• 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!

House blocks funding for health care law

Again, you're assuming that it will make it passed the Senate in its present form. Dems may have a slim majority in the Senate, but it's still a majority. Of course the president isn't king. But he has that veto pen. The one granted to him by the Constitution. A gov't shutdown won't necessarily be viewed by the public as the fault of Obama. Look what happened in the 90s. Republicans got blamed for it and lost big time in 96.

Did the GOP get their demands then?
 
You still aren't understanding the roles of the varying branches of Gov.

ALL spending originates in the House....they haven't "killed" or "repealed" anything...they can't...but NEITHER can the Bamster get any money for it now ;)

And the gov't will shut down because Obama will veto the bill in its present form.

In short, at this point it's finished, and the SC will rule against it.

You hope the SC rules against it.

BTW, the the majority of Amercicans DID/DO not want the Public Option :)

BTW, bull ****.

Most support public option for health insurance, poll finds - washingtonpost.com

Tuesday, October 20, 2009
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public.

On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)

If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.

Fifty-six percent of those polled back a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance, either through their employers or on their own or through Medicare or Medicaid. That number rises to 71 percent if the government were to provide subsidies for many lower-income Americans to help them buy coverage. With those qualifiers, a majority of Republicans say they support the mandate.

Most in U.S. want public health option: poll | Reuters

Just under 60 percent of those surveyed said they would like a public option as part of any final healthcare reform legislation, which Republicans and a few Democrats oppose.

Here are some of the results of the telephone survey of 2,999 households called from November 9-17 as part of the Thomson Reuters PULSE Healthcare Survey:

* Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no.

* 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independents and 33 percent of Republicans.

Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option - CBS News

A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans.
 
Last edited:
It is only really progressive for the bottom 20% of income earners. After that, it starts to level off thanks the Reagan/Bush tax cuts for the top tax brackets.

Good. Since the bottom is paying 16% and the top is paying 30%, after deductions - which spur investment - I really don't see the problem. If you are seriously suggesting that the delta percentage between the various quintiles should be the same, rather than be steep initially and leveling off subsequently - I don't know if that would be termed logarithmic - would in some way be more "fair", I don't know who it would be more "fair" to. Flat tax is the way to go. You are already stealing from the rich to pay for programs for the poor. We don't have enough money to pay for the programs you have promised the poor. The problem is not that you are not stealing enough from the rich, the problem is you are spending too much money on the poor. Debt interest and entitlements suck up the entire federal revenues and all other federal spending is deficit. The only thing to do is cut entitlements. We didn't have them before WW I and people were responsible for taking care of themselves. We need to switch back to that way of thinking.




.
 
The President doesn't care if the House doesn't give him the money for Obamacare because, as he has already stated, his health care bill is going to be revenue neutral, will not need any new taxes, and any shortfall can be raised by getting rid of the waste from the present system and streamlining its management. As well, perhaps he can borrow trillions more from the Chinese.

It's an Obamanation.
 
Good. Since the bottom is paying 16% and the top is paying 30%, after deductions - which spur investment - I really don't see the problem.

A tax cut from approx. 80% for the top tax rate (as it was during the 50 year period when we had a progressive tax) to 30% is regressive no matter how you spin it. And that doesn't even include all the "legal" loopholes that can be used to further reduce the 30% to much less down to zero in some cases. We also learned (painfully) that the trickle down theory only worked for those at the top, and left the rest of us with more National debt to have to pay for, thereby shifing the tax burden more to the middle class. The tax cuts to to the wealthy resulted in a bubble followed by a recession (both times), with the rich growing richer and the middle class growing poorer.

If what you say is true about tax reductions spurring investment, why isn't our economy thriving after a decade of these tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthy?


If you are seriously suggesting that the delta percentage between the various quintiles should be the same, rather than be steep initially and leveling off subsequently

I am suggesting moving them closer to where they were during the 50 year period in our history when we had a progressive tax, and the strongest middle class in our history.

Flat tax is the way to go.

If your goal is a regressive tax.

You are already stealing from the rich to pay for programs for the poor.

It is part of our Constitution to promote the welfare of the people. Where in the Constitution is the part where the rich should thrive on the backs of the middle class?

We don't have enough money to pay for the programs you have promised the poor.

We do if we cut the wasteful spending in our various departments including the military, we currently spend more for our military than the rest of the world, combined. And we may have to reconsider wars for nation building around the world, also something not required by the Constitution, and the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes.

Debt interest and entitlements suck up the entire federal revenues and all other federal spending is deficit.

And where did the debt come from? Trillions of it are from nation building wars of choice and tax cuts for the wealthy. And the same party that (talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk) is the party that spent the money. Obama has proposed a 1.1 trillion dollar reduction in spending over a 10 year period. Please link me to a GOP budget proposal in the last decade which cut spending as much.
 
Last edited:
You know, defunding Obamacare I like.

But they completely defunded the EPA too. Sure, there are some problems with the EPA, and they could have worked to fix the problems, but defunding it entirely? OK, folks. Enjoy the arsenic in your drinking water.

These guys are insane.
 
You know, defunding Obamacare I like.

But they completely defunded the EPA too. Sure, there are some problems with the EPA, and they could have worked to fix the problems, but defunding it entirely? OK, folks. Enjoy the arsenic in your drinking water.

These guys are insane.

Seriously. I have no problem with cuts but there are reasons many of these programs were instituted! One day someone will ask why CEO's need to sign off on financial statements or why Sarbanes-Oxley was instituted and say it is and should be cut.

*Edit:

For those that forgot already please look up Enron!
 
Last edited:
Most Americans don't want to defund health care law

Feb 17, 2011

"Even as respondents continued to express opposition to the health reform law, a CBS News poll found that the majority of Americans disapprove of*congressional Republicans' efforts*to starve the health overhaul of the funds needed to implement it.

Los Angeles Times: CBS News Poll: Most Americans Don't Want To Strip Health Care Law Of Its Funding
Even as Republicans attempt to de-fund the president's health care overhaul on the House floor this week, a new poll suggests that they should proceed with caution (Oliphant, 2/16).

The Hill: Poll: Majority Disapprove Of Defunding Health Reform 
A majority of Americans would disapprove of efforts by Congress to defund health care reform, a new poll found Wednesday. Despite figures suggesting that most U.S. adults disapprove of President Obama's signature health care reform law, respondents to a new CBS News poll expressed opposition to defunding it, as Republicans in Congress have said they'll pursue. Fifty-five percent of U.S. adults said they would disapprove if Congress stopped funding for the new health care law, while 35 percent said they would approve. Ten percent said they did not know (O'Brien, 2/16).

National Journal: Americans Disapprove Of Health Care Defunding Efforts 
A large majority of Americans disapprove of Republican efforts to defund the health care law, according to a recently released CBS News poll. The survey found that 55 percent of adults across the country disapprove of plans to defund the health care law, though a majority of respondents still disapprove of the law itself. Just over 50 percent of people surveyed said they disapproved of the law, with 34 percent strongly disapproving. Only 33 percent approved of the legislation (Fung, 2/16)."
Poll: Most Americans Don't Want To Defund Health Law - Kaiser Health News
 
Most Americans don't want to defund health care law

Feb 17, 2011

"Even as respondents continued to express opposition to the health reform law, a CBS News poll found that the majority of Americans disapprove of*congressional Republicans' efforts*to starve the health overhaul of the funds needed to implement it.

Los Angeles Times: CBS News Poll: Most Americans Don't Want To Strip Health Care Law Of Its Funding
Even as Republicans attempt to de-fund the president's health care overhaul on the House floor this week, a new poll suggests that they should proceed with caution (Oliphant, 2/16).

The Hill: Poll: Majority Disapprove Of Defunding Health Reform 
A majority of Americans would disapprove of efforts by Congress to defund health care reform, a new poll found Wednesday. Despite figures suggesting that most U.S. adults disapprove of President Obama's signature health care reform law, respondents to a new CBS News poll expressed opposition to defunding it, as Republicans in Congress have said they'll pursue. Fifty-five percent of U.S. adults said they would disapprove if Congress stopped funding for the new health care law, while 35 percent said they would approve. Ten percent said they did not know (O'Brien, 2/16).

National Journal: Americans Disapprove Of Health Care Defunding Efforts 
A large majority of Americans disapprove of Republican efforts to defund the health care law, according to a recently released CBS News poll. The survey found that 55 percent of adults across the country disapprove of plans to defund the health care law, though a majority of respondents still disapprove of the law itself. Just over 50 percent of people surveyed said they disapproved of the law, with 34 percent strongly disapproving. Only 33 percent approved of the legislation (Fung, 2/16)."
Poll: Most Americans Don't Want To Defund Health Law - Kaiser Health News

This just shows how indecisive people are when it comes to Obamacare. They are against it yet they are against cutting the funding for it. I suspect this indecisivness is because so many simply dont know much about it or what it will/not achieve.
 
You know, defunding Obamacare I like.

But they completely defunded the EPA too. Sure, there are some problems with the EPA, and they could have worked to fix the problems, but defunding it entirely? OK, folks. Enjoy the arsenic in your drinking water.

These guys are insane.

So insane in fact they are being constitutional. :p

EPA is unconstitutional, what it is doing passing laws is unconstitutional and its was put in place using unconstional means.

Sorry, if I don't buy our drinking water will not be safe without the EPA, so called conservative.
 
This just shows how indecisive people are when it comes to Obamacare. They are against it yet they are against cutting the funding for it. I suspect this indecisivness is because so many simply dont know much about it or what it will/not achieve.

Seems pretty clear they don't want it defunded however.
 
So insane in fact they are being constitutional. :p

EPA is unconstitutional, what it is doing passing laws is unconstitutional and its was put in place using unconstional means.

Sorry, if I don't buy our drinking water will not be safe without the EPA, so called conservative.

Easy to say while you are drinking clean water. Explain, please, how the EPA is unconstitutional?
 
Sorry, if I don't buy our drinking water will not be safe without the EPA, so called conservative.

There is conservative, and then there is bat **** crazy conservative. Most of us think of danarhea as the former and not the latter.
 
Last edited:
Easy to say while you are drinking clean water. Explain, please, how the EPA is unconstitutional?

Easy to say when I can get people to give me clean water without the EPA. :p

EPA is unconstitutional because the fed can only regulate when it is settling disputes among states or among nations.

Furthermore, the EPA was passed using an executive order, an unlawful use of that power.

There is conservative, and then there is bat **** crazy conservative. Most of us think of danarhea as the former and not the latter.

You really proving yourself right with that" bat ****ing crazy" stuff. I'll be sure to take note that supporting things like the EPA is now a conservative view point, since, well, its not.
 
Last edited:
EPA is unconstitutional because the fed can only regulate when it is settling disputes among states or among nations.

In what way was this determined under the rule of law in this country?

I'll be sure to take note that supporting things like the EPA is now a conservative view point, since, well, its not.

Perhaps you are right, I've never heard of any conservative effort for abolishing the EPA. Please post a link to your documention of this. Thanks!
 
In what way was this determined under the rule of law in this country?



Perhaps you are right, I've never heard of any conservative effort for abolishing the EPA. Please post a link to your documention of this. Thanks!

Maybe some of those people don't remember, but Barry Goldwater was quite the environmentalist.
 
Maybe some of those people don't remember, but Barry Goldwater was quite the environmentalist.

Actually, my previous post didn't go far enough. There was an excellent article written about Goldwater called The Skeptical Environmentalist, which took a close look at his conflict between environmentalism and his distrust of the Government, which shows that he was a very complex man, and a great critical thinker. In the end, Goldwater accepted environmentalism.

In addition, should we call environmentalism Conservative? Actually, we can. The EPA was founded by Richard Nixon, many evangelical Christians believe that the Earth is God's creation, and that man is charged with keeping it pristine if he loves and respects God, and don't forget this quote from Ronald Reagan:

Ronald Reagan said:
What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live... And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live—our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it

And how about that all-American organization, known as the Boy Scouts of America, whose members learned and then lived civic responsibility, which also included environmental responsibility?

But, of course, there are some in this forum who believe the Conservatism stands for none of this, and whose arguments consists of questioning the Conservative credentials of those who are able to read at a high school level or better. Who am I to argue with them? They are right. Ronald Reagan was a flaming Liberal. [/sarcasm]

:mrgreen:

I agree wholeheartedly with keeping the EPA. After all, I have seen the results of human nature, and it isn't pretty at all.
 
Last edited:
A tax cut from approx. 80% for the top tax rate (as it was during the 50 year period when we had a progressive tax) to 30% is regressive no matter how you spin it. And that doesn't even include all the "legal" loopholes that can be used to further reduce the 30% to much less down to zero in some cases. We also learned (painfully) that the trickle down theory only worked for those at the top, and left the rest of us with more National debt to have to pay for, thereby shifing the tax burden more to the middle class. The tax cuts to to the wealthy resulted in a bubble followed by a recession (both times), with the rich growing richer and the middle class growing poorer.

Just because an extreme wartime tax rate of 91% for the great depression and during WW II never got reduced after the war, in no way means you can try to SPIN the eventual reduction as a regressive tax cut. ****ing semantics.

The lower rate for the wealthy meant that they kept more money and as their savings rater is much higher than lower income folks, that did translate directly to investment creating growth. It worked. Other factors, since the investment rate is not the only factor, caused problems for growth. We did have the longest boom up til the housing bubble, and that can partially be attributed to lower rates for the wealthy.

The fact that we have a higher national debt is due to uncontrolled spending, dominated by entitlements.

If what you say is true about tax reductions spurring investment, why isn't our economy thriving after a decade of these tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthy?

It is not the only factor. Truth is we lost industry sectors to globalization and so have a high unemployment with very slow recovery. Higher tax rates won't solve that problem.



I am suggesting moving them closer to where they were during the 50 year period in our history when we had a progressive tax, and the strongest middle class in our history.

We should have no income tax. Government stops all programs including defense and all entitlements.


It is part of our Constitution to promote the welfare of the people.

Debatable.

Where in the Constitution is the part where the rich should thrive on the backs of the middle class?

?????!!!!!!!! :shock::shock::shock: How in hell is a lower tax rate for the wealthy translate into them thriving on the backs of the middle class??? They are already paying a higher rate!

We do if we cut the wasteful spending in our various departments including the military, we currently spend more for our military than the rest of the world, combined. And we may have to reconsider wars for nation building around the world, also something not required by the Constitution, and the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes.

I agree we need to cut across the board, including both military and entitlements. How the hell can you make the claim that a 90% tax rate is a "fair" tax rate? The wealthy don't use those services.

And where did the debt come from? Trillions of it are from nation building wars of choice and tax cuts for the wealthy. And the same party that (talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk) is the party that spent the money. Obama has proposed a 1.1 trillion dollar reduction in spending over a 10 year period. Please link me to a GOP budget proposal in the last decade which cut spending as much.

Trillions? Not true. Debt does not come from tax cuts. It comes from overspending and 64% of our federal spending in entitlements. We should drop them all. People are responsible for taking care of themselves and not sucking of the government teat. We need to stop promoting a culture of dependency.

****ing liberals are assholes.
 
Just because an extreme wartime tax rate of 91% for the great depression and during WW II never got reduced after the war, in no way means you can try to SPIN the eventual reduction as a regressive tax cut. ****ing semantics.

The lower rate for the wealthy meant that they kept more money and as their savings rater is much higher than lower income folks, that did translate directly to investment creating growth. It worked. Other factors, since the investment rate is not the only factor, caused problems for growth. We did have the longest boom up til the housing bubble, and that can partially be attributed to lower rates for the wealthy.

The fact that we have a higher national debt is due to uncontrolled spending, dominated by entitlements.



It is not the only factor. Truth is we lost industry sectors to globalization and so have a high unemployment with very slow recovery. Higher tax rates won't solve that problem.





We should have no income tax. Government stops all programs including defense and all entitlements.




Debatable.



?????!!!!!!!! :shock::shock::shock: How in hell is a lower tax rate for the wealthy translate into them thriving on the backs of the middle class??? They are already paying a higher rate!



I agree we need to cut across the board, including both military and entitlements. How the hell can you make the claim that a 90% tax rate is a "fair" tax rate? The wealthy don't use those services.



Trillions? Not true. Debt does not come from tax cuts. It comes from overspending and 64% of our federal spending in entitlements. We should drop them all. People are responsible for taking care of themselves and not sucking of the government teat. We need to stop promoting a culture of dependency.

****ing liberals are assholes.

Wartime like now? The difference is that the public at the time wasn't brainwashed by Glenn Beck and realized that taxing the rich (who make tons of freaking money and won't even come close to strugging even at a 90% tax rate) is best for the country!

Again, I am not sure if you realize this, but tax cuts do cause debts. Let me explain the math (it's really easy):

Revenues - Expenditures = Profit/Loss.

So, as you can see, profit/loss are quite heavily dependent on revenues. Where do you get your info from?

Easy to say when I can get people to give me clean water without the EPA. :p

EPA is unconstitutional because the fed can only regulate when it is settling disputes among states or among nations.

Furthermore, the EPA was passed using an executive order, an unlawful use of that power.



You really proving yourself right with that" bat ****ing crazy" stuff. I'll be sure to take note that supporting things like the EPA is now a conservative view point, since, well, its not.

Let me guess, you are an arm-chair lawyer? Do you have a law degree or study the law at all? Constitutionality is actually a quite complicated subject and, despite what Mr. Limbaugh says, it is most likely not even close to that simple.
 
Last edited:
Wartime like now? The difference is that the public at the time wasn't brainwashed by Glenn Beck and realized that taxing the rich (who make tons of freaking money and won't even come close to strugging even at a 90% tax rate) is best for the country!

Again, I am not sure if you realize this, but tax cuts do cause debts. Let me explain the math (it's really easy):

Revenues - Expenditures = Profit/Loss.

So, as you can see, profit/loss are quite heavily dependent on revenues. Where do you get your info from?



Let me guess, you are an arm-chair lawyer? Do you have a law degree or study the law at all? Constitutionality is actually a quite complicated subject and, despite what Mr. Limbaugh says, it is most likely not even close to that simple.

This is the age old battle between the patricians and the plebians. In a full throated democracy, rule by the masses, the plebians will still everything from the patricians and call it "fair". It will drive away investment and hurt our private economy. Look at what is happening in California as an example. Lots of businesses leaving.

We don't need to solve the problem of uncontrolled spending by raising taxes; we need to stop uncontrolled spending.
 
We don't need to solve the problem of uncontrolled spending by raising taxes; we need to stop uncontrolled spending.

We need to get rid of all taxes N' eliminate our imaginary money system.
I know that might sound stupid but my imaginary friend told me to write that. :doh
 
Seems pretty clear they don't want it defunded however.

as a person who has linked a number of polls myself, i cannot and WILL NOT dispute your numbers

arguing polls is even less productive than the endless back and forth, naturally derailing detours, into sources

which is why i stick to nyt, wapo, cnn, cbs, abc, reuters, ap, ft, politico...

when talking to libs, which is what i do, it is sometimes very useful to use a source like kos or huffpo or msnbc or tpm...

cuz if a guy/gal like chrissy matthews says obama needs a birth certificate...

i could, of course, show you a number of polls showing a strong plurality of americans want obamacare REPEALED

anyway, i think it is NOT SPIN to note---polls this far out, ie, polls this far away from being held to actual account by real election results, are certainly far less sourceworthy than those immediately preceding a plebiscite

especially when they are saying that americans want a bill repealed but not defunded
 
Back
Top Bottom