# Maybe he didn't lie, but



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

is Pelosi making a liar out of the President?

https://healthcaretruth.amplify.com/2009/11/04/section-213-a-monthly-abortion-premium/

Will this hurt him? Will he veto it? What are your thoughts?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I do not make 250k+ a year.

My insurance premiums will be taxed an additional 35%

Mr. President;

"You lie!!"


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

Obama would have no problem signing the bill and saying that he's sorry that it included the abortion provision but that the overall bill was too important to veto.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

mxgreen said:


> Obama would have no problem signing the bill and saying that he's sorry that it included the abortion provision but that the overall bill was too important to veto.


He'll just say he didn't read the bill so he didn't know. Isn't the new health care bill around 2100 pages? We should have a law requiring every person in government to read the whole bill before they vote.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

nick.mccann said:


> He'll just say he didn't read the bill so he didn't know. Isn't the new health care bill around 2100 pages? We should have a law requiring every person in government to read the whole bill before they vote.


I believe the congressmen already have answered this. Even if they did read it, they wouldn't understand it because of all the legal language. ic12337:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> I believe the congressmen already have answered this. Even if they did read it, they wouldn't understand it because of all the legal language. ic12337:


So, all these graduates of the Kennedy School can't read legal language?! Fabulous! :aportnoy:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I do not make 250k+ a year.

My energy use will be taxed an additional 35%

Mr. President;

"You lie!!"


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*He is a politician*

So why would anyone be surprised if he lies?

From a strategy perspective, I do not understand why the Democrats allowed their most extreme liberals to take charge in the House. Were they incapble of learning from the mistakes the Republicans made with that @ss Delay?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

agnash said:


> So why would anyone be surprised if he lies?
> 
> From a strategy perspective, I do not understand why the Democrats allowed their most extreme liberals to take charge in the House. Were they incapble of learning from the mistakes the Republicans made with that @ss Delay?


if the Dems had let the extreme liberals take charge the only bill before congress would be a single payer system not the watered down version that is currently proposed, sounds like more propaganda by the right wing main stream media


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Well, as the lady here says, someone has to take accountability ...


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I do not make 250k+ a year.
> 
> My insurance premiums will be taxed an additional 35%
> 
> ...


and they should be - why should you get a free lunch


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> if the Dems had let the extreme liberals take charge the only bill before congress would be a single payer system not the watered down version that is currently proposed, sounds like more propaganda by the right wing main stream media


Exactly! If the extreme liberals where writing the bill the health care proposal would extend coverage to illegal immigrants and pay for abortions.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Exactly! If the extreme liberals where writing the bill the health care proposal would extend coverage to illegal immigrants and pay for abortions.


if they work they pay taxes so why not, as for abortion, its just another medical procedure


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

young guy said:


> if they work they pay taxes so why not, as for abortion, its just another medical procedure


If the Dems in Congress actually write a health care law based on those two premises, then they will hand control of Congress back to the Republicans on a silver plate.

Actually, it is even better than that. Democrats in congress are looking at passing a health coverage bill that may or may not cover abortions and/or illegal immigrants. Taxes to support the health reform will go into effct as early as 2010, and possible requirements for everyone to spend their money to buy insurance will be phased in over 3 years. So, up front, they have given the Republicans all of the negatives as ammunition before the benefits of the program start. And the benefits? Those don't hit until 2013. So for three years, and two election cycles, the Democrats will have to defend a piece of legislation that only causes economic hardship, without provididng the social benefits. How ironic that passsage of the bill will cost the Democrats control, and then Republicans will step in and kill or transform it before the benefits ever begin. I do so enjoy watching politicians (both sides) fail.:icon_smile:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> and they should be - why should you get a free lunch


You aren't making sense.

I have the employer sponsored coverage the Administration says everyone needs.

Why a punitive tax??

Isn't that counterproductive??


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

young guy said:


> if the Dems had let the extreme liberals take charge the only bill before congress would be a single payer system not the watered down version that is currently proposed, sounds like more propaganda by the right wing main stream media


Baby steps. They know you can't do anything extreme fast, you must be slow and steady.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You aren't making sense.
> 
> I have the employer sponsored coverage the Administration says everyone needs.
> 
> ...


its not punitive if everyone benefits overall , you wouldnt be alone in paying more would you, our standard of living is so low in part because our taxes are so low - by comparrison to other 1st world nations that is


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> its not punitive if everyone benefits overall , you wouldnt be alone in paying more would you, our standard of living is so low in part because our taxes are so low - by comparrison to other 1st world nations that is


I give up.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

young guy said:


> its not punitive if everyone benefits overall , you wouldnt be alone in paying more would you, our standard of living is so low in part because our taxes are so low - by comparrison to other 1st world nations that is


It is this kind of thinking that troubles me. I am not a YoungGuy any longer, but I have four grandchildren who are being taught this kind of insanity in school and who will never be able to enjoy the life we enjoy now. It astonishes me that so many do not see it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> and they should be - why should you get a free lunch


Maybe he just wants to pay for a lunch of his own choosing.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> if they work they pay taxes so why not, as for abortion, its just another medical procedure


Right, and buying and selling black people is just another commercial transaction.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PetroLandman said:


> It is this kind of thinking that troubles me. I am not a YoungGuy any longer, but I have four grandchildren who are being taught this kind of insanity in school and who will never be able to enjoy the life we enjoy now. It astonishes me that so many do not see it.


i want a higher standard of living, like people have in sweden or norway or denmark, this whole idea that taxes are bad is driving our standard of living lower and lower, that is if you working class and don;t live off investments


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Right, and buying and selling black people is just another commercial transaction.


and approved of by the bible, you got me there


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> its not punitive if everyone benefits overall , you wouldnt be alone in paying more would you, our standard of living is so low in part because our taxes are so low - by comparrison to other 1st world nations that is


Yes, we need to increase taxes so that the government can provide us with a better standard of living. That'll work.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Paying taxes*



young guy said:


> if they work they pay taxes so why not, as for abortion, its just another medical procedure


That is the point? Have you hired someone off the parking lot at Home Depot? If so, did you properly withhold taxes (and forward them to the IRS)?

I didn't think so.

The idea that 'they' pay taxes is ludicrous.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, we need to increase taxes so that the government can provide us with a better standard of living. That'll work.


let see it works in france, sweden, norway, finland, denmark and a few other places, why not here, why does America always follow and not lead


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> and approved of by the bible, you got me there


Look up "non sequitur." It is Latin.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> let see it works in france, sweden, norway, finland, denmark and a few other places, why not here, why does America always follow and not lead


Most Americans would not regard the standard of living in these countries to be superior. And your question is silly on several counts.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Look up "non sequitur." It is Latin.


look up the bible, for example:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

see theyre a good investment

oh and if you think its only old testament:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Most Americans would not regard the standard of living in these countries to be superior. And your question is silly on several counts.


lets see slavery ended in europe before here, women got the vote before here, people get universal medical care but still not here where thousands die cause they dont have money for medical bills, whats silly about that?


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

All the evidence shows higher taxes and bigger government lead to lower standard of living and less wealth. This has been heavily studied and the numbers do not lie. Government is incapable of allocating resources efficiently, sucking wealth from the economy and wasting it. It's necessary for basic functions that have to happen but once it becomes the size it is now, it becomes to big and sucks too much wealth from the economy which will lead to lower standards of living for everyone, except the politicians and their friends who will always do well from our money. I wouldn't mind taxes as much if they went to something that did good, but after judges, roads, police, military and basic functions government spending is just wasted on the corrupt and hurts the whole economy. I don't want to pay for the corrupt politicians BMW and prostitute, let him get a real job to pay for that....


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

young guy said:


> lets see slavery ended in europe before here, women got the vote before here, people get universal medical care but still not here where thousands die cause they dont have money for medical bills, whats silly about that?


Many still die in Europe and Canada because simple cures for cancer and other problems are too expensive. I'd rather be broke and alive then dead and have my money. There are many things in America that are easily cured but expensive but in most western nations with NHS they can't get the simple treatment. Government puts a price tag on each person, is that humane?

EDIT: The solution is to bring down prices like they were BEFORE government was so heavily involved in the system. Back in the 40's medical treatment was so cheap most did not need insurance and on average the rich and poor had the same number of doctor visits. Get government out of health care and focus on the cost, and we can have affordable health care for all.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

nick.mccann said:


> All the evidence shows higher taxes and bigger government lead to lower standard of living and less wealth.QUOTE]
> 
> what countries have higher taxes and lower standard of living than the US?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

nick.mccann said:


> Get government out of health care and focus on the cost, and we can have affordable health care for all.


and if the government get out the doctors and insurance companies and hospitals and pharma companies will lower their prices simply because they nice guys im sure....yeah right, they have a monopoly and they like it that way


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

young guy said:


> nick.mccann said:
> 
> 
> > All the evidence shows higher taxes and bigger government lead to lower standard of living and less wealth.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

young guy said:


> and if the government get out the doctors and insurance companies and hospitals and pharma companies will lower their prices simply because they nice guys im sure....yeah right, they have a monopoly and they like it that way


Why are colleges so expensive when they used to be a lot cheaper? Government loans, most could not afford college unless they had loans, so if not for government colleges would have to lower costs to get more people to attend their college.

You see when government adds hundreds of billions to a area like Health care or schools the prices rise, it's simple economics. Just like before government intervention and insurance, the prices were low, because there was not a large amount of money available to that sector. They can't artificially keeps prices high, they would go out of business or be forced to lower prices, like in the 40's.
See health care was fine UNTIL government got involved and threw billions at it and prices rose and insurance also raised prices. Just like with government loans and college.

So we have something that worked VERY well in the past, no government, little or no insurance and cheap inefficient medical care for all. And the opposite today, massive government and insurance involvement and spending and high prices. So logically the solution is to do what worked well BEFORE.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

young guy said:


> let see it works in france, sweden, norway, finland, denmark and a few other places, why not here, why does America always follow and not lead


I suppose it depends on what you call quality of living, but only two of those countries are in the top 10 of GDP per capita. And I'd be willing to bet that if you did a REAL comparison, e.g. hours of labor need to purchase goods, the US would come out on top hands down.

There's also little doubt that if you're interested in working, the US provides far greater opportunities than the countries you mention, which tend to have very insular work forces.

In what sense is America a "follower"?


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

young guy said:


> and if the government get out the doctors and insurance companies and hospitals and pharma companies will lower their prices simply because they nice guys im sure....yeah right, they have a monopoly and they like it that way


No - its competition that keeps prices low. The notion that we need the government to set prices to keep them reasonable doesn't follow. We don't have enough competition in the health care market, which is largely due to government regulation (i.e. having to get approved by each state insurance commissioner, having to meet state mandates for coverage, tax subsidies for employer based but not individual insurance, etc).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Tax rates by themselves mean little. Since the end of WWII the problem has been spending, not taxation; an obscenely bloated federal government has been spending itself out of existence -- regardless of tax rates.

Long-term, the situation will correct itself. Eventually the feds (and many states) will either go bankrupt, or will be forced to slash spending. Here in California our bonds are already teetering on junk status.

This reduction in spending will be painful for everyone, even for sacred cows like our defense department. Read this from the Cato Institute:

https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10152


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

DCLawyer68 said:


> No - its competition that keeps prices low. The notion that we need the government to set prices to keep them reasonable doesn't follow. We don't have enough competition in the health care market, which is largely due to government regulation (i.e. having to get approved by each state insurance commissioner, having to meet state mandates for coverage, tax subsidies for employer based but not individual insurance, etc).


actually health care and major league sports are the only two areas not regulated by the federal government as far a monopolies go, and the insurance companies want to keep it that way, thats why theyre spending millions to stop a government public option which would be their first competition in decades


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

DCLawyer68 said:


> I suppose it depends on what you call quality of living, but only two of those countries are in the top 10 of GDP per capita. And I'd be willing to bet that if you did a REAL comparison, e.g. hours of labor need to purchase goods, the US would come out on top hands down.


Living space is an important factor also.

Not many abroad have 1500+ square feet to live in.

That's OK if you CHOOSE to.

Not so much if you want more but can't or are prohibited.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

DCLawyer68 said:


> We don't have enough competition in the health care market, which is largely due to government regulation (i.e. having to get approved by each state insurance commissioner, having to meet state mandates for coverage, tax subsidies for employer based but not individual insurance, etc).


In Maryland, I can't but insurance without mandated coverage for mental health and rehab or without Invitro reproductive coverages.

I have the shrinks and the IVF Institute to thank for that!!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

young guy said:


> look up the bible, for example:
> 
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> ...


So basically, are U saying we can restart the slavery business?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Right, and buying and selling black people is just another commercial transaction.





Asterix said:


> So basically, are U saying we can restart the slavery business?


see above


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

DCLawyer68 said:


> In what sense is America a "follower"?


America as a follower for important social issues

Look at womens right to vote
Scotland 1899
Australia 1901
Finland 1906
Norway 1907
Denmark 1908
Sweden 1909
Canada 1916
Russia 1917
US 1920
England 1928

Abolition of slavery

France 1794
Scotland 1799
Canada, Denmark, Norway 1803
England, Prussia 1807
Spain 1811
Argentina 1813
Ecuador, Columbia, Venezuela 1821
Greece 1822
Chile 1823
Mexico 1829
Bolivia 1831
US 1863

Oh when it comes to making money or inventing new things to make money we may lead, but quality of life, not to much


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

young guy said:


> see above


The response from Mike Petrik to you was a sarcastic response to your statement "as for abortion, its just another medical procedure" while your response and continued posting of quotes is what I'm wondering about.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

young guy said:


> America as a follower for important social issues
> 
> Look at womens right to vote
> Scotland 1899
> ...


If America is that backwards, why don't you just move to Europe?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Asterix said:


> If America is that backwards, why don't you just move to Europe?


yeah love it or leave it right, how about love it and work to improve it, maybe i want to improve things for my kids right here


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Asterix said:


> The response from Mike Petrik to you was a sarcastic response to your statement "as for abortion, its just another medical procedure" while your response and continued posting of quotes is what I'm wondering about.


lets see, abortion is legal, slavery is not, i meet scarcasm with scarcasm


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

young guy said:


> America as a follower for important social issues
> 
> Look at womens right to vote
> Scotland 1899
> ...


I think the jury is still out on the whole "women's suffrage" issue.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Relayer said:


> I think the jury is still out on the whole "women's suffrage" issue.


yeah your right - LOL - look at Saudi Arabia !


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

young guy said:


> its not punitive if everyone benefits overall , you wouldnt be alone in paying more would you, our standard of living is so low in part because our taxes are so low - by comparrison to other 1st world nations that is





WouldaShoulda said:


> I give up.





young guy said:


> i want a higher standard of living, like people have in sweden or norway or denmark, this whole idea that taxes are bad is driving our standard of living lower and lower, that is if you working class and don;t live off investments





Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, we need to increase taxes so that the government can provide us with a better standard of living. That'll work.


LOL. Indeed, better living through a hand-out (vs a hand-up!). Yep, that's gonna work alright. 

I think the group Country Joe and the Fish said it best in that old 60's song:

"One, two, three; What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me cause I don't give a damn;
next stop is Vietnam!"

Can any of this really be what our founding fathers had in mind?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Can any of this really be what our founding fathers had in mind?


yes they only cared about rights and freedoms for free white men who owned land, that was their world of the 18th century,

had people been happy with that we'd still be like that, fortunately enough people decided to love their country and stay and work to improve it (as opposed to love it or leave it)

thats what this is all about, people who want the status quo (party of no) and people who want to improve things


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

young guy said:


> yes they only cared about rights and freedoms for free white men who owned land, that was their world of the 18th century,
> 
> had people been happy with that we'd still be like that, fortunately enough people decided to love their country and stay and work to improve it (as opposed to love it or leave it)
> 
> thats what this is all about, people who want the status quo (party of no) and people who want to improve things


It's a function of youth to be in that latter category. My dad used to say there's nothing more unnatural than young conservatives and old liberals.

Anyway, the bottom line is that we're being strangled by a corrupt two-party political cartel, and the third deity of this most unholy trinity: a mass media that makes any substantial change to the situation virtually impossible. Our only possible hope is if we wake up and stop pretending the American people are divided into good Democrats and bad Republicans, or vice-versa. Neither party has been or is willing to do what's needed to fix our problems.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

young guy said:


> yes they only cared about rights and freedoms for free white men who owned land, that was their world of the 18th century,


This young guy has been stuffed to the hilt with ahistorical indoctrination. Try reading a book, young guy. You'd learn, for instance, that George Washington manumitted all his slaves in his will. That doesn't really fit in with your view of the past, does it?

When you've matured, young guy, I'll take you off my ignore list.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> It's a function of youth to be in that latter category. My dad used to say there's nothing more unnatural than young conservatives and old liberals.
> 
> Anyway, the bottom line is that we're being strangled by a corrupt two-party political cartel, and the third deity of this most unholy trinity: a mass media that makes any substantial change to the situation virtually impossible. Our only possible hope is if we wake up and stop pretending the American people are divided into good Democrats and bad Republicans, or vice-versa. Neither party has been or is willing to do what's needed to fix our problems.


LOL - come the revolution comrade, come the revolution


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> This young guy has been stuffed to the hilt with ahistorical indoctrination. Try reading a book, young guy. You'd learn, for instance, that George Washington manumitted all his slaves in his will. That doesn't really fit in with your view of the past, does it?
> 
> When you've matured, young guy, I'll take you off my ignore list.


yes how gererous, now that ive used you and am now dead and can use you no more, you can be free -

maybe you should expand your reading to beyond the National Review

oh and you can keep me on you ignore list - the best way to avoid thinking is to avoid reading opposing points of views - which i take it is something your advocating ?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> ...Anyway, the bottom line is that we're being strangled by a corrupt two-party political cartel, and the third deity of this most unholy trinity: a mass media that makes any substantial change to the situation virtually impossible. Our only possible hope is if we wake up and stop pretending the American people are divided into good Democrats and bad Republicans, or vice-versa. Neither party has been or is willing to do what's needed to fix our problems.


Frank: Yours is the most succinct, yet complete and accurate summary of the problem that I have yet read! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> look up the bible, for example:
> 
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> ...


Young guy, leaving aside your fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, you still need to look up "non sequitur." Your rant is simply not germane to anything.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Young guy, leaving aside your fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, you still need to look up "non sequitur." Your rant is simply not germane to anything.


Mike i apologize i did look up non sequitor and now realize that when you said selling black people was just a commerical transaction you meant it doesnt make any sense, or to quote the latin 'it doesnt follow'


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Young guy, leaving aside your fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, you still need to look up "non sequitur." Your rant is simply not germane to anything.


im not always clear it true, i mentioned that an abortion is just a medical proceedure, you mentioned that selling black people was just a comemrcial transaction. usually people opposed to abortion do so on religious grounds, yet the approval of slavery can be based on religious grounds, abortion is a legal medical procedure and slavery is a illegal commercial transaction, are you equating something legal as the same as something illegal?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PetroLandman said:


> That is the point? Have you hired someone off the parking lot at Home Depot? If so, did you properly withhold taxes (and forward them to the IRS)?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> The idea that 'they' pay taxes is ludicrous.


yes home depot is a very crowded place what with 20 million illegals standing around, most of them work regular jobs for employers who dont want to check on them because they can pay them a low wage, and you know what even if you get a low wage from a regular job you still pay taxes


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> im not always clear it true, i mentioned that an abortion is just a medical proceedure, you mentioned that selling black people was just a comemrcial transaction. usually people opposed to abortion do so on religious grounds, yet the approval of slavery can be based on religious grounds, abortion is a legal medical procedure and slavery is a illegal commercial transaction, are you equating something legal as the same as something illegal?


Young guy, it may interest you to know that the fight against slavery (in Europe and in the US) was led by religious forces. In any event, it does not follow that just because a certain medical procedure is currently legal that the government should mandate insurance coverage for it. Objections based on moral, prudential and financial considerations are entirely appropriate.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read the current health care reform mandates coverage for "prenatal care", not abortion specifically. I'd certainly support an exception clause for elective abortions, if that's what the Republicans are aiming for. If they're trying to use this to kill the entire reform process, that's another story.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

young guy said:


> actually health care and major league sports are the only two areas not regulated by the federal government as far a monopolies go, and the insurance companies want to keep it that way, thats why theyre spending millions to stop a government public option which would be their first competition in decades


The notion that health care is "not regulated as far as monopolies go" as about as erroneous statement as I've read on this forum. I'd really like to know what your basis for believing this is. I agree that there's not enough competition, but its not because they're sitting together in a room planning it that way.

Further, only baseball enjoys any degree of antitrust exemption. The other sports do not.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

young guy said:


> America as a follower for important social issues
> 
> Look at womens right to vote
> Scotland 1899
> ...


These lists seem a little arbitrary. Allow me to pick the countries and the picture looks much difference. Here's the link to Wikipedia re women's voting for example. I agree that the US wasn't the first, but we were clearly towards the front than the back when the larger picture is examined.

And to be technical, the US date re slavery should be 1865 with the enactment of the 13th amendment - not the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

In addition, not one of the countries you've cited has elected a member of an ethnic minority as its political leader save the US.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read the current health care reform mandates coverage for "prenatal care", not abortion specifically. I'd certainly support an exception clause for elective abortions, if that's what the Republicans are aiming for. If they're trying to use this to kill the entire reform process, that's another story.


It's not that simple (of course):
https://features.csmonitor.com/poli...e-could-unravel-house-healthcare-reform-bill/


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

young guy said:


> i want a higher standard of living, like people have in sweden or norway or denmark, this whole idea that taxes are bad is driving our standard of living lower and lower, that is if you working class and don;t live off investments


Probably need a better example than Norway. The personal income tax rate is about 38% to U.S. 30%, but their corporate rate is lower than ours. Actually, Demark and Sweden also have lower corporate rates than the U.S. And all of the above are relatively homogenous nation-states with a greater tolerance, socially and economically, for personal taxation than the U.S.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> It's not that simple (of course):
> https://features.csmonitor.com/poli...e-could-unravel-house-healthcare-reform-bill/


Wow. I'd like to see a list of Mr. Stupak's campaign contributors.

Oops sorry, here it is:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00004196

Looks like he's another Baucus shill. 3/4 of his campaign funding comes from PACs, not individual contributions.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

young guy said:


> nick.mccann said:
> 
> 
> > All the evidence shows higher taxes and bigger government lead to lower standard of living and less wealth.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Wow. I'd like to see a list of Mr. Stupak's campaign contributors.
> 
> Oops sorry, here it is:
> 
> ...


Are you implying that Stupak's pro-life position has something to do with his campaign contributions?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

DCLawyer68 said:


> Are you implying that Stupak's pro-life position has something to do with his campaign contributions?


No, but this CSM article makes it sound like he's using this issue to try and derail the entire bill. The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funding for elective abortions.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> No, but this CSM article makes it sound like he's using this issue to try and derail the entire bill. The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funding for elective abortions.


I have no idea as to Stupak's motives (and am not inclined to speculate), but I do know that some excellent lawyers have scrutizined the bill and have concluded that it would, or at least could, circumvent the Hyde Amendment. When legislators offer amendments to clarify the survival of Hyde's prohibitions, they are resisted by the bill's supporters, who happen to be pro-abortion rights.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

DCLawyer68 said:


> Are you implying that Stupak's pro-life position has something to do with his campaign contributions?


I think that is exactly what he is implying. More specifically, Frank is suggesting that Stupak's pro-life concerns are a ruse to hide his real motivation to derail the bill at the behest of his contributors, in which case he is presciently clever having anticipated this opportunity by accumulating a 0% approval rating from NARAL and a National Right to Life endorsement based on over a dozen previous votes.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> I think that is exactly what he is implying. More specifically, Frank is suggesting that Stupak's pro-life concerns are a ruse to hide his real motivation to derail the bill at the behest of his contributors, in which case he is presciently clever having anticipated this opportunity by accumulating a 0% approval rating from NARAL and a National Right to Life endorsement based on over a dozen previous votes.


Big Maternity has corrupted him!!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I have no idea as to Stupak's motives (and am not inclined to speculate), but I do know that some excellent lawyers have scrutizined the bill and have concluded that it would, or at least could, circumvent the Hyde Amendment. When legislators offer amendments to clarify the survival of Hyde's prohibitions, they are resisted by the bill's supporters, who happen to be pro-abortion rights.


Well, just to restate my position, I would favor specific language in this bill to prevent federal funding of non-elective abortions. However I don't believe the lack of this language should derail the entire bill.

But upon further reading it appears the issue is moot anyway. The Hyde Amendment is a rider that must be renewed in yearly spending bills, and both Obama and Democratic leaders have said they are not going to renew it next time around. Unfortunate, but that's how our system works. Those of us who feel strongly enough about the issue should vote accordingly.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

politicians lie. that's what they do. i supported obama, but was never under any delusion that he was going to "change" the way washington works. as far as abortions - my suspicion is that the provision will eventually sneak in with some sort of "compromise" that allows funds to cover the procedure if it is required for the health of the mother - a loose standard but i think one that the blue dogs that are actually against funding the procedure can live with. 

if im not mistaken i think wouldashoulda is talking about the tax on "cadillac" plans. judging by how vehemently the unions are fighting this provision, i wouldnt be surprised if it isn't eventually stripped out of the bill. 

finally, i do believe that as one poster above said that this is a slow march towards a single payer system. it will probably take a generation or so, but i think thats the eventual goal and i honestly dont see anything wrong with it. i have yet to hear of one coherent argument as to what exactly it is that private health insurance companies add to justify their outsized profits.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> politicians lie. that's what they do. i supported obama, but was never under any delusion that he was going to "change" the way washington works. as far as abortions - my suspicion is that the provision will eventually sneak in with some sort of "compromise" that allows funds to cover the procedure if it is required for the health of the mother - a loose standard but i think one that the blue dogs that are actually against funding the procedure can live with.
> 
> if im not mistaken i think wouldashoulda is talking about the tax on "cadillac" plans. judging by how vehemently the unions are fighting this provision, i wouldnt be surprised if it isn't eventually stripped out of the bill.
> 
> finally, i do believe that as one poster above said that this is a slow march towards a single payer system. it will probably take a generation or so, but i think thats the eventual goal and i honestly dont see anything wrong with it. i have yet to hear of one coherent argument as to what exactly it is that private health insurance companies add to justify* their outsized profits*.


Maybe you haven't heard a coherent argument to your question because of the coherence of the question?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

a4audi08 said:


> ... what exactly it is that private health insurance companies add to justify their outsized profits.


They (most) return over 90% of premium dollars collected to claims paid.

The Government wants 35%.

Now, let's discuss "outsized profits!!"


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> They (most) return over 90% of premium dollars collected to claims paid.
> 
> The Government wants 35%.
> 
> Now, let's discuss "outsized profits!!"


Yes, and about 80% of the remaining 10% covers expenses, with the remaining 2% or so of premium dollars representing "outsized profits." I suppose it is that 2% that we will save. Add that to the additional savings generated by the efficiencies long associated with government monopolies, we soon won't have to work at all. Viva la revolucion!!!


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Maybe you haven't heard a coherent argument to your question because of the coherence of the question?


i apologize. i guess my issue is having a profit motive in an industry whose main motivation should be keeping people healthy. the only way to squeeze enough dollars out of the system to justify your stock price to wall street is by doing things like denying coverage to someone who has paid their premiums religiously based on some typographical error in a form they filled out years ago.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I don't understand what is so bad about the profit motive. It feeds us, supplies us with legal representation when our life or liberty is at stake, and shelters us too. Greed and meanness will always be a problem, but eliminating the profit motive won't diminish that a bit. And ask the elderly if they have always been treated by Medicare. Claims are denied there too, and in some cases unfairly. There have been a handful of horror stories circulated about insurance companies unfairly denying claims, but in most cases upon investigation they turn out to be quite exaggerated.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I don't understand what is so bad about the profit motive. It feeds us, supplies us with legal representation when our life or liberty is at stake, and shelters us too. Greed and meanness will always be a problem, but eliminating the profit motive won't diminish that a bit. And ask the elderly if they have always been treated by Medicare. Claims are denied there too, and in some cases unfairly. There have been a handful of horror stories circulated about insurance companies unfairly denying claims, but in most cases upon investigation they turn out to be quite exaggerated.


Any profit-based health care system is fundamentally immoral. What's best for insured patients is rarely what's best for shareholders of the company who's insuring them. It's as simple as that.

For uninsured Americans, our health care system is already socialized. Anyone can walk into any county health clinic and be treated without charge for their serious medical problems.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Mr. Young Guy,*

Based on your inability to grasp spelling, punctuation and logic, I would join those who suggest you read a book or two and learn the language.

As to the list of countries which became so amazingly enlightened before 'we' did, I wonder how long those countries were in existence prior to that enlightenment as opposed to 'us'. In most cases, centuries rather than decades, I would think although I am sufficiently disinterested in your 'point' to look it up.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> ...Anyway, the bottom line is that we're being strangled by a corrupt two-party political cartel...Neither party has been or is willing to do what's needed to fix our problems.


'Twas always thus:

_Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.

~H.L. Mencken, 1956

_But will it always be so? Yes, until there is something like 100% public campaign financing and the rot stops being funded.

_"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." -- George Washington, letter 1779 _

_"Our government...must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests (which) corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics... The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done." -- Theodore Roosevelt_

_"__What stuns me most about contemporary politics is not even that the system has been so badly corrupted by money. It is that so few people get the connection between their lives and what the bozos do in Washington and our state capitols." -- Molly Ivins_
_
_


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*True story:*



FrankDC said:


> Any profit-based health care system is fundamentally immoral. What's best for insured patients is rarely what's best for shareholders of the company who's insuring them. It's as simple as that.
> 
> For uninsured Americans, our health care system is already socialized. Anyone can walk into any county health clinic and be treated without charge for their serious medical problems.


My sister-in-law and her husband, both about 40, have not held jobs since I have known them (ten years). They have two boys, 10 and 6, and live in a converted store front in a small Texas town. He has been in prison twice in the ten years I have known them, drunk driving. She was diagnosed in April with pancreatic cancer. She has no 'insurance' to use the simplified phrase of Ms Pelosi. Her care at Baylor Hospital in Dallas, East Texas Medical Center in Athens and her doctor in Corsicana has been absolutely great. She gets unlimited prescription drugs, so much so that her husband sells every other Hydrocodone prescription on the street! She has had numerous CT scans and a whole host of tests as well as weekly chemo treatments. Thus far it has cost her NOTHING.

These are two of the most irresponsible adults that I can imagine and yet they have been GIVEN treatment far better than I could get with the policy for which I pay over $800 per month.

What is 'broken' in our system that the amazingly stupid legislation being considered will fix? It works well for my sister-in-law and her husband as well as other flakes.

The government is in charge of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Post Office all of which are losers. So will this be.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Any profit-based health care system is fundamentally immoral. What's best for insured patients is rarely what's best for shareholders of the company who's insuring them. It's as simple as that.


Doctors and nurses go to work every day to make a profit. They may love what they do, and absolutely believe in their mission, but if they didn't make money they would do something else. Drug researchers and the people working in the factories making the drugs live in the same world. Hospitals as an indutry made about 3% last year. Insurance companies, on average, made about 3.4%. Drug manufacturers made 8.9%.

What is best for health insurance companies is having lots of healthy people paying premiums to make up for the people who get sick. Unfortunately, a lot of healthy people have figured this out.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

*"Insurers' profits not as big as claimed"*


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PetroLandman said:


> My sister-in-law and her husband, both about 40, have not held jobs since I have known them (ten years). They have two boys, 10 and 6, and live in a converted store front in a small Texas town. He has been in prison twice in the ten years I have known them, drunk driving. She was diagnosed in April with pancreatic cancer. She has no 'insurance' to use the simplified phrase of Ms Pelosi. Her care at Baylor Hospital in Dallas, East Texas Medical Center in Athens and her doctor in Corsicana has been absolutely great. She gets unlimited prescription drugs, so much so that her husband sells every other Hydrocodone prescription on the street! She has had numerous CT scans and a whole host of tests as well as weekly chemo treatments. Thus far it has cost her NOTHING.
> 
> These are two of the most irresponsible adults that I can imagine and yet they have been GIVEN treatment far better than I could get with the policy for which I pay over $800 per month.
> 
> ...


Social Security is one of the two most successful government programs in U.S. history. It's been accomplishing its intended goals for nearly 75 years, is currently keeping 40% of Americans over age 65 out of poverty, and currently has a $2.5 trillion (yes, with a T) surplus in its trust fund.

As for your family, you answered your own question. The reason why your sister-in-law receives better care is because her bills are paid by the government, and not by soulless pennypinchers at a private HMO who are responsible to their shareholders.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

> Social Security is one of the two most successful government programs in U.S. history.


Please tell me you're joking? It's the biggest ponzi scheme in history. The first in do well, and the last ones do bad. The people who were in on it early will make a lot from it, while it's estimated the average 25 year old now will pay 300,000 more than he'll receive. I'm searching for the source of that quote, but I heard it a few weeks ago.

But the fact is SS will be a massive failure like all ponzi scheme, they look good for a while, great returns then out of nowhere reality hits and people realize it was a scam.


> Consequently, whether there is $2.4 trillion in the Social Security trust fund or $240 trillion has no bearing on the federal government's ability to pay benefits that have been promised.


https://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/taxes-social-security-opinions-columnists-medicare.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> i apologize. i guess my issue is having a profit motive in an industry whose main motivation should be keeping people healthy. the only way to squeeze enough dollars out of the system to justify your stock price to wall street is by doing things like denying coverage to someone who has paid their premiums religiously based on some typographical error in a form they filled out years ago.


No need to apologize. I was just making an observation. I agree that they have to squeeze out profits which is consistent with their industry profit margins; which are pretty low - lower than most industries. I think that is part of the problem - it just is the opposite of "outsized profits."

If people could make "outsized profits" by offering affordable health insurance I think they would be incentized to do so.

I would disagree the motivation of insurance companies should be to keep people healthy; I think that's the motivation of doctors and the two are rightly separate. Insurance companies are just providing financing IMHO. I think people have some unreasonable expectations. For instance, I don't expect our Mortgage companies to insulate our houses to save on utility bills.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Any profit-based health care system is fundamentally immoral. What's best for insured patients is rarely what's best for shareholders of the company who's insuring them. It's as simple as that.


I'm sorry, there is an absolute standard of morality all the sudden? I hate it when I fall asleep watching TV, wake up, and the world has turned on a dime ...


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Social Security*

How anyone could believe that SS is a successful program is beyond laughable. It is the single most shameful program ever devised by our government. It is a horrible 'investment' for all of us and if it were proposed by a private enterprise, that enterprise and its executives would be behind bars!

As for my sister-in-law's care, my point WAS that she got great treatment from the CURRENT program available to her making a 'new and improved' program a mistake! To believe that the legislation being rushed through has even one thing to do with health care is to believe in the Easter Bunny.

Post script: For those who in their ignorance defend Social Security, please just Google the names of two counties in Texas - Galveston County and Brazoria County - and take a look at what those counties have achieved for their employees. You will be ashamed to be a proponent of the debacle in Washington.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PetroLandman said:


> How anyone could believe that SS is a successful program is beyond laughable. It is the single most shameful program ever devised by our government. It is a horrible 'investment' for all of us and if it were proposed by a private enterprise, that enterprise and its executives would be behind bars!


One thing that's rarely mentioned by people who're trying to destroy SS is that retirement of the baby boom generation is a temporary burden. According to the CBO, a 4.9% increase in SS payroll taxes would ensure the solvency of SS indefinitely. The program has been solid for 75 years, and with a very modest shift in spending priorities (e.g. from defense spending to SS), it will be solid for at least another 75 years.

One last point, I hope no one is still advocating the "privatization" of SS. Had we listened to GWB, now that _would_ have been catastrophic for the program.



PetroLandman said:


> As for my sister-in-law's care, my point WAS that she got great treatment from the CURRENT program available to her making a 'new and improved' program a mistake! To believe that the legislation being rushed through has even one thing to do with health care is to believe in the Easter Bunny.


That's incorrect, and illogical. What's being proposed is an extension of the exact same SS Medicare benefits to cover all uninsured Americans (and hopefully, an option for all Americans period). The bill might be new, but the benefits definitely are not. You said her health care was better than yours, and you're the one paying over $800/mo. for private insurance.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

Madoff's fund was "solid" for a while then out of now where it was trouble, like all ponzi schemes they come to an end after a lifetime of looking great. SS is not any different, it's a massive ponzi scheme.

You want more government and taxes, we can't pay for the government we already have, we have to print and borrow, that cannot last in the long run. Our tax rate is too high, you raise it more and capital will flee to Asia. In states where they raise taxes or have high taxes like New York, they're having a problem with the wealthy leaving. Our government will have to take a massive reduction in size once we can't print or borrow large amounts anymore. We're running our future on a giant credit card that is almost maxed out and will have to pay back. America cannot afford most the programs it has with unfunded liabilities at 100 Trillion dollars...about twice the global GDP.

US debt is 350% of GDP, unsustainable especially as we lose the reserve currency status and will face higher inflation and a weaker dollar all while we've lost most our jobs the produce real wealth.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Nick, we've tried the slash and burn approach to taxes twice in the last 30 years, and both times it was an unqualified disaster. When Ronald Reagan won election in 1980 the U.S. was the world's largest creditor. By the time he left office in 1988 we were the world's largest debtor, a title we still hold today.

The problem is not overtaxation, it's spending. When we have the Cato Institute saying we need to cut our defense budget in half, something is very, VERY wrong with our existing defense budget. Their budgets should have returned to peacetime levels after WWII, but the industrial complex Eisenhower specifically warned us about in 1961 (by then the warning was much too late) succeeded in keeping their budgets at wartime levels. Since 1946 it's been over $100 trillion flushed directly down the toilet, and we're still flushing at least a half-trillion dollars a year down that same commode.

Similar cases can be made for most other government behemoths, everything from the Depts. of Energy and Education to domestic terrorist organizations like the DEA and FDA.

I agree that this spending binge cannot continue forever, but I think (or at least pray) it'll be a massive reprioritization rather than a complete collapse.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Nick, we've tried the slash and burn approach to taxes twice in the last 30 years, and both times it was an unqualified disaster. When Ronald Reagan won election in 1980 the U.S. was the world's largest creditor. By the time he left office in 1988 we were the world's largest debtor, a title we still hold today.
> 
> The problem is not overtaxation, it's spending. When we have the Cato Institute saying we need to cut our defense budget in half, something is very, VERY wrong with our existing defense budget. Their budgets should have returned to peacetime levels after WWII, but the industrial complex Eisenhower specifically warned us about in 1961 (by then the warning was much too late) succeeded in keeping their budgets at wartime levels. Since 1946 it's been over $100 trillion flushed directly down the toilet, and we're still flushing at least a half-trillion dollars a year down that same commode.
> 
> ...


So, why not start with the largest spending program?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, why not start with the largest spending program?


If you're referring to Social Security, it's an entitlement not a "spending program". People are simply taking out what they specifically paid into it.

Also, relative to other countries the U.S. doesn't spend an exhorbitant amount on social programs. Currently it's just over 4% of GDP, which is about 1% lower than it was in 1980. Defense spending, on the other hand, is nothing short of obscene. Our annual defense budget is half as big as the rest of the world's, and we're spending more than the next 14 highest countries COMBINED (which includes China).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If you're referring to Social Security, it's an entitlement not a "spending program". People are simply taking out what they specifically paid into it.
> 
> *Also, relative to other countries the U.S. doesn't spend an exhorbitant amount on social programs. Currently it's just over 4% of GDP, which is about 1% lower than it was in 1980. Defense spending, on the other hand, is nothing short of obscene.* Our annual defense budget is half as big as the rest of the world's, and we're spending more than the next 14 highest countries COMBINED (which includes China).


"For FY 2009, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.8% of GDP"

So, is over 4% of GDP an "obscene" or not "exhorbitant" amount?

Since this is clearly your source 


> The 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined and is over nine times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).
> 
> In 2005, the United States spent 4.06% of its GDP on its military (considering only basic Department of Defense budget spending), more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[15] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[16]


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "For FY 2009, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.8% of GDP"
> 
> So, is over 4% of GDP an "obscene" or not "exhorbitant" amount?
> 
> Since this is clearly your source


It's all about priorities. Over four percent of GDP to care for the American people, or over four percent to pay for military adventurism and presidential photo-ops on aircraft carriers? Your choice.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> It's all about priorities. Over four percent of GDP to care for the American people, or over four percent to pay for military adventurism and presidential photo-ops on aircraft carriers? Your choice.


That's not an answer to the question.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's not an answer to the question.


It's a precise answer. Whether any dollar amount is exorbitant is simply a matter of need and priority.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> It's a precise answer. Whether any dollar amount is exorbitant is simply a matter of need and priority.


Maybe so, but that's not what you said before. You said relative to other countries. When your facts aren't supported you can't change the name of the game to "need and priority."

Clearly, both are priorities as evidenced by the rate of the spending. And you can no more prove the "need" for social spending than I can for Defense.

You should retract the entire 2nd paragraph. Your passion overcame your facts. If you want to argue that SS is not a spending program because people are getting out what they paid in; then you should stick with that argument. As soon as you said "Also" you went off the rails. Your first statement might even be supported by the facts. But, you would have to check them first to know. And it's clear from your statement about the trust fund surplus you haven't looked below the surface. 

Can you demonstrate that people are only getting out what they paid in?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Clearly, both are priorities as evidenced by the rate of the spending. And you can no more prove the "need" for social spending than I can for Defense.


So please post your home address, and we'll forward the bodies of America's poor, elderly and disabled to you.



ksinc said:


> And it's clear from your statement about the trust fund surplus you haven't looked below the surface.
> 
> Can you demonstrate that people are only getting out what they paid in?


Most of the trust fund is invested and earning interest. It still counts when figuring surplus or deficit.

As for your other question, the surplus speaks for itself. Far more Americans pay into the system than take from it. The largely Republican scare mongering of the last 30 years has been (and still is) a lame attempt to destroy the entitlement altogether. Again, had we listened to GWB it would have accomplished exactly that.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> So please post your home address, and we'll forward the bodies of America's poor, elderly and disabled to you.


as long as you don't claim to be Mr. Anti-Straw Man


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> *Most of the trust fund is invested and earning interest. It still counts when figuring surplus or deficit.*
> 
> As for your other question, the surplus speaks for itself. Far more Americans pay into the system than take from it. The largely Republican scare mongering of the last 30 years has been (and still is) a lame attempt to destroy the entitlement altogether. Again, had we listened to GWB it would have accomplished exactly that.


I wonder if you know you are wrong or if you are really that ignorant? Don't you remember Algore asking for a LockBox?

If it was getting your own money back it wouldn't be an "entitlement." So, which is it?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I wonder if you know you are wrong or if you are really that ignorant?
> 
> If it was getting your own money back it wouldn't be an "entitlement."
> 
> So, which is it?


The fact that we pay specifically into SS is precisely what defines it as an entitlement. Are you seriously this clueless?

EDIT: Sorry, I'm falling for it again.

Finis


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The fact that we pay specifically into SS is precisely what defines it as an entitlement.


Nope; that is wrong.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> EDIT: Sorry, I'm falling for it again.
> 
> Finis


The only thing you fall for again and again is making unsupported claims and thinking no one will call you out on it.

I hope you are done, but somehow I doubt you will stop this pattern.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Another thing would be to check and see if people's contributions indeed would be enough when invested to at least equal the amount taken out (taking account present values, etc.)

People who are drawing it now have not put in nearly enough to support what they are taking out now.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Nick, we've tried the slash and burn approach to taxes twice in the last 30 years, and both times it was an unqualified disaster. When Ronald Reagan won election in 1980 the U.S. was the world's largest creditor. By the time he left office in 1988 we were the world's largest debtor, a title we still hold today.
> 
> The problem is not overtaxation, it's spending. When we have the Cato Institute saying we need to cut our defense budget in half, something is very, VERY wrong with our existing defense budget. Their budgets should have returned to peacetime levels after WWII, but the industrial complex Eisenhower specifically warned us about in 1961 (by then the warning was much too late) succeeded in keeping their budgets at wartime levels. Since 1946 it's been over $100 trillion flushed directly down the toilet, and we're still flushing at least a half-trillion dollars a year down that same commode.
> 
> ...


Cutting taxes works if you cut spending. My knowledge of most tax cuts is we've increased or kept spending the same and that causes problems in the future. Capital flees from high taxes to low taxes, and taxes are never used efficiently. So if you cut and cut spending then there are great benefits.

The problem is over taxation, overspending and too much government, it sucks so much wealth out of the system and wastes it and impedes innovation and productive of the economy. All the data shows, less government with less spending and taxes leads to a better economy and more wealth.

All the data I've seen shows countries with limited governments, spending and low taxes have higher growth.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> If you're referring to Social Security, it's an entitlement not a "spending program". People are simply taking out what they specifically paid into it.
> 
> Also, relative to other countries the U.S. doesn't spend an exhorbitant amount on social programs. Currently it's just over 4% of GDP, which is about 1% lower than it was in 1980. Defense spending, on the other hand, is nothing short of obscene. Our annual defense budget is half as big as the rest of the world's, and we're spending more than the next 14 highest countries COMBINED (which includes China).


SS is a hidden tax, the government uses it to pay for other things, that is why it's going to fail. It's a ponzi scheme, and they work great in the short term but always fail in the long run.

But I agree we need to massively cut defense spending but also other wasteful corrupt programs like SS that are going to be a mess.

Things are really going to get bad in the next 30 years as more and more spending is required as we have less money and our dollar will be worth less. We've had a free ride for the last 30 years but it's not going to last much longer.(And that is a main reason why we need to massively cut government across the board and lower taxes.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> Cutting taxes works if you cut spending. My knowledge of most tax cuts is we've increased or kept spending the same and that causes problems in the future. Capital flees from high taxes to low taxes, and taxes are never used efficiently. So if you cut and cut spending then there are great benefits.
> 
> The problem is over taxation, overspending and too much government, it sucks so much wealth out of the system and wastes it and impedes innovation and productive of the economy. All the data shows, less government with less spending and taxes leads to a better economy and more wealth.
> 
> All the data I've seen shows countries with limited governments, spending and low taxes have higher growth.


According to Forbes, as of 2004 the U.S. has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the industrialized world:

https://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html

Also, the supply-side miscreant globalists who can't stop yelling about taxation are the same people who're responsible for gutting America's manufacturing sector (separate discussion, if you're interested), gutting our way of life (e.g. where pension plans are considered "legacy costs"), etc.

America's wealthy, and to a much less extent today, our middle classes are the last remaining obstacles to converting our country into a third-world sh*thole. This process is NOT coming from the left, it's coming from the right, and it has been since the rise of Ronald Reagan in 1980.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> According to Forbes, as of 2006 the U.S. has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the industrialized world:
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html
> 
> ...


It's coming from both sides. The tax and spend, or the borrow and spend. It started in 1913 with the creation of the Fed to corner the market and try to centralize the economy through controlling interest rates. A central bank is tantamount to central planning, causing boom's and busts through credit expansion. The real deterioration continued in the 30's with massive government spending and increase in size. The only reason we have not felt real economic troubles is because a rich nation can be foolish longer than a poor nation.

America is doing better than most those nations with higher taxes...that should be another hint.

I don't simply argue for low taxes, I argue against interventionisms and government size. The more free the market, the better the economy does and the better wealth a nation has. You can't socialize your way to prosperity.

A huge reason jobs go overseas is taxes, taxes are too high in the US along with too many labor laws making it too expensive to operate in the US. You can't keep increasing taxes or keep them this high and expect many to produce here, thats preposterous. The government has an anti-business attitude except for the few corporations it's in bed with. If we want more manufacturing jobs we need less government interference, less laws and less taxes. Both parties are letting banks and wall st suck the wealth out of the nation because oligarch's own the government.

History has shown the nations with the most free markets and smallest governments do the best.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> According to Forbes, as of 2004 the U.S. has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the industrialized world:
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html
> 
> ...


Based on this thread as evidence, whenever you say "also" it must be code for "whatever follows is a complete load of nonsense!"

Your other ponzi scheme (unfunded defined benefit plans) failed because it was also an unsustainable model based on an unrealistic world view called 'guaranteed outcomes.'

You demonstrate zero understanding of America or global economics. It is definitely coming from the left. The only outcome that can be guaranteed or equal is failure. The left is dead set on destroying our quality of life until we are all dependent serfs in the name of "fairness."

I don't know your background, but you come across as a bitter person that wants to blame personal financial failure on others and demand someone else provide for you instead of digging your own way out to independence and financial security. I'd blow my own brains out before I would rely on the government or an employer to feed me when I'm 67. That's not MY way of life. And I dare say it's not an American way of life either.

Oh wait, I'm sure you're going to tell us you're doing fine, but you're worried about the so-called other people ... how compassionate of you. I'm sure they crave nothing more than to come and go by your leave and to have what you think is fair for them to keep.

The only remaining obstacle to preventing the USA from becoming a 3rd World economy is something you hate and attack because you can't even understand it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> It's coming from both sides. The tax and spend, or the borrow and spend. It started in 1913 with the creation of the Fed to corner the market and try to centralize the economy through controlling interest rates. A central bank is tantamount to central planning, causing boom's and busts through credit expansion. The real deterioration continued in the 30's with massive government spending and increase in size. The only reason we have not felt real economic troubles is because a rich nation can be foolish longer than a poor nation.
> 
> America is doing better than most those nations with higher taxes...that should be another hint.
> 
> ...


The fact that anyone can seriously continue with this free market delusional thinking (truly free markets haven't existed since the 1960's, cartels now control virtually all major industries), in light of the events of the last 30+ years is absolutely astonishing to me.

Are you claiming the banking, investment, housing etc collapses of the last few years, the S&L failures etc were all results of too much government?

If you can't answer that, at least answer this direct question: How is the U.S. supposed to compete in a free market with countries such as China? Do you know anyone who can survive making $2 an hour, with no benefits?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> The left is dead set on destroying our quality of life until we are all dependent serfs in the name of "fairness."


"The issue is not whether you are paranoid, the issue is whether you are paranoid enough."

Glad I quoted this before Ksinc got to his usual 17 edits - as it is gone now.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The fact that anyone can seriously continue with this free market delusional thinking (truly free markets haven't existed since the 1960's, cartels now control virtually all major industries), in light of the events of the last 30+ years is absolutely astonishing to me.
> 
> Are you claiming the banking, investment, housing etc collapses of the last few years, the S&L failures etc were all results of too much government?
> 
> If you can't answer that, at least answer this direct question: How is the U.S. supposed to compete in a free market with countries such as China? Do you know anyone who can survive making $2 an hour, with no benefits?


You are running in logical circles now.

Of course, we do not have truly free markets. That's why we can state that we have too much government which debases our currency, stifles innovation and productivity, and creates asset bubbles which then "collapse." You just argued there was no free market then you ask how to compete in one; is this a rhetorical question? Of course, no one can survive making $2/hr with no benefits. What a stupid question. No where did anyone advocate that was a possibility or that they make $2/hr. Are you implying that is what you make or that is your only option in the current economy?

I pay my 1st generation American landscaper $35 for less than an hour of work weeding beds, trimming hedges, and edging the lawn. He replaces plants if needed, for which I pay the additional plant nursery bills. He has his own Sub-S company that is a landscaping business. I'd be happy to let you have the work for $30 if you can do as good of a job. He has many clients and I want to help you achieve the American dream as he is doing. His daughter is almost ready to go to college. She already does his book-keeping work. His Father sometimes rides with him in the truck; a nice man that speaks very little english. They voted for McCain because Obama was going to raise taxes on small businesses like them to pay for illegals. Apparently, they have an issue with illegals. Perhaps they are just racist?!


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> The fact that anyone can seriously continue with this free market delusional thinking (truly free markets haven't existed since the 1960's, cartels now control virtually all major industries), in light of the events of the last 30+ years is absolutely astonishing to me.
> 
> Are you claiming the banking, investment, housing etc collapses of the last few years, the S&L failures etc were all results of too much government?
> 
> If you can't answer that, at least answer this direct question: How is the U.S. supposed to compete in a free market with countries such as China? Do you know anyone who can survive making $2 an hour, with no benefits?


We haven't had a free market in a long long time, that's been the problem. You cannot have a free market with interest rates being controlled. It is impossible and since the Fed controls them, thus controlling the general economy we have a centrally controlled one.

The Banks and industries that went under were the *most regulated* by the government, and the least regulated did the best and had the least amount of losses. That says something, government marriage with business leads to failure and corruption, hece we have these oligarch's on wall st getting bonuses and bailouts.

2$ dollars and hour in China is not equal to 2 dollars an hour in the US, it's a lot more. Now if you have checked wages and wealth is going up in china, as the market becomes more free they gain more wealth and the average worker does better. Like England before the Industrial Revolution, the life was short with very low population growth. Infant mortality greatly declined after the Industrial revolution and there was a population boom and over the years a middle class was born and workers gained more rights.

I've spent a large part of my life studying these subjects, and case after case I see government intervention leading to a few gaining wealth while the majority suffers. Many times in American history you can see cases where government protectionism of business leads to workers being violated by a factory, but when they step aside the market forces workers to be paid well and treated well. When you have a more free market businesses are forced to work harder to earn business and treat their employees well. All my research has shown government's marriage to business and intervention in the market lead to problems,(booms busts cycles from credit creation by a central bank) and workers rights being violated.

It was the growth of the free market that lead to the poor coming out of poverty in the west and is happening in China, of course slowed by the government there.

The main point is, we have not had a free market for a LONG time with interest rates being artificial and this marriage of government and business. That is why Goldman Sach's and others were bailed out, not because we have a free market but corporate socialism.

You can look through the numbers and see a massive increase in government involvement in the private sector and market for the last 100 years.

Have you ever heard of the depression of 1920? Probably not it's been written out of history. We had a depression, but our government then cut spending and taxes and government and we had a quick turn around. We tried the opposite in the 30's and had many years of economic depression. I used to believe as you did, but have spent much time researching these issues and have learned the truth.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

> Are you claiming the banking, investment, housing etc collapses of the last few years, the S&L failures etc were all results of too much government?


I want to go over this in more depth.

Government marriage with wall st and banks led to risky behavior and the government encouraged it and protected it. Those messes would have been impossible without government expanding credit and keeping interest rates low.

The government from doing so many bail outs and guarantees encourages risky behavior. Back in 1998 Long Term Capital Management was heavily leveraged and went under after the Russian bond default. The government of course stepped in and bailed them out, this type of actions breeds bad decision because everyone thinks they will get bailed out. If everyone was petrified they would fail and would not get help they would be forced to be more careful, except for a few of course but the majority would be more cautious.

That is why we are setting ourselves up for more problems by bailing out these groups. Why be careful when you can do whatever you want and if you fail get bailed out and still get your massive bonus? Did you know J.P Morgan has around 70 trillion in derivatives off it's balance sheet? If you investigate them it's easy to see their connection and protection by the government and Fed. Free Markets would not allow that amount of derivatives to happen, the government is shielding them from the market at our expense. This is what happens when you have a market almost controlled by a government, credit expansion booms and busts and bad decision making leading to bail outs.

Goldman Sachs aka Government Sachs got a bail out and paid a large sum of money for its credit default swaps from AIG, they got paid twice because the government violated the free market.

Again government has messed up and removed Mark to Market, legalizing accounting fraud. Government is incapable due to corruption and being inefficient to regulate to the degree it has and wants to.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> 2$ dollars and hour in China is not equal to 2 dollars an hour in the US, it's a lot more. Now if you have checked wages and wealth is going up in china, as the market becomes more free they gain more wealth and the average worker does better.


They're also turning their country into a polluted cesspool. But I suppose that's a separate discussion.

Look, let's cut to the chase here: if you were King of the United States, what changes in our government, trade and fiscal policy etc would you make? Be specific.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> They're also turning their country into a polluted cesspool. But I suppose that's a separate discussion.
> 
> Look, let's cut to the chase here: if you were King of the United States, what changes in our government, trade and fiscal policy etc would you make? Be specific.


Good question. And I do have a life, I just had a tooth pulled and do not feel well enough to be social tonight, I feel like a loser responding 5 seconds after you post!

Back to the subject. Well I'd cut the defense spending, we are not the world police nor can we afford to be. We need a well trained advanced military but not a large one with bases all around the world. That would save a large amount of money. I'd do away with the IRS, its too wasteful and unorganized. We need fair taxes, only a sales tax and nothing more. Then I would make certain drugs legal like marijuana, we can save billions stopping the war on drugs and make billions taxing the sales of marijuana.

Welfare needs to be changed, maybe not done away with right away but when it started private donating decreased a lot, and then in the 80's when there was the illusion it was being decreased private donations increased. Increase the general wealth of a nation you help the poor as long as government doesn't protect business and their ceo's and private donating will increase helping the needy. Welfare and those type of policies create slaves to the state, it only causes harm to people in the long run. Create wealth and jobs and we can grow the middle class.

Term limits of 8 years for all politicians. They spend the majority of their time once elected getting re-elected neglecting the people. And being a career politician lead to corruption.

No special treatment to anyone or any business. A government taking a pro-business stance can be just as bad as an anti-business stance.

One of the most important changes would be to end the Fed. Like I said credit expansion is the cause of the boom-bust cycle. Our dollar has lost over 95% of it's value since the Fed. The dollars value used to go up and down, it was possible it was worth more the day you died then when you were born before the Fed. But since then you are guaranteed it will be worth much less the day you die then when you are born. With interest rates being controlled by the market their would not be a constant need for risky investment by the majority to make up for the low interest rates. People leveraged to the degree they did because they could not get good returns from saving so they were forced to do risky leveraged investments.

The rest would take about a hundred pages to explain but I think I covered the big ideas. If anyone should be in favor of big government and socialism it would be me. At 21 I've been told I need to have most my teeth replaced with implants costing well over 40,000. My family and I have spent a large amount of money on medical bills so from a personal stand point I would probably benefit from socialism. I've been sick 6 weeks since August, so you can imagine my fear for the future and being successful with so many health problems making it hard to finish school, work and have any money left over. But it would hurt the economy overall and the majority of people in the long run.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> if you were King of the United States, what changes in our government, trade and fiscal policy etc would you make? Be specific.


Hang myself that the Country may survive. The United States and a King are mutually exclusive institutions.

That you could even ask such a question speaks to your perspective on where solutions originate.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nick.mccann said:


> Good question. ... I just had a tooth pulled


It was a terrible question! He tricked you! I blame the pain (or medication). Feel well soon! :icon_smile:


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

ksinc said:


> It was a terrible question! He tricked you! I blame the pain (or medication). Feel well soon! :icon_smile:


Thanks. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> Good question. And I do have a life, I just had a tooth pulled and do not feel well enough to be social tonight, I feel like a loser responding 5 seconds after you post!
> 
> Back to the subject. Well I'd cut the defense spending, we are not the world police nor can we afford to be. We need a well trained advanced military but not a large one with bases all around the world. That would save a large amount of money. I'd do away with the IRS, its too wasteful and unorganized. We need fair taxes, only a sales tax and nothing more. Then I would make certain drugs legal like marijuana, we can save billions stopping the war on drugs and make billions taxing the sales of marijuana.
> 
> ...


Wow. Well first things first. Best of luck with your dental work. Also, that a 21 year-old could be so together intellectually and politically is not only hugely refreshing but downright intimidating. You've got a very bright future ahead of you.

We're advocating the same general philosophy, and while we disagree on a few issues (welfare and socialized medicine), I agree completely on everything else you outlined. I believe governments have very few absolute obligations to its citizens, but providing a safety net for people who cannot care for themselves is one of them.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Hang myself that the Country may survive.


A noble gesture! I'm sure a few here have already FedEx'ed you some rope. :icon_smile_big:



> The United States and a King are mutually exclusive institutions.


The lawyers from Burger King will be serving you tomorrow with a complaint alleging defamation and libel. Dairy Queen will, however, pay for your defense.



> That you could even ask such a question speaks to your perspective on where solutions originate.


Indeed! Imagine the nerve of asking a hypothetical question. Such dastardly inquiries will surely lead to the wanton spread of Hypos and Theticism especially among the youth of America. Pretty soon some Hypos will be agitating for Hypo marriage, equal pay for hypothetical work and goodness knows what other outrages. And then the Thetics will petition to be recognized as a questioning minority and all hell will break loose in the nation's law schools. Truly FrankDC must be stopped before he asks again!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> A noble gesture! I'm sure a few here have already FedEx'ed you some rope. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> The lawyers from Burger King will be serving you tomorrow with a complaint alleging defamation and libel. Dairy Queen will, however, pay for your defense.
> 
> Indeed! Imagine the nerve of asking a hypothetical question. Such dastardly inquiries will surely lead to the wanton spread of Hypos and Theticism especially among the youth of America. Pretty soon some Hypos will be agitating for Hypo marriage, equal pay for hypothetical work and goodness knows what other outrages. And then the Thetics will petition to be recognized as a questioning minority and all hell will break loose in the nation's law schools. Truly FrankDC must be stopped before he asks again!


Decaf.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Wow. Well first things first. Best of luck with your dental work. Also, that a 21 year-old could be so together intellectually and politically is not only hugely refreshing but downright intimidating. You've got a very bright future ahead of you.
> 
> We're advocating the same general philosophy, and while we disagree on a few issues (welfare and socialized medicine), I agree completely on everything else you outlined. I believe governments have very few absolute obligations to its citizens, but providing a safety net for people who cannot care for themselves is one of them.


Thank you! I enjoyed our debate! It's always fun to have someone mature to talk to about this subject without it ending up in an argument. It's clear we both want what is best for our fellow Americans.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Decaf.


Whatever you're drinking, have more!
 
Then again, nevermind. Interrupting your rushed and beckoning performances with digressive substance just isn't worth the pause in the spectacle.

Carry on, carry on!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Interrupting your rushed and beckoning performances with digressive substance just isn't worth the pause in the spectacle.


You could always try adding non-digressive substance some day?


----------

