"Obamacare" - The USA Hard Right vs. the NHS

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Unskilled, NOBODY, not even the government is above the law.

That's actually one of the more idiotic things you've ever said, and going by your track record, that's saying something. The "government" isn't a person- it's a group of people who, together, basically run the country. They're mostly tied up in internal feuds, but when "the government" as a whole wants something, they're pretty good about getting it. Example: back during the energy crisis, the Volkswagen Rabbit (the diesel version) gained popularity because it could be run off heating oil and thus powered more cheaply than gas cars. However, this was illegal, because heating oil wasn't subject to the taxes that gas is. If any person (or business entity) tried to pull this stunt, they'd get smacked down by the government for profiteering. When the government itself is doing it, however. . . they have license (or rather, can give themselves license) to say screw the rules, I make them.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

They act like they are, but they're not. And the government can't just print more money. There can't be more money in circulation than there is gold in the vaults. Or something like that. Well, legally there shouldn't be.

Harley- we went off the gold standard a ways back. Yes, the government can print more money and, as spotts has noted, the US government is currently engaged in doing just that. They're trying to prop it up by taking out new debt (to the point where China's minister of finance has quipped that we should start issuing notes in Yuan) which has, shall we say, other problems associated with it.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

And somehow I doubt the Insurance industry is gonna run out of money.

If the government awards itself a legal monopoly on their business, there's no reason for them to retain any.

gaijinguy wrote:

They're trying to prop it up by taking out new debt (to the point where China's minister of finance has quipped that we should start issuing notes in Yuan) which has, shall we say, other problems associated with it.

I'm waiting for all that shit to catch up with you guys. Although Democratic Tax and Spend policies might actually yield a surplus again.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Gaijin, the government is not above the law. If you accept that hey, it might be, you'll get them walking all over you.

Psy-4 wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

They're trying to prop it up by taking out new debt (to the point where China's minister of finance has quipped that we should start issuing notes in Yuan) which has, shall we say, other problems associated with it.

I'm waiting for all that shit to catch up with you guys. Although Democratic Tax and Spend policies might actually yield a surplus again.

Well, now we know the difference between Bush and Obama- a little more than $500 billion.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Gaijin, the government is not above the law.

Fix'd.

Don't be so immature. The goverment's bound by the law, for it's the law that gives it power to rule.

Admittedly the American government is corrupted and despicable, but that doesn't mean we're obliged to overlook the fact that they are bound by the law too. That's just what they want us to do.

Penguin wrote:

Chocho wrote:

I am watching "Sicko" right now and it's breaking my heart. I am sure there are lots of unpleasant things to be said about Michael Moore, but just watching people tell you how they lost people they love because some numbfuck denied them necessary treatment is heart wrenching.

I've seen Sicko. Like most of his stuff, it needs to be taken with a heavy dosage of salt. Especially when they go to Cuba.

That part had a flashing neon sign plastered all over it, saying "Attention: Obvious Manipulation!". I also didn't quite buy that France and Great Britain are countries where milk and honey flow.

gaijinguy wrote:

Well, now we know the difference between Bush and Obama- a little more than $500 billion.

Heh, remember how we fucked up the nation by voting for a moron? Twice? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lysander wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Well, now we know the difference between Bush and Obama- a little more than $500 billion.

Heh, remember how we fucked up the nation by voting for a moron? Twice? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LOL, did you know that the Stimulus Package actually fucked things up more than if we hadn't done anything at all?

KelinciHutan wrote:

Lysander wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Well, now we know the difference between Bush and Obama- a little more than $500 billion.

Heh, remember how we fucked up the nation by voting for a moron? Twice? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LOL, did you know that the Stimulus Package actually fucked things up more than if we hadn't done anything at all?

1.) Thrice.
2.) That was exactly what most intelligent, rational people were saying while Senators went nuts stuffing pork into the bill and Obama was off selling it like a Billy Mays wanna-be.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Lysander wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Well, now we know the difference between Bush and Obama- a little more than $500 billion.

Heh, remember how we fucked up the nation by voting for a moron? Twice? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LOL, did you know that the Stimulus Package actually fucked things up more than if we hadn't done anything at all?

That would be the one initially proposed under Bush - by Congress and not the President - which was heavily supported by both parties until after the democrats were elected, when it suddenly became both Obama's sole responsibility and the very worst thing ever?

I totally see how they can guess what the economy is going to be doing ten years from now compared to a parallel universe where we had no stimulus. I can absolutely understand how they could know that without being able to avoid this whole recession in the first place. I certainly don't think that you are a blinded ideologue with a raging confirmation bias that renders you incapable of making rational decisions in the realm of politics.

Lysander wrote:

That would be the one initially proposed under Bush - by Congress and not the President - which was heavily supported by both parties until after the democrats were elected, when it suddenly became both Obama's sole responsibility and the very worst thing ever?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] The one that was actually in Congress for a week? Three, at the most? All of which weeks were after Obama was in office? The one that Obama backed as hard as he absolutely could? The one that only three Republicans in either house of Congress voted for? Yeah, I guess the fact that it got proposed before that completely overshadows everything. My bad.

Look, I don't like to blame the prez for things he didn't do, either. But, he backed it, he angled for it, he praised it, and it was a giant mistake. He was bound to make some big ones and this is one of them.

As for the rest of your post...never mind. I'm vaguely amused that the fact that Conservatives exist pisses you off so much, but I don't have that much energy to invest in disagreeing with you. But continue to vent as much as you like. You apparently need it.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Look, I don't like to blame the prez for things he didn't do, either. But, he backed it, he angled for it, he praised it

So did Bush. So did a lot of people, at least until the politically-motivated backlash started.

Quote :

and it was a giant mistake

What do you mean, was? The stimulus spending is ongoing. These things take time to get started. We won't even be 25% done with it until the end of the year. How do you declare that something "was a giant mistake" when it's only like 18-20% complete? Dude, quit abusing the poor, wretched past tense.

While there have been a lot of puffed-up claims by both sides concerning the bill, claiming something "was a giant mistake" based on one sketchy long-term projection and your own personal dislike, months before even a quarter of it is enacted, is simply irresponsible.
Also, it is not a comeback to "you elected Bush twice," because you still did. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

Also, it is not a comeback to "you elected Bush twice," because you still did. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Did we? Did we indeed?

Well, I didn't.

And the fattest part of my ass Bush was 'elected'. Everybody was expecting Gore to move in - hell, even the Simpsons, American Dad and Family Guy had him measuring up the place. And gosh, turns out the media was WRONG.

As I recall, Obama himself said the goal of the stimulus pork bill was to prevent the increase of the unemployment rate. In the last week or so that rate hit a 26 year high. It has failed.

That the stimulus spending is still in itself is a bad thing. If an athlete is tired and needs a boost of energy, you don't give him a drink that gives him energy two days from now.

On top of all of that, on average every stimulus dollar spent by the US government translates into a 60 cent increase in GDP. As opposed to private spending, which is pretty much a dollar for dollar increase.

Stimulus spending is a good thing when done in efficient, small doses. But even the guy who first thought up the concept warned, way back in the 40s, that people were beginning to take it too far. A MASSIVE spending bill like that doesn't accomplish anything. At best, it's like paying someone, who probably already had a productive job, to take a bucket of water out of the deep end of the pool and put it back in the shallow end.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Quote :

Also, it is not a comeback to "you elected Bush twice," because you still did. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Did we? Did we indeed?

Well, I didn't.

And the fattest part of my ass Bush was 'elected'. Everybody was expecting Gore to move in - hell, even the Simpsons, American Dad and Family Guy had him measuring up the place. And gosh, turns out the media was WRONG.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Think before you speak, Harley.
Or just never speak. It adds up to the same thing.

Lysander wrote:

Also, it is not a comeback to "you elected Bush twice," because you still did. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

My objection was to your "Obama's only fixing what Bush broke" implication. But given that, in your head, you dismissing out-of-hand a report from the Congressional Budget Office because you don't like what it says somehow equals me having a confirmation bias, I'm not surprised you didn't catch that.

Kelin, citing the Washington Times? The "Moonie Paper"? They are so slanted to the right that it's mind-boggling.

Plus the Wall Street Journal reached the opposite conclusion just last week and they certainly aren't in the tank for Obama.

Quote :

Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Kelin, citing the Washington Times? The "Moonie Paper"? They are so slanted to the right that it's mind-boggling.

Plus the Wall Street Journal reached the opposite conclusion just last week and they certainly aren't in the tank for Obama.

I never intended to be in this thread much, but--without going into this argument further--let's say you're right on both counts. The Washington Times is right-leaning, and the report they were summing up (from an office with no party affiliation, by the way) was wrong. That would still mean that you, at least, looked at the link, did some Googling, and found a source for a contrary claim. As opposed to Lysander going, "Oh, gee, this would upset my argument. ATTACK! ATTACK LIKE MAD!" Which makes me much less inclined to be irritated at you.

...And that's all I'm going to get into this. Yes, I have more arguments I could offer but I'm tired, and I don't really feel like debating politics over the internet. G'night, Mr. Spotts.

Fair enough point.

The problem with the Congressional Budget Office is that they tend to be a) extremely pessimistic and b) limited to only what is provided to them to analyze.

Bringing this back to the health care debate, the biggest knock against the CBO with respect to that is that they weren't even asked to score all the alternatives that are in the Senate and House (the HELP committee's bill, the Finance committee's proposal, and the HR 676 single-payer bill). They were instructed to limit their report to the then-incomplete HELP committee bill, thus leaving their analysis (in their own words, mind you) to be of limited value.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Stimulus spending is a good thing when done in efficient, small doses.

Which is what we're doing. They budgeted it in one setting, and are spending it over the course of a few years, on a set plan. Rather you think that money is being spent "efficiently" depends on your personal opinion on what is and isn't vaulable enough to spend it on, I guess.

No, it hasn't stopped job losses, but it's still ongoing. They said they'd do what they can for as long as they can, not that everything will be neatly fixed by next thrusday. If it does get fixed, I'm sure both sides will race to accept credit, rather or not they managed to actually do anything.

If the money runs out and we're still losing jobs, that still won't definitavely solve the issue. Half the people will say that the stimulus failed because it was wrong to try, and the other half will say it failed because we needed a second stimulus to complete the first, and everybody will be too busy covering their asses and uselessly throwing around blame to ever provide any straight answers or hard data. Such is life.

KelinciHutan wrote:

My objection was to your "Obama's only fixing what Bush broke" implication.

Well, that explains why I couldn't for the life of me figure out what you were talking about. That wasn't what I was implying at all. I was joking about the "Obama is exactly like Bush" joke by pointing out that he probably voted for Bush. Twice.

Okay, it's not some of my best material, but cut me some slack. Yesterday was hard.

KelinciHutan wrote:

As opposed to Lysander going, "Oh, gee, this would upset my argument. ATTACK! ATTACK LIKE MAD!" Which makes me much less inclined to be irritated at you.

Yes, that silly non sequitor response would totally upset the argument that I wasn't even trying to make.

I dismissed it out of hand, because there have been oodles of conflicting projections about how the stimulus is going to play out, which everyone who reads the news should already know about. You just picked one that you happen to agree with on principal, and declared it the absolute truth while apparently displaying ignorance about the ongoing recovery effort. So yeah, that's confirmation bias.

Fact is, it'd take a psychic to authoritatively say what the economy's gonna look like in ten years.

When you get right down to it, there's a simple problem with honesty here.

Boil away all the rhetoric, and the right wing is eager to spend tax money, as long as it's on really cool shit. Aircraft carriers, fighter jets, nuclear submarines, nuclear weapons, tanks, tacticool infantry gear, oh, and landing on the goddamn moon.

But schools and hospitals are major boring shit, and nobody wants to go to schools or hospitals, let alone spend money on boring shit.

I'm sure you get this a lot, Penguin, and I think at least once from me: will you please marry me?

Yes please.

Penguin wrote:

When you get right down to it, there's a simple problem with honesty here.

Boil away all the rhetoric, and the right wing is eager to spend tax money, as long as it's on really cool shit. Aircraft carriers, fighter jets, nuclear submarines, nuclear weapons, tanks, tacticool infantry gear, oh, and landing on the goddamn moon.

But schools and hospitals are major boring shit, and nobody wants to go to schools or hospitals, let alone spend money on boring shit.

The thing is, the Federal Government is supposed to spend gobs on defense. The states are supposed to run schools and shit. The welfare reform of the 90s hints that the states are MASSIVELY more competent at managing their own shit than the Feds are.