coolest thing about the AMA is it points out how full of bull shiit both sides are because they both have claimed it as their own in the past!

Fox thought they were the smart ones with their original spin about how it was a victory for the right, but that so cut into ratings, and was rejected by the right, that they even backed off. Maybe this is what it feels like when both "sides" lose, and some poor people win!

Is there a coherent thought in this?

 

[Grahambo]

Is there a coherent thought in this?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Is there a coherent thought in this?

No, its as if I am trying to make sense to morons.