• 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!

Sharing my opinion with you. Get mad.

This 20 million figure comes from a March 2016 estimate by the Department of Health and Human Services, intended to show how many people gained insurance through the Affordable Care Act since full implementation in 2013. But it's not necessarily precise.

Since people move in and out of insurance markets on a regular basis, as they change or lose jobs, this is not an easy number to capture. Analysts relied on survey data that indicated that the percentage of adults between the ages of 18 and 64 who lacked health insurance dropped from about 20 percent to 11.5 percent. That translated into 17.7 million nonelderly adults.

About 2.3 million of the figure comes from young adults who choose to stay on their parents' plan before they turned 26, between the years 2010 and 2013, under a provision that kicked in as soon as the bill was signed.

Enrollment in ACA marketplaces was 8 million in 2014, 11.7 million in 2015 and 12.7 million in 2016, the report said. But Americans also gained coverage through an expansion of Medicaid in 31 states and the District of Columbia.​


I see. So you basically threw the twenty million figure out there as hard fact, knowing it wasn't. Got it.​
 
Uh.......
Did you even read the article that accompanied the shiny, Party-friendly graphic you posted, friend?

At the very bottom, you would have found, "Posts and Comments are solely the opinion of the author and not that of the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, or Brookings Institution."

Good job, pal.
Uuuuhhhhhh....that article by a TPC analyst.....is citing (and linking to) analysis of both Drump's and Clinton's budget/tax proposals, it wasn't an opinion. He is just reporting the facts, mam.

Perhaps instead of skipping over the linked content, you should read about what your candidate of choice is proposing for your precious debt.

PS....learn how to use the quote function properly.
 
Last edited:
the thread is an admonition to abandon frivolous personal concerns and to study political candidates at all levels
Fine, but yer in a "govt spending" forum, so when presented with budget analysis of the candidates proposals, don't skip them and divert with argument about "opinion".
 
"Posts and Comments are solely the opinion of the author and not that of the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, or Brookings Institution."

Everyone's estimates are about the same. Even the Tax Foundation, which has and deserves a reputation for being biased Right, says the Frumpy plan would add $10 trillion to the debt.

"Think tank finds Trump's tax plan would increase deficit by $10 trillion," Politico, Sept 29, 2015

Now you can choose to accept their analysis that projects substantial income gains for the lower quintiles, but haven't we heard this before? It's called "trickle-down economics." We've been trickled on twice now, and somehow all the income has gone to the people getting the massive tax cuts. I'm hoping the electorate decides it's been trickled on enough already.

Here's a graph from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, non-partisan deficit hawks.

Trump_Clinton_deficits.jpg

I need to know if you believe that … our American government has not lost all regard for honesty, integrity, and accountability.

I don't see any sharp drop-off recently. What leads you to believe that there has been one?

>>How you respond … will determine whether I provide you a detailed list of other "glaring symptoms".

So if you don't like what I have to say, yer gonna keep yer list secret? Why not just tell us? I don't understand.

I see. So you basically threw the twenty million figure out there as hard fact, knowing it wasn't. Got it.

No, I basically threw the most critical analysis of the twenty million figure I could find out there to allow you and others to access it in that light. What figure makes sense to you?

HHS says twenty million. A Rand study found seventeen million more than a year ago.

"Nearly 17 Million Americans Covered Under Obamacare," NBCNews.com, May 6, 2015

insult-free mmi post #2 (new series)
 
Last edited:
No, I basically threw the most critical analysis of the twenty million figure I could find out there to allow you and others to access it in that light. What figure makes sense to you?

HHS says twenty million. A Rand study found seventeen million more than a year ago.

"Nearly 17 Million Americans Covered Under Obamacare," NBCNews.com, May 6, 2015

Estimates of uninsured Americans before Obama care were between 30 and 50 million, depending on which BS propaganda you believed. It promised to lower premiums $2,500 for everyone, and said current insured people would see no change in their coverage. Not only did it not lower premium, but millions lost their coverage, and their doctors. In other words, it was a complete lie. So even if your numbers of newly insured between 15 and 20 million are correct (and that's a big IF), Obama care can be considered to be nothing more than just another giant government boondoggle , and utter failure. You and your ilk cannot even bring yourselves to admit what is obvious to any thinking person.
 
It promised to lower premiums $2,500 for everyone

That was when it included a public option, which didn't make it through.

>>said current insured people would see no change in their coverage.

That's not true. E.g., it said it would eliminate plans that provided "fake insurance."

>>Not only did it not lower premium

It slowed the rate of increase.

>>millions lost their coverage, and their doctors.

How many? Where's yer evidence?

>>In other words, it was a complete lie.

In other words, it looks like yer just making stuff up.

>>So even if your numbers of newly insured between 15 and 20 million are correct (and that's a big IF)

Seventeen million a year ago, and twenty million now. Where's yer counter-estimate?

>>Obama care can be considered to be nothing more than just another giant government boondoggle , and utter failure.

And I can consider twenty to be fifteen or even less, if that's what I wanna do.

>>You and your ilk cannot even bring yourselves to admit what is obvious to any thinking person.

I'm not convinced by yer argument.

insult-free mmi post #3 (new series)
 
I am not an expert, but am rather just a truth-teller.

The debt is the debt, and it is staggering.

The use of the adjective staggering is entirely relative... relative to previous debt levels.

Other than it's size, what do you believe is so damn troubling with such high debt? Has it impacted you in any way, other than the bit of anxiety it has caused you?
 
I don't see any sharp drop-off recently. What leads you to believe that there has been one?
>>How you respond … will determine whether I provide you a detailed list of other "glaring symptoms".
So if you don't like what I have to say, yer gonna keep yer list secret? Why not just tell us? I don't understand.
insult-free mmi post #2 (new series)

You didn't answer the question, dear lad.

Do you believe that I am wrong when I say that our American government has lost all regard for honesty, integrity, and accountability?

Or allow me to simplify the question;
Do you believe that this American government operates with honesty, integrity, and accountability?

And yes, if you answer in a certain predictable, Partisan-political fashion, as I tend to believe that you might, then I don't see any point in sharing anything with you.
Because I don't have time to debate or discuss such matters with a closed mind.

So let's take this in small steps.
Answer the question, honestly and objectively, and I'll share with you my awesome list.
:)
 
You didn't answer the question, dear lad.

I'd say I did answer the question. And I'll mention that I'm approaching sixty, so more like old fart.

>>Do you believe that I am wrong when I say that our American government has lost all regard for honesty, integrity, and accountability?

All regard? No. First, I'm not sure what you mean by "government." I'm a federal employee, and I have about as much "honesty, integrity, and accountability" as I've ever had, whatever level that is. Do you mean the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court? Agency heads? All federal employees? All gubmint employees at all levels?

Imo, Mr Obama and the Bushes have plenty of these qualities, while I figure Bill Clinton is not entirely honest. I'd say the Congress is a mixed bag, and the court isn't a problem.

Is this answer good enough for you, or have I failed the test, forcing you to keep yer list a secret? I might add that this is not a personal communication, and so you may want to share yer views with other thread readers, my shortcomings notwithstanding.

>>Do you believe that this American government operates with honesty, integrity, and accountability?

I'd say "some," but more would be better. And as I said in first attempt to answer yer question, I don't think it's much of any worse in recent years. How would you rank the private sector on that? How about yer neighbours?

>>if you answer in a certain predictable, Partisan-political fashion, as I tend to believe that you might, then I don't see any point in sharing anything with you.

Which "certain" way is that?

>>I don't have time to debate or discuss such matters with a closed mind.

My thought is that even if you feel I have expressed a close-minded view, you could still benefit other readers by offering yer list.

>>Answer the question, honestly and objectively

I am extremely honest by nature. Fwiw, I think yer confused in believing that someone with a partisan perspective is somehow "dishonest."

insult-free mmi post #5 (new series)
 
mmi,
It appears that you and I are quite close in age.

I am satisfied with your responses, though I find one or two elements of them perplexing and maybe even astounding.

Please forgive me (at this point on this particular Sunday afternoon) for logging off for awhile.
My brother and his girlfriend are coming over to barbecue, and I must prepare the marinade for the chicken and the salmon, and pluck a few cherry tomatoes from the garden for the salad.
I bought my wife a new motorcycle, on top of everything else going on, and if the rain abates, she may well want to take a test ride.

I will log back on this evening, and I will indeed share with you my list of glaring things that are indicators of a US Government that has lost all regard for honesty, integrity, and accountability.

Thanks in advance for your understanding, good sir.
:)
 
mmi,

I apologize for not logging back on yesterday evening.
Company stayed late, the guitars came out, and much music and beer drinking ensued.
It was a good evening.

Just off the top of my head this morning, and before I go drive in for an early cardio-swim, the first four examples of a government that has lost all regard for honesty, integrity, and accountability:

1. $19 TRILLION in federal debt and growing.
I reject all the shade-tree economists who thought that the amount of debt accumulated under previous administrations was unconscionable, but somehow now declare that a new total of $19 trillion in debt is somehow a good thing.
It is most emphatically not.

And to insist that it is is to be intellectually dishonest, mmi.
Especially when you and others have posted cartoon-like graphs showing how the national debt will likely remain flat under Hillary Clinton, but will rise dramatically under Donald Trump.

You have to get off the fence, friend.
Either the debt is a good thing or it is a bad thing.

Here’s a quote from Barack Obama, from the 2008 campaign trail:
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.
That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Probably the only words that have ever come out of Barack Obama’s mouth that I actually agree with.

2. The IRS political profiling scandals.
426 right-leaning groups were unfairly targeted by the IRS, and not a single official in the IRS has ever been prosecuted. And to say that the entire matter was ‘thoroughly investigated by the Department of Justice, and no prosecutable offense was found’ is laughable. In other words, having Obama’s DOJ buddy Eric Holder (or even the in-the-tank FBI) involved in an investigation regarding governmental corruption is much akin to a self-licking ice cream cone.

3. Same scenario, same self-licking ice cream cone, but substitute Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Classified email scandal, and please tell me anybody ever thought that Hillary would ever be held accountable.

Each and every government employee, including yourself, have to take hours of training each year, ad-nauseum, regarding the proper handling of Classified material. You also have to endure hours of training (usually at your office computer) on topics such as OPSEC, proper use of government computers and handheld digital devices, and physical security.

And each and every government employee (and Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine) know full well that they would have been prosecuted and put in prison for committing even one tenth of the violations committed by Hillary Clinton in this matter.

4. The President and the DoJ actively going after the State of Arizona for daring to enforce immigration laws.
Millions of illegals will someday become registered voters, right, so lets by all means allow them to stream in unabated.
And let’s spend US taxpayer dollars affording them benefits so that they will be guaranteed to vote for the political Party that pandered to them so famously. A win-win for this corrupt President and his unscrupulous cronies.

It’s a shabby, horrible situation, and yet another glaring example of a government that has lost all regard for honesty, integrity, and accountability.

Okay, I have to go to work now.
I’ll continue the list later on this evening, if you like.

In the meantime, I’ll be working on my government computer out at the military facility where I work, and I will be mindful of not mishandling any Classified material while I’m at it.
I admonish you to do so as well, friend.

Hillary may be above the law, but you and I are not.
:shock:
 
I apologize for not logging back on yesterday evening.

Never a concern.

>>declare that a new total of $19 trillion in debt is somehow a good thing.

No one says debt is a good thing. Sometimes it's better than the achievable alternatives.

>>you and others have posted cartoon-like graphs showing how the national debt will likely remain flat under Hillary Clinton, but will rise dramatically under Donald Trump.

Those are based on analyses of the consequences of the their respective tax proposals. They're all pretty much the same. If you'd like, I can find ones that use the numbers instead of graphic representations, but they'll indicate the same thing. Those who buy into trickle-down effects project substantially higher levels of income, but I'd say we shouldn't fall for that a third time. It doesn't work.

>>Either the debt is a good thing or it is a bad thing.

Considered in isolation, it's bad. But that's not the way things work. I owe tens of thousands of dollars on my mortgage. I figure that's acceptable debt. If I ran up a $20K debt on a credit card to follow the Red Sox around the country on road trips, I'd call that a mistake. Similarly, if we had borrowed nineteen trillion and accomplished something significant, it might have been worth it. You'll agree that all we did was waste the money.

>>a quote from Barack Obama, from the 2008 campaign trail

What were we accomplishing with that borrowing? We were mostly covering revenue losses associated with the tax cuts for wealthy households he foolishly championed. In an election, it's arguably better to keep it simple — "Debt bad!"

>>Probably the only words that have ever come out of Barack Obama’s mouth that I actually agree with.

If you think about it, you agree with a lot more that he's said.

>>IRS political profiling

I'll say that this was to some extent mishandled. My view is that the gubmint should have been much more proactive on it. Tax-exempt status is something that shouldn't be taken advantage of. Here's what I had to say about this earlier:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/196070-has-obama-been-good-president-40.html#post1063402801

>>Obama’s DOJ buddy Eric Holder (or even the in-the-tank FBI)

There are always questions regarding impartiality in situations like this. I have confidence in the career people at those agencies.

>>Classified email scandal … every [other] government employee … would have prosecuted and put in prison for committing even one tenth of the violations committed by Hillary Clinton in this matter.

I disagree. It's easy to say that and sort of easy to think it. But the details of the circumstances, imo, led to the decision not to prosecute. You'll agree she's taken a hit for this politically, and I can understand yer feeling that it should have been a lot more. I do not see it as an example of corruption. "Inept" I can agree with, and I'll say that you can make an argument that the law should be changed so that behaviour like hers would be held to a greater degree of accountability, but I don't think she was given a pass.

Step back and ask yerself why this happened. She didn't want people who have been after her for decades to have access to her communications with staff and advisors. I want transparency in gubmint where it's advisable, but I also want someone like the SOS to be able to discuss and formulate plans without thinking she's effectively being listened to by the rest of the world. I expressed my view here recently:

I'd say she's guarded and wary of being attacked by her political opponents. It's unfortunate. In some ways, she doesn't react well to the "Get the Clintons" cottage industry. I don't see her as being particularly honest, but nevertheless honest enough.​

>>Millions of illegals will someday become registered voters, right

Possibly. Fwiw, I call them "undocumented."

>>so lets by all means allow them to stream in unabated.

That's not what's happening.

>>let’s spend US taxpayer dollars affording them benefits

Which benefits?

Most social welfare programs bar illegal immigrants from receiving benefits and require proof of immigration status. That includes food stamps, as well as cash welfare assistance, Medicaid, and even the new health care law. — "Fact-checking immigration," PolitiFact, July 1, 2012​
 
Last edited:
I will be mindful of not mishandling any Classified material while I’m at it. I admonish you to do so as well

I do have access to confidential information, but nothing classified for national security. There are indeed strict rules for handling that material, and I'm careful to follow them. But here's what I'd say: when I want to discuss a situation with a colleague that involves things I don't want my agency to know about, I don't send an email that the office has access to. I instead make a phone call. I'm not doing anything nefarious, but rather hoping to find a way that I can do my job effectively without tripping over some counter-productive, bureaucratic rule that fails to account for the way things are in the real world.
 
5. Obamacare. An admittedly big one, deserving of it's own posting.

I have opposed Obamacare from the very beginning, and I have been consistent on this point. My reasons?
Simple:

It was passed in a hasty and crooked fashion, and most of the congressmen/congresswomen who voted for it admitted that they never bothered to read it.

It creates nearly 150 new Government agencies, which only serves to grow the government, increase the bureaucratic roadblocks (not streamline them), and drive up costs. (Somebody has to pay the salaries of all those new government bureaucrats, and that somebody is you and I the taxpayers.) Obamacare is not one law, but rather two separate laws. And more to the point here in 2016, it is a never-ending string of rules and regulations being written and re-written daily by the IRS crooks as they implement it.

In that vein, it hands the management and administration of America’s health care over to an existing culture of laziness, lethargy, waste, fraud, and abuse. Anybody who has ever worked for the government can back me up on this.

Heck, anybody who has ever called the IRS on the telephone over the past few decades and tried to get a consistent answer to a problem (let alone talk to an actual human being) can back me up on this.

Obama administration cronies have been hired into ‘healthcare navigator’ positions. Many of them are ACORN crooks who have no experience whatsoever with health care management, customer service, or creating new efficiencies. And now these cronies are tenured government employees who are virtually UNFIREABLE.

Health insurance premiums for most Americans have already skyrocketed under Obamacare, and the projections are that it is only going to get worse.

And lastly,
Obamacare does not provide health care for all Americans.
It is merely designed to provide health insurance for a larger number of Americans than before. And at a cost of 2.6 TRILLION taxpayer dollars, that just isn’t worth it.
NOTHING is worth the damage that this law is causing to what was once the greatest health care system in the world.

In summary; Obamacare will go down in history as the most convoluted, expensive, partisan-political, morally-bankrupt package of legislation ever perpetrated upon the American people. Decades and even centuries from now, 'Obamacare' will be the pejorative expression people use when trying to describe something hopelessly dicked-up and utterly without redeeming features.
:(
 
1. $19 TRILLION in federal debt and growing.
I reject all the shade-tree economists who thought that the amount of debt accumulated under previous administrations was unconscionable, but somehow now declare that a new total of $19 trillion in debt is somehow a good thing.
It is most emphatically not.

And to insist that it is is to be intellectually dishonest, mmi.
Especially when you and others have posted cartoon-like graphs showing how the national debt will likely remain flat under Hillary Clinton, but will rise dramatically under Donald Trump.

You have to get off the fence, friend.
Either the debt is a good thing or it is a bad thing.

Here’s a quote from Barack Obama, from the 2008 campaign trail:
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.
That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Probably the only words that have ever come out of Barack Obama’s mouth that I actually agree with.

The "national debt" is not a real debt, the way that you or I have debts. Governments can create their own currency, and spend it, with no cost to them in real resources. So when you talk about "the debt" itself as a negative, it's really a non-issue, because the government is not really in debt. They issue bonds and they pay interest, but the net result of government spending is this: there is more MB in existence than before, and there are more bonds in existence than before, and it has bought some level of production that would not otherwise have been produced. The real cost to the government is zero. If you are driving toward some determination about whether or not our government is a good steward of the economy, looking at our level of debt is the wrong criteria.

The real issue should be, how are the dollars that the government creates and spends affecting the economy? And how are our economic policies affecting the economy?
 
So the recent 'charts and graphs' displaying how Mr Trump will surely drive up the federal debt enormously, and how Hillary Clinton will surely not drive up the federal debt so much;

Based on your logic and your rationale, is that a strong motivation for all these undecideds and independents to vote for Mr Trump?
Because, clearly, if $19 TRILLION is not a real debt, and it's somehow a good thing, then clearly $40 TRILLION in federal debt would be even better.

Or is there a limit to this rationale of yours?
How much is too much?

Or is all (R)-induced debt bad, and all (D)-induced debt somehow wonderful?

I'm an independent freethinker, and to be quite honest, I wish both of these two Presidential candidates would throw themselves off the new World Trade Tower.

But, again;
How much debt is enough?
:shock:
 
So the recent 'charts and graphs' displaying how Mr Trump will surely drive up the federal debt enormously, and how Hillary Clinton will surely not drive up the federal debt so much;

Based on your logic and your rationale, is that a strong motivation for all these undecideds and independents to vote for Mr Trump?
Because, clearly, if $19 TRILLION is not a real debt, and it's somehow a good thing, then clearly $40 TRILLION in federal debt would be even better.

Or is there a limit to this rationale of yours?
How much is too much?

Or is all (R)-induced debt bad, and all (D)-induced debt somehow wonderful?

I'm an independent freethinker, and to be quite honest, I wish both of these two Presidential candidates would throw themselves off the new World Trade Tower.

But, again;
How much debt is enough?
:shock:

That depends on the situation.

Consider this - M1, the stuff that fills our bank accounts, is mostly bank-created debt. Somebody takes out a home mortgage for $300,000; the bank creates $300,000 from scratch by 1) adding $300,000 to borrower's bank account (usually paid to a third party) and 2) adding borrower's $300,000+ promissory note to it's asset column. And that brand-new $300K (or a part of it) exists as long as there is remaining principle to be repaid. That is the stuff that fills our bank accounts, and every bank-created dollar is balanced out by debt. So lots of dollars means there is also lots of debt - which usually means that there is lots of lending going on, which usually means that there is lots of commerce and growth going on, and lots of investment. As far as the economy is concerned, the more total debt, the better we are (probably) doing. And the economy normally crashes when private sector debt crashes.

Government debt is a bit different, in that the central bank can simply create dollars and spend them into the economy, where they are assets in our hands. When they deficit spend, this is exactly what happens - more dollars are added to our pockets than they tax away. And it adds to aggregate demand. The $19 trillion you are worried about? Some of it is intragovernmental debt, which is like your right pocket owing your left pocket money; so that shouldn't even count. The rest exists as savings, in the hands of whoever earned it. Government debt is important because it allows us to save some dollars without killing the economy. If the government wasn't "in the red," then any savings we keep would require an equal amount of private sector debt.
 
6. The insider-corruption in the two Parties.

There is no question from watching the open contempt that the RNC has displayed toward Donald Trump (the outsider) that they never intended to support him.
And in spite of their every attempt to derail his successes, he did indeed manage to win the (R) nomination. Amazing.

And there is no question from the content and flavor of the DNC documents and emails that were provided to Wiki-leaks that the DNC never supported anybody but Hillary Clinton, and indeed acted to derail Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning the nomination. (We owe it to Hillary, right? It’s her time, right?)
Not at all amazing. In fact, nauseatingly-predictable.

I supported James Webb (D) wholeheartedly at the beginning of the election season last year, and I often wondered why such a qualified candidate could get no love, no support, and no traction.

Now we know why.
James Webb is a man who operates with honesty, integrity, and accountability.
And those qualities are completely absent from both the RNC and the DNC.
:x
 
Back
Top Bottom