Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• gut

  tk421;826830 wrote:Fat tax coming to a country near you.

  
  Sadly that's only half-joking. I don't want the govt dictating our choices, but when I have to start bearing the burden of people's unhealthy choices you are damn right I'd favor a fat tax. Don't like it then go buy private health insurance. It's not a radical concept, either - insurance companies for years have been grouping people and charging accordingly to risk. I don't see why a govt ru. Program should be any different.
• I Wear Pants

  Do insurance companies currently charge higher premiums for fatasses?
• Con_Alma

  Politicians do not solve problems yet they keep trying to tell people they do and people keep waiting for them to.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;827079 wrote:Do insurance companies currently charge higher premiums for fatasses?

  
  In an indirect way, yes. Typically fat asses will have higher risks like cholesterol and blood pressure. And I'm not sure, but your physical also takes you height and weight so it's a factor they may be using. But they definitely do it for smoking and drinking, so like I said it's hardly a radical concept.
  
  I believe some companies with wellness programs also give additional flex dollars if you participate (since they get better rates for that participation).
  
  So the concept of paying more/less based on lifestyle choices is very real.
• I Wear Pants

  Thanks for the explaination that's what I thought, I just didn't know if they had added an actual "you are obese, pay me more money you unhealthy pig" tier.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;827079 wrote:Do insurance companies currently charge higher premiums for fatasses?

  
  Life insurance companies most certainly do.
  
  Health insurance companies do in indirect ways as described above.
• BGFalcons82

  

  These are certainly NOT the words of a conservative, Boatshoes:
  

  President Obama’s press conference yesterday—in which he only took questions from left-leaning reporters apparently–contained an amazing statement. It should be noted the first two instances of the first person singular pronoun in the sentence refer to Barack Obama, President of the United States. The second two refer to Barack Obama, taxpaying citizen:
  
  "And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans."

  The full article - http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/12/obama-unneeded-income-belongs-to-the-government/
  
  In the end, it's his money, not ours. It always belongs to the government, whom should be the one doling it out to those that need it, not necessarily those that earn it. But he's no socialist. He's no communist that believes in the rights of the collective over the individual. Hell, you could claim his thoughts are right in line with Reagan and Milton Friedman...right Boatshoes???
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;828855 wrote:These are certainly NOT the words of a conservative, Boatshoes:
  
  
  
  The full article - http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/12/obama-unneeded-income-belongs-to-the-government/
  
  In the end, it's his money, not ours. It always belongs to the government, whom should be the one doling it out to those that need it, not necessarily those that earn it. But he's no socialist. He's no communist that believes in the rights of the collective over the individual. Hell, you could claim his thoughts are right in line with Reagan and Milton Friedman...right Boatshoes???

  Jeez man you prove me right once again by picking out one quote that meshes with your preconceived worldview rather than reading everything he said in that whole press conference. It has nothing to do with this nonsense about "collective will over the individual" man...he's talking about ways to reduce the deficit and given that both spending cuts and tax raises contract aggregate demand one of the better ways that we might alleviate deficits with a minimal impact on aggregate demand is through tax increases on high income earners because of what we know from Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis. Ronald Reagan raised taxes by $100 billion dollars in 1982 (with marginal rate increases) unlike Barry's proposals thus far in order to alleviate deficit concerns. But back then interest rates were at 10.2% and Volcker was able to use conventional monetary policy and end the recession in spite of those fiscal contractionary measures because we were not in a Keynes-Hicks liquidity trap as we are now. Reagan's fiscal stimulus via deficit causing military spending was helpful but it was more due to conventional monetary policy back then which cannot be used now and even extraordinary monetary policy in the form of quantitative easing has proven ineffective.
  
  So, if you believe that the deficit and the debt is a national issue with each individual a stakeholder in those liabilities to our social contract, it is not a question of some socialist dreamworld fantasy you made up but correct policy choices we might make to alleviate a national long-term concern while also encouraging lesser effects on short term economic growth. For instance, stopping all social security payments right now would have a great impact on our long term deficit but would drastically contract aggregate demand whereas in 2013 or 2014 as Barry has suggested, raising the top marginal rate to 39.6% would be projected to raise the entire cost of Obamacare (the plan that will preserve our ability to buy private health insurance for the forseeable future) while also having a minimal impact on demand in those years relative to other policy choices. So in effect, Obama's choosing to wait into the future when perhaps our economy might not actually be depressed (unlikely giving the ineffectiveness of conventional monetary policy and everyone with power's refusal to remember the last 70 years of economic history) to raise marginal rates is even less "evil socialist fairy" than Ronald Reagan's decision to raise marginal rates on corporations (gasp "anti-business") while the economy was still depressed in 1982.
  
  Now go back and read his entire press conference with an open mind and take a step back and pretend it's Bob Latta saying it and perhaps you will see.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;827162 wrote:Thanks for the explaination that's what I thought, I just didn't know if they had added an actual "you are obese, pay me more money you unhealthy pig" tier.

  You're thinking of the airlines.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Boat - Nice comment about Bob Latta. I went to BG with Karen Latta. She was a wild child...hope she's still with us as she was not doing well when I graduated. I don't live in Wood County anymore either.
  
  You still believe there's enough potion in the Kool Aid to convince yourself that Barry is for deficit reduction. Can you discern this from reading his first budget proposal earlier this year? What's that...there wasn't any reductions in it? Or did you get it from his Mulligan budget, you know...the one he hastily put together after Paul Ryan published his serious version. It was so hasty, the CBO said they can't even score it because they couldn't understand what Barry was prescribing.
  
  The quote I put on my post is there to prove he's no conservative. You can quote all of his campaign nonsense from 2008 or his re-election rhetoric from the past 2 months all you want. He can read and he knows the public is solidly for deficit reduction and he's solidly for spending other people's money. It's what he's done. If I didn't know better, he might be formulating a campaign to run against himself. Worked like magic last time running against Bush...might as well use it again, eh?
• tk421

  

  1.5 Trillion in new taxes won't cover 2 years of deficit spending. Not even close, that's not even enough for this year.
• coyotes22

  

  Why now does a higher debt ceiling HAVE to come with MORE taxes? The last SIX times the ceiling was raised, NO TAXES WERE RAISED! So, why NOW?!?!!?
  
  800+ days
• coyotes22

  

  What a child!!!
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sources-say-obama-scolded-leaders-before-walking-out-of-debt-mtg-enough-is-enough/
• gut

  "Cantor, speaking to reporters after the meeting broke up, said the White House had been lowering the amount of spending cuts it would put on the table, offering less than $1.4 trillion over 10 years, mostly in domestic and defense spending outside of the major benefits programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."
  
  Cantor has made some great points the last few days and really putting the onus on Obama. Probably not getting a lot of play in the leftist media, but I loved his comment about how spending will never be under control as long as Obama is in office. He was also spot-on about how Dems want to raise spending in order to make all the entitlements they've added permanent. That's why myself and others oppose increases because we only favor it if it's used to REDUCE the debt, and it's not going to happen (nor do I have much faith in the Repubs to use higher taxes to reduce the debt).
  
  That so many seem to think increased taxes are some kind of silver bullet is also why there''s no balls in Washington to make the neccessary cuts. EFFECTIVE (which is highly questionable) and targeted tax increases would probably, at most, net another 3% in revenues, about $400B a year AT BEST - which ONLY leaves us $1.3trillion short from a balanced budget.
  
  As I've said several times, you don't fix someone's spending problem by giving them MORE money to spend. And the reality is there is a ton of fat in the federal budget, including entitlements (which have had YoY increases outpacing inflation by a good amount, too high an implicit rate of return not disimilar to the 9% annually that got the Big 3 pensions, and many state govt pensions, in trouble). The problem is Washington NEVER really cuts programs, the solution to any underperforming or ineffective program is almost always to THROW MORE MONEY at the problem. This is not how to operate successfully, and it's why Washington MUST be held accountable to a balanced budget.
  
  You look at Europe and welfare states are failing across the board. Even with the recent troubles in Europe, that growth has significantly lagged for years under the crushing weight of high taxes and entitlements. It IS NOT a sustainable model. Only Canada and a few others are doing well now, mostly due to economies highly levered on commodities which have of course been soaring with insatiable demand.
• believer

  

  gut;830616 wrote:"Cantor, speaking to reporters after the meeting broke up, said the White House had been lowering the amount of spending cuts it would put on the table, offering less than $1.4 trillion over 10 years, mostly in domestic and defense spending outside of the major benefits programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."
  
  Cantor has made some great points the last few days and really putting the onus on Obama. Probably not getting a lot of play in the leftist media, but I loved his comment about how spending will never be under control as long as Obama is in office. He was also spot-on about how Dems want to raise spending in order to make all the entitlements they've added permanent. That's why myself and others oppose increases because we only favor it if it's used to REDUCE the debt, and it's not going to happen (nor do I have much faith in the Repubs to use higher taxes to reduce the debt).
  
  That so many seem to think increased taxes are some kind of silver bullet is also why there''s no balls in Washington to make the neccessary cuts. EFFECTIVE (which is highly questionable) and targeted tax increases would probably, at most, net another 3% in revenues, about $400B a year AT BEST - which ONLY leaves us $1.3trillion short from a balanced budget.
  
  As I've said several times, you don't fix someone's spending problem by giving them MORE money to spend. And the reality is there is a ton of fat in the federal budget, including entitlements (which have had YoY increases outpacing inflation by a good amount, too high an implicit rate of return not disimilar to the 9% annually that got the Big 3 pensions, and many state govt pensions, in trouble). The problem is Washington NEVER really cuts programs, the solution to any underperforming or ineffective program is almost always to THROW MORE MONEY at the problem. This is not how to operate successfully, and it's why Washington MUST be held accountable to a balanced budget.
  
  You look at Europe and welfare states are failing across the board. Even with the recent troubles in Europe, that growth has significantly lagged for years under the crushing weight of high taxes and entitlements. It IS NOT a sustainable model. Only Canada and a few others are doing well now, mostly due to economies highly levered on commodities which have of course been soaring with insatiable demand.

  
  Spot on.
  
  For the life of me I cannot understand the idiots in DC who insist on coupling spending cuts to tax increases when ANYONE with half a brain completely understands that any tax increases would result in INCREASED SPENDING not deficit reduction.
  
  How farking stupid do these morons on Capitol Hill and the White House think the American people are? Wait a minute...We are stupid. We keep re-electing these fools.
• gut

  believer;830698 wrote: How farking stupid do these morons on Capitol Hill and the White House think the American people are? Wait a minute...We are stupid. We keep re-electing these fools.

  
  I had a thought today of how much blame goes to the MSM and college professors. These people have tremendous influence on young minds, and in most cases those doing the influencing have little to no understanding of economics (on par with Obama).
  
  Pretty funny when you look at cross-sections of voters, the "average" sort of path is young (and naive/optimistic) college grads come out with these very worldly and liberal views and are strongly Democrat. Then, 10 years down the road or so when they have some insight, a good paying job, and possibly a family they start to look at what the govt is taking out of their paycheck and seeing all the waste and start leaning Repub. Then down the road, as we retire, you see a shift back to Dem as people want to see increases to entitlements. It's all short-sighted, often ignorant, self-interest.
  
  Mind you the Repubs track record isn't much better on spending and taxes. But it's discouraging to see people voting with their wallets completely ignorant of the concept of how taking more money from someone else's wallet can leave you with less in yours. I guess free milk tastes better than milk you worked for, even when that "free" milk actually costs you more.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Some of us who are older, aren't just voting our pocketbooks, though. We realize that if we want a better (or at least equal) world for our children and grandchildren, there are some serious changes that need to be made now. And we also realize those changes will likely mean some hardship for us, perhaps even at a time we can least afford more hardship.
  
  I may be dead wrong, but I think there are more than a few folks out there who think like I do, and who would be willing to incur some hardships if we had a reasonable expectation such measures would be successful at strengthening this country for those who will live in it after we're gone.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;830930 wrote:I may be dead wrong, but I think there are more than a few folks out there who think like I do, and who would be willing to incur some hardships if we had a reasonable expectation such measures would be successful at strengthening this country for those who will live in it after we're gone.

  Those are reasonable expectations, but I'm convinced our country's leadership is so into retaining their power base and dipping their hands into the public dole to line their own wallets that the prospect of courageous national leadership is dim indeed.
• Belly35

  

  Have I mention lately .............NOT MY PRESIDENT
• Con_Alma

  believer;830947 wrote:Those are reasonable expectations, but I'm convinced our country's leadership is so into retaining their power base and dipping their hands into the public dole to line their own wallets that the prospect of courageous national leadership is dim indeed.

  Bingo. It's sad.
• derek bomar

  

  This whole thing is re-fucking-diculous. The republicans have made absolutely no fucking sense in this thing, and have made me think twice about voting Barry out (which I was leaning heavily towards until this bullshit).
• Con_Alma

  derek bomar;831025 wrote:This whole thing is re-****ing-diculous. The republicans have made absolutely no ****ing sense in this thing, and have made me think twice about voting Barry out (which I was leaning heavily towards until this bull****).

  
  
  I believe those Republicans are the only ones that have presented a complete plan towards a balanced budget. Where is the Democrats plan? I haven't heard them discuss it or publish it. I have only heard what they want through these negotiations.
• gut

  derek bomar;831025 wrote:This whole thing is re-****ing-diculous. The republicans have made absolutely no ****ing sense in this thing, and have made me think twice about voting Barry out (which I was leaning heavily towards until this bull****).

  
  Are you for real? This is the Repubs fault? The $1.7trillion deficit that's raised the debt ceiling issue to begin with is the Repub's fault?!? And it's the Repubs fault for rejecting a plan with some $300B annually in tax increases when we have a $1.7trillion deficit to deal with?!?
  
  LMAO, so let me get this straight...You don't want to vote for Obama because of the deficit, but because they can't balance the budget (or even come up with a budget), you're going to vote for Obama? So you're happy if I keep spending you into oblivion so long as I reject reasonable plans to STOP spending you into obliviion?
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;831031 wrote:I believe those Republicans are the only ones that have presented a complete plan towards a balanced budget. Where is the Democrats plan? I haven't heard them discuss it or publish it. I have only heard what they want through these negotiations.

  
  Perhaps you're talking about Paul Ryan's plan that doesn't have a balanced budget for 30 years all while relying on the absurd notion that we will have 3% unemployment within this decade (which is even more outrageous than Barry's assertion that we will receive 25% of GDP in tax receipts) and eliminates major tax expenditures that preserve consumption tax treatment for most Americans including the HMID (which they won't cut in these deficit negotiations cus BHO holds the ball) but grants consumption tax treatment to the highest income earners through the elimination of the capital gain and qualified dividend taxation whereas everyone else will be taxed at ordinary income rates higher than they effectively are now. Awesome.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;831045 wrote:Perhaps you're talking about Paul Ryan's plan that doesn't have a balanced budget for 30 years all while relying on the absurd notion that we will have 3% unemployment within this decade (which is even more outrageous than Barry's assertion that we will receive 25% of GDP in tax receipts) and eliminates major tax expenditures that preserve consumption tax treatment for most Americans including the HMID (which they won't cut in these deficit negotiations cus BHO holds the ball) but grants consumption tax treatment to the highest income earners through the elimination of the capital gain and qualified dividend taxation whereas everyone else will be taxed at ordinary income rates higher than they effectively are now. Awesome.

  Perhaps indeed. Don't like that one? Where's Democrats plan?
  
  The point was that we should be negotiating from a plan with a solution as opposed to trying to negotiate to solve a short term challenge.
  
  Got it?