• Opposition to healthcare law eases, poll finds. Weekly Standard disagrees.
    177 replies, posted
What's wrong with a 20% cut across the board? It cuts in defense too.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494364]What's wrong with a 20% cut across the board? It cuts in defense too.[/QUOTE] Cutting across the board would only cause unnecessary job loss in a time when we cannot afford it. Cutting weapons buildup or research would not be as drastic, and such a thing is less necessary in the US' current situation.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494164]this feels incomplete. Where's the recent "health care reform"? where are the suggestions from conservatives like the 20% cut for [B]All[/B] of Government? At least they had Tort/medical malpractice reform on it. I just wish the Carbon tax wasn't still being considered. It's just a way to tax the air we breath.[/QUOTE] Because it eventually reduces the deficit I assume.
Well there's repealing Obamacare. (Though I still have to wonder about the fuzzy math that produced the numbers that say that's more expensive) Oh and on the matter of the NY Times puzzle. I got my result with mostly tax cuts and the choices available. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zw6rdj14[/url] [QUOTE=Habsburg;27494427]Because it eventually reduces the deficit I assume.[/QUOTE] I rather reduce it with cuts than a Tax based upon a lie.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492965]We can't afford it. the US Government is almost at its debt limit. To enact Obamacare (the Public health care system that was passed under Obama) in full would devastate the economy even more and instead of improving health care, the quality would go down because doctors would have to get paid from the government instead of from their patients and insurance companies. In public health care, the Government has more control over weather you can live or die. You need that experimental new drug? Whops, not covered under the plan. You need that newly developed surgery? oops, that's not covered either. As for how it would devastate the economy. Taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Add that to the current unemployment problem and you have more people on the receiving end then you do on the paying end. The very thing insurance companies get attacked over, the Government would do too and on a National Scale.[/QUOTE] Stop listening to neocon talk radio and maybe you'll get your facts straight. 1) The bill is deficit-neutral 2) The bill does not ban private hospitals nor create public ones, doctors will still get their salary from the same place 3) The bill does not enact any form of "public healthcare" whatsoever 4) Taxes were not projected to go up for the middle class or lower 5) Your government already spends more per capita on healthcare than most countries with universal/public healthcare yet you cover a significantly smaller portion of the treatment's actual cost
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494504]Well there's repealing Obamacare. (Though I still have to wonder about the fuzzy math that produced the numbers that say that's more expensive) Oh and on the matter of the NY Times puzzle. I got my result with mostly tax cuts and the choices available. [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zw6rdj14[/URL] I rather reduce it with cuts than a Tax based upon a lie.[/QUOTE] Could you perhaps address my comment about cutting across the board? Also, Zeke, those are great points.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494504] Oh and on the matter of the NY Times puzzle. I got my result with mostly tax cuts and the choices available. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zw6rdj14[/url][/QUOTE] [img]http://i.cubeupload.com/94wX4q.png[/img] I cut military spending and increased taxes on high income, and implemented a VAT. Social services were untouched and I could implement an estate tax if people wanted social services expanded later.
Basically, there's several different ways it could be fixed, but due to the political system of the US, we can't accomplish it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494504]Well there's repealing Obamacare. (Though I still have to wonder about the fuzzy math that produced the numbers that say that's more expensive) Oh and on the matter of the NY Times puzzle. I got my result with mostly tax cuts and the choices available. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zw6rdj14[/url] I rather reduce it with cuts than a Tax based upon a lie.[/QUOTE] ahahahahahaha "a lie" you crack me up glaber
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494504]Well there's repealing Obamacare. (Though I still have to wonder about the fuzzy math that produced the numbers that say that's more expensive) Oh and on the matter of the NY Times puzzle. I got my result with mostly tax cuts and the choices available. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zw6rdj14[/url] I rather reduce it with cuts than a Tax based upon a lie.[/QUOTE] Might I ask what "lie" you're referring to?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27493304]Oh my, so have I! Funny enough, a lot of it came from slashing the defense budget, raising taxes on the rich, and removing tax-breaks from employer-provided insurance (provided there will still be a government plan). Imagine that![/QUOTE] That's pretty much what I did. :v:
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27494608][img_thumb]http://i.cubeupload.com/94wX4q.png[/img_thumb] I cut military spending and increased taxes on high income, and implemented a VAT. Social services were untouched and I could implement an estate tax if people wanted social services expanded later.[/QUOTE] You socialist.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494364]What's wrong with a 20% cut across the board? It cuts in defense too.[/QUOTE] If you get rid of defense entirely (which isn't a bad idea) you'd cut the budget by ~25%! You could even keep 1/5 of it and you'd still have the 20% cut you want. You can also raise taxes a bit too. I used to think that taking money from people was bad, but it stops inflation. And speaking of inflation, every penny spent on defense is pure inflation. Every soldier getting paid, and every person making bombs is bringing money into the economy which boosts demand but they don't do add anything to supply. So we end up with way too much money and too few goods, so logically prices go up and you wind up with a recession. So taxes are just a form of removing excess cash from the economy. The goal isn't to take your buying power. You'll have fewer 0's in your bank account but you should be able to buy the same amount of junk.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;27494757]You socialist.[/QUOTE] A socialist who just fixed your country with little to no effect on the working class
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27494805]A socialist who just fixed your country with little to no effect on the working class[/QUOTE] zeke for president 2012
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27494805]A socialist who just fixed your country with little to no effect on the working class[/QUOTE] It seems as though that's the conclusion several of us come to with that puzzle.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27494506]Stop listening to neocon talk radio and maybe you'll get your facts straight. 1) The bill is deficit-neutral 2) The bill does not ban private hospitals nor create public ones, doctors will still get their salary from the same place 3) The bill does not enact any form of "public healthcare" whatsoever 4) Taxes were not projected to go up for the middle class or lower 5) Your government already spends more per capita on healthcare than most countries with universal/public healthcare yet you cover a significantly smaller portion of the treatment's actual cost[/QUOTE] Stop listening and reading liberal media, maybe you'll get your facts straight. First off, explain how Obamacare is "deficit-neutral". Second: I have at least 2 sources that say other wise. [url]http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0111/politicopulse404.html[/url] [quote=politco][B]CONSTRUCTION STOPS AT PHYSICIAN HOSPITAL[/B]S – Friday marked the last day physician-owned hospitals could get Medicare certification covering their new or expanded hospitals, one of the latest provisions of the reform law to go into effect. Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide or they would not be able to bill Medicare for treatments. -- The PHA and the Texas Spine and Joint Hospital are awaiting a judge’s ruling in their legal challenge to the provision in the reform law. Scott Oostdyk, partner at McGuireWoods LLP and lead counsel for PHA, tells PULSE that he senses the judge may side with PHA that the law was retroactive (the first phase went into effect March 23), but not so retroactive that it violates due process.[/quote] [url]http://www.heartland.org/full/29036/PhysicianOwned_Hospitals_Fire_Back_at_Obamacare_Restrictions.html[/url] [quote= Heartland]Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding. It has already halted the development of 24 new physician-owned hospitals and forced an additional 47 to struggle to meet the deadline to complete construction, according to the Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).[/quote] Third, and it should stay that way. fourth, doesn't mean they wont. Just because the weather man predicts a certain level of snow, doesn't mean he's right. Fifth, You may want to take a look at this: [url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/01/17/david-cameron-accused-of-destroying-nhs-with-privatisation-plans-115875-22854652/[/url] Sounds to me like the UK can't afford their NHC system either if they're doing this. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;27494694]Might I ask what "lie" you're referring to?[/QUOTE] The lie about "Human caused" global warming. If that lie were true, Mars wouldn't be experiencing the same global warming as Earth if not 4 times worse. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;27494841]It seems as though that's the conclusion several of us come to with that puzzle.[/QUOTE] Ohh, no, that puzzle was just the deficit. Not the economy, and not the public mood towards government. My puzzle solution keeps public reaction in mind. right now, people in the US want to see cuts in government spending, not more taxes. If this was not the case, democrats and Liberals would not have lost so badly in the November elections. Also, PvtCupcakes, I'd rather not live in your ideal defenseless country.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494943]Stop listening and reading liberal media, maybe you'll get your facts straight.[/QUOTE] :irony:
[quote]The lie about "Human caused" global warming. If that lie were true, Mars wouldn't be experiencing the same global warming as Earth if not 4 times worse.[/quote] um mars heating is basically its summer mars has a far more elliptical orbit than earth does which means the variations in climate on mars are more extreme
Glaber you've been proven wrong on this shit dozens of times already, I'm not gonna bother arguing with you. I'll make better use of my time by sleeping.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=022016lr[/url]
Glaber, can you do me a favor? No, scratch that, do yourself a favor. Stop. Just stop.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494943] Also, PvtCupcakes, I'd rather not live in your ideal defenseless country.[/QUOTE] It works for other countries in the world like Canada. They do have some military but they don't do anything with it for the most part. It certainly isn't used to the extant the US uses theirs. When's the last time Canada was invaded? War of 1812 by the Americans. (It was technically Britain but same geographical location as modern day Canada). Why is it that no other country in the world is so paranoid about being invaded than the US is?
Oh and even though it won't make any difference because you're as thick as a fucking reinforced concrete bank fault. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM[/media]
greenman is my favorite
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494943]Stop listening and reading liberal media, maybe you'll get your facts straight. First off, explain how Obamacare is "deficit-neutral". Second: I have at least 2 sources that say other wise. [url]http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0111/politicopulse404.html[/url] [url]http://www.heartland.org/full/29036/PhysicianOwned_Hospitals_Fire_Back_at_Obamacare_Restrictions.html[/url] Third, and it should stay that way. fourth, doesn't mean they wont. Just because the weather man predicts a certain level of snow, doesn't mean he's right. Fifth, You may want to take a look at this: [url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/01/17/david-cameron-accused-of-destroying-nhs-with-privatisation-plans-115875-22854652/[/url] Sounds to me like the UK can't afford their NHC system either if they're doing this. The lie about "Human caused" global warming. If that lie were true, Mars wouldn't be experiencing the same global warming as Earth if not 4 times worse. Ohh, no, that puzzle was just the deficit. Not the economy, and not the public mood towards government. My puzzle solution keeps public reaction in mind. right now, people in the US want to see cuts in government spending, not more taxes. If this was not the case, democrats and Liberals would not have lost so badly in the November elections. Also, PvtCupcakes, I'd rather not live in your ideal defenseless country.[/QUOTE] For one thing, David Cameron is a conservative. I can't see why he'd like the NHS from the get-go. Also, stop calling it ObamaCare, no one takes you seriously when you do. Lastly, from what I can tell, you don't seem to like Universal Health Care because you say we can't afford it, and it will be ineffective. I've already covered this by telling you it will cost more to reverse what's already been done, so that's not an option if you're concerned about cost. As for it's effectiveness, it seems to function quite well in Canada or the UK, outside of a few isolated incidents. Let's just face facts here, Glaber. UHC, or at least a government-funded insurance plan is a good idea.
I propose we hand out monthly awards for the worst possible source. We shall call it The Golden Glaber.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;27495139]I propose we hand out monthly awards for the worst possible source. We shall call it The Golden Glaber.[/QUOTE] oh my god yes
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494943] First off, explain how Obamacare is "deficit-neutral".[/quote] [url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/65463-cbo-house-healthcare-bill-is-deficit-neutral]Okay.[/url] [QUOTE=Glaber;27494943]Second: I have at least 2 sources that say other wise. [url]http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0111/politicopulse404.html[/url] [url]http://www.heartland.org/full/29036/PhysicianOwned_Hospitals_Fire_Back_at_Obamacare_Restrictions.html[/url][/quote] [url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_08/b3972088.htm]You don't seem to know what "Physician-Owned Hospital" means.[/url] (Old article, use it only for the definition of physician-owned hospital) Basically, they're hospitals that don't really play by the rules. [QUOTE=Glaber;27494943]Third, and it should stay that way.[/quote] Universal healthcare works better than your system everywhere else. [QUOTE=Glaber;27494943]fourth, doesn't mean they wont. Just because the weather man predicts a certain level of snow, doesn't mean he's right.[/quote] Just because you predict it won't snow doesn't mean you're right, but I'd rather listen to a meteorologist than you when it comes to the weather. And I'd rather listen to politicians than you when it comes to politics. [QUOTE=Glaber;27494943]Fifth, You may want to take a look at this: [url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/01/17/david-cameron-accused-of-destroying-nhs-with-privatisation-plans-115875-22854652/[/url] Sounds to me like the UK can't afford their NHC system either if they're doing this.[/quote] Cameron is a conservative idiot. [QUOTE=Glaber;27494943]The lie about "Human caused" global warming. If that lie were true, Mars wouldn't be experiencing the same global warming as Earth if not 4 times worse.[/quote] Science and facts says you're wrong. And science isn't a democracy - public belief means jack shit. [b]multi kill[/b] [editline]18th January 2011[/editline] [img]http://i.cubeupload.com/XvnSJQ.png[/img]
I concur.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.