Expect mean Tweets directed at the CBO early tomo am....
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
Of course not countryroads89, because you never answered the question. That's fine. So if you're upset about my asking if you itemize, why are you so ticked off at Trump because he refuses to let you know if he did or did not itemize?
Why does he need to show you his tax returns? Is he required by Law to do so? You correctly said it's only the IRS's business if you itemized, and you're red hot mad at me for suggesting you tell us if you do or don't? You're right, it's none of our business!
But you insist Trump tell you if he did (itemize) how much, what for, and you call him a hypocrite and liar for failing to tell you how he chooses to donate his promised Presidential earnings, even though he is not required under Law to do either.
OK.
Trump is correct in one thing he said. Politically, it would be the better move to like the ACA ride on its own. Make no changes to it, don't repeal it, don't fix it. Let the country see the **** show of a law that it is.
Politically, that's what I'd do.
Politically, that's what I'd do.
Yes he could do this, but then the Left would blame him for allowing it to collapse!
anybody's guess. But here is the rub Dave, nobody in this country is denied emergency health care whether they pay for it or not. So if I elect not to be covered and spend a week in the hospital, I just skip out on my debt like millions have done in the past. The hospitals and doctors get screwed. My credit report takes a hit but otherwise I am at no loss.
That would have been a great option had trump, ryan, and every other republican not talked repeal and replace for the last year anyway and full repeal for longer. There will be no appetite from the public if it collapses now from inaction.
I disagree. They were voted to fix health care, not sit back and watch it get worse. Not sure told ya so(e?)s work all that well. Justly or unjustly.
I agree, so now that have the Tiger by the tail, it is time for them to produce. I posted the other day the essential question they are wrestling with is how much (if any) Government control to allow in the private Health care marketplace?
I'd argue for zero control...open the market up to the people. They obviously are trying to thread that needle with some amount of Government control and mandates, but that can never work, and doesn't work and thus the conundrum they're in trying find a solution that can work.
Freedom works...every time it's tried.
Based on the **** of a bill they just put up... they don't have it in them to fix it.
Freedom doesn't work every time Atl....look at the run-up in garbage mortgages from 2002-2007, Exhibit A. Volkswagon rigging emissions test. The Sago mine. I give you credit, you don't ever waiver from your stance no matter or despite the evidence that speaks otherwise. You drink the alt-right coolaid and refuse to see anything else.
People chase money and greed trumps logic more times than not. I am surely no Bernie Sanders Socialist but I have said, most every piece of regulation we have was generated by somebody cheating they system in one way or another.
They've pretty much painted themselves in a corner with their attacks on Obamacare for 5-6 straight years now. I wonder why they don't do their phase 2 first? The later phases, if I understand correctly, attempt to lower actual healthcare costs. Why not start with those changes and see what they do? Nah. Have to REPEAL and REPLACE.
Thanks for the "compliment" OM1...the reason I say Freedom works is because for every one of those cases you cited where it didn't work, it wasn't Freedom!
Garbage mortgages? Over regulation of common free market lending practices (Government)
VW "riggin" emission standards...unrealistic restrictions on emissions standards on manufacturers to control "pollution" (more Government)
Sago mine--arbitrary and unenforceable OSHA restrictions on the most cost effective mining procedures (Government)
I'm not opposed to rules that encourage safety, promote health, and assure a fair playing field for competition. I'm for an unbiased referee in Government, not Big 12 style Zebras who think they know how the game should be played and don't allow it to be played fairly.
I see Government only creating problems it is designed to ostensibly address. The Law of unintended consequences. There is no Law against that result of meddling, confiscatory, restrictive Government control but there should be.
I agree with Coop here. I just want to see it repealed. Forget the "replace" part because that's just more Government in a different form. Just get rid of it, and the Government's involvement in health care.
Start with zero control, and then see what is needed if anything?
That's the fix.
And how many times have you folks on the Left ever thought anything besides Leviathan only bigger and better was the answer to all that ails us?
Come to think of it, when have any of you Leftists ever admitted it was the problem? Hell Y'all don't even admit it doesn't work!
Give me a break.
OK countryroads89 another challenge for you.
Name a Government program that's working as promised, as designed, solving the problem it was created to fix that's on budget, with measured quantified results no one can argue as a success?
It's not a "stupid" question, and it's not worth avoiding if you believe Government to be the answer to most of our major issues.
So name one.
( I can name several that are the exact opposite of my question to you, but I'm trying to make this argument fair)
I am assuming that you, like I, have a decent employer subsidized health care plan. Many don't. What happens when the numbers who don't swell to the point that the cost to treat them overwhelms the healthcare system? I was between jobs in 1999 and tried to purchase health care. All I could afford was this crappy catastrophic plan. I knew I would only need it for 60 days. I took the gamble. But imagine if a type I diabetic could never afford or maybe obtain coverage in your "free" system. How would you feel if a grandchild was born with disease or syndrome that made it impossible for their parents to ever obtain coverage? Are you ok with that? In your world, only the most healthy would ever be able to afford coverage.
I think the Roosevelt programs in the 30's (CCC) were pretty successful in getting men back to work.
So pass a law to make it as tough to skip out on debt for people who choose not to have insurance as it is to get rid of student loan debt. Instead of making them buy it, give them incentive to make choices.
Why? So you can quote Breitbart and argue? So you can say, "well you have some evidence to support your position but I still don't believe you" (exactly what you did this morning with PP)?
I can link you to several well researched and documented analysis that says Roosevelt's programs actually prolonged the depths and difficulties of the recession. Many of the programs (entitlements) he created during that era are choking the nation's budgetary constraints today (Medicare and Social security to name 2) both of those are exorbitantly expensive, failed in their objectives (keeping people from poverty or from unaffordable medicine), are poorly run today and continuing them in their current status without reforms they will collapse of their own weight.
Sound familiar? (ACA)
Do you or someone you know use medication?
Do you or someone you know use the Interstate Highway System?
Do you or someone you know use public transportation?
Do you or someone you know eat safe, clean food?
Do you or someone you know drink safe, clean water?
Do you or someone you know consume products that have been tested for carcinogens and other ill-health effects?
We have flood protection as a result of flood prevention dams, levees and floodwalls.
We have electricity, at least in part, due to hydroelectric generation plants.
We have clean air because of regulations.
I could do this all day long.
You can do that all day long countryroads89, but you still cannot cite one Government program behind any of that which fits my criterion. In most of those cases, it (Government) either is or has been a 100% failure when you measure the actual results to the stated objectives of the program created or designed or fix the problem.
Cheap medicine...prescription drug program. Medicine more expensive than ever.
Interstate Highway System? Efficient yes. Cost effective? Not compared to local roads that were built to supplement it and actually relieve the congestion it causes through most major cities...and certainly not compared to more effective ways to move people & goods....by air and rail and sea. Plus it's over budget, and runs annual deficits to maintain and doesn't serve important rural areas where populations are migrating to.
Public transportation? Inefficient, cost overruns, dangerous and doesn't run where people need it. (that's in part why major city interstate highway systems are so clogged with cars)
If all the water we drink is safe and clean why are you Leftists carping so much about reducing EPA by 25%. Who drinks unfiltered local water out of their taps? Bottled water sales are exploding because of all the crap allowed in our everyday drinking water by the Feds.
Safe food? Study after study show us how "unsafe" food supplies are. Almost every day we hear of all sorts of impurities and diseases in meat, fruits, and vegetables that supposedly are "monitored" by Government regulators. They miss more than they catch with our "food safety"
Consumer reports magazine produces it's annual buyer's guide every year notarizing all of the dangerous carcinogens and hazardous materials Government regulators allow in our consumable products. Why I have no idea since we're paying them to catch all that stuff, and they run budget deficits while we're paying them!
Flood protection produced that recent raging water disaster in California where Army Corps of Engineers screwed up managing the levys and forced millions to flee their homes. Katrina was a failure of Government regulators' mismanagement of low level flood plains--and throughout our shores the same incompetence exposes millions of homeowners to unnecessary risk from flood plains.
Hydro power in the country is expensive, inefficient, and vulnerable to electromagnetic pulse attack because of Government over control of energy sources to generate power and malfeasance protecting our electrical grid.
You Leftists right now today argue for "carbon taxes" to solve pollution problems from Laws you passed back in the 70's to keep our air clean. Why are we burning unleaded gasoline in our cars today? So we can clean up the choking exhaust these so called "cleaner burning fuels" mandated by Government regulators has created? At a terrible cost to our economic growth I might add.
C' mon countryroads89. I only asked you for 1 program that works as designed on budget with measured results that are not arguable. Is that the best you can come up with?
Last edited:
I rest my case. You are more full of **** than a Christmas goose.
"Almost every day we hear of all sorts of plagues".
The role of the FDA is not to have cheap drugs, it is to have safe drugs that do what they say they are supposed to do.
"Flood protection produced that recent raging water disaster in California where Army Corps of Engineers screwed up managing the levys and forced millions to flee their homes. Katrina was a failure of Government regulators' mismanagement of low level flood plains--and throughout our shores the same incompetence exposes millions of homeowners to unnecessary risk from flood plains."
The overflow through the emergency spillway through the Oroville Dam has nothing to do with the US Army Corps of Engineers. That dam is owned by the state of California. Most levees were built by the US Army Corps of Engineers and have been turned over to state, county or local governments to manage and operate. Katrina and government regulators? I have no idea what you are even trying to imply. The storm protection SYSTEM in NOLA was designed to a certain level of protection and it was agreed upon in the planning stage. That's all it was planned for and that's all it was authorized for and that's all it was built for. Hurricane Katrina exceeded that level.
I'm not even addressing the rest of your nonsense. You obviously just spout off any nonsense not even having the foggiest clue what the f'uck you are talking about.
They are expensive because people are living longer than was expected. The SS program actually is quite sustainable with a few tweaks. I know knowing about Medicare.
I guess we should have let people starve in the 30's.
Are you willing to forego your SS payments? I doubt it. Are you willing to go on to the open market when you retire and pay the full price of medical overage? I doubt that too. Because nobody could afford it. Republicans are all about cutting the entitlements that others get but don't touch their medicare or SS.
So all food is safe, there are no threats from diseases or "plagues" like Bird flu right countryroads89?
Tell that to the FDA. Their mission statement assures safe "affordable" medicine to the American public
FYI I don't separate Federal Government boondoogles from the local yocals. In many ways they are equally incompetent...they just don't have as much money to waste and there aren't as many of them. My point is countryroads89 Government screws up what it's designed to fix. They're not the best place to settle complicated issues. Both in the pre-planning of the New Orleans flood stages, and the response to the Katrina disaster, Government screwed up royally...both Federal and State. WTF are YOU talking about countryroads89?
Look at the health care debate today? Wanna argue for me how successful the ACA has been?
Nothing you've posted refutes my claim. Keep trying.
Last edited:
That's not the way they were sold back in 30's, and it's not how they are run today. I will gladly forgo my SS payments because not only will they tax those benefits if I choose to keep working and thus reduce what I am legally entitled to from my earnings, it will keep me in poverty.
My private 401K and AFTRA pension is much better funded, and offers a superior payout to SSI, and it is my money that all goes to me including what's left which goes to my designated beneficiaries when I pass on in full.
Know what happens to my SS payments? My survivors get 200.00 to bury me, and only a percentage of my full payout in survivor's benefits that are also counted against their income and taxed.
Nice.
you paint everything with the same brush. I can think of several government project that were successful to a large degree. Of course with every major public or private project there are setbacks and mistakes. The interstate highway projects has generally been a success. Of course you will nit pick problems but generally that was money well spent. I think SS has generally been a successful initiative. I have no problem helping to support those who worked until 65 or 67 in my case. I think the institutions of higher education worked very well until the federal government messed that up with easy student loans (I can be fair in my critiques.)
A lot of we currently does not need to be thrown away or abandoned, but to be fixed in my opinion.
Can you link me to one countryroads89 (full of sh*t of course) and if you don't or can't, this will serve as at least one "lie" you've told in answer to the question you recently posted in this thread.
Link me to that Christmas Goose full of the feces you post countryroads89.
Sure OM1. To any degree any Government program can be argued to have had some measure of success, and arguably was needed when it was set up. My challenge to countryroads89 was to cite one that has worked as designed and was both cost effective as well as produced measurable quantified equally effective results under budget or even with some savings to taxpayers?
I don't argue your claim that anything can be nitpicked, but just as you excuse the Government's failures by saying "by and large" they have worked, I choose to use their shortcomings to suggest none of them have worked to actually solve any problem they were created to solve.
The Left always argues good intentions behind their social policies that involve more Big Government, but they never want to be held accountable for any results. This same argument is being used right now in the current health care debate. The ACA has failed by any objective measure, and all the Left argues is the Republicans want to gut it or can't create a free market solution that's better to replace it.
The fact that you and countryroads89 will go to such lengths to defend what essentially is failure because the results never solved the problems they were designed to fix just tells me that you are both incapable of admitting Government is usually not a viable practiced solution to our greatest social challenges.
You see it as our best solution, despite its track record of shortcomings and what I'd argue is mostly failure in terms of actually solving problems.
Last edited: