If Obama called for endorsing motherhood, the Republicans in the House would oppose it.
~ New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on ABC’s “This Week” via Newsbusters, September 4
[Photo via Thingamababy]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Obama would never endorse motherhood! He wants to make sure NO ONE is ever “punished with a baby”.
There was a great Onion article about how the Republicans were opposed to Obama turning 50 and he should skip getting a year older to focus on the economy. I laughed out loud.
There is a new item on the menu at McDonalds.
It is called the o’bama meal.
You eat free and someone in line behind you pays for it.
de-odorize the white house: remove b o
duces tecum
You know things are bad when you phone the local suicide hot line and you are re-directed to a call center in Islamabad and they want to fit you for a vest with a dead man’s switch attached.
Their motto is: ‘Train hard. You will not get a second chance to make a first impression.’
The problem with young jihadist is they blow up so quickly.
One moment they’re here and the next moment they are gone, vanished into thin air darkened by billowing clouds of vaporized human flesh and blood.
It’s official.
mother earth goddess gaia is a racist biggot.
she/he/it has used earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, draughts, forest fires, riots, wars and even the ‘arab Spring’ to frustrate mr. bo-jangles efforts to heal the economy.
None of b o’ s predecessors ever experienced this kind of resistance.
But none of mr. bojangles antecedents were mulatto, colored, negro, black, Irish-Kenyan.
Therefore gaia must be a white supremicist, christian homophobe and a charter member of the ‘tea [taxed enough already] party’.
Ken, you are more preoccupied with race than anyone I know.
It’s true, but the pendulum always swings in the other direction and eventually, it will be a Republican president trying to force through a hard-right agenda to appease the increasingly radicalized GOP electorate, and we’ll be grateful for whatever interference the opposition party can muster when that happens.
I say that we put Krugman’s assertion to the test. Let’s have Obama call for an end to abortion and see if the Republicans oppose him!
I wonder what Obama is thinking as he cradles that baby? “They should have left you in a utility closet to die.”
If Obama ever did anything moral and good like endorse motherhood I would support him. Unfortunately we “radicals” have to oppose him because everything he does is to undermine our constitution and degrade human life.
Sydney – just remember that Obama worked hard to expand healthcare to millions who haven’t had it, including eliminating pre-existing conditions. Now I know on the side of life, he has followed in the footsteps of Reagan, Bush (times 2) and Clinton and really not done anything substantial on the issue – but to say he degrades human life I think is inaccurate. He’s not good with the pre-born – but he’s not actively working to try to eliminate health care for people, cut nursing home funding, and expand war zones.
Ken -
At the GOP McDonalds, they would take a meal that costs $4 for them to make, charge $3 for it, and complain the whole time that it is the fault of everyone else that they are continually losing money. Somebody would suggest to raise prices, and they’d yell “how would our customers afford to buy a third yacht?”
Ken –
The GOPers would walk up to order the o’bama meal, and they’d complain it was too hot, or too cold, or too expensive, or too dark, or too cheap – but they wouldn’t have any suggestions of anything else to offer the customers!
Abortion is not health care, abortion is murder.
The liberals spend so much time blaming everyone and everything else, they can’t get anything done. The conservatives aren’t going to save the world, either. Politicians never do. They all want the same thing: to keep living off WE THE PEOPLE. What we need are people with real, genuine leadership qualities and a vision for a better future.
X-GOP, Really, come on. You say “he’s not good with the pre-born”. Because he actively seeks to destroy the pre-born and newly born (Infant born alive protection act…yeah, Obama didn’t like that so much) and I can say that he degrades human life. Human life is present within the womb (unless you want to argue against science now, in which case you will just make yourself sound like a simpleton if you try to deny the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.) That Obama degrades human life is not opinion, it is FACT and backed up by his own words and voting record.
And your nonsense about healthcare… oh please. You really are drinking the koolaid a bit heavily.
Sydney -
Let me resolve my statement then. LIke a long list of Presidents, Obama hasn’t had any substantial legislation to affect abortion rates, which is unfortunate.
Looking at life as a whole though, and not just a pre-birth stance, I give Obama higher marks than the GOP candidates, who are actively working to throw millions off of health care, cut back funding to Medicaid, and bring back a world with pre-existing conditions.
I simply look at more than just the process of somebody being born.
Without my pre-birth “stance” I would not be here today reading these comments on the internet. Without your pre-birth state of being ALIVE neither would you.
Ninek – I’m confused – where you massively pro-life, in utero, and convinced your mother not to abort you? How did your pro-life stance ensure that you were born? Did you print little posters from the womb?
If President Obama endorsed motherhood, no one who actually pays attention to what he does would believe him – that includes the Republicans.
As for his concern for the people outside of the womb, he and the Democrats are spending far more money that the government takes in, or could reasonably expect to take in (unless they confiscate all liquid assets). I might believe the Democrats if they actually spent their own money instead of trying to take mine. But they are notoriously stingy when it comes to donating to charities. And their big government policies tend to keep the recipients in a perpetual state of poverty.
I was a Democrat until 1996 and regret voting for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. I am now a proud member of the TEA party movement because I want my children and grandchildren to live free.
Barb -
In my humble opinion, I think the tea party cares about themselves a LOT more than their grandchildren. If they cares about their grandchildren, they’d say “yes, we’ve 15 trillion in debt because our generation benefited from years of deficit spending, and we should pay that back”. Instead, the tea party movement says “don’t touch MY entitlements, don’t raise MY taxes” -and the end result is a HUGE bill on your grandkids.
Again, just my opinion.
Instead, the tea party movement says “don’t touch MY entitlements, don’t raise MY taxes” -and the end result is a HUGE bill on your grandkids. Again, just my opinion.
EX-RINO,
I have been to a tea party rally and none of the people there ver said “don’t touch MY entitlements”. Exactly the opposite in fact. They complain about the public employee unions who whine about their having to contribute 10% of their own money into their pensions. And that is coming to an end soon also cause the public employees are getting freed from their forced unionization. I will give you a tiny bit of credit though cause at least you qualified what you posted by stating it was just opinion but it borders on flat out lies cause the facts never back your opinions up.
truth -
Can you send me the links of the tea party sites that want to eliminate social security and medicare right away to balance the budget? I mean, even Paul Ryan’s plan waited 10 years on Medicare after pumping a LOT of debt into the economy.
Let me see the links though – maybe they are out there and I’ve just missed them.
“…don’t touch MY entitlements,”
Ex-GOP, you’ve attributed this mindset to the wrong party. Generally, the more people receive government entitlements, the more they tend to oppose libertarianism and small government.
Eric -
You are right – my point is that the tea party is saying don’t touch my entitlements, don’t raise spending, and how dare you leave a big bill for our grandchildren.
They can’t have it both ways.
My contention is if they want to have an argument like Barb is giving, then vote to raise taxes – kick in the estate tax, raise taxes, put some means testing into social security and medicare. Don’t just whine about leaving a big bill for grandchildren, do something about it – and do something now about it – and do something about it even if it affects you.
The tea party is so concerned with their grandchildren that they want to gut their insurance and schools. It is a joke.
Ex-GOP,
I disagree tea-partiers say, “Don’t touch my entitlements.” Most tea-partiers I know say, “Don’t touch my income.” Income is earned and is not an entitlement. As far as the claim that tea-partiers want to “gut their insurance and schools,” most tea-partiers I know figure they can provide insurance and education for their children better than the government. If you have met tea-partiers who want to cut taxes but still want big government programs, then I agree. However, in my experience, tea-partiers generally say the government’s focus is to protect life, protect liberty, and protect opportunities to shape your and your family’s lives as you prefer, not as the government prefers.
“I was a Democrat until 1996 and regret voting for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. I am now a proud member of the TEA party movement because I want my children and grandchildren to live free.”
You’re appalled by the government spending more money than it takes in, and yet you regret voting for the last president to actually balance the budget and run a surplus instead of a deficit? “Tea party” conservatives talk a tough game about government spending, but I don’t expect anything less than near unanimous support of the next GOP candidate for president, regardless of how spendthrift his (or her) previous record of governance is.
Eric – and I just don’t believe that the minimilist approach works in today’s society.
Now, I know you are saying what tea party folks believe, and I don’t know if you lump yourself in with them – so this isn’t an attack on you or anything.
I wonder, as they cut medicaid if they are okay with old people who now can’t afford nursing homes to just live out on the streets? Sure, some have families – but not all of them.
I wonder, as they want to cut medicare (though in the future – certainly not now) if they are okay with somebody in the last year’s of life being denied care.
And these views are held because the alternate, taxing people at the rate of Reagan, or even a bit higher, is just a show stopper. Worth signing pledges over.
It just strikes me as odd how compassionate conservatism has now turned into survival of the fittest, and it is the RIGHT WING endorsing this thought. It just surprises me to see people in church one minute, and then essentially arguing that poor people and old people have it too well off. The fear that the tea party embraces, and the hatred (at least in pockets) is sad.
(edited to throw in the tax paragraph)
Ex-GOP: I wonder, as they cut medicaid if they are okay with old people who now can’t afford nursing homes to just live out on the streets? Sure, some have families – but not all of them.
There is no really “good way” to go, where some, probably many, people won’t have a declining standard of living. This is due to the Congresses of the past, and current market and economic realities.
Ex-GOP says:
Sydney – just remember that Obama worked hard to expand healthcare to millions who haven’t had it, including eliminating pre-existing conditions.
I hate to tell you this but my sister has a pre-existing condition – PKU – that her insurance didn’t pay for. They have her as a client but and they would pay for care but nothing that had to do with her PKU, blood tests, special formula, etc. When Obamacare was passed she was informed that the insurance company will drop her when it comes into full effect. It was cheaper for them to pay the fine – to the government, not her – than to cover her PKU bills. The nonsense about the coverage for pre-existing conditions is swept under the rug.
You can blame the insurance company but they were much better BEFORE Obamacare to her than after. And her PKU (as far as pre-existing conditions go) is a drop in the bucket compared to what she could have, like diabetes and such that requires MUCH more monitoring and costs.
Joan says:
You’re appalled by the government spending more money than it takes in, and yet you regret voting for the last president to actually balance the budget and run a surplus instead of a deficit?
Let’s not forget that was a REPUBLICAN congress that gave him that budget as so many democrats do!
Kristen – somebody is feeding your sister inaccurate information.
Insurance companies can’t drop people because of pre-existing conditions – it becomes illegal with the new reform. The only fine that I’m really aware of (except for not having coverage when you’re able) is a fine for employers that are big enough that choose not to offer coverage. Maybe your sister works at a big enough place, but not too big – and they are going to drop everyone’s coverage simply because of her – in that case though, she’ll get subsidies to buy coverage on the state exchanges, and those policies can’t exclude her for pre-existing conditions.
Again, she should do a little research out on the web.
Kristen – I’m not sure the point in regards to the Republican congress…Reagan’s house was Democrat the whole time, and he did fine.
End of the day, a President must sign off on any piece of legislation, so no matter who is in charge of congress, they can veto things or sign things as they wish. Though Clinton and Reagan had governing bodies different than their own parties, they helped share legislation and vetoed when necessary. I think both deserve credit for the success they achieved.
I regretted my votes for Clinton and Carter because of their pro-abortion policies and, in Carter’s case, also because he was inept. As bad as they were, President Obama is worse in terms of policies which are aggressive attacks against the unborn, including attempts to force other countries into our abortion-on-demand, without-apology mode.
In terms of healthcare for the elderly, members of the TEA party are more concerned that the so-called “health care reform” will result in the premature deaths of the elderly. The Catholic Church (and other Christian churches) have shown that they do a very capable job of providing health care to all who enter their doors. The Catholics have been doing this for 2000 years. I am not aware of anyone being turned away due to lack of insurance or ability to pay. In fact, until the 1960s, my family did not have health insurance and we were taken care of, including my mother during her baby-bearing years.
I found that that TEA party stands for individuals taking care of themselves, their families, their communities. The Catholics call it subsidiarity – doing things at the local level by people most familiar with the need and the resources.
Big government is bad government.
As for my contribution – I have been paying taxes since 1970. And I was always grateful that I had enough income to pay taxes. But I want my tax money spent wisely and frugally, which pretty much would eliminate the Federal government, if we had a choice.
Until 2007, I was a partner of a two-income marriage – now we are living on one income, but still pay taxes, unlike nearly 50% of my fellow Americans.
How much in taxes do you think I should pay?
Sorry to make such a long post. But it is clear that some people on this site have no concept of living within one’s means. The government spending 50% more than it takes in – is not sustainable. And $1.5 trillion debt each year put the country so deep in the hole that even if the government confiscates my nest egg, it won’t be enough.
Hal says: September 5, 2011 at 11:53 am
“Ken, you are more preoccupied with race than anyone I know.”
=====================================================================
Hal,
You are right.
I am concerned with the whole HUMAN race [including pre-natal humans], but I am not concerned about their ethnicity.
When the ‘progressives’ stop disingeniously attempting to marginalize people of all ethnicities who oppose mr. bo-jangles policies as ‘racists’, then I will concentrate on pointing out the folly of their ways.
Barb – you are correct. The government was living in its means last during the years of Clinton. Bush slashed taxes without slashing spending. We launched wars without tax increases. And we haven’t seen the revenue growth and job growth with the tax cuts.
The wrong question to ask is how much taxes you should pay. You should see what we want to fund (armed services? social security? medicare?) – see how much those cost, and fund to that level.
I think we found a solution to the health care issues though – just have busses that pick people up around the nation and send them to catholic hospitals for care. Never ending stream of money?
I always thought Romney and Ron Paul had this surprised look on their face. But they don’t match Krugman. He looks like he’s thinking: “Are they buying this?”
Ex-RINO,
The american electorate will apply the appropriate remedy each time they go to the ballot box and for right now they seem more intent on removing democrats than re-electing republicans.
But I am sure they will also focus their attention on some incumbent republicans who have selective hearing, who learn slow and forget quick.
It is a really odd coincidence that most of the republicans who vote consistently pro-life seem to get it right on the fiscal issues.
The democrats who occasionally vote pro-life for political expediency, seldom get it right on fiscal issues.
America’s aging population, america’s pre-natal children and america’s future will never be in safe hands with progressives.
You can follow Nobel laureate Paul Krugman’s advice:
“And what we should be doing is a huge public investment program. No better time to do it. Government can borrow money almost for free.”
‘We the people’ are the government and we are already over ten trillion dollars [$10,000,000,000,000.00] in debt and we are looking at an annual budget deficit of over 1.5 trillion dollars [$1,500,000,000,000.00].
I can’t speak for most folks, but I do not like being in debt.
I have been debt free and it is a pretty good feeling.
I prefer being the head.
Democrats prefer being the a$$.
Ex-GOP,
And we haven’t seen the revenue growth and job growth with the tax cuts.
But that is exactly what we did see.
After inheriting the dot-com bubble-burst recession from Clinton, as well as 9/11 (which some would say lies at the doorstep of Clinton bud Jaime Gurella [spelling?]
for putting a wall between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. Oh my, N.Y. Times anal-retentive initialing there.) –
Inhale.
Then came those infamous Bush tax cuts (which wrote off almost the entire bottom half from paying income taxes) Followed by the whole middle 5 or 6 years of the Bush terms as an economic boom with skyrocketing revenues as well as job growth.
It is odd how so many disingenuously refer to “eight years of George Bush” as if things were as bleak as these first three years of Obama. No, it was a horrible first year of recession and 9/11, followed by a boom after the tax cuts kicked in. Ending with a horrible last half-year when the housing bubble time bomb went off.
Bush certainly coulld have done something to restrain spending – clearly being a “compassionate conservative” won him no brownie points with you or anyone else – but I’ll stack his eight years beside Obama’s three any day of the week.
Ex RINO said:
“Can you send me the links of the tea party sites that want to eliminate social security and medicare right away to balance the budget? I mean, even Paul Ryan’s plan waited 10 years on Medicare after pumping a LOT of debt into the economy. Let me see the links though – maybe they are out there and I’ve just missed them.”
Ex RINO, you mentioned the plan yourself. Paul Ryan’s plan wants to take the government entitlements away except he knows it is not fair to do that mid-stream to the people that have already paid into the system. That is why he phases it out instead of eliminating it immediately. The rest of us would get private accounts that we can spend on any healthcare we want and we wouldn’t need government bureaucrats to ok which procedures we could spend it on. In fact under Ryan’s plan the government doesn’t get to abscond with our unused contributions like they currently do with social security and Medicare. We can leave our unused contributions as tax free inheritance to our grandkids. Lord knows that is a better option than counting on the government to hold onto our contributions for us. If the senate had passed Ryan’s plan (like the republican house did) and the president had signed it the US would already be leading ourselves and the rest of the world out of our current economic quagmire. Guaranteed there would have been no credit rating down grade either. Here is a link to Ryan’s plan for you cause it sound like you need to read it again so that you understand it better
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/
Hans – overall, I think the final number is that Bush added 3 million jobs in 8 years in office. Reagan added 16 million…Clinton 22 million…heck, Jimmy Carter added more jobs. I mean, if you look at the monthly numbers, he had a few good months in 2005, but really, it was American’s own ‘lost decade’.
truth -
In the transition to the privatized social security plan, Ryan’s plan would have called for $5-$6 TRILLION in more debt over the projected baseline (a very common number if you want to search it) – do you think the GOP would have raised the debt limit to about 25 trillion to account for that?
Also, if Ryan’s deal is soooooo good for everyone – if his Medicare deal will be a smashing success, then why not put it in right away? I think Ryan knows that it is going to cost a lot more and people will be shorted services. In fact, the CBO said that future retirees would be paying a lot more and receiving less services.
EX-GOP, my sister has done a TON of research. Really, as someone with a vested interest in the legislation do you think she didn’t look at EVERY possible angle? Stupak was her representative and she called his office multiple times before the vote and then again after, when she was informed by her insurance company, to see if he would tell her that was wrong. Guess what? He didn’t, or I should say his representatives didn’t. So any misinformation could have been cleared up at the source but wasn’t.
Ex-GOP:
No personal attack perceived — I am an Independent in the Truman Democrat tradition.
It just surprises me to see people in church one minute, and then essentially arguing that poor people and old people have it too well off.
I’ve never heard anyone say poor people and old people have it too well off. On the contrary, I have heard people say poor & old do NOT have it too well off, *but* it is not the job of taxpayers to make it better for them.
Are there some poor who require assistance? Of course, hence the “general welfare” phrase in the Preamble. However, and I understand we are at odds with this opinion, our levels of medicare and medicaid go way beyond “general welfare”.
Also, if Ryan’s deal is soooooo good for everyone – if his Medicare deal will be a smashing success, then why not put it in right away?
Ex-RINO, I really don’t want to get into a cat fight. I already answered your point in my previous post. As a courtesy I will repost it for you again. He phases out the current program because elderly people have already spent a lifetime paying into the current system and it would not be fair to take those contributions away and strip those benefits mid-stream. That why he phases it out instead of eliminating it immediately.
It’s a mighty sick thing for a person to assume that because a small human can’t speak that he or she doesn’t want to live. You’re a sick, sick human being, E, and I pity you.
Ex-GOP: Barb – you are correct. The government was living in its means last during the years of Clinton. Bush slashed taxes without slashing spending. We launched wars without tax increases. And we haven’t seen the revenue growth and job growth with the tax cuts.
Honestly – no, the gov’t was not living within its means. Billions of Dollars of red ink were still flowing, on a net basis. Due to the subterfuge of “off-budget” items, there was the statement of a “surplus,” but that was, frankly, silly. It’s like me having to pay out $100 more per month than I take in. So, I deem $200 of my expenditures as “off-budget” items. Voila! I now have a $100 surplus per month.
Used to be, the (non-partisan) Congressional Budget Office put out a report in June on the true cost of running the gov’t for the previous fiscal year. Up through 2006 I’d been able to find them, but for 2007 it didn’t seem to be forthcoming, nor for 2008, and I haven’t looked, lately. Anyway, it’s not been since the late 1950s that we had a true surplus, and if you look at the federal gov’t debt, year-by-year, you’ll see that it went up every year since 1960, at least, including all the Clinton years. We got close to having a balanced year in 2000, but no cigar.
Joan: ” the increasingly radicalized GOP electorate”
Huh. I always thought the GOP was static, always moored in the 50’s, not changing with the times.
How can unchanging troglodytes be “increasingly radicalized?”
Meanwhile, anyone advocating change is obviously on the side of progress – because we all know that change and progress are semiotically coterminous.
Heck, any oncologist knows that. Cancer forms? Cancer in remission? Same diff — it’s all progress ’cause it’s change, don’tcha know!
Kristen – I would continue to have her research – the fine you speak of is consistent with employer coverage, not an individual. And the law makes pre-existing conditions a thing of the past. I think somebody has fed her wrong information.
Eric- specifically, how do Medicare or Medicaid go to far? Do you think Medicare should exclude more services? Or pay for less treatment at the end of life? That is a pretty broad statement – would be interested in how you think it goes ‘way behond’ general welfare.
truth – your lack of understanding of the medicare system is startling. You don’t “pay into” Medicare – it is like unemployment, medicaid, or any other entitlement or welfare system. If you quality for services, you get coverage which is paid for by those who are paying taxes. No account gets built up or anything like that.
The reason that he delays it ten years is because he knows it is a stupid plan that is going to leave more and more old people in a situation in which they have to decide between rent or medical bills. The analysis of the ‘proposal’ is all over the place – read some of it – heck, most of the GOP is abandoning support of the bill – I think it is time for you to do the same!
Ryan has said, of his plan, “Its mandate works no different than how the current Medicare law works today, which is you just select from a wide range of different plans. It literally would be like Medicare Advantage…”
Doug – if Ryan said that, he is the stupidest person in the world. The only small component of Medicare that it is like is Medicare Advantage, which is just a subset of Medicare.
It gives people vouchers that they buy private insurance from. Coverage is then defined by the insurance company. It is the farthest thing from Medicare, which is a defined benefits system.
Yea why would Obama promote motherhood… He is only the father of two young girls… He is SO pro-abortion that he is waiting till his daughters turn 17 and a half before he has them aborted…
Ex-GOP – We all pay into unemployment and SS right out of our pay checks. Also I reject the term “entitlements” as you can be denied access to benefits of all three programs. The term “entitlement” is misleading. A better and more accurate term would be “a helping hand” because for every one person you can find who is abusing those programs there are a thousand who are using them correctly and trying to get off of assistance all together. My sister is a Welfare case worker and she has a firsthand account of what is going on at the welfare office. She does see program abusers everyday but they are a sprinkling compared to the honest families she helps every single day. My sister has boxes of thank you cards and notes from clients who are no longer clients.
As for Obama-care, We NEED a government run health insurance in this country. Americans pay more for healthcare than almost every other country on the planet and it is because the insurance companies are soaking us. There is no way in heck that a government run health insurance program should be able to provide coverage cheaper and better than a private insurance company, so having that government run program would be healthy competition for the insurance companies and would keep them honest by offering an alternative.
Nowhere in the Obama-care bill does it say you have to buy government health insurance, just health insurance. Although in my personal opinion all Americans should be covered by basic health insurance that is paid for through taxes. Nobody should be turned away from any E.R. or refused an ambulance for any monetary reason at all.
Biggz – part of me wants health care reform overturned because I think it would usher in a single payer system MUCH faster.
Ex-GOP,
The average unemployment rate under Bush was just over 5%. Under Obama, it’s what? – something like 9.5%? Case closed on the jobs comparison.
I’m in rare agreement with Doug on the myth of surpluses. Remember how the Dems said in the first few Bush years that we’d gone from a $10 trillion surplus to a $4 trillion (or whatever deficit? (Back when they “cared” about this) Well that $10 trillion figure was projected over the next decade. That went out the window when the recession began the last year of Clinton.
The problem with Medicare and Medicaid is fraud and waste. No one is talking about throwing people in the streets or leaving it all to the churches. It’s waiting rooms filled with people with the sniffles that’s the problem.
Most on both sides of the aisle agree that medical entitlements have to be on the table. Not for slashing, but for trimming.
Hans, a big problem is the fast-growing cost of healthcare, too. Don’t know how to stop it, but WOW have I noticed it over the past 5 or 6 years. Frankly, it’s been amazing. :( My employer has been really good – still pays 80% of the insurance premium, but the increases have been massive, probably +250% or more in that time.
I don’t even say that Clinton “did” good for the economy. Fact is, the booming stock market going up to the 2000 top made for more capital-gains tax receipts, a lot more, than the gov’t had thought it was going to get. Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr. both benefitted from the same phenomenon, with some “bear market” breaks in there.
And of course there is a delay from what a given President does as far as legislation, to the effects of it. Again, not saying Clinton was some economic god – hell’s bells – I remember him saying he was going to get us $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in increased taxes, and the end result was $12 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.
Bush Jr., same – it was rough from the 2000 top to the Oct., 2002 low, and in no way was that “his fault.” These guys were political, they didn’t step much at all outside the bounds put on them by who they were truly promised to, and the political realities of the times.
Last President to really try and do something good for the economy = Reagan, during his first two years. He really did try and slow the growth of the federal gov’t. Then, re-election loomed, and he threw in the towel, and for the last 6 years, all in all, spent like never before. He also benefitted from the economic cycle, going back at least as far as Nixon, which clobbered Carter but set the stage for “whoever” was next in to reap the political benefits of a declining-interest environment and “easy money” policy on the part of the Federal Reserve.
I see us as out of rope now, between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.” Who, in their right mind, would be buying US Gov’t 30 year debt at the current low interest rate levels? Whackos!
The Chinese, Japanese, etc., have a dog in the hunt – we’re their best customers, and they want to support us, keep us buying, but one of these days they’ll see that it’s a net loser to take the currency hit and risk-into-the-future, and WHAMMO up will go interest rates.
The Fed? Pah! The President? Pah! What, really, do people think the President can *do* about the economy? It’s all gotta go through Congress in the first place, and all I can see Obama (or anybody else, for the matter) doing is the old Keynesian “stimulus” thing of increased gov’t spending – and that dog ain’t gonna hunt right now.
You don’t “pay into” Medicare – it is like unemployment, medicaid, or any other entitlement or welfare system.
Ex-RINO, huh? I pay into all those ‘entitlements’ because I work and I pay taxes. Can you clarify? Are you saying that the government segregates my tax money so that it never gets used to fund Medicare benefits? You get more incoherent every day as Obama’s poll number fall. lol
we all know that change and progress are semiotically coterminous
I can’t argue with that Rasqual…
The problem with Medicare and Medicaid is fraud and waste. No one is talking about throwing people in the streets or leaving it all to the churches. It’s waiting rooms filled with people with the sniffles that’s the problem.
Hans, one of the other problems (the biggest IMO) is that Medicare and Medicaid are run by the government and the funds that citizens have contributed on the front end were spent instead of invested and saved like they should have been. And now this year for the first time in our history we have reached the point where society’s annual Medicare contributions are less than annual expenditures and the 50 years of surplus contributions are nowhere to be found. So now the program is destined to have huge and ever increasing deficits. Generations of past surplus contributions got lost in the bureaucracy.
Doug,
I..can’t…argue with anything you just said! :)
A pox on all their houses – with a little less pox on Reagan’s.
Medical costs are a huge problem. But how in the world could putting our government in charge help that? Can you say $700 toilet seats and $200 hammers? The postal service is about to go out of business!
truthseeker,
True that. For all the complaining about Medicare and Social Security, people are now receiving more than they put in. If only that money could have been invested more wisely than in our irresponsible government. The dividends would have been a deluge!
Do you think Medicare should exclude more services? Or pay for less treatment at the end of life?
The government is not an insurance company. Medicaid/care should cover fewer people, namely those who are truly unable to pay for their own health care or work for an employer who can. Any programs that consume the bulk of the budget is beyond the scope of “general welfare”.
While I appreciate the words of you and other commenters who see the tender side of welfare, there is always another side — namely, taxpayers who work hard to pay for it. For every 40 hours I work, I enjoy the benefits of ~25 hours of pay. With that I pay my own bills, to include into a retirement plan and for health care as well as donations to charities. Take away more money from me in taxes and I cannot pay for my own retirement or my own health care, making me dependent upon other taxpayers, who have to pay more in taxes, who have less money to pay their own bills, making them dependent upon other taxpayers…
not sustainable.
“…we are living on one income, but still pay taxes, unlike nearly 50% of my fellow Americans.
How much in taxes do you think I should pay? …it is clear that some people on this site have no concept of living within one’s means. The government spending 50% more than it takes in – is not sustainable.”
Well said Barb.
Hans – actually, the projected surplus didn’t go out with the recession – it went out with two unfunded tax cuts, an unfunded medicare expansion, and two unfunded wars. That is where the surplus went. What did Orrin Hatch say…something like back then, they didn’t actually worry about paying for things?
truth – you said: ‘He phases out the current program because elderly people have already spent a lifetime paying into the current system and it would not be fair to take those contributions away and strip those benefits mid-stream.’
That is factually incorrect. ’Those’ contributions are already gone – a 30 year old pays for CURRENT medicare recipients, not a future pot of money. It isn’t an earned benefit over the years based on money made – nothing like that.
One more thing truth – I challenge you to look up “Medicare Choice’ and give me thoughts on that compared to Ryan’s plan.
Medical costs are a huge problem. But how in the world could putting our government in charge help that? Can you say $700 toilet seats and $200 hammers? The postal service is about to go out of business!
Hans – the Post Office is struggling not only with competition from e-mails, etc., but also with a huge retirement burden, the demographics of people living longer now. Don’t see how the books will ever really be balanced, short of some really drastic cuts, there.
On medical care and the gov’t – I guess it comes down to whether the individual, on a net basis, will benefit or not from it. I hear you on “bureaucracies” in general; 10 or 15 years ago it was that if the budget for “welfare” was simply paid to the recipients, it would have been about $15,000 per capita. In practice, it was roughly 1/4 of that which was paid out – the gov’t “machine” consumed 75% of the budget.
Gov’ts, especially like our Federal gov’t (not being constrained by having to balance the budget) tend to look first to increasing/maintaining their own power and position, which in the main is wasteful for the economy as a whole, i.e. that is not wealth production.
I don’t know how “Obamacare” would or will affect my wife and me. Personally, it may be better in the long run if it’s repealed. My wife, a teacher, employee of the State of Georgia, has decent health care, though not as good as one might suspect. With my employer, I’m lucky – 80% is paid, and our benefits are quite good. Specific to us, it’d be best if the gov’t does whatever it has to do, to maintain Medicare and Social Security for when we’ll be on it. Don’t think that’s really achievable on a sound fiscal basis.
To this point, through the past decades, the federal gov’t has never given any indication they’d accept deflation. If the gov’t had anything to do about it, “benefits will be paid, even if in Dollars that are worth much less.” Now, I wonder – there’s a lot of sentiment for reducing the deficit. How far it goes is a good question. People aren’t feeling “good” about the economy now. When the real “pain” of gov’t austerity programs hits, I’m thinking there may be a big backlash back the other way, i.e. “damn the long-term consequences, make it like things were before…”
TS: one of the other problems (the biggest IMO) is that Medicare and Medicaid are run by the government and the funds that citizens have contributed on the front end were spent instead of invested and saved like they should have been. And now this year for the first time in our history we have reached the point where society’s annual Medicare contributions are less than annual expenditures and the 50 years of surplus contributions are nowhere to be found.
Truthseeker, had not heard that about Medicare – but Social Security is only a few years from that point, as far as I know. Yeah – Congress just plain took the money and spent it. Heck, in the beginning of Social Security, very few were getting benefits with almost “everybody” paying in. Astounding, to think of some many billions, trillions, of Dollars.
“Gov’ts, especially like our Federal gov’t (not being constrained by having to balance the budget) tend to look first to increasing/maintaining their own power and position, which in the main is wasteful for the economy as a whole, i.e. that is not wealth production.”
You hit the nail on the head Doug — government expenditures have little accountability and result in limited productivity.
Barb: I was a Democrat until 1996 and regret voting for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. I am now a proud member of the TEA party movement because I want my children and grandchildren to live free.
Where were you in the 1950s and 1960s? ;)
I know that very few of us are old enough for it to be possible that we’d been politically-involved back then, but *that* was when action should have been taken. Perhaps it was still the “post World War II” feeling, or the fact that inflation and gov’t debt was not yet a huge problem….
Now, no matter what, some tough times are ahead.
You hit the nail on the head Doug — government expenditures have little accountability and result in limited productivity.
So what do we do, Eric? Wholesale cuts in all Federal Gov’t agencies?
Doug, cuts would have to be graduated as many entitlements/pay-outs go to people who have paid Medicare/aid and SS for 40+ years, but I would have to agree — cuts across the board. I anxiously await the first senator’s/representative’s announcement, “We in congress will take a cut in pay” … however, I’m not holding my breath for too long.
Concur with your last phrase: ”Now, no matter what, some tough times are ahead.”
Drop all federal agencies that have nothing to do with enumerated powers. Leave these to the states, and reduce federal taxes accordingly. Then phase out entitlements and leave that to the states as well.
“But what of states that couldn’t do without federal spending, as from the Dept. of Ed.”?
Well now, doesn’t that question just perfectly reflect how stupidly we’ve let states off the hook and artificially subsidized their irresponsible governance and failure to develop their own economies in a sustainable way. How many generations of state legislators, now, have come to take for granted that their roles are small, and that the federal government is the be-all and end-all?
Objections like my second paragraph are precisely what seeming naive proposals like my opener are intended to provoke, because the objection is far more illuminating than the proposal.
Heh. Liberals love the word “sustainable” in all areas except national power.
test
Hey, what happened to the functionality of the overstrike attribute?
Eric, totally agree that across-the-board cuts would be necessary. On healthcare, specifically, Congress has an amazingly good plan, and I doubt that many members would want to subject themselves and their families to what many proposals entail for the rest of us.
I don’t believe, no matter what, that the yearly federal budget will actually be balanced.
test
Hey, what happened to the functionality of the overstrike attribute?
Hmm… not sure. Looking into it!
“How many generations of state legislators, now, have come to take for granted that their roles are small, and that the federal government is the be-all and end-all?”
Rasqual, your post reminds me of politcally correct history classes in junior high, where we were taught 1) the Confederation of 1777-1788 was not successful because it required a larger federal government 2) the Southern Conferate States of America of 1861-1865 was not successful because it required a larger federal government. Fortunately my father, a history major not sullied by the NEA, clarified the more complex reasons those confederacies no longer exist.
A larger federal government might be necessary in some respects — but I’d distinguish between “larger” (big enough to do what its enumerated powers require of it) and “scope” (bigger and bigger as it takes on more things the states and even private institutions used to do).
Starve the beast.
Where were you in the 1950s and 1960s?
I was a pre-schooler (1950’s) and a kid (1960’s). My parents were married, struggling to support the family with one income. We lived in an 1100 sq ft house in modest circumstances. Two of my brothers and I paid for our college educations while living at home. Except for the house mortgage, my parents were debt-free and used the layaway to buy items (including Christmas presents).
From my vantage point, the differences between now and that era are:
Higher percentage of married couples
Higher percentage of children living in homes with both mom and dad.
Income levels adequate to support the family with the basics.
Even though I am a “baby boomer” I am trying to pass on my parents’ financial values to my children as they were comfortably situated in their old age.
“You can’t always get what you want… but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need.” Rolling Stones
So Bush starts two unnecessary wars costing American Blood and Treasure by borrowing every single dime from other countries… and now 10 years later the national debt is somehow Obama’s fault and his responsibility to fix it?!?!? When Bush went to congress to ask for permission “for the first war only” I didn’t hear anyone say that maybe borrowing trillions of dollars to kill one moron in a cave in the armpit of the world was a bad idea… better yet while we borrow all that money abroad we should also give giant tax cuts back at home so our national paycheck to pay our newly acquired war bills is much smaller… America was on a path to prosperity when Clinton left office and then began the Bush years part two… and just like part one in the series it was filled with tax cuts, declaring war on sand boxes, and of course killing brown people…
I agree that Obama really had no idea what he was getting into and not enough experience to play high level political games like the republicans, but could you imagine where we would be under a McCain/Palin administration… John would be bombing countries that Sarah could not even spell let alone locate on a globe.
No matter how bad you may think Obama is doing as President, he could spend his whole presidency picking his nose and still do a better job than Dumb and Dumber could have done.
You guys are going to be real disappointed when Obama wins his second term because the Republican Party still cannot put up a candidate who can win…
You know I think it would be a nice change to have just one president who is not a Christian… just one. I am tired of being represented by a believer to the rest of the world.
Biggz, the Iraq war wasn’t about catching a moron in a cave. It was primarily about crushing people who were rallying in the streets and celebrating the attacks on the Twin Towers. Secondarily it was about giving Iraq a fresh start under a constitutional democracy.
One more thing truth – I challenge you to look up “Medicare Choice’ and give me thoughts on that compared to Ryan’s plan.
Ex-RINO, How in depth an analysis were you looking for? Was there a particular aspect about the plans that wanted me to pint out?
LOL
Biggz, the hopenchange gift who keeps on trolling!
truth – So Medicare Choice, followed by Medicare Advantage, hasn’t been cheaper or produced better care for enrollees. So given that Ryan wants to pay seniors less for their care (the CBO predicts that the elderly will pay much higher out of pocket costs) – how do you think this will work? Do you think seniors will simply forego care altogether? Or will they continually get plans that cover less and less, and then have their care turned away?
Rasqual – “Then phase out entitlements and leave that to the states as well.”
I think I’ll become governor of a state in your Republican world – cut all spending of Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security all together, and have busses that take people to other states.
I mean, yes, the GOP’s plan of not paying for anything for anybody (except paying for bombs) does save a lot of money – but as we dodge old people dying on the streets, is it worth it?
Yes, the righties are going to say “who is talking about old people dying…you are just spreading fear…” Hog wash – if the states are in charge of social security, medicare, and medicaid, and cut spending dramatically in those programs, where do people go? A money tree? Some magical island somewhere?
Fix the system – put in means testing, put in controls, raise ages of eligibility. The GOP’s plan for your house with a crack in the window is to demolish your whole house. I would rather fix the window. Thankfully, most American’s would rather do that as well.
I mean, yes, the GOP’s plan of not paying for anything for anybody (except paying for bombs) does save a lot of money – but as we dodge old people dying on the streets, is it worth it?
Oh for goodness sakes Ex-RINO. Thanks for the laugh.
truth -
You’d probably kick them on your way by and celebrate that your paycheck is a little bit bigger.
Well, there’s the difference between left and right right there. We think you’re misguided. You think we’re evil.
Oh yes Hans, the signs of Obama as Hitler…the signs on watering the liberty tree? How many Democrats have been the anti-Christ? And now you are going to suddenly play like you guys are the nice little kids in the front row of church.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
“Hang ’em high – traitors in congress….Pelosi, Reed…” Is that the brotherly love that you are talking about?
Ex says:
“ Instead, the tea party movement says “don’t touch MY entitlements, don’t raise MY taxes” -and the end result is a HUGE bill on your grandkids.”
“In my humble opinion, I think the tea party cares about themselves a LOT more than their grandchildren.”
How many votes does the tea party have in congress? How much of the federal budget does the tea party control? In your characterizations of the tea party (as if it is actually some kind of an official political party) you have joined yourself to luminaries blaming the tea party for everything—people like Maxine “go to hell” Waters, Rep. “lynch us” Andre Carson, and Jesse “slave amendment” Jackson. Surely the tea party is promulgating flat earth theories as well.
In all of these instances it is the classic straw man argument in that as you well know there is no such thing as an actual tea party. It is also a classic obfuscation that attempts to draw attention away from the source of the unprecedented rate of deficit spending (far exceeding any previous president) imposed upon our kids and grandkids by none other than Obama and the Democrat (not the tea party) congress.
Ex says:
“The government was living in its means last during the years of Clinton.”
Lets take a closer look at this. At the end of Clinton’s presidency the debt had increased by 1.4 trillion dollars. For each of the 2920 days he held office the debt INCREASED by $500,000,000 per day. Only in government and in politics can going into hock at the rate of a half billion a day be considered “living within its means”.
Jerry – my response that you copied was a direct response to Barb and her saying that she’s part of the tea party movement because she doesn’t want to pass all these issues down to her kids and grandchildren.
You entire first paragraph is a direct result of you not reading that full response, and what it is in response to, which is my belief that her alignment with the tea party is giving a view directly opposite of what she is hoping for.
Jerry – you are right, overall, there was a $1.4 or so trillion increase – the last 4 or 5 years were neutral, but the first few years there was debt.
My question – I could research this, but others here might know – if we simply balanced the budget every year from here on out, the debt takes care of itself, correct? Part of the actual federal budget is servicing the debt, so we don’t need to out revenue taxes by 15 trillion – do we?
No, it’s the Democrats who have reaped something directly opposite of what they were hoping for. The War On Poverty decimated the inner cities. “Spreading the houses around” led to the housing/bank crisis. And now Obamacare is paralying small businesses and forcing doctors to leave their profession.
Ex-GOP: What sheer idiocy. You mean you have to pretend that states don’t give a flying fig about their citizens, in order to argue against states exercising responsibility for their citizens? State governments who are, you know, ELECTED BY THE CITIZENS?
Dudette. Are you bonkers?
What’s with this federal fetish you people have? It’s as if you people love to be governed by “representatives” far from you but cozy with lobbyists, who don’t suffer the geographical constraints of daily life that most voters do.
Seriously, you have to wax all apocalyptic about state governments, as if government closer to the people is likely to be less accountable to folks within walking distance of them on an given day?
Puleeeez. Of all the gratuitous, over-the-top paranoia I’ve ever seen, that takes the cake for tinfoil-hattery.
(but you and I both know your reaction’s just histrionics calculated for effect. Psst: your calculator’s batteries are dead)
Rasqual – you are a smart guy. What is the difference between the federal government and state governments…
tick, tick, tick…
Federal government can run deficits, so they can have programs that pay for services and if they run out of money, they can issue treasuries and spend more than they take in. States can’t do that – they have to have balanced budgets.
Now, if you are part of a state that is tight for cash, and you have one of these “no new taxes” governors, and medicaid/social security/medicare are in the hands of your state to fund…what is going to get the axe?
Look at the states now – Oregon has begun rationing care - the high risk uninsured pools are already getting short funded in some states – you telling me that in all the various states, they would make sure their obligations to those systems would be fully funded?
So, Puleeez back at you – left in the hands of the state, funding is going to be far from secure, and benefits will continue to get hacked. To think otherwise would prove oneself as being bonkers.
:-)
Barb: Even though I am a “baby boomer” I am trying to pass on my parents’ financial values to my children as they were comfortably situated in their old age.
True, Barb, there is good value in that. While as a country, we’re actually, for once, doing a little better on personal debt now, I’m still amazed at the acceptance of debt and the almost “natural” state that being in a lot of debt is frequently seen as.
My grandma will be 100 years old in November, so she was an adult in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Talk about a different perspective….
Rasqual: Starve the beast.
I agree. Don’t think we’ll ever “pay off the national debt” – that’s just too farfetched, but as far as getting close to balancing the budget year by year, that would allow us to muddle through for probably quite a few years yet.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Congress and the “super committee.” Oct-Nov-Dec, Congress really has to get with the Balanced Budget stuff, or on Jan. 15 the “trigger” that leads to $1.2 trillion of future cuts happens.
And I really wonder if the above is going to “work.” After so many years, I’m very cynical about all the Clowns in Congress and what they’re really going to do.
You’d probably kick them on your way by and celebrate that your paycheck is a little bit bigger.
It is almost painful watching your comments go from absurd to personal attacks now that even you realize how incoherent your arguments have become. ROTFL
Ex-RINO,
I feel embarrassed for you when I get you to open up and speak what is really on your mind. As a friend I think you should consider modifying your Kool-aid recipe and increase the level of sedative.
truth – I just have no response anymore. You don’t like healthcare reform because it cuts medicare and you think it will ration, so you embrace a plan that at its core, cuts medicare and relies on rationing.
So yes – I’m at a loss for words for with you at this point. When somebody loves a plan that features the exact components that a person claims to hate, what should one do?
Ex-GOP: if we simply balanced the budget every year from here on out, the debt takes care of itself, correct? Part of the actual federal budget is servicing the debt, so we don’t need to out revenue taxes by 15 trillion – do we?
Yeah, that would do it. Eventually, the debt would be paid off.
Ex-RINO,
I am not against health care reform. I am against Obamacare for liberty and for economic and for social reasons. It is a debacle. At the most fundamental level I think it is better idea for the new plan to be one that leaves the individual in control and not our government and a lot of the rationing and other problems would take care of themselves. Like Perry and Ryan and Herman Cain and most of the Reublicans I also realize that the current government run plan is unsustainable. The reasonable Democrats realize this too but they don’t have the kahunaes to make any changes cause they are all for government growth. So instead, like you, they fall back on rhetoric about kicking dying old people lying in the street or pushing grandma off a cliff. It is a sad state of affairs. If we get rid of the president and elect a Republican congress we can get America working again.
Ex says:
“Jerry – you are right, overall, there was a $1.4 or so trillion increase – the last 4 or 5 years were neutral, but the first few years there was debt.”
If you can link me to a confirmation that the last 4 or 5 years were neutral then you would be correct about eventually eliminating the debt. However, I have never seen anything indicating what you claim and I don’t think you will find such.
There was a comparison made between the annual debt increases under Gingrich, Hastert, and Pelosi. As you know, Gingrich did not assume the Speakership until 2 years into Clinton’s first term and yet the increases in the debt during his term as Speaker (from 1995-1999–Clinton’s final years) were around the same 400-500 mil a day. The relevant part:
Gingrich served as speaker in the 104th and 105th Congresses, officially taking the office on Jan. 4, 1995 and leaving office on Jan. 3, 1999. During that period, according to the Treasury Department, the national debt increased $812.4 billion dollars ($812,423,595,162.98), rising from $4.8 trillion ($4,801,793,426,032.89) to $5.6 trillion ($5,614,217,021,195.87).
Truthseeker:
I agree with your assessment of Obamacare. I find that those who support Obamacare often do so without scrutinizing the net negative effects such a program will have on our health care and our debt. From around the world we see a landscape littered with collectivist health programs that do not work, are too costly in that they deliver less for more, that destroy personal initiative and responsibility in taking care of one’s health, that do not deliver timely medical procedures, and in the end, because they are so top heavy with bureaucratic mismanagement, they cause the best and the brightest in the medical profession to flee out of frustration. (Note to travelers: do NOT get seriously ill on weekends in England!). These same people who see no wrong with Obamacare see only a failure with safety net programs, even though we have an extraordinary, though incomplete, network of services for people to avail themselves to.
The reasoned approach would be to examine the qualities of each system, to measure how our current system with its inadequacies and inequities and how they might be addressed, versus the reality of what Obamacare proposes. But supporters of Obamacare do not do that. They mouth platitudes about how health care is a “right” as if the only way to achieve it is with socialized medicine. They look at Obamacare as a political hammer that imposes equity by might of collective force…and they see that as good.
The other part of the question is why do we want to go even further into debt to the Chinese to bring in a program that will bankrupt our country and saddle our beautiful children with obligations so burdensome that they will not recover from them in their lifetimes? Supporters of big gov programs and of Obamacare do not look at these consequences with the seriousness they deserve. So convinced are they that their cause is just and noble it is virtually impossible for them to consider any alternatives.
truth – if that is your reasoning against health care reform, then one of us don’t understand the plan.
How do you feel that the government takes over more control? There is no public option – all plans (outside of medicare/medicaid) run through private insurance companies.
So please, let me know how it infringes on my liberty?
Thanks,
Ex-GOP is a dudette? Who knew?
truthseeker,
Is “kahunaes” Hawaiian for “cajones”? :)
I believe so Hans. And if Michelle Bachmann could grow a pair, so could Ex-RINO
So please, let me know how it infringes on my liberty?
I could list virtually endless ways but lets start with the fact that Obamacare dictates all policies include certain coverages that not everybody may want or be able to afford. It also limits peoples insurance policy options and increases the costs by mandating you to buy a policy even if you’d prefer to manage on your own. NOt only does it mandate you buy a policy but it requires that ALL policies sold must include certain services that bureaucrats deem to be required. Maternity coverage and no lifetime cap are a couple that come to mind.
It also takes away our liberty by giving the government control over aspects of our health. It would be unreasonable not to think they would start restricting our diets etc. They already passed laws banning restaurants from serving french fries cooked in animal fat… for crying out loud
Government will reuire each of us giving them access to our medical records so they can verify our coverage and that we are following their guidelines. There will be a spce on everybody’s W-2’s requiring us to give them information about our provider and how much we pay etc. You’d have to be naive and even a fool if to believe our government would not lose and abuse this information.
No Hans – I’m a guy. Shows how well some people read on this board….
Reality: “Federal government can run deficits”
So? States only balance their budgets because of state constitutions or statutory requirements. That can change (hope and CHANGE, right? Are you a troglodyte conservative — “against change” as we hear in these parts so much?). Implement a federal balanced budget amendment and let the states do as they wish. If they can’t figure out how to do make do on a balanced budget any more, then their citizens will have figure out whether other candidates might do better, or whether they should move to a state that does better. Gee, letting states govern. Such a weird thing to imagine! Gee, letting people vote with their feet. What a novel concept — as if they’re not already doing that!
“left in the hands of the state, funding is going to be far from secure, and benefits will continue to get hacked.”
How’s it working out at the federal level now? D’oh!
I think you’re projecting a strangely common delusion: that alternatives, to be “what ought to be,” must result in an ideal situation. But I don’t suffer that delusion. I believe states ought to govern their people — close to home — because that’s what they’re supposed to do. Whether they succeed well or not doesn’t change whether they ought to be responsible and accountable for success or failure. That’s what voting’s for, among other things. That doesn’t stop being true at state or local levels merely because they’re not your beloved national pols.
It’s no critique of my position to point out that operating that way would not be ideal. But only a utopian projecting her own utopic delusion would imagine I deem that a critique. And I certainly deem it none cominng from someone who apparently believes our current situation with an out-of-control, deficiting, hopelessly in-debt federal government run by unaccountable corporatists is better.
You’re critiquing what I propose by exercising an over-active imagination, positing tyrranies writ small. For my part, I merely point to what we can all see happening all the time in Washington. To see it is to see its critique — unless you’re blind. Heh.
Doug: Yeah. And notice, now, that Obama wants credit for a jobs program anyone could have thought of, while defering the hard work of figuring out how to pay for it to the supercommittee. Wow. Way to roll up your sleeves, O! “Yes they can!” LOL
It’s like some dysfunctional family where the deadbeat brings home ice cream, new cell phones and toys for the kids, purchased on a racked-up credit card while the checking account is overdrawn: “Yay! You’re so wonderful!” – and the working parent has to figure out how to avoid foreclosure.
I’ll add: The only reason other folk haven’t come up with something like Obama’s proposal, is that they lack the chutzpah. They suffer from inhibitions against seeming the ass.
I mean, think about this. We (my family), for example, are flat broke. Often are. What if I came home with a “solution” to this, that consisting of suggesting that we spend money on all the things we really need to do. Yay! Huzzah! What a guy!
Then I toss my wife the plan and say “pay for it.” Needless to say, it’s not a “plan” I dropped in her lap — it’s an unrealistic set of demands SHE needs to contrive a plan to deal with, against all odds.
“And if you don’t do it, you hate the children!” And I strut off expecting high honors for my compassion and freakin’ genius ideas.
In a normal world, people like that would be deemed fools. Yet Obama takes it for granted that his base will adore him for his vunderful compassion for all the oppressed — or whatever.
Well, why wouldn’t my proposal be deemed the same for my family? Merely because I’d be an idiot to propose it precisely because it’s delusional?
It blows me away how people overlook idiocy by their most distant political heroes that they wouldn’t tolerate from those closest to them.
I’d be a hero if I could be the one to propose a plan to pay for what we need. I think our national heroes should be such people as well — not those narcissists who wish to ingratiate voters who’ll keep them in power, while others clean up their messes.
Ex-GOP: “No Hans - I’m a guy. Shows how well some people read on this board…””
I thought so. Now I can keep my gloves off in political discussions. :)
truth -
Thanks for the response…catch up after a couple of days, so hopefully I catch the key points here.
Quite frankly, it is a little shocking to me that the old arguments of personal responsibility have flipped so much. I say this because back in the day, the individual mandate was proposed by the Heritage foundation, a right wing think tank. Basic argument is that health of an individual is unique – an uninsured person, right now, through no fault of their own, could become a multi-million dollar liability for society. All an individual mandate says it that those who can afford it should pay into the greater system – those who can’t should be able to get subsidies to afford care.
So the basic argument that I believe you are saying is that you’d like people to not pay into the system, yet still get coverage if they really need it (bad car accident, cancer, etc) – you’d like they to essentially free load off the rest of us.
Now, if you are proposing we let those people die – we don’t treat them, then the previous paragraphs go out the door and we have a whole new discussion – so I do need you to answer that simple question – if somebody needs emergency medical care and does not have health insurance, should they get coverage that is essentially paid by the rest of us.
I get the liberty stuff – I didn’t like it, but accepted it with the patriot act. I don’t like it, but accept it with showing an id while voting. I don’t like it, but accept it, in a lot of places in life – but I see this much less an an infringement upon liberty and more about people paying for services they very might well need.
Two more thoughts – I find it very, very odd as well that a pro-lifer would argue against maternity care for all women. Stats show that a reason people get abortion is finances and insurance - and it is pretty clear that if a young woman with no insurance gets pregnant, and doesn’t have health insurance that covers maternity, that the odds are going to be higher she’s going to have an abortion. It is a little shocking to me.
It is also a little shocking to me that the GOP response, at this point, is to go back to a world of exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and a system where people can not be insured yet still require care that the rest of us pay for. It really feels like the right and left have flipped on this one.
Rasqual – I actually think it is working out pretty well at the federal level (social security, medicare, and medicaid). I don’t know – do you know a lot of older people who have completely thrown up their hands and said they don’t want any of them?
And I don’t believe we need to go for a utopia – I’m not sure where you got that idea. I do think though, that given the option of making small tweaks to programs to keep them running vs dismantling the programs and giving block grants to the states…I sure as heck would want to do the tweaks.
I mean, you’ve thrown a lot of words in there about how the states could do it – but I don’t really see a compelling reason why they should. I like when things can be run by the states…but some things are better off at a federal level – and I think health care is one of those things.
Sorry I didn’t use more big words for you – hopefully you are able to understand good ole’ American English, as used by common folk.
Ex-GOP: I don’t understand the snark about “good ole’ American English.” You’ll note that I engage more often than you in colloquial, informal locutions.
Are posed complaints about vocabulary mere pretenses to impugn?
Impugn? Who the stink uses that in normal conversation?
Your writing reminds me a bit of a great episode of Friends, where Joey is trying to sound smarter, so he writes a letter like he normally would, then goes into Word and substitues in the fanciest word he can find in the thesaurus.
I say this because back in the day, the individual mandate was proposed by the Heritage foundation, a right wing think tank. Basic argument is that health of an individual is unique – an uninsured person, right now, through no fault of their own, could become a multi-million dollar liability for society.
You can refuse treatment if you want to. But at least for now there are hospitals that would treat them anyway. But Obama is doing his damndest to force them out of business by mandating they perform abortions.
All an individual mandate says it that those who can afford it should pay into the greater system – those who can’t should be able to get subsidies to afford care.
Not true. This individual mandate says a lot more than that. It not only forces you buy insurance but it dictates what must be included in health insurance policies. It also places the most private part of a persons life into the control of government. You’d have to be mad to want them determining your health care coverage. Really, what is so broken about the existing system? How many people a day are dying because they were refused life saving medical care cause they didn’t have insurance?
So the basic argument that I believe you are saying is that you’d like people to not pay into the system, yet still get coverage if they really need it (bad car accident, cancer, etc) – you’d like they to essentially free load off the rest of us.
We will always pay for those people in bad car acciendts or with cancer anyways cause their expenses far exceed their contributions. But that is not a problem for me either anyway. I am glad they get care.
I find it very, very odd as well that a pro-lifer would argue against maternity care for all women. Stats show that a reason people get abortion is finances and insurance - and it is pretty clear that if a young woman with no insurance gets pregnant, and doesn’t have health insurance that covers maternity, that the odds are going to be higher she’s going to have an abortion. It is a little shocking to me.
This is not a valid reason for abortion. I know lots of women who had their children with assistance that is already available through the government and/or through CPC’s and churches etc… We don’t need our government mandating that or anything else like we can only have coverage for up to 2.5 kids etc… And only a fool would give them the chance.
Ditto on your pre-exising conditions spiel. I don’t want government mandating those kinds of decisions. But I do agree that we do need to find other ways to make care portable.
truth – one sentence I don’t understand and need further clarification on - “It also places the most private part of a persons life into the control of government.”
Can you further explain what you mean?
Personal health decisions should not be put under government control.
What personal health decisions go under governments control? My insurance…your insurance…everyone’s insurance will still go through a third party company such as Blue Cross – there is no public option plan. So what decision go under government control?
Requirements to purchase.
Requirements on what is included in the policy.
Requirements to report your health care info to the government on an annual basis.
Requirements about what procedures insurance companies approve and/or deny
I see a huge uncontrolled bureaucracy that will be dictating wether or not we can smoke or drink etc…mandating more and more things like how many kids are covered per capita based on income levels. I would not put it past them to force levels governing BMI requirements in order to remain in compliance with your plan or risk losing coverage for certain procedures. It is the nature of the beast when government gets involved. Laws and regulations get added exponentially in number each year. And decisions could be made based on an index they create that weighs costs of procedures against a persons ‘value’ to society. Very few get removed from the books and it could get ugly really fast since these regulations are actually made by a non-elected board that serves under the behest of the current president so the rules they mandate will always be changing based upon the policitcal environment at the time. Bad idea getting government involved in this.