Page 138 of 143 FirstFirst ... 3888128133134135136137138139140141142143 LastLast
Results 2,741 to 2,760 of 2855
  1. #2741  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, that Medicare Prescription Drug benefit really was a bad idea. No means of paying for it, special favors, probably some bribery to get it passed too. Maybe it wasn't their ideal situation, but they settled for it--just so they could say they got something passed for political reasons.

    Or, perhaps they just convinced themselves that they were getting the elderly the help that they "deserved" the elderly, so they didn't care about the other issues: Not the evils of big government, not the horrors of paying more taxes, not the sweetheart deals that are a part of legislative culture... Perhaps they simply said "the end justifies the means," and ignored ALL the other issues. Terribly irresponsible.

    But then again--who could be that much of a moron? How stupid would one have to be to ignore ALL the actual issues surrounding something, to demand some possible benefit. I'd be very wary of anyone who held such a blatantly idiotic point of view.

    However, now that I think about it...I've heard this kind of nonsense somewhere recently, where was that. Oh right--here it is!



    Hmmm.

    KAM
    Another non-sequitur. You're quite good at those. I am in favor of the provision of a drug benefit for the elderly, in the same way I am in favor of providing health care for all. What I am opposed to is using taxpayer's money to support private industry without any controls. And the sweetheart deals with the pharmaceutical companies are the most disappointing thing about any deals that the democrats have made. But guess what? They are about to go away. And the fact is that I favored passing the part D legislation, because I do think the elderly deserve to be able to afford their medications. But just like health care reform, my favoring it doesn't mean I can't criticize it as well. I legislate for insisting the government demand negotiation for drug prices....but I don't favor dropping the legislation. Seems pretty consistent to me. Nice try, though.
  2. #2742  
    A satirical view of recent events....

    Video: The Med Menace | The Daily Show | Comedy Central
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  3. #2743  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    A satirical view of recent events....

    Video: The Med Menace | The Daily Show | Comedy Central
    Now THAT is good. Talk about shining a light on hyperbole. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised if the rapture wasn't on Kantor's back-up plan. Oh, right. He's not eligible. Perfect.
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2744  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Another non-sequitur. You're quite good at those. I am in favor of the provision of a drug benefit for the elderly, in the same way I am in favor of providing health care for all. What I am opposed to is using taxpayer's money to support private industry without any controls. And the sweetheart deals with the pharmaceutical companies are the most disappointing thing about any deals that the democrats have made. But guess what? They are about to go away. And the fact is that I favored passing the part D legislation, because I do think the elderly deserve to be able to afford their medications. But just like health care reform, my favoring it doesn't mean I can't criticize it as well. I legislate for insisting the government demand negotiation for drug prices....but I don't favor dropping the legislation. Seems pretty consistent to me. Nice try, though.
    Yes, you are indeed consistent. You are consistent in supporting harmful "the end justifies the means" thinking. You are consistently in your willingness to support undefined amounts of harm, for the promise of some benefit because you ignore the issues. In this you are consistently wrong. Congratulations, we agree!

    KAM
  5. #2745  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, you are indeed consistent. You are consistent in supporting harmful "the end justifies the means" thinking. You are consistently wrong, because you are willing to support undefined amounts of harm, because you ignore the issues. In this you are consistently wrong. Congratulations, we agree!

    KAM

    As far as I'm concerned, the "undefined amounts of harm" that the uninsured currently face every day are more important than the "undefined amount of harm" that will befall you having to pay more taxes. And I say that based on the CBO evaluation that health care reform will have a positive effect on the economy, not a negative one. Feel free to argue with them about that. There is no evidence whatsoever that "undefined amounts of harm" from health care reform will cause economic collapse. Quite the contrary.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2746  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, the "undefined amounts of harm" that the uninsured currently face every day are more important than the "undefined amount of harm" that will befall you having to pay more taxes. And I say that based on the CBO evaluation that health care reform will have a positive effect on the economy, not a negative one. Feel free to argue with them about that. There is no evidence whatsoever that "undefined amounts of harm" from health care reform will cause economic collapse. Quite the contrary.
    Well, that's true--the problems will exist with or without the harm caused by this "reform." The economic insolvency is on its way regardless. The only question is how soon. I know you like to ignore facts like this, but they exist despite your denial. Even in the rosiest scenarios, this "reform" won't change that.

    I'm sure you DO grab onto the propaganda pointing to that CBO analysis, but if you actually learned about it, you'd understand that what you claim really isn't accurate.

    Paul Ryan v. the President - WSJ.com

    So, yes, if you buy into the deception that is being woven around this CBO analysis, one might be fooled into thinking that. And that's before one considers that government programs like this tend to be much more expensive than predicted at the time of passage.

    But don't worry--its only reality that you're fighting against, and I know that stands no chance against you.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2747  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So you try to reveal the "propaganda" around the CBO report by providing the link to WSJ propaganda?

    In reading WSJ's editorials around health care, I see it always leaves out relevant facts and glosses over anything inconvenience to make muddled conclusions. Sometimes I wonder if the WSJ knows anything about healthcare; the articles and editorials seems so terribly researched.

    I understand that Conservatives have a different, more market-based phillosophy of healthcare--and that's fine. It's just disingenuous to suddenly pretend that Republicans want small government when we just came off the biggest government ever that passed the biggest expansion to Medicare ever with Medicare Part D.

    It seems obvious that this conservative obstruction to healthcare refore is more political than philosophical.
    Well, actually the purpose was to point out the fact that waving a CBO number around isn't necessarily valid, and in this case (although this particular article might not have detailed this), it is a matter of "garbage in, garbage out." You need not believe that article--look it up on your own. There was another article that went into greater detail, but I couldn't lay my hands on it.

    I'd not be surprise to hear that most (if not all) Editorials are one sided (or else they'd be news stories), but it doesn't mean that the information in them is false. Davidra made a claim, and I presented one contrary to it. Hopefully, people interested in the facts will then see--there is more to it, and learn what the actual case is.

    Republicans certainly did fail in regards to "small government." Democrats openly are for bigger government. Both a problem for me.

    Clearly, amongst politicians this is a political issue--on both sides (as evidence by the bribery, we-will-cut-deals-with-anyone mentality.

    As far as "conservatives" (or liberals) for that matter it is indeed a philosophical issue, but I can really only speak for myself, and I'd say more than anything it is a practical matter.

    KAM
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2748  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I know the conventional wisdom is that Democrats are for bigger government but the federal government, in recent times, has been biggest under Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II) and the deficits have expanded more quickly under Reagan and Bush II.

    I think we can stop trotting out the old warhorse that Democrats are the party of big government.
    Let's just see how that Deficit shapes up shall we?

    However, I won't defend massive expansion of government by anyone. As I've said many times, the real issue is people vs government, not party vs party.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    As for the CBO's analyses, it can only make assumptions based on the current situation. You make "know" that there is no way that the physician's Medicare cut, for example, will ever take place, but a CBO report cannot make tons of assumptions like that. Also, many analyses show that CBO reports tend to underestimate governmental savings.
    Right, but the point is the CBO report is not the complete story, nor does it take into account what is actually likely to occur. I'm saying--the CBO report is what it is, but that's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    We know, however, that we would have saved about 1 trillion dollars by now if we had undertaken Nixon's healthcare plan. We would have saved $500 billion by now if we had accepted Clinton's plan. People assume that if we did nothing we would continue to have what we have now--that's false--it would get worse and worse.
    No--that might be what the PROJECTED savings would have been. However, if the projected costs of things were accurate, we'd not have near as many problems with Social security, medicare, or medicaid.

    It WILL get worse and worse--very true, which is why we need a REAL reform package, and a realistic, serious plan to get our finances under control.

    KAM
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2749  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Like the Medicare Prescription Plan (which doubled the costs of Medicare, giving seniors only a 25% discount of their drug costs, and stopped any possibility of negotiations with drug companies) and HSAs (yet another way for rich people to keep their money shielded from taxes) were good ideas.
    By rich you mean anyone that pays taxes. I assure you, I am not rich, but I do get some benefit from having an HSA.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I do feel there should be malpractice reforms and that democrats filibustered attempts mainly because lawyers are the main benefactors of the Democratic Party, but fixing malpractice is a red herring that Republicans put up to distract from the huge money savings that could be gotten from getting rid of insurance companies (about $400 billion/year).
    Well, malpractice on its own is a relatively small amount, but the theory goes that the side-effects (defensive medicine) are quite significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Most analyses show that doctors won't change their habits if malpractice laws change (as doctors have not in states with malpractice limits--like CA, MI, and Texas). Even a Bush White House Report said malpractice accounted for 2% of healthcare costs.
    Weren't insurance company profits something around 2% too? Don't get me wrong--as you well know, I'm all for removing overhead costs from any source to the maximum possible/practical extent, and that includes Insurance companies.

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2750  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sure, at their core, conservatives believe in as little federal government involvement as possible--but when their party is in power, there is very little protest when their party expands government exponentially.

    So, it's tough to take the whining now (when their party is not in power) that seriously.

    Where were the Tea Partiers when the Bush tax cuts doubled the debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion overnight? Mixed in that Tea Party bunch are the folks who question Obama's citizenship and those who foisted the Death Panels lies on America. Why would I not be surprised that if a Republican got elected as President in the next election, the Tea Party would conveniently disappear?
    Actually, that's why conservative voters turned on Republicans and helped them lose seats.

    I'm sort of doubting that we doubled the debt overnight...ever. Secondly, the tax cuts actually led to higher revenues, not lower, so while the deficit might have increased it was due to higher spending. Tax cuts HELP the government intake typically.

    KAM
  11. #2751  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    A Tax cuts HELP the government intake typically.

    KAM
    Again, I'm really ignorant to politics.

    I've heard it said many times that cutting taxes boosts spending.
    And that dems just want to Tax.

    Isn't it just where cuts are made, and where taxes are imposed?

    I don't hear the dems saying taxes are going to be raised on medium and lower income individuals.
    And I don't hear the repubs saying they are going to cut taxes on medium and lower income individuals.

    It seems to me, the little guy gets it from both ends.
    Which each passing day, the rich seem to be gaining a greater and greater advantage. More and more low income people living off the system.
    The middle class is supporting the upper and lower.

    My wife and I (no children) basic health insurance went up $150 in just the last two months. What the flabbergast is going on?
    Just call me Berd.
  12. piaband's Avatar
    Posts
    275 Posts
    Global Posts
    570 Global Posts
    #2752  
    reposting this so it doesnt get buried by KAM's bs:


    This is real. this isnt a joke. The first two (red), are the deficit from the tax cuts of Pres. Bush. The third (blue) is the projected effect the Healthcare proposal will have on the deficit.

    Does anyone notice the words in BOLD? Reconciliation? Ya, that same thing repubs dont want dems to use to HELP us. I guess you're only allowed to use reconciliation when you are destroying America.

    BUSH tax cut : $1.7 trillion dollars added to the deficit
    Obamacare : 100 billion dollars will be SAVED, subtracted from deficit
    Attached Images Attached Images
  13. piaband's Avatar
    Posts
    275 Posts
    Global Posts
    570 Global Posts
    #2753  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Again, I'm really ignorant to politics.

    I've heard it said many times that cutting taxes boosts spending.
    And that dems just want to Tax.

    Isn't it just where cuts are made, and where taxes are imposed?

    I don't hear the dems saying taxes are going to be raised on medium and lower income individuals.
    And I don't hear the repubs saying they are going to cut taxes on medium and lower income individuals.

    It seems to me, the little guy gets it from both ends.
    Which each passing day, the rich seem to be gaining a greater and greater advantage. More and more low income people living off the system.
    The middle class is supporting the upper and lower.

    My wife and I (no children) basic health insurance went up $150 in just the last two months. What the flabbergast is going on?
    What is also important to think about are current tax levels. The current level proposed by Obama is a 20% capital gains tax. Does anyone know what the godfather of REPUBLICAN tax cuts (Reagan) set his tax rate at? 20% for capital gains.

    Wait it gets better. Reagan also had his tax rate on dividend earning at 28%. Does anyone know Obama's proposed tax rate? 20%.

    So he is lower than or equal to Reagan on two of the MAJOR measuring sticks of taxation.
  14. piaband's Avatar
    Posts
    275 Posts
    Global Posts
    570 Global Posts
    #2754  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    I'm sort of doubting that we doubled the debt overnight...ever. Secondly, the tax cuts actually led to higher revenues, not lower, so while the deficit might have increased it was due to higher spending. Tax cuts HELP the government intake typically.

    KAM
    Did you see the graph? His tax cut in 2001 more than doubled the deficit..Why? Because Clinton had given him a SURPLUS. There is no way to define a SURPLUS turned in to a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (plus .3 more in 2005). I guess you could call that, doubling the SURPLUS, but then making it negative. That sounds republican to me.
  15. piaband's Avatar
    Posts
    275 Posts
    Global Posts
    570 Global Posts
    #2755  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Conservatives didn't turn on Republicans, independents did.

    The deficit kept on rising because of tax cuts without cuts in spending--plus there was the burden of two wars and Medicare Part D.

    Typically, tax cuts help the economy in the short term; the problem is these tax cuts were extended for so long they became a drag on the economy.
    This is EXACTLY correct. Very well said in such a concise post.
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2756  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Conservatives didn't turn on Republicans, independents did.
    Independents did as well, but, Conservatives have been very unhappy with the overspending under Republicans.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The deficit kept on rising because of tax cuts without cuts in spending--plus there was the burden of two wars and Medicare Part D.

    Typically, tax cuts help the economy in the short term; the problem is these tax cuts were extended for so long they became a drag on the economy.
    No, the tax cuts did not cause a drag on the economy. The tax rate being as high as it is today, however is.

    KAM
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2757  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I, too, don't believe this current reform package will make everything all better--but I also know that in the crazy political world of Washington, you will NEVER get a "REAL reform package" on one try. Politicians are so enmeshed with the money of special interests that what needs to get done will only happen after many attempts and improvements.
    I agree with the general theory, but pursuing "reforms" that remain part of the problem, won't move us in the right direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    We have to start from a strong base, however. We tried incremental changes like Medicare Part D and expanding CHIP, but nothing has put a dent in increasing costs. Throwing our current system away entirely is not politically possible so this is the next best thing.

    Can you imagine what would happen is you suggested getting rid of Medicare??
    Well, I agree it would be difficult to throw everything away all at once. However, no continuation of the manipulated system (which isn't being change) is going to more in the right direction.

    KAM
  18. piaband's Avatar
    Posts
    275 Posts
    Global Posts
    570 Global Posts
    #2758  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    No, the tax cuts did not cause a drag on the economy. The tax rate being as high as it is today, however is.

    KAM
    The current level proposed by Obama is a 20% capital gains tax. Does anyone know what the godfather of REPUBLICAN tax cuts (Reagan) set his tax rate at? 20% for capital gains.

    Wait it gets better. Reagan also had his tax rate on dividend earning at 28%. Does anyone know Obama's proposed tax rate? 20%.

    So he is lower than or equal to Reagan on two of the MAJOR measuring sticks of taxation.
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2759  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Again, I'm really ignorant to politics.

    I've heard it said many times that cutting taxes boosts spending.
    And that dems just want to Tax.

    Isn't it just where cuts are made, and where taxes are imposed?

    I don't hear the dems saying taxes are going to be raised on medium and lower income individuals.
    And I don't hear the repubs saying they are going to cut taxes on medium and lower income individuals.

    It seems to me, the little guy gets it from both ends.
    Which each passing day, the rich seem to be gaining a greater and greater advantage. More and more low income people living off the system.
    The middle class is supporting the upper and lower.

    My wife and I (no children) basic health insurance went up $150 in just the last two months. What the flabbergast is going on?
    Well, the entire tax code is a mess as well, and that's hard to get around.

    Lowering taxes in most situations (not all) tends to increase government revenue. It is essentially a "win-win" and it is especially valuable in a recession (like now).

    As far as who is supporting who...you are not correct. The "rich" in fact are paying a higher percentage of the overall tax intake than they were before these "bush tax cuts."

    I believe the numbers are even more skewed now, but the top 5% pays something like 50% of the tax. The bottom 50% pays about 5% and the Middle pays the rest. This is an old formula and I believe the "rich" are paying even more now, but you get the idea.

    So, when you hear all this whining about who is paying what, remember--we are ALL living off the rich.

    KAM
  20. piaband's Avatar
    Posts
    275 Posts
    Global Posts
    570 Global Posts
    #2760  
    reposting this so it doesnt get buried by KAM's bs:


    This is real. this isnt a joke. The first two (red), are the deficit from the tax cuts of Pres. Bush. The third (blue) is the projected effect the Healthcare proposal will have on the deficit.

    Does anyone notice the words in BOLD? Reconciliation? Ya, that same thing repubs dont want dems to use to HELP us. I guess you're only allowed to use reconciliation when you are destroying America.

    BUSH tax cut : $1.7 trillion dollars added to the deficit
    Obamacare : 100 billion dollars will be SAVED, subtracted from deficit
    Attached Images Attached Images

Posting Permissions