PDA

View Full Version : Cast your vote!



newty
11-06-2012, 03:48 PM
Thought it would be interesting. Lets keep it anonymous unless of course you want to share...

Lets face it some of you are oversharers.:p

KG's Supra24
11-06-2012, 03:59 PM
http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i59/5/10/6/frabz-I-voted-1cbd46.jpg


;)

bergermaister
11-06-2012, 05:48 PM
Another year of having to pick the shiniest turd:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gttz6kR7fFs/Tg1zzB-vxkI/AAAAAAAAAEY/xb4rz6AmWqg/s320/20090503-gop-polished-turd.jpg

deerfield
11-06-2012, 06:58 PM
Uh, meant to keep it anonymous. Screwed up. Hit the wrong button on the tablet screen. So, take one away from Obama talley and give it to Romney. Not signing this post so no one knows who I am. Roll Tide!!!

maxpower220
11-06-2012, 08:11 PM
Rosanne Barr did such a good job as a mom on TV and a wife to the original fat power couple, I felt she and her running mate Cindy Sheehee could really have a positive impact on the country and world. It's a good thing that she was right there on the ballot, so all I had to do was color it in.

jpetty3023
11-06-2012, 09:41 PM
is FL really gonna go to Obama? ouch


sent from my home phone

jmvotto
11-06-2012, 10:42 PM
is FL really gonna go to Obama? ouch


sent from my home phone

If so Greece , here we come.

rdlangston13
11-06-2012, 10:44 PM
I have only met like 3 Obama supporters in my life, maybe it's just from being in Texas, I don't know. I just can't understand how Obama can win but I guess in other states they don't know anyone voting for Romney


Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk

chawk610
11-07-2012, 08:05 AM
I'm super depressed :( :( I couldn't stay up long enough to see the results... so I woke up to the worst news ever... we are still being led by a muslim. Obama is NOT my leader. :(

maxpower220
11-07-2012, 08:35 AM
To be fair, President Obama has proven to not be a leader for anyone. He did pass Health Care reform, but not much else. For any major legislation, there is a stalemate with no leadership from the white house.

I feel that the country lost an opportunity to elect someone with a proven record of leadership in the exact place we need it, finance. It does confuse me that I don't hear much positive from Obama supporters and have yet to hear a specific reason that he is supported by voters (unless you are black), but he did get the votes.
You can have confidence that your president is not a muslim.

chawk610
11-07-2012, 08:39 AM
I cannot actually... he is at least a sympathizer, which is worse in my opinion. He is a socialist, he will destroy capitolism if he is given half the chance.

jmvotto
11-07-2012, 09:34 AM
The country has voted.... More benefits vs more jobs..... Godbless our children..

chawk610
11-07-2012, 09:51 AM
Gonna saturate the used boat market. :(

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 11:04 AM
I feel that the country lost an opportunity to elect someone with a proven record of leadership in the exact place we need it, finance. It does confuse me that I don't hear much positive from Obama supporters and have yet to hear a specific reason that he is supported by voters (unless you are black), but he did get the votes.
You can have confidence that your president is not a muslim.

Maxpower, I would question his finance experience. I, personally, feel his business experience is difficult to translate to economic policy bc his experience seems to be motivated by personal greed. His experience isn't growing companies, it's maximizing shareholder happiness in a scenario where alot of the shareholders are "his people" or himself. It's a system designed to create leverage at the detriment of the majority. Along with that comes concerns for his plans for the tax system (lets face it, the math didn't work), foreign policy, medicare and social security, which all have an effect on the economy. The economist (yes, they are from a world stand point) supported Obama. Here is a Forbes article covering why the economist made that decision ... simple read and better put than I could do

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/11/01/the-economist-endorses-obama-for-president/

With that being said, I don't think Mitt lost the election, the influence of the Tea Party caused the Republican party to lose the election. (Ex: Akin and Murdouck) The campaign was full of lies and extreme propaganda (reference this thread) and has, hopefully, created a rift in the party bc it needs a make over. Mitt was the ideal candidate with moderate tendency until he became a puppet. I think they also just came across too partisan.

Admittedly those are all point against Mitt and not for Obama. I think "obamacare" (the rhetoric should be dropped) is more popular than the "loud talkers" make it out to be. The biggest complaint with it is the individual mandate which was dropped by 3 states last night. The people who preach how terrible it is, what are the actual concerns? For what its worth, the AMA (american medical association) supports the bill. The auto industry was also a huge deal, it saved that part of the country. I also think Sandy gave people some "feel good" about Obama. The response has been impressive (especially compared to Katrina) and he faced an opponent that is known to work against FEMA.

Those are, at least, my opinions on several of the popular topics. Maxpower, I'm not calling you out by quoting you, you just asked legitimate questions and since I have obviously posted my favor for Obama I felt somewhat of a need to respond. I tried to not go into too much detail (so it stayed semi-short) but I would love a clean thread discussing the economy and healthcare because like you said ... its hard to see how anyone things the opposite way of you and here I sit wondering the exact same thing from the opposite perspective. What ideas did Romney have that outshined Obamas plans?

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 11:29 AM
and speaking of economy ..... there are two states economies, that after last night, will be interesting to watch. Anyone from CO or WA would have some interesting insight.

kaneboats
11-07-2012, 11:36 AM
Yes, the Tea Party is full of "radicals" who want to control government spending and balance the budget. On the other hand the Obama supporters are intellectuals who want what is best for the country-- like this lady:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=youtu.be

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 11:50 AM
The Tea Party wants to control government with their personal belief system. A 20% tax cut across the board so we can pay down national debt is budget that is hard to balance in my head.

Yes there are radicals on both sides, from my view and the point I was hoping to make is the radicals on the right's presence is much more vital to you and I. As a democrat, I'm not too worried about the cell phone lady making decisions that will affect the people I represent. However as a Republican, individuals like Akin and Murdouck making decisions by serving in congress is down right scary.

bergermaister
11-07-2012, 11:55 AM
and speaking of economy ..... there are two states economies, that after last night, will be interesting to watch. Anyone from CO or WA would have some interesting insight.

I'm personally outraged at 502. My loser brother-in-law calls late last night "we won, we won!" - not referring to the presidential race. Friggin moron. He's a bartender, blows most of his $ on sporting event tickets and hanging out, is on food assistance (welfare) and he thinks legalizing is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are MANY more like him here...

I hope the Fed can and will overturn it.

kaneboats
11-07-2012, 11:58 AM
OK, let's have George Soros instead.

We can all stick our heads in the sand and pretend this doesn't exist, but it does and it's very real:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I challenge everyone to compare today's number (I know, it's a moving target) with the number 4 years from now. I wish the Dems would have held O accountable for his BS promises. Nevermind our dead Americans on his hands. Just vote yourselves more money and more benefits. It will work forever.

sandm
11-07-2012, 12:52 PM
personally, I don't think either candidate was a solid choice. I sure would like to see a financial guy get into office and turn our budget/economy around, but it's too late for that this go-around.

I didn't want to see o make it another 4 years and feel he's wasted the first 4, but he was re-elected so I feel I should support him as he is our leader and hope he listened to the people during the elections..

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 02:24 PM
Kane, i feel the debt will decrease if Congress can come together. Sure Obama hasn't delivered on his promises but can you say he hasn't faced a huge battle, due to partisanship, around each corner? They fight to fight. In reality, i think Congress is a larger issue than the presidential election for the progress of the next 4 years.

American blood ... I'm assuming you are referencing the one event that was dramatically over politicized. What about the soldiers that are home from an unnecessary war and the soldiers that won't be sent back overseas from a war hungry party?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 02:28 PM
Sandm, agreed you won't see much on a micro level. However, i think some of the tax law changes that have been discussed could change things at a macro level and will hopefully benefit the country. If history is any precedent, it stands a chance to come true.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

kaneboats
11-07-2012, 02:36 PM
Libs conveniently forget history. When O had both houses he barely got his Obamacare passed. They haven't passed a budget in 3 years. They blame republicans for this. O got his stimulus passed. Both the stimulus and the O-care were/are very expensive and failed or doomed to fail. The post office is broke-- how do you think they will do with health care. It's asinine. You also conveniently forgot the Holder scandal on O's watch and the dead Americans from that one. But that's what the TV teaches you-- blame somebody else. Not your fault. Blame the republicans. Blame Bush. Blame the rich. I'm telling you right now that you can't keep taking money from working people and giving it to someone else to make them feel better and vote for you. It will have to end. He knows this and that's why he wants to take our guns away. I have 6 kids and don't want a handout-- my grandparents were proud democrats. They were poor but too proud to go "on relief". They wouldn't take something for nothing. It's just a different mentality now. Ask what your country can do for you and give you on someone else's back.

jpetty3023
11-07-2012, 02:42 PM
I don't often speak out loud about politics or religion. with that being said, thank GOD.....TEXAS is a republican state


sent from my home phone

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 03:14 PM
Kane, the history i was speaking of was from an economic standpoint in relation to tax rates. Go pull the history. He barely got obamacare passed bc he had no plans to shove it down everyones throat. Despite all the negativity around it, is it suprising to see so many for it? They have done a TERRIBLE job educating people on what obamacare is. Like I asked earlier, what parts of obamacare are so terrible? I think it is pretty widely accepted that the stimulus saved the economy from a double dip recession. Rhetoric aside, that comes from both sides of isle.

The TV talk is almost comical since i feel it so strongly biased the other way. And who in the hell has taken someones guns away? The NRA probably loves that Obama got reelected as people who feel the way you mentioned rush to the store to load up. I think the TV really exaggerates the amount of people "living off the government". There is a generalization close to the point of 47% .... how many people do you come across on a daily basis, I'm talking everyone you see, that rely on the government? Anywhere near 47%? I think this is an idea that feeds off peoples egos.

Also, a subsidy is basically an advantage one way away from an equal playing field ... So the working class are subsidizing the lazy people by giving them money, benefits, etc. bc its for the good america. That's the philosophy on subsidies, right? At the same time, isn't it also a subsidy when the government lowers the tax rates for the wealthy? This is an advangtage away from an even playing field. So the tax dollars you pay, yes go to Bergs bum BIL but they are also going to fund the government as a whole due to lost tax dollars from the subsidy on the wealthy. Both are subsidies and a use of your tax dollars.

Now from a macro standpoint, in a time of uncertainty people hoard cash bc its the smart thing to do. How badly does it hurt america that some bum makes poor decisions. From an economic standpoint, him spending every dollar he comes across is better for the economy than the rich holding their money. Transactions are the economy. The current admin isn't asking to give more subsidies to the poor, they are asking to take away the subsidies from the wealthy. This is why the backbone of america has to be the working class. The working class is that group between the two current subsidy groups that are eating away at our economy. They are the ones that are fiscally responsible but don't have enough leverage to use the system to their benefit (which is currently happening). Instead, they are getting squeezed by both groups. The subsidies for the wealthy are way to often left out of the media. I think it stands to reason that with an even playing field, the poor decision makers are going to drift lower and the good decision makers will rise. It's capitalism. What concerns me, is that with an uneven playing field as is, poor decision makers with money have much more leverage than good decision makers without money.

What is worse for the economy, a bum spending every last dollar or a fat cat hoarding capital? Transactions are the economy and there is is finite capital. It's not a redistribution of wealth, its a redistribution of playing field.

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 03:27 PM
I don't often speak out loud about politics or religion.

Hopefully you never talk about them together :p

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 03:31 PM
... and at this point I'm basically playing devil's advocate, especially looking at our "local" poll but maybe it inspires some thought, either for or against, thought is thought.

Also, I'm a lazy democrat so this def beats working :D

jpetty3023
11-07-2012, 03:46 PM
boat still for sale KG?

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 03:48 PM
boat still for sale KG?

Everything is for sale! Well except my soul, I already sold it ... :D

rdlangston13
11-07-2012, 04:07 PM
I don't often speak out loud about politics or religion. with that being said, thank GOD.....TEXAS is a republican state


sent from my home phone

And UT is a very liberal school


Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk

kaneboats
11-07-2012, 04:16 PM
Well, I think your point is that we need a third party that represents the people who go to work and pay their bills. The left is too eager to promise handouts and subsidies using other people's money. Meanwhile the right has sold out to the biggest businesses-- the ones that open a big box store and put 20 mom n pop shops out of business. The right uses small business for convenience but really does little to benefit them. The folks in the middle get squeezed from both ends. Just keep in mind that when O talks about raising taxes on the rich he's talking about folks like us as part of the "rich" -- otherwise the numbers don't add up.

A real plan would lower taxes for everyone and cut spending. That would boost the economy and speed up the transactions thereby increasing the tax base. But, eliminating "waste" by putting government in charge of health care will not work -- that I can guarantee.

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 05:09 PM
You are exactly right in that the getting rid of the current party system would go along way for the majority of america. No doubt about that. I'm not sure I agree on the tax side, though. Some examples of where my thinking comes from ...

Tax rates on dividends. We have subsidized dividend income by allowing a tax rate of 15% opposed to the ordinary rates (which would vary depending on your income level). Now, your Romney's of the world (and honestly a whole world that operates above the heads of many americans concept of business) don't "have to have" ordinary income like you and I. They can live off savings, per say. The idea behind the subsidy is that americans shouldn't be taxed on their savings OR on investing in the market. Great and noble concept, that entices people to invest, awesome. The problem, average "rich" joe (who you are saying gets lumped in) invest $50,000 in ABC Inc., he gets dividends for his investment and the taxpayers subsidizes the difference bewtween 15% and his normal rate (not necessarily the highest rate). At his small investment (yea i called 50k small bc on wallstreet it is) how much benefit are you providing for him?Now, your Romney's of the world (the real rich that ooze capital) need a way to make money but not a 9 to 5 (i mean who would right?) So how? They invest dollars into ABC Inc (often times, enough money that gives them control of the company). They have the power within these companies either over actual interest or through lobbying interest to basically "run" the company. They push for profits and pay out dividends, to themselves. They do it bc this is the smartest way to make money, its the least taxed. They are simply playing the game the way it should be played. Rounding down, Romney made 3.6 million in dividends in 2011. Assuming normal rates of 40% and the subsidy rate of 15%, that is a subsidy of $900,000 to one individual!!!!!! He isn't a genius, that's what they are all doing. The idea of subsidizing the rich because it will trickle down has proven not to work.

^and that doesn't even address the abuse of capital gains rates which is where most of Romney's money comes from.

Social Security and Medicare. Two broken systems that were designed for americans, especially the working class. Average rich Joe from above pays the way by paying the tax on all of his annual income. Guess how much of that dividend income from above Romney pays medicare and social security on ... $0. Sure he won't need it so why should he have to pay in? Well following that theory, if it's designed to fail and I'm going to receive no money, I don't want to contribute either. Also, you don't even pay into these systems once your income passes the 106,000 range (too lazy to look up at this point) which has been adjusted very little with inflation throughout the years. I still don't understand that limit, especially with a growing economy and increased living age. I mean defined benefit plans were nearly the death of the auto industry and that is exactly what social security is ... with a very poor financial plan. Yes, this is a great place to say the government can't run the show, I'll agree there but it isn't obama. That is status quo for years back.

Once again, obamacare, where in this plan do you see the government controlling healthcare?

Do you really think there is enough room in the tax base to produce the type of revenues you could get by leveling the rates on wealthy america? You are saying there are enough people out of work that if you put them back to work they will pay in enough tax to cover what we could get by ending wealthy subsidies. How many people do you have to put back to work to get the 900,000 back in taxes you subsidized for Romney?

sandm
11-07-2012, 05:14 PM
I would support anyone that can show me a real plan for lowering taxes for all. nothing personal kane, but it pisses me off to no end that I pay and pay and pay into the govt and don't have kids for deductions and yet my neighbor that has 3 pays a MUCH lower tax rate because he has them, not to mention the fat refund at the end of the year he cashes and I do not.. I know, kids cost money, but that's a choice..

give me a progressive flat tax based on income and close all these stupid loopholes. imo, no one should ever get back thousands of $$ more than they pay in..
and the sad thing is that the more you make, the better tax man you can afford to make your liability go away.
democrat or republican I care not, show me the guy that can make that happen and he's my friend for life :)

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 05:22 PM
give me a progressive flat tax based on income and close all these stupid loopholes. imo, no one should ever get back thousands of $$ more than they pay in..


End refundable tax credits ... That, imo of course, is a solid solution to those that "live off the system".

LOL, did a vote get added to Romney as I typed? I'm not doing well.

sandm
11-07-2012, 06:02 PM
our entire political and governmental system needs a major overhaul. that would fix all the problems, but that's just a pipe dream as those that make their living off politics will NEVER let that day come..

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 06:38 PM
our entire political and governmental system needs a major overhaul.

and the media. It is part of the reason for the large divide. People don't even look to educate themselves on the topics, they just want to know what their team is cheering for/against and a couple solid tag lines which they get fed depending on which news source they watch, or their peers watch.

Edit for disclosure: pulled the wrong dividend number earlier. Should be 2.2, not 3.6.

NCSUmoomba
11-07-2012, 07:19 PM
Wow, you guys are tough! Why aren't all you Romney guys out buying new Mastercrafts (oh wait, Mittens has a Malibu), isn't that what rich people do? I'm never going to be rich, therefore I will continue to own Moombas and vote democratic.

jmvotto
11-07-2012, 08:09 PM
our entire political and governmental system needs a major overhaul. that would fix all the problems, but that's just a pipe dream as those that make their living off politics will NEVER let that day come..

Yeah. Just like tort reform. Never ever ever gonna happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jmvotto
11-07-2012, 08:12 PM
I doubt that women in Cleveland owns a moomba... Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zabooda
11-07-2012, 08:29 PM
Can't beat Santa Claus.

rdlangston13
11-07-2012, 09:18 PM
Why don't we just go to a national sales tax and call it good? It's odd that the country survived for over 100 years without an income tax


Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk

rdlangston13
11-07-2012, 09:21 PM
Also Obama care is effed IMO because it forces everyone to participate in someway. Why not have limited federal government and let the states pick up in the lacking areas??? That way people can have a choice at least, if you want something earned by someone else go to California and if you want to be self reliant go to Texas. Making everyone in the country now to the 10 swing states choice is BS. Limited federal gov and give the power back to the states!


Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk

rdlangston13
11-07-2012, 09:22 PM
Possible PWI


Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk

KG's Supra24
11-07-2012, 09:43 PM
Lol, came across this earlier and couldn't help it. I don't think either is a good example ....

http://images.forbes.com/images/2004/10/08/3_medwaste.jpg

http://images.forbes.com/images/2004/10/08/2_medwaste.jpg

Correct if I'm wrong but i was thinking it was pretty much common that the red states are larger users of federal assistance than blue states.

... Massachusetts would probably be a good example ;)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

jester
11-07-2012, 11:42 PM
Why don't we just go to a national sales tax and call it good? It's odd that the country survived for over 100 years without an income tax


Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk

So I have been working lots of hours and just got back on the forms. Thanks guys for all the long posts. Made me have to read again. Now that we are on taxes David has it right. a simple 15% sales tax for Fed, State and Local split up 4% fed, 5% state and 6% local solves so many problems. no more income or property tax just the flat sales tax on all goods and services. Then there is no loop holes for people to open up. It also says if you want to spend your money on the high prices items you pay more. If you don't you don't. It is the most fair tax you can do. you want the third house at the lake then you pay your 15% on it and it is done.

Mays for President 2016. I might not tell you what you want to hear but it will at least be the truth.

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 08:20 AM
You would have to have good plan for controlling the value of the dollar, especially in a growing global economy. Ex: controlling person to person sales or keeping everyone from just bartering.

Id imagine it having a significant role on lending as well.

David, i agree with you on local government and find it interesting that neither Ryan or Romney carried their own state.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

sandm
11-08-2012, 09:50 AM
i would rather see them tax what you earn, not what you spend. a national sales tax will hit the lower income much harder than the ultra rich.

jmvotto
11-08-2012, 10:02 AM
Steve forbes.. Steve forbes for prez...:razz:

with Flat tax KG and I would be out of a J.O.B....

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 10:23 AM
with Flat tax KG and I would be out of a J.O.B....

LOL, I was thinking the same thing.

Also, income tax places a value on reinvestment into companies. There is no incentive for shareholders to not squeeze the workforce as tight as the can, which is where Romney's finance experience is. Since 2003, we have been giving them an incentive to pull cash out of companies.

Odd way of thinking about unemployment but follow me ... two extremes - 0% income tax on corporations means it makes sense to maximize profit bc you get to keep all the cash. 100% income tax on corporations it makes since to show as little income as possible bc they take it. One of a companies most variable expenses is employees ... you add employees you take away money that the government takes from you.

sandm
11-08-2012, 12:09 PM
Steve forbes.. Steve forbes for prez...:razz:

with Flat tax KG and I would be out of a J.O.B....

I'd vote for forbes, trump or buffett any day of the week. someone that understands finance/budgets and would not be afraid to call out congress for what they are. I picture The Donald walking into the senate, looking around and yelling "your all fired"... that would be classic...


sorry if you would be out a job on the tax thing, but our codes currently are so hosed and favor people with the ability to hire guys to find deductions that it's a joke. simplify the whole system and make it consistent...

rdlangston13
11-08-2012, 12:11 PM
i would rather see them tax what you earn, not what you spend. a national sales tax will hit the lower income much harder than the ultra rich.

You can exempt basic necessities like certain foods and stuff just like they already do now


Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk

dhyams
11-08-2012, 12:54 PM
Kane, i feel the debt will decrease if Congress can come together. Sure Obama hasn't delivered on his promises but can you say he hasn't faced a huge battle, due to partisanship, around each corner? They fight to fight. In reality, i think Congress is a larger issue than the presidential election for the progress of the next 4 years.

American blood ... I'm assuming you are referencing the one event that was dramatically over politicized. What about the soldiers that are home from an unnecessary war and the soldiers that won't be sent back overseas from a war hungry party?



I told myself that I wasn't going to reply to any of this, but gahh, there are some things that I can't let slide by uncontested. Character flaw.

On Obama's "battles": For two years Democrats held both the House and the Senate. That's half of his presidency. I know that one can argue that the Senate did not have a filibuster-proof majority, but cmon...there are enough RINOs in the Senate. And I was also not aware that the job of the Congress is the rubber stamp whatever the president wants. If what he was offering was such a great idea, passing would have been no problem in the least. I love how liberals blame <insert boogeyman here> when others reject their ideas, or when their ideas simply don't work because they don't reflect reality.

On Benghazi: dramatically overpoliticized? It was not talked about nearly enough, so much so that Romney declined to bring it up at the foreign policy debate. And it matters. A lot. What is to be thought about a president who deliberately chose not to protect Americans *on American soil*, as embassies are? Help was actively denied. We don't know the reasons why, but knowing the character of the man, I would bet money on the reason being the fear that it would blow up as a campaign issue. Just a guess on my part, and as you can tell my opinion of Obama is not very high.

On soldiers and war: remind me who is the president who has used drones more than any other, continuing to kill civilians along with the intended targets? The one who has assassinated an American citizen with one? And the one who has not ended the war (only escalating it, getting yet more of our soldiers killed) in Afghanistan, and seems to be gearing up for another one in Mali? Our soldiers are still coming home in boxes, and he's had four years to end the war like he said that he would. Democrats claim that they are the anti-war party just to pick up votes from useful idiots, and then do exactly the opposite. Reference again their approval of the war in Iraq. If you don't believe me on the upswing in deaths in Afghanistan, look here: http://icasualties.org/

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 01:04 PM
I'd vote for forbes, trump or buffett any day of the week. someone that understands finance/budgets and would not be afraid to call out congress for what they are.

One of your finance guru's has filed bankruptcy multiple times. He does call out congress though ...

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/30780_519780664707475_486375827_n.jpg

Then you got Forbes vs Buffett and one of them still pushes trickle down. It's like global warming ... you can deny the facts about it but it doesn't make it any less true. Alan Greenspan did a pretty good job with the economy.

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 01:57 PM
On Obama's "battles": For two years Democrats held both the House and the Senate. That's half of his presidency. I know that one can argue that the Senate did not have a filibuster-proof majority, but cmon...there are enough RINOs in the Senate. And I was also not aware that the job of the Congress is the rubber stamp whatever the president wants. If what he was offering was such a great idea, passing would have been no problem in the least. I love how liberals blame <insert boogeyman here> when others reject their ideas, or when their ideas simply don't work because they don't reflect reality.

I’m failing to follow you here. Doesn’t it speak to his character that he wouldn’t shove his healthcare plan past congress just because he has majority? Instead he got it passed it while he did not have control of the congress. I also never said the job of congress was to rubberstamp anything. My point precisely in regards to their importance is bc they shouldn’t just follow the president and rubberstamp. They are the ones that will have to sit down, hopefully work together, to change and create laws.


On Benghazi: dramatically overpoliticized? It was not talked about nearly enough, so much so that Romney declined to bring it up at the foreign policy debate. And it matters. A lot.

Perhaps it wasn’t brought up in the debate out of respect.

“It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,” Jan Stevens, 77, told Bloomberg News. … Jan Stevens cautioned against drawing any conclusions before a thorough investigation, "We don’t pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That’s where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena.” Jan Stevens is the father of one of the young men killed during the attack.

I’m glad you brought up the foreign policy debate, though. Did you watch Romney go back on all his bold “pro war” comments and align himself with Obama? Mitt Romney on foreign policy is a disaster and you can poll the rest of the world and see that. I think he even knows it. Skip over the fox polls, they were predicting a landslide win for the Romney camp, the math is bad.

Of course he has used drones more than any other president … that’s like saying he has used an iPad more than any other president, it’s new technology. Out of curiosity (not trying to be rude), did you watch the debate or pick up what you needed to know on Fox? The drones were discussed during that debate ...

"The exchange was short-lived, however. When Republican candidate Mitt Romney was asked by debate moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News, "What is your position on the use of drones?" he said he believed that America “should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us.” ... "And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes," Romney continued, "and I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.""

dhyams
11-08-2012, 02:16 PM
Eyerolling comical. I think that you are seeing things so much in terms of "us vs them", that you're failing to see the point. I'm not defending Romney in the least in anything that he proposed. I am very critical of Obama as you can see. Yet, I don't see any defense of Obama here...the discussion is immediately turned around into a <insert boogeyman here>, which I just cannot stand. Romney: check. Fox News: check. Republicans: check. Two posts up, Donald Trump: check. Sigh.

The point of bringing up the drones was in response to your comment about a "war mongering party". The reality is that both parties don't have the best record in this regard. It is very probable that Romney would have continued to carry out drone attacks had he been elected president. What we do know is that Obama uses them a great deal, so we can reasonably expect him to continue to use them. What amazes me is that you, and most liberals I know, will sit there and preach against Republicans (of which I am not, so you can set aside your preconceived notions now) for warmongering, while simultaneously excusing their own leader of targeted assassinations (one against an American citizen, no less..that should be chilling), expanding the war in Afghanistan, entering a new theater of combat in Libya, and being just about to open a new theater of combat in Mali.

dhyams
11-08-2012, 02:36 PM
They have done a TERRIBLE job educating people on what obamacare is. Like I asked earlier, what parts of obamacare are so terrible?


The reason that the "education of what Obamacare is" has been so terrible is that no one really knows what gems are in there. By then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's own admission, "we have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill". WHAT? Is that the way things are supposed to work?

This is a small, noncomprehensive list of what I think is wrong with it, from what I actually have been able to gather about what the bill says.
* on principle, I object to the government forcing me to do anything. Now (soon) whether I want to or not, I HAVE to buy health insurance (or pay the "tax" as specified by the Supremes). What can't the Congress force me to do, with this precedent in place? Katy bar the door, as they say.
* the bill is a gift to the insurance companies, who now are set to reap a windfall. We are forced to buy, so hey, we have to buy it from somewhere, right?
* the bill will force people out of work. The health care costs will be shifted to the employers, and these employers WILL cut payrolls. Employers don't magically have more money, so if the cost of employees goes up, it will have to be compensated for by laying some people off. The bill is a job killer. Here's one small anecdotal example: http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11/07/vegas-employer-obama-won-so-i-fired-22-employees/ but this will start to happen all over the US. I guarantee it.
* moral hazard. The bill separates, even more than things are now, the customer from the service provider. Less choice for the consumer, and less desire to keep costs down on the supply side.
* the bill doesn't seem to address the root problem: cost of health care. There are ridiculous import/export rules that protect big pharma, and these rules need to be abolished. Tort reform is needed to cut out silly lawsuits that cause doctors to have to pay huge amounts for malpractice insurance.
* we don't know what ELSE is in there. Re. Nancy Pelosi.

So there's a few. We Americans need to get it out of our head that health care is a *right*. It's simply not. What makes it *not a right* is that there has to be someone there providing the service for you. It sucks to have to tell everyone that, and people will go ballistic. That does not change the fact, however. Health care is a service just as any other, and if you can't pay for the service, you can't have it. For those unfortunate enough to not be able to pay, they have to rely on charity for services that they receive. Again, this ain't Utopia, but it's the only system that can possibly work in the long run. Sure, for a short while we can borrow money to pay for everyone (Ref 16T debt and rising), but sooner or later, we are out of money. What then? Round up the doctors and force them to work for nothing, turning them into slaves. That too will work for about a generation, until people figure out that having doctoring skills is a bad idea. What then?



I think it is pretty widely accepted that the stimulus saved the economy from a double dip recession. Rhetoric aside, that comes from both sides of isle.


I couldn't let this go either. The stimulus and endless QEn is doing nothing but acting like cocaine for an economy that never got out of recession. We are in a deep recession, if not depression, right now. No "double dip" or anything was ever prevented. All that was done was to go deeper in hock, using that borrowed and/or printed money to pretend like everything is OK. Just like taking out a home equity loan is sure fun when you get the dough, you can spend it on all kinds of fun things, it's not so fun when the bill comes due.

jmvotto
11-08-2012, 02:52 PM
two quick things

with Bernake all we will do is punt the problems down the street and hope the economy grows faster than the debt then we can start to pay it down by creating jobs Monetary policy set til 2014 curent rates 5 yr t bill .6%, 10 yr t note 1.63% 30 yr t Note 2.75%

Job creation has to be done with Fiscal policy, cant see that happening in the next 4 yrs. = 20T in debt

another quick one

friend of mine had his hip replaced. bil 64,000 ( new mojo right)
covered portion 14,000 ( row bow with 35 hp engine)

how does america let this happen.

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 03:10 PM
In reality, we have a two party system and its not ideal but it does create "us vs them". You can criticize Obama all you want but criticism without a solution is .... ? And is it just the liberals pushing "us vs them"? Are you just doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing? Have we not heard one hundred times the election is over picking the best loser?

I am not a liberal so you can set aside your preconceived notions as well. If I haven't made it clear yet, let me, I am way more scared of fox news than I am Mitt Romney. All my comments have been in relation to comments made thus far. I'm not here to campaign for Obama, there are things he has done I don't agree with. I think one of my first comments was this not being a win for Obama, but a loss for the Tea Party. My hope is that people will begin to question what they hear and not take everything for gospel.

Honestly, I don't feel like all my responses have been typical liberal propaganda and I have consistently given factual information to defend Obama tax increases. I have also made an attempt to defend Obamacare but I can't find anyone that hates it that can tell me why. Yes, I could see how you could say some of my responses were propaganda but they were in response to questions or comments. Romney: I think its obvious why it's important to bring him into the discussion. Fox news: lets save that one. Republicans: same as Romney. Donald Trump: I mean come on, if he is going to be recommend for president, a call of concern is valid. Also on the flip side, same idea, I don't see anyone defending Romney here. The whole campaign was run on anti-obama! So I suppose I ask the same of you ... If you voted for Romney, can you defend why without mentioning Obama? If you voted for third party then awesome of you; it is a step in the right direction.

As far as the drones and defense of Obama ... From what I know, I don't see any reason we wouldn't use unmanned aircrafts, that is one more american life not out there on the battlefield. As for the individual that was killed by the drone attack, I'm honestly unfamiliar with it. What happened? I can't imagine it going "sir, we can fire the missle but only one problem, there is an american there" "ahh screw it, gotta kill em I guess".

dhyams
11-08-2012, 03:23 PM
So I suppose I ask the same of you ... If you voted for Romney, can you defend why without mentioning Obama? If you voted for third party then awesome of you; it is a step in the right direction.


I did actually vote for Romney, holding my nose. And no, I cannot justify why without mentioning Obama, because my vote was an anti-Obama vote. Four years ago I wrote in Ron Paul as a protest vote, but this year I wanted to be counted in the popular vote (I vote in TN which was going for Romney anyway) in the opposite column from Obama. So I freely admit that I did the pragmatic thing instead of the principled thing, ashamedly.




As far as the drones and defense of Obama ... From what I know, I don't see any reason we wouldn't use unmanned aircrafts, that is one more american life not out there on the battlefield.


Of course this is correct. The reason that it makes me very queasy is that 1) it lowers the barrier to ordering a targeted killing, because there is less risk involved, so our fearless leaders will be much more likely to use it, and 2) it is only a matter of time before drones are going to be used on us (maybe not to kill us, but for surveillance), unless we *all raise a fuss now*. What I see is that conservatives are mostly unconcerned, and liberals would be very concerned if it was a Republican president doing it.



As for the individual that was killed by the drone attack, I'm honestly unfamiliar with it. What happened? I can't imagine it going "sir, we can fire the missle but only one problem, there is an american there" "ahh screw it, gotta kill em I guess".

Here is what I'm referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/world/middleeast/us-officials-sued-over-citizens-killed-in-yemen.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html?ref=anwaralawlaki

Sure the bad guys got it here. But these people were American citizens, and thus have the right under our U.S. constitution to stand trial for the things they have done. Judicial process, not just a missile up their arse.

dhyams
11-08-2012, 03:25 PM
I have also made an attempt to defend Obamacare but I can't find anyone that hates it that can tell me why.

I just did, a couple of posts back; the one that you are responding to here.

Also don't fall into the trap that things that if no one responds, you're right. It could just be that no one responded.

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 03:48 PM
dhyams, I just copied the points you made so I could respond individually. Makes it easier.

I don't think for one second think that the lack of responses means I am correct. Its part of why I've become passionate about it in this thread. I see the tally up top, I am a CPA, I live in AR. I am used to my thoughts having not bearing on anyone. I have even sent emails to moderators here, of opposite beliefs, to make sure I'm not out of line.

I'm not seeing this as me vs you. I can appreciate the debate and will undoubtedly learn something by listening to a differing take. Everyone should listen to both sides.

Alright, back on track ... Healthcare ...

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 03:50 PM
* on principle, I object to the government forcing me to do anything. Now (soon) whether I want to or not, I HAVE to buy health insurance (or pay the "tax" as specified by the Supremes). What can't the Congress force me to do, with this precedent in place? Katy bar the door, as they say.

I understand where you are coming from. Sadly, we cannot depend on individuals to take finances into their own hands. Health insurance is financing for medical emergencies. When people don’t have insurance, others end up footing the bill, through the government. If you don’t have insurance you are costing the government and taxpayers money. What is the rationale for not buying health insurance?

* the bill is a gift to the insurance companies, who now are set to reap a windfall. We are forced to buy, so hey, we have to buy it from somewhere, right?

How many of the insurance companies supported obamacare? They don’t want this passing, they are doing great! They were putting up money to defeat it. This bill is not good for insurance. According to Forbes, they spent 102.4 mil in 15 months to run advertising against the bill.

* the bill will force people out of work. The health care costs will be shifted to the employers, and these employers WILL cut payrolls. Employers don't magically have more money, so if the cost of employees goes up, it will have to be compensated for by laying some people off. The bill is a job killer. Here's one small anecdotal example:http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/ but this will start to happen all over the US. I guarantee it.

So a business owner, before knowning the actual cost to him, fired employees because Obama won? That is the exact concern I have with the media coverage. It pushes knee jerk reactions. This is precisely “us vs. them”. I’m not telling you which way to vote but some of you are getting fired if Obama wins.

* moral hazard. The bill separates, even more than things are now, the customer from the service provider. Less choice for the consumer, and less desire to keep costs down on the supply side.

One of the biggest goals of Obamacare is to bring down the cost in the medical industry. My favorite part about the bill is curtailing some of the profits from big pharma. It will actually provide more choices and lower cost the way I see it.

* the bill doesn't seem to address the root problem: cost of health care. There are ridiculous import/export rules that protect big pharma, and these rules need to be abolished. Tort reform is needed to cut out silly lawsuits that cause doctors to have to pay huge amounts for malpractice insurance.

This is a great place to stop referencing Obamacare and call it what it is. Affordable Healthcare Act. To drop cost, from my understanding, the goal is to price control prescriptions and reign in the unnecessary procedures performed by doctors. It will reward hospitals that operate efficiently. I know the word price control is scary but it’s a necessary evil, it cannot rely on supply and demand bc the demand is inevitable. I also truly feel it is our responsibility to care for Americans, not turn them away bc they can’t afford it. If you think people should be turned away bc they can’t afford it I will assume you haven’t seen a hospital bill lately. Who can afford it?

To add context to the unnecessary procedures performed by doctors, hospitals have weekly meetings to decide how to get non-insured patients out the door and how to run additional test on insured patients.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the American medical association is on board with the bill.

* we don't know what ELSE is in there. Re. Nancy Pelosi.

Lol, I got nothing on that one.

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 04:51 PM
We are in a deep recession, if not depression, right now.

To be fair, a recession, by definition, is 2 consecutive quarters with negative GDP growth.

Last quarter GDP grew 2 percent. The quarter prior it grew 1.3 percent.

maxpower220
11-08-2012, 05:10 PM
Do yourself a favor and read "The Naked Constitution". It clears up a lot a issues that we are dealing with today.

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 05:24 PM
I'll be completely honest with you, I won't read it bc I simply don't set aside enough time to read large publsihings. I did go to pull a review and the first thing I saw with this ...

"If you love Glenn Beck, you will love this book." ... "Like me, I’m sure you are sick to death of the Left trying to trash or amend the Constitution. "

With that being said, I'm sure I'd have difficulty reading it as I put Glenn Beck in the "bat shit crazy" column, understandably so, no?

If you have read it, what parts of the constitution is the "left" trying to destroy? Not trying to argue, just continuing conversation.

May be hard to believe but I have no party affiliation. Hopefully all my comments haven't come across that way. You had asked why people vote Obama ... did any of those reasons mentioned explain why someone might vote for Obama? I tried to give solid answers but got hit with "go read conservative books"

jpetty3023
11-08-2012, 05:49 PM
So I ordered some tea at lunch today and dropped my phone. I bent over to pick it up and farted loud enough for two waitresses to hear.......at hooters😱


sent from my ipad2 via a wireless network which usually sucks

dusty2221
11-08-2012, 05:55 PM
Petty, that's a great story. Take it over to the off topic section bud.

jpetty3023
11-08-2012, 06:07 PM
Petty, that's a great story. Take it over to the off topic section bud.

I was just clowning to break the ice and cool down a great debate. didn't really eat at hooters today sir


sent from my home phone

maxpower220
11-08-2012, 06:26 PM
I do have a party affiliation, but I also have a degree in History. I enjoyed the book as it looks at many of the points in history where the strength of the constitution or the clarity of the constitution have been twisted. Many of those deeds came from both parties, not just one.

I too find Glen Beck to be an idiot. I don't listen to him. In fact, it is really hard to listen to any "news" or "talk" show since the age of 24 hours news. They can only keep a show if they are vulgar in their disdain for the other party (Left or Right).

sandm
11-08-2012, 06:26 PM
Healthcare costs scare me and so does obamacare. It makes me wonder when my employer is better off paying the penalty than offering me coverage. Scares me as to what else is in it......

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 06:35 PM
maxpower, I can agree with that.

Sandm, I want to copy and paste but it would be REALLY long so I'll just post the link. Personally, I feel it is a pretty good summary of the major points of "obamacare". I will say up front that Reddit is a liberal leaning website, won't deny that for a second, but I do feel the summary stays on point. It also uses citations so you can read for yourself if something seems out of wack. Please don't take my disclaimer as it being liberal and not even try (not meaning you specifically sandm). If you are interested in what is in the bill, it is a solid read.

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx

dhyams
11-08-2012, 07:43 PM
* on principle, I object to the government forcing me to do anything. Now (soon) whether I want to or not, I HAVE to buy health insurance (or pay the "tax" as specified by the Supremes). What can't the Congress force me to do, with this precedent in place? Katy bar the door, as they say.

I understand where you are coming from. Sadly, we cannot depend on individuals to take finances into their own hands. Health insurance is financing for medical emergencies. When people donít have insurance, others end up footing the bill, through the government. If you donít have insurance you are costing the government and taxpayers money. What is the rationale for not buying health insurance?

My rationale? Freedom! Sadly, that is a notion mostly lost now.

"Health insurance is financing for medical emergencies". YES. That is what its name implies. But it has morphed into something much larger and sinister. We expect our routine checkups to be covered. Our visit to the doctor when we have the sniffles to be covered. I could go on. This isn't insurance, it's handing over control to someone else so that they can tell me which doctor to go to, how often I can go, and what treatment I can have.

Our current health care mess is a great example of how big government creates problems, and then creates more to fix them. The very reason that we can't depend on individuals to take finances into their own hands, is that their bad choices are effectively subsidized. People know that they won't end up on the street eating garbage out of the dumpster; the worst it can get is that they sit at home collecting a government check. If the consequences of doing stupid things with money were more dire, perhaps there would not be as much stupidity.





* the bill is a gift to the insurance companies, who now are set to reap a windfall. We are forced to buy, so hey, we have to buy it from somewhere, right?

How many of the insurance companies supported obamacare? They donít want this passing, they are doing great! They were putting up money to defeat it. This bill is not good for insurance. According to Forbes, they spent 102.4 mil in 15 months to run advertising against the bill.


Never heard that. Even if that's true, 102 million sounds like a pretty small amount of money. Can you tell me why they would not want it? Forcing everyone to buy health insurance expands your customer base. The day that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, the stock health care companies shot the moon. Check it out. Wall Street very well knows where the money will be funneled.



* the bill will force people out of work. The health care costs will be shifted to the employers, and these employers WILL cut payrolls. Employers don't magically have more money, so if the cost of employees goes up, it will have to be compensated for by laying some people off. The bill is a job killer. Here's one small anecdotal example:http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/ but this will start to happen all over the US. I guarantee it.

So a business owner, before knowning the actual cost to him, fired employees because Obama won? That is the exact concern I have with the media coverage. It pushes knee jerk reactions. This is precisely ďus vs. themĒ. Iím not telling you which way to vote but some of you are getting fired if Obama wins.


I said it was anecdotal. Are you denying that if health care costs go up, more employers will lay off to make up for the costs? That's absolutely inevitable. I can tell you why: preexisting conditions. Obamacare forces insurers to pick up coverage for someone with a preexisting condition. This is more expensive (hugely so) for the ins. company, and guess who gets to pay for that extra? You do.



* moral hazard. The bill separates, even more than things are now, the customer from the service provider. Less choice for the consumer, and less desire to keep costs down on the supply side.

One of the biggest goals of Obamacare is to bring down the cost in the medical industry. My favorite part about the bill is curtailing some of the profits from big pharma. It will actually provide more choices and lower cost the way I see it.


This is not going to happen, and I think you're engaging in wishful thinking here. But now you begin to target where the real problem is. The exponential escalating cost of both drugs and care. That must be stemmed, or any attempt to pay for it will fail, no matter what mechanism that you chose. Anti-competitive measures are codified in law in order to protect the profits of big pharma and the service providers, etc. Those MUST be thrown out in order to make any headway at all. Why is it that one can buy a drug in Canada for $1 that costs $100 here? The answer lies in complex cross-border export laws and such. And those laws must be destroyed. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Obamacare does not do anything to address this core problem.



* the bill doesn't seem to address the root problem: cost of health care. There are ridiculous import/export rules that protect big pharma, and these rules need to be abolished. Tort reform is needed to cut out silly lawsuits that cause doctors to have to pay huge amounts for malpractice insurance.

This is a great place to stop referencing Obamacare and call it what it is. Affordable Healthcare Act. To drop cost, from my understanding, the goal is to price control prescriptions and reign in the unnecessary procedures performed by doctors. It will reward hospitals that operate efficiently. I know the word price control is scary but itís a necessary evil, it cannot rely on supply and demand bc the demand is inevitable. I also truly feel it is our responsibility to care for Americans, not turn them away bc they canít afford it. If you think people should be turned away bc they canít afford it I will assume you havenít seen a hospital bill lately. Who can afford it?

To add context to the unnecessary procedures performed by doctors, hospitals have weekly meetings to decide how to get non-insured patients out the door and how to run additional test on insured patients.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the American medical association is on board with the bill.



See, that's where we diverge, and diverge a lot. Pricing of drugs and services if determined by the market, instead of being distorted by governmental intervention, will be just fine. And I know that right now, you're screaming "just look at the prices now!", and you'd be wrong. We have enormous governmental intervention right now, and Obamacare just makes it worse. Price controls have never worked, ever. I refer you to this price list http://www.surgerycenterok.com/ as the way that things can be done, right now. Look at the prices. This is how things work without governmental intervention.

Emotions are just fine; I cry for someone who can't get the care that they need just like you probably would. But if we are going to be a country of free men and women, we cannot be bound to take care of our neighbor. Those good intentions turn into shackles that make us slaves of the state. So we choose. I choose freedom, and you don't. It's really as simple as that.

There will always be terrible stories of someone who can't get the care they need. The poor will always be with us, as will the rich. My vision of the "way things should be" are that they exist charity hospitals (remember them?) to take care of these needs, and money-based charities set up to give care to those in need. But don't have government with its boot on my neck forcing me to pay for my neighbor. If I want to pay for my neighbor, I will, on my own volition.

dhyams
11-08-2012, 07:45 PM
To be fair, a recession, by definition, is 2 consecutive quarters with negative GDP growth.

Last quarter GDP grew 2 percent. The quarter prior it grew 1.3 percent.

Try removing government spending from the GDP equation, and see what you get. That's my point. All a government needs to do to "goose" the GDP number is spend more. And that's exactly what they have done. Obama and Bush both.

KG's Supra24
11-08-2012, 08:12 PM
Emotions are just fine; I cry for someone who can't get the care that they need just like you probably would. But if we are going to be a country of free men and women, we cannot be bound to take care of our neighbor. Those good intentions turn into shackles that make us slaves of the state. So we choose. I choose freedom, and you don't. It's really as simple as that.


Dude!! My (quite liberal) wife is reading along. You may have just broke her heart. Lol.

Joking aside, you are right. Healthcare as a right or not is a fundamental difference we have. I'll get back to you on the other.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

maxpower220
11-08-2012, 08:26 PM
Remember as children, our parent's didn't have medical insurance, just catistrophic. You just paid the doctor when you went. The good, bad old days.

My wife is a nurse, she can't find anything good about Obamacare. My brother in law has his own small business, he is struggling with Cobra until it kicks in. Everyone has an angle.

I have to be confused, I deplore government social programs, but I retired from the military and have government sponsored health care. I'm part of the problem.

E4NASH
11-08-2012, 09:21 PM
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/09/u4u9egez.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/09/e6y8amap.jpg

Hahaha...

I'm sure we'll continue to hear about how it's all Bush's fault and how ol' Barry just couldn't overcome the "mess" he inherited. If he uses that cop out excuse anymore I'm going to choke. Things are no better now than they were then and they aren't going to be any better 4 years from now....book it! I'm very disappointed in the way our country is going...oh well if the Mayans are right we have less than 2 months anyway!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mmandley
11-09-2012, 10:01 AM
Im not political but i will say this.

Im sooooo Happy everyone is bitching soooo much about the Political campains, and the winner vs loser.

Because Not once in Months have i herd anything about the End OF The World which is only 34 days away according to the Mian Calender LOL.

Since this election everyone is so sure the US is doomed, for the next 4 years. So im just happy we have all come to the realization the world isnt stopping in 34 days, because i for 1 want another couple more boating seasons LOL

KG's Supra24
11-09-2012, 11:47 AM
We definitely have two different angles on this. My premise is somewhat based around the fact I feel healthcare cost are artificially inflated through inefficiency Ö as are most government programs (agreed) but itís not in the governments hands. Obamacare isnít perfect but itís a start Ö.


Never heard that. Even if that's true, 102 million sounds like a pretty small amount of money. Can you tell me why they would not want it? Forcing everyone to buy health insurance expands your customer base. The day that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, the stock health care companies shot the moon. Check it out. Wall Street very well knows where the money will be funneled.
I think the insurance industry is part of the group that is riding out the inflated dollars. I think insurance premiums are too high (bc they have to pay for people without insurance) and I think they can get away with spending caps and denying coverage. JMís example for instance Ö 64,000 bill and 14,000 coverage Ö where is the 64,000 in cost and why is insurance only covering a small portion? I donít have any factual information about the stock market but some thought Ö The stock going up dramatically means someone made money. Who were those people? Where is the stock price now? Was it an artificial jump? Wall street is always a daylight, the money makers profit from the mainstream wallstreet.
Also, look at what you know about insurance companies. Massive advertisement budgets and around here, the biggest buildings in town. Now, the part of Obamacare that puts limits on how much can be spent on ďadminĒ cost really dives off into a grey area for me. There should be a way to encourage that behavior without any dictation.


I said it was anecdotal. Are you denying that if health care costs go up, more employers will lay off to make up for the costs? That's absolutely inevitable. I can tell you why: preexisting conditions. Obamacare forces insurers to pick up coverage for someone with a preexisting condition. This is more expensive (hugely so) for the ins. company, and guess who gets to pay for that extra? You do.
I think the real cost of this thing still has some ďto be determinedĒ. My frustration from that articles comes from the fact I think small business owners will lay off employees for ďtheir teamĒ and their own agenda.
Preexisting conditions Ė guess who is paying for that now? You do. Using obesity as an example, someone with cardiac issues comes into the ER with no insurance. They get helped (itís the ER) but canít foot the bill. They donít qualify for medicare bc they make too much money. There are not enough Bill Gates and Warren Buffets to pay the hospital bills for these people. So what happens, the hospitals are forced to artificially inflate cost to patients with insurance. Cost to insurance companies go up, your premiums go up. Meanwhile, this person gets sent home immediately (bc of no insurance) and receives no follow up care and more importantly no preventative care. He is back in two months bc of this and the cycle starts all over.



This is not going to happen, and I think you're engaging in wishful thinking here. But now you begin to target where the real problem is. The exponential escalating cost of both drugs and care. That must be stemmed, or any attempt to pay for it will fail, no matter what mechanism that you chose. Anti-competitive measures are codified in law in order to protect the profits of big pharma and the service providers, etc. Those MUST be thrown out in order to make any headway at all. Why is it that one can buy a drug in Canada for $1 that costs $100 here? The answer lies in complex cross-border export laws and such. And those laws must be destroyed. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Obamacare does not do anything to address this core problem.
We agree on the core of the problem. Until you mentioned export laws I had not given it a lot of thought. The protections I feel are given to Big Pharma are in the way of patent laws. They are granted a monopoly over a drug until it expires, right before it expires they turn it into a continuous release and snag a new patent to keep the drug in only their hands and not letting a generic market form. Obamacare does address this issue. Iíll check out the export laws.


See, that's where we diverge, and diverge a lot. Pricing of drugs and services if determined by the market, instead of being distorted by governmental intervention, will be just fine. And I know that right now, you're screaming "just look at the prices now!", and you'd be wrong. We have enormous governmental intervention right now, and Obamacare just makes it worse. Price controls have never worked, ever. I refer you to this price list http://www.surgerycenterok.com/ as the way that things can be done, right now. Look at the prices. This is how things work without governmental intervention.
That is likely a system that controls cost and promotes efficiency. They donít just run with an inflated system. If you looked at their pay structure, I bet it would be based on performance. The inefficiencies in the system now stem from a non performanced based structure. Doctors inflate cost on medicare patients and an insured patients in an attempt to cover for those they donít get paid for. How do you cap the inefficiency from continuing to grow? I think there are attempts at this in the bill.
Wanted to go into more but donít have time right nowÖ. We do have a fundamental difference though. I have a hard time not lumping healthcare into ďpromote the general welfareĒ along with education, police, fire, etc.

sandm
11-09-2012, 12:11 PM
Im not political but i will say this.

Im sooooo Happy everyone is bitching soooo much about the Political campains, and the winner vs loser.

Because Not once in Months have i herd anything about the End OF The World which is only 34 days away according to the Mian Calender LOL.

Since this election everyone is so sure the US is doomed, for the next 4 years. So im just happy we have all come to the realization the world isnt stopping in 34 days, because i for 1 want another couple more boating seasons LOL

I read somewhere that they found a new version of the calendar that shows the world will not end this december, but some point in the distant future. we're all safe for another 4 years of boating season.. that is if we can afford the gas in 4 years :)

jmvotto
11-09-2012, 04:16 PM
I thought the world would end on Yk2;)

dhyams
11-14-2012, 12:13 PM
We definitely have two different angles on this. My premise is somewhat based around the fact I feel healthcare cost are artificially inflated through inefficiency … as are most government programs (agreed) but it’s not in the governments hands. Obamacare isn’t perfect but it’s a start ….


I think the insurance industry is part of the group that is riding out the inflated dollars. I think insurance premiums are too high (bc they have to pay for people without insurance) and I think they can get away with spending caps and denying coverage. JM’s example for instance … 64,000 bill and 14,000 coverage … where is the 64,000 in cost and why is insurance only covering a small portion? I don’t have any factual information about the stock market but some thought … The stock going up dramatically means someone made money. Who were those people? Where is the stock price now? Was it an artificial jump? Wall street is always a daylight, the money makers profit from the mainstream wallstreet.
Also, look at what you know about insurance companies. Massive advertisement budgets and around here, the biggest buildings in town. Now, the part of Obamacare that puts limits on how much can be spent on “admin” cost really dives off into a grey area for me. There should be a way to encourage that behavior without any dictation.


I think the real cost of this thing still has some “to be determined”. My frustration from that articles comes from the fact I think small business owners will lay off employees for “their team” and their own agenda.
Preexisting conditions – guess who is paying for that now? You do. Using obesity as an example, someone with cardiac issues comes into the ER with no insurance. They get helped (it’s the ER) but can’t foot the bill. They don’t qualify for medicare bc they make too much money. There are not enough Bill Gates and Warren Buffets to pay the hospital bills for these people. So what happens, the hospitals are forced to artificially inflate cost to patients with insurance. Cost to insurance companies go up, your premiums go up. Meanwhile, this person gets sent home immediately (bc of no insurance) and receives no follow up care and more importantly no preventative care. He is back in two months bc of this and the cycle starts all over.



We agree on the core of the problem. Until you mentioned export laws I had not given it a lot of thought. The protections I feel are given to Big Pharma are in the way of patent laws. They are granted a monopoly over a drug until it expires, right before it expires they turn it into a continuous release and snag a new patent to keep the drug in only their hands and not letting a generic market form. Obamacare does address this issue. I’ll check out the export laws.


That is likely a system that controls cost and promotes efficiency. They don’t just run with an inflated system. If you looked at their pay structure, I bet it would be based on performance. The inefficiencies in the system now stem from a non performanced based structure. Doctors inflate cost on medicare patients and an insured patients in an attempt to cover for those they don’t get paid for. How do you cap the inefficiency from continuing to grow? I think there are attempts at this in the bill.
Wanted to go into more but don’t have time right now…. We do have a fundamental difference though. I have a hard time not lumping healthcare into “promote the general welfare” along with education, police, fire, etc.

Just a quick Re: on some points...

Re: business owners laying people off for "their team" or "their agenda": Business owners don't do this, except in some rare, weird case. Business owners make the calculation of how much benefit each employee provides to their business. If you pay an employee $50,000 per year but having that employee only brings in an additional $40,000 profit to the company, that's a net loss of 10K. If the owner has any sense, that person will get laid off. Either that or the business will eventually shutter. As the weight of Obamacare comes to increase the cost per employee, there will be people laid off. No way around that. The story I gave was just the quickest one I could lay my hands on; I'm sure that there are hundreds of others already, and will be thousands more to come. Not a good economic picture.

Re: patent laws. Yes, I agree that's part of the problem too, along with the import/export laws. I'll have to admit that I don't know what Obamacare does about the patent laws, but the cynic in me would guess that it pays lip service to the problem rather than really solving it.

Re: obese guy who shows up at the ER but cannot pay. This is why EMTALA must be repealed, and goes back to my point that health care is not a right. Who is government to force a service provider to provide a service irrespective of whether the client can pay? EMTALA introduces huge price distortions as the health care industry shifts costs to those who can, and then you end up with what we have now, that you describe above.

Re: general welfare. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but you are quoting a generic phrase from the preamble. The preamble is there to orient the reader to what is to come, not the law itself. The law is codified in the rest of the Constitution. I could just as easily justify my position solely on "the blessings of liberty" part of the preamble. But neither justification would be valid.

KG's Supra24
11-14-2012, 01:04 PM
I can see your point/side on just about everything there. Especially somewhat understanding your "grand scheme" outlook.

I do see somewhat of a different economic side to it. I tend to take a similar approach to it the way I look at the taxing system, when in reality, i know less about the complexity of the healthcare structure (and I know a decent amount through experience). There are no doubt mass inefficiencies in the system, how the mix of government bloating and users taking advantage makes up those inefficiencies is probably still to be seen/known.

dhyams
11-14-2012, 01:12 PM
KG, thanks for the insights and things to mull over. It's not often that discussions like this can take place in a civil manner in today's world. I think we both are just looking for a solution; it's just that we have a different ideal.

Cheers!

KG's Supra24
11-14-2012, 01:21 PM
It's not often that discussions like this can take place in a civil manner in today's world.

Lol, no kidding ..... https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

I also appreciate the dialogue. Cheers!

kaneboats
11-15-2012, 12:11 PM
I too am impressed by the civil discourse. We all need to try harder in this regard. If you look at what Obamacare is trying to achieve, it's purpose is arguably noble- health care for everyone. But, I fall in the category of people who rightfully ask why this is the job of a federal government.

moombadaze
11-15-2012, 03:44 PM
sure would be nice if the stereo section could have this kind of civilized dialogue.


good job guys

jmvotto
11-15-2012, 08:02 PM
sure would be nice if the stereo section could have this kind of civilized dialogue.


good job guys

Now that's funny ...