Politics

[IrishJayhawk]

False. It's a problem of the bill's content, not the message. "We didn't sell it well enough" is bologna. The bill was crafted in secrecy, and we had to "pass the bill to see what's in it" after Congress went ahead and made sure that they and their families weren't a part of it. It's complete bullsh*t.

A lot of Americans, myself included, see the need for healthcare reform, e.g. bringing down costs, getting rid of "pre-existing conditions," getting rid of the uninsured young adulthood gap, etc etc etc. But that doesn't mean that this bill isn't a disaster. This whole process should have taken place on a state-level, and I'd have no problems with it.

This is a perfect example of the federal government doing something that is "good," but not doing it well. That's the entire fukking problem with government. If this program is as inefficient as the typical federal program, Americans will be getting screwed.

We had the bill before it passed. That was how people started criticizing things like "death panels."

Polls on each of the individual items in the bill are very positive.

I can hear a states argument. But states weren't doing it either. Kudos to Romney for addressing the problem in Massachusetts. I think it's a good bill. It's too bad he keeps running away from it (though he's moved somewhat back toward it in the past week or so).

And you can't address pre-existing conditions without expanding the rolls. That's why the mandate was part of the bill. Without the mandate, you can't pay for those with pre-existing conditions.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What on God's green earth are you talking about? The only ones who like it a) don't pay for it or b) won't participate in it

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan

All these polls show AT BEST a 43% approval rating of obamacare.

They are split on the bill as a whole and they don't much like the mandate (which is the only way to pay for those with pre-existing conditions). But, they tend to like the provisions in the bill when separated from the name "Obamacare" or "Health Care Reform."

Why people like Obamacare - Salon.com

 

[WaveDomer]

1)
4) This is not a fundamental transformation of America. The fundamental transformation was the experiment with supply side economics.

So the fundamental transformation started with Alexander Hamilton drawing on Adam Smith?

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1782 “… experience has shown that moderate duties are more productive than high ones.”

 

[Bubba]

Maybe you're right. Maybe Obama will win in a landslide. Oh well. Nothing you or I can impact or control.

But like I said before: if he does win, we as a nation absolutely deserve it because the law abiding, tax paying citizens have been outnumbered by the voters there for "obama money" and "obama phones."
Will be fun to see how long the 53% can pay for the other 47%. Worked out soooo well for Europe...

Really? You're going to bring up Obama Phones? You're losing credibility here.

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Really? You're going to bring up Obama Phones? You're losing credibility here.

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

Bull. An adult woman chose to go on camera and voice her support for the president because she got a free cell phone. I don't care if she's black, white, pink or purple. It's the mindset.

Isnt' it amazing how more and more is expected of taxpayers to do their "fair share" but we never hear what is expected of the recipient class?

 

[RDU Irish]

Anyone claiming Obama "saved" the auto industry - I hope to God you don't have a Notre Dame Business degree, or any formal accounting or business education for that matter. I won't rehash what I must have said twelve times in this thread on that topic.

Always amazes me how both sides have such a hard time admitting Ron Paul was right on that issue.

Obama had his chance to run to the middle (a la 1994 Clinton) however remained steadfast in his ideology. Not surprising given he was the second most liberal Senator during his short stint in his only meaningful resume item.

Buster - A lot of things are cheaper but necessities in life are more expensive (food and energy). That disproportionately hurts the poor. Only one candidate is a big fan of $8 gallon gas.

 

[connor_in]

I don't think you mean that. But, others think that liberals are actually trying to stifle businesses from spite instead of from a sincere desire to maintain clean air and drinking water. That's also not true.

To that point please note I have never said that. And the belief that R's don't want those things are what led me to the sarcasm in the post you quoted. However, there is a tipping point in regulations. Regulations can be good for public safety and health,BUT they can also reach a point of bureaucractic red tape mess that hinders more than helps. So I am for less but Smarter regulations..Some of the others on here like myself can speak for hours about the insignificant things we have to do to cover ourselves regulation-wise that waste time and money for businesses and govt employees

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

They are split on the bill as a whole and they don't much like the mandate (which is the only way to pay for those with pre-existing conditions). But, they tend to like the provisions in the bill when separated from the name "Obamacare" or "Health Care Reform."

Why people like Obamacare - Salon.com

Goverment takeover of 1/6 of the economy. What could go wrong?

if it runs as smoothly and financially sound as medicare, medicaid, social security, and public education, we'll be Greece by 2020. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[Bubba]

Bull. An adult woman chose to go on camera and voice her support for the president because she got a free cell phone. I don't care if she's black, white, pink or purple. It's the mindset.

Isnt' it amazing how more and more is expected of taxpayers to do their "fair share" but we never hear what is expected of the recipient class?

There are dumb people of all colors. Plenty of uneducated/uninformed people make their choices based off of who got them something extra or free. And, yes it is unfortunate that some have that mindset. The fact remains that Obama didn't start that crap so bringing it up doesn't justify anything... for either side.

As for the recipient class, not all of them are as bad as you'd like to make them out to be. Sure there's probably a good 10% or so that are lazy and really just want to sit back and mooch off of others. There rest are in unfortunate circumstances and society should be willing to do something about it. But, instead, we'd rather ship our jobs overseas and pay 50 cents an hour for cheap labor and not put anything back into this country.

 

[RDU Irish]

Really? You're going to bring up Obama Phones? You're losing credibility here.

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

Cherry quote from the link - "The Lifeline program is not funded by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund."

Fees are not taxes? GTFO.

 

[Buster Bluth]

We had the bill before it passed. That was how people started criticizing things like "death panels."

Polls on each of the individual items in the bill are very positive.

I can hear a states argument. But states weren't doing it either. Kudos to Romney for addressing the problem in Massachusetts. I think it's a good bill. It's too bad he keeps running away from it (though he's moved somewhat back toward it in the past week or so).

And you can't address pre-existing conditions without expanding the rolls. That's why the mandate was part of the bill. Without the mandate, you can't pay for those with pre-existing conditions.

You think polls are taken on "each of the individual items" of Obamacare? Oh God..

People liked the premise of health care reform, but the bill was complete bullshit and that's why it remains unpopular.

You can hear my states argument? That's awesome! Really. Although you should know that it's not my argument, it belongs to these guys:

That and a simple lesson in the economies of scale and a brief lesson in the history or mankind would tell you why federal programs are typically horrendous in efficiency.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's the exact same thing you were just criticizing.

Buster, clearly there is a difference between fearing the other side is going to break out the socialism they've been keeping secret their whole lives and fearing that the other side is going to do exactly what they have been doing at the state level when they've had majorities (codifying bigotry against homosexuals in the constitution, restricting women's rights by effectively banning certain basic health services, restricting access to the polls) and what they have openly campaigned on (shuttering the EPA and the Dept of Education, repealing health reform, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, shortsighted and wrongheaded energy policy, etc., etc.). I don't think anyone disputes that those are the things that the Republicans hope to accomplish during a Romney administration, whereas the Democrats would certainly dispute the idea that they hope to turn the country socialist during the next four years.

I thought that conservatives were always complaining social relativism? That's basically what you're doing here, Buster. You're saying that each sides' fear is equally preposterous, but they aren't.

 

[RDU Irish]

There are dumb people of all colors. Plenty of uneducated/uninformed people make their choices based off of who got them something extra or free. And, yes it is unfortunate that some have that mindset. The fact remains that Obama didn't start that crap so bringing it up doesn't justify anything... for either side.

As for the recipient class, not all of them are as bad as you'd like to make them out to be. Sure there's probably a good 10% or so that are lazy and really just want to sit back and mooch off of others. There rest are in unfortunate circumstances and society should be willing to do something about it. But, instead, we'd rather ship our jobs overseas and pay 50 cents an hour for cheap labor and not put anything back into this country.

Glad you don't give a sh!t about the global poor, just ours. Very patriotic.

Fact is, most of the world is working to get out of huts and into homes, have a serving or two of meat every week, trade a 30 year old bike for a motorized scooter, cleaner living and working conditions.... You know the type of conditions our "poor" are entitled to for free that 90% of the world bust their humps to get away from. That would be capitalism and a global economy raising them out of squalor, not handouts.

 

[Domina Nostra]

To that point please note I have never said that. And the belief that R's don't want those things are what led me to the sarcasm in the post you quoted. However, there is a tipping point in regulations. Regulations can be good for public safety and health,BUT they can also reach a point of bureaucractic red tape mess that hinders more than helps. So I am for less but Smarter regulations..Some of the others on here like myself can speak for hours about the insignificant things we have to do to cover ourselves regulation-wise that waste time and money for businesses and govt employees

Right on. Leaving aside the anti-trust arguments (which no one is disputing), businesses generally do better with less interference and regulation for incredibly obvous reasons. However, there are social, environmental, and other costs to unregulated free-markets, and so people vote to send in regualtors. I do think that many, if not most, regulations do come at the expense of buinsess efficiency. But that is a price we are willing to pay in order to secure other social goods.

Whether and how much you value a certain non-economic good will determine a lot about whether your desired regulation is actually going to help the economy in any particular situation. It is a fact that many environmental regulations drive business out of the country and literally make business impossible in some cases. That may be a price you are willing to pay. But re-framing every such regualtion as beneficial to the economy in some drawn out way--especially when we have stepped past the really low-hanging fruit (clear, direct health risks caused by pollution) and have gotten the environment in very, very good shape comparitavely--is wishful thinking.

So, for example, while I am sure a person can be pro-economic growth while inisiting that the cafe standards (milage) need to be raised significantly in the immediate future, they have to face the fact that they have put a small environmental benefit above the economy during an economic downturn. That is a value judgement, but explaining it all as stimulating alternative fuel markets or green jobs or something like that is a little exhausting. The goal is crystal clean air, not jobs, and that is what it is likely to achieve.

Excessive bank regulation can make big banks uncompeitive and can drive small banks out-of-business, but society may have decided that deposit banks (as opposed to investment banks) should not be risking depositer money with governement backing. That makes sense. But that does not mean that such bank regulations will necessarily help the economy. If a regulation's purpose is depositer security, that is what we should expect to get (if the regulation is good).

 

[Rhode Irish]

You can hear my states argument? That's awesome! Really. Although you should know that it's not my argument, it belongs to these guys:

False. A study of history would reveal that "these guys" disagreed about the role of government and states' rights vs. federal rights every bit as much as we do today.

Also, the individual elements of the health reform bill have been polled extensively and most elements of the bill are very popular. People were against the bill initially because they were sold the idea that it was expensive and made health care worse. As it turns out, neither of those things are true and as people figure that out the polling on the bill has improved.

 

[RDU Irish]

Buster, clearly there is a difference between fearing the other side is going to break out the socialism they've been keeping secret their whole lives and fearing that the other side is going to do exactly what they have been doing at the state level when they've had majorities (codifying bigotry against homosexuals in the constitution, restricting women's rights by effectively banning certain basic health services, restricting access to the polls) and what they have openly campaigned on (shuttering the EPA and the Dept of Education, repealing health reform, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, shortsighted and wrongheaded energy policy, etc., etc.). I don't think anyone disputes that those are the things that the Republicans hope to accomplish during a Romney administration, whereas the Democrats would certainly dispute the idea that they hope to turn the country socialist during the next four years.

I thought that conservatives were always complaining social relativism? That's basically what you're doing here, Buster. You're saying that each sides' fear is equally preposterous, but they aren't.

These must be Republicans then...

Black Panther Voter Intimidation Dismissed by Dept of Justice

 

[Bubba]

Glad you don't give a sh!t about the global poor, just ours. Very patriotic.

Fact is, most of the world is working to get out of huts and into homes, have a serving or two of meat every week, trade a 30 year old bike for a motorized scooter, cleaner living and working conditions.... You know the type of conditions our "poor" are entitled to for free that 90% of the world bust their humps to get away from. That would be capitalism and a global economy raising them out of squalor, not handouts.

So 50 cents and hour is acceptable to you? Glad you are so caring about those other countries and their people. Don't try to make it sound like these companies are going overseas on some type of humanitarian mission. They are not. It is all greed.

BTW, our government should care about our poor.

 

[RDU Irish]

Right on. Leaving aside the anti-trust arguments (which no one is disputing), businesses generally do better with less interference and regulation for incredibly obvous reasons. However, there are social, environmental, and other costs to unregulated free-markets, and so people vote to send in regualtors. I do think that many, if not most, regulations do come at the expense of buinsess efficiency. But that is a price we are willing to pay in order to secure other social goods.

Whether and how much you value a certain non-economic good will determine a lot about whether your desired regulation is actually going to help the economy in any particular situation. It is a fact that many environmental regulations drive business out of the country and literally make business impossible in some cases. That may be a price you are willing to pay. But re-framing every such regualtion as beneficial to the economy in some drawn out way--especially when we have stepped past the really low-hanging fruit (clear, direct health risks caused by pollution) and have gotten the environment in very, very good shape comparitavely--is wishful thinking.

So, for example, while I am sure a person can be pro-economic growth while inisiting that the cafe standards (milage) need to be raised significantly in the immediate future, they have to face the fact that they have put a small environmental benefit above the economy during an economic downturn. That is a value judgement, but explaining it all as stimulating alternative fuel markets or green jobs or something like that is a little exhausting. The goal is crystal clean air, not jobs, and that is what it is likely to achieve.

Excessive bank regulation can make big banks uncompeitive and can drive small banks out-of-business, but society may have decided that deposit banks (as opposed to investment banks) should not be risking depositer money with governement backing. That makes sense. But that does not mean that such bank regulations will necessarily help the economy. If a regulation's purpose is depositer security, that is what we should expect to get (if the regulation is good).

Jobs are one of the greatest social goods, IMHO.

For banks - make regulations that give small banks an advantage (lower FDIC insurance rates and less regulation for example). Our problem in banking is "too big to fail" which is a direct result of over-regulation. Those with the biggest team of lawyers wins. Big business wants byzantine rules and regulations to create a larger barrier to entry.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So 50 cents and hour is acceptable to you? Glad you are so caring about those other countries and their people. Don't try to make it sound like these companies are going overseas on some type of humanitarian mission. They are not. It is all greed.

BTW, our government should care about our poor.

Absolutely no sense of economics. 50 cents an hour here is unacceptable. 50 cents an hour in countries where milk is ten cents $8.00 gets you food for the week? Gets you what you need.

 

[Domina Nostra]

False. A study of history would reveal that "these guys" disagreed about the role of government and states' rights vs. federal rights every bit as much as we do today.

That may be true in a sense, but I am not sure if there were too many founding fathers making successful arguments about an all-powerful, centralized federal goverenment which resembles what we have today, especially in the administrative state.

State sovereingnty was the fact on the ground. The States were not united until they all agreed to unite after a long, painful process. The question throughout that procvess was how much of that sovereignty were they willing to hand over to the federal government. The answer was an expressly limited amount that was enumerated in the Constitution: interstate commercse, foreeign affairs, etc. No one suggested giving over "all of it." The post-Civil War amendments and the New Deal changed our perceptions about those things significantly.

 

[Bubba]

Absolutely no sense of economics. 50 cents an hour here is unacceptable. 50 cents an hour in countries where milk is ten cents $8.00 gets you food for the week? Gets you what you need.

So why are these people still living in huts without electricity? The fact remains that these places are still below poverty level. And, we are okay with it as long as we can get our I-phone cheaper.

 

[RDU Irish]

So 50 cents and hour is acceptable to you? Glad you are so caring about those other countries and their people. Don't try to make it sound like these companies are going overseas on some type of humanitarian mission. They are not. It is all greed.

BTW, our government should care about our poor.

So you are arguing that 50 cents is worse than zero?

I agree we should prioritize the needs of our country over the rest of the world. As such, policies that make us globally competitive are essential. Having our poor entitled to a standard of living greater than 80% of he world population without lifting a finger is somewhat counter-intuitive to that goal.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Jobs are one of the greatest social goods, IMHO.

For banks - make regulations that give small banks an advantage (lower FDIC insurance rates and less regulation for example). Our problem in banking is "too big to fail" which is a direct result of over-regulation. Those with the biggest team of lawyers wins. Big business wants byzantine rules and regulations to create a larger barrier to entry.

I was trying to make a broader point, but I agree with you. Good points.

 

[Bubba]

So you are arguing that 50 cents is worse than zero?

I agree we should prioritize the needs of our country over the rest of the world. As such, policies that make us globally competitive are essential. Having our poor entitled to a standard of living greater than 80% of he world population without lifting a finger is somewhat counter-intuitive to that goal.

Let me be clear; hand-outs should have a time limit (I know there is, but we seem to be extending that recently) and these individuals should be doing something to make their own lives better. I do believe in personal responsibility.

I also think that people on welfare programs should have to do some sort of work for the state which is paying them their unemployment... even if it is just part time so that they can still be looking for private sector work. Both the individual and the state govt will benenfit from this.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So why are these people still living in huts without electricity? The fact remains that these places are still below poverty level. And, we are okay with it as long as we can get our I-phone cheaper.

Whose poverty level? On which scale? You can't compare ours with Zimbabwe or a third would country and expect results to be parallel. These people have been living in huts without electricity farrrrrrrrrrrr before computers and cell phones were invented. And on top of that, no one from Apple or Motorola has a gun to anyone's head forcing people to work for them. Work is voluntary.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Let me be clear; hand-outs should have a time limit (I know there is, but we seem to be extending that recently) and these individuals should be doing something to make their own lives better. I do believe in personal responsibility.

I also think that people on welfare programs should have to do some sort of work for the state which is paying them their unemployment... even if it is just part time so that they can still be looking for private sector work. Both the individual and the state govt will benenfit from this.

Now we're talking logically

 

[Domina Nostra]

Jobs are one of the greatest social goods, IMHO.

For banks - make regulations that give small banks an advantage (lower FDIC insurance rates and less regulation for example). Our problem in banking is "too big to fail" which is a direct result of over-regulation. Those with the biggest team of lawyers wins. Big business wants byzantine rules and regulations to create a larger barrier to entry.

I was trying to make the broader point, but I agree with you.

So why are these people still living in huts without electricity? The fact remains that these places are still below poverty level. And, we are okay with it as long as we can get our I-phone cheaper.

I am not OK with exploiting people, but not every difference in standard of living is exploitation. I don't charge half of what New Yorkers charge for the same services I provide.

Development takes time. If they were living in huts with out electircity, my guess is that 50 years of industrialization will slowly change that as it attracts capital (if the goverenment is not too corrupt). See China, for example, as they moved away from pure redistributionist policies toward more free market policies. Or think England in the 18th century.

 

[Bubba]

Now we're talking logically

Condescending much?

 

[GoIrish41]

You think polls are taken on "each of the individual items" of Obamacare? Oh God..

Yes. Here is a report on just such a poll of Republicans. Poll: Republicans hate ‘Obamacare,’ but like most of what it does

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Condescending much?

Nope. I said that with a virtual high five for reaching common ground.