Lucky... 0 #26 June 12, 2010 QuoteI would also rather our tax money went to helping americans. The last ten or so years of my life have seen alot of changes in how I view many things. I don't see how we can go on spending so much more than we take in. We certainly can no longer afford (if we ever could) to be the "world's police". James Great point, I agree. We match teh world $ for $ in basic military ops, not counting Iraq/AFG. We spend 8 times that of #2 China, yet we still consider thema nd Communism a threat. The largest threat we have os the Republican Military Industrial Complex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #27 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quit acting like you'll be paying for it. Don't you believe in the magic money machine in the basement of congress creating funds out of unicorn kisses and children's laughter. Fear-monger! Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept. I'm guessing you don't have children? Nope, but if I did I would want to ensure they have basic HC. Do you have kids? If so, aren't you worried about corporate America and their HMO death panels? I do have kid's and no I'm not worried about corporate HMO death panels. Yes I'd like to ensure that they have access to basic health care. Something needs to change from the current system, I've got my doubts about the road we are heading down with the new plan. Certainly I don't have the answers. Mainly I'm concerned about the debt we are putting on our children. Your statement that I quoted bothered me. It's not just healthcare spending I'm worried about. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 June 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhile you're at it, tell us how you really care about people's health and availability to HC. QuoteIf a person is not covered because of a pre-existing condition today, I would suggest that people like Max care about HC availability than the person who is uncovered due to pre-existing condition. HUH? QuoteOver and over again through the HC debate we heard the horror stories of people who could not get covered. Each and every one of them were people who COULD have been insured but made the affirmative choice NOT to be insured until they were sick or injured. Every one of them? So you covered each case then? I see. Now, even if we go with your hypothetical, ignoring lapses in employment, etc, your utopian world, what of teh coverage? I know plenty of people who can only affford catastrophe insurance, that is, they have max deductables of 10k per year. I checked Blue Cross and to have a plan with a descent deductable I would pay 500-600 per month. If I were to quit anything fun, any extras, keep driving a shit car, etc then I could scrape that together while having no life, but that's ok with you and then you will say the Chinese government is fucked for the wages the Chineese people make. It's really the same, point is we can gamble, they can't. If I paid the 500-600/mo, I would have no life. QuoteBecause so long as they did not go more than 59 consecutive days without coverage they would be insured against all conditions - pre-existing or otherwise. That is barely 1 part of the equation. How much premium cost/co-pays, deductables, etc.... QuoteHow much did they care about the availability of HC? It becomes an issue of priority and when teh car is broken and they can't get to work, the AC is out and they must decide 110 degrees and HC or 80 degrees and no HC, that's what happens. Not everyone has life fall into place for them w/o hiccups. QuoteYours is the same idea as bailing out massive corporations for their ridiculous acts of irresponsibility. Right, corporations are here for greedy profit, making decisions based upon + or -, fuck people. People who have injuries are just about getting their helth back to where it was. Now, your typical silly comparisons would make sense if you were referring to a girl who wanted to get breast augmentation surgery so she could work at Hooters and make profit, that's a ridiculous entitlement kind of scheme. Simply having use of your bodily functions is not greed, well, if you are a Republican elitist I can see how it is perceived that way. QuoteI'm not in the mood for covering anybody else's sorry asses for their fuckups. They fucked up. Let them take the lumps. HERE HERE, see em in teh streets injured and destitute, spit an additional time for me, bro. Taht worthless fucking piece of shit deserves to be beat down. IF YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY THINK, "HUMANITARIAN" WHEN THEY THINK OF EITHER PARALLEL VERSION OF CONSERVATISM (republican or libertarian), NOW YOU GET IT. QuoteHow many skydivers do we read about who femur in and don't have insurance, but are on their 20th jump on their new rig? They could afford in excess of five gran for their new rig but no insurance. I say we just push em to the edge of the landing area, hose the blood off the grass and bill them for the time spent. What fucking nerve they have to try to enjoy life before feeding your illustrious corporations 500 month for the right to do so. At least we agree on something. QuoteThis is the type of priority that pisses me off. Thank you, Lucky, for having the kindness and generosity to pull money from my pocket so that this type of conduct not only is not penalized but is, in fact, subsidized. See if you can stay on topic and relevant here, counselor; tell me a direct pathway from your pocket to the medical costs of skydivers w/o insurance. Show me how w/o these that costs your taxes would go down. QuoteWe want to make sure that those people who did not have insurance face no consequences. The cost and consequence mus be borne by society." Don't worry, as it is now they can be pursued forever by collection agencies and guess what? THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BUY HC INS FOR THAT MUCH LONGER. Congratulations, your system of holdingg them accountable has ensured they will be a liability for that much longer. QuoteNot that your position would be different if you weren't injured and getting lifetime HC, which you truely do deserve, but to hear a person who will never have any lack of HC complaining about others, incl vets like me, trying to get comprehensive HC at a reasonable cost comes off as a little elitist. QuoteAt a "reasonable cost" to whom? You think HC is expensive now? No, HC is prohibitive now. QuoteAnd, the rationing is already on the table. Yes, it's rationing via no availability for 1 in 6; that's rationing in your system that you want to ignore. More HMO rationing is seen in movies like The Rainmaker, where an insured individual was refused HC and died during littigation. Quoteit will happen. The only way to achieve high quality care with low expense is to limit the availability of it. Then it will be more expensive and cover everyone, teh sky won't fall and even tho you hate to see it, lowlife dregs who don't deserve to breathe will or may have a shot at getting HC; what an ugly scenario. QuoteIt's just bizzare to hear ANY AMERICAN talking about HC as a business decision. QuoteHmmm. Business is all about $$$. Seems to me that the entire discusion and the reason that it was passed was to change the business model of it. You are bringing up single payor. Yes, change the business model so that we can be humanistic about HC. You want business b4 people, I want the other way around. QuoteYou don't say anything about the quality or availability. You bring up "reasonable cost." I have said plenty of the availability. Cost, don't give a shit. When I'm fixing an aircraft we don't decide if we can fix it, we fix it at all costs as it relates to public safety; get it? QuoteWho is speaking of business decision. YOU ARE. I want HC at all or any costs to be extended to all Americans, you want businesses to profit and teh gov to stay out even if millions go w/o HC coverage. Better check your notes, counselor. QuoteThe cost of healthcare is not reasonable, according to you. Therefore, people will not buy it because it does not make business sense. It's not that deep, they simply can't afford it. Poor people don't make conventional business decisions, they make decisions based upon immediacy. QuoteThe left has put this in terms of money. The right has put this in terms of quality, availability and cost of healthcare. Both sides have put this in terms of inclusion vs exclusion, regardless of their rhetoric. The right couldn't give a shit less about sufferring, the left couldn't give a shit less about rich people paying taxes. QuoteThe left, just like always, seems to like the focus on cold hard cash and how to get more of it away from businesses - and toward their pet projects. Then explain how, after the last 30 years that most of debt accrual has occurred under Republicans. Really, why the same tired, "Dems want to spend us out of house/home" when it has been the irresponsibility of Republicans? Also, show me a major federal tax cut that has releievd the debt and increased the overall economy. Your banter is just greed under the guise of betterment for everyone. QuoteYou must be horrified with yourself for mentioning money. Money is, after all, what business is all about.. That makes no sense. I want more social spending and you want less spending / taxes since you are made; fuck eevryone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #29 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quit acting like you'll be paying for it. Don't you believe in the magic money machine in the basement of congress creating funds out of unicorn kisses and children's laughter. Fear-monger! Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept. I'm guessing you don't have children? Nope, but if I did I would want to ensure they have basic HC. Do you have kids? If so, aren't you worried about corporate America and their HMO death panels? Quote I do have kid's and no I'm not worried about corporate HMO death panels. Yes I'd like to ensure that they have access to basic health care. HMO's have shown tehy will deny as much as they can, so we need to have controls to say the least. Quote Something needs to change from the current system, I've got my doubts about the road we are heading down with the new plan. Certainly I don't have the answers. Yea, we have to leave what we have. I don't like the new HC law, it isn't comprehensive. Quote Mainly I'm concerned about the debt we are putting on our children. In the past when we raise taxes, the top brkt at the very least 40%, preferably > 50%, we have done well debt-wise. When the top brkt has been low, 25% heading into the Great Depression, 28% under Reagan's massive trippling of teh debt, 35% under GWB's mess, we see massive debt accrual, so you must be advocating tax increases, I know I am. Quote Your statement that I quoted bothered me. It's not just healthcare spending I'm worried about. Which? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #30 June 12, 2010 Quote It's also funny how Republicans have suddenly got religion about the deficit and debt, while they hardly uttered a word of criticism when Reagan and the Bushes were racking then up . Equally as funny is when intelligent progressives like yourself think that Barak and W are the same, and are OK with it. Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #31 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote Whatever you say, Marc. Kind of awkward when some one sets a trap that they themselves step into huh Gosh! Whatever you say, marc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #32 June 12, 2010 QuoteMainly I'm concerned about the debt we are putting on our children. Your statement that I quoted bothered me. It's not just healthcare spending I'm worried about. I would hope not. Our military budget is easily twice that necessary to keep America safe and secure. Always has been, since about 1950 (although, interestingly, the one president who really tried to reduce it was not a Dem, but Eisenhower, because his background gave him a unique understanding of strategic defense issues, as well as the symbiotic politics between the military-industrial establishment and Congress). Were it not for that, along with the idiotic American national religion called "anti-socialism", the US would long since have been able to afford a comprehensive national health insurance program, instead of being the ONLY major industrialized nation on Earth not to have one. Now let's all take out our checkbooks and buy ourselves another aircraft carrier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chutem 0 #33 June 12, 2010 "Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #34 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote It's also funny how Republicans have suddenly got religion about the deficit and debt, while they hardly uttered a word of criticism when Reagan and the Bushes were racking then up . Equally as funny is when intelligent progressives like yourself think that Barak and W are the same, and are OK with it. No, I'm not OK with it. The difference is that W inherited an economy in good shape and trashed it. The Dow fell some 33% during his tenure. When the country SHOULD have been building a surplus because the economy was good, instead he gave the revenues away to his rich buddies following the advice of Voodoo economists. When it went south he spent months in denial, and then bailed out his rich buddies on Wall Street. Obama, OTOH, inherited a lousy economy on a downward slope, which is a situation where every president since FDR has, correctly, deficit spent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #35 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Whatever you say, Marc. Kind of awkward when some one sets a trap that they themselves step into huh Gosh! Whatever you say, marc. The 5th is handy for you right now huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #36 June 12, 2010 Quote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James The greying of the baby boomers was 100% predictable. When the country should have been saving budget surpluses (that is, when the economy was good) preparing for the time the boomers retire, it was instead cutting taxes on the wealthy, running up deficits, and using the SocSec trust fund to make the budget deficit look smaller than it is. GHWBush quite correctly called it "Voodoo Economics".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #37 June 13, 2010 Quote Quote It's also funny how Republicans have suddenly got religion about the deficit and debt, while they hardly uttered a word of criticism when Reagan and the Bushes were racking then up . Equally as funny is when intelligent progressives like yourself think that Barak and W are the same, and are OK with it. Where did Kallend infer they were the same????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #38 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteMainly I'm concerned about the debt we are putting on our children. Your statement that I quoted bothered me. It's not just healthcare spending I'm worried about. I would hope not. Our military budget is easily twice that necessary to keep America safe and secure. Always has been, since about 1950 (although, interestingly, the one president who really tried to reduce it was not a Dem, but Eisenhower, because his background gave him a unique understanding of strategic defense issues, as well as the symbiotic politics between the military-industrial establishment and Congress). Were it not for that, along with the idiotic American national religion called "anti-socialism", the US would long since have been able to afford a comprehensive national health insurance program, instead of being the ONLY major industrialized nation on Earth not to have one. Now let's all take out our checkbooks and buy ourselves another aircraft carrier. Certainly Eisenhower was the best at trying to diminish the M.I.C., but GHWB and Clinton did as well, not as much and not as vocally, but they did what reductions they could after Reagan blew it up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #39 June 13, 2010 Quote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James And amazingly it ws the young vote that elected Obama, at least they were the difference-maker. Obviously debt is the killer, if our GDP falls or our debt payments cannot be made to support it, it could be the real killer. My question is this: What do we do? Hoover tried that in the beginning of the GD, it cost us plenty, then he raised taxes, as did FDR and 10 years later it was somewhat better. What is your proposition? Raise taxes? Kill all social programs? Vastly cut the military? Remember, these so-called wasteful programs also supply jobs, which is why after most wars there is a post-war recession. I like social programs over military ones in that it helps 2-fold: peopel receive help and generally the jobs created aren't the 150k/yr engineer-type where fewer jobs are created at higher salaries. Military expansion creates jobs, but it seems the wealth is more grouped rather than distributed. As well, building tanks kills people, building hospitals helps people and creates long-term jobs that will carry on decades after the war, after the tanks kill thousands and is then blown up itself. As for: Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept That may bother you, but if it's so horrible, then you're saying America is horrible because taht is how it' s been as we declared our national status 75M in debt. I'm not pro-debt, I'm just calling it how it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #40 June 13, 2010 QuoteGHWBush quite correctly called it "Voodoo Economics". A really great president that had to deal with a senile, fascist president and a complete moron as a son. I hope history doesn't remember him as a Reagan-type neo-con; he deserves better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chutem 0 #41 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James The greying of the baby boomers was 100% predictable. When the country should have been saving budget surpluses (that is, when the economy was good) preparing for the time the boomers retire, it was instead cutting taxes on the wealthy, running up deficits, and using the SocSec trust fund to make the budget deficit look smaller than it is. GHWBush quite correctly called it "Voodoo Economics". Agree 100% that many mistakes have been made. The bunch of morons running the show (don't care what "side" they're on) should have seen it coming. Social Security money never should have been touched. What kind of idiot couldn't see that problem coming? We can blame whoever we want. The question now is how do we fix it? I never should have gotten into this in an Obama/healthcare thread. The let the people of the future pay for it post by Lucky just hit a nerve. (again I probably read more into what he said than he really meant, if so my bad) James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chutem 0 #42 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James And amazingly it ws the young vote that elected Obama, at least they were the difference-maker. Obviously debt is the killer, if our GDP falls or our debt payments cannot be made to support it, it could be the real killer. My question is this: What do we do? Hoover tried that in the beginning of the GD, it cost us plenty, then he raised taxes, as did FDR and 10 years later it was somewhat better. What is your proposition? Raise taxes? Kill all social programs? Vastly cut the military? Remember, these so-called wasteful programs also supply jobs, which is why after most wars there is a post-war recession. I like social programs over military ones in that it helps 2-fold: peopel receive help and generally the jobs created aren't the 150k/yr engineer-type where fewer jobs are created at higher salaries. Military expansion creates jobs, but it seems the wealth is more grouped rather than distributed. As well, building tanks kills people, building hospitals helps people and creates long-term jobs that will carry on decades after the war, after the tanks kill thousands and is then blown up itself. As for: Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept That may bother you, but if it's so horrible, then you're saying America is horrible because taht is how it' s been as we declared our national status 75M in debt. I'm not pro-debt, I'm just calling it how it is. I'm just saying that it can only go on so long at the scale it's gotten to. Trying to make it look like I think America is horrible for saying so is kind of a low blow. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #43 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James And amazingly it ws the young vote that elected Obama, at least they were the difference-maker. Obviously debt is the killer, if our GDP falls or our debt payments cannot be made to support it, it could be the real killer. My question is this: What do we do? Hoover tried that in the beginning of the GD, it cost us plenty, then he raised taxes, as did FDR and 10 years later it was somewhat better. What is your proposition? Raise taxes? Kill all social programs? Vastly cut the military? Remember, these so-called wasteful programs also supply jobs, which is why after most wars there is a post-war recession. I like social programs over military ones in that it helps 2-fold: peopel receive help and generally the jobs created aren't the 150k/yr engineer-type where fewer jobs are created at higher salaries. Military expansion creates jobs, but it seems the wealth is more grouped rather than distributed. As well, building tanks kills people, building hospitals helps people and creates long-term jobs that will carry on decades after the war, after the tanks kill thousands and is then blown up itself. As for: Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept That may bother you, but if it's so horrible, then you're saying America is horrible because taht is how it' s been as we declared our national status 75M in debt. I'm not pro-debt, I'm just calling it how it is. I'm just saying that it can only go on so long at the scale it's gotten to. Trying to make it look like I think America is horrible for saying so is kind of a low blow. James Quit being paranoid, I'm not transposing that assertion. I'm saying debt is as American as apple pie, mom and Chevy. You don't have to like it, but it is American to be a debtor nation, not that I accept it as ok to be this far in debt either. This is what I will say: Being a person who declares that they hate massive debt, I hope you didn't vote for Reagan or GWB or you only have yourself and your electorate to blame. GHWB did what he could, Clinton really kicked ass. The real issue that taxes are megga-low, they are almost at Great Depression levels. Taxes high = government is controlling the finances. Taxes low = corporations are controlling the finances. Any question as to which works better? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chutem 0 #44 June 13, 2010 Now that you've established who is to blame. What the hell are we going to do about it? I'm ok with raising taxes if the gov. doesn't come up with new ways to spend it. How long will it be untill we can no longer even pay the interest on our debt? You are correct that I don't like debt. I drive old payed for cars, watch an old tv and am typing this on an old computer with a crappy internet connection. Living this way allows me to do what's important to me. I guess I'm just un-American. As a country we have limited money to spend. Sooner or later we are going to have to sacrifice something so we can spend on what's truely important to us. Or, we can just keep spending our children's future. Feel free to try to make me look stupid for thinking this way. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #45 June 13, 2010 QuoteFeel free to try to make me look stupid for thinking this way. I haven't made that inferrence. QuoteI'm ok with raising taxes if the gov. doesn't come up with new ways to spend it. Yep, Obama was right to not raisse taxes yet, but as teh economy recovers, it will be time to let GWB's tax cuts expire and then move on to some more increases in time. It worked for Clinton, why can't it work now? Just as tax cuts have just kept the deficit up, they did the same under GWb, aside from spending issues. QuoteHow long will it be untill we can no longer even pay the interest on our debt? Who knows, but as bad as that would be, the silver lining would be that it would force our dollar lower, making us bring manufacturing back. QuoteYou are correct that I don't like debt. I drive old payed for cars, watch an old tv and am typing this on an old computer with a crappy internet connection. Living this way allows me to do what's important to me. I guess I'm just un-American. I have DSL cable, but other than that I'm the same. And when I do jump, I'm jumping an 8 yo rig; no niceties for me either. QuoteAs a country we have limited money to spend. Sooner or later we are going to have to sacrifice something so we can spend on what's truely important to us. Therte inlies the rub; what's important to some is wasteful to others. QuoteOr, we can just keep spending our children's future. Our predecessors have; it's Americana. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chutem 0 #46 June 13, 2010 " Our predecessors have: it's Americana" Doesn't make it the best way to move forward. I'm starting to think we could get along just fine face to face. If you're ever out out at Canyon Lake stop in to the marina and ask for James. I'd love to be able to put a person to what goes on in this forum. I don't know about you, but I can always use another friend in the "real world" even if we don't agree on a few things. " what's important to others is wastefull to some" (damn, I really need to learn how to quote parts of a post so I don't have to type it out) is the rub as you say. Military wise I'm ready to have the US become a "for hire" security/police force for whoever wants it in the world. I'm tired of other nations getting a free pass on the defense budget since we provide it for them. ( of course we can't protect global "do badders" and some poor nations just need help) In the middle east you can't win no matter what side you're on, there's always someone that will hate you and want you dead for what you believe. As a nation will we always just be two sides that want to blame each other for how we got to where we are? I don't have any answers, just concerns about our future. I hope the people who think we are on the road to sustained recovery are correct. I guess it's just the pessimist in me showing through. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #47 June 13, 2010 QuoteNow that you've established who is to blame. What the hell are we going to do about it? I'm ok with raising taxes if the gov. doesn't come up with new ways to spend it. How long will it be untill we can no longer even pay the interest on our debt? NEW ways? We need more revenues to deal with the current ways we're spending it. Contrary to the faith of the Voodoo economists, cutting taxes didn't increase revenues per capita in constant dollars. Quote You are correct that I don't like debt. I drive old payed for cars, watch an old tv and am typing this on an old computer with a crappy internet connection. Living this way allows me to do what's important to me. I guess I'm just un-American. As a country we have limited money to spend. Sooner or later we are going to have to sacrifice something so we can spend on what's truely important to us. That applies to many individuals too, not just the government. About 43% of American families spend more than they earn each year. Average credit card debt per household with credit card debt: $15,519 Total U.S. consumer debt: $2.44 trillion, as of April 2010 (Source: Federal Reserve's G.19 report on consumer credit, June 2010) Living beyond our means is a national disease in the USA, and it applies pretty much across the board.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites loudtom 5 #48 June 13, 2010 """"The difference is that W inherited an economy in good shape and trashed it. The Dow fell some 33% during his tenure."""" forget the fact that we were attacked and the whole world felt the impact... if you compare what oblamo has to deal with to what President Bush had to deal with you must be thinking about President Nixon too much... Wholey cow batman you can't be serious?tom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #49 June 13, 2010 Quote""""The difference is that W inherited an economy in good shape and trashed it. The Dow fell some 33% during his tenure."""" forget the fact that we were attacked and the whole world felt the impact... How many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attack? ANSWER - NONE. There's a $Trillion chasing that Bush lie. By how much did tax revenues change following the Bush tax cuts, after allowing for inflation and population growth? ANSWER - they fell.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #50 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuote""""The difference is that W inherited an economy in good shape and trashed it. The Dow fell some 33% during his tenure."""" forget the fact that we were attacked and the whole world felt the impact... How many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attack? ANSWER - NONE. There's a $Trillion chasing that Bush lie. By how much did tax revenues change following the Bush tax cuts, after allowing for inflation and population growth? ANSWER - they fell. ...and the interests that have benefited the most from those astronomical military-industrial expenditures (hint: it's not Joe Citizen) are the same who have benefited most from the concurrent tax cut. A classic double-dip: insult added to injury. Bend over and cough. Socialism has always existed in America: socialism for the rich. Oh, but we can't afford a comprehensive national health care program like ALL of the rest of the industrialized world. That would be... well .... socialism. Excuse me while I go pay for another fighter jet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lucky... 0 #29 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quit acting like you'll be paying for it. Don't you believe in the magic money machine in the basement of congress creating funds out of unicorn kisses and children's laughter. Fear-monger! Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept. I'm guessing you don't have children? Nope, but if I did I would want to ensure they have basic HC. Do you have kids? If so, aren't you worried about corporate America and their HMO death panels? Quote I do have kid's and no I'm not worried about corporate HMO death panels. Yes I'd like to ensure that they have access to basic health care. HMO's have shown tehy will deny as much as they can, so we need to have controls to say the least. Quote Something needs to change from the current system, I've got my doubts about the road we are heading down with the new plan. Certainly I don't have the answers. Yea, we have to leave what we have. I don't like the new HC law, it isn't comprehensive. Quote Mainly I'm concerned about the debt we are putting on our children. In the past when we raise taxes, the top brkt at the very least 40%, preferably > 50%, we have done well debt-wise. When the top brkt has been low, 25% heading into the Great Depression, 28% under Reagan's massive trippling of teh debt, 35% under GWB's mess, we see massive debt accrual, so you must be advocating tax increases, I know I am. Quote Your statement that I quoted bothered me. It's not just healthcare spending I'm worried about. Which? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #30 June 12, 2010 Quote It's also funny how Republicans have suddenly got religion about the deficit and debt, while they hardly uttered a word of criticism when Reagan and the Bushes were racking then up . Equally as funny is when intelligent progressives like yourself think that Barak and W are the same, and are OK with it. Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #31 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote Whatever you say, Marc. Kind of awkward when some one sets a trap that they themselves step into huh Gosh! Whatever you say, marc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 June 12, 2010 QuoteMainly I'm concerned about the debt we are putting on our children. Your statement that I quoted bothered me. It's not just healthcare spending I'm worried about. I would hope not. Our military budget is easily twice that necessary to keep America safe and secure. Always has been, since about 1950 (although, interestingly, the one president who really tried to reduce it was not a Dem, but Eisenhower, because his background gave him a unique understanding of strategic defense issues, as well as the symbiotic politics between the military-industrial establishment and Congress). Were it not for that, along with the idiotic American national religion called "anti-socialism", the US would long since have been able to afford a comprehensive national health insurance program, instead of being the ONLY major industrialized nation on Earth not to have one. Now let's all take out our checkbooks and buy ourselves another aircraft carrier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #33 June 12, 2010 "Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #34 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote It's also funny how Republicans have suddenly got religion about the deficit and debt, while they hardly uttered a word of criticism when Reagan and the Bushes were racking then up . Equally as funny is when intelligent progressives like yourself think that Barak and W are the same, and are OK with it. No, I'm not OK with it. The difference is that W inherited an economy in good shape and trashed it. The Dow fell some 33% during his tenure. When the country SHOULD have been building a surplus because the economy was good, instead he gave the revenues away to his rich buddies following the advice of Voodoo economists. When it went south he spent months in denial, and then bailed out his rich buddies on Wall Street. Obama, OTOH, inherited a lousy economy on a downward slope, which is a situation where every president since FDR has, correctly, deficit spent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 June 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Whatever you say, Marc. Kind of awkward when some one sets a trap that they themselves step into huh Gosh! Whatever you say, marc. The 5th is handy for you right now huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #36 June 12, 2010 Quote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James The greying of the baby boomers was 100% predictable. When the country should have been saving budget surpluses (that is, when the economy was good) preparing for the time the boomers retire, it was instead cutting taxes on the wealthy, running up deficits, and using the SocSec trust fund to make the budget deficit look smaller than it is. GHWBush quite correctly called it "Voodoo Economics".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 June 13, 2010 Quote Quote It's also funny how Republicans have suddenly got religion about the deficit and debt, while they hardly uttered a word of criticism when Reagan and the Bushes were racking then up . Equally as funny is when intelligent progressives like yourself think that Barak and W are the same, and are OK with it. Where did Kallend infer they were the same????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteMainly I'm concerned about the debt we are putting on our children. Your statement that I quoted bothered me. It's not just healthcare spending I'm worried about. I would hope not. Our military budget is easily twice that necessary to keep America safe and secure. Always has been, since about 1950 (although, interestingly, the one president who really tried to reduce it was not a Dem, but Eisenhower, because his background gave him a unique understanding of strategic defense issues, as well as the symbiotic politics between the military-industrial establishment and Congress). Were it not for that, along with the idiotic American national religion called "anti-socialism", the US would long since have been able to afford a comprehensive national health insurance program, instead of being the ONLY major industrialized nation on Earth not to have one. Now let's all take out our checkbooks and buy ourselves another aircraft carrier. Certainly Eisenhower was the best at trying to diminish the M.I.C., but GHWB and Clinton did as well, not as much and not as vocally, but they did what reductions they could after Reagan blew it up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 June 13, 2010 Quote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James And amazingly it ws the young vote that elected Obama, at least they were the difference-maker. Obviously debt is the killer, if our GDP falls or our debt payments cannot be made to support it, it could be the real killer. My question is this: What do we do? Hoover tried that in the beginning of the GD, it cost us plenty, then he raised taxes, as did FDR and 10 years later it was somewhat better. What is your proposition? Raise taxes? Kill all social programs? Vastly cut the military? Remember, these so-called wasteful programs also supply jobs, which is why after most wars there is a post-war recession. I like social programs over military ones in that it helps 2-fold: peopel receive help and generally the jobs created aren't the 150k/yr engineer-type where fewer jobs are created at higher salaries. Military expansion creates jobs, but it seems the wealth is more grouped rather than distributed. As well, building tanks kills people, building hospitals helps people and creates long-term jobs that will carry on decades after the war, after the tanks kill thousands and is then blown up itself. As for: Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept That may bother you, but if it's so horrible, then you're saying America is horrible because taht is how it' s been as we declared our national status 75M in debt. I'm not pro-debt, I'm just calling it how it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 June 13, 2010 QuoteGHWBush quite correctly called it "Voodoo Economics". A really great president that had to deal with a senile, fascist president and a complete moron as a son. I hope history doesn't remember him as a Reagan-type neo-con; he deserves better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #41 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James The greying of the baby boomers was 100% predictable. When the country should have been saving budget surpluses (that is, when the economy was good) preparing for the time the boomers retire, it was instead cutting taxes on the wealthy, running up deficits, and using the SocSec trust fund to make the budget deficit look smaller than it is. GHWBush quite correctly called it "Voodoo Economics". Agree 100% that many mistakes have been made. The bunch of morons running the show (don't care what "side" they're on) should have seen it coming. Social Security money never should have been touched. What kind of idiot couldn't see that problem coming? We can blame whoever we want. The question now is how do we fix it? I never should have gotten into this in an Obama/healthcare thread. The let the people of the future pay for it post by Lucky just hit a nerve. (again I probably read more into what he said than he really meant, if so my bad) James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #42 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James And amazingly it ws the young vote that elected Obama, at least they were the difference-maker. Obviously debt is the killer, if our GDP falls or our debt payments cannot be made to support it, it could be the real killer. My question is this: What do we do? Hoover tried that in the beginning of the GD, it cost us plenty, then he raised taxes, as did FDR and 10 years later it was somewhat better. What is your proposition? Raise taxes? Kill all social programs? Vastly cut the military? Remember, these so-called wasteful programs also supply jobs, which is why after most wars there is a post-war recession. I like social programs over military ones in that it helps 2-fold: peopel receive help and generally the jobs created aren't the 150k/yr engineer-type where fewer jobs are created at higher salaries. Military expansion creates jobs, but it seems the wealth is more grouped rather than distributed. As well, building tanks kills people, building hospitals helps people and creates long-term jobs that will carry on decades after the war, after the tanks kill thousands and is then blown up itself. As for: Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept That may bother you, but if it's so horrible, then you're saying America is horrible because taht is how it' s been as we declared our national status 75M in debt. I'm not pro-debt, I'm just calling it how it is. I'm just saying that it can only go on so long at the scale it's gotten to. Trying to make it look like I think America is horrible for saying so is kind of a low blow. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote"Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept" Is what bothers me. Maybe I'm reading to much into it. That concept works well with a growing base of young taxpayers. Now that the baby boom is over we have growing debt with a shirinking base of young taxpayers. Since I'm no economist maybe I worry over nothing. James And amazingly it ws the young vote that elected Obama, at least they were the difference-maker. Obviously debt is the killer, if our GDP falls or our debt payments cannot be made to support it, it could be the real killer. My question is this: What do we do? Hoover tried that in the beginning of the GD, it cost us plenty, then he raised taxes, as did FDR and 10 years later it was somewhat better. What is your proposition? Raise taxes? Kill all social programs? Vastly cut the military? Remember, these so-called wasteful programs also supply jobs, which is why after most wars there is a post-war recession. I like social programs over military ones in that it helps 2-fold: peopel receive help and generally the jobs created aren't the 150k/yr engineer-type where fewer jobs are created at higher salaries. Military expansion creates jobs, but it seems the wealth is more grouped rather than distributed. As well, building tanks kills people, building hospitals helps people and creates long-term jobs that will carry on decades after the war, after the tanks kill thousands and is then blown up itself. As for: Quit acting as if us paying for our predecesor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept That may bother you, but if it's so horrible, then you're saying America is horrible because taht is how it' s been as we declared our national status 75M in debt. I'm not pro-debt, I'm just calling it how it is. I'm just saying that it can only go on so long at the scale it's gotten to. Trying to make it look like I think America is horrible for saying so is kind of a low blow. James Quit being paranoid, I'm not transposing that assertion. I'm saying debt is as American as apple pie, mom and Chevy. You don't have to like it, but it is American to be a debtor nation, not that I accept it as ok to be this far in debt either. This is what I will say: Being a person who declares that they hate massive debt, I hope you didn't vote for Reagan or GWB or you only have yourself and your electorate to blame. GHWB did what he could, Clinton really kicked ass. The real issue that taxes are megga-low, they are almost at Great Depression levels. Taxes high = government is controlling the finances. Taxes low = corporations are controlling the finances. Any question as to which works better? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #44 June 13, 2010 Now that you've established who is to blame. What the hell are we going to do about it? I'm ok with raising taxes if the gov. doesn't come up with new ways to spend it. How long will it be untill we can no longer even pay the interest on our debt? You are correct that I don't like debt. I drive old payed for cars, watch an old tv and am typing this on an old computer with a crappy internet connection. Living this way allows me to do what's important to me. I guess I'm just un-American. As a country we have limited money to spend. Sooner or later we are going to have to sacrifice something so we can spend on what's truely important to us. Or, we can just keep spending our children's future. Feel free to try to make me look stupid for thinking this way. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 June 13, 2010 QuoteFeel free to try to make me look stupid for thinking this way. I haven't made that inferrence. QuoteI'm ok with raising taxes if the gov. doesn't come up with new ways to spend it. Yep, Obama was right to not raisse taxes yet, but as teh economy recovers, it will be time to let GWB's tax cuts expire and then move on to some more increases in time. It worked for Clinton, why can't it work now? Just as tax cuts have just kept the deficit up, they did the same under GWb, aside from spending issues. QuoteHow long will it be untill we can no longer even pay the interest on our debt? Who knows, but as bad as that would be, the silver lining would be that it would force our dollar lower, making us bring manufacturing back. QuoteYou are correct that I don't like debt. I drive old payed for cars, watch an old tv and am typing this on an old computer with a crappy internet connection. Living this way allows me to do what's important to me. I guess I'm just un-American. I have DSL cable, but other than that I'm the same. And when I do jump, I'm jumping an 8 yo rig; no niceties for me either. QuoteAs a country we have limited money to spend. Sooner or later we are going to have to sacrifice something so we can spend on what's truely important to us. Therte inlies the rub; what's important to some is wasteful to others. QuoteOr, we can just keep spending our children's future. Our predecessors have; it's Americana. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #46 June 13, 2010 " Our predecessors have: it's Americana" Doesn't make it the best way to move forward. I'm starting to think we could get along just fine face to face. If you're ever out out at Canyon Lake stop in to the marina and ask for James. I'd love to be able to put a person to what goes on in this forum. I don't know about you, but I can always use another friend in the "real world" even if we don't agree on a few things. " what's important to others is wastefull to some" (damn, I really need to learn how to quote parts of a post so I don't have to type it out) is the rub as you say. Military wise I'm ready to have the US become a "for hire" security/police force for whoever wants it in the world. I'm tired of other nations getting a free pass on the defense budget since we provide it for them. ( of course we can't protect global "do badders" and some poor nations just need help) In the middle east you can't win no matter what side you're on, there's always someone that will hate you and want you dead for what you believe. As a nation will we always just be two sides that want to blame each other for how we got to where we are? I don't have any answers, just concerns about our future. I hope the people who think we are on the road to sustained recovery are correct. I guess it's just the pessimist in me showing through. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #47 June 13, 2010 QuoteNow that you've established who is to blame. What the hell are we going to do about it? I'm ok with raising taxes if the gov. doesn't come up with new ways to spend it. How long will it be untill we can no longer even pay the interest on our debt? NEW ways? We need more revenues to deal with the current ways we're spending it. Contrary to the faith of the Voodoo economists, cutting taxes didn't increase revenues per capita in constant dollars. Quote You are correct that I don't like debt. I drive old payed for cars, watch an old tv and am typing this on an old computer with a crappy internet connection. Living this way allows me to do what's important to me. I guess I'm just un-American. As a country we have limited money to spend. Sooner or later we are going to have to sacrifice something so we can spend on what's truely important to us. That applies to many individuals too, not just the government. About 43% of American families spend more than they earn each year. Average credit card debt per household with credit card debt: $15,519 Total U.S. consumer debt: $2.44 trillion, as of April 2010 (Source: Federal Reserve's G.19 report on consumer credit, June 2010) Living beyond our means is a national disease in the USA, and it applies pretty much across the board.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loudtom 5 #48 June 13, 2010 """"The difference is that W inherited an economy in good shape and trashed it. The Dow fell some 33% during his tenure."""" forget the fact that we were attacked and the whole world felt the impact... if you compare what oblamo has to deal with to what President Bush had to deal with you must be thinking about President Nixon too much... Wholey cow batman you can't be serious?tom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #49 June 13, 2010 Quote""""The difference is that W inherited an economy in good shape and trashed it. The Dow fell some 33% during his tenure."""" forget the fact that we were attacked and the whole world felt the impact... How many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attack? ANSWER - NONE. There's a $Trillion chasing that Bush lie. By how much did tax revenues change following the Bush tax cuts, after allowing for inflation and population growth? ANSWER - they fell.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #50 June 13, 2010 QuoteQuote""""The difference is that W inherited an economy in good shape and trashed it. The Dow fell some 33% during his tenure."""" forget the fact that we were attacked and the whole world felt the impact... How many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attack? ANSWER - NONE. There's a $Trillion chasing that Bush lie. By how much did tax revenues change following the Bush tax cuts, after allowing for inflation and population growth? ANSWER - they fell. ...and the interests that have benefited the most from those astronomical military-industrial expenditures (hint: it's not Joe Citizen) are the same who have benefited most from the concurrent tax cut. A classic double-dip: insult added to injury. Bend over and cough. Socialism has always existed in America: socialism for the rich. Oh, but we can't afford a comprehensive national health care program like ALL of the rest of the industrialized world. That would be... well .... socialism. Excuse me while I go pay for another fighter jet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
