Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Parking Lot (http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/)
-   -   Liberal Supermajority (http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/26095-liberal-supermajority.html)

Slingin Sammy 33 10-18-2008 08:58 PM

Liberal Supermajority
 
Good article from the Wall Street Journal on what is likely to happen if Obama wins the White House and the dems gather 60 seats in the Senate. We may be taking a pretty hard turn to the left. This happened in 1933 and 1965. Each time we wound up with big government progams that are now eating up a vast majority of the Federal budget.

[URL="http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html"]A Liberal Supermajority - WSJ.com[/URL]

onlydarksets 10-18-2008 09:50 PM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
It's an op-ed, not an article - big difference. It's typical for an op-ed, too. Light on substance, long on rhetoric.

First, I agree with what the author says about potential concerns regarding unions and global warming. Each needs to be checked. However, the rest is pretty much bunk.

- Universal health care: Yes it costs. It's worth it. We take health care for granted, but many can't afford it.
- The business climate: Is the author actually arguing that Sarb-Ox is a bad thing?
- Taxes: Taxes will rise for 2% of Americans and fall for 98%. I really don't have a problem with that. And I'm part of the 2%.
- Free speech and voting rights: This is classic - "Increased access to the polls favors the Democrats". Seriously - is that an argument?
- Special interest potpourri: This is six of one/half-dozen of the other. The R's are just as bad. I will say - does anyone actually think No Child Left Behind is working?

DynamiteRave 10-18-2008 10:12 PM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=onlydarksets;491096]It's an op-ed, not an article - big difference. It's typical for an op-ed, too. Light on substance, long on rhetoric.

First, I agree with what the author says about potential concerns regarding unions and global warming. Each needs to be checked. However, the rest is pretty much bunk.
[B]
- Universal health care: Yes it costs. It's worth it. We take health care for granted, but many can't afford it.[/B]
- The business climate: Is the author actually arguing that Sarb-Ox is a bad thing?
- Taxes: Taxes will rise for 2% of Americans and fall for 98%. I really don't have a problem with that. And I'm part of the 2%.
- Free speech and voting rights: This is classic - "Increased access to the polls favors the Democrats". Seriously - is that an argument?
- Special interest potpourri: This is six of one/half-dozen of the other. The R's are just as bad. I will say - does anyone actually think No Child Left Behind is working?[/quote]

I'm completely down for universal health care. I would love to give people who would never be able to afford health care the chance to get treatment they other wise, wouldn't receive.

But I hear in Canada, where they do have universal health care, that:

1) The wait lists there for organs and such are HUUUUUUGE. Bigger than what we have in the US, and people already die here waiting.

and that

2) You have to be either pregnant or dying to get any sort of good attention there. Anyone with any sort of illness deemed "minor" is shoveled medicine and pushed away.

Now this may or may not be true and it's also someones opinion. Even though I've been told this, I'm still for it. The details of it, (insurance companies, prices etc etc) I don't really care about. I'm all about the big picture, if this is implemented (technical insider mumbo jumbo aside) could it stand up?

That Guy 10-18-2008 10:15 PM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=onlydarksets;491096][B]does anyone actually think No Child Left Behind is working?[/B][/quote]

it's been called a good thing by republicans and dems, but it's not funded, so how can you tell if it's working or not?

as far as health care - if you put cost control onus on the individual instead of regulators or oversight it CAN be cost effective and reduce insurance costs at the same time (ie small individual cost sharing on health care, free yearly preventative screenings, wider use of generics).

That Guy 10-18-2008 10:23 PM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=DynamiteRave;491100]The details of it, (insurance companies, prices etc etc) I don't really care about. I'm all about the big picture, if this is implemented (technical insider mumbo jumbo aside) could it stand up?[/quote]


that's the problem, universal health care without regard to the details of its implementation is worthless. you'll end up like england or sweden with the standard of care drops through the floor, where funding it eats all kinda of money from everyone (mainly higher taxes) and no one's really happy about it.


you HAVE to put the $$ in front of the consumer so they can self regulate as the main cost control. even 5 or 10% payment is enough (with free screenings etc, since people waiting too long for treatment tends to be one of the highest drivers of total medical cost).

then you track individual usage patterns to help root out abuse (both consumers and doctors, and offer partial reimbursement for medical students college costs based upon national need and successful completion of studies and placement (being hired) into a hospital/clinic.

Slingin Sammy 33 10-19-2008 12:40 AM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=onlydarksets;491096]It's an op-ed, not an article - big difference. It's typical for an op-ed, too. Light on substance, long on rhetoric.[/quote]
Not too much rhetoric in the article, just reasonable predictions of what will likely happen.

[quote]- Universal health care: Yes it costs. It's worth it. We take health care for granted, but many can't afford it.[/quote]From the article..ooops, op-ed: "According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement." This is similar to a program the state of Hawaii just cancelled where people who had insurance were dropping it to pick up the "freebie" from the government.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't take my health care for granted and pay a good amount each year for it. I'm willing to make that sacrifice for my family, why should I be penalized by higher taxes or worse coverage administered by the government, because others don't care to make the same sacrifice. Also there are other government programs available for people with low incomes to access health care.

[quote]- The business climate: Is the author actually arguing that Sarb-Ox is a bad thing?[/quote]
There are/were unintended negatives to Sarbanes Oxley (as with most government programs)

[URL="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1080"]Does Sarbanes-Oxley Hurt Shareholders and Hide Poor Management? - Knowledge@Wharton[/URL]

[quote]- Taxes: Taxes will rise for 2% of Americans and fall for 98%. I really don't have a problem with that. And I'm part of the 2%.[/quote]
I don't believe that for a second. Obama voted for tax increases on single filers making $ 42K and families making $ 90K. Of course he'll come to the center to win the election but if he wins, all bets are off especially with a liberal supermajority. Even if what he says is true, the top 1% already pay approximately 34% of the taxes in the U.S. 40% of the U.S. households pay no federal income tax. Not to mention the capital gains increases Obama has proposed, up to 28% I believe. Tax increases will only slow the economy, not help it. Who creates the jobs in the U.S., the top 2%. Tax them more and they'll cut jobs and not increase their business production, hurting the economy and the very people Obama and the dems claim to be helping. Also lifting the cap on SS & Medicare will affect folks making over $ 102K, if I'm correct.

[quote]- Free speech and voting rights: This is classic - "Increased access to the polls favors the Democrats". Seriously - is that an argument?[/quote]No conservative that I've heard has talked about restricting access to the polls, but election day voter registration makes the opportunity for fraud very easy. IMO this is a very serious and important argument. How would you verify the identities of the Dallas Cowboys when they're registering to vote with the local McDonalds as their address.

saden1 10-19-2008 01:04 AM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
Indeed, it will be a sad day on Nov 5th. I guess a liberal supermajority is what happens when the Republican Party fails the people. If you're a Republican it is time to take a hard look in the mirror and hold yourself accountable.

p.s. [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html"]You're better than this SS33[/URL].

Slingin Sammy 33 10-19-2008 01:41 AM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=saden1;491120]I guess a liberal supermajority is what happens when the Republican Party fails the people. If you're a Republican it is time to take a hard look in the mirror and hold yourself accountable.[/quote]
You and I agree 100% on this point. We look at it from different angles, but the Republican Party has no one to blame but itself for what may happen on Nov. 5th. I think the GOP has done a terrible job of framing the issues and their positions. The GOP pounds the conservative social issues to solidify the hard-right base (which alienates the independents and moderate swing voters) and has forgotten to be fiscally conservative. Not to mention the high-profile scandals.

[quote]p.s. [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html"]You're better than this SS33[/URL].[/quote]
Where am I wrong here? The numbers I referenced are the $ 41,500 and actually $ 83K (vs $ 90K). I understand the resolution was technically not a tax "increase", just a repeal of the Bush cuts. But either way the tax bracket would increase from 25% to 28%.

I understand Obama's plan, but I think with all the new programs that he's proposing and with a supermajority, there is no way $ 250K threshold will stick. Also, don't you think a tax rate of 39% is too high?

I'm a Fairtax guy. I think that program is much better because people will choose the amount of tax they pay by the products they buy, rather than the government setting rates for different income levels. I also believe the only way to reign in government spending is to restrict the $$ coming in and pass a balanced budget ammendment. The only time that deficit spending would be allowed would be in a formally declared war approved by Congress, not a Vietnam or Iraq scenario.

JWsleep 10-19-2008 04:01 AM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
Don't bet on such radical change. Even if the dems pickup this so-called super majority, they still have to agree on what legislation to pass. And then we will see, as is the case with the republicans, that they are all connected up to various special interests. And some dems will be connected to the doctors, while some will be connected with the insurance folks, and some will be connected with the unions, and so forth. And they will try to protect those interests.

And that's actually how the system is designed to work, as far as I can tell. See The Federalist Papers, by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay.

My guess is your going to see a lot of debt spending here. They're going to let the deficit go up, lower middle class taxes and stimulate the economy with govt spending. Then you fix the debt later when the economy is on stronger footing. Hope it works!

onlydarksets 10-19-2008 08:11 AM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;491119]Not too much rhetoric in the article, just [B]reasonable predictions[/B] of what will likely happen.[/quote]
Are we reading the same article?

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;491119]From the article..ooops, op-ed: "According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement." This is similar to a program the state of Hawaii just cancelled where people who had insurance were dropping it to pick up the "freebie" from the government.[/quote]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't take my health care for granted and pay a good amount each year for it. I'm willing to make that sacrifice for my family, why should I be penalized by higher taxes or worse coverage administered by the government, because others don't care to make the same sacrifice. Also there are other government programs available for people with low incomes to access health care. [/quote]
Everyone talks about the costs of the program, but few point out that [B]we are already paying for it[/B]. The costs of the uninsured are paid for by the insured - in my opinion, it's better to be proactive than reactive, even if there is a marginal total cost increase. However, once you include non-medical costs resulting from preventable or treatable injuries and afflictions (unemployment, workers comp, welfare, crime, etc.), I'm not so sure the cost actually increases by much.
[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8144237/"]Uninsured add $900 to health premiums - Health care - MSNBC.com[/URL]
[URL="http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7084.cfm"]The Cost of Care for the Uninsured:* What Do We Spend, Who Pays, and What Would Full Coverage Add to Medical Spending? - Kaiser Family Foundation[/URL]
[url=http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml]NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs[/url]

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;491119]There are/were unintended negatives to Sarbanes Oxley (as with most government programs)

[URL="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1080"]Does Sarbanes-Oxley Hurt Shareholders and Hide Poor Management? - Knowledge@Wharton[/URL]
[/quote]
There are definitely unintended consequences (including affecting smaller business, which can't afford to implement the measures required). That suggests it needs to be retooled, not revoked. Big business believes it is beholden to its investors before the law. The laws need to be revised (and have, with SarbOx) to make it clear that this is not the case.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;491119]I don't believe that for a second. Obama voted for tax increases on single filers making $ 42K and families making $ 90K. Of course he'll come to the center to win the election but if he wins, all bets are off especially with a liberal supermajority. Even if what he says is true, the top 1% already pay approximately 34% of the taxes in the U.S. 40% of the U.S. households pay no federal income tax. Not to mention the capital gains increases Obama has proposed, up to 28% I believe. Tax increases will only slow the economy, not help it. Who creates the jobs in the U.S., the top 2%. Tax them more and they'll cut jobs and not increase their business production, hurting the economy and the very people Obama and the dems claim to be helping. Also lifting the cap on SS & Medicare will affect folks making over $ 102K, if I'm correct.[/quote]
Dude, that was part of a budget resolution, not a comprehensive tax plan:
[URL="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html"]FactCheck.org: The $32,000 Question[/URL]

You can take it out of context, but don't expect it to carry much weight.


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;491119]No conservative that I've heard has talked about restricting access to the polls, but election day voter registration makes the opportunity for fraud very easy. IMO this is a very serious and important argument. How would you verify the identities of the Dallas Cowboys when they're registering to vote with the local McDonalds as their address.[/quote]
lol - I'll grant you that! But [B]only[/B] Cowgirl felons should be barred, IMO.

Seriously, though, I don't have an opinion on felons voting, but your point is about fraud, not the right to vote. There is virtually [B]zero[/B] chance that voter fraud can influence a federal election, or any statewide election. The numbers are just too high. Does this increase the possibility that an overly motivated group could influence a mayoral race in a small town? Maybe, but I still doubt it. Access to the polls is imperative to the legitimacy of the process (as is reducing fraud - I grant you that). The benefits outweigh the risks here. And, yes, the underprivileged tend to skew Democratic, since that is the party that supports the social programs that enable many of them to survive.

Beemnseven 10-19-2008 10:56 PM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=DynamiteRave;491100][B]I'm completely down for universal health care. I would love to give people who would never be able to afford health care the chance to get treatment they other wise, wouldn't receive.[/B]
But I hear in Canada, where they do have universal health care, that:

1) The wait lists there for organs and such are HUUUUUUGE. Bigger than what we have in the US, and people already die here waiting.

and that

2) You have to be either pregnant or dying to get any sort of good attention there. Anyone with any sort of illness deemed "minor" is shoveled medicine and pushed away.

Now this may or may not be true and it's also someones opinion. Even though I've been told this, I'm still for it. The details of it, (insurance companies, prices etc etc) I don't really care about. I'm all about the big picture, if this is implemented (technical insider mumbo jumbo aside) could it stand up?[/quote]

Nothing is stopping you from stroking a check for someone who doesn't have health care. I, on the other hand, would prefer just to take care of my own family.

Here's the thing about universal health care -- who pays for it? The government you say? How does the government get the money to do that? Through taxes, right? Are there taxes taken out of your paycheck? Yes? Then you're still paying for health care - just not your own.

With universal health care, you should expect all the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of FEMA.

onlydarksets 10-19-2008 11:01 PM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=Beemnseven;491813]Nothing is stopping you from stroking a check for someone who doesn't have health care. [B] I, on the other hand, would prefer just to take care of my own family. [/B]

Here's the thing about universal health care -- who pays for it? The government you say? How does the government get the money to do that? Through taxes, right? Are there taxes taken out of your paycheck? Yes? Then you're still paying for health care - just not your own.

With universal health care, you should expect all the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of FEMA.[/quote]
"there, but for the grace of god, go i."

DynamiteRave 10-20-2008 12:20 AM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
[quote=Beemnseven;491813]Nothing is stopping you from stroking a check for someone who doesn't have health care. [B]I, on the other hand, would prefer just to take care of my own family.
[/B]
Here's the thing about universal health care -- who pays for it? The government you say? How does the government get the money to do that? Through taxes, right? Are there taxes taken out of your paycheck? Yes? Then you're still paying for health care - just not your own.

With universal health care, you should expect all the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of FEMA.[/quote]

God forbid anything happen to you or your family, but if anything ever did happen to you or your family, to the point of where you couldn't support yourself/your medical bills, and the majority of people carry that attitude, they might as well just turn you away at the front door of the hospital and say, "go take care of yourself."

saden1 10-20-2008 12:29 AM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
Come on, he has everything covered. He'll never lose his job or business, his insurance will never drop him and he'll never rack-up any medical bills. Even if his insurance company drops him I'm sure he'll hire a lawyer who will sort the whole matter in matters of few months. Thanks to his hard work him and his family are set for life.

Me, I thank god I work for a company that pay 100% of my health insurance. Not a dime comes out of my pockets and that's just the way I like it...and according to Obama that's the way it'll stay.

Beemnseven 10-20-2008 08:01 AM

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 
One of the things the democrats oppose is the ability for families and individuals to deduct the cost of health care from their income taxes. So the very thing you're afraid of -- losing your job and not being able to afford insurance -- is a reality thanks to the policies of the party you apparently support. Employers can deduct the cost of insurance from their taxes, why shouldn't individuals be allowed to do the same?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.08726 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25