Hey Libs!

Don't forget the Individual Mandate was originally a Republican idea.

Historic obstructionism
20100212_FILIBUSTER.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.91.jpg


Waterloo | FrumForum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
David Frum - former G.W. Bush speechwriter


"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258




From your own NPR link:
Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' " The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there
In those days there was compromise and bargaining going on.
Clinton was involved (not vacationing in Rio or golfing) with legislative processes.
Congress didn't lock them selves up in a room and dictate policy for everyone.....



I'm at a forum.
Why would I want to read someone else's forum post, as evidence?
:eusa_shhh:
 
Can I try??

How about when he said he's going to raise taxes for the wealthy (GE qualifies) yet, because they were a huge contributor, they've been spared.
Closing GTMO.
No troops on the ground in Libya.
Lowering taxes for the middle class while mandating the purchase of a product.


Now. Can you tell me something he's been honest about?

Each and every time the President has tried to raise taxes on the upper 2%, tried to close tax loopholes or close GITMO, he has been met with a solid wall of obstructionism from Republicans and Blue Dogs. Sorry, but you can't pin those on the President.

95% of Americans got a tax break. I realize most Faux "news" watchers don't know that, but it is still the truth.

As for the Insurance mandate, the President opposed a mandate, but since it was Congress that drafted the insurance reform bill, he couldn't really control that could he? Do I wish he had fought harder for a Public Option and against an insurance mandate? Absolutely, but once again the fault lies with Blue Dogs and insurance companies that threw ungodly amounts of cash at our elected representatives, not the President. Unfortunately, because of the way the bill was crafted, without a mandate, it doesn't save people and our country money. With the mandate, it does.

Take a look at the President's campaign promises and then look at what he has accomplished of those promises. He's doing damn good for a President that was faced with historic obstructionism from the get go.

Umm....
You DO realized that Barack Obama signed an Executive Order to keep GTMO open, right?!
How is that being obstructed from closing it?

In the next paragraph you try to tell me that the most powerful democratic politician in office has no control over his democratically controlled congress??????



I'm not researching for an answer to a question I posed to you.
I repeat my question;
Can you tell me something that he has been honest about?

Not offering Universal Health Insurance to Illegal Imigrants.
 
Each and every time the President has tried to raise taxes on the upper 2%, tried to close tax loopholes or close GITMO, he has been met with a solid wall of obstructionism from Republicans and Blue Dogs. Sorry, but you can't pin those on the President.

95% of Americans got a tax break. I realize most Faux "news" watchers don't know that, but it is still the truth.

As for the Insurance mandate, the President opposed a mandate, but since it was Congress that drafted the insurance reform bill, he couldn't really control that could he? Do I wish he had fought harder for a Public Option and against an insurance mandate? Absolutely, but once again the fault lies with Blue Dogs and insurance companies that threw ungodly amounts of cash at our elected representatives, not the President. Unfortunately, because of the way the bill was crafted, without a mandate, it doesn't save people and our country money. With the mandate, it does.

Take a look at the President's campaign promises and then look at what he has accomplished of those promises. He's doing damn good for a President that was faced with historic obstructionism from the get go.

Umm....
You DO realized that Barack Obama signed an Executive Order to keep GTMO open, right?!
How is that being obstructed from closing it?

In the next paragraph you try to tell me that the most powerful democratic politician in office has no control over his democratically controlled congress??????



I'm not researching for an answer to a question I posed to you.
I repeat my question;
Can you tell me something that he has been honest about?

Oh, so THAT'S how it is supposed to work? Here's a concept for you right wing authoritarian followers, three equal branches of government, not a monarchy.
:lol:
So the President holds no sway over his own party???
:eusa_shhh:
 
Can I try??

How about when he said he's going to raise taxes for the wealthy (GE qualifies) yet, because they were a huge contributor, they've been spared.
Closing GTMO.
No troops on the ground in Libya.
Lowering taxes for the middle class while mandating the purchase of a product.


Now. Can you tell me something he's been honest about?

Each and every time the President has tried to raise taxes on the upper 2%, tried to close tax loopholes or close GITMO, he has been met with a solid wall of obstructionism from Republicans and Blue Dogs. Sorry, but you can't pin those on the President.

95% of Americans got a tax break. I realize most Faux "news" watchers don't know that, but it is still the truth.

As for the Insurance mandate, the President opposed a mandate, but since it was Congress that drafted the insurance reform bill, he couldn't really control that could he? Do I wish he had fought harder for a Public Option and against an insurance mandate? Absolutely, but once again the fault lies with Blue Dogs and insurance companies that threw ungodly amounts of cash at our elected representatives, not the President. Unfortunately, because of the way the bill was crafted, without a mandate, it doesn't save people and our country money. With the mandate, it does.

Take a look at the President's campaign promises and then look at what he has accomplished of those promises. He's doing damn good for a President that was faced with historic obstructionism from the get go.

Umm....
You DO realized that Barack Obama signed an Executive Order to keep GTMO open, right?!
How is that being obstructed from closing it?

In the next paragraph you try to tell me that the most powerful democratic politician in office has no control over his democratically controlled congress??????



I'm not researching for an answer to a question I posed to you.
I repeat my question;
Can you tell me something that he has been honest about?

I already told you what he has been "honest" about. He has kept 137 of his campaign promises, compromised on 41 of them, has 219 of them in the works, 70 stalled and has broken 40. That's a pretty good track record for a first term.

Just what do you propose the President DO to close GITMO in the face of the obstructionism?

Oh, and the Dems NEVER had a "super majority" like the right wingers like to say they did. You can't simply discount the Blue Dogs and folks like Lieberman. Just because they have a (D) after their name does not mean they operate in lock step like the Republicans always did. (Now that the Tea Baggers are "in the house", the Republicans know what that feels like) :D
 
Right there.. "It requires." That makes it a government takeover. spin it anywhich way you want but that's a fact jack.

Handing the private insurance industry millions of new customers is gov't takeover? Yeah, ok. Talk about spin. :lol::lol::lol:


You pathetic nincompoop. Yes, it is.

Career politicians FORCE people to buy a product from companies which donate vast amount of money to said career politicians. It's a form of government takeover for the benefit of the Big Government Cronies.

You mean like all that stuff we buy from the defense industry. I hear they lobby some too.
 
Thank you for proving the right loves America, it's just those damn AmeriCANS they can't stand...GFY

I'm a libertarian, so I'm not sure how I proved that about the right.

Outsourcing jobs drives efficiency which makes our companies more competitive against foreign competition, reduces prices and increases payouts to shareholders. Which creates more jobs, just different ones. Take an economics class.

If we outsourced jobs to a country where slaves were used to produce products that were then imported into the U.S. and sold,

would you support that?
 
It requires millions of people to buy a private product. How is that not private market based? Please, tell me. This ought to be good. You say it's "clearly" liberal. How so, professor? Enlighten us with your vast knowledge. :lol::lol::lol:
Because of the bolded part. Government controlling private markets isn't private market. That is what you far left zombies can't grasp. A private company doesn't make it private. Choice makes it private. And that doesn't even start to count the endless choice removing mandates on employers and medical insurers.

There are virtually no private markets in the U.S., and most Americans don't want any such thing. All markets are government regulated.
 
Don't forget the Individual Mandate was originally a Republican idea.

Historic obstructionism
20100212_FILIBUSTER.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.91.jpg


Waterloo | FrumForum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
David Frum - former G.W. Bush speechwriter


"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258




From your own NPR link:
Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' " The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there
In those days there was compromise and bargaining going on.
Clinton was involved (not vacationing in Rio or golfing) with legislative processes.
Congress didn't lock them selves up in a room and dictate policy for everyone.....



I'm at a forum.
Why would I want to read someone else's forum post, as evidence?
:eusa_shhh:

So, we have established that the Individual Mandate was a Republican idea...thanks.

WHAT part of David Frum's statement are you having trouble comprehending? The man did get fired by the American Enterprise Institute just for speaking the truth.

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

BTW, in 'those days', health care reform was defeated.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for proving the right loves America, it's just those damn AmeriCANS they can't stand...GFY

I'm a libertarian, so I'm not sure how I proved that about the right.

Outsourcing jobs drives efficiency which makes our companies more competitive against foreign competition, reduces prices and increases payouts to shareholders. Which creates more jobs, just different ones. Take an economics class.

If we outsourced jobs to a country where slaves were used to produce products that were then imported into the U.S. and sold,

would you support that?

Sure, why not?

Is you're point that I shouldn't buy whaterver the fuck I want to buy, and that I need you to guide me through the process with your sense of moral superiority?
 
I'm a libertarian, so I'm not sure how I proved that about the right.

Outsourcing jobs drives efficiency which makes our companies more competitive against foreign competition, reduces prices and increases payouts to shareholders. Which creates more jobs, just different ones. Take an economics class.

If we outsourced jobs to a country where slaves were used to produce products that were then imported into the U.S. and sold,

would you support that?

Sure, why not?

Is you're point that I shouldn't buy whaterver the fuck I want to buy, and that I need you to guide me through the process with your sense of moral superiority?

Nothing is free and low prices don't mean low costs.

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995 - four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. Transnational corporations' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. ref

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
 
If we outsourced jobs to a country where slaves were used to produce products that were then imported into the U.S. and sold,

would you support that?

Sure, why not?

Is you're point that I shouldn't buy whaterver the fuck I want to buy, and that I need you to guide me through the process with your sense of moral superiority?

Nothing is free and low prices don't mean low costs.

.....Paste Rambling Moronic Froth Here.....
It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Thanks for the cut and paste response, and the non-sequitur quote

Too bad you couldn't fit a square peg in a round hole, you babbling idiot. Did I say I gave a shit HOW the cost to me was low?
 
I'm a libertarian, so I'm not sure how I proved that about the right.

Outsourcing jobs drives efficiency which makes our companies more competitive against foreign competition, reduces prices and increases payouts to shareholders. Which creates more jobs, just different ones. Take an economics class.

If we outsourced jobs to a country where slaves were used to produce products that were then imported into the U.S. and sold,

would you support that?

Sure, why not?

Is you're point that I shouldn't buy whaterver the fuck I want to buy, and that I need you to guide me through the process with your sense of moral superiority?

Since you've just admitted to supporting slavery, I think the moral superiority issue is settled.
 
If we outsourced jobs to a country where slaves were used to produce products that were then imported into the U.S. and sold,

would you support that?

Sure, why not?

Is you're point that I shouldn't buy whaterver the fuck I want to buy, and that I need you to guide me through the process with your sense of moral superiority?

Since you've just admitted to supporting slavery, I think the moral superiority issue is settled.

If it makes you feel better, I'd also buy cheaper goods from queers.
 
Thank you for proving the right loves America, it's just those damn AmeriCANS they can't stand...GFY

I'm a libertarian, so I'm not sure how I proved that about the right.

Outsourcing jobs drives efficiency which makes our companies more competitive against foreign competition, reduces prices and increases payouts to shareholders. Which creates more jobs, just different ones. Take an economics class.

If we outsourced jobs to a country where slaves were used to produce products that were then imported into the U.S. and sold,

would you support that?

Define "support."

And do it in a way that shows you grasp what appears to be the faulty premise underlying your question. Government is the only solution to any problem.
 
It requires millions of people to buy a private product. How is that not private market based? Please, tell me. This ought to be good. You say it's "clearly" liberal. How so, professor? Enlighten us with your vast knowledge. :lol::lol::lol:
Because of the bolded part. Government controlling private markets isn't private market. That is what you far left zombies can't grasp. A private company doesn't make it private. Choice makes it private. And that doesn't even start to count the endless choice removing mandates on employers and medical insurers.

There are virtually no private markets in the U.S., and most Americans don't want any such thing. All markets are government regulated.
So regulation is binary? It's total or non-existent? I'm sick of these black and white discussions with liberals who then criticize the right for being black and white. I want to maximize choice. Your argument that since I can't have total free market so I should just give up and accept total regulation is...liberal.
 
Last edited:
Right there.. "It requires." That makes it a government takeover. spin it anywhich way you want but that's a fact jack.

Handing the private insurance industry millions of new customers is gov't takeover? Yeah, ok. Talk about spin. :lol::lol::lol:


You pathetic nincompoop. Yes, it is.

Career politicians FORCE people to buy a product from companies which donate vast amount of money to said career politicians. It's a form of government takeover for the benefit of the Big Government Cronies.

Agreed. And it's no different than what Unions do. And yes Unions ARE corporations. Their commodity is labor.
 
Sure, why not?

Is you're point that I shouldn't buy whaterver the fuck I want to buy, and that I need you to guide me through the process with your sense of moral superiority?

Nothing is free and low prices don't mean low costs.

.....Paste Rambling Moronic Froth Here.....
It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Thanks for the cut and paste response, and the non-sequitur quote

Too bad you couldn't fit a square peg in a round hole, you babbling idiot. Did I say I gave a shit HOW the cost to me was low?

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

I'm sorry, I forgot you have the cognitive ability of a child. And the morals of a murderer. My mistake.
 
The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


■The share that corporate tax revenues comprise of total federal tax revenues also has collapsed, falling from an average of 28 percent of federal revenues in the 1950s and 21 percent in the 1960s to an average of about 10 percent since the 1980s.
■The effective corporate tax rate — that is, the percentage of corporate profits that is paid in federal corporate income taxes — has followed a similar pattern. During the 1990s, corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 33 percent in the 1970s.
■Corporate income tax revenues are lower in the United States than in most European countries. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, total federal and state corporate income tax revenues in the United States in 2000, measured as a share of the economy, were about one-quarter less than the average for other OECD member countries. Thirty-five years ago, the opposite was true — corporations in the United States bore a heavier burden than their European counterparts.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top