Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WHAT QUESTIONS,and you're calling me a liberal?! Socially,I am conservative,fiscally, I am liberal,so many do not fit into an asinine little box,now do they?
Well, that would certainly explain the antipathy toward Rand Paul.
Socially conservative + fiscally liberal = biggest most intrusive government of all. Government in our bedrooms AND our wallets.
"according to the Government Accountability Office,"
Have a more credible source?
"More importantly, the economy added far more jobs — 22.9 million of them — under President Clinton, who raised taxes during his eight years in office from 1993 to 2001."
"Even ignoring the jobs lost during the early part of Reagan’s time in office, the economy gained 18.4 million jobs from the low point in December 1982 to the end of his presidency"
Unemployment under Reagan peaked in February 1983.
And yet these supposedly free people are still forced to participate in something they don't like and don't approve of. Some popularity.
Then what is the perfect option? The old way left too many people out if they were previously sick or had a continuous disease had their work change plans or their job was lost and they found a new one. The current way taxes people if they are either unable to afford insurance even with subsidies but make too much for Medicaid and the state's Medicaid system being very hard to get into or those that don't want to get a plan. Most of the other issues with Obamacare were existing in the marketplace already, people just didn't notice raises in their plan when they had equal raises in their income. The other option is universal healthcare which if Republicans moan about a policy that conservatives (FYI, the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation and other Republicans had proposals that would merge and became RomneyCare and ultimately ObamaCare) proposed in the 1990's in opposition to Ted Kennedy's universal healthcare proposal, you can only imagine conservative reaction now.
Then what is the perfect option? The old way left too many people out if they were previously sick or had a continuous disease had their work change plans or their job was lost and they found a new one.
If they weren't going to do this right they could have at least done things incrementally. We can argue whether or not the government should go there all day but passing a law that barred insurance companies from excluding people with previous problems would have been popular and not fought in the courts for years.
Quote:
The current way taxes people if they are either unable to afford insurance even with subsidies but make too much for Medicaid and the state's Medicaid system being very hard to get into or those that don't want to get a plan. Most of the other issues with Obamacare were existing in the marketplace already, people just didn't notice raises in their plan when they had equal raises in their income. The other option is universal healthcare which if Republicans moan about a policy that conservatives (FYI, the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation and other Republicans had proposals that would merge and became RomneyCare and ultimately ObamaCare) proposed in the 1990's in opposition to Ted Kennedy's universal healthcare proposal, you can only imagine conservative reaction now.
The question is whether or not it could be brought down by the courts. Universal health care probably wouldn't have been able to. The problem is the politicians didn't want to give up their pork projects to pay for it.
Obamacare is a mess. It's going to collapse one way or another because it's completely unworkable as is and politicians are never going to address those problems.
Would Rand Paul enact Universal Care? No, I can't see it happening, but I can see him doing the things that first need done to afford U.C. Get us out of the wars, cut down the size of the government elsewhere.
If they weren't going to do this right they could have at least done things incrementally. We can argue whether or not the government should go there all day but passing a law that barred insurance companies from excluding people with previous problems would have been popular and not fought in the courts for years.
To be fair though, Obamacare did not enact overnight besides prexisting conditions and being 26 or younger and on your parents' plan no questions asked. Plans that existed into the enaction of that were gone in the first year of the Obamacare exchanges stayed around and up til this year.
The only thing I will disagree with was that insurance companies would now complain that they have the high cost of carrying people who has cancer in remission to their lobbyists and from them to the politicians in Washington trying to either block the law or repeal it. I agree with you, that it is the right thing to do BUT, lobbying isn't always lobbying for the right thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The question is whether or not it could be brought down by the courts. Universal health care probably wouldn't have been able to. The problem is the politicians didn't want to give up their pork projects to pay for it.
There's that. Also there are those paid by the insurance lobby and those who believe it hurts the free-market (I imagine Rand Paul is of that type.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Obamacare is a mess. It's going to collapse one way or another because it's completely unworkable as is and politicians are never going to address those problems.
Part of the problem is the Republicans don't want to negotiate and fix the law. Their fix is to scrap it with no replacement proposal. We can agree that some effect is about how it was passed BUT the fact remains that most bills that become law are indeed imperfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Would Rand Paul enact Universal Care? No, I can't see it happening, but I can see him doing the things that first need done to afford U.C. Get us out of the wars, cut down the size of the government elsewhere.
I agree that at some point we do need to pull out Iraq and Afghanistan. That goes without saying. The issue is WHEN DO WE? Iraq about two/three years ago was mostly stable and then ISIS/ISLS came in from Syria (the same Syrian rebels we wanted to support in fall 2011) while Afghanistan has been off and on stable. I agree we should pull out but issue is can we? And I'm not even talking of being in favor of military contractors, it's just how that part of the world is right now. We saw it come to America in 1993 and 2001 when Al Qaeda attacked us with bombs and then airliners.
Cutting the size of government is tricky because it is in that nature. Besides Medicaid and Medicare which would be eliminated due to redundancy with UHC, most are subject to fraud and waste but how do you combat that? Look at people who claim welfare recipients should be drug tested for example (obviously more on the state than federal level), only about 5% of those tested test positive for drug use, I am sure the costs to continually drug test welfare recipients is higher for the long-term than the removal of the drug users on the short-term. The IRS is often looked at as waste but without it, there would be no way to run ANY tax system (except if you believe those that propose the FairTax is given to the treasury department by the states) and if you do hand it off to the treasury department, you will need to increase the employees in the treasury department. The armed forces creates jobs for military contractors that pay HUGE money, the problem is if the armed forces shrinks, how many will have to close up shop and there-by increase unemployment? I'm sure we can debate more including pork spending and ear-marks but the fact is, it is hard to figure out where to cut. The other issue is any tax code changes would have to be creating equal revenue to the tax code we have now or else any cuts would eat into the loss of tax revenue.
Paul also made reference to “big government.” If he’s talking about the number of workers, that’s wrong. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the federal government under Obama employs the fewest people since 1966.
“Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them to do so. Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment.”
Actually, the budget was balanced — and ran a surplus — not too long ago, in four fiscal years of the Bill Clinton administration and part of the George W. Bush administration (1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001). Republicans held control of both the House and the Senate. Believe it or not, this was only 14 years ago.
Paul largely was on point about the development of surveillance initiatives under Bush and Obama during that interview. But his announcement on Tuesday did not reflect the nuances. In fact, the announcement falsely created an impression that the current program, or the “vast dragnet,” began with a single executive order by Obama. We know Paul knows the difference. Perhaps it is time for Paul’s speechwriter to brush up on this topic.
“We must realize, though, that we do not project strength by borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan.”
Paul reinforces a myth here — that the United States borrows most (if not all) of its money from China. But as we have reported, that’s simply wrong. China is a biggest single holder of Treasury debt, owning $1.252 trillion as of October 2014, but that amounts to less than 10 percent of all U.S. debt held by the public.
“Let’s quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some bridges here at home. It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting ‘Death to America’ in countries that receive millions of dollars in our foreign aid.”
Here’s another myth perpetuated by Paul. Foreign aid is a relatively tiny part of the federal budget — about 1 percent — and very little is spent on bridges. A chunk of money is spent on development and nutritional assistance, but much of the aid is military in nature. Moreover, with the exception of Israel, countries that receive U.S. military assistance must buy U.S. products.
Big government isn't just about the number of people employed by the federal government. The "Patriot" Act, NDAA, the "war on drugs", etc. are all examples of big government. We are a lot less free than we were in 1966.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Bill Clinton "balancing" the budget is a damn lie. It was an accounting trick, an illusion. Even if it was true, 14 years is a long time to go with unbalanced budgets. Bush and Obama have added more debt to the nation under the last 15 years than all previous presidents combined.
Big government isn't just about the number of people employed by the federal government. The "Patriot" Act, NDAA, the "war on drugs", etc. are all examples of big government. We are a lot less free than we were in 1966.
In the bedrooms, we are fairly the same in 1966 as abortion and birth control laws were challenged in 1966. Sure some gays can marry but there are still a good number that cannot.
To be fair though, Obamacare did not enact overnight besides prexisting conditions and being 26 or younger and on your parents' plan no questions asked. Plans that existed into the enaction of that were gone in the first year of the Obamacare exchanges stayed around and up til this year.
Those things were great IF corresponding legislation was enacted to bring costs down overall. The problem is costs were increased here with nothing bringing them down.
Quote:
The only thing I will disagree with was that insurance companies would now complain that they have the high cost of carrying people who has cancer in remission to their lobbyists and from them to the politicians in Washington trying to either block the law or repeal it. I agree with you, that it is the right thing to do BUT, lobbying isn't always lobbying for the right thing.
To do this right (and when I said right, I have no illusions the morons in Washington will ever do it right) you have to get rid of the middle man.
Quote:
There's that. Also there are those paid by the insurance lobby and those who believe it hurts the free-market (I imagine Rand Paul is of that type.)
I covered my thoughts on Paul.
Quote:
Part of the problem is the Republicans don't want to negotiate and fix the law. Their fix is to scrap it with no replacement proposal. We can agree that some effect is about how it was passed BUT the fact remains that most bills that become law are indeed imperfect.
But that is something you have to consider from the beginning. You don't completely ignore those you are going to later need to fix things. And the (D)'s are now in the minority because of this.
I completely supported candidate Obama when he said he was going to do this and he was going to do it by bringing both sides to the table, hash things out in the open and then allow the citizens to see it before voting on it. If he had done that and got anything out of it, the (D)'s wouldn't be the minority party.
Quote:
I agree that at some point we do need to pull out Iraq and Afghanistan.
That point was years ago.
Quote:
That goes without saying. The issue is WHEN DO WE? Iraq about two/three years ago was mostly stable and then ISIS/ISLS came in from Syria (the same Syrian rebels we wanted to support in fall 2011) while Afghanistan has been off and on stable. I agree we should pull out but issue is can we? And I'm not even talking of being in favor of military contractors, it's just how that part of the world is right now. We saw it come to America in 1993 and 2001 when Al Qaeda attacked us with bombs and then airliners.
War isn't going to stop them. There are far more "terrorists" today than a decade ago.
Quote:
Cutting the size of government is tricky because it is in that nature. Besides Medicaid and Medicare which would be eliminated due to redundancy with UHC, most are subject to fraud and waste but how do you combat that?
You start firing people. I posted a link a few days ago that the V.A. has done absolutely nothing about long wait times. Why is that? No one was held accountable for the fraud and waste. It's not tricky. Do your job, do it right or find a new job.
Quote:
Look at people who claim welfare recipients should be drug tested for example (obviously more on the state than federal level), only about 5% of those tested test positive for drug use, I am sure the costs to continually drug test welfare recipients is higher for the long-term than the removal of the drug users on the short-term.
I don't support doing that.
Quote:
The IRS is often looked at as waste but without it, there would be no way to run ANY tax system (except if you believe those that propose the FairTax is given to the treasury department by the states) and if you do hand it off to the treasury department, you will need to increase the employees in the treasury department. The armed forces creates jobs for military contractors that pay HUGE money, the problem is if the armed forces shrinks, how many will have to close up shop and there-by increase unemployment? I'm sure we can debate more including pork spending and ear-marks but the fact is, it is hard to figure out where to cut. The other issue is any tax code changes would have to be creating equal revenue to the tax code we have now or else any cuts would eat into the loss of tax revenue.
Our taxes should be no where close to how complicated they are. My wife is a CPA and she was cussing this year doing them. Cut out all the give aways and the IRS can become much smaller.
Then what is the perfect option? The old way left too many people out if they were previously sick or had a continuous disease had their work change plans or their job was lost and they found a new one. The current way taxes people if they are either unable to afford insurance even with subsidies but make too much for Medicaid and the state's Medicaid system being very hard to get into or those that don't want to get a plan. Most of the other issues with Obamacare were existing in the marketplace already, people just didn't notice raises in their plan when they had equal raises in their income. The other option is universal healthcare which if Republicans moan about a policy that conservatives (FYI, the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation and other Republicans had proposals that would merge and became RomneyCare and ultimately ObamaCare) proposed in the 1990's in opposition to Ted Kennedy's universal healthcare proposal, you can only imagine conservative reaction now.
My god, can you think without the liberal democrats telling you what to think?
How about the government acting only in the way the constitution states, does not try to interfere in the day to day lives of citizens and allow people to solve their own problems? Is that too much of a stretch
for liberals to allow?
Can you even conceive of what kind of country we would have were this to come to pass?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Socially,I am conservative,fiscally, I am liberal,so many do not fit into an asinine little box,now do they?
