PDA

View Full Version : For all you healthcare reform folks



Clay Rogers
09-27-2010, 04:46 PM
Well, just wanted to let all you "Obama is the greatest and healthcare reform is a life saver" folks know that your president is a lying somebody. Just got informed at work today that our health insurance premiums are going up from $169 every two weeks to $270 every two weeks. I thought that lying dirtbag said if this bill passes, premiums will start going down. I thought he was gonna save the world.:rolleyes: Well, he can lick my dogs kennel floor.

And for those of you that think I am lying, I work at Pitt County Memorial Hospital which is owned by UHS east in Greenville NC. I am sure some of you internet searchers can find something about it.

Has the revolution started yet?

Bayou Magic
09-27-2010, 04:55 PM
What's that whirling sound off in the distance? Could it be the spin machine cranking up, or are the spin masters becoming "exhausted" from defending the current admnistration?

fp

david gibson
09-27-2010, 05:07 PM
just remember - your taxes wont go up!

Clay Rogers
09-27-2010, 05:49 PM
just remember - your taxes wont go up!

Too late. Didn't pay taxes the entire time Bush was in office. The first damn year Obama was in office, guess what, you got it, $2100 extra state and federal.

Has the revolution started yet?

Ken Bora
09-27-2010, 05:54 PM
my net $$$ went down $47 per week last month. My co-pay for my health care went up.

david gibson
09-27-2010, 06:26 PM
Too late. Didn't pay taxes the entire time Bush was in office. The first damn year Obama was in office, guess what, you got it, $2100 extra state and federal.

Has the revolution started yet?

oh but that cant be. dont you remember obama said we wouldnt pay any more taxes? and he couldnt be lying, only bush told lies. and even if he did, obamas lies didnt cost millions and millions of lives, so its perfectly ok for him to lie.

there, roger perry has nothing to say now.....:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
09-27-2010, 07:45 PM
Nationwide, health insurance premiums are expected to increase about 9%. This is slightly higher than last year, when the increase was about 8%. Both increases are lower than the rates of increase experienced over most of the last decade. However, the employee share of health costs is expected to go up by an average of over 13% as employers shift a higher percentage of cost to employees (Estimates based on Hewitt Associates). The question for Ken is whether his net decreased because of health insurance premiums, state tax withholding, Federal tax withholding, etc. Federal taxes were actually decreased last year as part of the stimulus program. I believe that was a one-time reduction, but i am not sure. I am not aware of any increase in Federal taxes for anyone, although that situation will change in January when the Bush tax increases take effect. Most states have been increasing taxes to close operating deficits.

Ken Bora
09-27-2010, 07:56 PM
The question for Ken is whether his net decreased because of health insurance premiums, state tax withholding, Federal tax withholding, etc. Federal taxes were actually decreased last year as part of the stimulus program. .
My parent health care company increased the rate my boss pays. He and I each pay a portion. He and I actually have the same plan option available to us. Small family business, only ten of us. Sadly I like my plan. I am able to use the same Doc. I have had for years. No matter if I go in for a sniffle (I donít, guy you know) or major back surgery (3 years ago, life changing event, I recommend) I pay a ten dollar co-pay and that is it. They raised it on us with a one month notice with a huge accompanying letter about cost adjustments and stuff that gosh I actually did not understand. I guess they were just being proactive.



.

YardleyLabs
09-27-2010, 08:01 PM
My parent health care company increased the rate my boss pays. He and I each pay a portion. He and I actually have the same plan option available to us. Small family business, only ten of us. Sadly I like my plan. I am able to use the same Doc. I have had for years. No matter if I go in for a sniffle (I donít, guy you know) or major back surgery (3 years ago, life changing event, I recommend) I pay a ten dollar co-pay and that is it. They raised it on us with a one month notice with a huge accompanying letter about cost adjustments and stuff that gosh I actually did not understand. I guess they were just being proactive.



.
Over a period of five years beginning around 1998, I saw our company premiums increase by over 150% with a 42% increase in one single year and no increases of less than 20%. I guess they were getting ready for Obama's plan even then.;-) The 30 day renewal notice is industry standard.

M&K's Retrievers
09-27-2010, 08:05 PM
Over a period of five years beginning around 1998, I saw our company premiums increase by over 150% with a 42% increase in one single year and no increases of less than 20%. I guess they were getting ready for Obama's plan even then.;-) The 30 day renewal notice is industry standard.

Another industry standard - The size of the rate increase is directly to proportional to the length of the renewal letter.

Ken Bora
09-27-2010, 08:11 PM
I am sure my health care cost went up in ’98 as well but as it is also happening to me right now I am able to blame President Obama. Because he said he would reform my health care. Just like I believed President Bush when he told me the war was over. And when President Clinton told me he felt my pain. And when President Bush told me to read his lips. And when President Reagan told me he would trickle on me. If I believed all the previous ones and held them accountable then I must hold this one, as well. Don’t I?





.

luvmylabs23139
09-27-2010, 08:16 PM
The 30 day renewal notice is industry standard.

That is not the way it works for many companies. It is common practice to use a broker who then puts it out to bid to several major carriers. The company then compares the bids and the policies to determine which one to elect for the company.

M&K's Retrievers
09-27-2010, 08:25 PM
That is not the way it works for many companies. It is common practice to use a broker who then puts it out to bid to several major carriers. The company then compares the bids and the policies to determine which one to elect for the company.

The 30 day notice of rate/benefit change is in the contract. Some companies give 60 days notice even tho they don't have to.

Gerry Clinchy
09-27-2010, 08:33 PM
Over a period of five years beginning around 1998, I saw our company premiums increase by over 150% with a 42% increase in one single year and no increases of less than 20%. I guess they were getting ready for Obama's plan even then.:wink:

It's no secret that health care costs & health insurance premiums have done nothing but go up in the past; and it is anticipated that they will/would continue to do so. Sort of like the cost of gas for the car.

The real question is whether Obamacare will keep some kind of control on the increases or make it that much worse. Stay tuned ...

luvmylabs23139
09-27-2010, 08:54 PM
The 30 day notice of rate/benefit change is in the contract. Some companies give 60 days notice even tho they don't have to.

We used to bid out in August for January renewals. Long before a 30 day rate increase notice. This was for a company with 200 employees.

M&K's Retrievers
09-27-2010, 09:13 PM
We used to bid out in August for January renewals. Long before a 30 day rate increase notice. This was for a company with 200 employees.

Sure. You would put out specs for bid prior to receiving your renewal terms but the quotes you received would be contingent on final experience numbers, renewal rates, etc.

kjrice
09-27-2010, 09:26 PM
I am hearing 25-35% more than last year. The tax and spend lemmings can't spin this one for Obama. I am lucky my wife just got a job where our insurance is company paid, although mine was still barely reasonable.

JDogger
09-27-2010, 10:24 PM
Don't worry....when the other side regains control in 2010 and 2012, all will be made right. Costs and taxes will go down and we'll all be saved. :rolleyes:

FRA regards, JD

M&K's Retrievers
09-27-2010, 10:26 PM
Don't worry....when the other side regains control in 2010 and 2012, all will be made right. Costs and taxes will go down and we'll all be saved. :rolleyes:

FRA regards, JD

Maybe they won't go up as much.

JDogger
09-27-2010, 11:00 PM
Maybe they won't go up as much.

Cheerful forecast Mike... No matter who wins, we lose. Eh?

Woe begone regards, JD

M&K's Retrievers
09-27-2010, 11:52 PM
Cheerful forecast Mike... No matter who wins, we lose. Eh?

Woe begone regards, JD

No, but one thing I've learned is neither taxes nor premiums ever go down. Taxes because the camel's nose in under the tent. Premiums because of inflation and regulations. Contrary to Newton's law, what goes up will not come down.

Woe is me regards,

dnf777
09-28-2010, 05:02 AM
No, but one thing I've learned is neither taxes nor premiums ever go down. Taxes because the camel's nose in under the tent. Premiums because of inflation and regulations. Contrary to Newton's law, what goes up will not come down.

Woe is me regards,

After reading Hawkins latest book "Grand Design", I realize that classical Newtownian laws don't apply to the extremes of the Universe......including gov't spending! :confused:

Brad Slaybaugh
09-28-2010, 05:16 AM
We received our notice at work last week, I currently pay over $200 every two weeks for a pretty good family plan, the amount deducted from my pay every two weeks is going up $80 per pay period, our out of pocket is increasing, our perscription co-pay is increasing, overall it's hard to say what the net increase will be, but it's the largest I've seen yet, this is a global company with over 80,000 employees. The we're sorry letter/notice directly blamed expected/forecasted changes in the health care industry for the increase.

I guess it's kinda like the dog food market has been, you pay more but there is less in the bag!!!!

I'm not sure this is the beginning of the revolution, I think it's the beginning of the redistrubution.

Brad

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 06:10 AM
The coverage is also going from 80/20 to 70/30. Please don't tell me Yardley, that you don't think this is in preparation for this healthcare bill.

ducknwork
09-28-2010, 06:22 AM
Man, you guys are getting me all worried with this insurance increase talk! Oh well, I guess there is no reason to worry really...When I can no longer afford to buy insurance through Blue Cross and buy groceries to feed my family, I can always just drop my insurance and sign up for Obamacare. He'll take care of me when I no longer can. I feel so much better now.



Maybe that was the plan all along regards,

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 07:08 AM
Man, you guys are getting me all worried with this insurance increase talk! Oh well, I guess there is no reason to worry really...When I can no longer afford to buy insurance through Blue Cross and buy groceries to feed my family, I can always just drop my insurance and sign up for Obamacare. He'll take care of me when I no longer can. I feel so much better now.



Maybe that was the plan all along regards,


You know Duck, the increase in my insurance adds up to 2400 dollars a year. The supposed tax(fine) for not having insurance is 2500 dollars a year. Sound suspicious? Me thinks so.

Bayou Magic
09-28-2010, 07:34 AM
Nationwide, health insurance premiums are expected to increase about 9%. This is slightly higher than last year, when the increase was about 8%. Both increases are lower than the rates of increase experienced over most of the last decade. However, the employee share of health costs is expected to go up by an average of over 13% as employers shift a higher percentage of cost to employees (Estimates based on Hewitt Associates). The question for Ken is whether his net decreased because of health insurance premiums, state tax withholding, Federal tax withholding, etc. Federal taxes were actually decreased last year as part of the stimulus program. I believe that was a one-time reduction, but i am not sure. I am not aware of any increase in Federal taxes for anyone, although that situation will change in January when the Bush tax increases take effect. Most states have been increasing taxes to close operating deficits.

That was indeed the spin machine hitting high gear! Jeff, you should be on Nancy's payroll.

fp

YardleyLabs
09-28-2010, 08:39 AM
That was indeed the spin machine hitting high gear! Jeff, you should be on Nancy's payroll.

fp
You don't like having them called the bush tax increases? His administration wrote the law to have taxes go up again after he left office so he wouldn't have to "pay" for them with spending cuts while he was in office. Why shouldn't he be "credited" with his own law? He was certainly happy to have them called the Bush tax cuts. My view is that the country was bankrupted by the decision to pass the 2001 ans 2003 tax cuts without implementing spending cuts sufficient to offset the revenue declines. Passing a law now to continue the tax cuts faces the same hurdle. Extend the cots with no other action and guarantee the complete failure of our economy, or pass a mix of tax changes and spending changes that decrease the overall deficit and begin the process of healing. For now, both parties are choosing to act irresponsibly, and the Republicans, once again, are taking the lead in that direction.

road kill
09-28-2010, 08:46 AM
You don't like having them called the bush tax increases? His administration wrote the law to have taxes go up again after he left office so he wouldn't have to "pay" for them with spending cuts while he was in office. Why shouldn't he be "credited" with his own law? He was certainly happy to have them called the Bush tax cuts. My view is that the country was bankrupted by the decision to pass the 2001 ans 2003 tax cuts without implementing spending cuts sufficient to offset the revenue declines. Passing a law now to continue the tax cuts faces the same hurdle. Extend the cots with no other action and guarantee the complete failure of our economy, or pass a mix of tax changes and spending changes that decrease the overall deficit and begin the process of healing. For now, both parties are choosing to act irresponsibly, and the Republicans, once again, are taking the lead in that direction.

If the country goes bankrupt it will be because we spent more than we had.
Just like any person or business would.
Pretty simple.



RK

dnf777
09-28-2010, 08:58 AM
That was indeed the spin machine hitting high gear! Jeff, you should be on Nancy's payroll.

fp

Who's signature is on the bill responsible for the looming tax increase?

Its real simple.

Don Horstman
09-28-2010, 09:08 AM
The Bush tax cuts go into effect, and the government collects a record amount of money. Seems like tax cuts can work to bring in additional dollars just as the tax cuts did when Reagan was in office. The problem is not a lack of revenue, it is a lack of control with spending. My wife's wages have been frozen for the last three years, and my salary increase the last two years was a 0%, but the answer to our financial situation was not to go out and increase our spending. I am also tired of hearing how we have to "pay" for tax cuts. That is a bunch of baloney. IT IS MY MONEY!!!! The government does not have a right to take as much as they want to support a bunch of failed programs and government policies. Quit sending my money overseas, giving it to people who are unwilling to work for themselves, and to keep a bloated government afloat.

Neither side seems to understand that if you do not have money, then something has to give. I am in charge of roughly 100 employees, and in the current economic situation we did not give raises. We cut staff, spending, and any expenses we could find to cut. We did not go out and ask anyone to pay more so we could give out big raises and buy things we cannot afford.

The answer is simple - jump start the economy by allowing those evil rich people who create jobs to keep their money. Allow uppper middle class, middle class and every class to keep more of their money. They will invest and spend the money to get the economy going. Just quit taking my money to give tax credits to people who do not pay any taxes, and to give benefits to people who are capable of working, but refuse to get off the couch.

YardleyLabs
09-28-2010, 09:36 AM
The Bush tax cuts go into effect, and the government collects a record amount of money. Seems like tax cuts can work to bring in additional dollars just as the tax cuts did when Reagan was in office. The problem is not a lack of revenue, it is a lack of control with spending. My wife's wages have been frozen for the last three years, and my salary increase the last two years was a 0%, but the answer to our financial situation was not to go out and increase our spending. I am also tired of hearing how we have to "pay" for tax cuts. That is a bunch of baloney. IT IS MY MONEY!!!! The government does not have a right to take as much as they want to support a bunch of failed programs and government policies. Quit sending my money overseas, giving it to people who are unwilling to work for themselves, and to keep a bloated government afloat.

Neither side seems to understand that if you do not have money, then something has to give. I am in charge of roughly 100 employees, and in the current economic situation we did not give raises. We cut staff, spending, and any expenses we could find to cut. We did not go out and ask anyone to pay more so we could give out big raises and buy things we cannot afford.

The answer is simple - jump start the economy by allowing those evil rich people who create jobs to keep their money. Allow uppper middle class, middle class and every class to keep more of their money. They will invest and spend the money to get the economy going. Just quit taking my money to give tax credits to people who do not pay any taxes, and to give benefits to people who are capable of working, but refuse to get off the couch.

1. The theory that tax cuts result in increased revenues is easy to show as a hypothesis and hard to demonstrate in fact. Even accepting the Laffer Curve, the open question is where on the curve are we at any point in time. Most research suggests that even before the last round of tax cuts we were at a point where the advantages of cutting taxes further would be less than the cost. The experience with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts supports this. A 2005 study y the CBO estimated that over a ten year period the revenue increases resulting from the tax cuts would only offset 28% of the revenues lost. As the full effects of the tax cuts have finally phased in, Federal revenues have dropped substantially as a percentage of GDP and in absolute dollar terms.

2. The issue of "paying" for tax cuts is simple. If you cut revenues by $100 billion, you should cut spending by $100 billion at the same time. Discipline requires doing both together. Acting in a manner that cuts revenues now and promising to address spending at some future date never works. There are good economic reasons for incurring short term deficits during periods of economic slowdowns and incurring short term surpluses to constrain growth during periods when the economy is overheating. However, there is no excuse for long term deficits. Reagan and Bush both "financed" their tax cut programs by running up massive deficits, creating the conditions that subsequently resulted in economic balloons and collapses. Under Reagan, this produced the taxpayer financed collapses of the S&L industry and the bankruptcies of many pension plans. Both were paid for by taxpayers while the robber barons of excess walked away rich. Under Bush it resulted inthe collapse of 2006/7 that will haunt us for years to come.

Ken Bora
09-28-2010, 09:38 AM
Who's signature is on the bill responsible for the looming tax increase?

Its real simple.

Bill Clinton

M&K's Retrievers
09-28-2010, 10:17 AM
Man, you guys are getting me all worried with this insurance increase talk! Oh well, I guess there is no reason to worry really...When I can no longer afford to buy insurance through Blue Cross and buy groceries to feed my family, I can always just drop my insurance and sign up for Obamacare. He'll take care of me when I no longer can. I feel so much better now.



Maybe that was the plan all along regards,


You know Duck, the increase in my insurance adds up to 2400 dollars a year. The supposed tax(fine) for not having insurance is 2500 dollars a year. Sound suspicious? Me thinks so.

That is what I've been preaching for several months. When the fine is less than the premium and insurance can then be purchased when something in diagnosed, the number of uninsureds will likely double not go down. When this happens, you will not be buying insurance from an insurance company because they will no longer be offering a product that will be impossible to make a (dare I say) profit. The only remaining source will be the single payer system which is what Obamacare has always been about -forcing insurance companies out of the risk bearing business by making them claims payers for the Feds.

Oh, and when we only have a single payer system, do you think the fine will still be $2500? I don't think so, Tim. There will not be a fine. Everyone will be forced to contribute just like now with income tax and SS tax. The quality of care will decline as will medical improvements, research for new drugs, etc. This will take some time to happen but rest assured our kids and grandkids are screwed.:( Look on the bright side. We will have free health care.

November can't come quick enough regards,

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 10:26 AM
That is what I've been preaching for several months. When the fine is less than the premium and insurance can then be purchased when something in diagnosed, the number of uninsureds will likely double not go down. When this happens, you will not be buying insurance from an insurance company because they will no longer be offering a product that will be impossible to make a (dare I say) profit. The only remaining source will be the single payer system which is what Obamacare has always been about -forcing insurance companies out of the risk bearing business by making them claims payers for the Feds.

Oh, and when we only have a single payer system, do you think the fine will still be $2500? I don't think so, TIM. There will not be a fine. Everyone will be forced to contribute just like now with income tax and SS tax. The quality of care will decline as will medical improvements, research for new drugs, etc. This will take some time to happen but rest assured our kids and grandkids are screwed.:( Look on the bright side. We will have free health care.

November can't come quick enough regards,

Who the heck is Tim?

M&K's Retrievers
09-28-2010, 10:50 AM
Who the heck is Tim?

Tim The Tool Man Taylor. His assistant, Al, always said "I don't think so, Tim" when he said something dumb which was most of the time.:-P

ducknwork
09-28-2010, 10:56 AM
Who the heck is Tim?


http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr104/sedwards_08/misc/altim.jpg

Buzz
09-28-2010, 11:01 AM
The Bush tax cuts go into effect, and the government collects a record amount of money. Seems like tax cuts can work to bring in additional dollars just as the tax cuts did when Reagan was in office. The problem is not a lack of revenue, it is a lack of control with spending. My wife's wages have been frozen for the last three years, and my salary increase the last two years was a 0%, but the answer to our financial situation was not to go out and increase our spending. I am also tired of hearing how we have to "pay" for tax cuts. That is a bunch of baloney. IT IS MY MONEY!!!! The government does not have a right to take as much as they want to support a bunch of failed programs and government policies. Quit sending my money overseas, giving it to people who are unwilling to work for themselves, and to keep a bloated government afloat.

Neither side seems to understand that if you do not have money, then something has to give. I am in charge of roughly 100 employees, and in the current economic situation we did not give raises. We cut staff, spending, and any expenses we could find to cut. We did not go out and ask anyone to pay more so we could give out big raises and buy things we cannot afford.

The answer is simple - jump start the economy by allowing those evil rich people who create jobs to keep their money. Allow uppper middle class, middle class and every class to keep more of their money. They will invest and spend the money to get the economy going. Just quit taking my money to give tax credits to people who do not pay any taxes, and to give benefits to people who are capable of working, but refuse to get off the couch.

Do you think about what you're typing?

You don't want to pay for tax cuts? But you want to cut spending!

What does paying for tax cuts mean?

It means if you take in less money, you have to cut spending...

But you believe that cutting taxes results in increased revenue. So, I guess if we cut taxes, that will reduce the deficit.:rolleyes:

ducknwork
09-28-2010, 11:16 AM
Since we are once again talking about taxes and the class envy that causes us all to hate the rich, I dug a little and found this gem from a couple years ago.

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=32356

So true, so true.

depittydawg
09-28-2010, 10:06 PM
So, I guess if we cut taxes, that will reduce the deficit.:rolleyes:

George Bush tried that. Gave us a Great Recession, in which we are still mired.

ducknwork
09-29-2010, 06:14 AM
George Bush tried that. Gave us a Great Recession, in which we are still mired.

Among other things, but of course, you wouldn't mention any of them.:rolleyes:

dnf777
09-29-2010, 07:04 AM
Among other things, but of course, you wouldn't mention any of them.:rolleyes:

Oh, you must be referring to the two wars we're still mired in. The unjust one, and the justified but ignored war under his watch that we're now having to deal with? You're right!

Won't even mention "no child left behind"....although I admired his goals, the implementation was flawed and has hurt our kids... 'they isn't learn'n'!

M&K's Retrievers
09-29-2010, 07:19 AM
Oh, you must be referring to the two wars we're still mired in. The unjust one, and the justified but ignored war under his watch that we're now having to deal with? You're right!

Won't even mention "no child left behind"....although I admired his goals, the implementation was flawed and has hurt our kids... 'they isn't learn'n'!

Sigh.There is no possible way that Bush was worse than the inept clown we have now. Oh, and Bush wasn't great.

ducknwork
09-29-2010, 08:25 AM
Oh, you must be referring to the two wars we're still mired in. The unjust one, and the justified but ignored war under his watch that we're now having to deal with? You're right!

Won't even mention "no child left behind"....although I admired his goals, the implementation was flawed and has hurt our kids... 'they isn't learn'n'!

Yes, as we all know, the entire 'recession' is completely Bush's fault. All by himself. Nobody else had any effect on it whatsoever.

I hope you don't really believe that baloney.:roll:



Completely unrelated, but this is an interesting factoid...
DNF and I joined the RTF the same month. As of this post, I have EXACTLY 1/2 as many posts as him. I hope that one day I can have so much knowledge to share with others.

Ken Bora
09-29-2010, 08:30 AM
Completely unrelated, but this is an interesting factoid...
DNF and I joined the RTF the same month. As of this post, I have EXACTLY 1/2 as many posts as him. I hope that one day I can have so much knowledge to share with others.

Rtf posts are like hunt test blind retrieve handles.
We donít count the number of whistles,
just the quality of the cast.:cool::cool:



.

dnf777
09-29-2010, 09:52 AM
Yes, as we all know, the entire 'recession' is completely Bush's fault. All by himself. Nobody else had any effect on it whatsoever.

I hope you don't really believe that baloney.:roll:



Completely unrelated, but this is an interesting factoid...
DNF and I joined the RTF the same month. As of this post, I have EXACTLY 1/2 as many posts as him. I hope that one day I can have so much knowledge to share with others.


Try voicing an opinion or thought contrary to the ruling party here, and see how often you have to defend yourself! Since silence is viewed as acquiesence, I tend to respond to comments like the one above. ;)

And no, I don't believe Bush is solely responsible for the recession. He certainly played a large role, but too much irresponsible purchasing on credit, risky investments, and poor leadership all contributed as well. The wars certainly didn't help the budget, even though many of the supplemental spending bills were not included in the debit column of our national budget, as if that would just make it go away....:rolleyes:

ducknwork
09-29-2010, 10:42 AM
Try voicing an opinion or thought contrary to the ruling party here, and see how often you have to defend yourself! Since silence is viewed as acquiesence, I tend to respond to comments like the one above. ;)

In all reality, I think the forum is pretty close to 50/50 lib/conservative, so maybe it's just you...;)

And no, I don't believe Bush is solely responsible for the recession. He certainly played a large role, but too much irresponsible purchasing on credit, risky investments, and poor leadership all contributed as well. The wars certainly didn't help the budget, even though many of the supplemental spending bills were not included in the debit column of our national budget, as if that would just make it go away....:rolleyes:

Then why make yet another post that seems to blame it all on Bush? I think it is obvious that I wasn't referring to the 'causes' that you mentioned, but you brought them up, just to blame Bush. You could have just as easily mentioned other things not Bush related that causes the financial meltdown, but you chose not to. Why? I guess you don't want to miss any opportunity to bash Bush.

Been hanging out with RP lately?

dnf777
09-29-2010, 12:21 PM
Then why make yet another post that seems to blame it all on Bush? I think it is obvious that I wasn't referring to the 'causes' that you mentioned, but you brought them up, just to blame Bush. You could have just as easily mentioned other things not Bush related that causes the financial meltdown, but you chose not to. Why? I guess you don't want to miss any opportunity to bash Bush.

Been hanging out with RP lately?

Read YOUR post. YOU said "among other things". I was just filling in two blanks. YOU brought up sole responsibility for recession....not me. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip, which in this case, I can understand. ;)

In all reality, I think the forum is pretty close to 50/50 lib/conservative, so maybe it's just you...

I am an independent with different stances on different issues, so by your pigeon-holing everyone into only TWO categores, yes, I am alone, and don't fit either. But I am not alone in that regard, by any means.

ducknwork
09-29-2010, 01:21 PM
Read YOUR post. YOU said "among other things". I was just filling in two blanks. YOU brought up sole responsibility for recession....not me. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip, which in this case, I can understand. ;)

In all reality, I think the forum is pretty close to 50/50 lib/conservative, so maybe it's just you...

I am an independent with different stances on different issues, so by your pigeon-holing everyone into only TWO categores, yes, I am alone, and don't fit either. But I am not alone in that regard, by any means.

Re: your first paragraph, I'm not stupid. I think you know full well what you were implying.

Re: your second paragraph, if I had said Rep/Dem, then Ind would be a third choice that makes sense. However, I said lib/con, so independent makes no sense in comparison with those two. YOU are the one who said 'ruling party', and placed yourself at odds with 'them'. If there really was a 'ruling party' on POTUS, then the inverse would be a 'non ruling party' which would encompass everyone else not included in the former. And no, you are not alone. By everything you have ever shown on here, you would fit nicely in the 'liberal' category.

dnf777
09-29-2010, 05:45 PM
By everything you have ever shown on here, you would fit nicely in the 'liberal' category.

You would think that. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion. :D

david gibson
09-29-2010, 06:12 PM
You would think that. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion. :D

yeah ducknwork, havent you figured out yet that dave is the perfect middle of the road independent? he resides in the perfect center, and he and only he knows all and what is best for us.

funny...liberals think the same thing......:rolleyes:

Don Horstman
09-30-2010, 11:01 AM
You can argue all you want, but after the tax cuts under Reagan and Bush 2, the treasury brought in a record amount of revenues for that time period. Again, we do not have a revenue problem we have a spending problem, and the last time I checked for the "it is all GW's fault" people Congress controls the purse strings. I am also amazed that you want to throw the cost of the two wars into this mess since the cost of at least one of those wars was touted as a necessary war by the current resident of the White House, and the cost of the wars is in comparison to the overall budget we have amazingly small. I am sure the opposition party made it their official position in 1943 to stop WW II until FDR could prove he could pay for it. John Wayne had a great view of this, while he was personally opposed to the Vietnam War, once the decision was made to go in, he felt we should stop fighting over it and just win. Same way I feel about President O - even if you disagree with his position on the "necessary" part of the Afghan war, now is the time to help him win the dang thing. Get over the necessary and cost argument and just WIN.

Again the bottom line is we have rapidly increased spending over the last 10 years. WE DO NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM!!!! We have a spending problem.

For Buzz and some of the other people who had such pleasant responses to me, I am not letting GW, the Republican party, Obama, or the Democrats off of the hook. The party of fiscal responsibility spent like drunken sailors when they had all three branches under their control, and for the last two years the dems have spent like an entire drunken fleet of sailors. I think both sides have screwed the pooch on our budget over the last decade. Look around the country and you will see state after state where the same thing is happening. At the same time you see states that have had a much easier time of it during the current recession because their elected officials were more responsible with spending before the crash. As a result they have been able to ride out this bad time.

troy schwab
09-30-2010, 01:06 PM
You can argue all you want, but after the tax cuts under Reagan and Bush 2, the treasury brought in a record amount of revenues for that time period. Again, we do not have a revenue problem we have a spending problem, and the last time I checked for the "it is all GW's fault" people Congress controls the purse strings. I am also amazed that you want to throw the cost of the two wars into this mess since the cost of at least one of those wars was touted as a necessary war by the current resident of the White House, and the cost of the wars is in comparison to the overall budget we have amazingly small. I am sure the opposition party made it their official position in 1943 to stop WW II until FDR could prove he could pay for it. John Wayne had a great view of this, while he was personally opposed to the Vietnam War, once the decision was made to go in, he felt we should stop fighting over it and just win. Same way I feel about President O - even if you disagree with his position on the "necessary" part of the Afghan war, now is the time to help him win the dang thing. Get over the necessary and cost argument and just WIN.

Again the bottom line is we have rapidly increased spending over the last 10 years. WE DO NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM!!!! We have a spending problem.

For Buzz and some of the other people who had such pleasant responses to me, I am not letting GW, the Republican party, Obama, or the Democrats off of the hook. The party of fiscal responsibility spent like drunken sailors when they had all three branches under their control, and for the last two years the dems have spent like an entire drunken fleet of sailors. I think both sides have screwed the pooch on our budget over the last decade. Look around the country and you will see state after state where the same thing is happening. At the same time you see states that have had a much easier time of it during the current recession because their elected officials were more responsible with spending before the crash. As a result they have been able to ride out this bad time.

Very well stated..... I agree completely!