Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election


  • Please log in to reply
502 replies to this topic

#481 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 06:47 PM

Well, I'll agree that the US has moved left since WWII, but there's been a big Right counterpush since 1980 and the "Reagan Revolution." It's possible that that's winding down now (the results of the 2012 elections might make that clearer), but we've been veering right for more than 30 years now.

Obama and the Democrats tried for the better part of a year to get Republican input on the "ObamaCare" health care law, but the Republicans weren't interested in actually doing their job and governing, so the Democrats had to figure out something on their own. The health care system we had/have is stupid and capricious and it needs to change. We've been trying to update for 50 years, most notably with President Clinton's failure in the '90s. We needed to do something and because the Republicans decided to boycott the process in the hope that they could stop anything from happening, their interests were never entered into the equation (any more than what the Democrats threw in to try to appease them). It's certainly not Obama and the Democrats' fault that the bill didn't get any Republican support. They tried darn hard to get it, but the Republicans made a political calculation that if the bill failed, it would help their election prospects. So they have no one to blame except themselves for getting a "Left-wing" bill passed and signed into law.

When do you think the rest of the world got out of the Great Depression? 1936-37? That's about the time that most of Europe was gearing up for war. Was the rest of the world doing painful austerity during that whole period where the US was trying Keynesianism? The wartime spending, government spending, certainly helped to pull everyone out of the depression. In my view, the point of government policies should be to soften the pain of events beyond our control. If you have the choice between a boom and bust system and a government-damped system, I think I would prefer the damped system, even if that that kept the peaks lower than they could potentially rise, just so long as it also kept the troughs from getting as low as they could go.

I would rather have an economy like this:
   _______
  /	  \	   /
	   \_______/
than like this:
	/\
	/  \
   /	\
	  \  /
	   \/

Codebox is being really stupid, but I hope you get the idea.
  • 0

#482 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:26 PM

Quag:

1. Eh, i dunno. The fed is too damn complicated. But they are now apparently giving cash to Europe's banks to support the Euro (which is at danger of failing if i remember correctly, so that's quite the investment, although i understand that it's to make sure s*** doesnt hit the fan in Europe).

2. I think Dawh answered this right. Europe was at war in 1939 (notice, right when you say the US ended it. I always thought that WW2 was an underrated helper of getting rid of the depression, though obviously war isnt the answer now) and they were preparing well in advance as everyone knew it was pretty inevitable. War, to put it frankly, kills of unemployed (and employed) people, and creates many military jobs. Thus, I'd say that were it not for WW2, the depression would have continued. And I dont trust economists much either, but historians dont specialize on the economy. So, i wouldnt trust them either on that matter. (Oh, and Hoover didnt do squat, and what happened? EVERYTHING got worse. So, doing nothing isnt helpful either apparently).

I'd like to know where you got your numbers. I dont necessarily think they're wrong (and that article did say 140 k jobs created), but id like to see the source of that claim of yours about the 300k giving up.

Also, i didnt say it was impossible to recover from a crisis without government involvement, that's obviously stupid. I think its more to do with what Dawh said, involving the charts he made. I learned in AP Euro this past week about the Dutch Economy of the 17th century. It was completely unregulated. What happened? There was, like clockwork, extreme (worse then great depression extreme) recessions and depressions (over stupid things like tulips sometimes) that lasted for years, and one recession lasted a decade. Dawh's graph is accurate, and I agree: It is far better to have more moderate peaks then to have large peaks and crashes, which are much more devastating.

And i dont think we need another stimulus, now seeing the new data about the 140k jobs created. The stock market is back on its feet and, barring a crash in Europe of epic proportions (which is of course still possible), everything seems to be uphill from here. I dont think stimulus's and things like TARP should be designed to artificially send economies into the stratosphere. I think they're there to prevent it from heading deep into the bowels of hell. I stand by my claim: were it not for TARP and the stimulus, we would have gone into a depression, instead of being where we are now, out of a recession and climbing. You saw the graph i put: it was a dramatic turn-around when Obama hit office. That's what it was there for. Now its time to help business back on there feet, with things like cutting the corporate tax rate (while at the same time closing loopholes and ending subsidies), keeping middle class rate low (they're the main consumers after all), and dealing with the debt, but not in such a dramatic way that the fragile recovery we are in blows up.

3. No. Class warfare is not an issue, for either side, no matter what the other says. You are now listening to pundits like Bill Maher, MSNBC, etc. I promise you, alll the dems are proposing is ending the bush tax cuts, sending the rich rate to 39-40%( which they wont pay anyway cause of loopholes, but its a start). THere's no proposing 60% rates or higher, nor 50 even. 40 is the highest ive heard from the dems, which would come about by ending the bush tax cuts for the rich. Is that such a bad thing? Saying, Quag, 'no raising the tax rate, just cut', is just the same as me saying, 'forget cutting, tax em all to hell.' both are stupid ideas. Mixture is needed, compromise is key. Cuts to defense should begin to help, a better system of healthcare (which we'll see if obamacare is when it takes effect in 2013 or 14, whichever it is), etc. These will cuts costs. Ending the wars, fixing up entitlements (although medicare adds a negligible amount compared to things like defense, but that'll change if we dont act soon), etc, while at the same time ending the tax cuts. This cuts the debt as well.

4. Dawh answered this well i think. But hold on, how in any way is a preemptive strike on Iraq moving left???? Not at all. Monroe doctrine isnt liberal, unless the meaning of the word has change dramatically in the last 60 years.

5. Yeah, private public is good (and unregulated private in this case i might add, no need to spend money on regulating the private aspect when there the public system to worry about). And i think its unfair to call obamacare a disaster when it hasnt taken effect yet, and wont for a couple of years.

6. It was 4.6 tril over 10 years, my bad on that. And to quote the very same Bill Maher i just put down earlier, '[he spent money] fixing what that other a**hole (bush) messed up.' Again, unfair to blame Obama. Medicare part D expenses are kicking in strong (thats unpaid). The wars were really at their peak when he entered, and cost a LOT obviously.

I think this is a good video of whats being left out btw: interest.



Ignore the obvious anti-repub rhetoric btw, just focus in his main point.

again, a combination is necessary.

Dawh: Have to say i agree, but im not so sure about the thing you said about the dems because, well, i just never heard about that. Not saying its wrong, but im not sure.
  • 0

#483 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 December 2011 - 02:14 AM

http://sanders.senat...a4-ec2c39342c6c

This is why i do love Bernie. he's proposing an amendment similar to what i said earlier (though not entirely the same, but whatever, its close enough and is progress).

I read the whole thing, and I think its great (the link is there in red on the site). I put myself as a co-signer.
  • 0

#484 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2011 - 02:42 AM

I read this, and I thought I'd place it here: http://gawker.com/58...tm_medium=email

Its worth noting that this is just one firm, and in fact there were more private mercenaries in Iraq than there were soldiers (and the mercenaries did most of the civilian killing).
  • 0

#485 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:36 PM

Dawh I still disaagree you are heading more left.
Again Obama care could never ever have been passed before now, the real estate bubble was caused largely due to govt interference in the mortgage buisness to try and get more peopel into homes. food stamps (EBT cards) are getting used more and more, amnesty for illegals, though it didnt pass is still kicking around. there is more talk of more open borders. again the sex/violence on tv stuff. Remember the seinfield show with the bet? remember they never actually said what it was about. that was because they couldnt. but now NP they can do that.
I would like to know why you think it is moving right? tax rates are higher than they were with Regan. you have (crappy) health care (sorta), govt is exponentially larger than it was, gay marriage is allowed in many states(yes i know california referendum, but 20 years ago it wouldnt have even have been brought up as an issue.)

Health care:
Democrats didnt need 1 single republican to pass it so dont blame them for the disaster the dems have foisted on you!
Ok here is why it is a disaster and stupid.
1 mandatory health care. so if ya got no $ the govt can fine you for not buying health care?? what insane world is that? (already happend in Mass.)
2, it WILL increase costs. By forcing insurance companies to provide coverage regardless of preexisting conditions they will have no choice but to increase premiums to make up the shortfall. An insurance company makes money because it charges a large population base a small (relaively speaking) amount of $$ to insure them against health care costs (or anythign else) they calculate that it will gross X$ based on number of peopel/premiums. costs to them is Y or payouts for health care. Z is leftover profits. Some people will cost the insurance company more $ than they give in, but even more peopel will pay more$ than they take out. By adding peopel with preexisting conditions you have increased the % of people who take out more$. (often much more$) thus forcing an increase in premiums to make up the difference and increasing health care costs to all. Now I agree telling someone well tough luck you have aids and are therefore screwed is wrong your system with actual health care insurance is set up that it has to work that way. if you had an actual universal health care system paid from taxes not insurance premiums then the poor would be helped by the rich. Obama care however leaves the poor to be screwed as health care costs WILL increase using a greater % of disposabel cash of the poor than the rich. STUPID STUPID STUPID
Then of course you have Nancy Pelosi saying ya gotta pass the bill to find out what is in it. Come on you guys how can you elect such obviously incompetant politicians!

The recovery started in 1933. well before the war. Though you guys had to wait for the war to get GDP back to where it was. basically i agree with freidrich Hayek on the depression as opposed ot Keynes, basically too much credit (ie money) floating around led to a buble and the collapse of that bubble and contraction in available money resulted in the depression. hauntingly similar to what was happening with the real estate bubble and way way too easy credit in the mortgage industry.

Yes i agree with your diagrams on the economy however keynsian economics makes the troughs last longer than they should and tops them off too low. resulting in a much worse diagram overall. Super high peaks and valleys no good but low peaks woth loooooong low valleys are bad too.

gvg
1. Seems like way too much cash and its still a good bet that the Euro coudl fall resulting in a complete waste

2. recovery in Europe began earlier than that see above but yes i think without WW2 america would have taken even longer ot get out but Europe was already well on its way without war.

As to the unemplyment numbers look here
http://abclocal.go.c...ness&id=8452309
http://news.yahoo.co...-190428198.html
for better ideas of the unemplyment rate look at these (the differences again are based on how you calculate it
http://www.washingto...ctPpO_blog.html
http://www.washingto...ctPpO_blog.html

basically the govt is manipulating the numbers to make it look like unemplyment situation is better than it is, whats new there?

3. yes it is class warfare what else can you call it when you want to increase taxes but only on the higherst income earners? they already pay too much! yeah cut loopholes i agree with that but the uber rich who pay 0 taxes will pay 0 taxes under a 25-30-40-90% rate why punish the wealthy who dont manage to hide their income with tax loopholes because you are mad at those who do? saying we wont pass diddly squat without increasing the top rate which is what the Dems are saying is worse than the reps because the reps are looking at alternative the dems refuse to.
ending tax cuts will not help the deficit because the govt like every goct in history will just spend the extra $$ they always have and always will why do you think they wont? and why shoudl the wealthy who already pay more than the rest pay an even greater % why why WHY! answer me that sprry but it is class warfare iot is a way of the dems to try and get peopel mad at the reps and to think yeah the dems are on my side. BS dems liek the reps are on their own side that is they want to get elected as it is the primary goal of any politician.

4. I used the monro doctran as an exampe of an exception not as an example of movement ot the left see above.

5. See above on why Obama care is a disater it has already started to cause a rise in premiums that will only continue. What you dont want private health system regulated? Govt should regulate more and operate less is my motto. Now of course govt can over regulate as well as under regulate and the regulations MUST be intelligent (i know intellegence and govt dont usually go together) but there has to be some kind of oversight or youll end up with non sanitary hospitals resuing single use medical equipment etc.

6. Please dont quote Bill Maher, as i said before he is jsut a political comedian adn a very very partizaan one at that he will ignore anything not in line with his (Democrat) party and over inflate the importance of anything he sees as being positive to his (again Democratic) party. Heck Even Rush Limbaugh attacks the republican party when hes not happy with them (no im not advocating rush as a reliable source of info either)
  • 0

#486 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:58 PM

gvg ref Bernie

Sorry that is why i despise the toad. He is soo completly 1 sided. If you notice he wants to stop corporations from dontating $ but of course he get pretty much nothing from them. He has NOOOOOO problem with Unions giving cash and guess where nut job Bernie gets his largest donations from? If he was really concerened with campaign financing he would try and stop unions from donating as well but of course he is not actully concerened with fair and equittable campaign financing only with denying his opponents from getting $ while trying to get as much for himself.

let me help you out
http://www.opensecre...p?cid=n00000528

he is just another self serving politician who is using left wing rhetoric to get elected as opposed to right wing rhetoric. he doesnt give a crap about fair elections only about stopping his opposition from having any advantage.
He has been a politican for 40 years now. can you say career politican or what?

I live in Montreal, Vermont is next door to us so ive unfortunately heard far far too often and far far to long crap from Bernie to give the guy 1 ounce of slack on any subject
  • 0

#487 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:16 AM

Dawh I still disaagree you are heading more left.
Again Obama care could never ever have been passed before now, the real estate bubble was caused largely due to govt interference in the mortgage buisness to try and get more peopel into homes. food stamps (EBT cards) are getting used more and more, amnesty for illegals, though it didnt pass is still kicking around. there is more talk of more open borders. again the sex/violence on tv stuff. Remember the seinfield show with the bet? remember they never actually said what it was about. that was because they couldnt. but now NP they can do that.
I would like to know why you think it is moving right? tax rates are higher than they were with Regan. you have (crappy) health care (sorta), govt is exponentially larger than it was, gay marriage is allowed in many states(yes i know california referendum, but 20 years ago it wouldnt have even have been brought up as an issue.)

It's a Republican meme that government interference caused the real estate bubble. There are certainly instances where the government policy encouraged risky loans, but the industry went far and above what the government was requesting in terms of bad investments. I think that encouraging home ownership for everyone is wrong-headed. Many people have jobs that require them to move a lot (or they lose their jobs and have to move to find new ones), so owning a home is not always a good investment (and it's most certainly an investment). So the government shouldn't have been encouraging loans for people who weren't in a position to support the loan. But even if the government hadn't been urging some of these loans, the industry was making plenty of loans of their own volition. If anything, proper regulation from the government should have been able to stop them from making and bundling the loans, but the Republicans spend the '00s defanging all of the government's regulatory authority.

And more to the point, it wasn't the creation of the risky loans that crashed the system. It was the bundling and reselling of "toxic assets" such that no one knew who was holding the hot potato of bad mortgages that really caused the market to crash. Real estate investors were allowed to bundle groups of loans and sell their stake in the loans to third parties who then resold them farther up the chain. So the people who offered the initial bad loan were no longer responsible for the loan to be repaid. Since they could make a profit selling the loan to someone else, they had no incentive to make sure the loan could be supported for the long-term. If they had been forced to hold onto the loans they made, they would have made sure that the loans were reasonably safe, but because they could just pass the buck some other poor schmuck, they didn't worry about it (not thinking about the fact that everyone else was doing the same thing to them).

More people are on food stamps because more people are poor. That's not evidence of moving left.

There wasn't even a concept of "illegal" immigration for the first half of the country's existence, so it's hard to justify the hysteria over it. And the only people who are really worried about "amnesty" are xenophobic nativists (who, unfortunately, are dominating the Republican party in the current climate). But in any case, only the "far Left" is pushing for any form of "amnesty" and it's not getting any traction from the Democratic leadership anyway, so it's hardly a reason to label the country as moving left either.

Reagan exploded the size of the government and while government continued to expand under Clinton, it did it at a slower rate than under Reagan or GWB. Obama hasn't appreciably increased the size of government outside of the "typical" growth that has become the norm. And again, I would say that the size of government is not a Right/Left determiner either. Reagan was part of the "Conservative revolution," but he brought "Big Government" conservatism to the fore. I would be perfectly happy with a small government if I felt that it could maintain the necessary functions of government. I don't care how large or small it is, I just want it to work. So again, that doesn't mean left or right.

I will admit that the country is moving culturally Left, but it's been moving economically Right, which has always been my focus. Supporting gay marriage and opposing censorship are frankly supporting libertarian ideals, which I think is good in this case. Part of the problem is that Left/RIght is binary, when there are really four states, not two:

1. Cultural (Big Government) Conservative: Reagan, Bush
2. Cultural (Small Government) Liberal: anti-censorship, pro-gay rights
A. Economic (Small Government) Conservative: Ron Paul libertarians
B. Economic (Big Government) Liberal: environmentalists, regulation of industry

People can be anywhere on the scale between 1 and 2 and between A and B, so there are really four broad categorizations (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B) that get lumped into two in American politics (1, B). Libertarians would generally fit into 2A. Mainline Republicans fit into 1A. There really isn't a good break in mainstream Democratic circles for 1B and 2B. Different politicians are in different places on different issues for 1B and 2B.

And it's demonstrably false that taxes are higher now than under Reagan. They were high under Reagan for much of his term and he raised taxed five times (after lowering them briefly immediately upon entering office). Tax rates have only come down in the last decade.

This was longer than expected, so I'll continue my response in a new post. I would say that I'm more of a 2B.
  • 0

#488 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:47 AM

Health care:
Democrats didnt need 1 single republican to pass it so dont blame them for the disaster the dems have foisted on you!
Ok here is why it is a disaster and stupid.
1 mandatory health care. so if ya got no $ the govt can fine you for not buying health care?? what insane world is that? (already happend in Mass.)
2, it WILL increase costs. By forcing insurance companies to provide coverage regardless of preexisting conditions they will have no choice but to increase premiums to make up the shortfall. An insurance company makes money because it charges a large population base a small (relaively speaking) amount of $$ to insure them against health care costs (or anythign else) they calculate that it will gross X$ based on number of peopel/premiums. costs to them is Y or payouts for health care. Z is leftover profits. Some people will cost the insurance company more $ than they give in, but even more peopel will pay more$ than they take out. By adding peopel with preexisting conditions you have increased the % of people who take out more$. (often much more$) thus forcing an increase in premiums to make up the difference and increasing health care costs to all. Now I agree telling someone well tough luck you have aids and are therefore screwed is wrong your system with actual health care insurance is set up that it has to work that way. if you had an actual universal health care system paid from taxes not insurance premiums then the poor would be helped by the rich. Obama care however leaves the poor to be screwed as health care costs WILL increase using a greater % of disposabel cash of the poor than the rich. STUPID STUPID STUPID
Then of course you have Nancy Pelosi saying ya gotta pass the bill to find out what is in it. Come on you guys how can you elect such obviously incompetant politicians!

The mandate is the integral part of reducing costs. It creates a bigger pool of money flowing into the system and with everyone paying in, the higher costs incurred by people with pre-existing conditions is supposed to be negated (and surpassed). So premiums go down.

Premiums were already sky-rocketing before the healthcare bill was passed and the predictions were expecting them to only go higher. The healthcare law has tempered the rise by some accounts (sorry no links, I'm being lazy). In any case, premiums have just started to come down as a new part of the law has gone into effect requiring 80% of money from premiums to pay for claims, rather than overhead or administration. Since the administrators can no longer pad their paychecks with premium money (above 20%), they can't justify the higher premiums of the past. If the law works as expected, premiums should level off now or go down a little as they balance out with the 80% requirement.

A lot of people on the Left wanted a single-payer system, but with the Republicans refusing to play ball, they Democrats only had input from 1B and 2B in my chart. They asked for ideas from 1A and 2A, but they weren't interested in dealing, thinking that the bill could be defeated by pure obstruction. If they had participated in the governing process, I think they could have had a better bill. But the political calculation for the Republicans was that if the bill failed, Obama and the Democrats would look weak and that would result in Republican gains in 2010 and 2012. As more components of ObamaCare kick in, I think that they public will continue to warm to the idea. I don't know the specifics, but I think there are mitigating circumstances and subsidies in the law for the truly destitute.

Republicans made the word "taxes" so toxic that the Democrats couldn't put it in the bill for fear of scaring vulnerable Democrats away, so that's one reason the bill didn't include them in the reform. If people were willing to discuss taxes in a reasonable manner, rather "TAXES: EVILLLLL!!!!!" we could have had a better bill.

3. yes it is class warfare what else can you call it when you want to increase taxes but only on the higherst income earners? they already pay too much! yeah cut loopholes i agree with that but the uber rich who pay 0 taxes will pay 0 taxes under a 25-30-40-90% rate why punish the wealthy who dont manage to hide their income with tax loopholes because you are mad at those who do? saying we wont pass diddly squat without increasing the top rate which is what the Dems are saying is worse than the reps because the reps are looking at alternative the dems refuse to.
ending tax cuts will not help the deficit because the govt like every goct in history will just spend the extra $$ they always have and always will why do you think they wont? and why shoudl the wealthy who already pay more than the rest pay an even greater % why why WHY! answer me that sprry but it is class warfare iot is a way of the dems to try and get peopel mad at the reps and to think yeah the dems are on my side. BS dems liek the reps are on their own side that is they want to get elected as it is the primary goal of any politician.

My point was, "Sure it's class warfare, but the other side is making the rules forbidding calling it that and they are waging it against the poor and middle class already." So I don't see it as a bad thing. It's an attempt to balance the advantage the rich have already taken from the current system. And the Dems have been more than willing to compromise and they have done it on multiple occasions, but the Reps never moved an appreciable amount on anything. Offering "alternatives" is not saying that they moved to the left on their proposals. They scattershot a bunch of bills that shifted some things to the left in some small ways, only by pairing it with a further skewing of something else to the farther right. Democratic proposals can only be started in the Senate right now since the Republicans control the House, but because of the ridiculous filibuster rules in the Senate, none of the Democratic bills can even make it to the floor to be discussed.

And since Gingrich came to power, the Republicans have been demonizing the Democrats at every turn, so it's a problem stemming from him in terms of decency and decorum. The Republicans have been working hard to get the public mad at the Democrats ever since 1992.
  • 0

#489 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:16 PM

i agree that PROPER govt regulation could have prevented the bubble and subsequent meltdown. We had such regulations here and did not have the problems. But the fact was that the govt modified the rules and encouraged banks and mortgage brokers to lend to peopel who would never in a million years get a loan her ein canada. So no govt interference was A MAJOR FACTOR! it is not a republican meme it is a fact. Republicans are at fault for this as well as democrats.

No it was the risky loans in the first place. When you give interest only variable rate mortgages to people and then let them refinance every year as the "value" of the property rises to peopel who shouldnt qualify for a loan in the first place you get the bubble you saw. The repackaging of the loaans merely let the bubble grow bigger before bursting but it would still have been a bubble and bursted in any case. The whole thing came apart when interest rates rose and people statrted to default. The ball just stated rolling on its own after that gathering momentum.

As to food stamps. Despite the (i will use it slightly imprperly but with purpose) class warfare crap comming out of the democrats the poverty rate is not really changing it goes up and down between about 11 and 15% highest ones seem not surprisingly to coincide with recessions.
http://www.infopleas...a/A0104525.html
http://www.census.go...60/cphl162.html
the EBT program is just getting more generous. I am not saying this is a bad thing only that is going to more people and that the poverty rate is not changing much.

Yes the amnesty thing is relatively new but both REPs and DEMS are onside/against depending on where they are from and whether they are ideologically bent a certain way to begin with.

What does regan making the govt bigger have to do with anything? republicans can do more left wing things just as democrats can do more right wing things.
REPUBLICAN does not equal RIGHT wing
DEMOCRAT does not equal LEFT wing.

perhaps i shoudl define what i consider right wing and left wing. because if we are not using the same language we cannot begin to have an intelligent conversation

RIGHT = small govt, personal responsability
L:EFT = large govt, social responsability

please demonstrate regans taxes being higher than they are now?
http://www.taxpolicy...t.cfm?Docid=213
yeah when he came in they were high but he brought them down continually under his presidency untill they were lower than they are now.

So basically you say culturally to the left we agree but why economically to the right? taxes have done nothing but go up since regan, except under 2nd bush but still above regan levels govt is bigger than ever. where is the economic right wing stuff happening?
  • 0

#490 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:48 PM

The mandate is the integral part of reducing costs. It creates a bigger pool of money flowing into the system and with everyone paying in, the higher costs incurred by people with pre-existing conditions is supposed to be negated (and surpassed). So premiums go down.
Premiums were already sky-rocketing before the healthcare bill was passed and the predictions were expecting them to only go higher. The healthcare law has tempered the rise by some accounts (sorry no links, I'm being lazy). In any case, premiums have just started to come down as a new part of the law has gone into effect requiring 80% of money from premiums to pay for claims, rather than overhead or administration. Since the administrators can no longer pad their paychecks with premium money (above 20%), they can't justify the higher premiums of the past. If the law works as expected, premiums should level off now or go down a little as they balance out with the 80% requirement.

Yes that is the theory but unfotunately it doesnt actually happen that way. for the reasons i stated above
http://www.guardian....nce-costs-climb
http://www.usatoday....nce-costs_N.htm
I have only seen reports of the increases gaining in speed, not slowing down. Please find me where they are coming down?
As to the 20% law please tell me you dont think that politicians are smarter making a 2000+page bill than insurance company executives who will invariable find loopholes and other ways around this? The red part is where it WILL fall apart as it will never work as expected!

But lets assume that this insane thing "works as planned"
Guy A 20k income
Guy B 200K income
Guy C 2kk Income
all pay lets say 2k for new obama care (i know is low but easy math)
A=10% salary
B= 2% Salary
C= .2% salary
How is that remotely fair? even flat taxers would never propose a regressive tax system!
plus A risks fines if he chooses to feed and house his family at the expense of health care is that insane or what??

Left didnt need 1 single republican stop naming them for this monstrosity they didnt need them for this they wouldnt have needed them for a decent health care bill providing some sort of universal coverage either!

Republicans made the word "taxes" so toxic that the Democrats couldn't put it in the bill for fear of scaring vulnerable Democrats away, so that's one reason the bill didn't include them in the reform. If people were willing to discuss taxes in a reasonable manner, rather "TAXES: EVILLLLL!!!!!" we could have had a better bill.

Taxes are not a toxic word Obama hasnt stppoed talking about raising them since he got into office! again its not the republicans fault the dems made a stupid bill!

My point was, "Sure it's class warfare, but the other side is making the rules forbidding calling it that and they are waging it against the poor and middle class already." So I don't see it as a bad thing. It's an attempt to balance the advantage the rich have already taken from the current system. And the Dems have been more than willing to compromise and they have done it on multiple occasions, but the Reps never moved an appreciable amount on anything. Offering "alternatives" is not saying that they moved to the left on their proposals. They scattershot a bunch of bills that shifted some things to the left in some small ways, only by pairing it with a further skewing of something else to the farther right. Democratic proposals can only be started in the Senate right now since the Republicans control the House, but because of the ridiculous filibuster rules in the Senate, none of the Democratic bills can even make it to the floor to be discussed.

Ok were you admit class warfare good. Now i just need you to admit the dems are much more inflexible than the republicans. I never said the republicans moved to the left i said they are trying to come up with compromises but the dems are saying NONONONONONO and offer NONE of their own except the same old thing give us 100% of what we want. Reps want NO tax increase and speding cuts, dems want tax increase no cuts. republicans have moved and accepted some tax increases dems havent moved at all! Now i dont think the reps are being slightly malleable out of niceness but politics. the dems are being inflexible for same reasons. They have tied their horse to tax increases on the "rich" and cant back down. Obama got a lot of flack for the extension he already gave and fear of pissing off the base will not let them budge. NEITHER side does things because the believe them 100% they both do things for political reasons.

And since Gingrich came to power, the Republicans have been demonizing the Democrats at every turn, so it's a problem stemming from him in terms of decency and decorum. The Republicans have been working hard to get the public mad at the Democrats ever since 1992.


actually the DEMS and REPs have been demonizing each other since well the beggining of your nation. it si Niave to think that this is relatively new. They did a survey here and found the guy l;eading the NDP (now deceased, evil cancer) who was constantly demanding a return to civility ion our house of commons was by far the most rude and insulting of all the politicians in parliment. I know its an aside but jsut pointing out this has been going on forever and peopel have been decrying it forever saying if only we could get back to the civility of yesteryear, unfortunately it never existed :(
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users