• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

. Of course you do, we all know that Bush gave Obama the authority to put Bush spending on steroids and that 6.2 trillion in 4 plus years is much less than 4.9 trillion in 8 years.

Who are you trying to kid here? Other than the gullible. Under the Bush 43 administration the first trillion dollar budget was brought in. And the first trillion dollar increase in the budget was brought in.

So those bills in Reid's desk are to repeal Obamacare? I cannot imagine how increasing business costs by forcing small businesses to provide healthcare will affect hiring. You really have that figured out well.

What bills?
 
... substantially all of the $6.2B was the run-out of the deficit infrastructure created by the previous administration. The wars, tax cuts and medicare expansion account for most of the deficits... they were in place before Obama showed up. Its much harder to reverse these things than create them. Yes, now Obama owns the tax cuts, as he advocated for them and they were passed. They account for $2T of our debt and the future cost of those cuts now fall on the Obama ledger.

Yes, your opinion noted, problem is facts get in the way of your personal opinion and support for failed leadership in Obama. You really need to get over your BDS. the govt set record tax revenue collection in 2007 with the Bush tax cuts so that dog don't hunt any more. Obama budgets and high unemployment led to the deficits we have today. Obama has never had a deficit less than a trillion
 
... substantially all of the $6.2B was the run-out of the deficit infrastructure created by the previous administration. The wars, tax cuts and medicare expansion account for most of the deficits... they were in place before Obama showed up. Its much harder to reverse these things than create them. Yes, now Obama owns the tax cuts, as he advocated for them and they were passed. They account for $2T of our debt and the future cost of those cuts now fall on the Obama ledger.

There were huge losses in Federal Income Tax and Payroll Tax revenues which were caused by the job losses due to the Great Bush recession that added to the deficits.
 
There were huge losses in Federal Income Tax and Payroll Tax revenues which were caused by the job losses due to the Great Bush recession that added to the deficits.

Right, the Great Bush Recession that Obama hasn't made any better as evidenced by the data today. You hired Obama to fix the Bush mess so how has that worked out for you?

By the way since when was Payroll tax designated for use in the General budget and not as intended for SS and Medicare?
 
Who are you trying to kid here? Other than the gullible. Under the Bush 43 administration the first trillion dollar budget was brought in. And the first trillion dollar increase in the budget was brought in.



What bills?

Again, as a liberal you would believe anything, The Bush budget which wasn't passed by Congress had a less than 500 billion projected deficit. TARP was added to it but TARP was a loan and has been mostly paid back. The Obama stimulus, Obama takeover of GM/Chrysler, and the Afghanistan Surge as well as 100 billion supplementals were signed by Obama in 2009.

Not sure who you think you are talking with but I am not an Obamabot who will believe anything you say.

As for the bills, I posted the ABC news site so do some research for a change.
 
. Of course you do, we all know that Bush gave Obama the authority to put Bush spending on steroids and that 6.2 trillion in 4 plus years is much less than 4.9 trillion in 8 years.

So those bills in Reid's desk are to repeal Obamacare? I cannot imagine how increasing business costs by forcing small businesses to provide healthcare will affect hiring. You really have that figured out well.

Who knows how you figure Obama is putting Bush's spending on steroids? It was already on steroids when Obama passed his first budget.

2009: 3.52
2010: 3.46
2011: 3.60
2012: 3.54

Government Spending Chart: United States 2001-2018 - Federal State Local Data

Spending for FY2012 was not much more than it was for FY2009, which was operating under Bush's budget for the first half of the fiscal year.
 
And there is no demand because of low consumer confidence and poor leadership by the WH to create confidence.

So, government is the answer?

Point is the problem is neither taxes nor regulations. Those things can be navigated.
 
So, government is the answer?

Point is the problem is neither taxes nor regulations. Those things can be navigated.

No, the govt. is the obstacle not the answer, get out of the way and let the free enterprise work. Stop creating dependence and rewarding bad behavior. You continue to ignore basic human behavior including your own. Reagan understood leadership, liberals today have no idea
 
I can tell you from my own personal experience that what you suggest about demand is not alltogether true. Demand can be created, and is created all the time.

I've cited examples of products that were not in demand, manufactured by companies that barely existed, where supply generated demand. This is well known, and, for example, forms the basis for funding Research and Development. Obviously, a final decision is based on whether the market could support the product. No reason to open a Rolls Royce dealership in downtown Detroit, for example, or build a skateboard park in a retirement village.

As to the Obamacare example, I think you may not have thought that through. Obamacare has exacerbated the doctor shortage, no alleviated it. With dramatic restrictions on Doctor compensation, and still questionable provisions required such things as "the doctor fix" just to fill in holes, Doctors are going to be far shorter supply than ever. Obamacare is a perfect example of the unintended consequences of goverment intervention and regulation.

If we have a lot of expendable money, yes you can get is to buy all kinds of shiny things. In that sense, demand can be created. And we covered low salaries for a long time by the "charge it" mantra. Buy, when we see demand as plentiful customers with disposable income, that can be created by a good sales pitch. The demand is from those making enough to buy. One of the downsides to low wages is the decrease of buyers.

As for healthcare reform, you have factual mistake concerning the reform. There are encouragements within the act to increase the number of doctors and to explore cheaper and more cost effective deliveries (including by providers other than doctors). The AMA has a huge lobbying force, and that means a huge say in government. But, the point is the act has encouragements.

As for restrictions of compensations, doctors are not going broke. When the skying is falling scare subsides, they will settle in, adjust, and still be well compensated. That would be the case even if we went with UHC.
 
No, the govt. is the obstacle not the answer, get out of the way and let the free enterprise work. Stop creating dependence and rewarding bad behavior. You continue to ignore basic human behavior including your own. Reagan understood leadership, liberals today have no idea

If you blame the government, especially in terms f leadership, than you're saying only government can fix it.

The truth is, you're argument is really little more than partisan hackers. There is no substance in your argument.
 
If you blame the government, especially in terms f leadership, than you're saying only government can fix it.

The truth is, you're argument is really little more than partisan hackers. There is no substance in your argument.

Govt. has a role in fixing the problem they helped create. You seem to be having a problem with anyone that disagrees with your point of view totally ignoring human behavior and that impact on economic activity. Who created the problem of dependence today, the individual or the govt? All that spending in the name of compassion that never really generated compassionate spending but rather created dependence.

I have seen no substance at all from you because you cannot argue the reality that more spendable income due to tax cuts stimulates economic activity, growth, and job creation.
 
If we have a lot of expendable money, yes you can get is to buy all kinds of shiny things. In that sense, demand can be created. And we covered low salaries for a long time by the "charge it" mantra. Buy, when we see demand as plentiful customers with disposable income, that can be created by a good sales pitch. The demand is from those making enough to buy. One of the downsides to low wages is the decrease of buyers.

As for healthcare reform, you have factual mistake concerning the reform. There are encouragements within the act to increase the number of doctors and to explore cheaper and more cost effective deliveries (including by providers other than doctors). The AMA has a huge lobbying force, and that means a huge say in government. But, the point is the act has encouragements.

As for restrictions of compensations, doctors are not going broke. When the skying is falling scare subsides, they will settle in, adjust, and still be well compensated. That would be the case even if we went with UHC.

I'm sorry, but a swish of your hand through the air doesn't change the realities of healthcare and it's impact of the availability of qualified people to provide it. You're either grossly misinformed on the issue, or unwilling to take the time to accurately address the issue.

As to demand, etc., my observations are based on my experiences. I can only go by that.
 
I'm sorry, but a swish of your hand through the air doesn't change the realities of healthcare and it's impact of the availability of qualified people to provide it. You're either grossly misinformed on the issue, or unwilling to take the time to accurately address the issue.

As to demand, etc., my observations are based on my experiences. I can only go by that.

No, I'm quite well informed on it.

1. The law does have the encouragements I mentioned.

2. The compensation is quite high. Doctors will not be going broke. We can link numbers on tis if you want. My brother in law says his practice will likely see a decrease from 300k to 295k, give or take. He'd like it go he other way, but calling that a hardship is a bit of an exaggeration.

But we can't have it all ways. To decrease the expense, means we have to pay less. Now to do that and increase access is difficult. Making everyone happy impossible. So, we need to focus on the problem and at accordingly. UHC addresses this, doesn't break doctors, removes healthcare from business, and lowers cost with increased access.

And your experience shows something different that what I said, I would love to see anY support for it all. People without disposable income spenng money seems very unlikely and sure to be a problem if you ask me.
 
Govt. has a role in fixing the problem they helped create. You seem to be having a problem with anyone that disagrees with your point of view totally ignoring human behavior and that impact on economic activity. Who created the problem of dependence today, the individual or the govt? All that spending in the name of compassion that never really generated compassionate spending but rather created dependence.

I have seen no substance at all from you because you cannot argue the reality that more spendable income due to tax cuts stimulates economic activity, growth, and job creation.

You can't cut taxes enough. It helps the wealthy more, but their spending isn't decreased or increased based on taxes (remember I've give you studies on that many times). And working class and poorer families just don't get enough from cuts o stimulate.

If you more toward UHC, removed it from employment, if with increased taxes, you'd do more to put money in their hands than cutting taxes.

I've. Presented evidence and not merely repeated the talking points and rants as you do. To rebut, you need to do the same.
 
No, I'm quite well informed on it.

1. The law does have the encouragements I mentioned.

2. The compensation is quite high. Doctors will not be going broke. We can link numbers on tis if you want. My brother in law says his practice will likely see a decrease from 300k to 295k, give or take. He'd like it go he other way, but calling that a hardship is a bit of an exaggeration.

But we can't have it all ways. To decrease the expense, means we have to pay less. Now to do that and increase access is difficult. Making everyone happy impossible. So, we need to focus on the problem and at accordingly. UHC addresses this, doesn't break doctors, removes healthcare from business, and lowers cost with increased access.

And your experience shows something different that what I said, I would love to see anY support for it all. People without disposable income spenng money seems very unlikely and sure to be a problem if you ask me.

Boo, what happens if you are wrong? Are there any consequences in your world for making a bad mistake that affects 1/7 of the U.S. Economy? Have you bothered to dig into the MA results? Costs are up and the number of doctors are down. There certainly is total access but access to whom?
 
Last edited:
No, I'm quite well informed on it.

1. The law does have the encouragements I mentioned.

2. The compensation is quite high. Doctors will not be going broke. We can link numbers on tis if you want. My brother in law says his practice will likely see a decrease from 300k to 295k, give or take. He'd like it go he other way, but calling that a hardship is a bit of an exaggeration.

But we can't have it all ways. To decrease the expense, means we have to pay less. Now to do that and increase access is difficult. Making everyone happy impossible. So, we need to focus on the problem and at accordingly. UHC addresses this, doesn't break doctors, removes healthcare from business, and lowers cost with increased access.

And your experience shows something different that what I said, I would love to see anY support for it all. People without disposable income spenng money seems very unlikely and sure to be a problem if you ask me.


Your information regarding Doctor compensation under Obamacare is not supported by many different sources on the subject:

Doctors Will Have To Take A Pay Cut Under Obamacare - Forbes

The Obamacare Revolt: Physicians Fight Back Against the Bureaucratization of Health Care - Reason.com


Thanks To Obamacare, A 20,000 Doctor Shortage Is Set To Quintuple - Forbes


Again, as to demand, you're making generalizations not supported by facts.
 
You can't cut taxes enough. It helps the wealthy more, but their spending isn't decreased or increased based on taxes (remember I've give you studies on that many times). And working class and poorer families just don't get enough from cuts o stimulate.

If you more toward UHC, removed it from employment, if with increased taxes, you'd do more to put money in their hands than cutting taxes.

I've. Presented evidence and not merely repeated the talking points and rants as you do. To rebut, you need to do the same.

How do you know how it affects the wealthy and why do you care? You cannot have it both ways saying that taxes don't affect the wealthy and then say it helps the wealthy more. How does giving more money to the govt. help?

Do you realize that universal healthcare is a typical liberal program that looks great on paper but when you bring the human element into it, it ends up looking like all Federal programs, bloated with massive debt.

You have presented no evidence at all because ACA has not been implemented and the govt. is having a problem with it now or they wouldn't have pushed implementation back. You are a textbook liberal who doesn't understand human nature at all. The only evidence out there is in MA and you will find mixed results with access but higher costs and a doctor shortage. Try implementing that for over 300 million Americans?

We are in a mess today because of liberal social engineering which is all ACA is and yet people like you, with good hearts, simply lack the logic and common sense to see what you are doing.

As I posted in the previous post, you simply have no plan for failure because it is beyond your ability to comprehend that you could even fail.
 
Boo, what happens if you are wrong? Are there any consequences in your world for making a bad mistake that affects 1/7 of the U.S. Economy? Have you bothered to dig into the MA results? Costs are up and the number of doctors are down. There certainly is total access but access to whom?

Little worse can happen if I'm wrong than we have now. But we have plenty of evidence that I'm not.
 
Little worse can happen if I'm wrong than we have now. But we have plenty of evidence that I'm not.

Wrong, if you are wrong it can only get much worse. How do you add more people to the insurance roles, have lower costs, and fewer doctors. There will still be millions uninsured, fewer doctors, and higher costs. That is the history of universal healthcare
 
How do you know how it affects the wealthy and why do you care? You cannot have it both ways saying that taxes don't affect the wealthy and then say it helps the wealthy more. How does giving more money to the govt. help?

Government is more interested in putting money into the economy vs the private sector that is more interested in accumulating (hoarding) money.
 
Government is more interested in putting money into the economy vs the private sector that is more interested in accumulating (hoarding) money.

Govt money going into the economy has generated about 250 billion dollars in debt service. How many people could that 250 billion actually help? The govt. doesn't invest in the economy, the govt. spends money and creates debt. What is wrong with people like you?
 
Your information regarding Doctor compensation under Obamacare is not supported by many different sources on the subject:

Doctors Will Have To Take A Pay Cut Under Obamacare - Forbes

The Obamacare Revolt: Physicians Fight Back Against the Bureaucratization of Health Care - Reason.com


Thanks To Obamacare, A 20,000 Doctor Shortage Is Set To Quintuple - Forbes


Again, as to demand, you're making generalizations not supported by facts.

Forbes' article isn't much help but if. We accept the unlikely claim of a total of 16 %, you're looking a an annual income for my brother of more than 250k. He'll live.

From your second article:

. . . this horse-trading method provides an opportunity for hospitals to earn windfall profits: If the hospital gets $2,000 for MRIs, it will start encouraging patients to get more MRIs.

The Obamacare Revolt: Physicians Fight Back Against the Bureaucratization of Health Care - Reason.com

Now this:


With more demand – the tens of millions of individuals expected to become covered by Medicaid or other health insurance coverage as implementation of PPACA continues – must come additional supply. The expansion of the health insurance marketplace as a result of PPACA, in addition to a number of incentives contained in PPACA for primary care providers, has prompted the establishment of new medical schools. These new medical schools, like Quinnipiac University’s Frank H. Netter, M.D. School of Medicine and the University of California-Riverside School of Medicine, are modifying the traditional medical school model to emphasize primary care as a career path.

Read More PPACA Prompts Demand for New Medical Schools, Increase in Primary Care Physicians — Healthcare Reform Digest


Have to leave now, but I will be back later, and will provide you with more.
 
Wrong, if you are wrong it can only get much worse. How do you add more people to the insurance roles, have lower costs, and fewer doctors. There will still be millions uninsured, fewer doctors, and higher costs. That is the history of universal healthcare

I don't see it. We have he most expensive health care in the world, of less access.
 
Govt money going into the economy has generated about 250 billion dollars in debt service. How many people could that 250 billion actually help? The govt. doesn't invest in the economy, the govt. spends money and creates debt. What is wrong with people like you?

Private citizens buy houses and create debt.
 
I don't see it. We have he most expensive health care in the world, of less access.

Of course you don't see how inefficient your govt. is nor do you understand human behavior at all. Give people something they believe is free and there is no incentive to lower costs thus what you get with ACA is higher costs, massive debt, and fewer doctors.
 
Back
Top Bottom