• 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!

Obama's Democrats in disarray over expiring tax cuts

It doesn't change the legal system. However, it does encourage health. Just like my medical plan at work. They are starting to spend on preventative medicine. Get everyone on insurance, then the insurance people will be encouraged to keep people healthy. There are protections in Obamacare to make sure that the insurance companies do not get to sacrifice people's health for the profit of the insurance companies. It would be leas of a problem if there was a single-payer system or even a public option so that we did not have to so closely monitor the insurance folks.

Obamacare does a lot to re-balance the financial equation to emphasize health and not health care. Keeping people healthy is much less expensive than caring for them when they are sick.

On the negative side, there's all those extra years of social security that they will be collecting.

You just said our system doesn't do that. Now you say it does. Insurance is part of the system. More double talk
 
You just said our system doesn't do that. Now you say it does. Insurance is part of the system. More double talk

OK, I'll type slower. The current system does not try to encourage health. The system that is the basis of Obamacare tries to do do more to encourage health over health care. Private insurance and no public option was an attempt at compromise with the uncompromising Republicans. We would be better off having a public option. That comes on the next improvement to the health care system that was started with the Obamacare system.
 
Really? Have you seen the overwhelming lines at the free care given in Los Angeles and elsewhere?
Yeah, makes you wonder why people want to inflict "free" healthcare on the rest of us.
 
OK, I'll type slower. The current system does not try to encourage health. The system that is the basis of Obamacare tries to do do more to encourage health over health care. Private insurance and no public option was an attempt at compromise with the uncompromising Republicans. We would be better off having a public option. That comes on the next improvement to the health care system that was started with the Obamacare system.
Wrong. Insurance companies have been doing it for several years. Doctors encourage good diets. What doctor do you know that promotes lifestyles that are unhealthy?
 

You offer the opinion of a Republican congressman as evidence that Obama was not compromising? Seriously?

The Republicans came to Obama and demand that he dump this health care nonsense. Obama says "no." Republicans then say that Obama was not willing to work with us. What crap. The Democrats bent over backward to accommodate the Republicans and they still all voted no. When Republicans are adamantine about their demands, they can't then turn around and claim that the other side is not compromising. But, that doesn't keep them from doing it anyway. It's always the fault of the Democrats. Bulls--t!
 
Life_expectancy_vs_spending_OECD.png


You spend more then any other country on Health Care, and get worse results...
The reason for our lower relative life expectancy and high costs has little to do with the quality of healthcare (which is excellent), and EVERYTHING to do with an overabundance of lard asses who live off of Doritos and Diet Coke.

It's quite simple... people who are fat die early, and we've got lots of fat people.
 
Wrong. Insurance companies have been doing it for several years. Doctors encourage good diets. What doctor do you know that promotes lifestyles that are unhealthy?

You may have a nice relationship with your primary care provider. Not everyone has a primary care provider. Those people should be so lucky as to have someone to tell them how to care for their health. That is what the Obamacare system is intended to provide.

I have had dealings with doctors who were more interested in how soon they could get me under the knife than they we interested in finding non-surgical alternatives. But that is not the point. Having everyone get access to doctors that are interested in keeping people healthy is the goal. While your personal physician may have an interest in your well being, I don't think that the same is true of your local hospital. Their goal is to make money (profits) as a result of people being sick. When you come in the door of a hospital, they are not wanting to get you on your way as fast as possible. They are looking at the insurance metrics for how much they can make off of someone who has whatever you have.

A simple example of the kind of thing that we should have for everyone -- flu shots. If everyone had access to flu shots, the cost to the economy of the flu would be reduced. Having access to flu shots does not mean knowing where the local Wal Mart is where they are giving flu shots if you can pay for it. If means that everyone who wants a flu shot can get a flu shot. What happens in the current system, is that people who can't afford the shots don't get them and then they get the flu. They then go to the emergency room of some hospital for treatment. Since these people can't pay for the medical care, it gets transfered to "the system" and it is much higher than it would be if we had given them the flu shot in the first place.

But, as usual, I'm wandering. The system is not optimal. It is not even close to reasonable, much less optimal.
 
Really I think the first thing the Republicans need to do is just see it Obama's way. Bohner has even gone so far as to back track and say they will just let Obama let the tax cuts on the rich expire, while the taxcuts on below 200k will be made permanent. How could they disagree on such a thing?
 

I really hope that you can understand the difference between a closed door meeting and not compromising. One of the things that could have been discussed in the closed door meeting was how they were going to compromise with the Republicans.

Unfortunately, the only "compromise" that the Republicans were interested in was to drop the whole idea of addressing the health care problem in America. What the Republicans offered was a non-solution. When the Democrats modified the program in order to meet Republican objections, the Republicans still voted no. Claiming that it was Obama who was not willing to compromise is, at best disingenuous, and at worst, just an outright lie.
 
Really I think the first thing the Republicans need to do is just see it Obama's way. Bohner has even gone so far as to back track and say they will just let Obama let the tax cuts on the rich expire, while the taxcuts on below 200k will be made permanent. How could they disagree on such a thing?

Now, this is the beginning of a real compromise.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Nothing about the topic of this thread is health care. Get back on topic
 
All this reminds me of a joke.

An employee is called to his office and is told by his boss... John I'm giving you a raise for the tremendous work you've been doing... You're a real asset to the company.
John looks at the floor and says... Boss, if you give me that raise I won't qualify for seven government programs...
...Long pause...
The Boss looks at John and says... OK... but if your work starts slipping, I'm going to give you that raise!

.
 
Really I think the first thing the Republicans need to do is just see it Obama's way. Bohner has even gone so far as to back track and say they will just let Obama let the tax cuts on the rich expire, while the taxcuts on below 200k will be made permanent. How could they disagree on such a thing?

Easy. Everyone is over-taxed, and the tax code is a game where the government is the middle-man who thieves money, loses a bunch during the transaction and then doles out what's left over where they think it should go.

Sorry, that's not the American way. Cut taxes, gut government and get your farking fingers out of my life. If a state wants to try to tax, spend and micro-manage ... fine. I can move. With these corksoakers and motherflockers, you're a slave to them, their anti-American ideology and their idea of redistribution. And for what? Look at the mess it's created.

It's time for government to be put back into the little box it was intended for. Strong where it should be (borders, military, intel) and weak where it's supposed to be (taxes, infringing on Liberty). And you notice... it's damn near the opposite?

That's why Boehner should tell Obama to go fark himself. You see, Obama just got his ass kicked. Seeing as he likes to bow all over the world, it's time for him to bow-wow-wow to those that did the ass kicking a few weeks ago

.
 
Last edited:
How clever of you. Nothing like repeating a cliché from Sarah who doesn't even know that the so called "death panel" is end of life counseling that was first proposed by a Republican Senator. Damn Republicans complain when the Democrats don't do what they want and they complain when they do.

Seems that Republicans are more interested in spreading lies than seeking the truth.

Sarah Palin's 'Death Panels' "Lie of the Year" - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

Democratics are more interested in not following the Constitution than following it.
 
You may have a nice relationship with your primary care provider. Not everyone has a primary care provider. Those people should be so lucky as to have someone to tell them how to care for their health. That is what the Obamacare system is intended to provide.

I have had dealings with doctors who were more interested in how soon they could get me under the knife than they we interested in finding non-surgical alternatives. But that is not the point. Having everyone get access to doctors that are interested in keeping people healthy is the goal. While your personal physician may have an interest in your well being, I don't think that the same is true of your local hospital. Their goal is to make money (profits) as a result of people being sick. When you come in the door of a hospital, they are not wanting to get you on your way as fast as possible. They are looking at the insurance metrics for how much they can make off of someone who has whatever you have.

A simple example of the kind of thing that we should have for everyone -- flu shots. If everyone had access to flu shots, the cost to the economy of the flu would be reduced. Having access to flu shots does not mean knowing where the local Wal Mart is where they are giving flu shots if you can pay for it. If means that everyone who wants a flu shot can get a flu shot. What happens in the current system, is that people who can't afford the shots don't get them and then they get the flu. They then go to the emergency room of some hospital for treatment. Since these people can't pay for the medical care, it gets transfered to "the system" and it is much higher than it would be if we had given them the flu shot in the first place.

But, as usual, I'm wandering. The system is not optimal. It is not even close to reasonable, much less optimal.

I don't have a regular doctor I avoid them unless absolutly necassary.I do have insurance if I need one. So it is my fault others can't make healthcare a priority? This is not the governments responsibility to force others to pay for your healthcare.
 
I really hope that you can understand the difference between a closed door meeting and not compromising. One of the things that could have been discussed in the closed door meeting was how they were going to compromise with the Republicans.

Unfortunately, the only "compromise" that the Republicans were interested in was to drop the whole idea of addressing the health care problem in America. What the Republicans offered was a non-solution. When the Democrats modified the program in order to meet Republican objections, the Republicans still voted no. Claiming that it was Obama who was not willing to compromise is, at best disingenuous, and at worst, just an outright lie.

The democrats shut out the GOP and forced this useless healthcare bill on us without the GOP having a say
 
This chart..."shows" that a family of 4, who earns minimum wage, after all the entitlement/government programs are factored in has more disposable income than a similar family who earns $60K.

let's start ripping this one down so as to be able to cut them off at the knees.

The latest conservative talking point - Democratic Underground

I thought this was illustrative of two things:

1. The predictable results of the socialist state.
2. Democrats in general.

It dovetails perfectly with the joke I told in post #65: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-over-expiring-tax-cuts-7.html#post1059117431

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/en...um-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

...America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system...

Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators."...

The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.

If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.


It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is throwin in the equation.

If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job...

Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income.

Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you if you are stupid enough not to take drugs all day, every day...
...there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.

Isn't Eurosocialism great?

.
 
Last edited:
Getting back on topic, I believe that IF the Jackasses fail to reinstate the tax cuts, they will rue the day they neglected this. And the sad truth is that we are not in a recession. We are in a Depression,..right now, and just starting to come out of it.

Only one problem here. The Progressive/Fascist congress, along with the Anti-Colonial Collectivist in the WH, have been making war against the small, and medium, businesses in the US, to the extent they are not budging financially. If they see their taxes going up again, they will further entrench. And this will cause another economic crash, just in time for the 2012 election.

Perhaps there will be a plus here in that the Tea Party will get more followers in congress, including the Senate. Let's hope so.
 
I don't have a regular doctor I avoid them unless absolutly necassary.I do have insurance if I need one. So it is my fault others can't make healthcare a priority? This is not the governments responsibility to force others to pay for your healthcare.

You're willing to pay for them. Your premiums and the cost of care is effected by those who don't have insurance but get treatment they can't pay for. You're simply wrong factually if you think you don't pay for them.
 
Getting back on topic, I believe that IF the Jackasses fail to reinstate the tax cuts, they will rue the day they neglected this. And the sad truth is that we are not in a recession. We are in a Depression,..right now, and just starting to come out of it.

Only one problem here. The Progressive/Fascist congress, along with the Anti-Colonial Collectivist in the WH, have been making war against the small, and medium, businesses in the US, to the extent they are not budging financially. If they see their taxes going up again, they will further entrench. And this will cause another economic crash, just in time for the 2012 election.

Perhaps there will be a plus here in that the Tea Party will get more followers in congress, including the Senate. Let's hope so.

After the Great Depression of the 1930's taxes on the richest Americans went to 94% during World War II. After that prosperity reigned. In 1961, those taxes were 91% and Americans, through the 60s, had more purchasing power than we do now.
What the government could do is raise income taxes on the richest Americans (billionaires) to 99%, while exempting small business owners. Think there isn't anyone making over a Billion $ year in salaries ? There are. Parade magazine, each year, does a cover story on Americans' incomes, with their pictures and occupations. Two years ago, the highest income shown was John Arnold, a hedge fund manager (1.5 Billion/year). This year it was the CEO of Google - sorry, I forgot his name ($2 Billion/year). If these guys were taxed at 99%, they'd still be raking in 15 and 20 million a year respectively. I'd trade places with that, 99% tax bracket and all, and so would most Americans. That would create almost 110,000 jobs at $30,000/year each. Not a solution to all the unemployment, but a good steppingstone, and especially good if you're unemployed, and you happen to be one of those 110,000 people.
Also, the 110,000 would be high energy spenders in the stores (AKA the US economy), providing am additional boost for the economy, wheras very rich people don't spend much money (they already have everything), and what they do spend, has a very high % spent outside the United States (mostly Europe and the Caribbean), creating losses from the US economy, similar to remittances losse$ from illegal aliens.
 
Last edited:
After the Great Depression of the 1930's taxes on the richest Americans went to 94% during World War II. After that prosperity reigned. In 1961, those taxes were 91% and Americans, through the 60s, had more purchasing power than we do now.
What the government could do is raise income taxes on the richest Americans (billionaires) to 99%, while exempting small business owners. Think there isn't anyone making over a Billion $ year in salaries ? There are. Parade magazine, each year, does a cover story on Americans' incomes, with their pictures and occupations. Two years ago, the highest income shown was John Arnold, a hedge fund manager (1.5 Billion/year). This year it was the CEO of Google - sorry, I forgot his name ($2 Billion/year). If these guys were taxed at 99%, they'd still be raking in 15 and 20 million a year respectively. I'd trade places with that, 99% tax bracket and all, and so would most Americans. That would create almost 110,000 jobs at $30,000/year each. Not a solution to all the unemployment, but a good steppingstone, and especially good if you're unemployed, and you happen to be one of those 110,000 people.
Also, the 110,000 would be high energy spenders in the stores (AKA the US economy), providing am additional boost for the economy, wheras very rich people don't spend much money (they already have everything), and what they do spend, has a very high % spent outside the United States (mostly Europe and the Caribbean), creating losses from the US economy, similar to remittances losse$ from illegal aliens.

I think anyone who thinks someone should pay 99% taxes is really operating in a fantasy world

and those billionaires would and should move out of this country

everyone should be taxed at the same rate

your envy is obvious
 
Back
Top Bottom