Thread: Why America is losing power

There are so many things wrong with that I have no idea where to start. First off, no matter what, the Simpson-Bowles recommendations had no chance of winning republican support because it contained tax increases, so no point in even discussing that. Obama has certainly failed to lead, but this no tax position is like saying I have debt equivalent to 7 times my yearly salary and every year my debt goes up the equivalent of 60% more than what I make. I can safely cut that spending so that I am only spending 20% more than I make, but getting a second job is out of the question. Who would want to lend someone like this money.

Now, as for what the cuts they have decided to do will do to the economy. They are all coming from middle class programs. Student loans, money for schools, and potentially social security and medicare. This causes the middle class to realize that they need to save more for retirement, their kids schools, etc. So, basically, you have rich people who save and use their money to make more money, and a middle class that already can't afford much needing to save more. That doesn't do great things for an economy that is defined by consumer spending. We are pretty much all fucked at this point. I don't believe anything short of massive tax reform will change anything, and it absolutely must create more revenue. We take in $2.1 trillion in tax revenues and spend $2.2 trillion on defense, social security, medicare and medicaid. An additional $1.6 trillion is spent on extra stuff like roadwork, education, and the EPA. Getting rid of the EPA and education is not the answer. Our kids are stupid and I do not trust the corporate America to regulate itself wrt to the environment. Regulation did help cause this problem, but it was a lack or regulation on Wall street, not to much. Remember what ARMs did to the housing industry?

As for taxes, they need to drive behavior. I am all for a soda tax, because people who drink soda, whether it is diet or otherwise, are unhealthy. Any tax breaks that go to companies, should be a result of keeping employment here. Basically, the government is just handing them money hoping they invest here, and they are not.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

As for taxes, they need to drive behavior.

"My conception of freedom. -- The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it -- what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic -- every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization." ~ Nietzsche

Originally Posted by troubador

"My conception of freedom. -- The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it -- what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic -- every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization." ~ Nietzsche

How do taxes remove freedom? You have the freedom to choose to do whatever you want, it will just cost you more. Kinda like if you WANT a BMW. You do not have the freedom to purchase it at whatever price you want, but you do have the freedom to purchase it.

Originally Posted by troubador

Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained

just like capitalism ceases to be such when there is no longer any competition...

so much for the fears and raising the debt the libs wanted.....the dow is now down more today than what it was up for the entire year......


the good thing is crude oil is back into the mid $80s now
i'm definitely taking advantage of oil stocks when they drop back into the 30-40$ range again....they'll obviously go back up to $100 again at some point

Originally Posted by irish_2003

so much for the fears and raising the debt the libs wanted.....the dow is now down more today than what it was up for the entire year......


the good thing is crude oil is back into the mid $80s now
i'm definitely taking advantage of oil stocks when they drop back into the 30-40$ range again....they'll obviously go back up to $100 again at some point

I think what happened in 2007 will pale in comparison to what happens in the next year or 2.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

How do taxes remove freedom?

You said yourself they could be used to control behavior. By the government making it less practical to buy soda they are effectively limiting your freedom to decide what to to drink. The BMW analogy wasn't well thought out. BMW can charge whatever they want for their property.

Originally Posted by LAM

just like capitalism ceases to be such when there is no longer any competition...

No it doesn't, the opposite is quite true. True capitalism allows for a total monopoly if it should occur.

Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a manipulator. Shame on you Busy, shame on you.

Here are the arguments he made that I know for a fact are false:

"Obama is forcing private insurance companies to pay for woman's birth control, checkups, and general wellness which will cost insurance companies billions of dollars per year."

The truth: Birth control costs a tiny fraction of the amount that unplanned pregnancies cost. Sex education and free birth control are probably the strongest investments our nation could make. I don't have the facts, because I don't think anyone has done a complete and comprehensive study for what unplanned teen pregnancy cost America each year, but some have thrown around numbers as high as 10 billion per year. If someone has better numbers to link to, feel free to post up.

Preventive care for woman cost a tiny fraction of the amount that treating chronic illness cost. Many women do not get yearly checkups or OBGYN visits because they can't afford it. This leads to the development of full blown illnesses that could have been prevented fairly cheaply if it had been caught early. But since it was not caught early, the state ends up paying 10 times as much on the backend treating these women when they come to the ER repeatedly just trying to treat their symptoms.

Here is the kicker that most people outside of the healthcare industry don't understand. You pay for other people's healthcare regardless. Well KelJu, how can you say that? What about the whole universal healthcare plan?

Just about everyone without medical coverage has figured out that they can go to the ER and be seen no matter what. You can go to the ER because your finger hurts, and you will be seen because of HIPAA. You can call an ambulance because your finger hurts, and you don't have a car. That person gets transportation to the hospital and healthcare for their finger, and those people will never pay a dime. The government subsidizes hospitals for this reason to keep the doors open. If the hospital is critical access, they get something like 50% reimbursement.

What Obama's healthcare plan was meant to do was to address some of the frontend problems to keep from having to spend so much god damn money on the backend. The same is true for Obama's plans for woman's preventive care. Will it work and how well will it work? I don't know, but I know for a fact that worst case scenario is that the plan will break even.


Fuck it, I'm getting sleepy, maybe I will comment more in that garbage later.

Originally Posted by troubador

No it doesn't, the opposite is quite true. True capitalism allows for a total monopoly if it should occur.

monopoly capitalism is pretty much the last step before socialism occurs. transnational corporations based in the US, Japan and UK account for one-third of the world's production, two-thirds of world trade and three-quarters of international investment. eventually the majority of the national income will go to capital at that point labor can no longer sustain itself.

Originally Posted by troubador

You said yourself they could be used to control behavior. By the government making it less practical to buy soda they are effectively limiting your freedom to decide what to to drink. The BMW analogy wasn't well thought out. BMW can charge whatever they want for their property.

They should be used to control behavior, that's kind of the point. But that doesn't mean you are any less free. Ultimately the choice is yours. Why should I have to pay for your diabetes medication because you feel like drinking 5 sodas a day? That was the whole point of taxing the shit out of cigarettes and it worked. People who continually did that behavior started costing society a lot more money, so they get to pay for it in the form of a tax.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a manipulator. Shame on you Busy, shame on you.

Here are the arguments he made that I know for a fact are false:

"Obama is forcing private insurance companies to pay for woman's birth control, checkups, and general wellness which will cost insurance companies billions of dollars per year."

The truth: Birth control costs a tiny fraction of the amount that unplanned pregnancies cost. Sex education and free birth control are probably the strongest investments our nation could make. I don't have the facts, because I don't think anyone has done a complete and comprehensive study for what unplanned teen pregnancy cost America each year, but some have thrown around numbers as high as 10 billion per year. If someone has better numbers to link to, feel free to post up.

Preventive care for woman cost a tiny fraction of the amount that treating chronic illness cost. Many women do not get yearly checkups or OBGYN visits because they can't afford it. This leads to the development of full blown illnesses that could have been prevented fairly cheaply if it had been caught early. But since it was not caught early, the state ends up paying 10 times as much on the backend treating these women when they come to the ER repeatedly just trying to treat their symptoms.

Here is the kicker that most people outside of the healthcare industry don't understand. You pay for other people's healthcare regardless. Well KelJu, how can you say that? What about the whole universal healthcare plan?

Just about everyone without medical coverage has figured out that they can go to the ER and be seen no matter what. You can go to the ER because your finger hurts, and you will be seen because of HIPAA. You can call an ambulance because your finger hurts, and you don't have a car. That person gets transportation to the hospital and healthcare for their finger, and those people will never pay a dime. The government subsidizes hospitals for this reason to keep the doors open. If the hospital is critical access, they get something like 50% reimbursement.

What Obama's healthcare plan was meant to do was to address some of the frontend problems to keep from having to spend so much god damn money on the backend. The same is true for Obama's plans for woman's preventive care. Will it work and how well will it work? I don't know, but I know for a fact that worst case scenario is that the plan will break even.


Fuck it, I'm getting sleepy, maybe I will comment more in that garbage later.

Reps are owed to you, sir.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

please no anti-Fox, anti-O'Reilly stuff.. that's been done & then some.. I'm not trying to pass anything over on anyone, just looking for an honest discussion on the content of what he says.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a manipulator. Shame on you Busy, shame on you.

You should be commending me. I heard something I thought was pretty powerful & I wanted to validate it before believing it.

They can raise the debt limit, raise taxes, but social programs etc..etc.. and whatever else they want, but at the end of the day its the spending, which leads to the borrowing that is hurting the U.S.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

So what? Providing pretext is no excuse for linking to vile garbage.

And I did discuss the content. I provided detailed and well thought out information for why Bill is a fucking liar as usual who just makes shit up stir shit up for the sake of his ratings.

Originally Posted by KelJu

I don't have the facts, because I don't think anyone has done a complete and comprehensive study for what unplanned teen pregnancy cost America each year

Originally Posted by KelJu

I don't know, but I know for a fact that worst case scenario is that the plan will break even.

Well thought out?

Originally Posted by KelJu

So what? Providing pretext is no excuse for linking to vile garbage.

And I did discuss the content. I provided detailed and well thought out information for why Bill is a fucking liar as usual who just makes shit up stir shit up for the sake of his ratings.

This is the part where I'm supposed to say that's your opinion, blah blah blah. I was just trying to avoid this & stick to what he said... like everyone else in the thread did, even though I'm sure many of them don't like O'Reilly.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Well thought out?

Yes, "well thought out". I arranged the scattered and chaotic bits of information floating around in my head combined with over 3 years of experience in managing healthcare data to compose something coherent on the fly without linking to some bullshit propaganda that I found on a polarized news outlet. "Thought out", I have no fucking clue how else to describe thought out.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

This is the part where I'm supposed to say that's your opinion, blah blah blah. I was just trying to avoid this & stick to what he said... like everyone else in the thread did, even though I'm sure many of them don't like O'Reilly.

It doesn't work that way. You can't post links to douche nozzles and demand that no one comment on the fact that you linked to a douche nozzle, and to only comment on the bullshit that the douche nozzle is saying without commenting on the fact that the douche nozzle is spewing the same old bullshit as usual.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Yes, "well thought out". I arranged the scattered and chaotic bits of information floating around in my head combined with over 3 years of experience in managing healthcare data to compose something coherent on the fly without linking to some bullshit propaganda that I found on a polarized news outlet. "Thought out", I have no fucking clue how else to describe thought out.

if you're right & nobody has ever done a comprehensive study to state how much it will cost, how can we know it will at worst break even? At best it's conjecture.

I'm not in a position to criticize social safety nets since I'm living on one, but I was just looking for any data that says providing women with free health care makes sense. While I desperately need a job (and need help in the meantime) according to this argument, too much of a safety net decreases the number of jobs & increases my competition for a job... I was just looking for counter-arguments hoping possibly the gov't had a clue what they were doing.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a manipulator. Shame on you Busy, shame on you.

Here are the arguments he made that I know for a fact are false:

"Obama is forcing private insurance companies to pay for woman's birth control, checkups, and general wellness which will cost insurance companies billions of dollars per year."

The truth: Birth control costs a tiny fraction of the amount that unplanned pregnancies cost. Sex education and free birth control are probably the strongest investments our nation could make. I don't have the facts, because I don't think anyone has done a complete and comprehensive study for what unplanned teen pregnancy cost America each year, but some have thrown around numbers as high as 10 billion per year. If someone has better numbers to link to, feel free to post up.

Preventive care for woman cost a tiny fraction of the amount that treating chronic illness cost. Many women do not get yearly checkups or OBGYN visits because they can't afford it. This leads to the development of full blown illnesses that could have been prevented fairly cheaply if it had been caught early. But since it was not caught early, the state ends up paying 10 times as much on the backend treating these women when they come to the ER repeatedly just trying to treat their symptoms.

Here is the kicker that most people outside of the healthcare industry don't understand. You pay for other people's healthcare regardless. Well KelJu, how can you say that? What about the whole universal healthcare plan?

Just about everyone without medical coverage has figured out that they can go to the ER and be seen no matter what. You can go to the ER because your finger hurts, and you will be seen because of HIPAA. You can call an ambulance because your finger hurts, and you don't have a car. That person gets transportation to the hospital and healthcare for their finger, and those people will never pay a dime. The government subsidizes hospitals for this reason to keep the doors open. If the hospital is critical access, they get something like 50% reimbursement.

What Obama's healthcare plan was meant to do was to address some of the frontend problems to keep from having to spend so much god damn money on the backend. The same is true for Obama's plans for woman's preventive care. Will it work and how well will it work? I don't know, but I know for a fact that worst case scenario is that the plan will break even.


Fuck it, I'm getting sleepy, maybe I will comment more in that garbage later.

You make good points about preventative care and it goes well past women's care. The same goes for men and colon cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, the list goes on. Here are some facts as to why the healthcare plan in my opinion is a bust:
1 - No interstate commerce to lower costs for business that could combine as a co-op to offer employees lower rates and spur competition. Any anti-capitalistic comment I get on this is BS and you know it. Time and time again this has been proven to work, look at de-regulated utility costs.
2 - There will be taxes on things like soda, cigarettes, alcohol, this list goes on as we will be paying for everyones bad habits as the system is broken and the diet recommendations by doctors and the FDA is complete shit. I don't really care either, if we are stuck with it, the fat asses who don't take care of themselves should pay.
3 - Tort reform, where is it again? You give people of little means health care and they will take advantage of this don't even get me started. Nothing like the poor and lawyers teaming up to exploit the system. No one wins except lawyers and costs go up.
4 - There will be no preventative care, no incentives to be overly healthy and people will lose coverage through employers because it will cost less to companies to drop it. Been to Canada or Europe and been sick, have fun with that.
5 - Doctor shortage, see above.

I can continue for days and you know what, people in the healthcare industry almost all think it is a bad idea. My brother is meeting with some D-MO representative to discuss healthcare and is waiting for the change to open their eyes to reality. He isn't even a doctor, just a professor of pharmacy and he works for the VA as well as a clinical pharmacist. Just what he sees at the VA alone shows the system is broke and it will get WAY more broken. Progressives make the argument for the poor but guess what, just like social security it is a privilege, not a right. You don't pay, you don't get the benefit. The entitlement mentality only stops when you take away the incentive to do nothing; it's about damn time people realize this and get their damn asses in gear.

Originally Posted by KelJu

It doesn't work that way. You can't post links to douche nozzles and demand that no one comment on the fact that you linked to a douche nozzle, and to only comment on the bullshit that the douche nozzle is saying without commenting on the fact that the douche nozzle is spewing the same old bullshit as usual.

Why? In essence I said this is what I heard, dispute it.. requesting the messenger be ignored because that could take the discussion off in a whole different direction, exactly as it did.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

They should be used to control behavior, that's kind of the point. But that doesn't mean you are any less free. Ultimately the choice is yours. Why should I have to pay for your diabetes medication because you feel like drinking 5 sodas a day? That was the whole point of taxing the shit out of cigarettes and it worked. People who continually did that behavior started costing society a lot more money, so they get to pay for it in the form of a tax.

This is very correct and as someone who consumes alcohol, knowing the risks to my health, I don't mind paying. Frankly cigarettes should be $20 a pack and I really could give a shit who complains; fuck you for making me pay for your "addiction" that you willingly entered into. The same goes for soda, it is the most unhealthy shit on the planet next to some of the processed foods fed to kids. It is truly disgraceful that Coca-Cola is one of the most known brands in the world when its product is so notably unhealthy. Worse ever is that it is marketed to kids so openly and parents do nothing to stem the sugar addiction. This gets under my skin so much I could write a book on it but Dale is right, things like this do need to be taxed and it is not a freedom issue at all if you can still have access to it.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

if you're right & nobody has ever done a comprehensive study to state how much it will cost, how can we know it will at worst break even? At best it's conjecture.

Studies have been done, but not quality studies. I was trying to make a point without throwing inaccurate statistics out there. Most people that I know who mange the financial side of healthcare agree that unwanted pregnancy is a gigantic strain on healthcare resources. I have seen articles in healthcare journals report up to 10 billion, but I don't have those journals anymore. Free birth control has always been fought by the religious right for religious reasons, not financial ones.

Think of it like this. Flu shots are pushed like crazy, and most insurance companies pay for them. They are preventive care. But, contraceptives are not paid for by insurance companies, but they are preventive care. The cost of treating the flu miniscule compared to providing maturity services to pregnant women on medicaid. The issue has been that the religious right always makes the argument that free contraceptives would lead to unwed people having more premarital sex because they would suddenly by given a free pass to fuck.

Well maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn't. Who fucking cares at this point? Hospitals are constantly raising cost to the patient to make up for lost revenues elsewhere. I know for a fact that you could give over a 100 women free birth control for a year for what it costs to treat one pregnant woman.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Why? In essence I said this is what I heard, dispute it.. requesting the messenger be ignored because that could take the discussion off in a whole different direction, exactly as it did.

If you were going to quote Hitler, would you tell people not to comment on the messenger then?

Originally Posted by myCATpowerlifts

If you were going to quote Hitler, would you tell people not to comment on the messenger then?

If I was trying to get to the bottom of what he said? Sure.

Sure get rid of the EPA, welcome to china, my home country's water is undrinkable in 60-80% of the country and our pollution levels are so high people walking to and home from work have soot visibly staining their clothes, lead, mercury, radioactive waste, you name it, just dump it into the nearby rivers, lakes etc. You know what , why not get rid of antichild labor laws, that would really help our economy compete with India and China in production costs....

Originally Posted by KelJu

The truth: Birth control costs a tiny fraction of the amount that unplanned pregnancies cost. Sex education and free birth control are probably the strongest investments our nation could make. I don't have the facts, because I don't think anyone has done a complete and comprehensive study for what unplanned teen pregnancy cost America each year, but some have thrown around numbers as high as 10 billion per year. If someone has better numbers to link to, feel free to post up.

Just look to the european models like denmark etc where there is vigorous pregnancy prevention in terms of free birth control, planning, etc. Far less teen pregnancies in all these countries ( in fact we have the worst teen pregnancy rates in industrial nations), just by decreasing teen pregnancy you prevent a future class of welfare dependants in these women and their unwanted children and so on. Studies show that closely spaced pregnancies produce high risk pregnancies and higher risk of neonatal use by the fetuses, these cost exponentially more than just plain maternity costs above the average cheap birth control, thus , easier, cheaper access to birth control also prevents this simple epidemiological consequence.

I have never understood why quite a few private insurers cover my pateint's viagra but not my women's birth control... perhaps the male dominated excecutives of these insurance plans have a vested interest.

However, in all fairness, private insurers that have been covering Viagra also should cover birth control. Both afford men and women to be sexually active. However, unlike viagra, birth control's reach and effect is far wider