shit like this is the reason why It will be difficult for the president to be a republican going forward. The voting is all about social issues these days and this is sad for the country
Indiana - No service for gay couples - fucking idiots!
- Thread starter MadJack
- Start date
Democrats always use social issues against Republicans, and they always take the bait instead of ignoring it and concentrating on fiscal responsibility, everyday I am becoming more of a Libertarian because of this issue
- Nov 13, 2009
- 3,322
- 116
- 0
ACLU looks forward to the first business to deny service. Shit will hit the fan. This is nothing but an embarrassment for Hoosiers. No water will be held.
It would seem that the deficit reduction of more than 50% during the sitting presidents tenure is pretty indicative of which party is addressing fiscal responsibilities. Being that no Republican president has done that in more than fifty years would indicate that fiscal responsibility hasn't been a Republican concern since you've been alive so I am unclear as to why you'd expect it now?
Remember when you made the post about the schools in Texas being closed because of cold and snow being a clear indicator that global climate change is a farce? You pointed out an obvious present condition as absolute proof of theory. Using your very own thought process, we can now point directly at the deficit and say that it's concrete evidence that Republican economic theory is false and ineffective right? I mean, it's your thought processes, you can't possibly say it's only correct some of the time. That would make your theory completely untrue and without merit, correct? So let's recap. You think Republican economic deity is a complete failure and the Democrats got it right.
How am I doing so far?
What? What the hell are you talking about?
Why do you do that skul? Why can't you ever just address the issue in front of you or answer the question asked. You always deflect to some unrelated nonsense, Just like now. The only reasonable explanation is that you can't address the question because you have no answer. You've never had an answer or an argument other than deflection and propaganda. Here is the topic we are discussing. Hedge made a comment intimating that Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats are not.
Yes, I realize that it is a ridiculous notion that flies in the face of fact and history, which you obviously already knew hence your reluctance to even remotely refute the point, yet I still took it on.
I'm trying to help you understand the difference between fact and fiction.
Now sit back and watch what happens. Only one of two things will happen, either you'll here nothing except maybe the random meme of a completely unrelated topic (that's generally you) or I'll get regurgitated rhetoric, also unrelated to the topic, which will include some of your favorite catchphrases. I.e. Sheeple, BHO, Muslin (hat tip to that no spelling Republican ray)
Blah blah blah. You'll recognize propaganda, it's whatever you would bitch and cry about being said or done about or to the president if he were a Republican.
Hope this helps,
FDC
Wow, sorry FDC, but that statement above is just intellectually dishonest. Cutting the bill in half, after running the deficit to extremely high numbers isn't showing fiscal responsibility. The deficit is still higher than it was in 2008 when Bush left office. Obama ran the deficit into the stratosphere, and now is finally showing some restraint - but we are worse off than before he was president:
President Barack Obama has now presided over five of the six largest annual budget deficits the U.S. government has ever run, according to data released yesterday by the U.S. Treasury.
In fiscal 2013, which ended Sept. 30, the deficit was $680.276 billion, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released Wednesday.
In fiscal 2012, the deficit was $1.089193 trillion; in fiscal 2011, it was $1.296791 trillion; in fiscal 2010, it was $1.294204 trillion; and, in fiscal 2009, it was $1.415724 trillion.
In fiscal 2008, the last full year that George W. Bush was president, the deficit was $454.798 billion.
(info above was quoted from CNSnews.com - making sure the source properly credited)
The CBO projects 2014 to be $514B, 2015 to be $478B, and it is projected to climb again starting in 2016.
As Politifact would say "your statement has an element of truth, but is missing important facts that would mislead a reader on the true situation. We rate FDC's statement as Mostly False".
And let's not forget that Obama has significantly increased taxes on many of us during his tenure, which makes the expanding deficit even more troubling.
I'd be ok with expanding taxes if it was used solely to fund reducing the deficit, and ultimately debt. But using it for expanding spending via Obamacare, Food stamps (which increased greatly) - while understandable, it just makes getting the country's fiscal house in order that much more difficult as we are now committed to an even higher spending level - which will get even worse in the upcoming years as more baby boomers move into the over 65+ demographic.
The next president will have some real challenges in controlling the deficit/debt - and the way it is set up now, they don't have much chance.
I'd be ok with expanding taxes if it was used solely to fund reducing the deficit, and ultimately debt. But using it for expanding spending via Obamacare, Food stamps (which increased greatly) - while understandable, it just makes getting the country's fiscal house in order that much more difficult as we are now committed to an even higher spending level - which will get even worse in the upcoming years as more baby boomers move into the over 65+ demographic.
The next president will have some real challenges in controlling the deficit/debt - and the way it is set up now, they don't have much chance.
Wow mags, both your statements above are intellectually dishonest and mislead the reader. You certainly leave out elemental facts concerning the two wars started by your hero that went on this presidents tab. You also fail to mention that the 2009 budget was developed and signed by Bush. As politico fact would say, your statement is somewhat true.
Thanks for the post and next time you want to take a swipe at me and call me dishonest when I didn't write a single dishonest thing, make sure your own house is in order.
Another thing, I'm sure you didn't mean to mislead like you blatantly did, however the food stamp cost is negligible compared to homeland security (who's program at the spending level precedent on that again, Bush. That's right thanks) a second lost war in Iraq to avenge daddy's honor.
Did he reduce the deficit? Did any Republican reduce the deficit in 50 years? No. Did any Republican president every gave a budget surplus? No. The question was not, is not, was never about anything other than the ridiculously untrue statement that Republicans are more fiscally responsible. They are not and never have been. I do appreciate a good Republican deflection of truth such as yours though, because let's be honest, truth isn't something that's important to them...... is it. By the way, how is the ACA treating you these days? Turned out to be some pretty good legislation, of course you indicated otherwise with your predictions but that's neither here nor there.
Thanks for the post and next time you want to take a swipe at me and call me dishonest when I didn't write a single dishonest thing, make sure your own house is in order.
Another thing, I'm sure you didn't mean to mislead like you blatantly did, however the food stamp cost is negligible compared to homeland security (who's program at the spending level precedent on that again, Bush. That's right thanks) a second lost war in Iraq to avenge daddy's honor.
Did he reduce the deficit? Did any Republican reduce the deficit in 50 years? No. Did any Republican president every gave a budget surplus? No. The question was not, is not, was never about anything other than the ridiculously untrue statement that Republicans are more fiscally responsible. They are not and never have been. I do appreciate a good Republican deflection of truth such as yours though, because let's be honest, truth isn't something that's important to them...... is it. By the way, how is the ACA treating you these days? Turned out to be some pretty good legislation, of course you indicated otherwise with your predictions but that's neither here nor there.
The ACA has really hurt our family. We are paying higher taxes, due to the Medicare addition (0.9%) on income over $250K and the additional 5% on capital gains. Our individual insurance premiums increased by 60% in 2014, due to the impacts of Obamacare (mainly, the guaranteed issue requirement has increased the individual costs significantly). Of course, part of why are taxes are so much higher is that we are subsidizing other people's insurance costs - so, a bad deal all around.
It is funny how people say the ACA was a success - is it surprising that we give basically free insurance to a bunch of people (and the exchanges haven't been much of a success - 7 million out of a total of 315 million - blow up the whole system, increase costs significantly, including a ton of money to build these stupid exchanges) - and we gave a whole 2% of our population in exchanges? Wow, what a dumb move that was.
Most of the expanded population has been added to Medicaid - and many of them were previously eligible.
Calling a program a success by giving insurance away for free and getting some people to actually take it - and then taxing the heck out of the upper class and charging the middle class higher premiums to pay for it (and much of the middle class don't get the redistributive transfers to pay for it) - yea, what a great program!
Maybe The Maggot will remember that the last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton (D). His long term budget was on course to completely eliminate the National Debt.
Then Bush was elected and started the enormous cluster-fuck that Obama is cleaning up.
Dat's de way it be. Black folks cleanin' up de mess aftuh white folks.
Then Bush was elected and started the enormous cluster-fuck that Obama is cleaning up.
Dat's de way it be. Black folks cleanin' up de mess aftuh white folks.
You know what's funny, when people say it's not a success because of the law, when the law doesn't set a single price. Insurance companies set the pricing not the president or the law. Maybe insurance as a whole, rather than universal health care, is at the core of the problem. I wonder how they do it in Finland and Norway and countries such as that. Did you know education, health care, government subsidies, etc.... are funded by tax revenue. They also have very low crime rates. Funny thing is, they don't have any Republicans.
So sorry to hear that you might get less of a refund this year. I'll make sure to inform the downtrodden masses still living in the street how upsetting this has been for you and your over 250k income standard.
So sorry to hear that you might get less of a refund this year. I'll make sure to inform the downtrodden masses still living in the street how upsetting this has been for you and your over 250k income standard.
Ah, now I see the problem. The Maggot claims he works in the insurance industry and makes $250K plus.
What a fucking waste of money on a turd who isn't worth minimum wage.
Come on FDC - you know better than that. If the government changes requirements, of course businesses need to set prices based on new standards. If the law wouldn't have changed, the insurance companies wouldn't have had to increase the prices in the individual market to account for the new guaranteed issue requirement (which had the biggest impact on premium of all the changes). Nor would they have to adjust their premiums for the impacts of the 3 R's, health insurance tax, exchange premium tax, gender neutral pricing, 3-1 restricted pricing, to name a few. They are others, of course.
To say it is the insurance companies' fault they had to change premiums as a result of significant changes in the law is ridiculous. And in some ways, the government does set insurance prices now. Companies need to ensure they hit a 80% MLR at a minimum, and insurance departments typically won't allow insurance companies to set premiums and lose money - as insurance departments have a dual responsibility - to both help consumers and to ensure financial stability of the insurance companies.
As, as usual, guys like Muff Diver have to jump in and start with the name calling and derogatory stuff. I know that goes on a lot in this forum, but it sure would be fun if we could actually have debates without that kind of stuff. Ah well - Muff Diver drives a lot of people, and good discussion, away.
Everyone doesn't always agree - which is part of living in America I guess. Just not a fan of the venom and name calling.
FYI - FDC, before you jump - I had said your statement was intellectually dishonest, not that you were. Big difference. And it was. Obama's deficit's have been the 5 of 6 highest. And that is with large tax increases. We've spent a lot of more money - while taking in a lot more taxes. Not a good combination.
Mags,
I am confident you can intelligently and comprehensively explain the need for price increases by insurance companies. I am far more confident that any explanation will fail to convince me that corporate greed and duplicitous regulation or lack thereof are at the core of premium prices. No disrespect to you or the fine living you've made for yourself and your family, you should be proud of yourself. I'm an advocate for universal health care and I firmly believe that the amount of money that funnels through lobbyists into political pockets is the foremost reason we will never have universal health care.
I am confident you can intelligently and comprehensively explain the need for price increases by insurance companies. I am far more confident that any explanation will fail to convince me that corporate greed and duplicitous regulation or lack thereof are at the core of premium prices. No disrespect to you or the fine living you've made for yourself and your family, you should be proud of yourself. I'm an advocate for universal health care and I firmly believe that the amount of money that funnels through lobbyists into political pockets is the foremost reason we will never have universal health care.
