PDA

View Full Version : Do i lose my republican card?



Cody Covey
03-28-2010, 11:32 AM
Well as some of you know I'm 22 almost 23 and with this new bill my mom has informed me that i can get back on her insurance for free. She works for the VA and so whether there is one child or 8 she pays the same....do i lose my republican card now? :)

Buzz
03-28-2010, 11:42 AM
I don't know, but I'd take her up on it.

dnf777
03-28-2010, 02:24 PM
Well as some of you know I'm 22 almost 23 and with this new bill my mom has informed me that i can get back on her insurance for free. She works for the VA and so whether there is one child or 8 she pays the same....do i lose my republican card now? :)

We'll all be happy to pay for your healthcare. We live in cuba now. ;)

road kill
03-28-2010, 02:45 PM
Well as some of you know I'm 22 almost 23 and with this new bill my mom has informed me that i can get back on her insurance for free. She works for the VA and so whether there is one child or 8 she pays the same....do i lose my republican card now? :)
Do you currently HAVE a republican card (and if so how did you get it?), or are you trying to be funny??:D




rk

YardleyLabs
03-28-2010, 03:04 PM
I'd definitely rather be paying for your health insurance through your mother's VA job than paying for medical care if you are in a major accident and unable to pay for care. But then I'm a Democrat.;)

Goose
03-28-2010, 07:41 PM
Well as some of you know I'm 22 almost 23 and with this new bill my mom has informed me that i can get back on her insurance for free. She works for the VA and so whether there is one child or 8 she pays the same....do i lose my republican card now? :)

The country and its currency are being debauched under Obama and the democrat totalitarian regime. If I were you I'd take up mom's offer and save your money because we're bankrupt with or without your contribution.

But I would turn in that republican card and replace it with a fiscal conservative card. We're on a death train to hell with either party. The only difference is the democrats are driving that train at 700 miles per hour...the republican train goes a little slower at 75 miles per hour.

We live in Cuba now.

YardleyLabs
03-28-2010, 08:04 PM
The country and its currency are being debauched under Obama and the democrat totalitarian regime. If I were you I'd take up mom's offer and save your money because we're bankrupt with or without your contribution.

But I would turn in that republican card and replace it with a fiscal conservative card. We're on a death train to hell with either party. The only difference is the democrats are driving that train at 700 miles per hour...the republican train goes a little slower at 75 miles per hour.

We live in Cuba now.

Main Entry: 1to·tal·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ən\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Italian totalitario, from totalità totality
Date: 1926
1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian), dictatorial (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorial); especially : despotic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despotic) b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
2 a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency c : exercising autocratic powers : tending toward monopoly


I know facts mean little you, but you might want to visit a truly totalitarian state so you will have some framework for understanding the difference. If we live in one now, then it has been that way for at least 40-50 years.

Maybe you should go live in Cuba now.

Pals
03-28-2010, 08:25 PM
okay Jeff--so you don't think we will be bankrupt? We already are. I find that pretty darn scary myself. We are not that far off from your definition listed above. How did we get here?

bobbyb
03-28-2010, 09:49 PM
Well as some of you know I'm 22 almost 23 and with this new bill my mom has informed me that i can get back on her insurance for free. She works for the VA and so whether there is one child or 8 she pays the same....do i lose my republican card now? :)

I'd be ashamed to know that i still had to depend on my momma at 23 and could stay on her policy till you're 26 !!!! At that age i had a house,a wife and 2 kids !! BUT most importantly I HAD A JOB and could afford health insurance.
BobbyB

Cody Covey
03-28-2010, 10:11 PM
your sarcasm meter is broke find a new one and lighten up.

dnf777
03-29-2010, 06:11 AM
The country and its currency are being debauched under Obama and the democrat totalitarian regime. If I were you I'd take up mom's offer and save your money because we're bankrupt with or without your contribution.

But I would turn in that republican card and replace it with a fiscal conservative card. We're on a death train to hell with either party. The only difference is the democrats are driving that train at 700 miles per hour...the republican train goes a little slower at 75 miles per hour.

We live in Cuba now.

I can barely appreciate your humor! :D
I've voted for republican presidents, and democratic presidents in my 42 years. (and supported another republican of whom I was too young to vote for) The first republican that I was too young to vote for, tripled the national debt over all our previous history. I read the other's lips.

YardleyLabs
03-29-2010, 06:56 AM
okay Jeff--so you don't think we will be bankrupt? We already are. I find that pretty darn scary myself. We are not that far off from your definition listed above. How did we get here?
We are bankrupt already and the cause was profligate spending combined with massive tax cuts under the last administration. A similar mess was left behind by Reagan, but reversed during the years that Bush 41 and Clinton were Presidents. GWB destroyed all the advances made under Clinton and put the economy into the deepest hole we have experienced since the end of WWII.

Under Roosevelt, the bankruptcy was explained based on the efforts required to recover from the Depression and to fight WWII. Under Bush, it has been "explained" as being the cost of fighting the War on Terror. I think the argument is basically justified under Roosevelt and stinks like road kill as an explanation for what happened under Bush. In the short term, the current administration has acted appropriately to try to re-stimulate the economy. However, its current budget reflects an absence of effective planning for how to get the country back into a surplus condition once the economy recovers. Their problem is easy to understand. Years of Republican leadership have convinced the American public that they should be able to receive anything they want from the government while little or no taxes. It would be interesting, in my mind, to learn what percentage of those attending Tea Party rallies are recipients of direct government assistance in the form of Medicare, unemployment insurance (using Federal extensions of benefits), etc. I suspect it is higher than for the general population.

Before you bring up the complaint that once again everything is being blamed on Bush, remember that you asked the question. I believe that Bush inherited an economy that was at the beginning of a mild recession and a government that had finally been brought into balance financially. He completely destroyed that balance by the policies that he proposed and fought for and in the process undermined the foundations of our economy. The economy needed mild, short term stimulus.

Instead he provided massive stimulus in a form that accelerated from year to year while permanently reducing the government's ability to pay its bills. At the same time, spending grew at 2-3 times the rate seen during the prior administration not just to finance the war effort, but to expand entitlement spending without providing the needed revenues. That caused us to moved into bankruptcy. his administration left behind a shredded economy, gross overspending, and a revenue structure that assured declining future revenues even without a recession.

There is no good way to dig out of the hole that was left behind and Republican recommendations have actually been to suggest ways to dig the hole deeper by making Bush tax cuts permanent (Cost = $700 billion over 10 years) and adding new permanent tax cuts on top while shouting "End the entitlements" and "Don't cut Medicare" out of two sides of the same mouth.

Matt McKenzie
03-29-2010, 07:17 AM
Well as some of you know I'm 22 almost 23 and with this new bill my mom has informed me that i can get back on her insurance for free. She works for the VA and so whether there is one child or 8 she pays the same....do i lose my republican card now? :)

It's not for free. It's just free to you.

K.Bullock
03-29-2010, 07:26 AM
It's not for free. It's just free to you.


We're not in Cuba ..we're in a Disneyland for kidults.

road kill
03-29-2010, 08:16 AM
We are bankrupt already and the cause was profligate spending


Finally.....we agree!!:D



rk

Leddyman
03-29-2010, 09:28 AM
Well as some of you know I'm 22 almost 23 and with this new bill my mom has informed me that i can get back on her insurance for free. She works for the VA and so whether there is one child or 8 she pays the same....do i lose my republican card now? :)

Here's the question. When the economy is in the toilet and the country is going down the tubes and people can't afford to eat or buy a house, and the Republicans say they are going to repeal the law that gives you this free insurance which is bankrupting the country, are you going to vote for a Democrat in order to keep it?

YardleyLabs
03-29-2010, 09:32 AM
Here's the question. When the economy is in the toilet and the country is going down the tubes and people can't afford to eat or buy a house, and the Republicans say they are going to repeal the law that gives you this free insurance which is bankrupting the country, are you going to vote for a Democrat in order to keep it?
Yes. Changing rules on health care is essential to reduce growth in health costs over time and essential to start getting American business out of the pit of paying for employee health benefits.

luvmylabs23139
03-29-2010, 09:42 AM
Yes. Changing rules on health care is essential to reduce growth in health costs over time and essential to start getting American business out of the pit of paying for employee health benefits.

Explain to me why people that do not pay income taxes have a right to my hard earned money?????
This is just more redistribution of wealth.
I am darn tied of paying for their housing, food, cars etc.
Screw this socialism!!!!!!!!!

YardleyLabs
03-29-2010, 10:00 AM
Explain to me why people that do not pay income taxes have a right to my hard earned money?????
This is just more redistribution of wealth.
I am darn tied of paying for their housing, food, cars etc.
Screw this socialism!!!!!!!!!
What kind of schools did you attend growing up? Were any receiving public funds? What kind of roads do you drive on? Were any paid with public funds? My health insrance premiums are paid with after tax dollars. Are yours? What portion of your income is a by-product of governmental activity? How much of your income is based on government enforcement of intellectual property laws? I don't know anybody who is earning their money without benefiting from an economy and an infrastructure that would not exist without an active, stable government in place. I suspect that you are benefiting from the same kind of things to support your own hard earned income. Paying for health care benefits is one major factor undermining the competitiveness of American business and contributing to the export of jobs. How eager would most people be to pay for their own benefits if their employer decides to stop?

M&K's Retrievers
03-29-2010, 10:24 AM
We are bankrupt already and the cause was profligate spending combined with massive tax cuts under the last administration. A similar mess was left behind by Reagan, but reversed during the years that Bush 41 and Clinton were Presidents. GWB destroyed all the advances made under ClintonCan you say robing Social Security or cooking the books? and put the economy into the deepest hole we have experienced since the end of WWII.

Under Roosevelt, the bankruptcy was explained based on the efforts required to recover from the Depression and to fight WWII. Under Bush, it has been "explained" as being the cost of fighting the War on Terror. I think the argument is basically justified under Roosevelt and stinks like road kill as an explanation for what happened under Bush. In the short term, the current administration has acted appropriately to try to re-stimulate the economy. However, its current budget reflects an absence of effective planning for how to get the country back into a surplus condition once the economy recovers. Their problem is easy to understand. Years of Republican leadership have convinced the American public that they should be able to receive anything they want from the government while little or no taxes.Republicians want freebies? It would be interesting, in my mind, to learn what percentage of those attending Tea Party rallies are recipients of direct government assistance in the form of Medicare, unemployment insurance (using Federal extensions of benefits), etc. I suspect it is higher than for the general population.

Before you bring up the complaint that once again everything is being blamed on Bush, remember that you asked the question. I believe that Bush inherited an economy that was at the beginning of a mild recession and a government that had finally been brought into balance financially. He completely destroyed that balance by the policies that he proposed and fought for and in the process undermined the foundations of our economy. The economy needed mild, short term stimulus.

Instead he provided massive stimulus in a form that accelerated from year to year while permanently reducing the government's ability to pay its bills. At the same time, spending grew at 2-3 times the rate seen during the prior administration not just to finance the war effort, but to expand entitlement spending without providing the needed revenues. That caused us to moved into bankruptcy.Let us not forget the help of the Dems lack of action on Freddiie and Fannie. Bush can't do it all by himself. his administration left behind a shredded economy, gross overspending, and a revenue structure that assured declining future revenues even without a recession.

There is no good way to dig out of the hole that was left behind and Republican recommendations have actually been to suggest ways to dig the hole deeper by making Bush tax cuts permanent (Cost = $700 billion over 10 years) and adding new permanent tax cuts on top while shouting "End the entitlements" and "Don't cut Medicare" out of two sides of the same mouth.

..........

Cody Covey
03-29-2010, 10:54 AM
Here's the question. When the economy is in the toilet and the country is going down the tubes and people can't afford to eat or buy a house, and the Republicans say they are going to repeal the law that gives you this free insurance which is bankrupting the country, are you going to vote for a Democrat in order to keep it?

Nope I pay my own insurance now. And it wouldn't be free it is still paid for just the way my mom's plan works out she pays the same no matter how many kids are on the plan. But i figure if I can save 95 bucks a month and my mom to not have to pay anymore wouldn't I be stupid not to do that? And my mother just sent me an email saying that i will automatically get put back on her insurance actually. So from the sounds of it we don't have much of a choice in the matter although i will have to research that further.

YardleyLabs
03-29-2010, 10:57 AM
Can you say robing Social Security or cooking the books?

Clinton started with a budget that was deeply in the red. He ended with one that was operating with a surplus and not drawing down on the social security surplus for the first time since before Reagan. That "surplus" was exactly what Bush used as justification for tax cuts saying it was unconscionable for the government to operate in the black. Well, he certainly fixed that, drawing down the full social security surplus in his first year in office and for every year thereafter. Would that he had stopped there instead of adding trillions in deficits on top of that.



Republicians want freebies?
Absolutely. They want a government that provides new tax cuts every year without cutting services. They eliminate PayGo rules as they apply to tax cuts and still wrap those tax cuts in gimmicks to conceal their cost by having them "sunset" in ten years. As the time comes for them to sunset, they demand extension, but once again make no suggestions on how to cover the resulting deficit. They want wars without paying for them. They want to shift $1-2 trillion of social security funds into private investment accounts without restoring the same $1-2 trillion that has already been committed for benefits paid for in advance. They added $500 billion to the Medicare deficit in a program designed to benefit pharmaceutical company shareholders more than it benefits the seniors who rely on the benefits. They want massive increases in defense spending even when defense has grown dramatically and represents the majority of the discretionary budget. A platform that calls for perpetual tax cuts but never favors or delivers specific, substantial spending cuts is, in my opinion, prima fascia evidence of wanting freebies.



Let us not forget the help of the Dems lack of action on Freddiie and Fannie. Bush can't do it all by himself.Quite frankly, this was a minor issue in a much broader collapse. Not only that, while Bush briefly called for improved oversight, he never made it a priority, but claimed primary credit for opening the door to the "ownership" society for hundreds of thousands of new home buyers.

paul young
03-29-2010, 11:22 AM
Nope I pay my own insurance now. And it wouldn't be free it is still paid for just the way my mom's plan works out she pays the same no matter how many kids are on the plan. But i figure if I can save 95 bucks a month and my mom to not have to pay anymore wouldn't I be stupid not to do that? And my mother just sent me an email saying that i will automatically get put back on her insurance actually. So from the sounds of it we don't have much of a choice in the matter although i will have to research that further.


$95 / month? who pays for the rest of it? i pay almost that much / week, and my employer pays far more toward it than i do.-Paul

Goose
03-29-2010, 11:34 AM
Yes. Changing rules on health care is essential to reduce growth in health costs over time and essential to start getting American business out of the pit of paying for employee health benefits.

Guuump! I thought you told us earlier that you quit using recreational drugs:) Give 'em up, son.

How can you look at young people like Mr. eildydar with a straight face and tell them we're doing the right thing with this fiscal-frankenstein, socialiststatistkeynesian health care boner when it's nothing more than intergenerational theft? Do you just tell him (and all young people) that government knows best? How can you cash a social security check when you know the young people in the country will never see any of that money? Give it back, Gump.

Young people have an entire life ahead of them but the only thing you lefties can do is saddle them with more and more debt. I suppose you don't really care because you figure you'll be long gone when the dream comes due. There's not enough Beech-Nut on the planet for folks with this attitude.

How do lefties become lefties? Do you suppose there's a leftist gene they're born with? I doubt it but I do often wonder. More likely I think they're filled with bitterness, vindictiveness, hate and implacability. Scar tissue on the soul, too.

We live in Cuba now.

Cody Covey
03-29-2010, 11:46 AM
$95 / month? who pays for the rest of it? i pay almost that much / week, and my employer pays far more toward it than i do.-Paul

Employers pays for I think 85% of the first person on the plan. As soon as you add someone it jumps up to $670 a month.

YardleyLabs
03-29-2010, 12:20 PM
Guuump! I thought you told us earlier that you quit using recreational drugs:) Give 'em up, son.

How can you look at young people like Mr. eildydar with a straight face and tell them we're doing the right thing with this fiscal-frankenstein, socialiststatistkeynesian health care boner when it's nothing more than intergenerational theft? Do you just tell him (and all young people) that government knows best? How can you cash a social security check when you know the young people in the country will never see any of that money? Give it back, Gump.

Young people have an entire life ahead of them but the only thing you lefties can do is saddle them with more and more debt. I suppose you don't really care because you figure you'll be long gone when the dream comes due. There's not enough Beech-Nut on the planet for folks with this attitude.

How do lefties become lefties? Do you suppose there's a leftist gene they're born with? I doubt it but I do often wonder. More likely I think they're filled with bitterness, vindictiveness, hate and implacability. Scar tissue on the soul, too.

We live in Cuba now.
Debt comes from increasing spending without increasing revenues or cutting offsetting spending. In the last 60+ years, Democrats have actually had a pretty good record of balancing the two to reduce the debt as a percentage of GDP. Republicans did pretty well until Reagan when the guys with the chicken bones said that cutting taxes was always good no matter what and that deficits didn't really matter. As a consequence, debt grew like crazy under Reagan. Bush 41 tried to bring things back into balance and was abandoned by his own party. Clinton got things back in balance only to be replaced by the king of debt and bankruptcy. Obama has done a lot of things to increase debt further in the name of economic stimulus. However, in the health care bill there was a return to PayGo rules. If only Republicans would follow similar rules, we wouldn't be in the debt situation we now face.

aandw
03-29-2010, 12:30 PM
"Clinton got things back in balance only"
i thought congress passed a budget and the president signed it.
how did clinton pass it?

YardleyLabs
03-29-2010, 12:59 PM
"Clinton got things back in balance only"
i thought congress passed a budget and the president signed it.
how did clinton pass it?
Actually, in most of my comments I tried to be clear that things that happened happened when a particular individual was in the White House.Congress is always part of the process, for better or worse. However, there is also no question that the President sets the tone for what happens with the overall budget and economy. In fact, at most times since WWII, the party in the WH has NOT controlled both houses of Congress.

Henry V
03-29-2010, 01:27 PM
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Another graph of the facts that some don't like to see.
or try http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

M&K's Retrievers
03-29-2010, 01:31 PM
... Clinton got things back in balance only to be replaced by the king of debt and bankruptcy. Obama has done a lot of things to increase debt further in the name of economic stimulus. However, in the health care bill there was a return to PayGo rules. ....

Are you still taking Loritabs for pain for your broken leg because you have lost it.

Henry V
03-29-2010, 01:46 PM
Employers pays for I think 85% of the first person on the plan. As soon as you add someone it jumps up to $670 a month.
So, if I am tracking this right, your employer (and many others) will no longer have to pay a large monthly fee for your health coverage. That almost seems like it would have the same effect as a tax break for businesses. Of course, that is not possible because this is an evil socialist attempt by the government to take over health care while reading a teleprompter.

YardleyLabs
03-29-2010, 01:47 PM
Are you still taking Loritabs for pain for your broken leg because you have lost it.
It's fun to throw out quips, but occasional facts are even better. Henry posted the graph above (I was going to but have posted it at least six times before). What part of the pretty picture do you not understand? At least you don't get so confused you think you are living in Cuba.:razz:

Hoosier
03-29-2010, 03:47 PM
It's fun to throw out quips, but occasional facts are even better. Henry posted the graph above (I was going to but have posted it at least six times before). What part of the pretty picture do you not understand? At least you don't get so confused you think you are living in Cuba.:razz:

Do you have a graph that shows debt and who controlled Congress. I think that would be interesting.

road kill
03-29-2010, 04:21 PM
Do you have a graph that shows debt and who controlled Congress. I think that would be interesting.
He already showed it.........:D



rk

YardleyLabs
03-29-2010, 05:45 PM
Do you have a graph that shows debt and who controlled Congress. I think that would be interesting.
I agree it would be interesting, but also confusing. You can see the basic data on party control at http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm. I was trying to think of a way of displaying the data that might help visualize any relationships. As my first effort, I assigned "scores" as follows:

Democrat President -2
Republican President +2
Democrat Senate -1
Republican Senate +1
Democrat House -1
Republican House +1
Based on this, scoring would total as follows:

Dems control all three = -4
Dems in WH, Congress split = -2
Pres in one party, other party holds both houses = 0
Reps in WH, Congress split = +2
Reps control all three = +4

I then looked at the total surplus or deficit associated with the calendar years covered by a Congressional term. Thus, for the 2001 congressional term, I added the results for 2001 and 2002 to obtain a total deficit of $33 billion. The data on deficits is inflation adjusted but not considered relative to GDP, which would be more appropriate. Deficit data came from http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

I only considered completed Comgressional terms and included all from 1945 through 2007, including data from calendar years 1945-2008. I did not look at the current Congress since there is no actual data yet. I would be willing to stipulate that the deficit for that period exceeds all prior terms.

Based on this, there were seven congressional terms that leaned Republican (scores of 2 or 4). Each of these years showed a deficit. Three of those deficits were the largest experienced at any time (Over $800 billion). Five were "large" (over $300 billion), and two were "small (under $300 billion).

There were nine periods when Democrats controlled and in each of these, Dems held all three houses for a score of 4. Deficits were incurred in eight of these nine terms. Three of the deficits were "large" and five were "small". In one term there was a small net surplus.

In 16 terms, control was split (score = 0). 11 of those terms ended with deficits: eight "large" and three "small". Five terms ended with surpluses: Four "small" and one "large".

Overall, from a purely fiscal perspective, having the white controlled by one party and congress completely controlled by the other produces the most "conservative" fiscal results. Having complete Democratic control ranks in the middle, and having Republics either in complete control or in control of the White house and one house of Congress produces the biggest deficits.

It would be interesting to hear other thoughts on better ways to analyze these results or ways of presenting the results visually. I had no idea what I would find when I started out, but thought Hoosier's question was legitimate.

choclab32
03-29-2010, 05:58 PM
We are bankrupt already and the cause was profligate spending combined with massive tax cuts under the last administration. A similar mess was left behind by Reagan, but reversed during the years that Bush 41 and Clinton were Presidents. GWB destroyed all the advances made under Clinton and put the economy into the deepest hole we have experienced since the end of WWII.

Under Roosevelt, the bankruptcy was explained based on the efforts required to recover from the Depression and to fight WWII. Under Bush, it has been "explained" as being the cost of fighting the War on Terror. I think the argument is basically justified under Roosevelt and stinks like road kill as an explanation for what happened under Bush. In the short term, the current administration has acted appropriately to try to re-stimulate the economy. However, its current budget reflects an absence of effective planning for how to get the country back into a surplus condition once the economy recovers. Their problem is easy to understand. Years of Republican leadership have convinced the American public that they should be able to receive anything they want from the government while little or no taxes. It would be interesting, in my mind, to learn what percentage of those attending Tea Party rallies are recipients of direct government assistance in the form of Medicare, unemployment insurance (using Federal extensions of benefits), etc. I suspect it is higher than for the general population.

Before you bring up the complaint that once again everything is being blamed on Bush, remember that you asked the question. I believe that Bush inherited an economy that was at the beginning of a mild recession and a government that had finally been brought into balance financially. He completely destroyed that balance by the policies that he proposed and fought for and in the process undermined the foundations of our economy. The economy needed mild, short term stimulus.

Instead he provided massive stimulus in a form that accelerated from year to year while permanently reducing the government's ability to pay its bills. At the same time, spending grew at 2-3 times the rate seen during the prior administration not just to finance the war effort, but to expand entitlement spending without providing the needed revenues. That caused us to moved into bankruptcy. his administration left behind a shredded economy, gross overspending, and a revenue structure that assured declining future revenues even without a recession.

There is no good way to dig out of the hole that was left behind and Republican recommendations have actually been to suggest ways to dig the hole deeper by making Bush tax cuts permanent (Cost = $700 billion over 10 years) and adding new permanent tax cuts on top while shouting "End the entitlements" and "Don't cut Medicare" out of two sides of the same mouth.

AMEN !! AMEN !!!

choclab32
03-29-2010, 06:03 PM
Are you still taking Loritabs for pain for your broken leg because you have lost it.

Your Political views go without saying .. Seeing that you are in the Oil and Gas Biz..

Hoosier
03-29-2010, 10:33 PM
I agree it would be interesting, but also confusing. You can see the basic data on party control at http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm. I was trying to think of a way of displaying the data that might help visualize any relationships. As my first effort, I assigned "scores" as follows:

Democrat President -2
Republican President +2
Democrat Senate -1
Republican Senate +1
Democrat House -1
Republican House +1
Based on this, scoring would total as follows:

Dems control all three = -4
Dems in WH, Congress split = -2
Pres in one party, other party holds both houses = 0
Reps in WH, Congress split = +2
Reps control all three = +4

I then looked at the total surplus or deficit associated with the calendar years covered by a Congressional term. Thus, for the 2001 congressional term, I added the results for 2001 and 2002 to obtain a total deficit of $33 billion. The data on deficits is inflation adjusted but not considered relative to GDP, which would be more appropriate. Deficit data came from http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

I only considered completed Comgressional terms and included all from 1945 through 2007, including data from calendar years 1945-2008. I did not look at the current Congress since there is no actual data yet. I would be willing to stipulate that the deficit for that period exceeds all prior terms.

Based on this, there were seven congressional terms that leaned Republican (scores of 2 or 4). Each of these years showed a deficit. Three of those deficits were the largest experienced at any time (Over $800 billion). Five were "large" (over $300 billion), and two were "small (under $300 billion).

There were nine periods when Democrats controlled and in each of these, Dems held all three houses for a score of 4. Deficits were incurred in eight of these nine terms. Three of the deficits were "large" and five were "small". In one term there was a small net surplus.

In 16 terms, control was split (score = 0). 11 of those terms ended with deficits: eight "large" and three "small". Five terms ended with surpluses: Four "small" and one "large".

Overall, from a purely fiscal perspective, having the white controlled by one party and congress completely controlled by the other produces the most "conservative" fiscal results. Having complete Democratic control ranks in the middle, and having Republics either in complete control or in control of the White house and one house of Congress produces the biggest deficits.

It would be interesting to hear other thoughts on better ways to analyze these results or ways of presenting the results visually. I had no idea what I would find when I started out, but thought Hoosier's question was legitimate.

Wow, that's interesting. Maybe our goal when we vote should be to create gridlock, and slow the spending down.

M&K's Retrievers
03-29-2010, 10:57 PM
Your Political views go without saying .. Seeing that you are in the Oil and Gas Biz..

What exactlly does that mean? You may have also noticed that I'm in the insurance business as well, specifically employee benefit programs. So tell me, based on your vast knowledge of me, just exactly what are my political views? Is investing in oil and gas exploration evil? Is providing employers and individuals with health insurance alternatives by trying to secure the most competitive options available for them evil? Maybe it shows that I run my own business. Maybe it shows that I'm a risk taker. I don't know. You are so perceptive, you tell me. Can I make the same assumption about you since you are a Union Carpenter?

Henry V
03-29-2010, 11:08 PM
Wow, that's interesting. Maybe our goal when we vote should be to create gridlock, and slow the spending down.
Or, just maybe, it could have something to do with the irresponsible tax cuts consistently undertaken under repub leadership. There are two sides to the deficit.

Hoosier
03-29-2010, 11:16 PM
Overall, from a purely fiscal perspective, having the white controlled by one party and congress completely controlled by the other produces the most "conservative" fiscal results. Having complete Democratic control ranks in the middle, and having Republics either in complete control or in control of the White house and one house of Congress produces the biggest deficits.



My comment was based on this part of Jeff's post. What conclusion would you draw from it Henry?

M&K's Retrievers
03-29-2010, 11:49 PM
And my mother just sent me an email saying that i will automatically get put back on her insurance actually. So from the sounds of it we don't have much of a choice in the matter although i will have to research that further.

A word of advice: NEVER NEVER NEVER cancel an insurance policy until you have approval from the new carrier.

M&K's Retrievers
03-29-2010, 11:54 PM
$95 / month? who pays for the rest of it? i pay almost that much / week, and my employer pays far more toward it than i do.-Paul

Probably his monthly portion of the employee only premium. Makes sense.

Hoosier
03-30-2010, 12:09 AM
Democrat President -2
Republican President +2
Democrat Senate -1
Republican Senate +1
Democrat House -1
Republican House +1
Based on this, scoring would total as follows:

Dems control all three = -4 Blue
Dems in WH, Congress split = -2 purple
Pres in one party, other party holds both houses = 0 green
Reps in WH, Congress split = +2 orange
Reps control all three = +4 red


It would be interesting to hear other thoughts on better ways to analyze these results or ways of presenting the results visually. I had no idea what I would find when I started out, but thought Hoosier's question was legitimate.

Would it reflect the info if you were to assign a color to each of the options in your post, and use that color on the deficit line of the graph on this thread?

M&K's Retrievers
03-30-2010, 12:22 AM
So, if I am tracking this right, your employer (and many others) will no longer have to pay a large monthly fee for your health coverage. That almost seems like it would have the same effect as a tax break for businesses. Of course, that is not possible because this is an evil socialist attempt by the government to take over health care while reading a teleprompter.

If his employer pays 85% of the premium, thats $538 per month or $6458 a year. Under Obama Mess, the employer can pay the $2000 annual fine and give this guy a $2400 raise and be way ahead of the game. The government gets the fine money, we have added this guy to the uninsureds and we move one step closer to single payor system. What a deal. This poorly thought out crap must be over turned.

I have noted this on other posts, Obama Mess will increase the number of uninsureds.

road kill
03-30-2010, 06:04 AM
Or, just maybe, it could have something to do with the irresponsible tax cuts consistently undertaken under repub leadership. There are two sides to the deficit.

There is only 1 side to a deficit, spending more than you have.



rk

Henry V
03-30-2010, 07:35 AM
My comment was based on this part of Jeff's post. What conclusion would you draw from it Henry?

My comment was based on this part of the quote
.... having Republics either in complete control or in control of the White house and one house of Congress produces the biggest deficits.
I always find it very interesting when these facts come out since the party that runs on being fiscally conservative is the one that has historically and consistently run up the biggest deficits when they have more power/control.

To answer your question, IMHO it is unfortunate that the Republican party has taken such a hard turn to the right over the past year and that the moderates have left the party over the past few elections. A strong two party system with some give and take is good for the country. Narrow majorities in one house or another and/or mixed control between white house and one branch of congress is usually a good thing.

Henry V
03-30-2010, 07:37 AM
There is only 1 side to a deficit, spending more than you have.
rk
I would agree with you if you could honestly make the statement:
"There is only 1 side to a deficit, spending."

WRL
03-30-2010, 08:03 AM
$95 / month? who pays for the rest of it? i pay almost that much / week, and my employer pays far more toward it than i do.-Paul

Well I hope you get the crap taxed out of you for your "cadillac" plan......

How come I can get my own policy and pay a total of $170/month?

Costs an extra $100 a month to add a spouse and dependents to it if I wish.

Good news for me though....sounds like I am about to get "free insurance"......being self-employed I think my income will fall below the minimum......so instead of continuing to pay for my own insurance....I'll let you guys do it. THANKS!

I guess I lost my "republican card" huh??

WRL

YardleyLabs
03-30-2010, 08:45 AM
Would it reflect the info if you were to assign a color to each of the options in your post, and use that color on the deficit line of the graph on this thread?I thought of this, but didn't have the time.


Wow, that's interesting. Maybe our goal when we vote should be to create gridlock, and slow the spending down.


Or, just maybe, it could have something to do with the irresponsible tax cuts consistently undertaken under repub leadership. There are two sides to the deficit.
I think both of these statements are basically true. Clearly, Republicans have made a point of reducing taxes each time they have had control. That would not be bad if they also cut spending. However, they have not even cut spending when in charge of everything. One of the analyses I would like to do is the percentage growth in spending during these same periods. My belief, which may be wrong, is that spending has grown faster under Republican control than under Democratic control, and faster when one party was clearly in charge than when control was completely split. A difference, however, is that Democrats have been more willing to increase taxes to pay for higher spending, while Republicans have cut taxes no matter what. All of that, however, is relatively pure pure speculation (I know it is true for the last 30 years, but do not know about earlier periods.).

Another factor is that Democratic control means something different now than it meant prior to Reagan. Previously, the Democratic party included a very conservative core of southern Democrats. This group acted as fiscal brakes and probably helped to prevent greater deficits during periods of Democratic control. Since Reagan, this block of voters have become Republicans, and the old, pragmatic Democratic conservatives have been replaced more by ideologues. As a result, there have been fewer periods when Democrats were in charge -- basically only the first part of Clinton's term and this first part of Obama's term which is not included in the numbers but will obviously break all records for deficits..

I suspect that Hoosier is closer to the truth in saying that the best bet for fiscal conservatives is to have split control and gridlock.

The ideological biases of both parties lead to deficits: one from spending on social welfare programs, and the other from spending on defense and cutting taxes while doing nothing to reduce social welfare programs. With split control, ideology gets pushed further to the side and only those programs that win a consensus can be adopted. Of course, the ideologues on both sides are totally frustrated by this situation. Maybe that is a good thing.

paul young
03-30-2010, 08:45 AM
Well I hope you get the crap taxed out of you for your "cadillac" plan......

How come I can get my own policy and pay a total of $170/month?

Costs an extra $100 a month to add a spouse and dependents to it if I wish.

Good news for me though....sounds like I am about to get "free insurance"......being self-employed I think my income will fall below the minimum......so instead of continuing to pay for my own insurance....I'll let you guys do it. THANKS!

I guess I lost my "republican card" huh??

WRL

you better just hope that you stay healthy with that plan, because with your fiscally responsible ideals you will expend your life savings trying to pay your portion of the bills, should you end up with life threatening health problems. you would pay them, wouldn't you?

but you have a choice. you could opt out of treatment and die.

don't you realize that you are just one major health issue away from losing everything you've worked for?

or maybe you do, and just want to act like an azzhat....

don't worry, i'll pay my taxes as i have for the last 36 years. and unlike a self employed person, i won't be able to hide any of it. W2 regards....-Paul

paul young
03-30-2010, 09:14 AM
exactly my point, Walt. it sounds like you are paying for a plan that will cover you and your family adequately in the event of a major health problem.

what kind of plan do you think WRL is getting for the premium they pay??

that doesn't surprise me. you're an honorable man. but you must admit, there are ways to show less profit than was actual that fall into the gray area concerning legality. i think more people than not do use those gray areas to their advantage. you are anything but a chump.-Paul

luvmylabs23139
03-30-2010, 09:37 AM
exactly my point, Walt. it sounds like you are paying for a plan that will cover you and your family adequately in the event of a major health problem.

what kind of plan do you think WRL is getting for the premium they pay??

that doesn't surprise me. you're an honorable man. but you must admit, there are ways to show less profit than was actual that fall into the gray area concerning legality. i think more people than not do use those gray areas to their advantage. you are anything but a chump.-Paul

Oh get over it. I got the heck out of CT years ago because I was not gonna put up with the crap they stole my money for.
Get up at 5 am knowing you will have to dig your car out to go to work only to find out that slimeball section 8 pay no taxes idiot thst lives below you in a condo that you are paying for has blocked your car in.
That was really fun.
Bang on their door and if you are lucky they will stumble to answer the door and if really lucky they may move their brand new car.
Don't get me started on running into the drug pitbulls in the common lobby.
And my money paid for that crap.

paul young
03-30-2010, 12:55 PM
Oh get over it. I got the heck out of CT years ago because I was not gonna put up with the crap they stole my money for.
Get up at 5 am knowing you will have to dig your car out to go to work only to find out that slimeball section 8 pay no taxes idiot thst lives below you in a condo that you are paying for has blocked your car in.
That was really fun.
Bang on their door and if you are lucky they will stumble to answer the door and if really lucky they may move their brand new car.
Don't get me started on running into the drug pitbulls in the common lobby.
And my money paid for that crap.

this may come as a shock to you, but most of us in Ct. do not live under those conditions. you chose to live there. no one forced you to. choices, choices.....

what exactly am i supposed to get over?-Paul

Hoosier
03-30-2010, 01:15 PM
this may come as a shock to you, but most of us in Ct. do not live under those conditions. you chose to live there. no one forced you to. choices, choices.....

what exactly am i supposed to get over?-Paul

The people who usually don't have a problem with the things she's talking about, are the ones benefiting from it, and people who haven't really been exposed to it.

WRL
03-30-2010, 01:36 PM
exactly my point, Walt. it sounds like you are paying for a plan that will cover you and your family adequately in the event of a major health problem.

what kind of plan do you think WRL is getting for the premium they pay??

that doesn't surprise me. you're an honorable man. but you must admit, there are ways to show less profit than was actual that fall into the gray area concerning legality. i think more people than not do use those gray areas to their advantage. you are anything but a chump.-Paul
I think I have a pretty good policy.

Of course, I don't smoke/don't drink and am fairly healthy.

But I also don't run to the Dr for every little thing. So I have a deductible (not co-pays) and am willing to foot the bill for some of the "upfront" costs.

I'm not too concerned about a broken leg or whatever, it would be the big ticket items that would most concern me.

I have a $3000 deductible. Out of pocket expense max for the year is $5000. All preventative items are paid at 80% (yearly physicals etc) and are not subject to the deductible. With that monthly charge, I also have prescription coverage.

I can't tell you the last time I had a prescription filled. Its been awhile.

I went to the doctor once last year and that was for my physical.

WRL

Hew
03-30-2010, 05:46 PM
you better just hope that you stay healthy with that plan, because with your fiscally responsible ideals you will expend your life savings trying to pay your portion of the bills, should you end up with life threatening health problems. you would pay them, wouldn't you?

but you have a choice. you could opt out of treatment and die.

don't you realize that you are just one major health issue away from losing everything you've worked for?

or maybe you do, and just want to act like an azzhat....

don't worry, i'll pay my taxes as i have for the last 36 years. and unlike a self employed person, i won't be able to hide any of it. W2 regards....-Paul
You're like a wizard, Paul. You know WRL's financial situation, her health situation, the details of her health insurance policy and federal tax law for corporations and sole proprietorships (without, apparently, ever having owned a business or signed anyone's paycheck yourself which is particularly impressive). I've got to get my bets down w/ my bookie for the Final Four (using money I skimmed out of the till, natch)...got any tips?

paul young
03-30-2010, 06:23 PM
yeah, i do.

don't gamble, go to work every day, save as much as you can for retirement, and don't try to cheat the government out of taxes owed. and you shouldn't be smoking at such an early age and stop eating sandwiches for every meal.

just call me Merlin.

choclab32
03-30-2010, 07:11 PM
What exactlly does that mean? You may have also noticed that I'm in the insurance business as well, specifically employee benefit programs. So tell me, based on your vast knowledge of me, just exactly what are my political views? Is investing in oil and gas exploration evil? Is providing employers and individuals with health insurance alternatives by trying to secure the most competitive options available for them evil? Maybe it shows that I run my own business. Maybe it shows that I'm a risk taker. I don't know. You are so perceptive, you tell me. Can I make the same assumption about you since you are a Union Carpenter?

you said evil not me ??

M&K's Retrievers
03-30-2010, 09:13 PM
you said evil not me ??

May I suggest getting a step ladder. All of this is apparently over your head.:D

menmon
03-31-2010, 09:40 AM
The country and its currency are being debauched under Obama and the democrat totalitarian regime. If I were you I'd take up mom's offer and save your money because we're bankrupt with or without your contribution.

But I would turn in that republican card and replace it with a fiscal conservative card. We're on a death train to hell with either party. The only difference is the democrats are driving that train at 700 miles per hour...the republican train goes a little slower at 75 miles per hour.

We live in Cuba now.

The US Dollar is stronger than its been in 5 years against the Euro. More unrealiable information.

menmon
03-31-2010, 09:47 AM
okay Jeff--so you don't think we will be bankrupt? We already are. I find that pretty darn scary myself. We are not that far off from your definition listed above. How did we get here?

First you need to know what defines Bankruptcy. Company's file bankruptcy when they run out of liquidity (e.g., cash). Our government has all the access to liquidity it needs.

Look at the interest rates on treasuries and they are the lowest they have been in years. If there was a issue with this countries creditablitiy, they would not be pricing this debt so cheap.

luvmylabs23139
03-31-2010, 10:19 AM
this may come as a shock to you, but most of us in Ct. do not live under those conditions. you chose to live there. no one forced you to. choices, choices.....

what Paul

We did not buy into the HOOD! The gov't brought the hood to us with section8!!!!
IN CT at least back then it took forever to toss a deadbeat tenant.
The gov't made it better to rent section 8 because they guaranteed a large portion of the rent.
THe gov't moved the welfare slime into the nice areas. They destroyed my condo complex:confused::confused::confused:
These animals should have been kept in their jungle!!!

Goose
03-31-2010, 11:39 AM
The US Dollar is stronger than its been in 5 years against the Euro. More unrealiable information.

You're going to make a good Cuban foot soldier!

Let's do an experiment:) Everybody loves experiments! First go get two, 3X5 cards and a sharpie pen. Write "Euro" on one of the cards and write "U.S. Dollar" on the other. Set the two cards aside.

Next, go out in your backyard and collect some fresh, steaming dog poo and put it on a plate. Bring it inside next to the cards. Then go to a local farm and collect some fresh, steaming cow poo and put it on a plate and set it next to the dog poo plate.

Now here's what I want you to do. Put your nose real close to the dog poo and smell it. Smell it until you're real familiar with the smell. Now do the same thing with the cow poo. Smell them both until you can tell the difference. Whichever poo is less offensive to your nostrils tape the "U.S. Dollar" card to that plate and then tape the "Euro" card to the more offensive smelling poo plate.

This should help you understand the diff between the euro and the dollar! Glad I could help.

We live in Cuba now.

WRL
03-31-2010, 11:54 AM
You're going to make a good Cuban foot soldier!

Let's do an experiment:) Everybody loves experiments! First go get two, 3X5 cards and a sharpie pen. Write "Euro" on one of the cards and write "U.S. Dollar" on the other. Set the two cards aside.

Next, go out in your backyard and collect some fresh, steaming dog poo and put it on a plate. Bring it inside next to the cards. Then go to a local farm and collect some fresh, steaming cow poo and put it on a plate and set it next to the dog poo plate.

Now here's what I want you to do. Put your nose real close to the dog poo and smell it. Smell it until you're real familiar with the smell. Now do the same thing with the cow poo. Smell them both until you can tell the difference. Whichever poo is less offensive to your nostrils tape the "U.S. Dollar" card to that plate and then tape the "Euro" card to the more offensive smelling poo plate.

This should help you understand the diff between the euro and the dollar! Glad I could help.

We live in Cuba now.

OMG!! THAT IS FUNNY!

WRL

paul young
03-31-2010, 12:21 PM
goose,

i got a question; "what's in YOUR wallet?"

do you buy the groceries with gold, silver, diamonds, bearer bonds? enlighten us, please.

what do your clients pay your fees with? maybe they should just use "poo".......-Paul

YardleyLabs
03-31-2010, 12:54 PM
Maybe a simpler question for Goose is what exactly is meant by the phrase "The ... currency [is] being debauched under Obama and the democrat totalitarian regime."Given that the U.S. Dollar is stronger today against all major currencies than it was on January 1, 2009, you must have a different basis for saying the administration is destroying the currency. Maybe you can share your analysis instead of insults.

kb27_99
03-31-2010, 03:01 PM
Yes. Changing rules on health care is essential to reduce growth in health costs over time and essential to start getting American business out of the pit of paying for employee health benefits.


Jeff, No one was requiring businesses to pay for employee heath care. What fairy land are you living in? It is/was offered as an incentive to acquire dependable/hard working employees. Obviously you are one that wants to sit on your ass with your hand out!

YardleyLabs
03-31-2010, 03:17 PM
Jeff, No one was requiring businesses to pay for employee heath care. What fairy land are you living in? It is/was offered as an incentive to acquire dependable/hard working employees. Obviously you are one that wants to sit on your ass with your hand out!
Well, Medicare is four years off. I buy my own insurance now as I have since 1984 when I first became a business owner rather than an employee. I pay 100% of the premium with no assistance from anyone. Do you? Not many in this country do, and that is one of the biggest problems.

menmon
03-31-2010, 03:26 PM
You're going to make a good Cuban foot soldier!

Let's do an experiment:) Everybody loves experiments! First go get two, 3X5 cards and a sharpie pen. Write "Euro" on one of the cards and write "U.S. Dollar" on the other. Set the two cards aside.

Next, go out in your backyard and collect some fresh, steaming dog poo and put it on a plate. Bring it inside next to the cards. Then go to a local farm and collect some fresh, steaming cow poo and put it on a plate and set it next to the dog poo plate.

Now here's what I want you to do. Put your nose real close to the dog poo and smell it. Smell it until you're real familiar with the smell. Now do the same thing with the cow poo. Smell them both until you can tell the difference. Whichever poo is less offensive to your nostrils tape the "U.S. Dollar" card to that plate and then tape the "Euro" card to the more offensive smelling poo plate.

This should help you understand the diff between the euro and the dollar! Glad I could help.

We live in Cuba now.

This is funny, but that is all it is. Currency is a means of exchange. The bottomline is that I can pay a euorpean dog trainer with fewer dollars and a brit got to us more dollars to pay an american dog trainer.

Currency and exchange rates are all relative, and a strenghthening dollar is an indication that our economy is getting stronger and has more buying power than other other major economies.

Now before you compare us to China, you might want to think that through because it has a communist government and I keep hearing you don't want the US to be communist nor do I. But it is hard to compete with a bowl of rice, but maybe the government should take all your money and feed you rice so that you will respect them more.

Brian Courser
03-31-2010, 04:56 PM
Explain to me why people that do not pay income taxes have a right to my hard earned money?????
This is just more redistribution of wealth.
I am darn tied of paying for their housing, food, cars etc.
Screw this socialism!!!!!!!!!

exactly.

There are more and more people seeking the entitlement. Also what good is big gov't what do they produce, what does it contribute, where does all of this money come from. It comes from the people who work.

YardleyLabs
03-31-2010, 05:08 PM
exactly.

There are more and more people seeking the entitlement. Also what good is big gov't what do they produce, what does it contribute, where does all of this money come from. It comes from the people who work.
I pose tp ypu the same questions I posed to luvmylabs without receiving any answer:


What kind of schools did you attend growing up? Were any receiving public funds? What kind of roads do you drive on? Were any paid with public funds? My health insurance premiums are paid with after tax dollars. Are yours? What portion of your income is a by-product of governmental activity? How much of your income is based on government enforcement of intellectual property laws? I don't know anybody who is earning their money without benefiting from an economy and an infrastructure that would not exist without an active, stable government in place. I suspect that you are benefiting from the same kind of things to support your own hard earned income. Paying for health care benefits is one major factor undermining the competitiveness of American business and contributing to the export of jobs. How eager would most people be to pay for their own benefits if their employer decides to stop?

An effective, stable government is essential to support a strong economy. A notwithstanding the rabid meanderings of Gken Beck, it is impossible to sustain a stable government in the face of gross inequities of opportunity or an abandonment of basic principles of social justice.

Hoosier
03-31-2010, 05:37 PM
Thanks for the signature line sambo

road kill
03-31-2010, 06:25 PM
This is funny, but that is all it is. Currency is a means of exchange. The bottomline is that I can pay a euorpean dog trainer with fewer dollars and a brit got to us more dollars to pay an american dog trainer.

Currency and exchange rates are all relative, and a strenghthening dollar is an indication that our economy is getting stronger and has more buying power than other other major economies.

Now before you compare us to China, you might want to think that through because it has a communist government and I keep hearing you don't want the US to be communist nor do I. But it is hard to compete with a bowl of rice, but maybe the government should take all your money and feed you rice so that you will respect them more.


That is the end game, isn't it?



rk

Brian Courser
03-31-2010, 07:53 PM
What kind of schools did you attend growing up? Were any receiving public funds? What kind of roads do you drive on? Were any paid with public funds? My health insurance premiums are paid with after tax dollars. Are yours? What portion of your income is a by-product of governmental activity? How much of your income is based on government enforcement of intellectual property laws? I don't know anybody who is earning their money without benefiting from an economy and an infrastructure that would not exist without an active, stable government in place. I suspect that you are benefiting from the same kind of things to support your own hard earned income. Paying for health care benefits is one major factor undermining the competitiveness of American business and contributing to the export of jobs. How eager would most people be to pay for their own benefits if their employer decides to stop?

Yes I do reap some benefits of taxes paid by others, and I am thankful for an employer that takes care of my health cost. But I think you are losing the big picture here. There continue to be more and more people on the side of taking (benefit recipents)and fewer people on the giving (working and paying taxes) I guess my arguement should be that our Society become more self reliant and less looking for hand outs. Another thing that irks me is that Officals on both side of the line are running this Country into the ground mostly the liberals that are telling us how we should live and conduct ourselves. I am tired of Gov't bailing out business because they are to big to fail while the working America tightens the belt and makes sacarfices to stay on top of their finances. Also please tell me do you enjoy working hard for what you have obtained but yet the next person feels they are entitiled to the same with out working for it, when they are capable. Please tell me why you think the Left Side is better than the right and why you hold those beliefs. For me the biggest thing is less taxes and gov't, the 2nd Admenment, Self reliance, I may not believe everything that Glenn B says but I don't think he is too far off with the direction of the country. Sean Hannity / Biil O are much better

Brian Courser
03-31-2010, 08:08 PM
Well, Medicare is four years off. I buy my own insurance now as I have since 1984 when I first became a business owner rather than an employee. I pay 100% of the premium with no assistance from anyone. Do you? Not many in this country do, and that is one of the biggest problems.

I have been jumping around this thread for the good stuff and jsut found this post from you. This only really intrigues me you as Business owner who has wokred hard for what you have achieved how can you be for a party or an idealogy that would what to take more from you to give to those that don't want to work. How will this new health bill affect you do you employ anyone are your taxes going to increase and are you ok with giving more?

YardleyLabs
03-31-2010, 08:24 PM
I have been jumping around this thread for the good stuff and jsut found this post from you. This only really intrigues me you as Business owner who has wokred hard for what you have achieved how can you be for a party or an idealogy that would what to take more from you to give to those that don't want to work. How will this new health bill affect you do you employ anyone are your taxes going to increase and are you ok with giving more?
I have now sold my business and am now a business of one. I would have loved to have this plan in existence when I was providing health insurance for my staff. It would have offered many more options than I could get as a small employer at a better price. I benefited greatly from the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and still believed that they undermined our economy. I didn't ask for the cut and would have preferred to see it used to reduce the deficit. Polls at the time suggested that I was by no means alone among those who benefited most. My interest is in seeing US business better able to compete in a global economy. That cannot happen without national health insurance, outstanding educational services for all, and a strong national infrastructure for communication, transportation, and energy transmission. For the sake of my grandchildren and their offspring, I also want to live in a country that is helping to preserve the natural resources of our world so that they will have at least as much access to wilderness, clean air, clean water, and wildlife as I had growing up.

Brian Courser
03-31-2010, 08:47 PM
That cannot happen without national health insurance, outstanding educational services for all, and a strong national infrastructure for communication, transportation, and energy transmission. For the sake of my grandchildren and their offspring, I also want to live in a country that is helping to preserve the natural resources of our world so that they will have at least as much access to wilderness, clean air, clean water, and wildlife as I had growing up.
__________________
Ok so the enivorment is a big issue for you than? The other things you don't see a Conservative being able to provide those same things? Those are some of the same things I wish for my childern I have a great deep respect and enjoyment of the outdoors and the need to protect I think we can do that with Repubs. I just can not see how the most recent stimlus packages and the get America working, along with the National Health care going to improve our Country besides running up our National Debt. I hope all of this does work out for our Country and future generations. I believe in the idealogy of our Gov't but have lost faith in all of our elected Officals to do what is right for our Country

YardleyLabs
03-31-2010, 08:58 PM
Ok so the enivorment is a big issue for you than? The other things you don't see a Conservative being able to provide those same things? Those are some of the same things I wish for my childern I have a great deep respect and enjoyment of the outdoors and the need to protect I think we can do that with Repubs. I just can not see how the most recent stimlus packages and the get America working, along with the National Health care going to improve our Country besides running up our National Debt. I hope all of this does work out for our Country and future generations. I believe in the idealogy of our Gov't but have lost faith in all of our elected Officals to do what is right for our Country
My strongest opposition to conservatives tends to be on nion-economic issues rather than economic ones. I am an a-religious social libertarian and have no time for anyone that wants to run on the conservative notion of a "values" ticket. For me, that's a deal breaker. On the economic issues, my problem with so called conservatives over the last 30 years is that they believe in tax cuts more than they believe in paying bills. They also tend to support a "free" market more than they care about a competitive market. The latter is great. The former takes us back to the era of the robber barons.

Woodiehunter
04-01-2010, 01:25 PM
Nope I pay my own insurance now. And it wouldn't be free it is still paid for just the way my mom's plan works out she pays the same no matter how many kids are on the plan. But i figure if I can save 95 bucks a month and my mom to not have to pay anymore wouldn't I be stupid not to do that? And my mother just sent me an email saying that i will automatically get put back on her insurance actually. So from the sounds of it we don't have much of a choice in the matter although i will have to research that further.

That is what is wrong with this country now. There is a great book out "To Try Men's Souls" based on how we won our independence. The men that fought for this country would have surely given up if they how we would end up.

blind ambition
04-01-2010, 04:46 PM
They also tend to support a "free" market more than they care about a competitive market. The latter is great. The former takes us back to the era of the robber barons.

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay?
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking...
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away.