Disgusted with obama administration - Part II
-
jmog
Can you please stop with what was "invented by conservatives" a decade ago? We are talking back just a couple years ago when healthcare suddenly became a big issue. The conservatives had much different ideas than a mandatatory purchase of insurance. You know it, I know it, but you keep trying to make it look like Obamacare was actually what the conservatives wanted which is far from the truth.BoatShoes;1502522 wrote:The major pillars of the Affordable Care Act were invented by conservatives.... -
jmog
So pass a bill that the Reid and Obama are already saying is a non-starter in the Senate (meaning wouldn't even get put up for a vote) and the President would veto anyway?BoatShoes;1502531 wrote:Well they could do something like pass a bill that is an alternative rather than simply voting to repeal Obamacare all the time...they could've done that as part of their budget bill, etc. It would at least do something to stop the talk that they "have no replacement".
Come on, we already complain about the formalities in Congress and now you want them to pass a bill in the HoR that isn't worth the toilet paper in the bathrooms of Congress? -
jmog
You truly believe this is going to create competition? Within 10-20 years there will be few private insurers, only for those that can afford to pay for it.BoatShoes;1502533 wrote:No it is not. Sure we could've handed everybody a Medicare card and been done with it problem solved but the Affordable Care Act is not a "total disaster and mess". It's not perfect but you watch when people start being able to buy subsidized health insurance in less than a month on the exchanges where insurers will have to compete by offering better plans rather than just cherry picking healthy people and denying coverage to sick people it's going to end up being popular just like Medicare.
One of the better ideas to come out of the conservative movement. Treat Healthcare like it's a responsibility rather than a right....get guaranteed issue so companies have to compete in a proper manner...and provide subsidies. -
BoatShoes
And yet they nominated Mitt Romney in 2012...and had he won in 2008 he would've called for passing essentially the same thing as the Affordable Care Act...no doubt about it...and conservative voters would probably be defending it. I'm sure there are few pure conservatives out there but a large segment of Republican voters would not have had the animosity towards this plan had it not been adopted by the marxist one.jmog;1502783 wrote:Can you please stop with what was "invented by conservatives" a decade ago? We are talking back just a couple years ago when healthcare suddenly became a big issue. The conservatives had much different ideas than a mandatatory purchase of insurance. You know it, I know it, but you keep trying to make it look like Obamacare was actually what the conservatives wanted which is far from the truth. -
BoatShoes
lol...fantasy....that will only be true if the law substantially changes or is replaced with something like Medicare for all. They are guaranteed customers and 90% of large employers are still going to be offering group plans with private insurers. The competition in the individual market begins in less than two weeks.jmog;1502786 wrote:You truly believe this is going to create competition? Within 10-20 years there will be few private insurers, only for those that can afford to pay for it. -
BoatShoes
They've done that over 40 times with regards to repealing to affordable act. Perhaps they could've once entertained their exercises in futility passing one of their so-called alternatives.jmog;1502785 wrote:So pass a bill that the Reid and Obama are already saying is a non-starter in the Senate (meaning wouldn't even get put up for a vote) and the President would veto anyway?
Come on, we already complain about the formalities in Congress and now you want them to pass a bill in the HoR that isn't worth the toilet paper in the bathrooms of Congress? -
BoatShoes
A century though? Are Ronald Reagan's children gonna be around to know they weren't free??? Maybe his children's children. Obama only once to my knowledge said he wanted Single-Payer at some AFL-CIO talk or something and yet when he got power he shut out Anthony Weiner et al in favor of the more conservative Massachusetts style plan. I think your worries about the lack of freedom from universal coverage are overblown. It's been half a century of Medicare and seniors still seem pretty free. My Grandma smokes and drinks vodka all day long doing as she pleases and gets to have her medical bills paid for. Seems like a good deal and actually makes her more free.majorspark;1502674 wrote:The current popular support of a program is not indicative of its ultimate success.
It takes time for the producers will to be sapped and national resources to be depleted.
As to Reagan's comment we are not there yet. The goal is the national socialization of medical care. Obama himself has said as much. Maybe another 15-20yrs. He is not alone. We have watched the video clips. Obamacare since that is what it is being called has been crafted by people of the same ilk. Co-opting the Heritage Foundation's call for mandating personal responsibility (one I disagree with) as a spring board for further federal government involvement is quite ingenious and meant to put conservatives on the defensive. Probably why you have been humping it so hard.
Anyways Reagan was right. Once medical care is fully socialized at the national level all taxpayers will have a vested interest in the personal activities of their fellow citizens. Whether its the redneck in West Virginia pickling his liver on beer and moonshine, or the fat ass in Florida that can't control their portions, or dare I say the promiscuous sexual deviant at high risk for STD's/pregnancy in California? Not trying to single out states just making the point once its a national interest regulation will cross those lines.
I doubt it'll be so much worse if and when younger people are afforded the same security. -
IggyPride00
Why is the Tea Party about to ride to the rescue and revive Obama's 2nd term by giving him the government shutdown he so desperately wants?
He is dead in the water right now, but a government shutdown will give him the bailout he is looking for because Republicans are going to eat the blame for the shutdown whether it is fair or not.
I understand the House's frustration that a shutdown is the only card they have to play, but it is going to cripple them politically if it goes on for an extended time.
I have never seen a group more out of touch with reality than what we are seeing from the House right now. -
believer
One could argue that Barry and Harry are hardly in touch with reality as well.IggyPride00;1503200 wrote:I have never seen a group more out of touch with reality than what we are seeing from the House right now. -
gut
I think the divide and perceived "radicalness" of the parties really just illustrates how the majority of rational Americans in the middle have lost both parties, and any reasonable voice in the national media. To get an audience, you have to be opinionated and edgy - and even if you are on the money 90% of the time, opponents will use that 10% to discredit and dismiss everything you say.believer;1503211 wrote:One could argue that Barry and Harry are hardly in touch with reality as well.
POTUS is the one position you'd think would be a slam-dunk for a moderate candidate, from either party, to get elected. I think we need to get a better turnout in our primary elections and start finding better candidates.
It's really scary how the media got Obama elected twice. And I was willing to give him a chance in 2008 - certainly I liked him more than Hillary. But I don't think there's any way he gets the nomination in 2008 if the media had more objectively scrutinized him. Granted, ultimately that may have just served to flip-flop 8 years of Hillary and Obama. -
IggyPride00
That's a given, but they aren't the ones that stand to lose the shutdown fight.believer;1503211 wrote:One could argue that Barry and Harry are hardly in touch with reality as well.
I think it was Politico I was reading an article on likening House Republicans to Kamikaze pilots at this point because they are knowingly going to destroy their chance at taking back the Senate next year if they shut down government.
Hell, the reason they don't have the Senate now is because they knowingly nominate unelectable candidates in states that were there for the taking.
At some point the light bulb needs to go off that the way to avoid things like Obamacare in the first place is coming up with an effective strategy to govern which leads you to win more elections.
The war to defund Obamacare right now is not winnable. Instead of acting like suicide bombers and killing your chance to take the Senate next year all the while saving Obama's ass, just make the tough vote to get past this and move on.
I love the energy the Tea Party brings to the political arena, but there is zero long term thinking going on with this kind of stuff. -
IggyPride00
I am actually more interested in the debt ceiling right now than the shutdown threat.
There are more than a few Congress Critters that don't have the first clue about the catastrophic fallout that would occur from failing to increase the limit.
The markets won't care taht we have tax receipts to pay interest on it. They will care that the political system is so broken that the country can't effectively govern itself, and that will send interest rates skyrocketing, as well as set off a likely economic crisis.
Were Congress to set off an economic crisis by allowing a default event to happen, it is the kind of thing that could lead to a generational majority like we saw for Democrats after the Depression. Whoever is blamed for being the cause of it will likely be made to pay for as far as the eye can see. -
gut
Ehhh, when I hear liberals making that argument I think that should only encourage them to defund.IggyPride00;1503325 wrote: I think it was Politico I was reading an article on likening House Republicans to Kamikaze pilots at this point because they are knowingly going to destroy their chance at taking back the Senate next year if they shut down government. .
As for some of your other comments, I want reps to take action NOW. I'm tired of people compromising values or not doing what needs to be done/is right out of concern for re-election.
Defund and replace. That should be the rallying cry. But I think they will punt just like Obama has done on key parts. -
gut
The debt ceiling was intended to be a de facto balanced budget amendment. Most of the people above are posturing and talking tough, because that's how negotiating sometimes goes. This is, again, simply an attempt of turn reality upside down painting rational and responsible people as the crazy ones. If you don't fully and unconditionally support blank checks you're a financial terrorist - just such bullshit.IggyPride00;1503341 wrote: There are more than a few Congress Critters that don't have the first clue about the catastrophic fallout that would occur from failing to increase the limit.
Everyone knows the debt ceiling is going to eventually be raised. Our spending is simply not sustainable. It would be irresponsible not to use this opportunity to force some cuts. I guarantee that no one in Washington wants to or intends to default, that is just liberal scare tactics used to dismiss opposition.
And people are stupid - which describes most of the population - to blame the Repubs. If the roles were reversed, Dems would be doing the same thing. The budget has only been allowed to spiral out-of-control in the first place because Repubs haven't been fiscally conservative in a long time. It would truly be a disaster if voters punish the small number of reps attempting to restore a bit of fiscal sanity in Washington.
We may already be lost. When people describe a Romney/Ryan plan running 2-3% long-term deficits as "austerity" then we are truly screwed. -
majorspark
There is a difference. Your grandma is in the sunset of her life. Compelling her at this stage in life to change her lifestyle for the good of the collective would yield no benefit. She or your grandpa have paid in for most of their lives and up until this point have not received any benefit. Say grandpa (not yours) pays FICA taxes all his life and is a heavy smoker gets lung cancer and croaks at age 59. That places no burden on the taxpayer. Just the opposite in fact. Grandpa paid in all his life and never received a benefit from it. Now go to nationalized medical care for all and you are in a whole new ball game. There is already a compelling authority to get the irresponsible young in the game via the individual mandate. Is it really that far fetched that a compelling authority would evolve to incentivize the young to curb their activities that are deemed costly for the good of the collective?BoatShoes;1502977 wrote:I doubt it'll be so much worse if and when younger people are afforded the same security. -
BoatShoes
http://www.heritage.org/index/rankingmajorspark;1503465 wrote:There is a difference. Your grandma is in the sunset of her life. Compelling her at this stage in life to change her lifestyle for the good of the collective would yield no benefit. She or your grandpa have paid in for most of their lives and up until this point have not received any benefit. Say grandpa (not yours) pays FICA taxes all his life and is a heavy smoker gets lung cancer and croaks at age 59. That places no burden on the taxpayer. Just the opposite in fact. Grandpa paid in all his life and never received a benefit from it. Now go to nationalized medical care for all and you are in a whole new ball game. There is already a compelling authority to get the irresponsible young in the game via the individual mandate. Is it really that far fetched that a compelling authority would evolve to incentivize the young to curb their activities that are deemed costly for the good of the collective?
Several countries that the Heritage Foundation ranks higher than us in Economic Freedom have much more socialized healthcare than us i.e. Hong Kong w/ over 40 public hospitals analogous to the VA system or the UK's NHS...Singapore w/ Medisave...New Zealand predominantly Single-Payer....Australia single-payer and public hospitals for the majority....Switzerland essentially Obamacare....Denmark Basically like the NHS in Great Britain or the VA system here outsourced to their counties...Canada with Single-Payer.
All of those countries are considered more free than us by the most conservative think tank there is.
And in my own anecdotal experience...I believe it was on the site that shall not be named that I mentioned the Canadian client who considers himself a "conservative" in Canada going on and on about how great Stephen Harper and the conservatives are while also going on about how great healthcare in Canada is....and he's fat, smokes and drinks like a fish. Didn't seem any less free than us and I guess Heritage agrees. I kindly reminded him that he is a socialist in the United States and well to the left of Barack Obama and basically anyone in Congress or mainstream political debate.
Obamacare and any improvements made on it will make us more free and the people who are able to buy coverage with subsidies starting Oct. 1 are going to feel that way too IMHO. -
BoatShoes
It is crazy to try to try to engage in action that prevents the Fed and Treasury from clearing checks. Obama should just end this now and say that he will instruct the FED to credit the TGA anyway (like they do with private banks all the time anyway) and just go ahead and clear the checks. It is less radical than FDR unilaterally suspending the Gold Standard in 1933 and would finally demonstrate some leadership skills on his part.gut;1503380 wrote:The debt ceiling was intended to be a de facto balanced budget amendment. Most of the people above are posturing and talking tough, because that's how negotiating sometimes goes. This is, again, simply an attempt of turn reality upside down painting rational and responsible people as the crazy ones. If you don't fully and unconditionally support blank checks you're a financial terrorist - just such bullshit.
Everyone knows the debt ceiling is going to eventually be raised. Our spending is simply not sustainable. It would be irresponsible not to use this opportunity to force some cuts. I guarantee that no one in Washington wants to or intends to default, that is just liberal scare tactics used to dismiss opposition.
And people are stupid - which describes most of the population - to blame the Repubs. If the roles were reversed, Dems would be doing the same thing. The budget has only been allowed to spiral out-of-control in the first place because Repubs haven't been fiscally conservative in a long time. It would truly be a disaster if voters punish the small number of reps attempting to restore a bit of fiscal sanity in Washington.
We may already be lost. When people describe a Romney/Ryan plan running 2-3% long-term deficits as "austerity" then we are truly screwed.
Our spending is sustainable and when the Federal Government spends beyond the amount that it taxes this adds net financial assets to the non-government sector and is a good thing. It would only be unsustainable if the amount of spending indicated inflation was on the horizon but inflation continues to fall below the FED's target rate. The U.S. is a monetary sovereign and is not financially constrained like a state government, a household, a business, or a member of the European Monetary Union.
You underestimate the lunacy of the Tea Party Caucus if you don't think some of them don't intend to default.
The deficit has dropped substantially (unfortunately) as the automatic stabilizers have been less burdened as the economy slowly and pathetically recovers and we've imposed idiotic tax raises and idiotic spending cuts. The fact that people are still acting like there's an imminent fiscal crisis that warrants playing chicken with the limit on the ability for the treasury to issue securities (calling it the debt ceiling is asinine) that will affect the FED's ability to conduct monetary policy and destroy confidence in our political system is delusional. -
fish82
+1.IggyPride00;1503325 wrote:That's a given, but they aren't the ones that stand to lose the shutdown fight.
I think it was Politico I was reading an article on likening House Republicans to Kamikaze pilots at this point because they are knowingly going to destroy their chance at taking back the Senate next year if they shut down government.
Hell, the reason they don't have the Senate now is because they knowingly nominate unelectable candidates in states that were there for the taking.
At some point the light bulb needs to go off that the way to avoid things like Obamacare in the first place is coming up with an effective strategy to govern which leads you to win more elections.
The war to defund Obamacare right now is not winnable. Instead of acting like suicide bombers and killing your chance to take the Senate next year all the while saving Obama's ass, just make the tough vote to get past this and move on.
I love the energy the Tea Party brings to the political arena, but there is zero long term thinking going on with this kind of stuff.
On second thought....... +1000. -
BoatShoes
I tend to agree with you and Iggy if I were a Republican but I'm not so what do I know? But, I have a question though. Is there any concern that if Republicans raise the debt ceiling or pass a budget with "Obamcare Funding" then well that is bad too because it just makes conservative groups motivated to primary Republicans who are plenty conservative enough. Last I saw, Jim Demint's Senate Conservative's Fund has spent more attacking fellow Republicans than Democrats????fish82;1503588 wrote:+1.
On second thought....... +1000. -
QuakerOatsThe government shutdown in the '90's was not costly to R's, and it ultimately led to Clinton signing off on welfare reform.
-
QuakerOatsBoatShoes;1502972 wrote:They've done that over 40 times with regards to repealing to affordable act. Perhaps they could've once entertained their exercises in futility passing one of their so-called alternatives.
The best use of good laws is to teach men to trample bad laws under their feet."
[LEFT]-- Wendell Phillips,
American abolitionist[/LEFT] -
gut
Yes, just keep kicking the can. Nothing wrong with that.BoatShoes;1503578 wrote:It is crazy to try to try to engage in action that prevents the Fed and Treasury from clearing checks.
And I'd point out, it actually takes TWO parties to prevent a raising of the debt ceiling. Set partisan politics aside - we absolutely should not blame just 1 party for a govt shutdown. The refusal to address past and current profligate spending in a responsible way is simply irresponsible. And the Dems are being just as hard-headed about address the problem responsibly.
The entire purpose of the debt ceiling is to impose some fiscal constraint. I realize that you think any reduction in spending is disastrous but you are simply wrong. -
gut
This is bullshit partisan rhetoric spewed simply to discredit and dismiss people who see a need to address excessive spending. I mean, I guess Reid and Obama only grew a brain when their party came to power because the reality is they all know it's unsustainable when it isn't their turn to play Uncle Sugar.BoatShoes;1503578 wrote: You underestimate the lunacy of the Tea Party Caucus if you don't think some of them don't intend to default. -
gut
Cough cough govt debt bubble cough cough. No problem, nothing to see here.BoatShoes;1503578 wrote:...this adds net financial assets to the non-government sector and is a good thing.