• 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 aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

j-mac said:
Agreed. Pull out of both at this point and concentrate on our own problems, I get it Joe. Ok, let's say a 20% cut across the board of everything including defense, lord knows they probably have enough waste to cover that. Raise SS retirement age to 70 yrs old to be phased in for those entering the workplace now. Medicaid/Medicare is a losing proposition as it is now, problem is that other than shifting more of the cost to individual responsibility, I don't see how at this point it can remain solvent.
Click to expand...

This is where a single payer system would help most (besides removing it from the employer, making business more competitve internationally). With a single payer system, and everyone paying premiums to one place, and not having the goverment paying for those most likely to be ill, with much less funds than available in a single payer system, we would have a better and more efficient system than we have now.

Right now my effective tax rate is about 35%, under a plan which you describe, it would jump effectively to over 43%, do you believe that at this time the economy could sustain that?
Click to expand...

Why not? We certainly ahve before, at even a higher rate. There is little to no evidence that tax rates have any significiant effect on the econmomy. But it does provide more money to fund present programs and reduce the debt. Any serious deficit reduction effort will include spending cuts and tax increases.




I agree, it is absurd to continue to run government like we are allowing it today.
Click to expand...

Always good to agree. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, you have:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion to deficit, panel finds

Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion, according to the taxation committee.

Analysts Detail Tax Cuts
Click to expand...


Are there any economists that would disagree with your two examples, which btw, resemble more an echo chamber of Keynesian thought than anything else. The WaPo, and a site that take contributors for articles from the WaPo.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Are there any economists that would disagree with your two examples, which btw, resemble more an echo chamber of Keynesian thought than anything else. The WaPo, and a site that take contributors for articles from the WaPo.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Economists that follow the Austrian school of economic would (Ron Paul suppports this school)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Economists that follow the Austrian school of economic would (Ron Paul suppports this school)
Click to expand...

Ok, so my point however small, is that Joe posted something he agrees with, by no means is the definitive be all and end all in the debate.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
This is where a single payer system would help most (besides removing it from the employer, making business more competitve internationally). With a single payer system, and everyone paying premiums to one place, and not having the goverment paying for those most likely to be ill, with much less funds than available in a single payer system, we would have a better and more efficient system than we have now.

Why not? We certainly ahve before, at even a higher rate. There is little to no evidence that tax rates have any significiant effect on the econmomy. But it does provide more money to fund present programs and reduce the debt. Any serious deficit reduction effort will include spending cuts and tax increases.

Always good to agree. ;)
Click to expand...

Theory and concepts are what you offer. You believe that the concept of a single payer trumps the actual results of a single payer i.e. Medicare and SS.

You believe the concept of increasing taxes increases govt. revenue while ignoring human behavior and the part that incentive plays in economic activity.

History has shown that the Federal Govt. has created a 14.5 trillion dollar debt with most of that due to social engineering and book concepts that don't play out in reality. Liberalism was built on good intentions but a total failure in reality. Liberal arrogance doesn't allow for the present liberals to blame previous liberals for their economic failures as evidenced by the results. This group of liberals has a arrogance that believes they can do better than yesterdays liberals when the reality is same concept, same results. So your answer is let the govt. that has failed in economic policy now continue with Obamacare. The majority in this country don't see it your way, are they wrong?
 
j-mac said:
Are there any economists that would disagree with your two examples, which btw, resemble more an echo chamber of Keynesian thought than anything else. The WaPo, and a site that take contributors for articles from the WaPo.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Sure. Noted above. But that makes for debate. And I do understand there ar eother sides, which has always been my point to Conservative who sees anyone disagreeing as stupid or nieve.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure. Noted above. But that makes for debate. And I do understand there ar eother sides, which has always been my point to Conservative who sees anyone disagreeing as stupid or nieve.
Click to expand...

I didn't call you stupid as others can look at your posts and arguments and make their own decision. As for being naive, yes, I do believe that. You buy concepts and theory while ignoring actual results. We have a 14.5 trillion dollar Federal Debt today and that excludes the trillions from our single payer SS and Medicare.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure. Noted above. But that makes for debate.
Click to expand...

Then why is it then, that those in support of something as complex as Obamacare, often characterize their opponents as misleading. Can't one hold a differing opinion without being denigrated in such a way?

j-mac
 
Conservative said:
This is rather frustrating as once again the individual has no responsibility in this problem. I have owned a number of homes in my lifetime and never did I have a lending institution hold a gun to my head and force me to sign paperwork that had an escalating interest rate. Personal responsibility doesn't seem to exist in the liberal world these days. Banks and lending institutions supported by our elected officials put together a sub prime lending program and individuals that couldn't afford the payments took advantage of the program. Banks then took the hit and requested the bailout. On one hand Barney Frank and his "crew" put pressure on the banks to make these loans but on the other banks made the loans and should have suffered the consequences for their mistake.

I did not support TARP but understood it. IMO the banks should have been allowed to fail and if they had we wouldn't be in this mess today.
Click to expand...

individuals couldn't afford the payments, but still took advantage of them... that doesn't make sense. if they couldn't afford the payments, it sounds like a bad deal for them.

the banks got bailed out. millions of americans have been foreclosed on. and you think it's the individuals that aren't being held responsible? also note that in '08 and '09 banks had record profits, once again that's because they sold the bad loans before they went bad and bet against them at the same time. since we bought aig for 100 cents on the dollar, we are paying the losing side on those bets now. since they sold the bad loans to gse's (we're responsible for their debt), pensions (what you and i are gonna retire on), and the fed (directly effecting the value of the currency that you and i use) the only one's not being held responsible are these very banks who are still throughing millions of people a year out of their homes.
 
Zyroh;1059218247]individuals couldn't afford the payments, but still took advantage of them... that doesn't make sense. if they couldn't afford the payments, it sounds like a bad deal for them.
Click to expand...

People got into homes with zero down and subprime VARIABLE interest rates. They could afford low interest and the house payment but not when those interest rates reset

the banks got bailed out. millions of americans have been foreclosed on. and you think it's the individuals that aren't being held responsible? also note that in '08 and '09 banks had record profits, once again that's because they sold the bad loans before they went bad and bet against them at the same time. since we bought aig for 100 cents on the dollar, we are paying the losing side on those bets now. since they sold the bad loans to gse's (we're responsible for their debt), pensions (what you and i are gonna retire on), and the fed (directly effecting the value of the currency that you and i use) the only one's not being held responsible are these very banks who are still throughing millions of people a year out of their homes.
Click to expand...

Yes the banks got bailed out which I didn't agree with and individuals who couldn't afford the payments lost their homes. Who forced those people to buy the home in the first place? Some banks, Wells Fargo for example and J.P. Morgan didn't ask for the bailout but were forced to take it.

Interesting how we have such a difference in attitude. I don't expect you to bail me out when I make a poor choice or bad mistake
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I did not say he did

I said Ron Paul follows the Austrian school of economics,

Which would be for a drastically smaller government (including military, he would also I am sure be against SS, medicare etc)
Click to expand...

Not familar with the Austrian school of economics but my response was more to Boo and his stance on raising taxes on the rich and Obamacare. Paul certainly believes in a smaller Defense Department which is probably possible but it is harder defending a nation of 308 million with the land mass we have along with the bullseye on this country by radical Islam and rogue nations like Iran and North Korea.
 
j-mac said:
Then why is it then, that those in support of something as complex as Obamacare, often characterize their opponents as misleading. Can't one hold a differing opinion without being denigrated in such a way?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Because they often mislead. From death panel nonsense to socialism, they often mislead. Having a different opinion isn't the same as going hog wild with distortions and misrepresentations. There really is a difference.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Because they often mislead. From death panel nonsense to socialism, they often mislead. Having a different opinion isn't the same as going hog wild with distortions and misrepresentations. There really is a difference.
Click to expand...

Why are you so negative on death panels and socialism since you appear to support both? End of life counseling along with rationing and massive expansion in the size and scope of govt. are death panels and steps towards socialism.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because they often mislead. From death panel nonsense to socialism, they often mislead. Having a different opinion isn't the same as going hog wild with distortions and misrepresentations. There really is a difference.
Click to expand...


You tip your ideological hand here Joe. Is it only those in opposition to Obamacare that mislead? or is it possible that things contained within the 2700 page bill are purposely misleading as well?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
You tip your ideological hand here Joe. Is it only those in opposition to Obamacare that mislead? or is it possible that things contained within the 2700 page bill are purposely misleading as well?

j-mac
Click to expand...

No, and never said anything of the kind. But when we're having a discussion, and the person I talk to misleads, it's fair to point out they are misleading, no matter who else misleads.
 
Conservative said:
Why are you so negative on death panels and socialism since you appear to support both? End of life counseling along with rationing and massive expansion in the size and scope of govt. are death panels and steps towards socialism.
Click to expand...

Now that was just a stupid reply. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
No, and never said anything of the kind. But when we're having a discussion, and the person I talk to misleads, it's fair to point out they are misleading, no matter who else misleads.
Click to expand...


Ofcourse, and I would expect anyone on either side to do the same, however, if you are going to say that, you have to show how. It doesn't matter if you have 1, 10, 100, or 1000 times before, the claim is anew when you make it, so back it up no? Just because you say someone is misleading, doesn't mean squat, especially when the sourcing for your claim is often a liberal source. That would be like me saying that you are lying, and using AmThinker to back it up. AmThinker is conservative opinion nothing more. Just as I believe that some things you use as back up are liberal echo chamber op/ed journalism.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ofcourse, and I would expect anyone on either side to do the same, however, if you are going to say that, you have to show how. It doesn't matter if you have 1, 10, 100, or 1000 times before, the claim is anew when you make it, so back it up no? Just because you say someone is misleading, doesn't mean squat, especially when the sourcing for your claim is often a liberal source. That would be like me saying that you are lying, and using AmThinker to back it up. AmThinker is conservative opinion nothing more. Just as I believe that some things you use as back up are liberal echo chamber op/ed journalism.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Here is a pretty good study on MA and what the results are, results that show costs rising as are the MA deficits. Imagine that with Obamacare on a national scale.

Three Lessons from Massachusetts | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA
 
j-mac said:
Ofcourse, and I would expect anyone on either side to do the same, however, if you are going to say that, you have to show how. It doesn't matter if you have 1, 10, 100, or 1000 times before, the claim is anew when you make it, so back it up no? Just because you say someone is misleading, doesn't mean squat, especially when the sourcing for your claim is often a liberal source. That would be like me saying that you are lying, and using AmThinker to back it up. AmThinker is conservative opinion nothing more. Just as I believe that some things you use as back up are liberal echo chamber op/ed journalism.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, I think the number of times to the same person should matter. Absolutely. And it has been covered ad nausium. Anyone who really thinks there were proposed death panels is an idiot. But most are really just being purposefully misleading. And there is really nothing that anyone should have to link to show this. It's dishonest discourse from the start. No insurance company pays for every concieveable procedure, regardless of cost or effectiveness, and they don't have death panels either. It's about honesty and not differing opinions.
 
let me counter with:

BOSTON—The percentage of residents enrolled in a health care plan continues to increase in Massachusetts, the only state to achieve near-universal health insurance coverage, according to a report.

As of June, 98.1% of state residents had coverage compared with 97.3% in 2009, according to a report released Monday by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy.

(Snip)

“Massachusetts' achievements in health care reform have been nothing short of extraordinary,” Massachusetts Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. JudyAnn Bigby said in a statement. “With employers, government and individuals all sharing the responsibility of reform, we continue to have the highest insurance rate in the nation,” she added.

Massachusetts' insured rate hits 98.1%: Analysis | Business Insurance


Of 2135 practicing Massachusetts physicians who responded to the poll, 70% said they support the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law, whereas 13% oppose it (see Table 1). The levels of support among primary care doctors and among specialists were similar. When asked about the law’s future, 75% indicated that they want the law to remain in place — 46% with some changes, and 29% as is. Seven percent favored repealing the legislation. Physicians who mentioned that some changes are needed were asked in an open-ended question what change they would most like to see. They most frequently mentioned issues related to expanding coverage (34%) and addressing the costs of the program (23%). Approximately three quarters of Massachusetts physicians (79%) reported being very or somewhat satisfied with their medical practice. Fifty percent reported that things at their practice had gotten worse over the past 3 years, and 23% said things had gotten better. Few said that the Massachusetts health care reform law was a major reason for positive changes (13%) or negative ones (11%).

Physicians’ Views of the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom