• 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!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

US Conservative said:
Your lost all credibility, right about now. Whats that like?
Click to expand...

Awesome response to a link... ignore... then personal attack. How refreshing US Conservative.
 
ObamacareFail said:
My state is not one of the states that expanded Medicaid. And your claim that those who signed up for obamacare are as happy as those with private insurance is baloney. Most of them lost their doctors and ended up with a very limited network.
Click to expand...

This is according to a conservative newspaper:
Some badly needed good news for Obamacare - The Washington Post

It's getting reviews comparable to ordinary private insurance. And sorry to hear your state didn't take advantage of what was offered. It's weird, most conservatives states are on the Federal government dole more than the blue states, and yet they whiffed on health care. Call your congressman.
 
whysoserious said:
I'm citing a known statistic, and you are are telling personal stories.
Click to expand...

And you are posting a line of baloney. Healthcare inflation is not going down. Healthcare spending may be however the cost of healthcare is not going down. It is continuing to rise. Your attempted spin is in fact another left wing lie told repeatedly in the hopes that people will believe it.
 
eohrnberger said:
So desperate for a redirect onto anything else but the topic? :lamo
Click to expand...

I was responding directly to someone on your side who brought that up. Go after him for the redirect and gain some credibility back yourself.
 
whysoserious said:
History is laughing at you. People like you go so far to call him a tyrant, and yet:

1) He's done nothing illegal
2) The economy has steadily grown since he's been in office (albeit it started about as low as it could get)
3) He killed Osama bin Laden
4) He's been insanely aggressive against terrorism
5) He hasn't raised taxes

Yes, you didn't get everything you want out of the executive branch for the past 6 years, but to freak out like he's Stalin, that's insane. Most things he would have wanted to do, he couldn't do because of the obstructionist Congress. So relax and grow up, buddy.
Click to expand...

You can stop the spin. Ofcourse he is no Stalin. However he is a tyrant. And he has broken the law.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The same thing that they thought about education - that it should not be a federal gov't matter. Simply because something is "important" does not make it a federal government matter.
Click to expand...

Well...careful now. There was quite a bit of support for President Washington's National University concept, including Benjamin Rush and James Madison. A twin consequence was also with the military academy, which was eventually created under Jefferson.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It started with the Community Reinvestment act signed into law by President Jimmy "Peanut Farmer" Carter. It spurred on by democrats through the auspices of quasi government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even Democrat Barney Frank eventually admitted as much. Hiding losses from bad loans is in fact what caused the mortgage market collapse.
Click to expand...

No it did not. you are referring to making red lining illegal. That did nothing to negatively effect the housing market. And that article completely debunks the rest of your nonsense here. Nice try.
 
whysoserious said:
This is according to a conservative newspaper:
Some badly needed good news for Obamacare - The Washington Post

It's getting reviews comparable to ordinary private insurance. And sorry to hear your state didn't take advantage of what was offered. It's weird, most conservatives states are on the Federal government dole more than the blue states, and yet they whiffed on health care. Call your congressman.
Click to expand...

Nice try, however most of the federal dole goes to the inner city welfare weenies....whether they are in Blue or Red states.
 
ObamacareFail said:
And you are posting a line of baloney. Healthcare inflation is not going down. Healthcare spending may be however the cost of healthcare is not going down. It is continuing to rise. Your attempted spin is in fact another left wing lie told repeatedly in the hopes that people will believe it.
Click to expand...

US Health Care Inflation Rate
Health-care inflation heating back up - Health Exchange - MarketWatch
Health-care inflation has hit a low point and is poised to start rising again, but it’s unclear whether annual medical cost hikes are heading back to the double-digit increases of years past.
Click to expand...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf
Health care spending growth is the lowest on record. According to the most recent
projections, real per capita health care spending has grown at an estimated average
annual rate of just 1.3 percent over the three years since 2010. This is the lowest rate on
record for any three-year period and less than one-third the long-term historical
average stretching back to 1965.
• Health care price inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 years. Recent years have also seen
exceptionally slow growth in the growth of prices in the health care sector, in addition
to total spending. Measured using personal consumption expenditure price indices,
health care inflation is currently running at just 1 percent on a year-over-year basis, the
lowest level since January 1962. (Health care inflation measured using the medical CPI
is at levels not seen since September 1972.)
• Recent slow growth in health care spending has substantially improved the long-term
Federal budget outlook. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reduced its
projections of future Medicare and Medicaid spending in 2020 by $147 billion (0.6
percent of GDP) since August 2010. This represents about a 10 percent reduction in
projected spending on these programs. These revisions primarily reflect the recent slow
growth in health care spending
Click to expand...

Health care premiums grow at lowest rate decade: Analysis.
Health insurance premiums at large employers rose an average 3.3 percent this year—the lowest rate in a decade—but are expected to increase much more next year, according to an analysis released Thursday.

It also found that though premium inflation had slowed significantly, the average cost to employees for out-of-pocket expenses spiked by nearly 13 percent, continuing a trend that has seen employees' share of total health-care costs jump 150 percent since 2004.
Click to expand...
 
poweRob said:
No it did not. you are referring to making red lining illegal. That did nothing to negatively effect the housing market. And that article completely debunks the rest of your nonsense here. Nice try.
Click to expand...

It certainly did have a negative effect on the housing market. It is ignorant to suggest otherwise.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The same thing that they thought about education - that it should not be a federal gov't matter. Simply because something is "important" does not make it a federal government matter.
Click to expand...

Your honestly telling me that if the Founding Fathers were alive and well today, you know their stance on health care?

Jesus.
 
whysoserious said:
America's fiscal union: The red and the black | The Economist
View attachment 67175961
Click to expand...

That map is misleading. The green spots are simplistic because they don't account for Federal spending that props up major industries that by multiplier effects help generate tax revenue to offset the Federal spending.

Texas for example is green, yet one of its biggest industries, Aerospace is heavily dependent on Federal spending. Take that out and the spending impacts down the line would result in huge reductions in activity and thus Federal taxes.

The red states are even worse when you account for states like Virgina that have massive portions of their economies dependent on Federal contracts. Not only does Virgina not only result in a net negative for the Federal government, but that's on top of all of the activity that the Federal government is essentially providing there. So if we removed Federal spending, Virgina would likely be even more red.

The only real way to determine if a state isn't Federal spending dependent is to see what industries it relies on for its economic activity and what the impact would be of reducing Federal spending in those areas. Cutting federal aerospace in Texas would eviscerate large portions of its tech industry, removing Federal defense in Virgina would be hugely painful and removing defense spending in Hawaii would break the state.

That map helps, but it's really simplistic
 
Fiddytree said:
Well...careful now. There was quite a bit of support for President Washington's National University concept, including Benjamin Rush and James Madison. A twin consequence was also with the military academy, which was eventually created under Jefferson.
Click to expand...

Using the reasoning (excuse?) that an educated and healthy (or any other desirable trait) population is "necessary and proper" could, indeed, be used to make things (everything and anything?) into "derived" federal powers. If that is your argument then there are no bounds (limits?) to federal powers except how clever one is in making the argument for including (adding?) them. The question then becomes - why have states at all?
 
ObamacareFail said:
It certainly did have a negative effect on the housing market. It is ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

The hell it would. You do not know what red lining is. It was a racist business policy that would lay a map on the table and say "we will not give loans to anyone within these red lines. Basically carving out the black neighborhoods. Unlike what the right wing propaganda says, the anti-redline policy didn't force anyone to give loans to people who couldn't afford it. It said you couldn't use red lines as an excuse to deny someone a loan who is eminently qualified for that loan.

You're welcome for this enlightenment. You and your cohorts would have so much more credibility and intelligence had you followed evidence rather than starting with the political angle that "It's the gubamints fault!!!!1!111!!!.... now how can I prove this?" then fabricate lines to support your conclusions.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Using the reasoning (excuse?) that an educated and healthy (or any other desirable trait) population is "necessary and proper" could, indeed, be used to make things (everything and anything?) into "derived" federal powers. If that is your argument then there are no bounds (limits?) to federal powers except how clever one is in making the argument for including (adding?) them. The question then becomes - why have states at all?
Click to expand...

There's a place for the states, and often it makes sense to use federalism because it works better. However, it should also be explained that some founders like Hamilton thought there shouldn't be any states except to be completely subservient to the national government. It mostly became a necessity to placate the Southerners.
 
whysoserious said:
Sure, cite the law(s) he's broken. Good luck in court.
Click to expand...

So if he can get away with it, does that make it OK in your book?

Bill Clinton got away with the whole Monica/Grand Jury thing, but it still didn't make what he did right.
 
whysoserious said:
Your honestly telling me that if the Founding Fathers were alive and well today, you know their stance on health care?

Jesus.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not but they were well aware of doctors and teachers. Are you asserting that they were not or simply forgot to address them? I am asserting that they were fully aware of many private professions and services but purposefully did not give the federal government any special powers over them.
 
Grim17 said:
So if he can get away with it, does that make it OK in your book?

Bill Clinton got away with the whole Monica/Grand Jury thing, but it still didn't make what he did right.
Click to expand...

If you think I for one second care what the president does behind close doors sexually, you're insane. Infidelity is not the most becoming of traits, but it's not the worst either.

And... get away with what? Benghazigate? Who gives a ****?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Believe it or not but they were well aware of doctors and teachers. Are you asserting that they were not or simply forgot to address them? I am asserting that they were fully aware of many private professions and services but purposefully did not give the federal government any special powers over them.
Click to expand...

Well considering medicine was in its infancy at that point, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. Please, tell me what the founding fathers had to say about HMOs? Preexisting conditions? Birth control?

Are you being serious right now? Am I talking to an actual human being?
 
whysoserious said:
History is laughing at you. People like you go so far to call him a tyrant, and yet:

1) He's done nothing illegal
2) The economy has steadily grown since he's been in office (albeit it started about as low as it could get)
3) He killed Osama bin Laden
4) He's been insanely aggressive against terrorism
5) He hasn't raised taxes

Yes, you didn't get everything you want out of the executive branch for the past 6 years, but to freak out like he's Stalin, that's insane. Most things he would have wanted to do, he couldn't do because of the obstructionist Congress. So relax and grow up, buddy.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for him to declare himself dictator-for-life, which they were saying he would do. Taking him long enough, you would have thought that before the whole "re-election thing" would have been the time. Would have saved himself some money at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom