Obama care

[DeistPaladin]

You sound just like the rest of the religious twits who get onto this site with no knowledge of what they're talking about but make claims all over the place without ever backing them up.

Just goes to show you, being an atheist doesn't mean you're rational. It just means you're not irrational about one specific issue.

---

DP:

I don't disagree, but I'd go further.

Statist...
policies...
don't...
work!

and what's more they are immoral.

I don't disagree and I don't think you accused me of being one. I think life is a balance. As our government is based on the principle of three branches with one never being allowed to get too powerful, so to I think a strong and balanced economy is based on three branches: Management, unions and government regulation.

To simplify just a bit, business produces the wealth, unions, when they are needed, make sure the wealth is shared with all those who help produce it, and government mediates and keeps all parties honest.

I have a sober view of what can be expected from all groups. Sure corporations are soulless. They're machines. What do you expect? Business management (and I'm speaking as a business owner myself) will run a tight ship, control costs and maximize output. However, they will not take care of the environment, protect worker's rights or even care about the country they exist in. Unions and government regulation can also be destructive to the economy if they grow too powerful as well but that's not the problem we currently face. Right now, Republican policy has been to concentrate as much wealth and power at the top and in the hands of corporate management. If allowed to continue, this will turn America into a 3rd world country with the top 1% owning everything and the rest scrounging in squalor.

I ask you, if you think that it was deregulation to blame for the financial crisis, what type of deregulation was it? It certainly wasn't the scrapping of government subsidies and handouts. You moved closer to corportatism, the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of losses, it wasn't a free market.

It was the worst of both worlds, privatized profit and socialized risk. The government guarantees the solvency of banks and certain loaning industries and then when regulations are taken away, we can expect the owners to engage in high risk ventures. When the economy does well, they laugh all the way to their bank. When it does poorly and their risky ventures go belly up, they turn to the government, hat-in-hand.

In finance class, I learned how the market weighs out risk so that higher risks will yield higher expected returns (if they pan out as hoped) while "safe" investments (relatively speaking) yield lower returns. So, if you have a guarantee that you can't fail, which will you invest in? It's no wonder that we've had a series of financial crises since the push for "deregulation".

Fanny and Freddy were classic examples. They were "privatized" and yet still retained their government seal-of-approval with the promise of backing if they failed. They're examples why "privatization", as it is often promoted by Republicans, is really more like corporate welfare.

Either a government needs to be completely hands off (and if they fail, they fail) or they need to provide guarantees but at the cost of close scrutiny. Corporate welfare, often characterized by socialized risk, privatized profit, is the worst of both worlds.

You and I seem to be in agreement on that point.

[Creed of Heresy]

This is why I love this forum. I just learned something about the market and government relationship. And it furthers my suspicion as to what the fuck happened. Turns out I was right, though I just didn't know quite why I was right...now I do.

[A Theist]

A-Theist, I have one simple rhetorical question for you that will answer yours:

Would you trade the economy we have now for the one we had in Dec of 2008 when Bush wrapped up his disastrous administration?

That was then. This is now. When's Barack Obama going to deliver on his promises? We've already had enough of Barack Obama harping on the past and blaming Bush and the Republicans to cover up for his own failed policies. It's well past the time for Obama to deliver on his campaign promises that he would reduce the unemployment rate to below 6% and to reduce the national debt before the end of his term.


Quote:
You want to know where the debt came from?

1. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
2. The economic collapse caused by Republican deregulation
3. Bush's private war of aggression in Iraq which he lied us into
4. Bush's incompetently mismanaged war in Afghanistan.



See that tiny light blue sliver? It's the economic recovery spending measures that Teabaggers keep whining and wailing about? What do you want anyway? When your guy in office breaks everything, it costs money to fix it. Just leave the economy a broken mess? Oh, that would drive unemployment down.

Yeah well, that chart is inaccurate. Your liberal buddies at the 'Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' (CBPP) cherry picked those stats to put out misleading information to accuse Republicans.....
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/13/libe...tatistics/

Why can't you conservatives just admit you were wrong about everything?

Why can't you liberals take responsibility and admit to your own failed policies?

Republican...
Policies...
Don't...
Work!

3 1/2 years later we're still waiting for 'Hope' and 'Change'.
Democrat...
Promises...
Don't...
Deliver!

[DeistPaladin]

That was then. This is now.

Firstly, you were the one who invoked the word "better". "Better" implies that we compare Obama's economy to Bush's economy. Sorry if reminding you about what a clusterfuck the Republican policies turned out to be hit a sore spot but if I seem to be dwelling on the past, it's only because you brought it up.

Second, considering how badly Bush bulldozed the economic house, that does impact how things are now.

Why can't you liberals take responsibility and admit to your own failed policies?

When have we liberals ever even had the chance to get anywhere close to the levers of power never mind implemented any policies?

You think Obama is a liberal? You think "Obamacare" is anything liberals would celebrate (as opposed to Medicare-for-all)? Please. He's a centrist president on the rare occasions that he even stands up for anything at all.

Tell you what, A-Theist, I want 8 years to run the same test in America that we ran for conservatives before you can boast about our "failures".

I want to be president for 8 years. I want conservatives to roll over and cave in to me the same way Democrats did under Bush. I want any conservative who even expresses any criticism of me to be called a "traitor" and "anti-American" the same way liberals were treated under Bush. I want to get everything I ask for handed to me on a platter. I want "compromise" and "bipartisanship" to mean "I get everything I want and you can make non-binding resolutions or whatever to express that you're not happy". Then when the 8 years are over, only then can you talk about failure of liberal policies. ...and then we'll tell you to stop obsessing over the past.

[Creed of Heresy]

Lol A Theist. Your link comes from a website that openly admits it's a neoconservative-centric website that exhorts the good wholesomeness of Chik-fil-A for being a bunch of bigoted gay-haters. Pardon me while I completely discredit any kind of claims such a bullshit site makes. The most unbiased source we have so far is the Congressional Budget Committee...oh, by the way, the Congressional Budget Committee is a federal subcommittee chaired by an even split between democrats and republicans. Try again and don't fail so hard this time, lest I laugh any harder. My health is at stake here, too; I was dangerously close to experiencing an aneurysm there.

[A Theist]

Firstly, you were the one who invoked the word "better". "Better" implies that we compare Obama's economy to Bush's economy.

No. 'Better' implies that we compare Obama's promises of bringing down the national unemployment rate to 6%, (or as he said, his would be a one term proposition if he didn't), and reducing the national debt to whether or not he accomplished that. Hmmmm.......Nope!


Quote:
When have we liberals ever even had the chance to get anywhere close to the levers of power never mind implemented any policies?

You guys had control of the House and the Senate for the first two years of Obama's term to do something.

He's a centrist president on the rare occasions that he even stands up for anything at all.

You did not just say that! HA HA HA!!!! Barack Obama is on the far leftwing fringe!

[DeistPaladin]

You did not just say that! HA HA HA!!!! Barack Obama is on the far leftwing fringe!

I wish that were true.

Let me be president for a while. I'll show you what liberal looks like.

Instead of Obamacare, we'd have Medicare for all.

Instead of talk about maybe someday having some needed regulation for Wall Street in light of the economic meltdown in 2008, we'd have a re-installation of Glass-Stiegal and a perp walk for the worst offenders.

Instead of a watered-down stimulus package, composed partly of worthless tax cuts to appease Republicans who would hate it anyway, we'd have the aggressive stimulus package that would revive our economy.

We'd have massive tax hikes on the rich.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, et. al would all be at the Hague on trial for crimes of war, crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity.

---

You guys had control of the House and the Senate for the first two years of Obama's term to do something.

Yes, and Obama squandered it all with his dreams of bipartisanship. He gave everything away to the Republicans and then wondered why his base got so demoralized in 2010.

[A Theist]

You did not just say that! HA HA HA!!!! Barack Obama is on the far leftwing fringe!

I wish that were true.

Let me be president for a while. I'll show you what liberal looks like.

Instead of Obamacare, we'd have Medicare for all.

Instead of talk about maybe someday having some needed regulation for Wall Street in light of the economic meltdown in 2008, we'd have a re-installation of Glass-Stiegal and a perp walk for the worst offenders.

Instead of a watered-down stimulus package, composed partly of worthless tax cuts to appease Republicans who would hate it anyway, we'd have the aggressive stimulus package that would revive our economy.

We'd have massive tax hikes on the rich.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, et. al would all be at the Hague on trial for crimes of war, crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity.

---

You guys had control of the House and the Senate for the first two years of Obama's term to do something.

Yes, and Obama squandered it all with his dreams of bipartisanship. He gave everything away to the Republicans and then wondered why his base got so demoralized in 2010.

Ha Ha! Excellent!...and I'll organize a revolt of the masses when you become president!

[Darth]

Either a government needs to be completely hands off (and if they fail, they fail) or they need to provide guarantees but at the cost of close scrutiny. Corporate welfare, often characterized by socialized risk, privatized profit, is the worst of both worlds.

You and I seem to be in agreement on that point.

Absolutely =D. And I'm guessing you know that I would opt for the first option (and you the second), this would make for an excellent debate topic. The situation you currently find yourself in is one neither of us would opt for.

Just a question based on your post (not really related to healthcare), what then are your thoughts on public sector unions? Is there still a balance as with in the private sector, do you think?

Unions and government regulation can also be destructive to the economy if they grow too powerful as well but that's not the problem we currently face

(On government regulation) I would argue that it's certainly not helping (though as you say it's not the cause of the current situation, unless we mean the socialisation of the risk/losses). The corporatism and out of control government spending left you in a very precarious situation. The regulations retained, and created, by corporatists are not to be trusted, they help company/industry X by intentionally throwing company/industry Y under a bus, further harming the economy which is the last thing you want to do, particularly now. Unions (private ones), meh, that's between the business and the group of people bargaining, they are only a problem when they take the other route and start writing/influencing government regulations imo. The tax burden and the tax compliance burden (you need to pay to be able to navigate the thousands of pages of tax rules) are further kicking businesses while they are down imo. With europe being a basket case I would say that you can't afford to have those nonsense regulations.

How would you go about the massive stimulus? Or, wanna start a economy based new thread?

What did you learn creed?

Back to healthcare: How then would you guys go about dealing with those who are unhealthy due to their own actions and those who were injured when engaging in reckless activities (the obese, the smokers, the daredevils, and the guys who exercise their right not to wear a seatbelt and end up flying through a windscreen), under socialised medicine?

[Jackalope]

Back to healthcare: How then would you guys go about dealing with those who are unhealthy due to their own actions and those who were injured when engaging in reckless activities (the obese, the smokers, the daredevils, and the guys who exercise their right not to wear a seatbelt and end up flying through a windscreen), under socialised medicine?

Easy. Treat them. Anything less lacks compassion.

Also, we're talking about universal health care, not universal health care for people who's choices we agree with.