Obama '08?

@rabel22,

I'm 29 and going to be forced to pay for whatever mess we install.

@Diest TKO,

I don't know.

What has Obama done that you'd say you're excited about?

I was expecting change (weren't we all?) and I haven't seen anything of consequence change in the slightest.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think Obama's call to service is quite different, radically different than Bush's.

Do you mean Obama's call to service or Bush's call to service that you mistakenly thought was Obama's call to service?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
IOKIYAR.

???????

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-iokiyar.htm

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

So, okie, you seem to be concerned about the possibility of a parallel military that is not under the same command and control as the US military and that might not be loyal to the US but rather some political faction or person. I wonder how you feel about Blackwater.

I have not studied Blackwater. Isn't it a civilian security contractor to do work for us in foreign countries? Good grief, whats the problem? Even here in this country, there are many security firms that contract with for example shopping malls, to protect their private property. That is worlds apart from some kind of government civilian security force.

It's a security force made up of US and foreign mercenaries who operated in Iraq as soldiers with an immunity our soldiers are not afforded. It owns weapons, airplanes, armored vehicles, helicopters, and even a ship. It is run by a highly ideological right-wing Christianist. Unlike our own military, they could be deployed against US citizens. Scary to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I'm 29 and going to be forced to pay for whatever mess we install.

Boo fuckin hoo. You're already paying for 'this mess' right now, but you don't bitch about that.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't?

Healthcare is the main reason I voted for Clinton, and then Obama.

I'm not at all interested in convincing okie, ican, and others that we need healthcare; I'm interested in the elected officials WE'VE voted for and invested so much hope and money in, to do the ******* JOB.

Try holding Obama's feet to the fire for all the promises he's made/broke/waffled on for once.

You're as bad an apologist for him and the democrats in congress, as your republican counterparts were for Bush.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

What I'd like to hear from maporsche is whether he complained about Bush's deficits from paying for an illegal war in Iraq and other huge spendings that hasn't benefited America or Americans, but why he's up in arms with Obama's deficit that's spent for the American People?

Is Bush's 3-trillion spent for the wars more important than the 1-trillion spent for Americans?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I don't?

Healthcare is the main reason I voted for Clinton, and then Obama.

I'm not at all interested in convincing okie, ican, and others that we need healthcare; I'm interested in the elected officials WE'VE voted for and invested so much hope and money in, to do the ******* JOB.

Try holding Obama's feet to the fire for all the promises he's made/broke/waffled on for once.

You're as bad an apologist for him and the democrats in congress, as your republican counterparts were for Bush.

Look, you're the one who keeps pumping up the Blue Dogs; who do you think it is who is keeping the job from getting done? Conservative Democrats who don't want to see a Universal Health care plan passed, b/c it would hurt the profits of their corporate friends. Instead of supporting the guys who are gumming up the works, why don't you get behind the fellows who are trying to accomplish something which will save money over time?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

How short you guy's memories are.

I hated pretty much the entire Bush administration, and there are several (probably hundred) posts on this website to verify that (if one cares to look).

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Look, you're the one who keeps pumping up the Blue Dogs; who do you think it is who is keeping the job from getting done? Conservative Democrats who don't want to see a Universal Health care plan passed, b/c it would hurt the profits of their corporate friends. Instead of supporting the guys who are gumming up the works, why don't you get behind the fellows who are trying to accomplish something which will save money over time?

I see the blue dogs insisting that the program be paid for and holding Obama to his promise that this program would be deficit neutral. I know you have a problem with that concept ("nothing is deficit neutral" I believe is a quote from you), but there's something you can bitch to Obama about.

I want healthcare reform more than the next guy; but it HAS to be paid for! And costs HAVE to come down.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Look, you're the one who keeps pumping up the Blue Dogs; who do you think it is who is keeping the job from getting done? Conservative Democrats who don't want to see a Universal Health care plan passed, b/c it would hurt the profits of their corporate friends. Instead of supporting the guys who are gumming up the works, why don't you get behind the fellows who are trying to accomplish something which will save money over time?

I see the blue dogs insisting that the program be paid for and holding Obama to his promise that this program would be deficit neutral.

This is bullshit. Nothing is deficit neutral when you are in debt. Every single dollar of spending, even if you match it with new taxes, is a dollar which could be used to pay down the debt. What you are describing here is a dodge, a farce, a ploy for opposing change in the name of 'fiscal conservatism.' It isn't real. The Blue Dogs know this and so do you.

Quote:

I know you have a problem with that concept ("nothing is deficit neutral" I believe is a quote from you), but there's something you can bitch to Obama about.

Why would I? It's politician language designed to soothe the minds of folks who don't understand how our Nation's finances work. You shouldn't be drawn in by it.

Quote:

I want healthcare reform more than the next guy; but it HAS to be paid for! And costs HAVE to come down.

It already is being paid for. All we are talking about doing is switching the locus of care. And there is no greater method for lowering health-care costs being proposed right now, than the Public Option. The pressure it will place on individual insurers and the entire industry to lower costs is immense.

You are buying into the Republican frames on this issue...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Obama and a number of other Dems have been very clear on the cost of health reform and how the money would be raised. (This is quite a departure from the Bush administration, which had passed various tax cuts for the wealthy, a very expensive Medicare drug plan, etc., without provisions to pay for them.) The Dems said the cost would be about $70 B a year, which could easily be paid for with tax changes, and a surcharge, affecting the wealthy, as well as eliminating waste in Medicare (e.g., ceasing to pay for MRI's when X-rays were in order).

2 Replies

@Advocate,

That's a nice general statement of how much and how, but I want to see more specifics. Changes in taxes doesn't mean much when our tax structure must pay for existing expenses all running deficits, while government spending continues to increase. What surcharges? How much will it raise, and what is it going to pay for?

Nobody talks about the growing federal deficit that must be paid for. This growth in the deficit will impact inflation in the future, and we have no clue at this point in time how that's going to be paid.

The devils in the detail which the government hasn't provided.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

The Dems said the cost would be about $70 B a year, which could easily be paid for with tax changes, and a surcharge, affecting the wealthy, as well as eliminating waste in Medicare (e.g., ceasing to pay for MRI's when X-rays were in order).

It is much "easier" to estimate the innocuous effect of a tax increase when you are not the one paying it.

How does government go about "eliminating waste in Medicare (e.g. ceasing to pay for MRI's when X-rays were in order)" -- all with the vaunted (and illusory) low overhead you say the government has. Exactly how does the government determine when the substitution of an X-ray for an MRI is "in order" in a specific case????

Easy to say - hard to do: unless of course you intend to brueaucratize the practice of medicine. That is one of the things that has outraged so many folks.

1 Reply

Quote:

How does government go about "eliminating waste in Medicare (e.g. ceasing to pay for MRI's when X-rays were in order)" -- all with the vaunted (and illusory) low overhead you say the government has. Exactly how does the government determine when the substitution of an X-ray for an MRI is "in order" in a specific case????

I recken about the same way private insurance have been doing for years only without the added profit factor as with private insurance companies. Most insurance companies require pre-approval before any procedures are done or they might not pay for it.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

yes george, it had enraged many people, not unlike the many people who were enraged by the passingof social security and medicare, the same enraged people who are now enraged by restricting/limiting social security and medicare. "keep your government hands off my medicare" people.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Thanks, but from the link...

Quote:

The idea is that unethical or illegal behavior by the ruling party is protected by an unspoken IOKIYAR mentality

So now, wouldnt it be IOKIYAD

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Are you sure they are mostly the same people??? Social security was enacted in (about) 1939 -- not too many of them around anymore. Medicare came later and some of the current beneficiaries probably did oppose its enactment. But do you really know the proportions of original supporters & opponents among the current protestors??? Really??

People have been enraged about many things ranging from George III's taxes to pay for the Seven Year's War, to slavery, civil rights and many other issues. I suppose that in some way they were hypocrites too.

I think you recognize that all government programs involving the legislated redistribution of benefits end up developing their own cadres of committed beneficiaries and providers, determined to preserve the party at all costs. We face several examples in the areas of agricultural and industrial subsidies and some social groups which have become dependent on now largely useless or irrelevant programs. Creating more such dependency is itself a problem.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

There has been very specific information on this in the media. The size of the surcharge depends on the income level. Also, the wealthy would have a 28 %limit on the amount of itemized deductions, as opposed to a percentage equal to the person's 35 % top tax bracket. Do a little research and you will get specifics.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know