Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Yes, Nitack, we all understand the problem. But, do you understand the choice needed to fix it? Take a look at your suggestion:
You do know that 8 years ago we had a candidate who offered to do this exact thing... yes? A "Surplus Reserve Fund"  And now you claim neither party has the sense to do this  Amazing. |
GWB was by far not an ideal president, in fact he is probably the worst ever. You also have completely left out the part about 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the Mortgage Meltdown. There were no surpluses after 9/11. I don't agree with the war, but that was a major reason why any sort of reserve fund could not be established.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
You're clearly throwing around blame every which way from where it belongs. If history is any guide then Dems will do a fine job with this economic crisis, and the country knows it. Our collective memory is not that short.
~modest
|
I think you will look back and see that this is a false statement. Despite your ardent support for the dems, especially the Clinton years it seems, they are not all the grand. The policies of the Clinton administration set the stage for our mortgage meltdown. They demanded that banks put aside lending standards that had developed over decades in order to finance more home buying for otherwise unqualified buyers. The nail in the coffin was the deregulation by "W" that took away the remaining check to keep things from spiraling out of control. There is plenty of blame to go around, and the Democrats deserve their fair share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
Perhaps, but in the three examples I listed, the government must act to provide these things.
The local government cleans the water and processes sewage. You pay for this so essentially the government is taking your money to provide clean water for many Americans.
|
Negative. Plenty of people use a well/septic setup. The government provides them with nothing. Those individuals pay for the well to be dug, the septic field to be set up, and to maintain everything. Lets look at this... If clean water were a "right" in your example... what happens if you can't pay your water bill? If it were a guaranteed and protected "right" then the company could not shut off your water. No, municipal water is a service that you pay for, not a right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
Likewise, the government maintains armed forces. Yes, if the Canadians invade (I am in Minnesota) I have the right to defend myself. But the government also has the responsibility to defend me. Again, you are paying for this (which I appreciate  ). |
Freedom is an intrinsic right, every person has it just by being born. A military is established to protect the right you already have, not to establish that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
No, I got it from the commercials which you are saying are lies. My question, which I apparently didn't word very well, was which part of that is a wrong?
|
I see the merits of the Obama plan, he is looking to offer a government subsidized plan for those who can not afford to purchase their own health care. My problem with it is that he is basically looking to establish something along the lines of how Medicare Part D was set up. My problem is not with his plan, I see the noble sentiments, my problem is with the fact that we can't afford the current system. Medicare will be BANKRUPT by 2018, that means we will have to draw money from the general fund or raise payroll deductions. Now Mr. Obama is proposing that we essentially expand that plan to include everyone. It will only put us into the financial red faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
You are absolutely correct, and I never said it did. Other things need to be done to bring spending under control. We did it in the 90s, I don't see why we can't do it again.
|
It is not really as simple as that. There are different pools of money for spending. The spending that they brought under control in the 90's was the general fund. SS and Medicare/Medicaid deductions go into different spending pools or trust funds. Those programs have had a surplus every year for a very long time and rather than having that money be kept where it should be, the government has taken that money and written an IOU to the trust funds. We are very soon going to no longer be in the black with either fund and then it comes time for the government to pay back what they borrowed, out of the general fund. That means money has to be taken away from every other government expenditure to pay back those debts. DoD, Health and Human services, Department of Education, Agriculture... everything. Or, they raise taxes/lower benefits in order to not have to pay back the IOU. This IOU is the 10 Trillion dollar debt that you always hear about.
Here is what most people don't get, back in the 90's the general fund was in surplus, but rather than pay back all the money that had been borrowed, the legislators either cut taxes or expanded programs. Despite the raving Democrats in the forum who won't face up to that fact, it is a fact. The government owes a crap load of money to the American public in the form of Social Security and Medicare that was promised to them as a trade for paying out of every pay check earlier in life. But the government robbed those funds to pay for all of the programs that they wanted to run that had nothing to do with SS or M/M, think DoD, HUD, Welfare, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
If you consider taxes as 'thievery' then I again don't see why you single out one canidate over another. Your taxes under McCain will most likely be higher than they would be under Obama.
|
My answer to you is this...
Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality.
Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
I think your initial unspoken assumption is incorrect. Your assumption is that Obama is a proponent of the socialist/populist movement.
|
Must I bring up the infamous "spread the wealth around" comment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
Using your definition, Obama has never promoted the idea that everyone is entitled to the same standard of living. In a recent speech, he very specifically spoke of personal responsibility and hard work.
I agree with you that a high school drop out should not expect a high standard of living. But not everyone that did work hard always gets a fair shake. Medical bills are a huge contributor to bankrupcies. The cost of healthcare is one of the reasons our auto companies are in such bad shape. And society as a whole, in my opinion, benifits when we give everyone an equal opportunity to make something of themselves.
|
I see your points here, and agree with them, but have a much different view point on the causes and solutions. Everyone should be given the chance to make life better for themselves, but that does not necessarily mean that taking away from what some one else has earned is justified.
Medical bills. I
think the entire system needs an overhaul, but I approach it different than everyone else. Our system was much more functional as a fee for service system. You paid the doctor directly for his service, you paid the pharmacists directly for his service/medicine. Insurance developed when you started finding stories of people unable to get treatment for conditions if they did not have the cash up front.
My OPINION, is that if we could (however it is realistically impossible now) return to a fee-for-service system, with a cap at say $1k per year that anything above that was funded through payroll taxes, we would be in a better position. People like me who see the doctor once a year at most, would not waste money on insurance, people who used it frequently would pay more of their fair share, but not be forced into bankruptcy to receive treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
I have, but I don't believe you have. I believe if you do research what Obama has actually said rather than what the right wing extremists SAY he said you would be a lot less frustrated. Obama never said he was not willing to compromise and specifically stated that he would go through the budget to bring it down as needed.
I really do hope, whoever is president, that we can get the line item veto back in place as a tool they can use.
|
I actually watched the second debate where instead of answering the question of "what are you willing to compromise on in order to deal with the current financial crisis", he instead listed everything he was not willing to compromise on, which was his entire platform.
The line item veto is unconstitutional at the most basic level. It is a very good thing that it is gone, despite that it would help deal with some of the crap coming out of congress. The line item veto allowed the president to edit bills that were passed by congress, effectively crafting legislation, which is not a power granted to the president. The people elect congress to craft legislation, not the president. It completely violated the check and balance system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
I agree that McCain is the most fiscally conservative. This is one of the reasons he had the possibility of getting my vote early on. Don't get me wrong, I was leaning towards Obama, but McCain had a decent shot at getting my vote. Until he selected Palin and started the Karl Rove style campaign of outright lies and scare tactics.
Yes, Obama isn't completely clear of this either, but the level coming out of the McCain campaign is amazing.
|
Both camps have slung mud. I think that the McCain campaign was just easier to tie to Rovian tactics.
Re: Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin
semantics is not always just pedantic quibbling. ~ douglas r. hofstadter
