I Have A Question For Republicans

[Juan de Fuca]

All the metrics say your argument is wrong. Michigan falls in the middle of the road in economic rankings, Ohio's weekly take home wage was below the national average, Wisconsin is in the middle also still not coming close to the promise Scott Walker made to bring 250,000 jobs by the end of his first term. Michigan is wallowing in the same ranking and is just treading water. Your argument is not persuasive at all.

Typical libtard nonsense. Ohio's cost of living is considerably lower than California's - so their "take home wage" doesn't need to be inflated. A 1,200 sq ft home doesn't cost $780,000 like it does in California. In Ohio, you build a 4,000 sq ft home for $400,000. You're trying to compare apples to wrenches because the facts prove that the Dumbocrat ideology is a failed ideology.

Furthermore, the American people to elect these conservatives to raise wages. They elected them to prevent their states from going bankrupt because the tax and spend and spend and spend Dumbocrats had spent states into collapse just like the Dumbocrats have done to the federal government with their $19 trillion debt. This is why a hard-core liberal state like Wisconsin finally accepted the fact that liberalism is a failed ideology and turned their state over to conservatives. Scott Walker built a $1 billion per year surplus. Their tax income so greatly exceeded their expenses that Walker cut both income tax and property tax. So the states liabilities are not only met in full, but the people have a lot more money in their pockets. It's they typical win-win of conservative policy:

Despite $1 billion surplus, group says Scott Walker raising state deficit while borrowing is at record high

You fail to recognize that $19 now $20 trillion debt is for interest and debt service on George Bush's tax cuts, Iraq War, and Medicare Part D all not paid for.

Obama care isn't "paid for" either. Matter of fact, I can't think of a single government program enacted in the past 70+ years that has been fully funded.

Whats your point?

Mark

My point is that we are in the debt position we are in because of Republican policy. It was Alan Greenspan who convinced George Bush to create debt via tax cuts, the Iraq War and Medicare Part D. The Federal Reserve was deathly afraid they would lose control over tax policy once we eliminated debt in this country.

Policies instituted before Bush was president started us on our debt creation. EVERY president adds his costs to our budget as well. If you fault Bush for these things, do you also hold Obama accountable for signing Obamacare into law when we all know it will add to our debt?

Mark

The ACA is an expensive problem but the cost of not doing something was much greater. Most people can agree that a healthy nation is a productive nation and it is a heavy burden to just let people die without trying to do something to correct it. We can certainly move back to where we were pre ACA but where is the benefit in that? What do you say when we end up spending even more money than the ACA costs dealing with rising future healthcare costs?

 

[nat4900]

Explain just how they "hid" the war debt? Does the government have a slush fund somewhere that the people don't know about?

It is estimated that the war ON Iraq will eventually be gauged at 3.7 TRILLION......

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation, By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle


You're welcome......

 

[P@triot]

Yeah we should have let the free market take over so there would be no US automakers left. Too bad thats how it goes.

That's exactly right. If the U.S. automakers are incapable of competing in the free market than they shouldn't exist. Your position is like saying a student with freckles who gets all "F's" should have their grades changed to all "A's" and moved on simply so there are enough students with freckles getting "A's" and moving on. It's insane, irrational, and illogical. People and corporations should be left alone to succeed or fail based on their performance. Period.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

You're deflecting, I asked the question first.

I'm not "deflecting" at all. Your question is built on a false premise (it's like asking "why do you beat your wife" - I'm not beating my wife so the question is nonsensical). My question brings your question back from a false premise - which is why you want no part of it. I can't say I blame you under the circumstances. You have an agenda to push a failed ideology. I wouldn't want any part of my question either if that was my agenda.

Deflecting, you're not even trying to answer. The U.S. is number 5 in the standard of living, there must be a country that proves conservative economic policy works.

In which countries do liberal policies work? I would say that the majority of the countries on earth have went the way of "liberal policy". And every one is now suffering from debt. We have the PIIGS(Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) Japan(which is bankrupt yet nobody will "pull the plug') because of what it will do to the world economy, etc...

Mark

The single most dangerous conservative economic thought is that the market, no matter how diverse, threatened, or open to monopoly can correct itself. Without regulation markets become free for all brawls. Every single time producers will try to tie up their sector to manipulate it for their personal aggrandizement then exploit it like they did in 1929, 1987, and 2002. Donald Trump himself said he was drooling over the 2008 economic crisis looking at with a view to a kill not about the harm it was doing the nation.

I have a different theory. As government grows, it is imperative or business to infiltrate it to protect itself. Business wasn't to concerned with government until government became so large as to threaten business, then they became involved.

Now, business uses government to choose winners and losers, and protect themselves by writing laws to squash competition.

It is also my belief that economies suffer ups and downs on a regular basis, and that the downs are the mechanism that keeps economies from overheating.

One last thing. Just who is it that you know that is so brilliant that they should be the ones to regulate our economy? God already has a job.

Mark
Mark

I hope we have learned something from 1929, 1987, 2002, 2008, it is those lessons we should take to heart. God isn't needed in our economic stability, it is god given common sense.

 

[80zephyr]

Rottweiler, I've listened to your staccato like repeat of conservative drivel yet you still haven't answered the question I posed almost 12 hours ago. That tells me that if you were to accidentally swallow a laxative we can all safely bet that in a very short period of time you will simply disappear.

All one has to do to prove you completely wrong is look at the last 80 years years of economic history. It's very simple to see what party leads and what party follows and obstructs. All you do is recycle demonstrable falsehoods and attempt to run them by us as fact. Your narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. You treat the opposition as some sort of mindless lunatics and try to bully people into submission to your own version of stupidity. A famous man once said we may be entitled to our own opinion but we are not entitled to our own version of the facts. It is worthwhile to lay down your sword and explore the facts, you actually might learn something.

I agree with you. The Democrats have had their way for at least 60 years, possibly more. However, as with any "free lunch" I feel that our time at the trough is almost over.

That is the problem with liberalism. As it snowballs, the debt escalates and crumbles the country. Its allure is that we can live well while saddling our children with our debt.

Until we can't anymore. Ask Greece what our future looks like.

Mark

We live in a country that won two World Wars and did it in 4 years, we once led the world in economic growth and blazed the way in science, technology and the arts. We had a president who challenged us to send a man to the moon in ten years and we shined doing it.

Now we are told by conservatives that we cannot live beyond our means to live as well as we did 47 years ago. In the process we became divided over this issue with conservatives demanding more money in their pockets and that wealth would trickle down and build a prosperous society. Well that never happened and if you bring it up every spin in the country won't allow it to be brought front and center where it belongs. Conservatives swore that their economic policy would work for everyone and now 35 years later we are still waiting for them to work.

Reagan's, debt, George H.W. Bush's debt, Bill Clinton's debt and George W. Bush's debt is what has fouled this country, yet conservatives want to lay it on the back of Obama. It must be painful to bury your head in the sand but there you are.

Shouldn't we lay blame on Obama for his share of the debt?

And "trickle down" might have worked, but our dumb ass politicians passed free trade agreements that allowed our rich to move their business elsewhere to make even more money.

BTW, what we "once" did was done with a bare minimum of government services. Now, we simply cannot afford to do what we "once did".

Mark

 

[Juan de Fuca]

The problem with your statement is that America isn't so great anymore.

Exactly. Once the rise of the cancer known as liberalism began in the early 1900's, the decline of America began. You continue to prove that everything I've been saying is correct. We need to return to the principles that this country was founded on in 1776. There was no social security. There was no Medicare or Medicaid. There was no Obamacare. Those are all Dumbocrat socialist policies that have drastically dragged down the U.S.

LOL, That's possibly the dumbest statement I have seen since I started reading forums on the Internet in 1992. We have seen what conservative economic policy has done to states like Kansas, Wisconsin and Oklahoma, they wallow in debt and inconvenience, they suffer from the grandest stupidity. Conservatives have brought nothing to our national predicament except the loss of money, jobs, security and promise.

I live in Wisconsin. I am 61 and have never lived anywhere else. Personally, I am not seeing what you are describing.

Mark

Wisconsin is one of only seven states without a rainy day fund. In crafting an economic policy Governor Walker took $250 million dollars from the Unversity of Wisconsin so he could make his books seem 'normal'. Wisconsin is very close to the edge while appearing normal. A simple mistake could collapse this house of cards.

Who would you rather be, Wisconsin or Illinois?

Mark

Frankly it isn't much of a choice. No doubt that Illinois has greater challenges yet they have a stronger economic foundation. Wisconsin can get out of their dilemma yet one mistake can send them crashing. It definitely is a flip of the coin decision.

 

[80zephyr]

All the spin in the world will never negate the fact that Bush and republican majority congress/senate cut taxes while increasing spending like crazy. They also hid Iraq/Afghanistan war debt off the books, and Obama put it back on like a responsible person would. These are facts.

Feel free to criticize Obama all you want about his handling of the debt but the fact remains your supposed fiscally responsible republicans during the Bush era were just as bad or worse. In fact that's why the tea party started, to stop the irresponsible spending in your own party.

Just admit Bush and the republicans back then sucked ass, you have changed, and move on.

Explain just how they "hid" the war debt? Does the government have a slush fund somewhere that the people don't know about?

Mark

The use of supplemental and emergency appropriations kept it from being included in the Pentagon budget and therefore not subject to congressional scrutiny. They also used deficit spending to keep it from public scrutiny, the Social Security Trust Fund was raided often to keep the war effort going and was approved by Republican and Democratic war hawks in congress. The Bush administration was sure that the war would cost only $50 or $60 billion and that the removal of Saddam would make them hero's. When factoring long term costs for care of the injured, the bill could go as high as $6 trillion for the war effort.

You can't budget a war. But, you have to move money to pay for it. As to the $6 trillion, thats sad.

Mark

 

[P@triot]

The ACA is an expensive problem but the cost of not doing something was much greater. Most people can agree that a healthy nation is a productive nation and it is a heavy burden to just let people die without trying to do something to correct it. We can certainly move back to where we were pre ACA but where is the benefit in that? What do you say when we end up spending even more money than the ACA costs dealing with rising future healthcare costs?

Simple....you get government the hell out of the healthcare industry. If they don't cover the costs of healthcare for a certain sector of the population then the costs are irrelevant no matter how high they go.

This is a vintage example of the insanity known as liberalism right here. Liberals decided to enter the healthcare market in 1967 with Medicare and Medicaid. Republican's wisely warned them that they were unsustainable (not to mention unconstitutional) programs. Liberals were more interested in power and money (as usual). Fast forward a few decades and liberals are literally on the ground kicking and screaming that healthcare costs are unaffordable and the programs are insolvent. Republican's are sitting there going "no shit - we warned you of that decades ago". So what is the libtard solution? More of what caused the problem in the first place.

The is the ignorant equivalent of a person having a Corvette that they couldn't afford repossessed and then declaring what they need to do is purchase a Lamborghini instead. If you can't afford the cheaper Corvette, you sure as hell cant afford the more expensive Lamborghini. But only obedient little libtard minions can't grasp such a basic reality.

 

[80zephyr]

I'm not "deflecting" at all. Your question is built on a false premise (it's like asking "why do you beat your wife" - I'm not beating my wife so the question is nonsensical). My question brings your question back from a false premise - which is why you want no part of it. I can't say I blame you under the circumstances. You have an agenda to push a failed ideology. I wouldn't want any part of my question either if that was my agenda.

Deflecting, you're not even trying to answer. The U.S. is number 5 in the standard of living, there must be a country that proves conservative economic policy works.

In which countries do liberal policies work? I would say that the majority of the countries on earth have went the way of "liberal policy". And every one is now suffering from debt. We have the PIIGS(Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) Japan(which is bankrupt yet nobody will "pull the plug') because of what it will do to the world economy, etc...

Mark

The single most dangerous conservative economic thought is that the market, no matter how diverse, threatened, or open to monopoly can correct itself. Without regulation markets become free for all brawls. Every single time producers will try to tie up their sector to manipulate it for their personal aggrandizement then exploit it like they did in 1929, 1987, and 2002. Donald Trump himself said he was drooling over the 2008 economic crisis looking at with a view to a kill not about the harm it was doing the nation.

I have a different theory. As government grows, it is imperative or business to infiltrate it to protect itself. Business wasn't to concerned with government until government became so large as to threaten business, then they became involved.

Now, business uses government to choose winners and losers, and protect themselves by writing laws to squash competition.

It is also my belief that economies suffer ups and downs on a regular basis, and that the downs are the mechanism that keeps economies from overheating.

One last thing. Just who is it that you know that is so brilliant that they should be the ones to regulate our economy? God already has a job.

Mark
Mark

I hope we have learned something from 1929, 1987, 2002, 2008, it is those lessons we should take to heart. God isn't needed in our economic stability, it is god given common sense.

The market is too complex for anyone to control. They are "throwing darts" which is as bad as the problems they try to solve.

Mark

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Rottweiler, I've listened to your staccato like repeat of conservative drivel yet you still haven't answered the question I posed almost 12 hours ago. That tells me that if you were to accidentally swallow a laxative we can all safely bet that in a very short period of time you will simply disappear.

All one has to do to prove you completely wrong is look at the last 80 years years of economic history. It's very simple to see what party leads and what party follows and obstructs. All you do is recycle demonstrable falsehoods and attempt to run them by us as fact. Your narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. You treat the opposition as some sort of mindless lunatics and try to bully people into submission to your own version of stupidity. A famous man once said we may be entitled to our own opinion but we are not entitled to our own version of the facts. It is worthwhile to lay down your sword and explore the facts, you actually might learn something.

I agree with you. The Democrats have had their way for at least 60 years, possibly more. However, as with any "free lunch" I feel that our time at the trough is almost over.

That is the problem with liberalism. As it snowballs, the debt escalates and crumbles the country. Its allure is that we can live well while saddling our children with our debt.

Until we can't anymore. Ask Greece what our future looks like.

Mark

We live in a country that won two World Wars and did it in 4 years, we once led the world in economic growth and blazed the way in science, technology and the arts. We had a president who challenged us to send a man to the moon in ten years and we shined doing it.

Now we are told by conservatives that we cannot live beyond our means to live as well as we did 47 years ago. In the process we became divided over this issue with conservatives demanding more money in their pockets and that wealth would trickle down and build a prosperous society. Well that never happened and if you bring it up every spin in the country won't allow it to be brought front and center where it belongs. Conservatives swore that their economic policy would work for everyone and now 35 years later we are still waiting for them to work.

Reagan's, debt, George H.W. Bush's debt, Bill Clinton's debt and George W. Bush's debt is what has fouled this country, yet conservatives want to lay it on the back of Obama. It must be painful to bury your head in the sand but there you are.

Shouldn't we lay blame on Obama for his share of the debt?

And "trickle down" might have worked, but our dumb ass politicians passed free trade agreements that allowed our rich to move their business elsewhere to make even more money.

BTW, what we "once" did was done with a bare minimum of government services. Now, we simply cannot afford to do what we "once did".

Mark

Yes and no, the ACA is a horribly expensive endeavor, I do think it could have waited, but presidents can't afford to do that, if there is to be any legacy they must make decisions even poor and unpopular ones. He should not be held accountable for the part of the debt that is caused by debt service due to other presidential spending.

 

[Markle]

the national debt was not eliminated by Clinton. there were a couple of years when there was a net budget surplus. But to say he "left a surplus" is simply a lie.

Did he leave a surplus or not?

As the math shows, no, he did not.

Mark[/QUOTE]

There was NEVER a surplus, budget or otherwise.

The revenues that made it LOOK like a surplus were funds dedicated and collected for Social Security and Medicare.

 

[80zephyr]

Exactly. Once the rise of the cancer known as liberalism began in the early 1900's, the decline of America began. You continue to prove that everything I've been saying is correct. We need to return to the principles that this country was founded on in 1776. There was no social security. There was no Medicare or Medicaid. There was no Obamacare. Those are all Dumbocrat socialist policies that have drastically dragged down the U.S.

LOL, That's possibly the dumbest statement I have seen since I started reading forums on the Internet in 1992. We have seen what conservative economic policy has done to states like Kansas, Wisconsin and Oklahoma, they wallow in debt and inconvenience, they suffer from the grandest stupidity. Conservatives have brought nothing to our national predicament except the loss of money, jobs, security and promise.

I live in Wisconsin. I am 61 and have never lived anywhere else. Personally, I am not seeing what you are describing.

Mark

Wisconsin is one of only seven states without a rainy day fund. In crafting an economic policy Governor Walker took $250 million dollars from the Unversity of Wisconsin so he could make his books seem 'normal'. Wisconsin is very close to the edge while appearing normal. A simple mistake could collapse this house of cards.

Who would you rather be, Wisconsin or Illinois?

Mark

Frankly it isn't much of a choice. No doubt that Illinois has greater challenges yet they have a stronger economic foundation. Wisconsin can get out of their dilemma yet one mistake can send them crashing. It definitely is a flip of the coin decision.

I disagree. Wisconsin is now on the right path. Illinois refuses to change. My guess is they are the first state to go bankrupt.

Mark

 

[Juan de Fuca]

The ACA is an expensive problem but the cost of not doing something was much greater. Most people can agree that a healthy nation is a productive nation and it is a heavy burden to just let people die without trying to do something to correct it. We can certainly move back to where we were pre ACA but where is the benefit in that? What do you say when we end up spending even more money than the ACA costs dealing with rising future healthcare costs?

Simple....you get government the hell out of the healthcare industry. If they don't cover the costs of healthcare for a certain sector of the population then the costs are irrelevant no matter how high they go.

This is a vintage example of the insanity known as liberalism right here. Liberals decided to enter the healthcare market in 1967 with Medicare and Medicaid. Republican's wisely warned them that they were unsustainable (not to mention unconstitutional) programs. Liberals were more interested in power and money (as usual). Fast forward a few decades and liberals are literally on the ground kicking and screaming that healthcare costs are unaffordable and the programs are insolvent. Republican's are sitting there going "no shit - we warned you of that decades ago". So what is the libtard solution? More of what caused the problem in the first place.

The is the ignorant equivalent of a person having a Corvette that they couldn't afford repossessed and then declaring what they need to do is purchase a Lamborghini instead. If you can't afford the cheaper Corvette, you sure as hell cant afford the more expensive Lamborghini. But only obedient little libtard minions can't grasp such a basic reality.

If you want a respectful response you really need to cut out the disrespectful plate of crap you throw out every time you post. I wouldn't think of calling you Rebubbaklan. so why do you insist on insulting verbiage?

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler, I've listened to your staccato like repeat of conservative drivel yet you still haven't answered the question I posed almost 12 hours ago. That tells me that if you were to accidentally swallow a laxative we can all safely bet that in a very short period of time you will simply disappear.

All one has to do to prove you completely wrong is look at the last 80 years years of economic history. It's very simple to see what party leads and what party follows and obstructs. All you do is recycle demonstrable falsehoods and attempt to run them by us as fact. Your narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. You treat the opposition as some sort of mindless lunatics and try to bully people into submission to your own version of stupidity. A famous man once said we may be entitled to our own opinion but we are not entitled to our own version of the facts. It is worthwhile to lay down your sword and explore the facts, you actually might learn something.

I agree with you. The Democrats have had their way for at least 60 years, possibly more. However, as with any "free lunch" I feel that our time at the trough is almost over.

That is the problem with liberalism. As it snowballs, the debt escalates and crumbles the country. Its allure is that we can live well while saddling our children with our debt.

Until we can't anymore. Ask Greece what our future looks like.

Mark

We live in a country that won two World Wars and did it in 4 years, we once led the world in economic growth and blazed the way in science, technology and the arts. We had a president who challenged us to send a man to the moon in ten years and we shined doing it.

Now we are told by conservatives that we cannot live beyond our means to live as well as we did 47 years ago. In the process we became divided over this issue with conservatives demanding more money in their pockets and that wealth would trickle down and build a prosperous society. Well that never happened and if you bring it up every spin in the country won't allow it to be brought front and center where it belongs. Conservatives swore that their economic policy would work for everyone and now 35 years later we are still waiting for them to work.

Reagan's, debt, George H.W. Bush's debt, Bill Clinton's debt and George W. Bush's debt is what has fouled this country, yet conservatives want to lay it on the back of Obama. It must be painful to bury your head in the sand but there you are.

That is the biggest crock of crap ever and you know it. We don't have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. Revenues to the federal government the past few years have hit $4 trillion dollars. Only a measly $600 billion of that goes to defense. Over $1 trillion goes to unconstitutional social nonsense.

Reagan's economic policies were the most successful in world history. And Democrats desperately want to pretend like they failed. Not only that - but they want to talk about "debt" under Reagan. The only reason there was deficit spending under Reagan was due to the fact that he had to rebuild the entire U.S. military which had been decimated by immature idealist Jimmy Carter.

The same thing awaits the next U.S. President after immature idealist Obama decimated our military as well. It's a vicious cycle of conservatives trying to clean up the mess created by Dmeocrats.

I try not to demean anyone when they engage me in a conversation even if it is spirited one, but your statement that "Reagan's economic policies were the most successful in world history." are delusional and to not reflect anything close to reality.

The Reagan era was one of the most prolific deficit spenders in our nations history. Government spending massively reached new highs and a lot of it was squandered on failed projects. He expanded government by creating new agencies and hiring 500,000 more government workers.He expanded Medicare, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and the D.I.A. He won his election in 1980 partly because of Jimmy Carter's running up the deficit by $79 billion, yet Reagan left office and his deficit was $155 billion higher. At least Jimmy Carter had the excuse of dealing with a recession, Ronald Reagan was running deficits during a time of economic growth.

Also, your claim that Obama has decimated the military is completely false, silly even. The claim that Jimmy Carter decimated the military in four years is foolish on its face. Conservative rags conveniently forget to include the money spent on veteran benefits and the fact that some military expenditures are now assumed by Homeland Security. You can independently verify that here No, the Military Has Not Withered Away Under Obama

I voted for Ronald Reagan and by the end of his first term I realized what a huge mistake I had made. He was possibly the most overrated president in American history.

And yet he is beloved by even hard core liberals. He took the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and by the time he left 8 years late, he had created one of the most prosperous economies in U.S. history. The fact that all you can do is talk about the national debt is proof that you can't dispute the success of his economic policies. Government spending has nothing to do with the free market economy. Why is it you point to "B" as "proof" of failure for "A"? It's completely nonsensical.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Deflecting, you're not even trying to answer. The U.S. is number 5 in the standard of living, there must be a country that proves conservative economic policy works.

In which countries do liberal policies work? I would say that the majority of the countries on earth have went the way of "liberal policy". And every one is now suffering from debt. We have the PIIGS(Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) Japan(which is bankrupt yet nobody will "pull the plug') because of what it will do to the world economy, etc...

Mark

The single most dangerous conservative economic thought is that the market, no matter how diverse, threatened, or open to monopoly can correct itself. Without regulation markets become free for all brawls. Every single time producers will try to tie up their sector to manipulate it for their personal aggrandizement then exploit it like they did in 1929, 1987, and 2002. Donald Trump himself said he was drooling over the 2008 economic crisis looking at with a view to a kill not about the harm it was doing the nation.

I have a different theory. As government grows, it is imperative or business to infiltrate it to protect itself. Business wasn't to concerned with government until government became so large as to threaten business, then they became involved.

Now, business uses government to choose winners and losers, and protect themselves by writing laws to squash competition.

It is also my belief that economies suffer ups and downs on a regular basis, and that the downs are the mechanism that keeps economies from overheating.

One last thing. Just who is it that you know that is so brilliant that they should be the ones to regulate our economy? God already has a job.

Mark
Mark

I hope we have learned something from 1929, 1987, 2002, 2008, it is those lessons we should take to heart. God isn't needed in our economic stability, it is god given common sense.

The market is too complex for anyone to control. They are "throwing darts" which is as bad as the problems they try to solve.

Mark

Glass Steagal kept things running pretty smoothly for 70 years, I fail to see how it would be hard to reconstruct something similar.

 

[80zephyr]

The ACA is an expensive problem but the cost of not doing something was much greater. Most people can agree that a healthy nation is a productive nation and it is a heavy burden to just let people die without trying to do something to correct it. We can certainly move back to where we were pre ACA but where is the benefit in that? What do you say when we end up spending even more money than the ACA costs dealing with rising future healthcare costs?

Simple....you get government the hell out of the healthcare industry. If they don't cover the costs of healthcare for a certain sector of the population then the costs are irrelevant no matter how high they go.

This is a vintage example of the insanity known as liberalism right here. Liberals decided to enter the healthcare market in 1967 with Medicare and Medicaid. Republican's wisely warned them that they were unsustainable (not to mention unconstitutional) programs. Liberals were more interested in power and money (as usual). Fast forward a few decades and liberals are literally on the ground kicking and screaming that healthcare costs are unaffordable and the programs are insolvent. Republican's are sitting there going "no shit - we warned you of that decades ago". So what is the libtard solution? More of what caused the problem in the first place.

The is the ignorant equivalent of a person having a Corvette that they couldn't afford repossessed and then declaring what they need to do is purchase a Lamborghini instead. If you can't afford the cheaper Corvette, you sure as hell cant afford the more expensive Lamborghini. But only obedient little libtard minions can't grasp such a basic reality.

What is the one branch of medicine where improvements are being made and costs are going down? Laser eye surgery. Since laser surgery is generally not covered by insurance, competition drives prices down while improving the product.

Mark

 

[P@triot]

The ACA is an expensive problem but the cost of not doing something was much greater. Most people can agree that a healthy nation is a productive nation and it is a heavy burden to just let people die without trying to do something to correct it. We can certainly move back to where we were pre ACA but where is the benefit in that? What do you say when we end up spending even more money than the ACA costs dealing with rising future healthcare costs?

Simple....you get government the hell out of the healthcare industry. If they don't cover the costs of healthcare for a certain sector of the population then the costs are irrelevant no matter how high they go.

This is a vintage example of the insanity known as liberalism right here. Liberals decided to enter the healthcare market in 1967 with Medicare and Medicaid. Republican's wisely warned them that they were unsustainable (not to mention unconstitutional) programs. Liberals were more interested in power and money (as usual). Fast forward a few decades and liberals are literally on the ground kicking and screaming that healthcare costs are unaffordable and the programs are insolvent. Republican's are sitting there going "no shit - we warned you of that decades ago". So what is the libtard solution? More of what caused the problem in the first place.

The is the ignorant equivalent of a person having a Corvette that they couldn't afford repossessed and then declaring what they need to do is purchase a Lamborghini instead. If you can't afford the cheaper Corvette, you sure as hell cant afford the more expensive Lamborghini. But only obedient little libtard minions can't grasp such a basic reality.

If you want a respectful response you really need to cut out the disrespectful plate of crap you throw out every time you post. I wouldn't think of calling you Rebubbaklan. so why do you insist on insulting verbiage?

Because I'm not going to compliment willful stupidity. Why does free speech bother you so much?

 

[80zephyr]

Rottweiler, I've listened to your staccato like repeat of conservative drivel yet you still haven't answered the question I posed almost 12 hours ago. That tells me that if you were to accidentally swallow a laxative we can all safely bet that in a very short period of time you will simply disappear.

All one has to do to prove you completely wrong is look at the last 80 years years of economic history. It's very simple to see what party leads and what party follows and obstructs. All you do is recycle demonstrable falsehoods and attempt to run them by us as fact. Your narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. You treat the opposition as some sort of mindless lunatics and try to bully people into submission to your own version of stupidity. A famous man once said we may be entitled to our own opinion but we are not entitled to our own version of the facts. It is worthwhile to lay down your sword and explore the facts, you actually might learn something.

I agree with you. The Democrats have had their way for at least 60 years, possibly more. However, as with any "free lunch" I feel that our time at the trough is almost over.

That is the problem with liberalism. As it snowballs, the debt escalates and crumbles the country. Its allure is that we can live well while saddling our children with our debt.

Until we can't anymore. Ask Greece what our future looks like.

Mark

We live in a country that won two World Wars and did it in 4 years, we once led the world in economic growth and blazed the way in science, technology and the arts. We had a president who challenged us to send a man to the moon in ten years and we shined doing it.

Now we are told by conservatives that we cannot live beyond our means to live as well as we did 47 years ago. In the process we became divided over this issue with conservatives demanding more money in their pockets and that wealth would trickle down and build a prosperous society. Well that never happened and if you bring it up every spin in the country won't allow it to be brought front and center where it belongs. Conservatives swore that their economic policy would work for everyone and now 35 years later we are still waiting for them to work.

Reagan's, debt, George H.W. Bush's debt, Bill Clinton's debt and George W. Bush's debt is what has fouled this country, yet conservatives want to lay it on the back of Obama. It must be painful to bury your head in the sand but there you are.

Shouldn't we lay blame on Obama for his share of the debt?

And "trickle down" might have worked, but our dumb ass politicians passed free trade agreements that allowed our rich to move their business elsewhere to make even more money.

BTW, what we "once" did was done with a bare minimum of government services. Now, we simply cannot afford to do what we "once did".

Mark

Yes and no, the ACA is a horribly expensive endeavor, I do think it could have waited, but presidents can't afford to do that, if there is to be any legacy they must make decisions even poor and unpopular ones. He should not be held accountable for the part of the debt that is caused by debt service due to other presidential spending.

No law passed is set in stone. The next president can undo anything done by the one before him. Since he has that power, THOSE EXPENSES become his legacy.

Mark

 

[nat4900]

More endless projection from liberals. Always taking their worst flaws and accusing everyone else of them. Tell me something - if conservatives want to destroy the middle class - why is it that the middle class exploded under Ronald Reagan and was decimated under Barack Obama?

Hey, Poodle, that is even more moronic than usual (and that's quite a feat).......Reagan economic era in the 1980s IS NOT anything like the economic era of the new millenia. When Reagan was president, we had the beginning of the dot.com boon...while with Obama we had the beginning of a world-wide recession. While Reagan was president, we had an invasion of Granada and Panama....with Obama he inherited two major and costly wars.....and inherited $4plus TRILLION war costs that were never "on-the-books."

I could go on, but I think you're probably too hate filled to understand....So, stay as bitterand bile-filled as you are now.....in the long run I don't give a crap.

 

[Markle]

Hahahhahaha, if they wrote the numbers from demands then why aren't the numbers better under every president? Ole conspiracy angle huh?

Congress sets the parameters of EVERY CBO report. Its why the CBO stated that Obamacare would be fully funded because Congress required them to use "doc fix" as part of the calculations while understanding that "doc fix" would never be passed into law.

Mark

You are 100% CORRECT. What many do not understand is that the CBO is like a giant calculator without a brain. Even if they KNOW that income will go down if there is a massive tax increase in taxes they CANNOT include that in their calculations unless told to do so by the agency requesting the analysis.