Red States Spend $2 Billion MORE, Just To Spite ACA

[MagickMan]

Just what this forum needs, another belligerent psycho.

Were you feeling lonely?

 

[Jhhnn]

Your bias is clouding your view of what I am saying. When did I say greed was good? This whole time I have been saying how I prefer the left because their intent is for good, but their policies don't give the outcomes they want. Greed is not good. Capitalism takes a bad trait, and channels it for good. Socialism and Communism does not do that. I prefer Capitalism not because I like rich and poor, but for the very fact it helps the bottom more than anything else out there. So, until we reach a time when resources are not constrained, Capitalism FTW son.

Yep. The government gets more than enough to cover all of those and then a little more. What I don't like is how the government regulates those markets which give benefits to the top. Take food for example. Did you know that we give corn subsidies to US farmers? I bet you do. Did you know that we also give corn subsidies to other countries because they complained that the corn subsidies we give to our farmers makes it an unfair market? I bet not. How can the US justify corn subsidies to our farmers, and other farmers? Our farmers make more money, their farmers make more money, and the people pay for it.

You justified ongoing extreme concentration of wealth & power on the false basis that commerce is voluntary & therefore such gains are moral & fair. You justified greed w/o consideration of the consequences. When I pointed that out you diverted into a trope about how progressive policy fails to yield the intended results while failing to establish any truth to it. You went on to pose a false choice between Communism & Capitalism, then wandered off into corn subsidies.

Anything to avoid reconsideration of existing belief.

 

[theeedude]

Just what one expects teabaggers to do, cut their own medical benefits to finance tax cuts for billionaires. Good job, guys

 

[realibrad]

Which he signed, and renewed, and then blamed on someone else. There wasn't a gun to his head, other presidents have refused to do such things (Nixon and Clinton). By the time Chairman Obama leaves office he will have signed off on increases to the national debt from $11T to >$22T and quibbling over semantics will mean fuck-all.

Obama Signed TARP into law and then renewed it? Can you find me a source for that? Everything I have been able to find says it was done before Obama was in office. He tried to modify it while it was under him, but that was set into motion before him.

Your Chairman Obama comment makes me think you are stupid, so I doubt this will go much further. If you provide a logical point or argument, ill respond.

 

[realibrad]

You justified ongoing extreme concentration of wealth & power on the false basis that commerce is voluntary & therefore such gains are moral & fair.

No, that is not what happened or what I said. If you reread post 36 you can clearly see where I do not work of the presupposition that the wealthy got that way through fair means. I said...

If the aforementioned was how the wealth was gained, then its hording is not the reason the poor is(*are) poor.

I clearly said that its moral if the wealth was gained through fair trade. Far too many at the top have gained their wealth by using the government. When that happens, it is wrong. Wealth does not only have to be gained through those means. Musk would still be wealthy if the system was not in his favor.

You justified greed w/o consideration of the consequences.

Again, no I did not. I don't know how much more clearer I can be other than to say "GREED IS BAD".

Greed is not good. Capitalism takes a bad trait, and channels it for good.

Corruption has nothing to do with an economic system. All economic systems need the rule of law to function. At no point have I argued anarcho capitalism. In capitalism with the rule of law, the only way a greedy person should be able to get wealthy is by doing something society is willing to pay for. If the greedy person cannot do this and does not break the law, then he will not get rich.

In the real world, greed means people will likely take short cuts to get wealthy, but no economic system is immune from that.

When I pointed that out you diverted into a trope about how progressive policy fails to yield the intended results while failing to establish any truth to it. You went on to pose a false choice between Communism & Capitalism, then wandered off into corn subsidies.

Corn subsidies are an example of how progressive policy has failed to create the intended results. The subsidies benefit the mega farmers and foreign mega farmers. How are the subsidies accomplishing progressive policy.

Further, another example would be Prop H in San Francisco where they are trying to keep Air BnB down which ends up helping the developers.

Anything to avoid reconsideration of existing belief.

You may need to hold a mirror to yourself. For the most part, I am on your side here, but you cant see that it seems. I am laying out logical arguments and you seem to be missing my points. You are not countering my points because you are missing where I am making them. Further, the things I clearly state you interpret as to mean the opposite.

Greed is bad.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Talk about a cop out, if he was in office he owns it, period.

And as others have said, the money isn't "free" ultimately we all pay for it in one way or another, these programs need to be reformed and throwing more money at the problem won't fix it.

lol, talk about being purposely dense just to make reality conform to your beliefs.

So if I pull the pin on a grenade and toss it to you, you own it...right?

 

[bozack]

OK, fine.

So then Obama owns the steadily growing employment.
He owns the growing economy.
He owns cheaper healthcare.
He owns getting our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan where they will no longer be slaughtered for no reason (never-mind that he simply went along with Bush's timetable--he owns it!)

You blame him for all the ills of the previous admin, because the results occur now; why not give him credit for the positives that are actually occurring, right now?

Growing economy? only if you count making minimum wage and lower page jobs career positions now... http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...k-of-a-new-us-recession/ar-BBmmpbU?li=AAa0dzB

Cheaper healthcare? for those who don't pay into the tax system and didn't have it before for sure, meanwhile the rest of us are now being hit with service reductions, longer wait times, higher costs, and lower quality care http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428

Soldiers out of where? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/asia/obama-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan.html?_r=0

You are a moron if that is your stance. Much of the deficit spending that went on was triggered before Obama, and Obama had no legal standing to stop it. TARP which almost a half trillion had nothing to do with Obama. Much of the unemployment at the start Obama could not touch either. Its like a person taking over restaurant and the next day getting hit with food violations. Sure, that person is going to have to be the one to fix it, but only an idiot would say that person was the cause of it.

Let me be clear, I did not like the stimulus package. I don't like the amount of QE that the FED does. I am not a Keynesian. Facts are facts though and only a person with their head up their ass would make the argument you seem to be starting.

The general consensus is that when you take office you inherit the problems which plague the nation, so yes my stance is that he "owns" those issues, just as the person who secedes him will own the messy items he leaves, he has had two terms to course correct so trying to continually place blame on an administration which is long gone from the situation to me is a cop out

lol, talk about being purposely dense just to make reality conform to your beliefs.

So if I pull the pin on a grenade and toss it to you, you own it...right?

Umm are you actually trying to make my argument for me with this? again and as I said above, you can only blame the previous regime for so long and that time has long since past, honeymoon period is over.

 

[nickqt]

Growing economy? only if you count making minimum wage and lower page jobs career positions now... http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...k-of-a-new-us-recession/ar-BBmmpbU?li=AAa0dzB

Cheaper healthcare? for those who don't pay into the tax system and didn't have it before for sure, meanwhile the rest of us are now being hit with service reductions, longer wait times, higher costs, and lower quality care http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428

Soldiers out of where? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/asia/obama-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan.html?_r=0




The general consensus is that when you take office you inherit the problems which plague the nation, so yes my stance is that he "owns" those issues, just as the person who secedes him will own the messy items he leaves, he has had two terms to course correct so trying to continually place blame on an administration which is long gone from the situation to me is a cop out



Umm are you actually trying to make my argument for me with this? again and as I said above, you can only blame the previous regime for so long and that time has long since past, honeymoon period is over.

What the US really needs is a return to the booming economy of Jan 19th, 2009!

Y'all are hilarious.

The bleed was stopped, but there isn't a unicorn in every stable, so bitch, moan, and cry.

Keep on keepin' on.

 

[Jhhnn]

Growing economy? only if you count making minimum wage and lower page jobs career positions now... http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...k-of-a-new-us-recession/ar-BBmmpbU?li=AAa0dzB

So Obama is responsible for the state of the global economy & a labor glut in this country? What would you propose he do differently? Cut taxes & cut decent paying govt jobs?

Cheaper healthcare? for those who don't pay into the tax system and didn't have it before for sure, meanwhile the rest of us are now being hit with service reductions, longer wait times, higher costs, and lower quality care http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428

That's a speculative piece about price. They don't mention service reductions, longer wait times or lower quality care. Those are convenient embellishments.

Soldiers out of where? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/asia/obama-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan.html?_r=0

The general consensus is that when you take office you inherit the problems which plague the nation, so yes my stance is that he "owns" those issues, just as the person who secedes him will own the messy items he leaves, he has had two terms to course correct so trying to continually place blame on an administration which is long gone from the situation to me is a cop out

Umm are you actually trying to make my argument for me with this? again and as I said above, you can only blame the previous regime for so long and that time has long since past, honeymoon period is over.

What you're saying is that Obama should be able to make a stallion out of a gelding.

Maybe you should ponder the idea that the folly & failure of leadership during the Bush years & rightward policy drift in general may dog us for decades.

 

[realibrad]

Growing economy? only if you count making minimum wage and lower page jobs career positions now... http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...k-of-a-new-us-recession/ar-BBmmpbU?li=AAa0dzB

Cheaper healthcare? for those who don't pay into the tax system and didn't have it before for sure, meanwhile the rest of us are now being hit with service reductions, longer wait times, higher costs, and lower quality care http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428

Soldiers out of where? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/asia/obama-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan.html?_r=0




The general consensus is that when you take office you inherit the problems which plague the nation, so yes my stance is that he "owns" those issues, just as the person who secedes him will own the messy items he leaves, he has had two terms to course correct so trying to continually place blame on an administration which is long gone from the situation to me is a cop out



Umm are you actually trying to make my argument for me with this? again and as I said above, you can only blame the previous regime for so long and that time has long since past, honeymoon period is over.

OK, so then Bush owns 9/11 and Katrina which makes the R's far worse than Obama could even hope to be.

That is stupid logic. I think its your job to work on those things in office, but only an idiot would argue the standing person is responsible for the causes.

 

[ivwshane]

No, that is not what happened or what I said. If you reread post 36 you can clearly see where I do not work of the presupposition that the wealthy got that way through fair means. I said...


I clearly said that its moral if the wealth was gained through fair trade. Far too many at the top have gained their wealth by using the government. When that happens, it is wrong. Wealth does not only have to be gained through those means. Musk would still be wealthy if the system was not in his favor.



Again, no I did not. I don't know how much more clearer I can be other than to say "GREED IS BAD".



Corruption has nothing to do with an economic system. All economic systems need the rule of law to function. At no point have I argued anarcho capitalism. In capitalism with the rule of law, the only way a greedy person should be able to get wealthy is by doing something society is willing to pay for. If the greedy person cannot do this and does not break the law, then he will not get rich.

In the real world, greed means people will likely take short cuts to get wealthy, but no economic system is immune from that.



Corn subsidies are an example of how progressive policy has failed to create the intended results. The subsidies benefit the mega farmers and foreign mega farmers. How are the subsidies accomplishing progressive policy.

Further, another example would be Prop H in San Francisco where they are trying to keep Air BnB down which ends up helping the developers.



You may need to hold a mirror to yourself. For the most part, I am on your side here, but you cant see that it seems. I am laying out logical arguments and you seem to be missing my points. You are not countering my points because you are missing where I am making them. Further, the things I clearly state you interpret as to mean the opposite.

Greed is bad.

Agricultural subsidies have been around for decades and have changed focus many time so you will need show how it's part of the progressive agenda. As a point of fact, the recent corn subsidies is actually a Republican idea that was passed by Bush by a Republican Congress and with a majority of Democrats voting against it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

The other thing to note is that progressive strategies are malleable and can be changed depending on the results (see the change in direction regarding crime and punishment).

 

[bozack]

So Obama is responsible for the state of the global economy & a labor glut in this country? What would you propose he do differently? Cut taxes & cut decent paying govt jobs?

That's a speculative piece about price. They don't mention service reductions, longer wait times or lower quality care. Those are convenient embellishments.

What you're saying is that Obama should be able to make a stallion out of a gelding.

Maybe you should ponder the idea that the folly & failure of leadership during the Bush years & rightward policy drift in general may dog us for decades.

See below for my reply to point 1

Service reductions, longer wait times, and lower quality care are all things which I personally have experienced so you call it convenient embellishment whereas I call it anecdotal at best

See below for my reply to point 3

Continue to blame the administrations of the past for the failure of this administration to make any tangle course corrections to address excessive federal spending is a convenient cop out that I am sure you liberals will take full advantage of

OK, so then Bush owns 9/11 and Katrina which makes the R's far worse than Obama could even hope to be.

That is stupid logic. I think its your job to work on those things in office, but only an idiot would argue the standing person is responsible for the causes.

I honestly love you guys, for the party of compassion you guys certainly use some amazingly strong language with things like "stupid, idiot, etc...."

I did not say that Obama owned what was purported to be the cause of part of the rise in debt, but rather trying to suggest that the debt just grew exponentially under him and it was mainly the fault of previous administrations and he had little he could do is a cop out, he is the one in office, much of which was along with his party controlling congress and yet nothing was done to curtail federal spending and address the deficit.

And yes, Bush most certainly did own 9/11 and Katrina and his handling of both

 

[fskimospy]

See below for my reply to point 1

Service reductions, longer wait times, and lower quality care are all things which I personally have experienced so you call it convenient embellishment whereas I call it anecdotal at best

See below for my reply to point 3

Continue to blame the administrations of the past for the failure of this administration to make any tangle course corrections to address excessive federal spending is a convenient cop out that I am sure you liberals will take full advantage of



I honestly love you guys, for the party of compassion you guys certainly use some amazingly strong language with things like "stupid, idiot, etc...."

I did not say that Obama owned what was purported to be the cause of part of the rise in debt, but rather trying to suggest that the debt just grew exponentially under him and it was mainly the fault of previous administrations and he had little he could do is a cop out, he is the one in office, much of which was along with his party controlling congress and yet nothing was done to curtail federal spending and address the deficit.

And yes, Bush most certainly did own 9/11 and Katrina and his handling of both

Do you know what percentage of the deficits under Obama came from policies he enacted? A pretty small percentage. (The stimulus was a big one). They were mostly the result of laws already on the books (unemployment, food stamps) and dramatically lower tax revenue.

My biggest complaint with Obama during that time is that he did too little to increase deficits. They should have been much bigger, considering how big of a problem we had, as shown by most of the economic analysis that has followed.

Finally, realibrad is a conservative as well, you realize, right? He probably agrees with you that deficits are bad, he's just telling you that your logic for getting there is bad.

 

[dank69]

It's clear that bozack is just a couple beers shy of going full zorkorist.

 

[realibrad]

Agricultural subsidies have been around for decades and have changed focus many time so you will need show how it's part of the progressive agenda. As a point of fact, the recent corn subsidies is actually a Republican idea that was passed by Bush by a Republican Congress and with a majority of Democrats voting against it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

The other thing to note is that progressive strategies are malleable and can be changed depending on the results (see the change in direction regarding crime and punishment).

You don't know how agricultural subsidies are a progressive thing? Well, lets consider who first started them and when. It was FDR during the depression and he started the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Then Woodrow Wilson got into the mix and also started passing policies to help farmers.

If you look back through history, its been the D's not R's that have pushed those activities. I'm not trying to say that the R's did not do worse things to the economy, just that the D's have pushed for things that actually did the opposite of helping the bottom.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't know how agricultural subsidies are a progressive thing? Well, lets consider who first started them and when. It was FDR during the depression and he started the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Then Woodrow Wilson got into the mix and also started passing policies to help farmers.

If you look back through history, its been the D's not R's that have pushed those activities. I'm not trying to say that the R's did not do worse things to the economy, just that the D's have pushed for things that actually did the opposite of helping the bottom.

Wut? Wilson preceded FDR, for starters.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how cheaper corn hurts people at the bottom. If farmers didn't get part of the profit from the govt they'd get all of it in the marketplace.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Damn braindead liberals thinking deficits don't matter. Wish we could go back to the days of fiscal responsibility under Dubya and Reagan.

You are topping out my sarcometer, it does not have a 100X setting.

 

[theeedude]

Wut? Wilson preceded FDR, for starters.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how cheaper corn hurts people at the bottom. If farmers didn't get part of the profit from the govt they'd get all of it in the marketplace.

Cheap Corn -> Cheap Corn Syrup -> Cheap Sugary Snacks -> Obesity -> Diabetes, Heart Disease, Metabolic syndrome.

 

[realibrad]

Wut? Wilson preceded FDR, for starters.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how cheaper corn hurts people at the bottom. If farmers didn't get part of the profit from the govt they'd get all of it in the marketplace.

Sure, but only a person that does not take 2 seconds to think about it would think it does not.

First, cheaper corn is paid for by...everyone. The taxes collected effect those a the bottom more than those at the top.

Next, it makes corn more profitable to grow giving an incentive to grow more corn. Corn uses a crap ton of water to make, and is not great for the environment. You get situations like CA where Ag is using all the resources and leaving very little to those that cannot afford to buy more of the depleted resources.

Next, money that otherwise could go to other more productive programs are instead going to the farmers. Most of the corn subsidies go to mega farmers and not small farms. Those mega farmers are the top 1%. So, you are taxing the people, poor included to give money to farmers that make up the wealthy.

Do you need any more. Even if you disagree with one of my points, you likely can find one to agree with.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, but only a person that does not take 2 seconds to think about it would think it does not.

First, cheaper corn is paid for by...everyone. The taxes collected effect those a the bottom more than those at the top.

Next, it makes corn more profitable to grow giving an incentive to grow more corn. Corn uses a crap ton of water to make, and is not great for the environment. You get situations like CA where Ag is using all the resources and leaving very little to those that cannot afford to buy more of the depleted resources.

Next, money that otherwise could go to other more productive programs are instead going to the farmers. Most of the corn subsidies go to mega farmers and not small farms. Those mega farmers are the top 1%. So, you are taxing the people, poor included to give money to farmers that make up the wealthy.

Do you need any more. Even if you disagree with one of my points, you likely can find one to agree with.

Heh. Poor people don't pay federal income tax. Many receive EITC credits & SNAP as well.

The corn produced is mostly used to feed poultry & livestock, acting as an indirect subsidy of meat products as well. Subsidies stabilize prices & prevent gluts & shortages.

Try this- go to the nearest supermarket & witness the results of nearly 100 years of various farm subsidies. Then tell me it doesn't work. The notion is absurd regardless of whatever seemingly logical argument you can make.

All of which has nothing to do with red state foolishness over the ACA.

 

[ivwshane]

You don't know how agricultural subsidies are a progressive thing? Well, lets consider who first started them and when. It was FDR during the depression and he started the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Then Woodrow Wilson got into the mix and also started passing policies to help farmers.

If you look back through history, its been the D's not R's that have pushed those activities. I'm not trying to say that the R's did not do worse things to the economy, just that the D's have pushed for things that actually did the opposite of helping the bottom.

Democrats don't support blanket subsidies like Republicans support blanket tax cuts so regardless where the policy originated from you can't make a blanket statement that they are a progressive thing.
So again, if you want to show failed progressive policies you will need to be more specific and corn subsidies doesn't cut it.

 

[MagickMan]

Obama Signed TARP into law and then renewed it? Can you find me a source for that? Everything I have been able to find says it was done before Obama was in office. He tried to modify it while it was under him, but that was set into motion before him.

He approved its continued funding, even into the next 2 fiscal years. Stop playing dumb. (I have a feeling you aren't playing, however.)

Your Chairman Obama comment makes me think you are stupid, so I doubt this will go much further. If you provide a logical point or argument, ill respond.

Think? You think? Do you have evidence to support that claim? :\

 

[MagickMan]

just what one expects teabaggers to do, cut their own medical benefits to finance tax cuts for billionaires. Good job, guys

Teabaggers! Teabaggers! OMFG!!1! D:

 

[Jhhnn]

He approved its continued funding, even into the next 2 fiscal years. Stop playing dumb. (I have a feeling you aren't playing, however.)



Think? You think? Do you have evidence to support that claim? :\

It worked, didn't it?

Or would you have preferred collapse of the financial sector & the rest along with it?

Few people understand just how close we came to that because of all the deregulated free market let the bankers do what they want bullshit preceding it. America's major financial institutions were horribly overextended. I'm sure that Paulson was utterly appalled at what his peers had accomplished.

 

[bozack]

Do you know what percentage of the deficits under Obama came from policies he enacted? A pretty small percentage. (The stimulus was a big one). They were mostly the result of laws already on the books (unemployment, food stamps) and dramatically lower tax revenue.

My biggest complaint with Obama during that time is that he did too little to increase deficits. They should have been much bigger, considering how big of a problem we had, as shown by most of the economic analysis that has followed.

Finally, realibrad is a conservative as well, you realize, right? He probably agrees with you that deficits are bad, he's just telling you that your logic for getting there is bad.

not all of it but Obamacare Adds a couple of Trillion to the Long-Term Deficit, not to mention an unwillingness to reform medicare and social security.