rotflmao!
Last edited:
Pre-existing conditions coverage
- Thread starter The Rabbi
- Start date
Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,515
- 2,250
Insurance has been unaffordable for over a decade.
It's simply become MORE unaffordable.
On the other hand, I'm sure that these Health Insurance companies can simply adjust to another industry the same way they expect all the Americans they laid off to do so.
Never forget what Rush says, "A job loss is an OPPORTUNITY!".
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Translation: you can't show me where you said Reagan voted for Nixon before I corrected you, and you are now aware that Reagan did say those words on June 24, 1985.
So instead of admitting you were wrong, you resort to the right wing parrot refrain...the "rotflmao"
What next? The *yawn*???
Why? When I said it on this board has nothing to do with what I knew. As I said, you aren't smart enough to set me straight.
rotflmao!
Translation: See above.
I wasn't wrong and I was rotflmao, at your stupidity.
I will use expletives or emoticons to reflect what ever ignorance you post, AT MY DISCRETION.
For the sake of Clarity the following definitions are what separate us:
Left Wing Extremist: A person who wants other left wingers to be the only people in power.
Left Wingr: A person who wants all of those s/he believes deserve the things the liberal wants all the people to have.
Liberal: A person who cares about people and wants all people to share in those good things which people need to live a dignified life with a reasonable standard of living; and understands economics such that the country has enough prosperity to fund those goals.
(Neither the left wingr or the left wing extremist knows enough about economics to accomplish anything. They just WANT but don't know how to satisfy that Want.)
You are the former, I am the latter.
Last edited:
crisismangement
Member
- Apr 22, 2014
- 52
- 5
- 6
That is the best description giving the difference between Liberals and various degrees of left wing fanaticism. In my opinion,
the left wing extremist = to communist
left winger=socialist
liberal=typical do gooder
moderate=sensible
conservative=small government and states rights, concerned with economics and personal responsibility
right winger=want small government and states rights, laissez-faire capitalism and personal responsibility
right wing extremist=autocratic government, no social programs, tax money funding private schools: eliminate welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid and responsibility for no one but himself
Last edited:
I was referred to the following URL as a virtually unmonitored web site to discuss whatever you want.http://http://politicaldiscussion.forumchitchat.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1282583891&postcount=1
I have determined that Economics should drive politics, yet in actually politics tends to drive the economy. It is my opinion that ass backwards situation is what causes our economic cycles to go up and down so often. Politicians should keep their mitts off of economics. Unless we are economically prosperous as a country we will never have the money to fund the social programs which take care of the needy and give our society an even playing field for people to live their lives with dignity. [political discussion
Last edited:
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
You can beat your chest, roll on the floor and make all kinds of absurd assumptions about what I believe, and who I am. But I have backed up everything I have said. You have NOT. Instead you have emoted, ranted, pontificated and lied.
Any intelligent person would NOT interpret "ronald reagan was a jfk democrat in 1961" to mean Ronald Reagan voted for Richard Nixon in 1960.
Any intelligent person would NOT interpret "ronald reagan was a jfk democrat in 1961" to mean Ronald Reagan would be a paid mouthpiece for elitists in 1962 and use fear-mongering, the red scare and lies to try to defeat JFK's Medicare proposal.
And any intelligent person would not double down on their lies like you have.
A simple 'Google' of "reagan quote on june 24, 1985" would have garnered numerous links to the speech where Reagan said: "Which is not to say I supported John Kennedy when he ran for president, because I didn't. I was for the other fellow."
ROTFLMAO! It takes an intelligent person to like a candidate but hate his puppet handlers and choose to vote for someone not controlled by idiots. Unfortunately you don't fit that mold.
Last edited:
For you to construe anything other than Reagan liked JFK, is abject idiocy. He would not have expressed so much admiration for the man as is shown in this speech, in which he said the words you posted, but more important expressed how much he liked him. 1985 Tribute by President Reagan - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
I admit I thought you were doing as you frequently do, put words into others mouths, and I was wrong; wrong about those words, but completely accurate when I said, (and say again) "Reagan was a JFK Democrat" but as is not so unusual he voted for someone else, not because of the man, but because of the puppeteers who controlled him. I presume the reason you did not give me a link to that speech was because you wanted me to believe he didn't like JFK. The speech proves he did even though he did not vote for him.
I got a PM this AM from another member, and he asked me what made me believe you were a left wing extremist. I let him know that in addition to what you post, you use left wing extremists sites...like Salon, Kos, mother Jones et al. Even Huffington is a left wing site.
I admit I thought you were doing as you frequently do, put words into others mouths, and I was wrong; wrong about those words, but completely accurate when I said, (and say again) "Reagan was a JFK Democrat" but as is not so unusual he voted for someone else, not because of the man, but because of the puppeteers who controlled him. I presume the reason you did not give me a link to that speech was because you wanted me to believe he didn't like JFK. The speech proves he did even though he did not vote for him.
I got a PM this AM from another member, and he asked me what made me believe you were a left wing extremist. I let him know that in addition to what you post, you use left wing extremists sites...like Salon, Kos, mother Jones et al. Even Huffington is a left wing site.
Last edited:
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Didn't your mother or father ever teach you, 'actions speak louder than words'?
WHAT would you expect Reagan to say in that speech? That he was a paid mouthpiece for elitists American Medical Association's Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Medicare and used fear-mongering, the red scare and lies to try to defeat JFK's Medicare proposal?
Reagan was no JFK Democrat. He opposed everything you 'claim' to believe in. And he did his best to dismantle everything you 'claim' to believe in.
And YOU are no JFK Democrat...you are a fraud.
ROTFLMAO! So you think you can look into my mind and know what I am? You are a cretinous fool. What is obvious is, if it doesn't match your vision of correctness, it is wrong. But the fact is, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground so nothing you say can be taken at face value. One has to read your words, presume they are ass backwards, then if they turn out to have a semblance of truth on examination, accept them. Oh, yeah, that is why I presumed that quote from Reagan was a lie, because most of what you say is a lie, because you accept your handler's propaganda.
crisismangement
Member
- Apr 22, 2014
- 52
- 5
- 6
Do you think that dufus actually believes what he says? I think he is a paid tool of some Communist overlord. No adult human being could be so ignorant...uh...or he is a kid getting his rocks off making stupid comments.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
OH, I get it....ONLY YOU can look into my mind and tell me who and what I am. You are a self righteous narcissist ass.
Reagan may have 'liked' JFK, but to say he was a JFK Democrat is absolutely absurd. He opposed every major New Frontier initiative. And he did his best to dismantle everything Kennedy did and you 'CLAIM' to believe in.
Let's look at Kennedy and Reagan "the JFK Democrat"
Kennedy's New Frontier
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.
ADC was extended to whole families (1961).
The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.
A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.
The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.
Ronald Reagan "the JFK Democrat"
Reagan made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and school lunch programs.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Back in 2005 or 2006, I had a friend from Somalia. Her father lived in Kenya, and her brother was in Seattle.
She was here alone in Ohio, and I decided to help her out a little bit. She needed health insurance.
I signed her up for a catastrophic coverage policy. The cost was $48 a month. Covered 40% meds. $25 per office visit. $2,000 deductible. 90/10 after that.
Given she had no coverage at all before, this was very good, and extremely reasonable.
I myself had a similar plan, that was $57 a month, a year or two later.
Recently I checked prices for my a plan, compared to my company plan. The absolute cheapest, catastrophic coverage, high deductible policy today, was over $250 a month.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Health insurance was not unaffordable for over a decade. You are just flat out wrong.
Today.... now.... it is unaffordable. Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of insurance has drastically increased. It's no where even close to comparable, to what it was before.
Today's prices make the prices of the last decade look extremely cheap.
crisismangement
Member
- Apr 22, 2014
- 52
- 5
- 6
Wow, so JFK stole the idea from an earlier era way back in the early 1930s. So what else did your Johnny come lately steal? What Reagan didn't like about the programs he wanted to cut was the rampant fraud in the program, and the fact that those using some of those programs were living better than hard working citizens. But oh yes, lily livered left wing extremist ass wipes like you want to redistribute more wealth to welfare people to bring those who work for their money less wealthy than the welfare queens.
You see, I am not as liberal as dnsmith, but it is obvious he is not as RW as you accuse him of being. You are a first class wiener and a real ass wipe.
Last edited:
I suspect you are a conservative, maybe not a RW nut, but a conservative. The fact is, I am a liberal, even if I did like Reagan, even not voting for him doesn't change that. I kid of agree with your "definitions of LW, Liberal, Conservative, RW. Most liberals and conservatives, moderates if you will, tend to want the same things: good public schools, universal medical care, racial/sex equality, prosperity for the country, helping the poor and better budget management. The most important difference is the manner in which we achieve those things.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Another of my 'far left' sources...
The Myths of Reaganomics
Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard
I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.
Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.
Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.
Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.
This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.
One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
There has also been a fervent revival of the old left-Keynesian idea that "deficits don't matter, anyway." Deficits are stimulating, we can "grow ourselves out of deficits," etc. The most interesting, though predictable, twist was that of the supply-siders, who, led by Professor Arthur Laffer and his famous "curve," had promised that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist, and the only propounder of his famous curve.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
The Myths of Reaganomics
Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard
I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.
Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.
Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.
Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.
This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.
One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
There has also been a fervent revival of the old left-Keynesian idea that "deficits don't matter, anyway." Deficits are stimulating, we can "grow ourselves out of deficits," etc. The most interesting, though predictable, twist was that of the supply-siders, who, led by Professor Arthur Laffer and his famous "curve," had promised that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist, and the only propounder of his famous curve.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
Similar threads
- Locked
