• 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

We could run the current program better instead of creating this POS. Address the costs and those truly uninsured because of financial conditions. Govt. never does that and never will. Too much power to be lost by doing what makes sense.

We can do both. And we can keep working on and changing this present legislation. And yes, the government makes changes all the time. What we need is more honest and informed input from the public.
 
Thanks. Next time, skip the "do your own research" crap.

Too bad you buy what you are told by others without the same degree of "citation please" Why is that?

Why aren't you questioning the govt. on their claims that Healthcare is deficit neutral? Why aren't you questioning the govt. and their claims that this healthcare bill lowers healthcare costs? Why aren't you questioning how the govt. can add 30 million to the healthcare roles and lower healthcare costs?
 
Too bad you buy what you are told by others without the same degree of "citation please"

No I don't.

Why aren't you questioning the govt. on their claims that Healthcare is deficit neutral? Why aren't you questioning the govt. and their claims that this healthcare bill lowers healthcare costs? Why aren't you questioning how the govt. can add 30 million to the healthcare roles and lower healthcare costs?

Why do you always whine so much about simply being asked to back up your arguments?
 
We can do both. And we can keep working on and changing this present legislation. And yes, the government makes changes all the time. What we need is more honest and informed input from the public.

"Your" President just signed the biggest POS in U.S. History and you support it because it is a "first step". Do you normally support programs that add trillions to the debt because it is a first step? First step towards what?

The public has spoken and the Administration ignored it. When you affect 1/6 of the U.S. Economy it is better using incrementalism than this multi trillion dollare POS. All this bill does is add 30 million to the roles while increasing costs. It does nothing to improve healthcare. Fix the infrastructure first and eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse before creating another entitlement program.

What really bothers me is how you have bought into the govt. rhetoric without one bit of evidence that the govt. has ever done anything well in the social arena.
 
"Your" President just signed the biggest POS in U.S. History and you support it because it is a "first step". Do you normally support programs that add trillions to the debt because it is a first step? First step towards what?

The public has spoken and the Administration ignored it. When you affect 1/6 of the U.S. Economy it is better using incrementalism than this multi trillion dollare POS. All this bill does is add 30 million to the roles while increasing costs. It does nothing to improve healthcare. Fix the infrastructure first and eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse before creating another entitlement program.

What really bothers me is how you have bought into the govt. rhetoric without one bit of evidence that the govt. has ever done anything well in the social arena.

Worthwhile ones, yes. You can't do anything without taking the first step.

And the public has a lot of misinformation in their heads right now. Given time and a more accurate reading, you may find them objecting less than you think. ;)
 
Worthwhile ones, yes. You can't do anything without taking the first step.

And the public has a lot of misinformation in their heads right now. Given time and a more accurate reading, you may find them objecting less than you think. ;)


I can take a big first step without spending over a trillion dollars. Obviously you has no concept as to how big a trillion dollars is and thus cannot comprehend the extent that this POS will affect the economy, personal income, and thus standard of living.
 
I can take a big first step without spending over a trillion dollars. Obviously you has no concept as to how big a trillion dollars is and thus cannot comprehend the extent that this POS will affect the economy, personal income, and thus standard of living.

The effect may be minimal as compared to other factors. However, without or without health care reform, the budget and debt will need to be addressed. Some combination of cuts and taxes will eventually need to be done. But this effort is important and can, with work, actually lower the debt.
 
The effect may be minimal as compared to other factors. However, without or without health care reform, the budget and debt will need to be addressed. Some combination of cuts and taxes will eventually need to be done. But this effort is important and can, with work, actually lower the debt.

Here is something you better be thinking about instead of adding more debt to the treasury as this will affect ALL Americans. Calling this POS a "good first step" is simply naive. It is a disaster.

Obama Spending Plan Underestimates Deficits, Budget Office Says - BusinessWeek
 
Like I said, the budget is a problem, and it is one with or without healthcare reform. In the end, we will have to both make cuts and raise taxes. Who is running on that platform?

Wrong, nothing in this bill lowers costs. No one can add 30 million to the roles and lower costs. What are you smoking? This makes the debt worse!

Raising taxes does nothing but reduce incentive. If you ever ran a business you would understand that. Stop buying what you are told and think for a change.

You can never solve healthcare costs without addressing the cause of those costs. Much of them are due to govt. regulations, waste, fraud, and abuse, preventing competition, and an increasing size of the Federal govt, and increased burden on the healthcare infrastructure in this country.
 
Wrong, nothing in this bill lowers costs. No one can add 30 million to the roles and lower costs. What are you smoking? This makes the debt worse!

Raising taxes does nothing but reduce incentive. If you ever ran a business you would understand that. Stop buying what you are told and think for a change.

You can never solve healthcare costs without addressing the cause of those costs. Much of them are due to govt. regulations, waste, fraud, and abuse, preventing competition, and an increasing size of the Federal govt, and increased burden on the healthcare infrastructure in this country.

Didn't claim it did, . . . yet. But there is a possibility that by having more people insured, better access, costs will reduce, which in turn could lower the debt in time (along with other efforts as health care is not the only budget issue). BTW, tackling waste, fraud and abuse are part of the legislation.

Again, at the end of the day, we have to both make cuts and raise taxes. Who is running on that platform?
 
Didn't claim it did, . . . yet. But there is a possibility that by having more people insured, better access, costs will reduce, which in turn could lower the debt in time (along with other efforts as health care is not the only budget issue). BTW, tackling waste, fraud and abuse are part of the legislation.

Again, at the end of the day, we have to both make cuts and raise taxes. Who is running on that platform?

Why can't the govt. track waste, fraud, and abuse without legislation? Having more people insured without the infrastructure to handle it creates more demand on the ER's and thus drives up costs.

You are living a pipe dream if you believe this POS will lower costs and that is what is most disturbing. You willingly buy what you are told by a bloated federal govt. that is taking over more and more of individual lives. Where is your outrage over the govt. debt? where is your outrage over the 3.8 TRILLION dollar govt. we now have? where is your outrage over Govt. cost estimates that never come in on budget or on estimate?

Boo, that is a very naive and dangerous position you are taking.
 
Why can't the govt. track waste, fraud, and abuse without legislation? Having more people insured without the infrastructure to handle it creates more demand on the ER's and thus drives up costs.

You are living a pipe dream if you believe this POS will lower costs and that is what is most disturbing. You willingly buy what you are told by a bloated federal govt. that is taking over more and more of individual lives. Where is your outrage over the govt. debt? where is your outrage over the 3.8 TRILLION dollar govt. we now have? where is your outrage over Govt. cost estimates that never come in on budget or on estimate?

Boo, that is a very naive and dangerous position you are taking.

No one said they couldn't. But the fact is it is part of the legislation. And the infrastructure will handle it just fine. Again, you're over playing the problem. There being a problem doesn't mean it won't be handled. You're making an unsupported leap.

As for lowering cost, I explained what I think could happen, in the long run. I do think the bill will need more work for that to happen, but it is possible. I am not saying it is certain.

I also say it is hardly the only issue related to the budget or the deficit. Again, once more, note we will need to make cuts and raise taxes, and ask who is running on that proposition?
 
No one said they couldn't. But the fact is it is part of the legislation. And the infrastructure will handle it just fine. Again, you're over playing the problem. There being a problem doesn't mean it won't be handled. You're making an unsupported leap.

As for lowering cost, I explained what I think could happen, in the long run. I do think the bill will need more work for that to happen, but it is possible. I am not saying it is certain.

I also say it is hardly the only issue related to the budget or the deficit. Again, once more, note we will need to make cuts and raise taxes, and ask who is running on that proposition?


I feel so much better now, because the govt. puts controlling waste, fraud, and abuse in the legislation gives me great assurance that it will be done. Too bad they didn't do that in all legislation. What a joke your statement is!

Think about your statement of raising taxes and cutting spending. Why would you want to send more of your tax dollars to the govt. for them to waste as they have done in the past. Reagan tried it with Gramm-Rudman, GHW Bush tried it with negotiation in his now famous rasing taxes that cost him the election. he signed the tax increase bill based upon the Congress promise to cut spending $2 for every dollar in tax increase. did that happen?

Congress tells you and others what you want to hear. Look at the results instead of buying the rhetoric. The real answer is term limits and kicking all the bums out.
 
I feel so much better now, because the govt. puts controlling waste, fraud, and abuse in the legislation gives me great assurance that it will be done. Too bad they didn't do that in all legislation. What a joke your statement is!

Think about your statement of raising taxes and cutting spending. Why would you want to send more of your tax dollars to the govt. for them to waste as they have done in the past. Reagan tried it with Gramm-Rudman, GHW Bush tried it with negotiation in his now famous rasing taxes that cost him the election. he signed the tax increase bill based upon the Congress promise to cut spending $2 for every dollar in tax increase. did that happen?

Congress tells you and others what you want to hear. Look at the results instead of buying the rhetoric. The real answer is term limits and kicking all the bums out.

Not asking you to feel better, just noting what you're complaining about is in the legislation.

We pay for services with tax dollars. That's the way it works. I understand completely that much of the public doesn't get this, but you pay debt with money and the money the government pays with is through taxes. You have to tax is you really want to lower the debt.

And no, term limits don't solve anything. All it does is prevent us from keeping someone doing a good job. We can limit anyone's term by simply voting them out. Again, we're the problem.

Now, you did state fairly clearly your against raising taxes. And while that doesn't answer my question concerning who is running on the cut spending and raise taxes platform, by what magic trick do you think the deficit gets reduced if not by raising taxes? Do you really believe cutting spending alone will do it? Or are you in the Bush camp that says increase spending and cut taxes?
 
Boo Radley;1058654402]Not asking you to feel better, just noting what you're complaining about is in the legislation.

The question is, why aren't you? You believe because legislation states that waste, fraud, and abuse will be addressed is in the bill that it will actually happen?

We pay for services with tax dollars. That's the way it works. I understand completely that much of the public doesn't get this, but you pay debt with money and the money the government pays with is through taxes. You have to tax is you really want to lower the debt.

Currently we are paying for the govt with our tax dollars. The problem is increasing taxes reduces incentive and economic growth thus improves tax revenue. Cuts in spending are mandatory to getting the debt under control and this bill does NOTHING to lower the deficit.

And no, term limits don't solve anything. All it does is prevent us from keeping someone doing a good job. We can limit anyone's term by simply voting them out. Again, we're the problem.

Term limits put our Representatives into the same situation as all Americans, living under the laws that they pass. What we have now are career politicians that instead of doing their job they do everything they can to keep their job. We are indeed the problem and putting more power into the hands of the politicians make things worse. The more power one gives to the central govt. the less power the states and local governments have.

I never believed in term limits until the past two decades. Less than 50% of the eligible voters actually vote and that is a problem. We have term limits at the local and state levels so why not at the National level? we have mandatory retirement in the private sector but not the public sector, why?

This is all about keeping ones job instead of doing ones job. Term limits change that picture.


Now, you did state fairly clearly your against raising taxes. And while that doesn't answer my question concerning who is running on the cut spending and raise taxes platform, by what magic trick do you think the deficit gets reduced if not by raising taxes? Do you really believe cutting spending alone will do it? Or are you in the Bush camp that says increase spending and cut taxes?

The deficit gets reduced by growing the economy which increases tax revenue. Check out BEA.gov for the tax revenue increase when Reagan and GW Bush lowered tax rates. The job creation alone created more tax revenue. Imagine the tax revenue generated by an additional 15 million unemployed people working? You employ people by increasing incentive and tax cuts give people more money which they spend, save, or invest, all helping grow govt. revenue. Why anyone is against keeping more of their own money is beyond me.l
 
The question is, why aren't you? You believe because legislation states that waste, fraud, and abuse will be addressed is in the bill that it will actually happen?

I think they are actually going to do a better job. Not perfect, as such really isn't possible, but better. And that will help.

Currently we are paying for the govt with our tax dollars. The problem is increasing taxes reduces incentive and economic growth thus improves tax revenue. Cuts in spending are mandatory to getting the debt under control and this bill does NOTHING to lower the deficit.

I don't know anyone who is has less incentive to work because he or she is taxed. I don't buy that argument at all. And we have seen growth historically regardless of taxes. In fact, as counter intuitive as it sounds, there is little evidence taxes effect growth at all.

As for this bill, it may well reduce the deficit at the end of the day, but not until well after it has been reworked and had time to change circumstnaces.


Term limits put our Representatives into the same situation as all Americans, living under the laws that they pass. What we have now are career politicians that instead of doing their job they do everything they can to keep their job. We are indeed the problem and putting more power into the hands of the politicians make things worse. The more power one gives to the central govt. the less power the states and local governments have.

I never believed in term limits until the past two decades. Less than 50% of the eligible voters actually vote and that is a problem. We have term limits at the local and state levels so why not at the National level? we have mandatory retirement in the private sector but not the public sector, why?

This is all about keeping ones job instead of doing ones job. Term limits change that picture.

?????

Your problem seems to be with voters, and I share that concern. But you can't replace the voter with any other system. It is up to the voters to remove people and keep people. Term limits is a gimmick designed to do what voters won't do. I can't support that. Better to get people to vote, to pay attention and preferably become informed.




The deficit gets reduced by growing the economy which increases tax revenue. Check out BEA.gov for the tax revenue increase when Reagan and GW Bush lowered tax rates. The job creation alone created more tax revenue. Imagine the tax revenue generated by an additional 15 million unemployed people working? You employ people by increasing incentive and tax cuts give people more money which they spend, save, or invest, all helping grow govt. revenue. Why anyone is against keeping more of their own money is beyond me.l

Again, taxes have little to do with economic growth. We've had periods of high taxes and substained economic growth. Business does no employ or fire people based on taxes.
 
I think they are actually going to do a better job. Not perfect, as such really isn't possible, but better. And that will help.



I don't know anyone who is has less incentive to work because he or she is taxed. I don't buy that argument at all. And we have seen growth historically regardless of taxes. In fact, as counter intuitive as it sounds, there is little evidence taxes effect growth at all.

As for this bill, it may well reduce the deficit at the end of the day, but not until well after it has been reworked and had time to change circumstnaces.




?????

Your problem seems to be with voters, and I share that concern. But you can't replace the voter with any other system. It is up to the voters to remove people and keep people. Term limits is a gimmick designed to do what voters won't do. I can't support that. Better to get people to vote, to pay attention and preferably become informed.






Again, taxes have little to do with economic growth. We've had periods of high taxes and substained economic growth. Business does no employ or fire people based on taxes.

There is a lot of good information on BEA.gov. Suggest you go there. It is very naive at best to say that businesses do not employ people based upon taxes. That shows you never have run a business. Taxes are a cost of doing business and when those taxes go up businesses do not employ people.

You continue to ignore the affects of tax reduction on personal spending habits. Why is that?

You also ignore the affects of unemployment on the U.S. Treasury Dept. revenue, why is that?

You cannot continue to support this massive expansion of govt. spending and taxing and believe it will have no affect on the way businesses operate or on unemployment. That is dangerous and very naive.
 
There is a lot of good information on BEA.gov. Suggest you go there. It is very naive at best to say that businesses do not employ people based upon taxes. That shows you never have run a business. Taxes are a cost of doing business and when those taxes go up businesses do not employ people.

You continue to ignore the affects of tax reduction on personal spending habits. Why is that?

You also ignore the affects of unemployment on the U.S. Treasury Dept. revenue, why is that?

You cannot continue to support this massive expansion of govt. spending and taxing and believe it will have no affect on the way businesses operate or on unemployment. That is dangerous and very naive.

Been there. But I've seen the facts. People are also unemployed without taxes. Taxes didn't bring this on. Remember, Bush cut taxes, and look where we are.

Nor did I say no effect. I said, you can have growth, and have had growth regardless of taxes. History shows us this.
 
Been there. But I've seen the facts. People are also unemployed without taxes. Taxes didn't bring this on. Remember, Bush cut taxes, and look where we are.

Nor did I say no effect. I said, you can have growth, and have had growth regardless of taxes. History shows us this.

Bush tax cuts led to an increase in employment and an increase in govt. revenue. I have posted that many times on various threads. Stop buying what you are told and actually get the facts. The fact remains people keeping more of their own money creates actual jobs, not govt. make work jobs.

History shows that govt. spending causes debt, not tax cuts. Just a minor fact that you ignore.
 
Bush tax cuts led to an increase in employment and an increase in govt. revenue. I have posted that many times on various threads. Stop buying what you are told and actually get the facts. The fact remains people keeping more of their own money creates actual jobs, not govt. make work jobs.

History shows that govt. spending causes debt, not tax cuts. Just a minor fact that you ignore.

Really and the unemployed? It began under Bush. No tax hike brought it on.

Spending you can't pay for increases debt. Taxes are one way to pay for spending. If you have the taxes to pay for it, you don't increase the debt.
 
Really and the unemployed? It began under Bush. No tax hike brought it on.

Spending you can't pay for increases debt. Taxes are one way to pay for spending. If you have the taxes to pay for it, you don't increase the debt.

Job creation began AFTER the July 2003 rate cut and you are right, no tax hike brought on that increase in jobs but tax cuts did.

Why is it that logic and common sense escape you? What do you do when you get to keep more of your own money? Think for a change and apply your situation to most in this country. Multiply what you do by over 150 million workers.

You seem to always argue on the side of the govt. Tax more, spend more, create bigger entitlements, why? Do you work for the govt.? What do you perceive the role of the govt. to be? Mine obviously is a lot different than yours but I went to school a lot earlier than you did. Apparently the education system today is teaching a different philosophy than I was taught. Mine served me well as I learned personal responsibility. Your education apparently taught you that there is no such thing as personal responsibility and helping those truly in need is the role of charities and local communities, IMO.
 
Job creation began AFTER the July 2003 rate cut and you are right, no tax hike brought on that increase in jobs but tax cuts did.

Why is it that logic and common sense escape you? What do you do when you get to keep more of your own money? Think for a change and apply your situation to most in this country. Multiply what you do by over 150 million workers.

You seem to always argue on the side of the govt. Tax more, spend more, create bigger entitlements, why? Do you work for the govt.? What do you perceive the role of the govt. to be? Mine obviously is a lot different than yours but I went to school a lot earlier than you did. Apparently the education system today is teaching a different philosophy than I was taught. Mine served me well as I learned personal responsibility. Your education apparently taught you that there is no such thing as personal responsibility and helping those truly in need is the role of charities and local communities, IMO.

No tax hikes brought about the decrease in jobs. There may well be other variables other than taxes that brought about any growth. To know would take a extensive study. But, we do know there were no tax hikes, and yet jobs were lost.

And I ague for both reduced spending and an increase in taxes. I think it will take both to ever get the deficit handled.
 
No tax hikes brought about the decrease in jobs. There may well be other variables other than taxes that brought about any growth. To know would take a extensive study. But, we do know there were no tax hikes, and yet jobs were lost.

And I ague for both reduced spending and an increase in taxes. I think it will take both to ever get the deficit handled.

You sure seem interesting in raising taxes? Why? How do you benefit from increased taxes? why is it in the liberal world that people like you ignore the benefits of people keeping more of their own money?

when that issue is raised, you ignore it and run from it, why? Why would you take more money from the American consumer or increase taxes on business that is passed on to the American consumer?
 
Back
Top Bottom