Rightwingnutjob
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 420
- Reaction score
- 118
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
lmao.. but it's true. Thats the sad part.
What is true? If something is true. PROVE it.
lmao.. but it's true. Thats the sad part.
What is true? If something is true. PROVE it.
Privatised healthcare is more expensive then socialised healthcare.
That says nothing. U.S. Health care would be substantially cheaper if people weren't allowed to sue doctors willy-nilly over nothing and if competition was opened up between state lines. Your link says nothing regarding private vs. socialized health care.
Edit: And wikipedia is a bad source. I could go on there and write, "Gabriel is poop." Would that make it true?
If you say so mr insurance man.
So you're an insurance expert, yourself?
So is the steawman that we are "railing" on obama as the "cause". :shrug:
Not sure what that is suppose to mean.
Obama just has the unfortunate timing of inheriting a financial crisis of which no capitalistic market tools other then exports to richer countries works. And the real cause is you and me Rev. The American public is not willing to have the unpleasant discussion of just how deep entitlement cuts need to go. France is currently in this mess and it's not going well for Sarkozy. And Merkel had to back away from her own cuts in Deutschland. And Greece shows just how unwilling people are there to accept some of the measures. Bush got bloodied in his (just) attempt to reform Social Security. And Republicans threatened seniors with cuts to Medicare if Obamacare passed. The only way we'll be able to make the necessary cuts and tax hikes is when people finally accept we cannot afford our system. Your generation pissed away Social Security for my generation. And Democrat expansions to Medicare haven't helped. The future is awash in red ink independent of Iraq, Bush, Obama and Afghanistan. Even if 9/11 never happened and all of its associated costs, we'd STILL be screwed by the level of unfunded liabilities.
blah blah blah "inheriting".... when does he have to take responsibility for his bailouts, and his policies? I am not saying bush did any better, but to sit here and claim simple "inheritance" reeks to me. :shrug:
your moronic pronouncements as to what you think my motivations are are not only full of lies they are devoid of proof. Feel free to prove "I love Bush" or Bush is "my hero"
The facts speak for themselves TD....you exposed your true agenda and now you are running from it.
You want America to fail just so you can "payback" Obama and the Democrats for what "they did to W".....
Like I said....a Zebra can't hide its stripes and you made your motivation clear in page 1 of this thread. There isn't any more to say.
That says nothing. U.S. Health care would be substantially cheaper if people weren't allowed to sue doctors willy-nilly over nothing and if competition was opened up between state lines. Your link says nothing regarding private vs. socialized health care.
Edit: And wikipedia is a bad source. I could go on there and write, "Gabriel is poop." Would that make it true?
blah blah blah "inheriting".... when does he have to take responsibility for his bailouts, and his policies? I am not saying bush did any better, but to sit here and claim simple "inheritance" reeks to me. :shrug:
Not much. Many states have tort reform without any noticable decrease in cost. So, some evidence that it would be cheaper would be nice.
blah blah blah "inheriting".... when does he have to take responsibility for his bailouts, and his policies? I am not saying bush did any better, but to sit here and claim simple "inheritance" reeks to me. :shrug:
It was here before he took office. That's just a fact. No president controls the economy, but let's not blame him for decades of work that happened long before Obama became president.
BTW, didn't Obama say he let the Bush tax cuts expire?
His bailouts likely saved millions of jobs, direct and indirect. And the stimulus was nothing more then spending and tax cuts. While (for the 5th time), I don't think the stimulus did all that much, it did help. Less taxes and more demand is better then higher taxes and less demand. Furthermore, that $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities was started well before Obama or Bush were born.
And I think you did not notice my key part. The problem isn't Obama or even Congress. It's the voting populace. We are not willing to make drastic cuts in the military, medicare and Social Security. And we will evict anyone in Congress who seriously tries to do just that. So it's not surprising why we haven't seen real reform to any of the three. True, Gates did manage to pull off significant cuts to the military, but not like Reagan and Bush Sr's base cutting.
Furthermore, cutting taxes and boosting spending will not stop a financial/liquidity crisis. It did not stop Mexico's. It did not stop Russia's. It did not stop South Korea's. China in the 1990s Asian Crisis was largely unscathed due to large foreign reserves at the state's capacity to directly lend. Real, actual Socialism does work to stop financial crisis if the state is willing to lend out at the rates necessary to compensate and if it has sufficiently large capital reserves. But that sets a nation up for bigger problems down the line. South Korea got over its problem by some state backed lending as well as focus on exports to boost capital reserves. We cannot do that as an importer nation. Furthermore, Mexico only survived because of a massive US bailout with extreme interest rates. No one lent real help to Russia and they were a literal sh*t hole for a decade. There are no good tools available to combat a liquidity/financial crisis. Bush cut taxes and boosted spending. It failed. Obama cut taxes and boosted spending. It largely failed. Applying the wrong tools does not suggest success is a likely outcome.
And again, take away the ENTIRE additional debt and deficits post 9/11 and we are still boned. You need to get that through your mind.
wait, what jobs has he created? :ssst:
Are you going to be a partisan hack about this or discuss like an intelligent adult?
Based on your last two responses, it doesn't look like you are even reading half of the posts. I'm not going to waste my time if you are not willing to discuss in a mature fashion.
Pay attention, I'm not saying he's all to blame, but he's doubled down on a pair of kings.
That and the additional taxes will further stall the economy...
Not sure he's been any worse than any other president. And no, historically you can chart taxes and the economy and see no corralation between taxes and the economy. We've seen good times with high taxes and bad times with low taxes and vise versa. Business is more dependent on other factors than taxes. Many years ago I looked up such a chart and posted it on another forum. Not inclined to take the time today, but I'm sure you're capable if you want to see it. Too often people accept something as true because it sounds true.
And if government was really doing it's job, it would both cut programs and raise taxes. Anyone who bought into the Bush tax cut and spend policy was really fooling themselves.
So you won't articulate what jobs he has created, saved, etc. and instead reduce yourself to name calling and personal attacks. Noted.
So no, you aren't going to act like an adult and all you want to do is engage in partisan hackery. All I needed to hear. I describe the entire situtation from the get go and all you want to do is bash Obama.
So the bar is "no worse than any other president"?
seriously?
Let me ask you, how are we specifically better now with obama than we were with bush?
So no, you aren't going to act like an adult and all you want to do is engage in partisan hackery. All I needed to hear. I describe the entire situtation from the get go and all you want to do is bash Obama.