Raise Taxes or Cut Waste?

[dblack]

Justifying Taxes and then spending that raised revenue is much more fiscally responsible and much more fiscally sincere, than spending the (other) Peoples' tax monies, and financing the rest on the Peoples' dime.

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies. The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support. The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult. TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care. Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

Exactly. The fact that Wal-Mart and McDonald's profit from welfare is no accident.

No, it wasn't. We also haven't solved simple poverty on an at-will basis nor corrected for the deleterious effects of capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Is it a coincidence or "collusion and conspiracy".

I don't think it was either. Just unexpected side effects of ill-considered policy.

 

[Flopper]

Doesn't matter whether you be for or against. Fact is, it was a huge waste of money that you can't or didn't condemn nearly as strongly as welfare funds. Why's that?

You haven't been listening. I said no money for welfare, subsidies, bailouts or entitlements. Foreign aid certainly falls within the subset of subsidies, doesn't it? I would cutoff all the welfare queens, including the foreign ones. Meanwhile that idiot you voted for continues with foreign "aid" of all kinds, including building Muslim Mosques. How stupid is that? You must have really been confused when you voted for that idiot Obama, huh?

The country has done pretty well under Obama, in spite of the well documented, almost treasonous, republican obstruction given him.

Had Republicans cooperated with Obama, the economic recovery would have been far more robust but his record is not bad, far better than Republicans are willing to admit.

• The stock market has risen 126%.
• The federal budget deficit is down from 10 percent of the economy in Obama’s first year to less than 3 percent in fiscal year 2015 with a good chance of turning into a surplus by the time he leaves office.
• Although conservatives picture Obama as a spendthrift, he has actually been the most tightfisted president in the last half-century in terms of discretionary federal spending.
• His opponents point to his anti-oil policies, yet Americans are enjoying the lowest gas prices in 6 years.
• His big government policies has shrunk the federal workforce by 2.4 percent, taking the number of federal workers below where it stood when Bush took office almost 15 years ago.
• In Bush’s last year, the country lost 4.4 million jobs, a scary trend that continued for another year. Since then, the U.S. has enjoyed a record 57 months of consecutive increases in private-sector jobs, though Obama gets little credit for that or the fact that we now enjoy not just a record 140 million jobs but also an accelerating rate of job growth.

 

[zeke]

Doesn't matter whether you be for or against. Fact is, it was a huge waste of money that you can't or didn't condemn nearly as strongly as welfare funds. Why's that?

You haven't been listening. I said no money for welfare, subsidies, bailouts or entitlements. Foreign aid certainly falls within the subset of subsidies, doesn't it? I would cutoff all the welfare queens, including the foreign ones. Meanwhile that idiot you voted for continues with foreign "aid" of all kinds, including building Muslim Mosques. How stupid is that? You must have really been confused when you voted for that idiot Obama, huh?

The country has done pretty well under Obama, in spite of the well documented, almost treasonous, republican obstruction given him.

Had Republicans cooperated with Obama, the economic recovery would have been far more robust but his record is not bad, far better than Republicans are willing to admit.

• The stock market has risen 126%.
• The federal budget deficit is down from 10 percent of the economy in Obama’s first year to less than 3 percent in fiscal year 2015 with a good chance of turning into a surplus by the time he leaves office.
• Although conservatives picture Obama as a spendthrift, he has actually been the most tightfisted president in the last half-century in terms of discretionary federal spending.
• His opponents point to his anti-oil policies, yet Americans are enjoying the lowest gas prices in 6 years.
• His big government policies has shrunk the federal workforce by 2.4 percent, taking the number of federal workers below where it stood when Bush took office almost 15 years ago.
• In Bush’s last year, the country lost 4.4 million jobs, a scary trend that continued for another year. Since then, the U.S. has enjoyed a record 57 months of consecutive increases in private-sector jobs, though Obama gets little credit for that or the fact that we now enjoy not just a record 140 million jobs but also an accelerating rate of job growth.

So do you think our fellow message board members who do not see the successes you pointed out, live in an alternative universe where the economy didn't rebound and things got worse instead of better?

 

[Flopper]

Doesn't matter whether you be for or against. Fact is, it was a huge waste of money that you can't or didn't condemn nearly as strongly as welfare funds. Why's that?

You haven't been listening. I said no money for welfare, subsidies, bailouts or entitlements. Foreign aid certainly falls within the subset of subsidies, doesn't it? I would cutoff all the welfare queens, including the foreign ones. Meanwhile that idiot you voted for continues with foreign "aid" of all kinds, including building Muslim Mosques. How stupid is that? You must have really been confused when you voted for that idiot Obama, huh?

The country has done pretty well under Obama, in spite of the well documented, almost treasonous, republican obstruction given him.

Had Republicans cooperated with Obama, the economic recovery would have been far more robust but his record is not bad, far better than Republicans are willing to admit.

• The stock market has risen 126%.
• The federal budget deficit is down from 10 percent of the economy in Obama’s first year to less than 3 percent in fiscal year 2015 with a good chance of turning into a surplus by the time he leaves office.
• Although conservatives picture Obama as a spendthrift, he has actually been the most tightfisted president in the last half-century in terms of discretionary federal spending.
• His opponents point to his anti-oil policies, yet Americans are enjoying the lowest gas prices in 6 years.
• His big government policies has shrunk the federal workforce by 2.4 percent, taking the number of federal workers below where it stood when Bush took office almost 15 years ago.
• In Bush’s last year, the country lost 4.4 million jobs, a scary trend that continued for another year. Since then, the U.S. has enjoyed a record 57 months of consecutive increases in private-sector jobs, though Obama gets little credit for that or the fact that we now enjoy not just a record 140 million jobs but also an accelerating rate of job growth.

So do you think our fellow message board members who do not see the successes you pointed out, live in an alternative universe where the economy didn't rebound and things got worse instead of better?

Most of our fellow USMB members are about as objective as a little league dad when evaluating his kids athletic performance.

Oh, the economy has certainly rebounded but that's not the problem. All most people know about the economy is that they are working hard and getting nowhere and that even if they perform well, their jobs can evaporate in an instant.

The recession has drove home what American businesses have really know for a decade. They can produce as much or more with less people, a lot less people by outsourcing jobs overseas, investing in technologies that improve productivity, and demanding more from their employees.

The sad truth is that American workers have got to out produce, out think, and out sell foreign completion. Unions and trade barriers can't protect American workers because they are rapidly disappearing. Government programs can soften the blow but they can't solve the real problem. American workers making $15/hr are competing with labor abroad making $2, $5, and $7/hr. The only solution is harder working and bettered educated employees.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

Raising taxes is absurd on its face. No one needs their college paid for by the government. No healthy individual needs ANY SUBSIDY OF ANY KIND from the government. And by healthy, I definitely include those addicted to drugs... .

At the end of the day, anyone who casts a vote for an ideological Leftist, meaning a Democrat... or sub-variant of such... and who was received or is receiving ANY form of Federal or State subsidy is axiomatically guilty of accepting bribes for their vote... a felony. And what's more, it is a felony which should be raised to a capital crime, punishable only by summary execution. With the threshold for guilt being that the individual received a government subsidy and they signed in at a polling station, where a Leftist was on the ballot.

That alone would solve the bulk of the US Federal and State spending problems. Not to mention thinning the herd of reprobates, malcontents and general idiocy... .

 

[Dad2three]

Doesn't matter whether you be for or against. Fact is, it was a huge waste of money that you can't or didn't condemn nearly as strongly as welfare funds. Why's that?

You haven't been listening. I said no money for welfare, subsidies, bailouts or entitlements. Foreign aid certainly falls within the subset of subsidies, doesn't it? I would cutoff all the welfare queens, including the foreign ones. Meanwhile that idiot you voted for continues with foreign "aid" of all kinds, including building Muslim Mosques. How stupid is that? You must have really been confused when you voted for that idiot Obama, huh?

The country has done pretty well under Obama, in spite of the well documented, almost treasonous, republican obstruction given him.

Had Republicans cooperated with Obama, the economic recovery would have been far more robust but his record is not bad, far better than Republicans are willing to admit.

• The stock market has risen 126%.
• The federal budget deficit is down from 10 percent of the economy in Obama’s first year to less than 3 percent in fiscal year 2015 with a good chance of turning into a surplus by the time he leaves office.
• Although conservatives picture Obama as a spendthrift, he has actually been the most tightfisted president in the last half-century in terms of discretionary federal spending.
• His opponents point to his anti-oil policies, yet Americans are enjoying the lowest gas prices in 6 years.
• His big government policies has shrunk the federal workforce by 2.4 percent, taking the number of federal workers below where it stood when Bush took office almost 15 years ago.
• In Bush’s last year, the country lost 4.4 million jobs, a scary trend that continued for another year. Since then, the U.S. has enjoyed a record 57 months of consecutive increases in private-sector jobs, though Obama gets little credit for that or the fact that we now enjoy not just a record 140 million jobs but also an accelerating rate of job growth.

So do you think our fellow message board members who do not see the successes you pointed out, live in an alternative universe where the economy didn't rebound and things got worse instead of better?

Oh, the economy has certainly rebounded but that's not the problem. All most people know about the economy is that they are working hard and getting nowhere and that even if they perform well, their jobs can evaporate in an instant.

The recession has drove home what American businesses have really know for a decade. They can produce as much or more with less people, a lot less people by outsourcing jobs overseas, investing in technologies that improve productivity, and demanding more from their employees.

The sad truth is that American workers have got to out produce, out think, and out sell foreign completion. Unions and trade barriers can't protect American workers because they are rapidly disappearing. Government programs can soften the blow but they can't solve the real problem. The only solution is harder working and bettered educated employees.

"The only solution is harder working and bettered educated employees."

No we can't expect Gov't policy to help the bottom 99% of the nation a SHARE of the pie they help create. The Corps and 'job creators' didn't create the money in Russia, Afghanistan, Algeria, Burma, Congo, Guatemala, Somalia, etc. IF they want the BENEFITS of creating money in an ordered society, they SHOULD be required to share the BENEFITS. We can do this through PROGRESSIVE policies like stronger union rights, higher min wages, min vacation periods, FREE (Gov't funded for the low informed cons) COLLEGE and trade school, UHC,

OR WE CAN JUST KEEP ALLOWING THE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES CREATED THROUGH THE PAST 40+ YEARS OF RIGHT WING 'THINKS LEGISLATION (THINK HERITAGE, CATO, ALEC, ETC) TO RUN THE US


Keynes suggested 80+ years ago a 15 hour work week???


Corporate profits’ share of pie most in 60 years

Wages share of GDP lowest since 1955

Corporate profits share of pie most in 60 years - MarketWatch

Look at the tax rates (TOTAL FED EFFECTIVE TAX BURDEN) of the top 1%, and 1/10th of 1% DROP over their PRE Reaganomics rates

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

Raising taxes is absurd on its face. No one needs their college paid for by the government. No healthy individual needs ANY SUBSIDY OF ANY KIND from the government. And by healthy, I definitely include those addicted to drugs... .

At the end of the day, anyone who casts a vote for an ideological Leftist, meaning a Democrat... or sub-variant of such... and who was received or is receiving ANY form of Federal or State subsidy is axiomatically guilty of accepting bribes for their vote... a felony. And what's more, it is a felony which should be raised to a capital crime, punishable only by summary execution. With the threshold for guilt being that the individual received a government subsidy and they signed in at a polling station, where a Leftist was on the ballot.

That alone would solve the bulk of the US Federal and State spending problems. Not to mention thinning the herd of reprobates, malcontents and general idiocy... .

 

[Dad2three]

 

[Dad2three]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

Raising taxes is absurd on its face. No one needs their college paid for by the government. No healthy individual needs ANY SUBSIDY OF ANY KIND from the government. And by healthy, I definitely include those addicted to drugs... .

At the end of the day, anyone who casts a vote for an ideological Leftist, meaning a Democrat... or sub-variant of such... and who was received or is receiving ANY form of Federal or State subsidy is axiomatically guilty of accepting bribes for their vote... a felony. And what's more, it is a felony which should be raised to a capital crime, punishable only by summary execution. With the threshold for guilt being that the individual received a government subsidy and they signed in at a polling station, where a Leftist was on the ballot.

That alone would solve the bulk of the US Federal and State spending problems. Not to mention thinning the herd of reprobates, malcontents and general idiocy... .

Dear Lord... Please let tomorrow be the day they start the war.

Watch over the pigmies and forgive the Left for their sins and brace yourself for some major league braying, weeping and gnashing of tooth.

Amen.

 

[danielpalos]

Justifying Taxes and then spending that raised revenue is much more fiscally responsible and much more fiscally sincere, than spending the (other) Peoples' tax monies, and financing the rest on the Peoples' dime.

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies. The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support. The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult. TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care. Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

Exactly. The fact that Wal-Mart and McDonald's profit from welfare is no accident.

No, it wasn't. We also haven't solved simple poverty on an at-will basis nor corrected for the deleterious effects of capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Is it a coincidence or "collusion and conspiracy".

I don't think it was either. Just unexpected side effects of ill-considered policy.

It is more, a sad lack of a moral of "goodwill toward men", than ill considered public policy which constitutes public use.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Justifying Taxes and then spending that raised revenue is much more fiscally responsible and much more fiscally sincere, than spending the (other) Peoples' tax monies, and financing the rest on the Peoples' dime.

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies.

ROFLMNAO!
Based upon what? Your feelings? Universal healthcare harms everyone, directly.

Universal Healthcare is:

First: Universally poor healthcare.
Second: Universally restrictive.
Third: Universally long lines.
Fourth: Universally delayed treatment.

Like all socialist ideas, Universal Healthcare is Healthcare based upon the lowest common denominator.

The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support.

Golly, isn't it every Mother's dream to WORK? Workers Utopia: APPEAR!

And why does Government childcare need less support? Because the government has greater power, claims the child as GOVERNMENT'S CHILD, not the Mother's child.

The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult.

Probably? No doubt there's a program to support him, if the other programs which give them everything, somehow fail to instill a strong work ethic.

TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care.

LOL! Yes, yes... Men marrying men, women marrying dogs, no-fault divorce, programs to sustain everyone without will most surely produce strong families... through some miracle of modern socio-economic science.

Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

ROFLMNAO!

Well, when someone threatens to rise up against me, I put a hole in their skull, which a supersonic projectile which tears out their brain... dropping them to the ground like a sack of bloody dirt. This produces a startlingly effect reaction in not only the individual at issue, but the one's standing around them as well.

This is based upon my right to be free and my responsibility to defend my means to be free from those who threaten my means to exercise my right to be free.

It's sorta similar to my right to healthcare, wherein I bear the responsibility to PAY THE PERSON(S) PROVIDING THAT SERVICE. Same with my right to have other care for my children when I am working, my right to marry, my right to work, my right to belittle and berate imbeciles selling nonsense in my presence, advancing feckless deceit, through fraudulent pipe dreams in the hopes that the readers are ignorant fools.

 

[Dad2three]

Justifying Taxes and then spending that raised revenue is much more fiscally responsible and much more fiscally sincere, than spending the (other) Peoples' tax monies, and financing the rest on the Peoples' dime.

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies.

ROFLMNAO!
Based upon what? Your feelings? Universal healthcare harms everyone, directly.

Universal Healthcare is:

First: Universally poor healthcare.
Second: Universally restrictive.
Third: Universally long lines.
Fourth: Universally delayed treatment.

Like all socialist ideas, Universal Healthcare is Healthcare based upon the lowest common denominator.

The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support.

Golly, isn't it every Mother's dream to WORK? Workers Utopia: APPEAR!

And why does Government childcare need less support? Because the government has greater power, claims the child as GOVERNMENT'S CHILD, not the Mother's child.

The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult.

Probably? No doubt there's a program to support him, if the other programs which give them everything, somehow fail to instill a strong work ethic.

TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care.

LOL! Yes, yes... Men marrying men, women marrying dogs, no-fault divorce, programs to sustain everyone without will most surely produce strong families... through some miracle of modern socio-economic science.

Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

ROFLMNAO!

Well, when someone threatens to rise up against me, I put a hole in their skull, which a supersonic projectile which tears out their brain... dropping them to the ground like a sack of bloody dirt. This produces a startlingly effect reaction in not only the individual at issue, but the one's standing around them as well.

This is based upon my right to be free and my responsibility to defend my means to be free from those who threaten my means to exercise my right to be free.

It's sorta similar to my right to healthcare, wherein I bear the responsibility to PAY THE PERSON(S) PROVIDING THAT SERVICE. Same with my right to have other care for my children when I am working, my right to marry, my right to work, my right to belittle and berate imbeciles selling nonsense in my presence, advancing feckless deceit, through fraudulent pipe dreams in the hopes that the readers are ignorant fools.

"Based upon what? Your feelings? Universal healthcare harms everyone, directly"

Weird, conservatives can't find ONE poll EVER that UHC nations want USstyle H/C why is that?

 

[HenryBHough]

I keep seeing Microsoft, Apple and Google logos on those whiny leftist posters.

And yet those who provide them continue to use Windows, OSX, even Chrome.

Were they sincere they'd be buying exclusively Chinese made computers with Chinese operating sytems.

But somehow......

they aren't.

Sincerity is such a wonderful thing. Once they learn to fake that the party gives them a Hero sandwich which they pin to their chests in the belief that it's a medal.

.

 

[Dad2three]

I keep seeing Microsoft, Apple and Google logos on those whiny leftist posters.

And yet those who provide them continue to use Windows, OSX, even Chrome.

Were they sincere they'd be buying exclusively Chinese made computers with Chinese operating sytems.

But somehow......

they aren't.

Sincerity is such a wonderful thing. Once they learn to fake that the party gives them a Hero sandwich which they pin to their chests in the belief that it's a medal.

.

 

[Flopper]

Justifying Taxes and then spending that raised revenue is much more fiscally responsible and much more fiscally sincere, than spending the (other) Peoples' tax monies, and financing the rest on the Peoples' dime.

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies.

ROFLMNAO!
Based upon what? Your feelings? Universal healthcare harms everyone, directly.

Universal Healthcare is:

First: Universally poor healthcare.
Second: Universally restrictive.
Third: Universally long lines.
Fourth: Universally delayed treatment.

Like all socialist ideas, Universal Healthcare is Healthcare based upon the lowest common denominator.

The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support.

Golly, isn't it every Mother's dream to WORK? Workers Utopia: APPEAR!

And why does Government childcare need less support? Because the government has greater power, claims the child as GOVERNMENT'S CHILD, not the Mother's child.

The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult.

Probably? No doubt there's a program to support him, if the other programs which give them everything, somehow fail to instill a strong work ethic.

TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care.

LOL! Yes, yes... Men marrying men, women marrying dogs, no-fault divorce, programs to sustain everyone without will most surely produce strong families... through some miracle of modern socio-economic science.

Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

ROFLMNAO!

Well, when someone threatens to rise up against me, I put a hole in their skull, which a supersonic projectile which tears out their brain... dropping them to the ground like a sack of bloody dirt. This produces a startlingly effect reaction in not only the individual at issue, but the one's standing around them as well.

This is based upon my right to be free and my responsibility to defend my means to be free from those who threaten my means to exercise my right to be free.

It's sorta similar to my right to healthcare, wherein I bear the responsibility to PAY THE PERSON(S) PROVIDING THAT SERVICE. Same with my right to have other care for my children when I am working, my right to marry, my right to work, my right to belittle and berate imbeciles selling nonsense in my presence, advancing feckless deceit, through fraudulent pipe dreams in the hopes that the readers are ignorant fools.

Predictions of government rationed healthcare, long waits to see a doctor, tens of thousands of doctors giving up medicine, poor quality healthcare, and a nation bankrupted by healthcare cost has not materialized and is not likely to.

As predicted, every state in the country now has lower readmission rates in hospitals. People aren't losing their insurance or denied coverage because of illness. The number of Americans without insurance is down 25%. Junk insurance plans are gone. Millions of low income families can now afford insurance with the help of subsidies.

There are still problems in the law that need fixing. 17 states have still not adopted Medicaid expansion. Grandfathered plans that do not meet ACA requirements should be extended indefinitely. Organizations such as unions and churches should be able to offer their plans on healthcare.gov. Loopholes in the law that encourage insurance company mergers need to be eliminated because it's reducing competition.

There is no doubt that Obamacare is here to stay. Republicans need to give up the insane idea that Obamacare can just be repelled and the clock set back 4 years. Democrats need to realize the law is not perfect and there're a number fixes needed to reduce cost and increase coverage.

 

[dblack]

Justifying Taxes and then spending that raised revenue is much more fiscally responsible and much more fiscally sincere, than spending the (other) Peoples' tax monies, and financing the rest on the Peoples' dime.

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies. The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support. The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult. TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care. Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

Exactly. The fact that Wal-Mart and McDonald's profit from welfare is no accident.

No, it wasn't. We also haven't solved simple poverty on an at-will basis nor corrected for the deleterious effects of capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Is it a coincidence or "collusion and conspiracy".

I don't think it was either. Just unexpected side effects of ill-considered policy.

It is more, a sad lack of a moral of "goodwill toward men", than ill considered public policy which constitutes public use.

Huh?

 

[danielpalos]

Justifying Taxes and then spending that raised revenue is much more fiscally responsible and much more fiscally sincere, than spending the (other) Peoples' tax monies, and financing the rest on the Peoples' dime.

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies.

ROFLMNAO!
Based upon what? Your feelings? Universal healthcare harms everyone, directly.

Universal Healthcare is:

First: Universally poor healthcare.
Second: Universally restrictive.
Third: Universally long lines.
Fourth: Universally delayed treatment.

Like all socialist ideas, Universal Healthcare is Healthcare based upon the lowest common denominator.

The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support.

Golly, isn't it every Mother's dream to WORK? Workers Utopia: APPEAR!

And why does Government childcare need less support? Because the government has greater power, claims the child as GOVERNMENT'S CHILD, not the Mother's child.

The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult.

Probably? No doubt there's a program to support him, if the other programs which give them everything, somehow fail to instill a strong work ethic.

TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care.

LOL! Yes, yes... Men marrying men, women marrying dogs, no-fault divorce, programs to sustain everyone without will most surely produce strong families... through some miracle of modern socio-economic science.

Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

ROFLMNAO!

Well, when someone threatens to rise up against me, I put a hole in their skull, which a supersonic projectile which tears out their brain... dropping them to the ground like a sack of bloody dirt. This produces a startlingly effect reaction in not only the individual at issue, but the one's standing around them as well.

This is based upon my right to be free and my responsibility to defend my means to be free from those who threaten my means to exercise my right to be free.

It's sorta similar to my right to healthcare, wherein I bear the responsibility to PAY THE PERSON(S) PROVIDING THAT SERVICE. Same with my right to have other care for my children when I am working, my right to marry, my right to work, my right to belittle and berate imbeciles selling nonsense in my presence, advancing feckless deceit, through fraudulent pipe dreams in the hopes that the readers are ignorant fools.

"Based upon what? Your feelings? Universal healthcare harms everyone, directly"

Weird, conservatives can't find ONE poll EVER that UHC nations want USstyle H/C why is that?

Not my feelings or yours; we have a supreme law of the land. Greater access to healthcare promotes the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies. The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support. The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult. TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care. Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

Exactly. The fact that Wal-Mart and McDonald's profit from welfare is no accident.

No, it wasn't. We also haven't solved simple poverty on an at-will basis nor corrected for the deleterious effects of capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Is it a coincidence or "collusion and conspiracy".

I don't think it was either. Just unexpected side effects of ill-considered policy.

It is more, a sad lack of a moral of "goodwill toward men", than ill considered public policy which constitutes public use.

Huh?

I can elaborate in a morals thread if you want.

 

[dblack]

Justifying Taxes and then spending that raised revenue is much more fiscally responsible and much more fiscally sincere, than spending the (other) Peoples' tax monies, and financing the rest on the Peoples' dime.

Most government spending benefits everyone indirectly. Universal healthcare means a healthier America with less disease, more productive workers, and less medical bankruptcies.

ROFLMNAO!
Based upon what? Your feelings? Universal healthcare harms everyone, directly.

Universal Healthcare is:

First: Universally poor healthcare.
Second: Universally restrictive.
Third: Universally long lines.
Fourth: Universally delayed treatment.

Like all socialist ideas, Universal Healthcare is Healthcare based upon the lowest common denominator.

The mother that's able to work because of government childcare needs less public support.

Golly, isn't it every Mother's dream to WORK? Workers Utopia: APPEAR!

And why does Government childcare need less support? Because the government has greater power, claims the child as GOVERNMENT'S CHILD, not the Mother's child.

The child that stays in school because a drop out prevention program will probably be able to support himself as an adult.

Probably? No doubt there's a program to support him, if the other programs which give them everything, somehow fail to instill a strong work ethic.

TANF keep families together and kids out of the foster care.

LOL! Yes, yes... Men marrying men, women marrying dogs, no-fault divorce, programs to sustain everyone without will most surely produce strong families... through some miracle of modern socio-economic science.

Welfare programs and food stamps help keep the poor from rising up against the wealthy and middle class. The real reason we have social programs is not for poor but for the protection of those with money and property.

ROFLMNAO!

Well, when someone threatens to rise up against me, I put a hole in their skull, which a supersonic projectile which tears out their brain... dropping them to the ground like a sack of bloody dirt. This produces a startlingly effect reaction in not only the individual at issue, but the one's standing around them as well.

This is based upon my right to be free and my responsibility to defend my means to be free from those who threaten my means to exercise my right to be free.

It's sorta similar to my right to healthcare, wherein I bear the responsibility to PAY THE PERSON(S) PROVIDING THAT SERVICE. Same with my right to have other care for my children when I am working, my right to marry, my right to work, my right to belittle and berate imbeciles selling nonsense in my presence, advancing feckless deceit, through fraudulent pipe dreams in the hopes that the readers are ignorant fools.

Predictions of government rationed healthcare, long waits to see a doctor, tens of thousands of doctors giving up medicine, poor quality healthcare, and a nation bankrupted by healthcare cost has not materialized and is not likely to.

As predicted, every state in the country now has lower readmission rates in hospitals. People aren't losing their insurance or denied coverage because of illness. The number of Americans without insurance is down 25%. Junk insurance plans are gone. Millions of low income families can now afford insurance with the help of subsidies.

There are still problems in the law that need fixing. 17 states have still not adopted Medicaid expansion. Grandfathered plans that do not meet ACA requirements should be extended indefinitely. Organizations such as unions and churches should be able to offer their plans on healthcare.gov. Loopholes in the law that encourage insurance company mergers need to be eliminated because it's reducing competition.

There is no doubt that Obamacare is here to stay. Republicans need to give up the insane idea that Obamacare can just be repelled and the clock set back 4 years. Democrats need to realize the law is not perfect and there're a number fixes needed to reduce cost and increase coverage.

Republicans have no genuine desire or intent to repeal ACA. If there's any hope for reversing the trend toward corporatism it lies in rejecting both current major parties. And yes, I realize that's unlikely.