• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money

Boo Radley said:
You have to turn people away, including emergencies. Are you willing to do that? Otherwise, you will continue to pay for them.
Click to expand...

What I am willing to do which apparently you aren't is to really define the problem and then go after payment. Illegals, go to the govt. and deduct the amount from foreign aid. For those without insurance enter into a payment plan or go after assets. This is a problem that isn't solved by this legislation but in fact makes it worse, less doctors and more patients thus more of a demand on the emergency rooms.
 
Conservative said:
What I am willing to do which apparently you aren't is to really define the problem and then go after payment. Illegals, go to the govt. and deduct the amount from foreign aid. For those without insurance enter into a payment plan or go after assets. This is a problem that isn't solved by this legislation but in fact makes it worse, less doctors and more patients thus more of a demand on the emergency rooms.
Click to expand...

No, you're inaccurately defining the problem. The problem is there even without illegals. And no, there will likely be more doctors. You're have it all wrong. Sorry.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you're inaccurately defining the problem. The problem is there even without illegals. And no, there will likely be more doctors. You're have it all wrong. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you live in a dream world, when you take away incentive you lower output not increase it. Based upon history it isn't likely that there will be more doctors.

Why don't you define the problem then since obviously I have it wrong? You made the case for over use of the ER's as driving up costs and I pointed out that the ER's are being used by the insured. How does this bill address that?

You make the same argument over and over again yet claim this bill isn't perfect. Then you use terms like likely and possibly. IF it were your money would you implement this bill and fund it? I certainly wouldn't and I base my statement on history.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you're inaccurately defining the problem. The problem is there even without illegals. And no, there will likely be more doctors. You're have it all wrong. Sorry.
Click to expand...

By the way, there are a lot of doctors out there that disagree with you. Govt. regulating payments for Medicare and Medicaid do not provide the incentive to go into the profession especially when faced with their own costs of doing business.

You seem to have a serious problem understanding how businesses operate including the medical profession. I cannot believe how naive you are. No one can force people to go into the profession and we apparently have an Administration that has never run a business or held a private sector job that doesn't understand business either.

Obama is so used to using his personality to sell his programs and having people like you buy his rhetoric. The results however don't match the rhetoric.

Stimulus plan was supposed to cap unemployment at 8% and there are 4 million more employed today than when Obama signed the stimulus.

The debt when Obama took office was 10.6 trillion and it is 12.7 trillion today. Deficits are continuing to rise and it is projected that the debt will be 90% of GDP by Obama's own estimates. Healthcare reform in this bill does nothing to lower deficits. Printing money, borrowing money, raising taxes doesn nothing to lower deficits.
 
Conservative said:
By the way, there are a lot of doctors out there that disagree with you. Govt. regulating payments for Medicare and Medicaid do not provide the incentive to go into the profession especially when faced with their own costs of doing business.

You seem to have a serious problem understanding how businesses operate including the medical profession. I cannot believe how naive you are. No one can force people to go into the profession and we apparently have an Administration that has never run a business or held a private sector job that doesn't understand business either.

Obama is so used to using his personality to sell his programs and having people like you buy his rhetoric. The results however don't match the rhetoric.

Stimulus plan was supposed to cap unemployment at 8% and there are 4 million more employed today than when Obama signed the stimulus.

The debt when Obama took office was 10.6 trillion and it is 12.7 trillion today. Deficits are continuing to rise and it is projected that the debt will be 90% of GDP by Obama's own estimates. Healthcare reform in this bill does nothing to lower deficits. Printing money, borrowing money, raising taxes doesn nothing to lower deficits.
Click to expand...

I'm very close to the profession. I'm a nurse, though not working as one. My wife is a nurse, my sister a nurse, my sister in law a nurse and my brother in law a doctor. I spent ten years at University of Iowa hospitals and clinics. I socialize with doctors on a regular basis. Few are as concerned as you report. Most have argued for a two tiered system in which everyone is covered, but the wealthy get to buy more, extra if you will.

BTW, the difference between 10.6 trillion and 12.7 trillion is hardly shocking. The fact we were this far down that road already is more of a problem. And I do not see anywhere where republicans have worked to lower that debt. Again, tax cut and spend was under Bush and the republicans.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm very close to the profession. I'm a nurse, though not working as one. My wife is a nurse, my sister a nurse, my sister in law a nurse and my brother in law a doctor. I spent ten years at University of Iowa hospitals and clinics. I socialize with doctors on a regular basis. Few are as concerned as you report. Most have argued for a two tiered system in which everyone is covered, but the wealthy get to buy more, extra if you will.

BTW, the difference between 10.6 trillion and 12.7 trillion is hardly shocking. The fact we were this far down that road already is more of a problem. And I do not see anywhere where republicans have worked to lower that debt. Again, tax cut and spend was under Bush and the republicans.
Click to expand...


Again, you buy the rhetoric, things were so bad during the Bush years that we have to spend into oblivion to get us out. That is the liberal spin, never let a good crisis go by without taking advantage of it. That is total BS.

We have been worse than this many times in history. the excuse to spend more money, take over more industries, and expand the role of govt. is what liberals do best because quite frankly most haven't a clue as to what really made this country great. Who pays for this massive expansion?

Only in the liberal world is 2 trillion dollars not a big difference or shocking. We weren't that far down the road and could have been out of this by now with the right economic policies. The Obama agenda isn't the right economic policy and one of these days you will grow to understand that.

Obama will create more debt in 3 years than Bush did in 8. His own numbers show that our debt will be 90% of GDP but that is ok with a liberal. Why? In your world what is the role of the govt.?
 
Conservative said:
Now there you go again spinning reality. Tell us where the 200 billion dollar surplus came from during the Clinton years? Is that what you are trying to justify? Does the bill ever come due in the liberal world?

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
Click to expand...

Uh-oh, here we go again - Conservative is playing with documents he doesn't understand.
 
Conservative said:
Again, you buy the rhetoric, things were so bad during the Bush years that we have to spend into oblivion to get us out. That is the liberal spin, never let a good crisis go by without taking advantage of it. That is total BS.

We have been worse than this many times in history. the excuse to spend more money, take over more industries, and expand the role of govt. is what liberals do best because quite frankly most haven't a clue as to what really made this country great. Who pays for this massive expansion?

Only in the liberal world is 2 trillion dollars not a big difference or shocking. We weren't that far down the road and could have been out of this by now with the right economic policies. The Obama agenda isn't the right economic policy and one of these days you will grow to understand that.

Obama will create more debt in 3 years than Bush did in 8. His own numbers show that our debt will be 90% of GDP but that is ok with a liberal. Why? In your world what is the role of the govt.?
Click to expand...

They were quite bad under Bush. He seriously made a lot of mistakes that cost us dearly.

But when you're talking tens of trillions of dollars, it is less a difference than if you jumped from billions to trillions. Again, not arguing to increase the debt, but find the new concern telling, considering the Bush years.
 
Once again:

Table F-2, Year 2000 (Clinton's last fiscal year budget), 3rd column (on-budget deficit or surplus):

0.9

That's a POSITIVE number. Ergo Clinton's surplus was real, even without including SS.

Historical Budget Data
 
Boo Radley said:
They were quite bad under Bush. He seriously made a lot of mistakes that cost us dearly.

But when you're talking tens of trillions of dollars, it is less a difference than if you jumped from billions to trillions. Again, not arguing to increase the debt, but find the new concern telling, considering the Bush years.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion but history will judge, not you or I. I suggest getting non partisan data instead of what you read. The non partisan data paints a different picture. BEA.gov is a great place to start. Then go to the U.S. Treasury Dept. which is the checkbook of the United States
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion but history will judge, not you or I. I suggest getting non partisan data instead of what you read. The non partisan data paints a different picture. BEA.gov is a great place to start. Then go to the U.S. Treasury Dept. which is the checkbook of the United States
Click to expand...

We'll all judge. And I read much, from all sides.
 
Boo Radley said:
We'll all judge. And I read much, from all sides.
Click to expand...

Not unless you get non partisan data, bea.gov, bls.gov, and then Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Those sites are non partisan and paints an entirely different picture than the media reported. How were your own personal finances? How did the Bush economy hurt you or your family?
 
misterman said:
Once again:

Table F-2, Year 2000 (Clinton's last fiscal year budget), 3rd column (on-budget deficit or surplus):

0.9

That's a POSITIVE number. Ergo Clinton's surplus was real, even without including SS.

Historical Budget Data
Click to expand...

If your point is that Clinton, with a republican controlled house and senate, maintained for two years an actual budget surplus I would readily agree. For 2 whole years. hell...if Clinton maintained a budget surplus the entire time I'd nominate him king. he didnt...but for two years...with a republican controlled congress passing spending bills...Clinton presided over an ANNUAL budget surplus. Mind you we still had trillions in debt...but for the year...there was a surplus.

This whole Bush sucks more than Clinton but less than Obama thing is part of the problem. We dont HAVE a king...therefore the budgets proposed really cant be laid at the foot of Obama...or Bush. BOTH PARTIES have had control of congress. BOTH PARTIES continually demonstrate wreckless and irresponsible spending. And WE...the people that actually WORK and pay taxes are stuck with the bill.
 
VanceMack said:
If your point is that Clinton, with a republican controlled house and senate, maintained for two years an actual budget surplus I would readily agree.
Click to expand...

So if the Congress had been Democratic you wouldn't agree? :roll:

Just agree, for God's sake. Don't hedge.

For 2 whole years. hell...if Clinton maintained a budget surplus the entire time I'd nominate him king. he didnt...but for two years...with a republican controlled congress passing spending bills...Clinton presided over an ANNUAL budget surplus. Mind you we still had trillions in debt...but for the year...there was a surplus.
Click to expand...

Suddenly you've forgotten about the Republican Congress, which also didn't maintain a budget surplus for more than two years.

This whole Bush sucks more than Clinton but less than Obama thing is part of the problem. We dont HAVE a king...therefore the budgets proposed really cant be laid at the foot of Obama...or Bush. BOTH PARTIES have had control of congress. BOTH PARTIES continually demonstrate wreckless and irresponsible spending. And WE...the people that actually WORK and pay taxes are stuck with the bill.
Click to expand...

Now you're being fair, and I agree 100%.
 
VanceMack said:
If your point is that Clinton, with a republican controlled house and senate, maintained for two years an actual budget surplus I would readily agree. For 2 whole years. hell...if Clinton maintained a budget surplus the entire time I'd nominate him king. he didnt...but for two years...with a republican controlled congress passing spending bills...Clinton presided over an ANNUAL budget surplus. Mind you we still had trillions in debt...but for the year...there was a surplus.

This whole Bush sucks more than Clinton but less than Obama thing is part of the problem. We dont HAVE a king...therefore the budgets proposed really cant be laid at the foot of Obama...or Bush. BOTH PARTIES have had control of congress. BOTH PARTIES continually demonstrate wreckless and irresponsible spending. And WE...the people that actually WORK and pay taxes are stuck with the bill.
Click to expand...

The key here is that Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion dollar debt and left with the debt over 5.6 trillion dollars. What far too many ignore is the reality that SS was used to balance the budget. It was taken from the "trust fund" and replaced with an IOU. The govt. is predicting that SS is going broke yet the Presidents, all of them except for Reagan used SS funds to make the deficit look better than it was while adding trillions to the off budget debt.
 
I wonder if it bothers anyone here or the company's boycotting Fox News that, this very moment, I'm currently watching Glenn Beck. I love his show! :mrgreen:
 
Politics101 said:
I wonder if it bothers anyone here or the company's boycotting Fox News that, this very moment, I'm currently watching Glenn Beck. I love his show! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:rofl thanks for getting this back on topic.
 
Conservative said:
:rofl thanks for getting this back on topic.
Click to expand...
If the Obama administration is at war with Glenn Beck, I think Barack is losing big-time. More than anything, Beck is probaby hated by the SEIU and Van Jones more than anyone else.

I really wish the White House would call his red phone, though! That would be Pay Per View worthy, in my opinion. :duel
 
Politics101 said:
If the Obama administration is at war with Glenn Beck, I think Barack is losing big-time. More than anything, Beck is probaby hated by the SEIU and Van Jones more than anyone else.

I really wish the White House would call his red phone, though! That would be Pay Per View worthy, in my opinion. :duel
Click to expand...

The Obama Administration is too arrogant to call Beck or anyone else that disagrees with them. I don't think the majority in this country that voted for change expected the Obama Administration to change everything that they believe in.

This is the most radical leftwing Administration in U.S. history and the polls are starting to reflect that. Most that "hate" Glenn Beck never address the content of what Beck reports but they have no problem personally attacking him.
 
Oh cool!

upillar.com has an open auction (closes this Friday) for a signed copy of the one-and-only “We The People” mosaic from the Glenn Beck Studio.

I want it so bad. :shock: If only I could afford it...
 
The people I talk to that hate Glen Beck when asked if they watch usually state "I would never watch him" I always ask then how do you know u hate him?
 
Auction is up to over $11,000 now. I think it needs to go in a museum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom