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

[woolfe9998]

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.

Not only did you mix up the order of Wilson->FDR, but the first two farm subsidy statutes were passed in 1922 and 1929, under republicans. The one you mention under FDR was the third.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Hogwash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/08/27/yes-obamacare-is-cutting-the-deficit/

 

[Indus]

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.

FACT: The biggest deficit is our Armed Forces. If we spent just half of what we spend on that.. every year we would have a fucking surplus and could create jobs but.. I digress. :\

BTW here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/us-should-charge-to-prote_b_8379372.html

Today the Pentagon underwrites the defense of wealthy nations across the globe. Doing so costs America hundreds of billions of dollars annually while leaving Americans less secure. Washington should stop using the Pentagon as a global welfare agency.

The U.S. government at least should charge for its defense services, as Donald Trump has suggested. This is a second best option. But America shouldn't be defending its rich friends for free.

Most Republican Party presidential candidates insist that Washington do more on behalf of its allies. The latter already are subsidized, protected, coddled, and reassured, irrespective of need. U.S. officials often are more insistent that America protect other nations than the latter want to be defended. Why are U.S. politicians so determined to put the interests of other nations before those of America?

In fact, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 demonstrated that the Department of Defense is not well-prepared to defend Americans. For that reason Congress created a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security. The Pentagon devotes the bulk of its resources to projecting power abroad to defend other nations, mostly wealthy industrialized states, and rebuild failed societies, especially in the Middle East. In most of these cases America has no important, let alone vital, interests at stake.

 

[MagickMan]

It worked, didn't it?

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

Yes, in the long run collapse would have been far better.

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.

You don't understand that we have nothing like a free, deregulated market. The disparities in wealth, the rampant corruption, the bailouts that go to pad executive golden parachutes, those all come from government collusion, and the payback is in the form of $Billions$ in campaign contributions, grants, and cushy, 8-figure "consulting" jobs after they leave office. Both sides of the aisle are in on it, and they play everyone, everyone against the middle.

See, you think it's big business that's corrupting politics and taking advantage of the people, but the plain fact is, they're both, gov't and big business, in on it, 100%.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, in the long run collapse would have been far better.

Why?

 

[MongGrel]

FACT: The biggest deficit is our Armed Forces. If we spent just half of what we spend on that.. every year we would have a fucking surplus and could create jobs but.. I digress. :\

BTW here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/us-should-charge-to-prote_b_8379372.html

A very huge amount of manufacturing/jobs still based in the US is all ready dependent on supporting the military, in reality though.

Is 6 of one, a half dozen of the other.

Cut back on the military in a major way, a lot of jobs supporting it also go along with it. It is just how Eisenhower predicted when leaving office, and how things have progressed over time.

Was too early for him even then to see how the financial industry would contribute to raping it even more down the line. Just the amount of large corporations going offshore to China etc would have boggled his mind today.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, in the long run collapse would have been far better.

That's delusional. The possible outcomes from collapse are incalculable.

 

[bozack]

Hogwash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/08/27/yes-obamacare-is-cutting-the-deficit/

nothing like a post op/ed piece to prove your point eh

 

[bozack]

That's delusional. The possible outcomes from collapse are incalculable.

it would have forced us as a nation to take a real approach to addressing our financial inadequacies and making changes that actually would better the situation, instead of our continual game of kick the can

 

[fskimospy]

nothing like a post op/ed piece to prove your point eh

You can also go directly to the CBOs report, which says the same thing.

 

[fskimospy]

it would have forced us as a nation to take a real approach to addressing our financial inadequacies and making changes that actually would better the situation, instead of our continual game of kick the can

You think a worldwide financial collapse would have been good because it would force us to address problems? What problems exactly, and how are those problems worse than a catastrophic global depression?

 

[bozack]

You can also go directly to the CBOs report, which says the same thing.

The presumption is using the same rate of entitlement spending and increases which are unsustainable, they are using the logic that nothing would have changed to control costs/coverage which may have been the case but we will never know now that ACA is in place and provides taxpayer subsidized coverage.

 

[MagickMan]

Why?

That's delusional. The possible outcomes from collapse are incalculable.

Because weak institutions should be allowed to die so that stronger companies can take their place. Some banks fall to keep the entire system from collapsing later, "No single structure can be too important to lose".

By doing this they only forestall the inevitable, and later it'll be much worse. Also, you guys do realize a large chunk of that bailout money went directly into executive pockets, right? This was okay but then you bitch about corporate welfare? At least be consistent, geez.

 

[MagickMan]

nothing like a post op/ed piece to prove your point eh

That was priceless.

it would have forced us as a nation to take a real approach to addressing our financial inadequacies and making changes that actually would better the situation, instead of our continual game of kick the can

Yep, but then, anything Obama does they'll support, even including doubling down on Bush's worst ideas.

 

[MagickMan]

You think a worldwide financial collapse would have been good because it would force us to address problems?

"Collapse"? How dramatic. "Will someone please think of the children!?!" :awe:

Yes. A few bad years could have kept us from bad decades to come. In fact, we'd probably be starting to claw out of it by now, wiser and more prepared in the future. This is what comes from thinking you can just charge your way out of any problem, and governing by the polls instead of good fiscal sense.

 

[Jhhnn]

nothing like a post op/ed piece to prove your point eh

So lame. The CBO report is linked in the first sentence. Argue with that.

 

[fskimospy]

"Collapse"? How dramatic. "Will someone please think of the children!?!" :awe:

Yes. A few bad years could have kept us from bad decades to come. In fact, we'd probably be starting to claw out of it by now, wiser and more prepared in the future. This is what comes from thinking you can just charge your way out of any problem, and governing by the polls instead of good fiscal sense.

How? What empirical basis do you have for this?

By the way, the polls overwhelmingly opposed the bank bailouts. They were done exactly because they were using good fiscal sense as opposed to governing by the polls. I'm glad you support it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Mother Jones...lol.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because weak institutions should be allowed to die so that stronger companies can take their place. Some banks fall to keep the entire system from collapsing later, "No single structure can be too important to lose".

By doing this they only forestall the inevitable, and later it'll be much worse. Also, you guys do realize a large chunk of that bailout money went directly into executive pockets, right? This was okay but then you bitch about corporate welfare? At least be consistent, geez.

It's clear that your considerations are based on flawed ideology rather than reality. It's simplistic & fails to account for history. The same policy you desire today is what led to the liquidity trap & collapse of commerce in the early part of the Great Depression & earlier in the panic of 1873 which led to the long depression.

The inevitable crash? It was only inevitable when we let lenders run wild. You know, deregulated finance. We already endured it in 2008 using methods not tried before. We're now off the map in uncharted waters rather than having sailed onto the rocks following the course set by the financial elite.

Project & speculate all you want- it's the standard conservative method of rejecting change, predicting doom will result from it. That's despite past predictions having failed to materialize.

Remember how numerous right wing pundits denounced the very existence of a housing bubble?

Remember how they predicted hyperinflation from deficits & FRB action?

Remember how the ACA (the actual subject of this thread) would never work & bankrupt the treasury?

How can you forget that's not what really happened?

 

[Jhhnn]

it would have forced us as a nation to take a real approach to addressing our financial inadequacies and making changes that actually would better the situation, instead of our continual game of kick the can

Yeh, the Republican party would have been cast into the political wilderness for a generation as they were in 1932 rather than being able to muster the forces of denial as they have today. As it is, they exploited fear & discontent over Dems failure to fix their fuckups fast enough to win the 2010 midterms & state legislatures, gerrymander their own nightmare into existence, that being the Teahad.

They've created the instrument of their own demise. Teatard reps are utterly safe in their heavily gerrymandered districts regardless of what it does to the party at the national level. Forced to choose between their extreme minority bullshit extortion of the Repub party & Dems in competitive districts the voters will turn on Repubs just to see things run decently well.

Just bring it on. It's your big chance to go out in a blaze of glory.

 

[bozack]

So lame. The CBO report is linked in the first sentence. Argue with that.

I will just cut and paste "The presumption is using the same rate of entitlement spending and increases which are unsustainable, they are using the logic that nothing would have changed to control costs/coverage which may have been the case but we will never know now that ACA is in place and provides taxpayer subsidized coverage."

 

[fskimospy]

Mother Jones...lol.

DSF, you are hardly a person who can complain about people using biased sources.

 

[Jhhnn]

I will just cut and paste "The presumption is using the same rate of entitlement spending and increases which are unsustainable, they are using the logic that nothing would have changed to control costs/coverage which may have been the case but we will never know now that ACA is in place and provides taxpayer subsidized coverage."

And the doubledown on falsity. Saying the same thing over & over won't make it true, not even in Glenbeckistan or Trumpistan.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

DSF, you are hardly a person who can complain about people using biased sources.

Then I must take it that you agree with my disdain. You taught me well...no?

I'm surprised you didn't say anything regarding source credibility prior to my mention. Then again...maybe not.

 

[MagickMan]

How? What empirical basis do you have for this?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...bank-bailouts-are-an-incentive-to-be-reckless

By the way, the polls overwhelmingly opposed the bank bailouts. They were done exactly because they were using good fiscal sense as opposed to governing by the polls. I'm glad you support it.

I'm seeing the polls were split, what evidence do you have to support that?