WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   Another Obama freeloader (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=800289)

pesos 10-21-2013 8:42 PM

Another Obama freeloader
 
Oh wait.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/21/us/uta...l?c=homepage-t

Scumbag. BSA finally did something right.

phathom 10-22-2013 11:27 AM

Wow! Such BS "We thought we were doing a good deed"
How? Destroying something that's been there for that long? How about they go do a good deed and go chop down some old growth red woods or start trying to fill in the grand canyon.
Glad they got kicked out and they pulled that disability card on him.
People like this don't just give Boy Scouts a bad name, they give people a bad name.

skiboarder 10-22-2013 11:52 AM

Surf Additct, all rocks are millions of years old yet we dynamite them all of the time for roads, buildings and such. What he did was wrong and the park should have recourse, but what scout hasn't throw a stick or rock off a cliff? You shouldn't do it and this is a great opportunity to talk about it.

I'm in no way condoning the guy's actions, but what's done is done. The park will get what it is owed and scouts should learn from it, but comparing his actions to filling in the grad canyon is silly. I've seen hundreds of stories on this and they are all so dramatic.

barry 10-22-2013 12:00 PM

:rolleyes: It's a rock.

fly135 10-22-2013 1:03 PM

That's probably what the Taliban said when they destroyed the Buddhist statues. Apparently there is no such thing as a natural wonder either. It's just rock.

DenverRider 10-22-2013 1:23 PM

That's probably what the Christians said when they destroyed all of the Incan and Aztec temples during their conquistador invasion. These guys are from Utah. They were probably Mormons doing what religious people do.

fly135 10-22-2013 1:25 PM

They were just upgrading the neighborhood. :)

barry 10-22-2013 2:15 PM

Equating the artwork of a Buddhist statue , or the Aztec temples with a rock in the middle of Utah surrounded by thousands of rocks JUST like it is a pretty queer attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill... <--- har!

Unless you worship rocks.

fly135 10-22-2013 3:11 PM

Took a lot more time to make those rocks than the Buddhist's spent making those statues. Barry, not everyone feels that natural wonders are as worthless as you. If rock tipping was no big deal they would all be destroyed in no time at all. I don't worship anything. That includes supernatural entities.

barry 10-22-2013 3:39 PM

I love poking at you, John.. you're one fella I can count on if I'm looking to be entertained with a world wild web debate.
All joking aside, I truly hope you will someday reconsider your position of worship, or lack thereof.
Every knee shall bow, brother...now or later, you will bow.

shawndoggy 10-22-2013 4:45 PM

The real lesson from this stupidity: don't post your antics on youtube. Duh. Especially if you are claiming to be disabled!

fly135 10-22-2013 5:19 PM

Yeah Barry I know you like jerk'n my chain. It's all fun.

Bowing is a matter of choice. I can't speak for everyone, but being the leading authority on my own opinion I can assure you that belief isn't a matter of choice for me. If God ever chooses to reveal himself to me then things would change. And no one needs to suggest I have to look for him. Been there, done that, and it didn't work.

And yes one day I will eventually bow to gravity when it's time to turn to dust.

murphy_smith 10-22-2013 5:59 PM

How is that Fat Ass on Disability? Oh wait a minute....there are more people on Disability than ever before.

You mean to tell me that he can hike his sloppy joe eating lard ass through the grand canyon and push a boulder over and then celebrate like he is having a seizure trying to flex his lard... qualifies for disability??

Thanks Obama!

fly135 10-22-2013 6:27 PM

And there's some doctor out there vouching for him. I doubt his doctors name is Obama though.

DenverRider 10-23-2013 12:01 AM

How does Obama enter into any of this? Disability laws haven't changed in more than a decade. I'm sure that Murphy blames Obama when he has diarrhea in the morning.

murphy_smith 10-23-2013 4:26 AM

Do you research before you make comments that make you look foolish. This president and his administration have allowed more people to get on disability than any other president in histroy...he appoints to persons that oversee the disability program and he certainly has the power to remove them. And they certainly have the ability to interpert the law.

Are you really that naive to think that the president and his socialist team do not have the power the interperet the law as they desire?????

monkey_butt 10-23-2013 5:29 AM

Quote:

Do you research before you make comments that make you look foolish
guess that comes right back to you. You are right that under the current administration the number of people in the Federal Disability program have gone up - the question is though not by how many but more so why. First of all - during our downturn in 2008 and the following years - many people ran out of unemployment benefits - despite the fact that congress approved extending those benefits for longer periods. Once those benefits ran out - and people were still out of a job - they looked somewhere else. And there's obviously something else - I do assume we all have seen the commercials stating 'denied disabled benefits - we can help you???'.

The segment on 60 minutes a few weeks ago illustrated it perfectly - for those willing to watch:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50156574n

and in a follow up to this (related to the lawyer and the judge mentioned):
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/6...226724131.html

So bottomline is this: If you're desperate enough you probably try whatever you can do to feed your family. The places pictured in 60 minutes (WV, KY) are for sure in the poorer parts of our country but there are a lot more of those and there's isn't much of an economy to begin with - but I doubt that any of these people were thinking about their political views than how to make ends meet.

Ok - done with politics - prefer the comments about worshipping ;)

Pad1Tai 10-23-2013 6:26 AM

From what I gather, rock tipping is taboo.... Is that the same for us cow tippers?:D

onthecreek 10-23-2013 7:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkey_butt (Post 1850232)
guess that comes right back to you. You are right that under the current administration the number of people in the Federal Disability program have gone up - the question is though not by how many but more so why. First of all - during our downturn in 2008 and the following years - many people ran out of unemployment benefits - despite the fact that congress approved extending those benefits for longer periods. Once those benefits ran out - and people were still out of a job - they looked somewhere else. And there's obviously something else - I do assume we all have seen the commercials stating 'denied disabled benefits - we can help you???'.

The segment on 60 minutes a few weeks ago illustrated it perfectly - for those willing to watch:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50156574n

and in a follow up to this (related to the lawyer and the judge mentioned):
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/6...226724131.html

So bottomline is this: If you're desperate enough you probably try whatever you can do to feed your family. The places pictured in 60 minutes (WV, KY) are for sure in the poorer parts of our country but there are a lot more of those and there's isn't much of an economy to begin with - but I doubt that any of these people were thinking about their political views than how to make ends meet.

Ok - done with politics - prefer the comments about worshipping ;)

there's fraud in a federal program? newsflash right there, lol

disability is growing because states are moving people from their dependency programs to federal programs. the federal govt is very much subsidizing states to do so. this frees up state budgets so of course the states want to do that. and, the ever expanding federal govt needs more dependents in order to grow increasingly larger. it's like a bad horror movie, the federal govt is kinda like the blob. and obamacare is the big screen version of the world's largest slowest train wreck.

fly135 10-23-2013 8:45 AM

How many here have actually gone through the process of getting disability? My wife did and it can be a difficult process. You need substantial doctor testimony to meet the requirements. I know you guys hate to hear this but one reason we are seeing so much disability is that people are turning to that option because of the job market. In addition like mentioned states are trying to get people off welfare roles. Thinking that Obama is now responsible after his Republican predecessor created the environment that led the cause and effect of increased disability applications is just another example of why the American people can't figure out how to elect competent leaders.

onthecreek 10-23-2013 10:41 AM

government programs have the effect of pushing private enterprise aside. government spending is also less efficient than private sector. a growing federal govt is not conducive to a growing private sector. yes, the economy sucks and that won't change as long as growing the govt is the agenda in DC.

obama hasn't even been mentioned in this thread very much. yes, he stepped into a crappy situation but let's not overlook the fact that he was a Dem senator in a Dem controlled Congress while B-B-Bush was in office. i've said this before...it's interesting that Obama is the victim of a Rep controlled House yet Bush magically controlled both the House and Senate when Dems were the majority and gets credit (blamed) for all of their contributions to the situation all of us are in.

I completely agree with your line about Americans not being able to elect competent leaders. the choices are pretty crappy though.

fly135 10-23-2013 11:04 AM

No matter how much damage the GOP does Obama still gets the blame. I prefer to argue on a level playing field and based on that premise Bush gets the blame. And nobody can reasonably deny that without Bush there would have been no multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq.

Govt also has the ability to turn private enterprise into an inefficient money pit. That's what it did with HI/HC by coercing the public into buying HI through tax revenue welfare and "use it or lose it" employer contributions. Disconnect HI/HC from the government and employers and you will see a catastrophic collapse of a bloated inefficient uncompetitive fraudulent industry. The connection between IRS rules and employer contributions to HI has removed the ability for the consumer to stem price hikes with a reluctance to pay. Hence uncontrolled inflation in HC.

onthecreek 10-23-2013 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1850287)
No matter how much damage the GOP does Obama still gets the blame. I prefer to argue on a level playing field and based on that premise Bush gets the blame. And nobody can reasonably deny that without Bush there would have been no multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq

level playing field is always a good idea. that's why i can't overlook the fact that the Dem controlled Congress exercised their constitutionally appointed authority to do so.

both sides of the aisle are playing us. that's why i mostly blamed our economic issues on an overbloated federal govt as opposed to whichever party happens to currently occupy the white house. the real problem though is that people have become dependent on the bloat, at an alarmingly high rate.

deltahoosier 10-23-2013 2:55 PM

Do I need to post my list of Democrat quotes and the vote to go to war John? Keep repeating the no war without Bush line. The quotes and the votes don't match your version.

fly135 10-23-2013 5:16 PM

Yes I've seen your tired rehash of those quotes. And again I claim that no one can reasonably believe that we would have gone into Iraq if not for Bush being President. I know conservatives need information prepared for them because they can't come up with an original thought of their own. That's the fundamental principle behind being conservative. I've yet to see you make the statement that if Gore were President that he would have persuaded Congress to invade Iraq. Or you going to now?

DenverRider 10-23-2013 6:29 PM

9/11 9.........11 9 .......... wait for it ...............11

onthecreek 10-24-2013 8:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1850339)
And again I claim that no one can reasonably believe that we would have gone into Iraq if not for Bush being President.

oh come on, i'm sure your beloved Obama voted 'present' for it just like all of his other votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1850339)
I know conservatives need information prepared for them because they can't come up with an original thought of their own. That's the fundamental principle behind being conservative.

followed by the liberal hissy fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1850339)
I've yet to see you make the statement that if Gore were President that he would have persuaded Congress to invade Iraq. Or you going to now?

lol, Gore.

fly135 10-24-2013 9:28 AM

Still can't make the claim though can you? LOL

I love how you guys can't even speak directly. Life is so much easier when your beliefs don't defy reality. Come on now let's hear it. I'll prepare the statement for you. All together now...

"I believe that if Gore had been President instead of Bush, that Gore would have also persuaded Congress to invade Iraq"

phathom 10-24-2013 2:43 PM

These threads go off course faster than a boat without a rudder lol

deltahoosier 10-24-2013 3:19 PM

Yes. Gore would have gone to war especially with the public demand, his previous quotes of his saying Saddam was dangerous and with all the democrat votes authorizing the President to go to war. During Clinton years they were bombing Saddam all the time anyway for no fly zone infractions and for targeting American aircraft. So yes, I have every reason to believe it. Hate to tell you bud but the evidence is on my side of the argument. You are the one who is going by what they believe. I have votes and I have quotes. What do you have?

TerryR 10-24-2013 3:27 PM

In regard to Bush and Iraq. We just witnessed how it is supposed to happen. Barry Obama started spouting off about "red line" and "wont be tolerated" and Congress (Bipartisan) told him to shut up and sit down. He postured for a while and it went away.

If only the Dem Congress had the same courage before Iraq.

fly135 10-24-2013 3:45 PM

So even when you can pinpoint the single most person responsible and that person is identified as a Republican, you are still going to deflect the blame to the Democrats?

Let me show how stating your beliefs work....

I believe... if a Democrat had won the Presidential election in 2000 there would have been no Iraq War.
I believe... If a Republican had been elected in 2008 there would have been no ACA.

Se how that works? I blame/credit Obama for the ACA and I blame/credit Bush for the Iraq War.

TerryR 10-24-2013 5:00 PM

I believe... if there had been a Republican House there would have been no ACA.
I believe... if the Dem Congress had not funded the Iraq War, it would have been limited and not turned into a protracted war.

See how that works. There are checks and balances built into our government. One branch of government can't do it alone. And let me add, in addition to the three branches of government, a vigalente Press is essential.

I will concede that the Iraq War was initiated by Bush.

fly135 10-24-2013 5:14 PM

I believe if there had been no Germans that the Holocaust would not have occurred. I concede that Hitler had a lot to do with it.

Why does everyone pick on Hitler?

TerryR 10-24-2013 6:34 PM

"I concede that Hitler had a lot to do with it."



Exactly, now we agree, when all Dem Congres vote for a bill they havent read and merely trust the Fuhrer, we end up with the ACA.

We cant let one party become that dominant and...
if the President invades, Congress needs to be strong enough to not fund him.

deltahoosier 10-25-2013 2:52 PM

Exactly Terry. I know Bush led the way to invasion. Never have said different. What I always argue is that the democrats were not innocent sheep lead to war by the worlds smartest chimp. Could never figure it out. democrats called him a chimp but yet he was such an evil genius that he lead all those poor democrats to war. Actually maybe he was that smart. The same group of democrats later voted for Obamacare without even reading it. I see a trend.....

fly135 10-25-2013 3:09 PM

So we do all agree that Bush spearheaded the war effort and that the Congressmen were sheep. Although I detect some hesitancy to believe that in your post Delta. It's the point I've been making all along. I'm not surprised that they didn't read the ACA bill. It's not like the Congressmen are knowledgeable enough to comprehend it all anyway.

fly135 10-25-2013 3:13 PM

One Fuhrer gave us a war in Iraq. Another Fuhrer gave us the ACA. Another point I agree on. But the Germans seem to like the Fuhrer. What can you do?

ottog1979 10-25-2013 3:17 PM

^John, so not PC! (My German wife might take offense to that.)

fly135 10-25-2013 5:03 PM

My apologies to your wife Andy!

Here's what I really meant to say...

"But the people seem to like the Obama."

deltahoosier 10-28-2013 3:14 PM

I don't believe the democrats were sheep. I maintain they are liars and frauds. They wanted to go to war too. They talked about it. They voted for it. They had congress and the presidency and we were still at war. We have OBL and we are still at war. I will only agree that democrats are traitors to the country. They vote for war and fund the war but turn around and say they were not for the war. They say they were lied too. Did not buy it and still do not buy it. Until they own up to their obvious position, I will never respect them. At least the Republicans stood up for their position and told you why they were doing it.

Democrats said they were against the Patriot Act but as soon as they got power, they expanded it. They also included many items in obamacare that allow for forced home searches if you have an at risk person in the house which is a very loose term. It includes having a pregnant person under the age of 21 in the house and so on. It also sounds like HIPA has been suspended when you sign up for obamacare. Don't like it one bit and the intellectually dishonest sheep keep beating the drum.

DenverRider 10-28-2013 4:18 PM

So the Democrats are liars and frauds but the Republicans aren't? I think we can all agree that congress in general is full of liars and frauds. The problem I have with Republican voters is that they all want to blame the poor for our current situation when it is clearly the rich who are bribing our politicians. Big government isn't some rich guy in a mansion with a garage full of Ferraris. All of that tax money gets spent in the private sector. When taxes get spent, most of it is spent on overpriced products that make the rich richer. Things like the multi trillion dollar F-35. When I say rich, I don't mean people on Wakeworld with successful businesses and good jobs who have enough money to buy a 100K boat. I mean billionaire rich. The kind of rich that makes all of us look like peons. Even those of us who buy a new top of the line boat every year. The kind of rich that is completely unnecessary and probably the result of a mental disease like being a sociopath. These are the guys who buy our senators and representatives because when you already own everything else the only thing left to buy is power. Democrats take the money behind closed doors because they have to keep up the guise of supporting the poor and middle class. Republicans give away that money right in front of our noses because they told us they would when they ran for office. They called it "trickle down" except nothing ever trickles anymore. I like fiscal responsibility too but taking a dollar away from the poor while you give a hundred dollars away to the rich isn't fiscal responsibility. It's insanity and it's the reason that the GOP has always outspent Democrats during my lifetime.

You can whine about abortion, term limits, or gun rights, gay marriage, or the ACA but until the focus is on campaign finance reform that eliminates legal bribery, then your just whining about nothing. We are at war because war profiteers paid our congressman on both sides to go to war. It also didn't help that we had a war profiteer as the vice president. The only thing that will ever change anything is when you take the money out of politics. Until that happens you will have to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich. So whine some more cry babies. Just don't mention campaign finance reform because that would be something we could possibly unite behind and actually make a positive difference. We wouldn't want that.

Laker1234 10-28-2013 6:31 PM

I'm curious, John, where would you have proposed the hunt for Bin Laden begin?

wake77 10-28-2013 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltahoosier;1850817[U
]I don't believe the democrats were sheep. I maintain they are liars and frauds[/U]. They wanted to go to war too. They talked about it. They voted for it. They had congress and the presidency and we were still at war. We have OBL and we are still at war. I will only agree that democrats are traitors to the country. They vote for war and fund the war but turn around and say they were not for the war. They say they were lied too. Did not buy it and still do not buy it. Until they own up to their obvious position, I will never respect them. At least the Republicans stood up for their position and told you why they were doing it.

Democrats said they were against the Patriot Act but as soon as they got power, they expanded it. They also included many items in obamacare that allow for forced home searches if you have an at risk person in the house which is a very loose term. It includes having a pregnant person under the age of 21 in the house and so on. It also sounds like HIPA has been suspended when you sign up for obamacare. Don't like it one bit and the intellectually dishonest sheep keep beating the drum.

Eric said it correctly, but for you to chastise democrats as "liars and frauds" as though GOP lawmakers never lie or defraud the government makes you seem like someone that is sucking down too much Limbaugh Kool-Aid. Hell, the guy you voted for last year is the same guy that was responsible for first initiating obamacare. Seems like you are in the pack of the "intellectually dishonest sheep".

fly135 10-28-2013 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laker1234 (Post 1850842)
I'm curious, John, where would you have proposed the hunt for Bin Laden begin?

You ask that as if you think the correct answer is Iraq.

Laker1234 10-29-2013 5:27 AM

John, I honestly don't know. That issue is constantly brought up so I was just curious what a better plan of attack would have been.

fly135 10-29-2013 7:22 AM

Well I suppose I would have looked for him where he was.... in Afghanistan. You honestly didn't know that? It was no big secret.

We should have gone into Afghanistan, done our deed, and left with a promise to do it again if we suspect more Al Qaeda camps.

Oh and Delta, guess what... 98% of Congress wasn't elected by or works for you or me. They work for whatever moneybags set up shop in their respective states.

Laker1234 10-29-2013 7:41 AM

I disagree. No one, at that time. knew his exact location. Actually, Bush did not want to do anything until his exact location was known.

fly135 10-29-2013 8:04 AM

Ron, are you saying that Bush threw the metaphorical dart and it landed on Iraq?

TerryR 10-29-2013 9:13 AM

We went to war in the middle East for oil. Both Dem and Rep know that we need to have a presence there to support our oil interests. It is not just for Bush's oil friends. We need it for our economy to run. That is why Dem Congress voted for war in Iraq, Obama stayed in Iraq and surged in Afghanistan and why he had such high hopes for the Arab spring and why he thought Syria was so important. With that in mind, AlQaeda/Hezbollah are obviously a threat. They were the reason but not necessarily the motivation. Oil is what makes genocide in the ME more important than when it occurs in central Africa.

"It's insanity and it's the reason that the GOP has always outspent Democrats during my lifetime."

Disagree. The Dem Congress and Obama doubled the debt in 5 years. The problem is Washington Politicians.

Eric- it is easy to blame the rich. But, the pile of money is not finite. When the Koch brothers get richer it is not a the expense of the poor. If they make a $100 billion on Keystone pipeline we will as a nation become less dependent on ME oil. That helps us as a nation, and makes the ME (AlQaeda/Hezbollah and others) less relevant.

fly135 10-29-2013 9:19 AM

Terry what President has ever lowered the deficit spending during his term? Oh wait... only ALL the Democrats and NONE of the Republicans in the last 40 years.

wake77 10-29-2013 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerryR (Post 1850934)
If they make a $100 billion on Keystone pipeline we will as a nation become less dependent on ME oil. That helps us as a nation, and makes the ME (AlQaeda/Hezbollah and others) less relevant.

This is a ridiculous argument. You post this as if the US gets the majority of its oil from the middle east. The US only imports ~13% of its oil from the ME and ~8% of that is from Saudi Arabia. And who is to say that the Keystone Pipeline won't be used for strictly exporting oil to other countries?

And besides, 99.9% of Americans don't give a crap where the gas they put in the car came from with respect to how much it costs. And where the oil originates has little to no effect on the price at the pump.

Laker1234 10-29-2013 3:13 PM

John, I'm not saying he threw a dart. I would like to hear a better plan from you that's all. Here's what I figured happened "The invasion of Iraq was a perfect storm predicated on all these suppositions the absence of any one of which might well have postponed or precluded the invasion.

That we have forgotten or ignored most of these causes stems not just from the subsequent terrible cost of the war. Instead, our amnesia is self-induced, and derives from the fact that 70 percent of the American people and most of the liberal media commentators supported the invasion, came to reverse that support, and remain hurt or furious at someone other than themselves for their own change of heart one predicated not on the original conditions of going to war, but on the later unexpected costs in blood and treasure that might have been avoided.

Given that less than a third of the American people initially opposed the war, the subsequent acrimony centered on whether it was better for the nation to give up and depart after 2004, or to stay and stabilize the country. Ultimately the president decided that the only thing worse than fighting a bad war was losing one."" The entire article can be found here http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...anson/page/0/2

TerryR 10-29-2013 3:28 PM

John- OBama has record defecits for five years. They are all higher than Bush. This year is about the same and may be lower. But, the Republicans forced sequestration against Barry's threats and warnings. OBama did not build those cuts. The cut this year is only impressive because of his recent record deficits.

Jeremy- I didn't mean to leave you with the impression that we get most of our oil from ME. That 13% greatly influences the cost of the oil as we notice whenever there is instability from any of those ME countries that we get oil from.

wake77 10-29-2013 4:31 PM

^The price of oil is also "greatly influenced" when a storm hits the Gulf of Mexico, the refineries shift to/from winter/summer fuels, maintenance on a refinery, oil platform explosions, oil futures speculation, for no damn reason at all, and most importantly, national holidays.

Laker1234 10-29-2013 5:12 PM

Jeremy, don't forget the dollar.

fly135 10-29-2013 5:40 PM

Terry, you are wrong. The highest deficit was the budget enacted when Bush was President. Been lower ever since. Therefore it is factual to say that Obama has reduced deficit spending. Now, in practical budget terms it doesn't mean much. But it appears historically Republicans feed our addiction to debt and Democrats ween us off. That's just the numbers talking of course. :)

barry 10-29-2013 10:08 PM

Quote:

Democrats ween us off
!!?? :eek:


Such a short sample of history.


This two party system is scam and those who support and defend it are part of the problem.

Laker1234 10-30-2013 8:47 AM

Like when Clinton had the surplus, the reduction of the deficit is because the economy is improving. Clinton's surplus largely came from the stock market bubble. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/def...g-from-way-up/

psudy 10-30-2013 9:50 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgla...ts-truly-rank/

fly135 10-30-2013 10:25 AM

Yes Ron, there are all kinds of reasons why things happen. Like when you have a surplus you can cuts taxes and the deficit goes up. Or you can start multiple wars and commit to rebuilding other nations and the deficit spending goes up.

Paul, that article is just more rationalization. The numbers are clear. The economy was trashed at the end of GW Bush's term. The wreck was in place when Obama took over. The article puts GW Bush ahead of GHW Bush, but anyone with half a brain knows that in reality that GHW Bush term was far less damaging than Mr 43.

ottog1979 10-30-2013 11:12 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Check this out. Look at the steepness of the curves on the debt graph (red). Clearly, it's getting steeper with each president. The ACA (Obamacare) will do nothing to help this situation - just the opposite.

fly135 10-30-2013 11:47 AM

Andy, you are correct that the ACA will do nothing but add to the problem. The reason I'm defending the numbers is because for some reason Republicans are delusional about their belief they are the fiscally conservative party. Neither party is fiscally conservative.

Look at the ACA as the perfect opportunity to get people out of forced HC in the employee/employer relationship into a situation where they are taking the dollars out of their pocket to buy HI. Even with the penalty they have a choice to not buy. And now they have a motive to vote for a politician that will remove the penalty, taking us closer to the ability to tell HI companies they are too expensive and to take a hike. All those people going to the exchange are buying with after tax dollars, which makes the high prices even more punishing.

No pain, no gain. The more people feeling the pain the more that will stand together with a common voice to address the issue. HC is simply too expensive and the only solution is to lower the cost. No amount of tax deductions, tax subsidies, or shifted responsibility (employer paid) is going to lower prices. All those factors do just the opposite. But how are you going to get people to reject high HI prices when their employer or the govt is paying?

psudy 10-30-2013 11:56 AM

However you want to spin it, it clearly shows Obama is outspending him like a drunken sailor. Just because someone doesn't take on "as much" debt as they did the previous year, does not discount the fact that they are still taking on debt.

Laker1234 10-30-2013 12:03 PM

Good point, John. In reality, the catastrophic coverage should be less than most people's cell phone bills and just about everyone has one of those. This whole thing is just a tax increase and a way to regulate the health care industry while allowing the gov. to claim they have created jobs. I just hate the middle class will feel the most pain.

DenverRider 10-30-2013 12:16 PM

Does anyone recall that we are at war?? I know the air raid sirens aren't going off but make no mistake. We ARE at war. War is expensive. It's the most expensive we do. Look through your history and you will find that every empire that has ever fallen was a result of the expense of war. It's too bad that we aren't being bombed by the enemy. Then clueless idiots that don't realize that we are at war could shut the **** up about every other minor expense that we have as a country. Then we could focus on getting our troops out of these holy wars that the Christian extremists have us fighting for their war profiteering masters who use their oil and defense contract money to buy the government. When the extremely rich people screaming about high taxes are spending more on lobbying and campaign contributions than they spend on taxes then you have to wonder if taxes are really a problem or if they are just trying to tip the scales of power to the point where your vote no longer matters. ACA will never even approach the cost of the Muslim wars. You wanted to kill Muslims for what a group of them did on 9/11 but you didn't want to pay for it so you pretended that you wouldn't have to pay for it. You're still all delusional. We are at war! Spending will remain high until we are no longer at war. Now that the wars are winding down, wait for your politicians to find a new enemy soon to spend your money on. You'll probably be dumb enough to get on board and find a new faceless enemy to hate just like the profiteers want you to.

TerryR 10-30-2013 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1851019)
Terry, you are wrong. The highest deficit was the budget enacted when Bush was President. . :)

Except in February 2009-halfway thru the fiscal year of Bush's budget-O Bama and Dem congress passed the $787 billion dollar Economic Stimulus Package. When you subtract the numbers, It makes OBama's budget in 2010 highest. :) Sorry didnt mean to yell

fly135 10-30-2013 2:38 PM

OK Terry, good one. But that $800B is spread out over a number of years. If we factor that in 2009, which had the highest deficit (not sure why you said 2010) then you can pretty call Bush close to even with Obama as far as where they both went with the deficit. Which is still in line with my point. That neither Republicans or Democrats are cutting spending. The only reason I defend Obama is not because he's great. But because Republicans are demonizing his spending while pretending they aren't the same.

psudy 10-31-2013 7:26 AM

I wouldn't argue that in times of economic hardship the need for government intervention through fiscal and monetary policies are needed. What concerns me is the ongoing use of it with little reductions in spending.

deltahoosier 10-31-2013 8:33 AM

"The only reason I defend Obama is not because he's great. But because Republicans are demonizing his spending while pretending they aren't the same."

Now you understand my take on democrats and the wars.

The point with Obama's plans is he is even further in cutting Americans liberties and people do not understand that you can not continue to pile on public programs without a way to pay for it. We also refuse to deal with money leaving the country through illegals aliens and through trade imbalances.

fly135 10-31-2013 8:36 AM

I heard that the deficit was down to $800B in 2013. Quick look and this article says even less.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/30/news...ury/index.html

I guess the question is what should be cut? Why not cut tax deductions for HI, mortgage, and pension contributions? Why not cut military spending and foreign aid. How about looking at imports from countries that don't mandate our standards for HC, environment, FICA, legal, safety. etc and starting imposing tariffs? Kill the 15% capital gains tax and allow corps to deduct the dividend apyments from their earning and taxed profits. From what I hear a lot of big corps aren't paying taxes anyway, so it's a big win for govt revenue.

Those are a few of my hard suggestions. None that either party has any interest in.

fly135 10-31-2013 8:42 AM

You wrote that as I was typing. I am happy to see things get worse if it means that we will be compelled to take action. My issue with the govt is that we are in a limbo state where backing out causes a disaster and staying in causes a disaster. Most on the right want to perpetuate the status quo while the majority decline. But since the majority has a voice they aren't going to quietly let that happen. That's how you end up with the ACA and more govt benefits.

Bottom line... things will get worse, more debt or not. The American people will eventually awaken to the real causes of our economic issues and not continue to rely on beating down the needy.

psudy 10-31-2013 8:44 AM

I wouldn't disagree with any of that except the mortgage deduction(I am in banking:)

deltahoosier 10-31-2013 9:28 AM

People don't beat down the needy. Many of them choose not to participate. There is a huge difference. What many people call a beat down is what others call not giving away stuff you earned to people who wont help themselves. It is not that many on the right want to see status quo, it is they understand the basics of money and human condition. It is written all through history that a society that gets fat and happy and refuses to work and defend it's own country will be taken over and it's culture replaced. You see simple lessons in your own family. The family member who does not get everything given to them usually is the more successful while the one who does ends up being a freeloader. Why do people not understand this on the large scale? All I know is that people choose over and over to not participate in their free basic education and then check out in life especially when they know they have a safety net. It is a complicated issue but we all know that throwing money to people only makes them rely on you not become self sufficient.

One angle that I think you miss on the healthcare issue is this. You just gave corporations an out card. Paying for healthcare became a corporate culture thing and was paid for by their profits. Now they are successfully moving this high cost revenue drain of healthcare to the American people. Well played corporate America, well played.

fly135 10-31-2013 11:27 AM

Our policy beats down the needy, then the right complains that they don't deserve help. Yes I know that corp America get's an out. There are many factors in play.

When you buy your products made by people deemed to have sub standard living conditions that isn't tolerated here, then you are taking away insurance providing jobs from lessor skilled people. No jobs mean no insurance. But all the people with insurance proving jobs are getting forced insurance because of the subsidies. Eventually HC becomes too expensive for too many as lessor skilled jobs disappear. We are seeing more people who can't afford HC so the population wants something to be done. And that's the way the vote goes. Something had to happen.

Unless we come up with solutions to reduce HC costs, then the economy is going to be burdened. Medicare is a huge liability subject to these high costs. This is a real challenge unlike the bullsh*t ones where we invade and rebuild other countries. BTW, as soon as the tax deductions for pensions go away you can count on corp America to take a huge hit in the market.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:23 AM.