PDA

View Full Version : Obama is why companies are not hiring



SoonerNate
11/23/2011, 08:03 PM
Here is proof

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/214228/3/Company-Policy-We-are-not-hiring-until-Obama-is-gone


"New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone."

"Can't afford it," explained the employer, Bill Looman, Tuesday evening. "I've got people that I want to hire now, but I just can't afford it. And I don't foresee that I'll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C."

I don't know about Hope and Change, but next November I'm certainly Hoping for a Change.

yermom
11/23/2011, 08:41 PM
that's a load of crap.

i'm having to fend off interviews all over at the moment...

soonercruiser
11/23/2011, 11:31 PM
Sorry yermom!
That is exactly what many companies, small businesses, and banks are saying!

Even Blanche Lincoln (a Democrat) now recognizes the truth!
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/195091-dem-criticizes-obama-admin-for-4200-pages-of-pending-regulations


Democrat criticizes Obama for '4,200 pages' of pending regulationsBy Joshua Altman - 11/22/11 12:29 PM ET

Former Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) attacked the Obama administration Tuesday for proposing a litany of new regulations she says are hurting the economy.

"You’ve got 4,200 pages of pending, new regulations to be put on the books that just create huge uncertainty,” Lincoln said.

Lincoln lost her reelection bid last year to Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) and is now chairwoman of the Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations campaign at the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

badger
11/24/2011, 12:00 AM
Methinks that if biz owners had confidence in the economic future, stateside and worldwide, they would expand, hire and grow regardless of who the president was.

If only people would feel optimistic... people dont, but its not all obama. Blame greece for tanking the stocks!

soonercruiser
11/24/2011, 03:02 PM
Methinks that if biz owners had confidence in the economic future, stateside and worldwide, they would expand, hire and grow regardless of who the president was.

If only people would feel optimistic... people dont, but its not all obama. Blame greece for tanking the stocks!

Blame is not all Obama's personally; there are the LW minions that he has running every important agency of government affecting business - Commerce, Energy, EPA, MLRB, etc!
But, he did put them into place!
Just like the plan called for.
(What he can't legislate - he will mandate adminstratively.)
And anyone wonders why the economy is crap!!??
:moody:

Dale Ellis
11/24/2011, 04:16 PM
Here is proof

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/214228/3/Company-Policy-We-are-not-hiring-until-Obama-is-gone



I don't know about Hope and Change, but next November I'm certainly Hoping for a Change.

Allow me to save Midtowner the trouble.

You're cherry picking
I doubt the validity of that story
Nice cut and paste.

There, I've covered all his rebuttals.

diverdog
11/25/2011, 07:45 AM
Sorry yermom!
That is exactly what many companies, small businesses, and banks are saying!

Even Blanche Lincoln (a Democrat) now recognizes the truth!
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/195091-dem-criticizes-obama-admin-for-4200-pages-of-pending-regulations

Cruiser as I said before Bush had enacted far more regulations than Obama at this point in his presidency. The labor department tracks the number of jobs lost by regulatory rule making and the losses from regulatory changes are minimal compared to losses due to lack of business and modernization of plants.

The biggest reasons banks are not lending is that they are still sorting out their loan portfolios. Yes the banks want to get rid of regulations but some of those were from Bush and some from Obama. Sox, Patriot Act and the Dodd bill are not stopping us from making loans.

The majority of layoffs that are happening right now are from government. Where I blame Obama is for not doing enough to create jobs especially in the energy sector.

Midtowner
11/25/2011, 08:57 AM
^ Please do not confuse us with facts. One dude in some other state says his company isn't making enough dough to expand. Ergo, Obama must have destroyed the entire economy.

Can't you see how one flows from the other!?

marfacowboy
11/25/2011, 09:42 AM
This is ridiculous.

NormanPride
11/25/2011, 10:27 AM
I thought Obama was the problem because he wasn't regulating wall street enough? The constant shift for the reason we're blaming Obama confuses me. I'm fine with blaming him; the simplistic solution of lumping all the complex economic problems we have into a simple bumper sticker catch-phrase appeases my meth-riddled and fear-addled brain.

Midtowner
11/25/2011, 11:26 AM
I thought Obama was the problem because he wasn't regulating wall street enough?

As we've seen, lapses in Wall Street regulation don't result in slow growth, the result instead has historically been massive collapse and disaster. We're probably headed that way again though because of the failure to reinstate Glass-Steagall and impose other meaningful regulations. I wouldn't really blame Obama for that, because those sorts of regulations have been proposed by his administration and were rejected by Congress. If anyone is to blame, it's Congress.

SanJoaquinSooner
11/25/2011, 01:12 PM
There are lots of companies waiting to expand and hire, and sitting on tons of cash, but are waiting for demand to kick in.

diverdog
11/25/2011, 04:22 PM
There are lots of companies waiting to expand and hire, and sitting on tons of cash, but are waiting for demand to kick in.

Exactly. Demand is the number one driver and until the housing sector rebounds it will be an issue for a while.

TheHumanAlphabet
11/25/2011, 11:59 PM
Don't know how O'bummer would affect the crane biz, but the dude got lots of free pub. More like a rant, but understand his uncertainty, between O'bummer and congress there is plenty of that to go around.

Dale Ellis
11/26/2011, 10:05 AM
^ Please do not confuse us with facts. One dude in some other state says his company isn't making enough dough to expand. Ergo, Obama must have destroyed the entire economy.

Can't you see how one flows from the other!?

Did I not call this one. I wouldn't matter if he listed 1000 small business owners that said the same thing, you'd just dismiss it. You're a real piece of work pal.

Midtowner
11/26/2011, 03:29 PM
Did I not call this one. I wouldn't matter if he listed 1000 small business owners that said the same thing, you'd just dismiss it. You're a real piece of work pal.

He didn't list 1,000 business owners. He listed one.

Anecdotes ain't data.

soonercruiser
11/26/2011, 05:22 PM
Cruiser as I said before Bush had enacted far more regulations than Obama at this point in his presidency. The labor department tracks the number of jobs lost by regulatory rule making and the losses from regulatory changes are minimal compared to losses due to lack of business and modernization of plants.

The biggest reasons banks are not lending is that they are still sorting out their loan portfolios. Yes the banks want to get rid of regulations but some of those were from Bush and some from Obama. Sox, Patriot Act and the Dodd bill are not stopping us from making loans.

The majority of layoffs that are happening right now are from government. Where I blame Obama is for not doing enough to create jobs especially in the energy sector.

Diver,
Who does the Labor Department work for?
Have you really believed the CBOs estimates in the past and present? Really?
Commerce, Energy, EPA, MLRB, etc., working for the benefit of the economy? Really?
Just like the Justice Department under Obama working for "blind" justice?
Really?
If you still don't admit that the Obama Administration is working against the economy, you are a blind minion of the LW!

soonercruiser
11/26/2011, 05:27 PM
^ Please do not confuse us with facts. One dude in some other state says his company isn't making enough dough to expand. Ergo, Obama must have destroyed the entire economy.

Can't you see how one flows from the other!?

Sorry Midtowner,
But just the fact that you can't see that Diver didn't present any facts - just his opinion shows a lot!
If he had posted facts, they could have been checked, or opposing "facts" presented.

You like opinions, he's one for ya!


Yes, Wayne Allyn Root's statement below has been "Correctly Attributed" by Snopes.com. The link to Snopes.com is at the end of his statement.
If he is re-elected in 2012, the US is finished. The following is in simple language that everyone can understand. Not the gibberish that our government keeps telling people. Please read this carefully and make sure you keep this message going.
This needs to be emailed to everyone in the USA ...
OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT
By Wayne Allyn Root
Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing.
He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. Economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Hussien Obama was my college classmate. (not, "roommate")
( Columbia University , class of '83).
He is a devout Muslim; do not be fooled. Look at his Czars... Anti-business… anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussien Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University ... They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival... And can be counted on to always vote for bigger government.
Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
Universal health care! The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions).
Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt.
What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
Cap and trade! Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants.
They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers! But this has been Barack Hussien Obama's plan all along.
His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressmen and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security...
Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go?
It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country.
It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues.
It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions).
A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).
All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America ...
The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.
The ends justify the means.
Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).
Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussien Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussien Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan...
"Correctly attributed" says Snopes!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp

Serge Ibaka
11/27/2011, 05:44 PM
It's Obama's fault that companies aren't hiring!

THERE'S SO MANY BROWN PEOPLE HERE; thanks a lot, Obama!

Obama is causing climate-change!

Obama is turning your children GAY!

If it weren't for Obama, OU would have beaten Texas Tech!

THERE'S A SCARY OBAMA IN MY CLOSET!

*Scapegoating is for simpletons.*

Dale Ellis
11/27/2011, 05:54 PM
It's Obama's fault that companies aren't hiring!

THERE'S SO MANY BROWN PEOPLE HERE; thanks a lot, Obama!

Obama is causing climate-change!



Obama is turning your children GAY!

If it weren't for Obama, OU would have beaten Texas Tech!

THERE'S A SCARY OBAMA IN MY CLOSET!

*Scapegoating is for simpletons.*

No, it's all Bush's fault. Remember nothing bad that has happened in the 3+ years Obama has been in office is his fault.

Dale Ellis
11/27/2011, 05:59 PM
Sorry Midtowner,
But just the fact that you can't see that Diver didn't present any facts - just his opinion shows a lot!
If he had posted facts, they could have been checked, or opposing "facts" presented.

You like opinions, he's one for ya!

Midtown demands you present facts, when you do, he dismisses them. Check thread after thread, and you will see the same reoccurring theme from Mid.
He accuses people who disagree with him of not being "critical thinkers", he then DEMANDS that you provide hard evidence, not just opinion and "right wing ranting". When you provide the evidence he says you're "cherry picking" or that he "doubts the validity" of the evidence you are providing.

He is intellectually dishonest, therefore you can not have a real debate with him. He refuses to acknowledge things he knows to be true, if those things to fit into his leftest template.

Dale Ellis
11/27/2011, 06:05 PM
THERE'S SO MANY BROWN PEOPLE HERE; thanks a lot, Obama!

in many instances, this it true.


Obama is causing climate-change!

well he did say when he got elected that "this is the moment that the rise of the ocean began to slow, and our planet began to heal".


Obama is turning your children GAY!

after looking at his wife, I'm sure millions of men around the planet made that decision all on their own.
we he did say when he got elected tjat tje

diverdog
11/27/2011, 07:53 PM
Sorry Midtowner,
But just the fact that you can't see that Diver didn't present any facts - just his opinion shows a lot!
If he had posted facts, they could have been checked, or opposing "facts" presented.

You like opinions, he's one for ya!

Cruiser:

I work with businessmen every single day and I have not heard a single one....not one that has said they are not hiring because of new regulations. They do not have demand for their products or services and that is their number one worry. Their second worry is access to capital and or loans. What they are upset about is the continued high unemployment rate and lack of growth in the economy and that is a very complicated matter.

To prove my point:


These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority (http://smallbusinessmajority.org/energy/pdfs/Clean_Energy_Report_092011.pdf) asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.



If you want a link here you go:

http://www.bls.gov/mls/

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/10/04/business/04economist-bartlett1/04economist-bartlett1-blog480-v2.jpg

And as far as this businessman who is bitiching it seems to me that his business is heavily tied to the construction industry....either commercial or residential and both are in the chitter right now with no recovery in sight for years to come. I suspect he is an Obama hater from day one.

Finally, I sat in a meeting with our economist and their number one concern continues to be the housing market and consumer demand.

REDREX
11/27/2011, 08:05 PM
We have a business that we are moving from California to Texas because California ia a regulation and tax nightmare

diverdog
11/27/2011, 08:11 PM
We have a business that we are moving from California to Texas because California ia a regulation and tax nightmare

Well you got me there. :sneakiness:

REDREX
11/27/2011, 08:16 PM
Well you got me there. :sneakiness:---Just don't think that stupid regulations are not part of business decisions

SanJoaquinSooner
11/27/2011, 08:19 PM
We have a business that we are moving from California to Texas because California ia a regulation and tax nightmare

So is Texas thanking Obama for this?

REDREX
11/27/2011, 08:32 PM
So is Texas thanking Obama for this?---Nothing to do with Barack---everything to do with a state making it very difficult to operate in that state due to tax and regulation policies----sound familiar?

diverdog
11/27/2011, 09:02 PM
---Just don't think that stupid regulations are not part of business decisions

No doubt they are but they are not a big reason for unemployment or hiring right now. You could get rid of all the regulations in the world but if there is not demand for a product then you have not done much.

BTW I thought it was interesting that Texas is number 2 in losing jobs to China. California is number one. I would suggest China's currency manipulation has more to do with job loss right now than anything else.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/the-10-states-losing-the-most-jobs-to-china/245588/#slide10

http://www.epi.org/files/2011/BriefingPaper323.pdf

soonercruiser
11/27/2011, 11:33 PM
Diver,
You guys are correct in "demand" being the #1 driver of the economy. In talking "business", I am a fish out of water.
But, there are a lot of other significant contributors whose sum would still soften the effect of demand.

As I am not "in" the business community, all I know is what I hear from the mouths of the business guys that I know at church, talk with shopping, or see talking on cable TV. And, even with my limited exposed I hear a lot of negative other than demand. I have a feeling that a lot of the others would be reluctant to really answer some business decision questions truthfully; no matter what guarantees are made. I see how some will even smile sheepishly when questions are asked in public.

I guess what I am saying is, there is a lot of negative feelings around the whole business community that is a wet enough rag, even without high unemployment dampening sales.

diverdog
11/28/2011, 09:06 AM
Diver,
You guys are correct in "demand" being the #1 driver of the economy. In talking "business", I am a fish out of water.
But, there are a lot of other significant contributors whose sum would still soften the effect of demand.

As I am not "in" the business community, all I know is what I hear from the mouths of the business guys that I know at church, talk with shopping, or see talking on cable TV. And, even with my limited exposed I hear a lot of negative other than demand. I have a feeling that a lot of the others would be reluctant to really answer some business decision questions truthfully; no matter what guarantees are made. I see how some will even smile sheepishly when questions are asked in public.

I guess what I am saying is, there is a lot of negative feelings around the whole business community that is a wet enough rag, even without high unemployment dampening sales.

I agree with most of what you say.

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 09:17 AM
there is no demand because there are no buyers, there are no buyers because there are no jobs, there are no jobs because of Obama's policies.

bigfatjerk
11/28/2011, 09:25 AM
The democrats didn't really listen to what throwing out the republicans was really all about. It was about their ridiculous spending and bigger government policies. You don't turn around and basically become the republicans on steroids the for the last decade after you basically campaigned against that. I'm not a big fan of the republican party. It won't suddenly be turned around if they take over everything. But we need to be about reigning in all government spending and changing the way our government works if we really want to change the job numbers for the better. As bad as the republicans were their unemployment numbers under W were never below 8%. Remember when the democrats passed stimulus about the time Obama took office they said stimulus was going to keep unemployment under 8%.

When Romney or Gingrich take over they will only keep spending at levels that are about what they are now or a little higher. It's not going to be a big change.

diverdog
11/28/2011, 12:23 PM
there is no demand because there are no buyers, there are no buyers because there are no jobs, there are no jobs because of Obama's policies.

And 2 plus 2 is 22.

diverdog
11/28/2011, 12:26 PM
The democrats didn't really listen to what throwing out the republicans was really all about. It was about their ridiculous spending and bigger government policies. You don't turn around and basically become the republicans on steroids the for the last decade after you basically campaigned against that. I'm not a big fan of the republican party. It won't suddenly be turned around if they take over everything. But we need to be about reigning in all government spending and changing the way our government works if we really want to change the job numbers for the better. As bad as the republicans were their unemployment numbers under W were never below 8%. Remember when the democrats passed stimulus about the time Obama took office they said stimulus was going to keep unemployment under 8%.

When Romney or Gingrich take over they will only keep spending at levels that are about what they are now or a little higher. It's not going to be a big change.

Cruiser:

At the end of Bush's term the economy was shedding 750000 jobs a month. I don't care who is in office in 2009 the UE was going to 10%.

NormanPride
11/28/2011, 12:29 PM
We need to go deeper. There are no jobs because Obama's policies. Obama's policies are because he's black. He's black because evolution.

Evolution is the reason we are all unemployed and eating dirt to fill our poor empty stomachs.

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 12:37 PM
And 2 plus 2 is 22.

in your world, I'm sure it does pal.

diverdog
11/28/2011, 01:26 PM
in your world, I'm sure it does pal..

Ah no. I have owned several businesses. You?

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 02:10 PM
.

Ah no. I have owned several businesses. You?

Past tense, as in they've all failed?

badger
11/28/2011, 02:15 PM
Food for thought: Democrat blame flow charts eventually all led to "Blame Bush." Republican blame flow charts now all eventually lead to "Blame Obama."

diverdog
11/28/2011, 02:15 PM
Past tense, as in they've all failed?

No. Sold one recently, still keep one operational and had to close another after 18 years. Even if they all failed at least I was not a puss sitting on the sidelines.

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 02:18 PM
No. Sold one recently, still keep one operational and had to close another after 18 years. Even if they all failed at least I was not a puss sitting on the sidelines.

you're right, you're a puss no matter where you are sitting.

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 02:19 PM
No. Sold one recently, still keep one operational and had to close another after 18 years. Even if they all failed at least I was not a puss sitting on the sidelines.

so you're telling me you went 1 for 3, pfft.

diverdog
11/28/2011, 02:31 PM
so you're telling me you went 1 for 3, pfft.

No 2 for 3. I sold my ranch because I got a good price. My other business is still running. The only one I closed was a computer business where we lost all our State of Maryland contracts in a single day because their state budget was hurting. Our hardware sales were fine but the tech side took a huge hit.

diverdog
11/28/2011, 02:32 PM
you're right, you're a puss no matter where you are sitting.

Thanks

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 04:23 PM
No 2 for 3. I sold my ranch because I got a good price. My other business is still running. The only one I closed was a computer business where we lost all our State of Maryland contracts in a single day because their state budget was hurting. Our hardware sales were fine but the tech side took a huge hit.

what is your current business?

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 04:23 PM
I own and run a law enforcement supply business.

C&CDean
11/28/2011, 04:28 PM
you're right, you're a puss no matter where you are sitting.

And you're on the sideline for a day. Quit being a dick.

Ton Loc
11/28/2011, 04:38 PM
And you're on the sideline for a day. Quit being a dick.

Best birthday present I've received today.

NormanPride
11/28/2011, 04:41 PM
A day? What will I do for fun? We haven't had a troll like Dale since you booted The and his ilk.


Boring...

Mississippi Sooner
11/28/2011, 04:43 PM
But he's a real trophy husband!!!

badger
11/28/2011, 05:23 PM
But he's a real trophy husband!!!

Maybe, but NP is the first place trophy :P

diverdog
11/28/2011, 05:24 PM
I own and run a law enforcement supply business.

That is a cool business. I buy guns from our LE supply here in Dover.

diverdog
11/28/2011, 05:27 PM
what is your current business?

My full time work is a commercial lender for a super regional bank. My personal business is BBQ catering but I am winding it down. Getting to old to work this hard. My partner and I have done up to 500 people for an event.

JohnnyMack
11/28/2011, 05:59 PM
My partner and I have done up to 500 people for an event.

That's just getting warmed up for Dean and STEP.

NormanPride
11/28/2011, 06:28 PM
The two of them together service the RNC completely. In one night.

JM does the DNC by himself.

yermom
11/28/2011, 06:29 PM
who caters a BBQ?

soonercruiser
11/28/2011, 10:45 PM
Cruiser:

At the end of Bush's term the economy was shedding 750000 jobs a month. I don't care who is in office in 2009 the UE was going to 10%.

Diver,
I believe that previous presidents have had the same problem handed them.
Clinton handed an economy in decline - two quarters I believe - when Bush took over.
And, then Bush suffered 9-11!
PLEASE - It's time to stop blaming Bush!

diverdog
11/29/2011, 12:16 AM
who caters a BBQ?

Me

diverdog
11/29/2011, 12:18 AM
Diver,
I believe that previous presidents have had the same problem handed them.
Clinton handed an economy in decline - two quarters I believe - when Bush took over.
And, then Bush suffered 9-11!
PLEASE - It's time to stop blaming Bush!

Cruiser neither one of the had to suffer through an economy like this. Not even close.

bigfatjerk
11/29/2011, 05:41 AM
Cruiser:

At the end of Bush's term the economy was shedding 750000 jobs a month. I don't care who is in office in 2009 the UE was going to 10%.

You could be right, but Obama made so many grand promises that he was all about hope and change when he was really all about being more of the same except on steroids. To me that's where the democrats went wrong. With basically a philabuster proof house and senate with Obama they should have been able to pass things to really change things.

Instead all they did was basically push what was already in place and spend more money and make even more big programs, big bail outs for rich people, keep the infastructure in place that has led to the high unemployment. The democrats didn't want change. They just thought they were smarter than the other guys at handling things by just giving these rich people more money.

Ton Loc
11/29/2011, 09:02 AM
Diver,
I believe that previous presidents have had the same problem handed them.
Clinton handed an economy in decline - two quarters I believe - when Bush took over.
And, then Bush suffered 9-11!
PLEASE - It's time to stop blaming Bush!

Clinton also gave Bush a huge surplus that he blew through in record time. Two quarters of a decline while receiving a surplus so large that they commissioned a report to look at what would happen if we paid off the national debt (by 2012) is nothing to complain about.

BTW, I'm sure it would not have mattered who was in office because I wouldn't trust any of them not to blow through the surplus.

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 09:22 AM
And, then Bush suffered 9-11!
PLEASE - It's time to stop blaming Bush!

It's good to blame someone when it's at least partially their fault. 9/11 was actually a huge benefit to the economy. You can't really look at it any other way. It kicked off nearly unprecedented government spending in new security apparatuses and two new wars. All of that money was a direct stimulus in creating jobs and injecting capital into the economy--almost a bailout for the defense sector.

I'll agree that Bush can't really be blamed for the collapse, but both he and Obama should probably be blamed quite a bit for their reactions to it (which were basically the same). As far as managing the crisis during his Presidency, Obama has been hamstrung by a Republican do-nothing Congress which literally would rather see the economy fail than this President succeed.

The cause of the collapse was a bipartisan symphony of deregulation and taking orders from the short-term-gain-oriented financial sector without regard for long-term effects. Trying to assign blame to one particular President is just nonsense.

cleller
11/29/2011, 09:36 AM
So if Change was the Obama mantra last time what's the new one going to be? "Let It Ride"?

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 09:42 AM
So if Change was the Obama mantra last time what's the new one going to be? "Let It Ride"?

Actually, if the Affordable Care Act is upheld, he will have accomplished some pretty darn huge change by helping to bring one of the most out-of-control industries/costs to businesses under control. Don't think for a second that the fact that the United States' healtcare system for employees costs double what it does in other highly developed countries isn't a factor holding us back as far as jobs go.

pphilfran
11/29/2011, 09:44 AM
Actually, if the Affordable Care Act is upheld, he will have accomplished some pretty darn huge change by helping to bring one of the most out-of-control industries/costs to businesses under control. Don't think for a second that the fact that the United States' healtcare system for employees costs double what it does in other highly developed countries isn't a factor holding us back as far as jobs go.

I don't think the watered down legislation will do much to control costs.....

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 09:45 AM
I don't think the watered down legislation will do much to control costs.....

Obama didn't water it down, Congress did, and I have to disagree, it's a lot better than doing nothing.

And the hypocrisy of the Republican Congress is just amazing. It's okay to pass the prescription drug benefit for seniors, but not okay to reign in spiraling healthcare costs? This Republican House will burn this country to the ground if it means that they can claim Obama has been a failure.

cleller
11/29/2011, 09:49 AM
Obama didn't water it down, Congress did, and I have to disagree, it's a lot better than doing nothing.

And the hypocrisy of the Republican Congress is just amazing. It's okay to pass the prescription drug benefit for seniors, but not okay to reign in spiraling healthcare costs? This Republican House will burn this country to the ground if it means that they can claim Obama has been a failure.

They're both failures. Neither will swallow their pride, or their medicine.

pphilfran
11/29/2011, 09:50 AM
Obama didn't water it down, Congress did, and I have to disagree, it's a lot better than doing nothing.

And the hypocrisy of the Republican Congress is just amazing. It's okay to pass the prescription drug benefit for seniors, but not okay to reign in spiraling healthcare costs? This Republican House will burn this country to the ground if it means that they can claim Obama has been a failure.

Not pointing the finger at anyone...just stating my belief...

pphilfran
11/29/2011, 09:52 AM
He did seem happy with the passage of the legislation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GALYnnAQFKA&feature=player_embedded#!

okie52
11/29/2011, 09:54 AM
Obama didn't water it down, Congress did, and I have to disagree, it's a lot better than doing nothing.

And the hypocrisy of the Republican Congress is just amazing. It's okay to pass the prescription drug benefit for seniors, but not okay to reign in spiraling healthcare costs? This Republican House will burn this country to the ground if it means that they can claim Obama has been a failure.

As opposed to the Dem house in pursuit of some ideological fantasy that threw the US under the bus for cap and trade.

OULenexaman
11/29/2011, 09:59 AM
Cruiser neither one of the had to suffer through an economy like this. Not even close. Horse****!!!! Pull out a history book numbnuts.

bigfatjerk
11/29/2011, 10:16 AM
Actually, if the Affordable Care Act is upheld, he will have accomplished some pretty darn huge change by helping to bring one of the most out-of-control industries/costs to businesses under control. Don't think for a second that the fact that the United States' healtcare system for employees costs double what it does in other highly developed countries isn't a factor holding us back as far as jobs go.

Are you kidding me? Health care costs have gone up big time since that thing was passed. If you think that health care will be helped by more legislation you don't know a thing about how to fix things then. The government on both parties really believe their side is better and will fix everything. If that were true then the republicans wouldn't have won the mid terms last year and Obama and the democrats with a filibuster proof house and senate would still be going strong and everyone would love what they did. It's not like Obama came in with republicans owning the house and senate. In fact democrats owned both for 2 years and did little to stop what the republicans already started before Obama.

There's little sign that either party is for the "Hope and change" that Obama promised. They are both for more of the same.

pphilfran
11/29/2011, 10:22 AM
Most of the legislation has yet to be put in place...so any current increases are not due to the legislation....

But like I said, down the road, I don't see it controlling costs...

okie52
11/29/2011, 10:25 AM
Most of the legislation has yet to be put in place...so any current increases are not due to the legislation....

But like I said, down the road, I don't see it controlling costs...

Phil, I can't remember. Did the legislation include portability and pre-existing conditions?

pphilfran
11/29/2011, 10:31 AM
Pre existing was included...if you were under 18 or 19 in 2010 they could not use pre existing conditions on ya..starting in 2014 everyone gets the same treatment...

Not sure about portability...can't remember...

Zin
11/29/2011, 10:37 AM
So if Change was the Obama mantra last time what's the new one going to be? "Let It Ride"?

You reminded me of this:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f397/SoonerJohn/RAMclrfnl-072011-hopeless-Ijpg-600x430.jpg

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 10:39 AM
Are you kidding me? Health care costs have gone up big time since that thing was passed. If you think that health care will be helped by more legislation you don't know a thing about how to fix things then. The government on both parties really believe their side is better and will fix everything. If that were true then the republicans wouldn't have won the mid terms last year and Obama and the democrats with a filibuster proof house and senate would still be going strong and everyone would love what they did. It's not like Obama came in with republicans owning the house and senate. In fact democrats owned both for 2 years and did little to stop what the republicans already started before Obama.

There's little sign that either party is for the "Hope and change" that Obama promised. They are both for more of the same.

You reveal how little you know about the legislation with this retort. The cost control provisions have yet to come online. Clearly, the free market hands-off approach has given us a healthcare system which provides similar results to other countries, but costs doubly as much.

Republicans ALL voted against the ACA (except in the Senate, where IIRC, some moderate Republicans were on board). Some Dems apparently felt threatened in their districts and voted against as well, so the Dems' majority was not a meaningful one.

Where the President did an awful job with the ACA was in the P.R. department. His folks really lost control of the conversation, but they still got some pretty major stuff through.

diverdog
11/29/2011, 10:58 AM
Horse****!!!! Pull out a history book numbnuts.

Before you spout off again read cruisers post that I responded to in this thread because your response is downright silly.

REDREX
11/29/2011, 11:16 AM
If anyone thinks that the Health Care Bill that was passed will lower costs they do not live in the real world

TheHumanAlphabet
11/29/2011, 12:44 PM
Actually, if the Affordable Care Act is upheld, he will have accomplished some pretty darn huge change by helping to bring one of the most out-of-control industries/costs to businesses under control. Don't think for a second that the fact that the United States' healtcare system for employees costs double what it does in other highly developed countries isn't a factor holding us back as far as jobs go.

Yeah, huge change from a private entity that people who bought insurance could afford and people went to school to be doctors and stuff, to a government entity that can't manage its way out of a wet paper sack with people running away from being doctors to long lines, hefty tax increases to pay for the pi$$ poor medical treatments and importing Dr. from far away places like the UK does today...Building their own internal security issues...

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 12:51 PM
Yeah, huge change from a private entity that people who bought insurance could afford and people went to school to be doctors and stuff, to a government entity that can't manage its way out of a wet paper sack with people running away from being doctors to long lines, hefty tax increases to pay for the pi$$ poor medical treatments and importing Dr. from far away places like the UK does today...Building their own internal security issues...

Clearly you don't know what the Act does. I encourage you to educate yourself before making any further dumb/wrong/uneducated comments like that. There is no public option and healthcare companies will simply be forced to accept more insureds, but at the same time will have a huge influx of capital from folks being compelled to buy insurance to deal with that. They'll have to compete side-by-side on healthcare exchanges, so folks will be able to make educated price vs. coverage decisions.

There'll also be controls on how much revenue can be used for things other than paying claims, there'll be caps on how much premiums can go up from year to year. It's hardly a bureaucracy. Just more order to what is now the unmanaged chaos of the medical insurance marketplace.

It's really a win-win unless you're one of those folks who wants to finance your catastrophic medical bills through the bankruptcy code.

REDREX
11/29/2011, 01:34 PM
Dream on----How many people do you provide with Health care insurance?-------We see nothing but increased costs to continue to provide health insurance benifits in the future

diverdog
11/29/2011, 02:03 PM
Dream on----How many people do you provide with Health care insurance?-------We see nothing but increased costs to continue to provide health insurance benifits in the future

Red:

I think increased health cost are just going to be a fact of life.

OULenexaman
11/29/2011, 02:07 PM
The part I have to contribute for mine went up 14% this year. 6% the year before....you decide.

Ton Loc
11/29/2011, 02:15 PM
The part I have to contribute for mine went up 14% this year. 6% the year before....you decide.

Just wondering, but did you ask why or did you just immediately attribute it to a plan that isn't in effect yet?
If you asked, what was the response?

OULenexaman
11/29/2011, 02:28 PM
The answer we got (to all the employees) was at 1st it was going to be an 18% increase.....HR claims they renegotiated it down to 14. Of course the provider claims a spike in claims of last year company wide overall....yada yada....interesting because before Obamacare was shoved up our *** the annual increase had never exceeded 3% in the 12 previous years before......again you decide.

REDREX
11/29/2011, 02:32 PM
Just wondering, but did you ask why or did you just immediately attribute it to a plan that isn't in effect yet?
If you asked, what was the response?--- Not true ---some of the pre-existing condition rules have kicked in as well as being able to keep children on your plan longer----Both raise costs

TheHumanAlphabet
11/29/2011, 03:33 PM
Clearly you don't know what the Act does. I encourage you to educate yourself before making any further dumb/wrong/uneducated comments like that. There is no public option and healthcare companies will simply be forced to accept more insureds, but at the same time will have a huge influx of capital from folks being compelled to buy insurance to deal with that. They'll have to compete side-by-side on healthcare exchanges, so folks will be able to make educated price vs. coverage decisions.

There'll also be controls on how much revenue can be used for things other than paying claims, there'll be caps on how much premiums can go up from year to year. It's hardly a bureaucracy. Just more order to what is now the unmanaged chaos of the medical insurance marketplace.

It's really a win-win unless you're one of those folks who wants to finance your catastrophic medical bills through the bankruptcy code.

You are extremely delusional... The point of the whole thing is to kill off private insurance and forcing people into the government "exchanges", err government plan. Then they will have the people in their clutches and like the UK and Canada, we get long lines, crappy medical services, increased taxes to pay for the underages and we import docs from all corners of the earth because no american citizen wants to be a doctor with the low pay. There.

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 03:51 PM
You are extremely delusional... The point of the whole thing is to kill off private insurance and forcing people into the government "exchanges", err government plan. Then they will have the people in their clutches and like the UK and Canada, we get long lines, crappy medical services, increased taxes to pay for the underages and we import docs from all corners of the earth because no american citizen wants to be a doctor with the low pay. There.

Familiarize yourself with basic concepts before interjecting please.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-reform-bill-101-What-s-a-health-exchange

Now run along...

REDREX
11/29/2011, 03:56 PM
If they want to lower costs make it easy to buy accross State lines and pass Tort reform-----Now run along

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 04:11 PM
If they want to lower costs make it easy to buy accross State lines and pass Tort reform-----Now run along

Tort reform is a red herring. Studies have shown it has a negligible effect on the cost of medicine, and it's not defensible if you're a conservative. Why should anyone not be held to account for the damage they actually cause?

Making it easier to buy across state lines is a winner, but the exchanges will really help by allowing regular consumers some of the same access to the market as big corporations, not to mention forcing insurers to compete side by side on price and quality terms.

I'm under no illusion that this'll make insurance cheaper, but it should retard the growth of the cost. Unless the system comes under control, at some point there'll be political will for a public option.

Ton Loc
11/29/2011, 04:15 PM
The answer we got (to all the employees) was at 1st it was going to be an 18% increase.....HR claims they renegotiated it down to 14. Of course the provider claims a spike in claims of last year company wide overall....yada yada....interesting because before Obamacare was shoved up our *** the annual increase had never exceeded 3% in the 12 previous years before......again you decide.

Hilarious considering my company was blaming health care increases on Obama the second he got elected. Then we found out that only our part was going up while the company's contribution stayed the same. Needless to say we were pissed and somehow magicaly the next year our contribution stayed the same while our co-payment went down $5.

I'm at a new company now and their insurance hasn't changed in 3 years.

Exactly what should I gather from your one example versus my two. Nothing other than your company/insurance will mislead you.

REDREX
11/29/2011, 04:21 PM
"Studies" on Tort reform look at the cost of settlements not the cost of defensive medicine----- http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp

pphilfran
11/29/2011, 04:22 PM
Tort reform is a red herring. Studies have shown it has a negligible effect on the cost of medicine, and it's not defensible if you're a conservative. Why should anyone not be held to account for the damage they actually cause?

Making it easier to buy across state lines is a winner, but the exchanges will really help by allowing regular consumers some of the same access to the market as big corporations, not to mention forcing insurers to compete side by side on price and quality terms.

I'm under no illusion that this'll make insurance cheaper, but it should retard the growth of the cost. Unless the system comes under control, at some point there'll be political will for a public option.

The health care system will be a mother to get under control...lots of roadblocks...

I would scrap the whole mess and start over....lol

I would get rid of prescription drug advertising...only two countries allow it...us and NZ....

Ton Loc
11/29/2011, 04:36 PM
The health care system will be a mother to get under control...lots of roadblocks...

I would scrap the whole mess and start over....lol

I would get rid of prescription drug advertising...only two countries allow it...us and NZ....

I'm with you on blowing it up and while you're getting rid of prescription drug commercials can you also ban women's products from being advertised any other place the OWN and Lifetime.


And even though it will never happen, separate my health insurance and my workplace.

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 04:37 PM
There is no public option and healthcare companies will simply be forced to accept more insureds,

I wasn't aware under our constitution, the federal government could force a private business to accept more customers.


They'll have to compete side-by-side on healthcare exchanges

Side by side with whom? The Federal Government who doesn't have to make a profit? That sounds good. I think a private defense attorney should have to compete side by side with the public defenders office, he should not be allowed to charge his client anymore than the public defender charges their client. Lets see how long that lawyer can afford to stay in business.

When you have the federal government with unlimited resources, who doesn't have to show or make a profit, competing against a private business which has to turn a profit to keeps it's doors open, who the hell do you thinks going to win that battle?

So this "there is no public option" argument is weak. You know darn good and well Obama's desire is to run the private insurers out of business. My gosh, all you people on the left rail against how much money the private insurers make, then you say something like this...



but at the same time will have a huge influx of capital from folks being compelled to buy insurance

Don't you mean "forced to buy insurance or face a fine?"

I thought the whole purpose of this nonsense was to reign in the huge profits the private insurance companies were making off of the poor people who, by their choice either purchased the plans on their own or enrolled in the plans through their employers.

OULenexaman
11/29/2011, 04:39 PM
Hilarious considering my company was blaming health care increases on Obama the second he got elected. Then we found out that only our part was going up while the company's contribution stayed the same. Needless to say we were pissed and somehow magicaly the next year our contribution stayed the same while our co-payment went down $5.

I'm at a new company now and their insurance hasn't changed in 3 years.

Exactly what should I gather from your one example versus my two. Nothing other than your company/insurance will mislead you. Basically my company is afraid to use the O word out in the open..corporate HQ is in Atlanta..but their contribution went up a lot as well.....came close to us having a new provider.

REDREX
11/29/2011, 04:48 PM
The profits of the top 10 health insurance companies combined is about $8-10 Billion per year----Medicare fraud per year is $60 Billion----Please show me how the Gov't is going to "HELP"

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 04:51 PM
I wasn't aware under our constitution, the federal government could force a private business to accept more customers.

Oh? There's a limitation to the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce? Do tell? Where is that? Somewhere towards the back? If the D.C. Circuit's most conservative judge ridiculed this inventive new limitation, I have my doubts that it will be just fine with Justice Kennedy.


Side by side with whom?

Go read the link I posted. The Christian Science Monitor explains the ACA pretty well.


The Federal Government who doesn't have to make a profit? That sounds good. I think a private defense attorney should have to compete side by side with the public defenders office, he should not be allowed to charge his client anymore than the public defender charges their client. Lets see how long that lawyer can afford to stay in business.

Again, ignorant blather. You don't know what the Act does, there's no public option, so there will be no public-private competition. Go


So this "there is no public option" argument is weak. You know darn good and well Obama's desire is to run the private insurers out of business. My gosh, all you people on the left rail against how much money the private insurers make, then you say something like this...

The bill pretty much guarantees them a profit and more customers. If you want to go even money that the private insurance system collapses because of the ACA, I'll gladly take that bet and your money.


I thought the whole purpose of this nonsense was to reign in the huge profits the private insurance companies were making off of the poor people who, by their choice either purchased the plans on their own or enrolled in the plans through their employers.

Is this an attempt at sarcasm? The Act isn't perfect. I would have loved to see a public option. As suggested a total overhaul and limits to advertising are going to have a lot more constitutional issues than what we're talking about right now.

--seriously, read.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0326/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Will-it-make-health-care-more-effective

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 04:54 PM
The profits of the top 10 health insurance companies combined is about $8-10 Billion per year----Medicare fraud per year is $60 Billion----Please show me how the Gov't is going to "HELP"

What does one thing have to do with the other?

Answer me this--you purchase a Pacificare plan off of your state's exchange under the ACA. You go see the doctor. Who does the doctor send the bill to?

dwarthog
11/29/2011, 04:54 PM
Familiarize yourself with basic concepts before interjecting please.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-reform-bill-101-What-s-a-health-exchange

Now run along...

Since you like csmonitor,

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2010/0323/Health-care-reform-bill-summary-powerful-tax-bombs-delayed-fuses



Here is a PDF from the Kaiser Family foundation.

Be sure to read down to the part about a public option.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

REDREX
11/29/2011, 04:57 PM
What does one thing have to do with the other?

Answer me this--you purchase a Pacificare plan off of your state's exchange under the ACA. You go see the doctor. Who does the doctor send the bill to?---Nothing the Gov't does is done well---Why will Health care be any different?

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 05:02 PM
I'm actually fine with progressive Medicare taxes on those who can most afford it. And raising the rate on capital gains for the top 2% is something which would probably have 75%+ support of the public. I don't see the big problem.

If this:


Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state
plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity and at least one plan must
not provide coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law. Each multi-state plan must be
licensed in each state and must meet the qualifications of a qualified health plan. If a state has lower age
rating requirements than 3:1, the state may require multi-state plans to meet the more protective age
rating rules. These multi-state plans will be offered separately from the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program and will have a separate risk pool

is what you're referring to, read it again. That's not a government plan.

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 05:05 PM
---Nothing the Gov't does is done well---Why will Health care be any different?

You didn't answer me. I'm trying to test your basic knowledge. Who does the doctor send the bill to, Pacificare or the Government?

If your answer was Pacificare, you were right! And riddle me this, just because people will be compelled to purchase insurance, why would anything change with regard to Pacificare or BCBS' loss-prevention strategies?

As is typically the case, opponents of the President's policies don't usually even know the specifics of what they're against, just that they're against it.

If you can come up with something based on reality, we can talk.

diverdog
11/29/2011, 05:05 PM
The part I have to contribute for mine went up 14% this year. 6% the year before....you decide.

You really cannot point to one single reason your premiums went up. There are a lot of reasons, claims experience, the age of your group, cost of treatment, and the reinsurance market. It could even boil down to the bond market.

Back in 2003 and 2004 my company had back to back 20%+ increases. The whole reason the Obama Care debate started had to do with rapid premium increases.

I am not backing Obama Care but I understand why politician felt a need to address skyrocketing premiums. To be honest I do not know what would be a good solution.

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 05:11 PM
Again, ignorant blather. You don't know what the Act does, there's no public option, so there will be no public-private competition. Go

side by side with whom?


I would have loved to see a public option.


as would Obama and every other leftest, Obama himself said in an interview...

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

REDREX
11/29/2011, 05:12 PM
You didn't answer me. I'm trying to test your basic knowledge. Who does the doctor send the bill to, Pacificare or the Government?

If your answer was Pacificare, you were right! And riddle me this, just because people will be compelled to purchase insurance, why would anything change with regard to Pacificare or BCBS' loss-prevention strategies?

As is typically the case, opponents of the President's policies don't usually even know the specifics of what they're against, just that they're against it.

If you can come up with something based on reality, we can talk.---Your usual "I am Right" Arrogant response----I ask again how many people do you provide with Health insurance?

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 05:14 PM
You really cannot point to one single reason your premiums went up. There are a lot of reasons, claims experience, the age of your group, cost of treatment, and the reinsurance market. It could even boil down to the bond market.

Back in 2003 and 2004 my company had back to back 20%+ increases. The whole reason the Obama Care debate started had to do with rapid premium increases.

I am not backing Obama Care but I understand why politician felt a need to address skyrocketing premiums. To be honest I do not know what would be a good solution.

So now you're assuming you know more about why his premiums increased than he does?? You "people" amaze me with your intellectually dishonesty.

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 05:14 PM
---Your usual "I am Right" Arrogant response----I ask again how many people do you provide with Health insurance?

I'll tell you... NONE!

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 05:15 PM
Straight from the horses errr Obama's mouth.


I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.

nuff said.

diverdog
11/29/2011, 05:19 PM
So now you're assuming you know more about why his premiums increased than he does?? You "people" amaze me with your intellectually dishonesty.

Instead of spouting off prove me wrong.

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 05:20 PM
What does one thing have to do with the other?

Answer me this--you purchase a Pacificare plan off of your state's exchange under the ACA. You go see the doctor. Who does the doctor send the bill to?

Oh that's simple, he won't send the bill to anyone, because he'll just stop accepting patients with that type of plan.

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 05:22 PM
Instead of spouting off prove me wrong.

sure, right after you prove you're not a murderer. Go ahead, prove it, can you?

NormanPride
11/29/2011, 05:25 PM
Health costs are weird, and I don't just mean in the way that Insurance companies code and handle things. That's weird, too, but not what I'm talking about.

If you look at things economically, you've got a captive market on the really big ticket items (you can't NOT have a heart surgery, or you'll die) and at the same time there is a very fuzzy ceiling on the price of these goods because of the insurance companies. Insurance companies are there because people can't be expected to pay huge sums of money suddenly and without warning. The minimalist in me says that people should be contributing what they would normally pay to insurance companies into an account for health expenses, but we all know that is inadequate when you suddenly have a heart attack at 40 and need $150k paid off post-haste.

Hospitals can't be expected to handle the financing of these procedures before they are needed (especially in emergencies), and banks cannot be forced to finance an operation that has already taken place if the patient has a terrible credit rating and the bank knows they won't pay. So you get this weird socialist/capitalist system where everyone pays in to cover their own and everyone else's asses. This means that HUGE sums of money are flowing into these insurance companies which are the real players in this system. The medical supply community knows that Hospitals a) have to pay and b) can charge what they need of the insurance companies, so they raise their prices. Big Pharma is extremely lucrative, as is the sale of medical equipment.

So the hospitals are stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they are forced to buy the overpriced necessities to run their business, and forced to take in patients that are under or not insured. Thus they pass their expenses off on the insurance companies, who can just raise their rates a little to rake in huge sums of money. This, in effect, is a bottomless hole, as the Insurance companies are only limited in their prices as to the point where the patient figures it is cheaper to go without insurance and risk the big expense than it is to pay the premiums. Thus the Insurance companies can charge whatever Big Pharma asks the hospitals to charge them.

Complicating all this is the prices of malpractice insurance on doctors and hospitals. Even nurses and desk staff have to be insured, because it is standard practice to sue everyone that even touched someone's case if there is a malpractice suit. This isn't really the lawyer's fault, because if they don't sue some random clerk that wrote down the wrong dosage for a patient, then they can be sued themselves for malpractice.

So in the end you've got this horrid system of Big Pharma putting pressure on hospitals, which are in turn forced to pass their expenses on the patient and Insurance companies, of which the Insurance companies can just charge the patient indirectly. The sad part is, how do you regulate the prices that Big Pharma charges? The best way would be to open up competition on their product, but patent law states that every new invention (drug) needs some time to be exclusive to the inventor. So that means drugs like viagra are just now getting generic versions, forcing the price down. I think the standard is 20 years before a drug can have generic versions, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, this was a long rant that really had no solutions offered. Just my view on what is really going on. I probably missed a bunch, though.

NormanPride
11/29/2011, 05:35 PM
After thinking about it some, I would have to carefully say that this is simply the cost of advancing medical technology. I don't know what the cost of creating a new drug is, so I don't REALLY know if Big Pharma is ruining everything or just doing business. If we remove their cash cow the Insurance company and make them charge only what patients can pay realistically, are they still profitable? If they have to cut back in order to remain profitable, does that drug which cures MS ever get created?

The sympathetic choice would be to distribute the costs as much as possible. This is for the greater good, supposedly, so companies should bear some of the brunt. However, I subscribe to the belief that you can never really tax a company. They pass that cost on to their employees in lower salaries, they pass it onto the consumer in higher prices, or absent those abilities they simply shut down and can no longer do business.

Ideally, smaller businesses should get a pass, but where is the cutoff? Does that unfairly favor smaller businesses over larger ones? Does that encourage businesses to stay small rather than try to grow and get better? Tough questions...

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 05:45 PM
sure, right after you prove you're not a murderer. Go ahead, prove it, can you?

well???

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 05:56 PM
---Your usual "I am Right" Arrogant response----I ask again how many people do you provide with Health insurance?

None is right. I have a very small business with two employees. I can't afford the healthcare costs for such a small operation as I don't have access to the same markets the big boys do. The health care exchange will make it an option to provide healthcare to my employees though.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Midtowner doesn't provide benefits to his employees, thus the ACA is ill-conceived? Where are you going here?

REDREX
11/29/2011, 05:59 PM
None is right. I have a very small business with two employees. I can't afford the healthcare costs for such a small operation as I don't have access to the same markets the big boys do. The health care exchange will make it an option to provide healthcare to my employees though.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Midtowner doesn't provide benefits to his employees, thus the ACA is ill-conceived? Where are you going here?---So you have no experience trying to provid coverage but you know every answer and everyone but you is wrong----Why not step up and provide coverage for your employees?

diverdog
11/29/2011, 06:00 PM
sure, right after you prove you're not a murderer. Go ahead, prove it, can you?

Is that all you got?

Ton Loc
11/29/2011, 06:01 PM
After thinking about it some, I would have to carefully say that this is simply the cost of advancing medical technology. I don't know what the cost of creating a new drug is, so I don't REALLY know if Big Pharma is ruining everything or just doing business. If we remove their cash cow the Insurance company and make them charge only what patients can pay realistically, are they still profitable? If they have to cut back in order to remain profitable, does that drug which cures MS ever get created?

The sympathetic choice would be to distribute the costs as much as possible. This is for the greater good, supposedly, so companies should bear some of the brunt. However, I subscribe to the belief that you can never really tax a company. They pass that cost on to their employees in lower salaries, they pass it onto the consumer in higher prices, or absent those abilities they simply shut down and can no longer do business.

Ideally, smaller businesses should get a pass, but where is the cutoff? Does that unfairly favor smaller businesses over larger ones? Does that encourage businesses to stay small rather than try to grow and get better? Tough questions...

NP to the rescue.

Tough questions - And I guess people expect one person to know the answer to all of them when that isn't plausible. I would say they try to tackle one issue at a time, but that's also been tried and shot down. Plus, every issue is connected to another one.

Damn, can we just try something and see if it works?

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 06:39 PM
---No you have no experience trying to provid coverage but you know every answer and everyone but you is wrong-----My not step up and provide coverage for your employees?

I've looked into it, but who on Earth provides medical insurance to a couple of part time employees? Not even Wal-Mart does that anymore.

My business doesn't even provide me with insurance, I get it through my wife's employer. Small businesses just don't have an even playing field when it comes to purchasing insurance.

East Coast Bias
11/29/2011, 08:34 PM
A lot of these Doctors and clinics now are multimillion dollar corporations. They have hospital grade equipment, run patients through like cattle, and many times the need for all this testing is questionable. Some of the procedures they perform are highly questionable in any context other than as a profit driving vehicle. Money producing centers with a symbiotic relationship with the insurance companies. I play golf with a group of doctors and they want no part of changing the system.................

REDREX
11/29/2011, 09:45 PM
I've looked into it, but who on Earth provides medical insurance to a couple of part time employees? Not even Wal-Mart does that anymore.

My business doesn't even provide me with insurance, I get it through my wife's employer. Small businesses just don't have an even playing field when it comes to purchasing insurance.--- We are not a big business about 120 total people spread out over 6 different business's in 5 states----The new law will not help us buy insurance or save money----What it will do is force people like us to drop insurance coverage-pay the fine and let the employees be on their own---Now how is that an improvement for the employees?------------You should talk to the state and see if you could get your employees on the insurance that is available for low income people that was part of the tabacco settlement----I don't know if they still even have it

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 09:53 PM
--- We are not a big business about 120 total people spread out over 6 different business's in 5 states----The new law will not help us buy insurance or save money----What it will do is force people like us to drop insurance coverage-pay the fine and let the employees be on their own---Now how is that an improvement for the employees?------------You should talk to the state and see if you could get your employees on the insurance that is available for low income people that was part of the tabacco settlement----I don't know if they still even have it

That's total bull****. It'll allow your employer access to even better options through the exchange. Go read the bill. Seriously. Stop buying into the talking points.

REDREX
11/29/2011, 10:01 PM
That's total bull****. It'll allow your employer access to even better options through the exchange. Go read the bill. Seriously. Stop buying into the talking points.----We have looked at it---people that actually understand what they are doing--- The don't see that we can save a cent unless we dump the employees that would save us $400,000 per year and screw the employees ---Stop buying into the Dem talking points

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 10:13 PM
----We have looked at it---people that actually understand what they are doing--- The don't see that we can save a cent unless we dump the employees that would save us $400,000 per year and screw the employees ---Stop buying into the Dem talking points

Impossible unless your state has set up its exchanges.

REDREX
11/29/2011, 10:19 PM
Impossible unless your state has set up its exchanges.Why do you think these exchanges will be such a great deal ?----We are still stuck with the state line problem and when one of your states is California its a huge whole----------We spend over $650,000 per year on employee health coverage we have spent time looking at what is coming----But I am sure you know more than the people we paid to look at it

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 10:35 PM
Unless they have a crystal ball, they have no idea.

REDREX
11/29/2011, 10:41 PM
Unless they have a crystal ball, they have no idea.--- But you somehow know that the exchanges will be a great deal

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 10:55 PM
A lot of docs now just punch a clock. They work for a clinic or hospital and, thus, have insulated themselves from dealing with the business side of medicine. As long as they meet their quota and get a nice check, they really wouldn't want anything to change. However, every other doc is fed up with dealing with insurance companies and Medicare and the Medicare over regulations. Almost every doc I know would want that change in a heartbeat.

Gosh, as a lawyer, I'd love for there to be a nice entitlement system to pay for my fees. Docs get Medicare and Medicaid regulations. It's their choice to take those patients or not.

soonercruiser
11/29/2011, 11:29 PM
A lot of these Doctors and clinics now are multimillion dollar corporations. They have hospital grade equipment, run patients through like cattle, and many times the need for all this testing is questionable. Some of the procedures they perform are highly questionable in any context other than as a profit driving vehicle. Money producing centers with a symbiotic relationship with the insurance companies. I play golf with a group of doctors and they want no part of changing the system.................

Please be honest enough to buy the docs a beer the next time, and have them explain to you the many reasons why they don't like Obamacare. Maybe you would learn something about the system, rather than shooting off your.....well, from the hip.
This merely shows your "Bias"!

I will start posting some news stories surfacing from the small print of Obamacare.
I can relate one now....the wiffie finally finds a doc who will take Medicare & TRICARE For Life, after searching for a year. She has a complete physical exam - billed for $238. Not bad, huh?
Well TRICARE "authorized" $00.00!
So Medicare "pays" $00.00!
How in the he11 can a doc stay in business taking Medicare fees??

diverdog
11/29/2011, 11:32 PM
Please be honest enough to buy the docs a beer the next time, and have them explain to you the many reasons why they don't like Obamacare. Maybe you would learn something about the system, rather than shooting off your.....well, from the hip.
This merely shows your "Bias"!

I will start posting some news stories surfacing from the small print of Obamacare.
I can relate one now....the wiffie finally finds a doc who will take Medicare & TRICARE For Life, after searching for a year. She has a complete physical exam - billed for $238. Not bad, huh?
Well TRICARE "authorized" $00.00!
So Medicare "pays" $00.00!
How in the he11 can a doc stay in business taking Medicare fees??

Well that is certainly one way to control medical cost.

Midtowner
11/30/2011, 07:17 AM
Since it wouldn't effect 98%, then 98% wouldn't care. Just because 75% would be OK with it doesn't mean it is fair, just or right.

The majority of Americans aren't hispanic. Why not a 2% hispanic tax? Why not a teacher tax? The majority aren't teachers?

LOL taxing someone based on race is the same as taxing based on income. Gotcha.

bigfatjerk
11/30/2011, 07:36 AM
Why is it not? You are oppressing a minority only to help the majority. It's the exact opposite of what a republic is made to do. All you really want is a democracy that ends mob rule where the powerful end up deciding our every move. And guess what that's basically how it's set up here now. And that's how it's always been in Europe. To me we should be making everyone pay their same share on taxes not make the rich pay more or the poor pay less or the middle class be squeezed out of the system because of the battle between the two. We have a republic set up to where everyone should be treated fairly.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 09:26 AM
I've looked into it, but who on Earth provides medical insurance to a couple of part time employees? Not even Wal-Mart does that anymore.

My business doesn't even provide me with insurance, I get it through my wife's employer. Small businesses just don't have an even playing field when it comes to purchasing insurance.

Oh really, bet ya have an I-phone, bet ya have a home, bet ya have a couple of nice cars, but ya just can't afford to pay for your own healthcare, instead you get it through your wife's employer.

Ironic, you talk all this garbage about healthcare and how EVERYONE is entitled to it yet you wont even provide it for TWO freaking employes.

Guess they're only entitled to it, if it's on someone elses dime.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 09:27 AM
Why is it not? You are oppressing a minority only to help the majority. It's the exact opposite of what a republic is made to do. All you really want is a democracy that ends mob rule where the powerful end up deciding our every move. And guess what that's basically how it's set up here now. And that's how it's always been in Europe. To me we should be making everyone pay their same share on taxes not make the rich pay more or the poor pay less or the middle class be squeezed out of the system because of the battle between the two. We have a republic set up to where everyone should be treated fairly.


one minor flaw, the poor don't pay ANY taxes.

East Coast Bias
11/30/2011, 09:56 AM
Please be honest enough to buy the docs a beer the next time, and have them explain to you the many reasons why they don't like Obamacare. Maybe you would learn something about the system, rather than shooting off your.....well, from the hip.
This merely shows your "Bias"!

I will start posting some news stories surfacing from the small print of Obamacare.
I can relate one now....the wiffie finally finds a doc who will take Medicare & TRICARE For Life, after searching for a year. She has a complete physical exam - billed for $238. Not bad, huh?
Well TRICARE "authorized" $00.00!
So Medicare "pays" $00.00!
How in the he11 can a doc stay in business taking Medicare fees??

Nice. If you are looking for health-system horror stories, Michael Moore could help you out.I am sure you talk to doctor's more than I do and have had a better tour of the health care system? I have had 3 heart attacks,6 surguries, and a 70K pacemaker installed that I probably don't need. Seriously, dude, you don't think doctors can make a living taking medicare fees?

NormanPride
11/30/2011, 10:19 AM
Well, I tried.

Ton Loc
11/30/2011, 10:26 AM
Well, I tried.

I appreciate it, but you forgot to include at least 2 personal attacks in your response.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 10:30 AM
Is that all you got?

That's all I need!! Now prove you're not a murderer and I'll prove your wrong about a blind assumption your making about someone you know nothing about.

diverdog
11/30/2011, 10:34 AM
one minor flaw, the poor don't pay ANY taxes.

So you are going to sit here and say the poor pay no taxes...not a single cent? Is this something you can back up or are you just running your mouth again?

NormanPride
11/30/2011, 10:48 AM
I appreciate it, but you forgot to include at least 2 personal attacks in your response.

Sad but true.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 11:00 AM
So you are going to sit here and say the poor pay no taxes...not a single cent? Is this something you can back up or are you just running your mouth again?

Sorry, 51%

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/51-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/238329/

http://news.yahoo.com/numbers-47-percent-pay-no-income-tax-look-170500327.html

http://www.gastongazette.com/articles/fair-64131-taxes-letter.html

I can find 50 more links providing this information, all though I'm sure you'll just dismiss them as right wing rantings.

bigfatjerk
11/30/2011, 12:29 PM
Dale that's exactly my point. We should have well over 70% of the people paying federal taxes not basically 50%.

diverdog
11/30/2011, 12:36 PM
Sorry, 51%

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/51-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/238329/

http://news.yahoo.com/numbers-47-percent-pay-no-income-tax-look-170500327.html

http://www.gastongazette.com/articles/fair-64131-taxes-letter.html

I can find 50 more links providing this information, all though I'm sure you'll just dismiss them as right wing rantings.

Read what you wrote. You said the poor do not pay "ANY" taxes. You only referenced income taxes. I will anxiously wait your proof.

pphilfran
11/30/2011, 12:38 PM
:pop:

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 12:39 PM
Read what you wrote. You said the poor do not pay "ANY" taxes. You only referenced income taxes. I will anxiously wait your proof.

Stop playing stupid, even though you do it soooo well. You know the facts you know the figures and you damn good and well know what I was talking about.

diverdog
11/30/2011, 12:48 PM
Stop playing stupid, even though you do it soooo well. You know the facts you know the figures and you damn good and well know what I was talking about.

No you were the one who said the poor do not pay ANY taxes when in fact they do in the form of payroll taxes, city wage taxes, excise taxes, user taxes, state and local taxes. The 51% figure includes people from all wage strata. Yes many are poor but there are also small businessmen and millionaires included in that group.

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 01:00 PM
No you were the one who said the poor do not pay ANY taxes when in fact they do in the form of payroll taxes, city wage taxes, excise taxes, user taxes, state and local taxes. The 51% figure includes people from all wage strata. Yes many are poor but there are also small businessmen and millionaires included in that group.

You mean like George Soros and Tim Geitner?

diverdog
11/30/2011, 01:12 PM
You mean like George Soros and Tim Geitner?

Yep.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 02:30 PM
No you were the one who said the poor do not pay ANY taxes when in fact they do in the form of payroll taxes, city wage taxes, excise taxes, user taxes, state and local taxes. The 51% figure includes people from all wage strata. Yes many are poor but there are also small businessmen and millionaires included in that group.

almost half of all Americans pay no federal income tax, that is a fact, yet these are the same people crying that the rich aren't paying their fair share. You are wrong, I am right, now deal with it.

diverdog
11/30/2011, 02:37 PM
almost half of all Americans pay no federal income tax, that is a fact, yet these are the same people crying that the rich aren't paying their fair share. You are wrong, I am right, now deal with it.

So know you want to change your argument. So tell me what is the payroll tax and how much income is it exposed to? Do the rich pay income tax on their gross income or AGI?

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 02:40 PM
He didn't list 1,000 business owners. He listed one.

Anecdotes ain't data.

True enough but the business he used in his example is.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 02:44 PM
So know you want to change your argument. So tell me what is the payroll tax and how much income is it exposed to? Do the rich pay income tax on their gross income or AGI?

Can't speak on behalf of every rich person, anymore than you can, so I wont. I can tell you that almost have of the people in this country pay NO federal income tax, that is a fact. So tell me where does the money come from to fund our guvment, if half the people don't pay in to it? THE OTHER HALF. So why is the half that is paying all the taxes being told they are not paying their fair share. It's a simple question and your only answer is "they're not paying enough". In your opinion how what percentage of someone's earning should be seized by Uncle Sam in the form of federal payroll taxes?

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 02:46 PM
Oh really, bet ya have an I-phone, bet ya have a home, bet ya have a couple of nice cars, but ya just can't afford to pay for your own healthcare, instead you get it through your wife's employer.

Ironic, you talk all this garbage about healthcare and how EVERYONE is entitled to it yet you wont even provide it for TWO freaking employes.

Guess they're only entitled to it, if it's on someone elses dime.

wow, that sure shut midtowner down didn't it.
We know exactly why you don't cover your TWO employes, because the money to do so would have to come out of your pocket, and there's no way that's happening.
Now if we can devise some sort of plan to have them covered and have it paid for out of someone Else's pocket, then you're all in, huh big guy!

diverdog
11/30/2011, 02:58 PM
Can't speak on behalf of every rich person, anymore than you can, so I wont. I can tell you that almost have of the people in this country pay NO federal income tax, that is a fact. So tell me where does the money come from to fund our guvment, if half the people don't pay in to it? THE OTHER HALF. So why is the half that is paying all the taxes being told they are not paying their fair share. It's a simple question and your only answer is "they're not paying enough". In your opinion how what percentage of someone's earning should be seized by Uncle Sam in the form of federal payroll taxes?

1. I think everyone should pay income taxes.

2. The rich need to pay more. Look at Buffet. He made $65 million and only paid taxed on $39 million. Is that fair?

3. The income tax brackets are fine. It is all the loopholes that exempt billions of dollars of income from being taxed.

4. Income tax is only 40% of the revenue the government collects. They get taxes from everywhere.

5. The amount of income that the FICA tax is exposed to needs to raised.

pphilfran
11/30/2011, 02:58 PM
So know you want to change your argument. So tell me what is the payroll tax and how much income is it exposed to? Do the rich pay income tax on their gross income or AGI?

Imo payroll taxes shouldn't be shown in the revenue stream on the budget...a surplus in SS shouldn't balance out excessive spending in other areas...

pphilfran
11/30/2011, 03:00 PM
1. I think everyone should pay income taxes.

2. The rich need to pay more. Look at Buffet. He made $65 million and only paid taxed on $39 million. Is that fair?

3. The income tax brackets are fine. It is all the loopholes that exempt billions of dollars of income from being taxed.

4. Income tax is only 40% of the revenue the government collects. They get taxes from everywhere.

5. The amount of income that the FICA tax is exposed to needs to raised.

1. Yes
2. Somewhat on the low side
3. yes
4. yes
5. yes - to 140k or so

diverdog
11/30/2011, 03:01 PM
Imo payroll taxes shouldn't be shown in the revenue stream on the budget...a surplus in SS shouldn't balance out excessive spending in other areas...

Totally agree. The surplus has been hiding the deficits for years and is really nothing more than a defacto income tax.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 03:17 PM
1. I think everyone should pay income taxes.

agreed,


2. The rich need to pay more. Look at Buffet. He made $65 million and only paid taxed on $39 million. Is that fair?

bet he paid more in taxes in one year than everyone on this board has paid their entire lives. Perspective my man, perspective.


The amount of income that the FICA tax is exposed to needs to raised.

That's a tax increase on the rich, so now we're back to square one.

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 03:34 PM
Buffet is two-faced *******.
He talks the talk of higher taxes for the rich, along with Obama.
But, like with Tim Geitner, the "walking" truth can't be misunderstood!


Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2003
Over $1 BILLION!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 03:45 PM
Buffet is two-faced *******.
He talks the talk of higher taxes for the rich, along with Obama.
But, like with Tim Geitner, the "walking" truth can't be misunderstood!

agreed, bet he has still paid more in taxes in one year than everyone on this board has paid or will pay, in their entire working career.

diverdog
11/30/2011, 04:16 PM
agreed,



bet he paid more in taxes in one year than everyone on this board has paid their entire lives. Perspective my man, perspective.



That's a tax increase on the rich, so now we're back to square one.

The rich will have their taxes raised. It will probably be in the form of eliminations in deductions. That politician can say they did not raise taxes.

diverdog
11/30/2011, 04:19 PM
agreed, bet he has still paid more in taxes in one year than everyone on this board has paid or will pay, in their entire working career.

We need the revenue so it doesn't matter how much he has paid.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 04:36 PM
We need the revenue so it doesn't matter how much he has paid.

sure it does. When you're talking about monies collected, when you're talking about a segment of the population who pays very little if any fed taxes (and many get what they paid in back in the form or a refund) complaining because some fat cat is paying a smaller % of what they earn.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 04:38 PM
The rich will have their taxes raised. It will probably be in the form of eliminations in deductions. That politician can say they did not raise taxes.

I wont argue with that.

TitoMorelli
11/30/2011, 04:45 PM
The rich will have their taxes raised. It will probably be in the form of eliminations in deductions. That politician can say they did not raise taxes.

There will be a move to eliminate some deductions, but there will very likely be a tax increase as well. Because taxing only the rich really won't pay back squat. We'll all see increases, when Capitol Hill finally gets the cajones to admit it's the only solution, especially given their apparent inability to scale back spending.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 04:54 PM
There will be a move to eliminate some deductions, but there will very likely be a tax increase as well. Because taxing only the rich really won't pay back squat. We'll all see increases, when Capitol Hill finally gets the cajones to admit it's the only solution, especially given their apparent inability to scale back spending.

The middle class better be careful what they wish for. We're looking at an across the board tax increase which will effect them. Many think raising taxes is a great idea until they realize they're going to be right smack dab in the middle of the increase as well.

bigfatjerk
11/30/2011, 08:34 PM
We need the revenue so it doesn't matter how much he has paid.

Until the federal government gets their spending in order why give them more money to give to other rich people? That's basically all they do with the money they get right now.

diverdog
11/30/2011, 09:24 PM
There will be a move to eliminate some deductions, but there will very likely be a tax increase as well. Because taxing only the rich really won't pay back squat. We'll all see increases, when Capitol Hill finally gets the cajones to admit it's the only solution, especially given their apparent inability to scale back spending.

I would like a permanet freeze at 2008 levels for 5 years before we agree to tax increases.

REDREX
11/30/2011, 09:43 PM
We need to cut 10-15% of the Federal work force----That would be a good start

SCOUT
11/30/2011, 10:00 PM
I would like a permanet freeze at 2008 levels for 5 years before we agree to tax increases.
I have always wondered about this. Baseline budgeting seems to be a pretty big part of the problem to me. If we simply fixed spending costs for a few years, wouldn't population growth and inflation do at least some of the leg work?

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 10:23 PM
We need to cut 10-15% of the Federal work force----That would be a good start

Education Department!
Commerce Dept.!
Uhhhhh, I know there was a third....aaaaaaa

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 10:24 PM
Oh Yah! (one post later...)
Energy Department!
:biggrin:

diverdog
12/1/2011, 12:29 AM
We need to cut 10-15% of the Federal work force----That would be a good start

If you do that then you cannot bitch about unemployment being high.

diverdog
12/1/2011, 12:29 AM
I have always wondered about this. Baseline budgeting seems to be a pretty big part of the problem to me. If we simply fixed spending costs for a few years, wouldn't population growth and inflation do at least some of the leg work?

Yep.

bigfatjerk
12/1/2011, 08:35 AM
If you do that then you cannot bitch about unemployment being high.

You really think teachers and schools would just go away if they were givin to private companies or states instead of federal government? The only jobs you would lose would be many of the union bosses that's really about it.

Government has to cut spending by a ton before and keep it off before it can really raise revenue. I have no faith that our current government will do anything but give money to the rich.

diverdog
12/2/2011, 01:52 PM
You really think teachers and schools would just go away if they were givin to private companies or states instead of federal government? The only jobs you would lose would be many of the union bosses that's really about it.

Government has to cut spending by a ton before and keep it off before it can really raise revenue. I have no faith that our current government will do anything but give money to the rich.

You cannot cut the budget enough to balance it . We are going to need to raise taxes, cut spending and grow the economy.

Dale Ellis
12/2/2011, 02:28 PM
You cannot cut the budget enough to balance it . We are going to need to raise taxes, cut spending and grow the economy.

On whom?

pphilfran
12/2/2011, 02:31 PM
On whom?

Me, you, and a dog named Boo....

bigfatjerk
12/2/2011, 05:37 PM
You cannot cut the budget enough to balance it . We are going to need to raise taxes, cut spending and grow the economy.

You might be right, but the government is going to just give that extra money to other rich people then ask for more money. They aren't going to put the extra taxes toward fixing the budget.

NormanPride
12/2/2011, 05:49 PM
If you do that then you cannot bitch about unemployment being high.

Better to release those jobs to private industry. If the gov't can buy off banks and such, why can't companies buy certain parts of the government and privatize it? ;) (yes I realize that is silly)

soonercruiser
12/2/2011, 06:17 PM
Me, you, and a dog named Boo....

Somebody is "dating" themselves!
:very_drunk:

pphilfran
12/2/2011, 06:18 PM
Somebody is "dating" themselves!
:very_drunk:

Hated that song...

soonercruiser
12/2/2011, 06:20 PM
You cannot cut the budget enough to balance it . We are going to need to raise taxes, cut spending and grow the economy.

Many "liitle" cuts in government CAN add up to some big money.
It really frustrates me that any time someone comes with an idea to cut the fed gobment, there is always some lib naysayer that is willing to step up and say throw out that good idea - just because one idea can't balance the budget.
WE MUST START, EVEN IF SMALL, AND START NOW!

Every single, small, good iead should be implemented to save taxpayer $$!

diverdog
12/2/2011, 10:59 PM
Many "liitle" cuts in government CAN add up to some big money.
It really frustrates me that any time someone comes with an idea to cut the fed gobment, there is always some lib naysayer that is willing to step up and say throw out that good idea - just because one idea can't balance the budget.
WE MUST START, EVEN IF SMALL, AND START NOW!

Every single, small, good iead should be implemented to save taxpayer $$!

Cruiser we need cuts to be sure but they need to come from every thing in the budget including the military. No sacred cows.

okie52
12/3/2011, 01:12 AM
Cruiser we need cuts to be sure but they need to come from every thing in the budget including the military. No sacred cows.

That we do Diver...that we do.

diverdog
12/3/2011, 07:51 AM
That we do Diver...that we do.

And more energy drilling. Lol

okie52
12/3/2011, 08:10 AM
And more energy drilling. Lol

LOL. That is for sure.

bigfatjerk
12/3/2011, 02:18 PM
I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with you outside of most democrats and republicans diver. We need to cut everything including entitlements and military.

diverdog
12/3/2011, 04:43 PM
I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with you outside of most democrats and republicans diver. We need to cut everything including entitlements and military.

I think we could get away with freezing spending on everything but SS and Medicare. Hold those two to a reasonable COLA based on actual inflation.

soonercruiser
12/3/2011, 10:01 PM
I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with you outside of most democrats and republicans diver. We need to cut everything including entitlements and military.

Just rememebr guys, before you get too joyful in agreement....
The Defense Department is already cutting $450 Billion over the next 10 years.
Who else has been cutting???


.....They are to come on top of $450 Billion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.
.....that the Defense Department and the White House agreed to last summer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/despite-threat-of-cuts-pentagon-made-no-contingency-plans.html?pagewanted=all

bigfatjerk
12/4/2011, 07:50 PM
As long as we have troops all over Europe, Middle East, Asia, etc our military budget is way too bloated. 450 billion dollars isn't even that much especially considering it's probably cuts in projected increases in the overall budget.

Dale Ellis
12/5/2011, 11:25 AM
450 billion dollars isn't even that much

spoken like a true liberal.

soonercruiser
12/5/2011, 11:24 PM
As long as we have troops all over Europe, Middle East, Asia, etc our military budget is way too bloated. 450 billion dollars isn't even that much especially considering it's probably cuts in projected increases in the overall budget.

As I have already posted on several threads.....HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Another posts downplaying $Billions in cut!!!
Oh, it won't balance the budget!
Oh, we need to pull all our troops back to the Mexoco border....blah, blah, blah!

I said, The military has agreed to $450 Billion over 10 years!
Who/what is next??

okie52
12/6/2011, 12:26 AM
Cruiser-450billion over 10 years isn't a bad start. Ultimately that budget needs to get down to about 350 billion...or about 1/2 of what it is now. But 20-25 years is the time span to do it in

Are you against using the troops to defend the border?

diverdog
12/6/2011, 09:59 AM
As I have already posted on several threads.....HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Another posts downplaying $Billions in cut!!!
Oh, it won't balance the budget!
Oh, we need to pull all our troops back to the Mexoco border....blah, blah, blah!

I said, The military has agreed to $450 Billion over 10 years!
Who/what is next??

Cruiser these are not actual cuts but a reduction in annual increases. The are slowing the increase from 23% to 16%. in ten years the defense budget will be well north of $850 billion dollars! I want the actual budget in 10 years to be $500 billion dollars.

bigfatjerk
12/7/2011, 05:59 AM
spoken like a true liberal.

It depends on your definition of liberal. I want more spending cuts than either party wants at this point nor will they ever want.

soonercruiser
12/7/2011, 01:43 PM
Cruiser these are not actual cuts but a reduction in annual increases. The are slowing the increase from 23% to 16%. in ten years the defense budget will be well north of $850 billion dollars! I want the actual budget in 10 years to be $500 billion dollars.

Diver!
What's the problem here???
This is exactly the type of cuts that the Dems like Peeloski & Reid always negotiate with the Repugs.......and then brag about the cuts they made!
Why is it that it somehow isn't OK this time??
:pride:
So, now the same tactic is not good enough for ya'!