Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 08-16-2012, 06:44 PM   #1
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Hypocrites in Washington

I usually don't start threads here but......


More Hypocrites in Washington:


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Thursday denied for a second time that he ever lobbied the government for stimulus money, even though he sent letters —with his signature — to the Energy Department and Labor Department asking for millions of the program's dollars on behalf of two companies in Wisconsin.

Ryan's new denial in an interview with Cincinnati's WCPO-TV contradicts letters that Ryan wrote in 2009 to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies. One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., later received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records.

The congressman's denial comes as new audio surfaced of Ryan telling Boston's WBZ Radio two years ago that he "did not ask for stimulus money," in response to a caller's question about the recovery program. "I'm not one who votes for something and then writes to the government to ask them to send us money," Ryan said. The exchange was first reported Thursday by The Boston Globe.

But a year earlier, Ryan asked Chu to set aside funds for the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. Ryan said the stimulus cash would help his state create thousands of new jobs, save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The apparent contradiction underscores Ryan's conflicts with his larger federal budget proposal as the House Budget Committee chairman. That plan would slash Energy Department programs aimed at creating green jobs and calls for "getting Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy — and that includes our energy sector."

Ryan's actions in Congress have been drawing fresh scrutiny since he was named last weekend as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's running mate.

Ryan's campaign spokesman, Brendan Buck, told The Associated Press earlier this week that the congressman's lobbying for the stimulus funds was part of a "a legitimate constituent service." But he did not immediately respond to questions seeking comment on either Ryan's denial Thursday or on the newly surfaced audio.

The vice presidential contender is not alone among Republicans who criticized the stimulus plan only to seek money later. Georgia's Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, for example, blasted the bill as a bloated government giveaway yet asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to steer $50 million in stimulus money to a constituent's bio-energy project.

Ryan's views are also consistent with his running mate's long-held position that the stimulus was a flawed idea that did not create private sector jobs.

"That stimulus didn't work," Romney said at an Ohio speech in June. "That stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work."

Yet in Ryan's letter to the Labor Department in October 2009, he backed the Energy Center of Wisconsin's grant application for stimulus money "to develop an industry-driven training and placement agenda that intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs." The company did not win the Labor Department grant, federal records show.
PaulS is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 07:31 PM   #2
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I usually don't start threads here but......


More Hypocrites in Washington:


.
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!
scottw is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 07:33 PM   #3
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Ryan's hypocrisy has been well documented, no need to rub it in.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 03:37 AM   #4
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
don't know if this was done knowingly and that he knowingly lied about it or if he was unaware but I'm curious....if you are a senator or congress person and you voice and even vote against federal money for one thing or another and then an individual or business in your district requests assistance or access to those available federal funds through your office....do you tell them to screw?

the story doesn't seem to have much traction for some reason
scottw is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 07:30 AM   #5
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!
They're all the same.
PaulS is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 11:06 AM   #6
FishermanTim
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
FishermanTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hyde Park, MA
Posts: 4,152
If it was reported in The Globe then it must be the gospel truth, since the Globe has NEVER skewed their stories for political gain!

Yeah, and Clinton never unhakled!

Maybe if the story specified which stimilus money Ryan was talking about, it might shed a little light on the subject?

Was he talking about the Bank Loan (stimulus) bailout? The Auto Co (stimulus) bailout?
Maybe it was the unemploymeny stimulus package?

Like I said, since it was reported in the Globe, I believe that rag as much as I would if I read The Inquirer!

If it wasn't so volitile and enraging, I would really be looking forward to this upcoming election, but as it stands, we will have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and the current one hasn't shown any signs of improvement.
FishermanTim is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 11:11 AM   #7
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
....if you are a senator or congress person and you voice and even vote against federal money for one thing or another and then an individual or business in your district requests assistance or access to those available federal funds through your office....do you tell them to screw?
Congresspeople vote for and against things they don't agree with all the time. It's part of the negotiation process, you suck up the funding for the program you don't agree with to get a cut you do or perhaps money into your district to benefit your constituents.

The difference now is that up until the 1990's this was accepted as the norm...you went in and got the best deal you could.

Today, the rhetoric is at the fringes leaving no room for our legislators to legislate in a manner to benefit the most people. Read the bills being passed and Congress is still getting a lot of work done, but it's detached from the public debate.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 02:07 PM   #8
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Congresspeople vote for and against things they don't agree with all the time. It's part of the negotiation process, you suck up the funding for the program you don't agree with to get a cut you do or perhaps money into your district to benefit your constituents.

The difference now is that up until the 1990's this was accepted as the norm...you went in and got the best deal you could.

Today, the rhetoric is at the fringes leaving no room for our legislators to legislate in a manner to benefit the most people. Read the bills being passed and Congress is still getting a lot of work done, but it's detached from the public debate.

-spence
so you are saying by congressional standards..he's not hypocrit
scottw is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 03:21 PM   #9
Mr. Sandman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Mr. Sandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,649
I am still waiting for the green job revolution promised 4 years ago that was going to save the american worker.

Hows that hope and change working for you?

Lets not talk about VP's because Biden is laughable quite frankly. Can you imagine if he ever became president if something happened to Obama?
Mr. Sandman is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 03:38 PM   #10
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman View Post
I am still waiting for the green job revolution promised 4 years ago that was going to save the american worker.

Hows that hope and change working for you?

?
Actually, many Iowa republican farmers have come out against Romney because he wants to end the tax credit (raise taxes?) established to help put wind farms on ag lands. 18 perc of their energy is now wind generated. 7000 wind jobs in Iowa. It is the whole issue of only having government support for industry one likes, like coal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 03:46 PM   #11
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Actually, many Iowa republican farmers have come out against Romney because he wants to end the tax credit (raise taxes?) established to help put wind farms on ag lands. 18 perc of their energy is now wind generated. 7000 wind jobs in Iowa. It is the whole issue of only having government support for industry one likes, like coal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama and Romney pandering to energy interests
August 16
The Washington Post Editorial Board
The Post’s View

LIGHTLY SETTLED by people but thickly planted with corn, Iowa wields outsize influence in national politics. Presidential contenders from both parties woo voters in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses by promising everything from crop subsidies to ethanol mandates. The state’s more recent status as a swing state — President George W. Bush won in 2004, President Obama in 2008 — has added to its clout, even if the last census reduced its electoral votes from seven to six.

So there’s no surprise in Mr. Obama’s three-day bus tour of the state this week: He munched pork, downed beer and decried Congress’s failure to pass a new, five-year farm bill. According to Mr. Obama, the record drought ravaging corn farms in Iowa and elsewhere strengthens the case for the legislation. “Now, the best way to help these states is for Congress to act,” he said. “They need to pass a farm bill that not only helps farmers and ranchers respond to natural disasters but also makes necessary reforms and gives them some long-term certainty.”


.Actually, almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought-stricken farms one way or the other. About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps, an essential part of the safety net. The rest is largely a grab bag of subsidies for producers, with the biggest benefits for the largest farms, i.e., those least vulnerable to drought and other risks. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

Mr. Obama is also promising Iowans an extended tax credit for wind-energy production, which expires at the end of this year but to date has helped Iowa generate 20 percent of its electricity from that source. Not incidentally, Iowa farmers get $11 million a year renting their land to windmill operators. Mr. Obama argues that this is job-creating clean energy, and he is hardly alone in that. Supposedly fiscally conservative, free-market Republicans such as Rep. Steve King of Iowa tout the tax credit, which costs the Treasury well over#^& $1 billion a year. Of course, that money might have created even more jobs elsewhere, or saved more carbon emissions, if the government did not steer it into Iowa wind farms.

"Republican challenger Mitt Romney deserves credit for opposing an extension to the wind subsidy, a position that could hurt him in Iowa and in Colorado, another windy swing state."
scottw is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 09:14 PM   #12
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
A Washington post editorial says Romney deserves credit for opposing it. Great. It also states that the bill would do almost nothing for draught stricken farmers, but gives no details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 12:06 AM   #13
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
A Washington post editorial says Romney deserves credit for opposing it. Great. It also states that the bill would do almost nothing for draught stricken farmers, but gives no details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
well.....you got the part about it being from the Washington Post right....the rest...not so much...WaPo editorial board by the way
" The Post’s View"

Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage.

IN OTHER WORDS, NOT SIMPLY SOME SLANTED OP-ED FROM A LEFT LEANING RAG...BUT RATHER A VIEW FROM THE BRAINTRUST ELITES OF A LEFT LEANING RAG

"draught stricken farmers"....does this mean they're drunk or something?

Actually, almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought-stricken farms one way or the other. About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps, an essential part of the safety net. The rest is largely a grab bag of subsidies for producers, with the biggest benefits for the largest farms, i.e., those least vulnerable to drought and other risks. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

Last edited by scottw; 08-18-2012 at 04:15 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 09:23 AM   #14
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
I get my information on ag. from Lancasterfarming.com, which is the website for electronic edition of The Farming News. For months, it has had articles about the dozens of programs that will end September if the new bill doesn't pass, including crop insurances. There seems to be substantial concern about very specific aspects of the bill, like the fact that without immediate enactment of a new bill the USDA is "unable to activate all of its disaster programs (from August 12 edition, p.A14). Based on all the information I have read over the past months, it is pretty clear that the statement that almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought stricken farmers is patently false.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 09:56 AM   #15
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
I get my information on ag. from Lancasterfarming.com, which is the website for electronic edition of The Farming News. For months, it has had articles about the dozens of programs that will end September if the new bill doesn't pass, including crop insurances. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

There seems to be substantial concern about very specific aspects of the bill, like the fact that without immediate enactment of a new bill the USDA is "unable to activate all of its disaster programs (from August 12 edition, p.A14).
Ryan voted for, and the House passed, a narrow $383 million emergency relief measure and sent it to the Senate. But instead of quickly passing and signing it, President Obama and his Democratic allies are holding the Midwest hostage in the name of passing a $1 trillion big-government goodie bag laden with useless subsidies and unprecedented welfare spending.

Based on all the information I have read over the past months, it is pretty clear that the statement that almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought stricken farmers is patently false.
I guess if the farmers are going to end up on food stamps like so much of Obama Nation...you may have a point
I thought we were SUPPOSED to be going through these things and eliminating waste and pork and unnecessary government subsidies ?

just another attempt to fund overbloated programs and create new ones wrapped around an emergency and demonization of anyone who gets in the way....just sad

Last edited by scottw; 08-18-2012 at 10:18 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 10:25 AM   #16
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I guess if the farmers are going to end up on food stamps like so much Obama Nation...you may have a point
I thought we were SUPPOSED to be going through these things and eliminating waste and pork and unnecessary government subsidies ?
You might know that the changes in the eligibility requirements in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, combined with the recession, led to the growth in food stamp use. The bill Obama backs cuts something like $4 billion from food stamps. I know, everything was perfect until mid 2009 when some of Obamas policies started to take effect and wrecked the country.

By the way, you call it "unprecedented welfare spending." Your words? What are you basing it on?

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 11:05 AM   #17
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
You might know that the changes in the eligibility requirements in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, combined with the recession, led to the growth in food stamp use. The bill Obama backs cuts something like $4 billion from food stamps. the Senate’s version of the farm bill contains just $4.5 billion in cuts to the program, and the House Agriculture Committee’s is not much better at $16.5 billion.
I know, everything was perfect until mid 2009 when some of Obamas policies started to take effect and wrecked the country.

By the way, you call it "unprecedented welfare spending." Your words? What are you basing it on?
"Food stamps are currently the nation’s second-largest welfare program, behind Medicaid, and account for fully two-thirds of the Department of Agriculture’s budget. The standard liberal line that the program’s rolls have expanded because of the recession doesn’t scan: They have expanded in good times and bad, from one in 50 Americans in the 1970s to one in seven today, including a surge from 30 million enrollees to 46 million under this administration unprecedented. A better explanation is so-called “categorical eligibility” standards, which state that individuals who receive other federal welfare benefits are presumptively eligible for food stamps, and which are so loosely interpreted that some states consider receiving a welfare brochure close enough for government dole. (Under the program as currently structured, a state that makes more people eligible can transfer federal dollars to its citizens at almost no cost to itself.) As if that wasn’t bad enough, President Obama’s stimulus further eroded the eligibility standards by suspending the work requirements for the able-bodied."

In fiscal 2011, the federal government spent more than $75 billion on food stamps, up from $34.6 billion at the end of fiscal 2008, according to the USDA.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.

The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing.

President Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013.

About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps...this doesn't soud like any kind of serious reduction from 75 billion in 2011

Last edited by scottw; 08-18-2012 at 11:19 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 03:36 PM   #18
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Ok, so can you at least agree that disaster aid to farmers will be impacted if the bill isn't passed? That is a contradiction to the first article you quoted. I will agree that there is a ton of money in food stamps. You prefer the Romney plan to lower taxes for millionaires and reduce food stamps. I believe the validity of economics that says food stamps are good stimulus in a recesion. "When Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less." Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist For comparison, the cost of food stamps over the next ten years is about the same amount of money as the Bush tax cuts.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 05:59 PM   #19
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Ok, so can you at least agree that disaster aid to farmers will be impacted if the bill isn't passed? I haven't seen anything that indicates that, the Senate should have passed and the President should have signed the Emergency Relief passed in the House if they really cared about the victims That is a contradiction to the first article you quoted. It didn't say there is none...80% Food Stamps and bunch of pork leaves " almost nothing in the farm bill " I will agree that there is a ton of money in food stamps. brilliant! You prefer the Romney plan to lower taxes for millionaires and reduce food stamps. I believe the validity of economics that says food stamps are good stimulus in a recesion.the best! "When Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less."right, always cheaper to redistribute money through a massive bureaucracy than to let people keep it in the first place Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist For comparison, the cost of food stamps over the next ten years is about the same amount of money as the Bush tax cuts.

I guess if we put every american on unemploment and food stamps the ecomomy would boom!

I know which VECTOR you choose
scottw is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 07:24 PM   #20
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I guess if we put every american on unemploment and food stamps the ecomomy would boom!

I know which VECTOR you choose
Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 04:06 AM   #21
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.
good one
scottw is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 09:09 AM   #22
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.
That would be the same VECTOR as unemployment benefits and food stamps. That would not be governance in the direction of individual freedom which requires individual responsibility. That would not be government OF, BY, and FOR the people. That would be government FROM government. That would be government picking winners. That would be dependence on government not self governance. That would be anti the founding VECTOR toward individual freedom garanteed by the Constitution, toward the VECTOR of collective groups dominating individuals by trashing that Constitution and giving the Federal government powers and responsibilities not granted in the Constitution which reserves those powers to the people. And by taking those powers and responsibilities from individuals, it makes them dependent on government, even Monsanto, Cargill, and race horse owners. Which is the VECTOR of progressive government.
detbuch is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 02:48 PM   #23
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
I was curious as to what exactly this is....McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses...

when I Googled it the first thing that popped up was Zimmy's comments here..the second was a THINKPROGRESS article where it is mentioned in passing..other than that some vague references I guess..."bluegrass boodoggle" or something...had to do a lot of digging to finally figure out what this massive and unfair tax break being enjoyed by race horses not only in Kentucky is...

"McConnell in 2008 took credit for authoring the tax break, which allows accelerated, three-year depreciation for racehorses. At the time, he called it an issue of fairness given the limited racing life of many horses."

also read this today and it seemed so accurate....



David Gelernter, a Yale professor writes in his new book America-Lite:

"Everyone agrees that President Obama is not only a man but a symbol. He is a symbol of America's decisive victory over bigotry. But he is also a symbol, a living embodiment, of the failure of American education and its ongoing replacement by political indoctrination. He is a symbol of the new American elite, the new establishment, where left-liberal politics is no longer a conviction, no longer a way of thinking: it is built-in mind-furniture you take for granted without needing to think."


I don't know whether the accelerated depriciation of a race horse is "fair' or not but if you can't see the difference between massive and yes Zimmy..."unprecedented" handouts funnelled through the bureauracies of the federal government occupying greater and greater portions of our overall spending and depreciation of an asset, property or equipment through what I would enthusiasticaly agree is far too complicated a tax code... please show me someone who disdains all of these "special breaks" and tax treatment,corporate welfare who is willing and supportive of major tax code overhaul and simplification...they never seem to live in the same mind....
scottw is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 03:11 PM   #24
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
please show me someone who disdains all of these "special breaks" and tax treatment,corporate welfare who is willing and supportive of major tax code overhaul and simplification...they never seem to live in the same mind....
I agree. Just like the side that claims they want limited government, less spending, and balanced budgets oversaw 8 years of increased spending, decreased taxes, and growing deficits. The whole limited government, for the people, etc is great, but it isn't anymore of a reality with one party or the other; it is just different priorities.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 05:17 PM   #25
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
I agree. Just like the side that claims they want limited government, less spending, and balanced budgets some Americans still embrace the idea, some just sneer at the thought oversaw 8 years of increased spending, decreased taxes, and growing deficits. 1 out of 3 The whole limited government, for the people, etc is great, so you support this concept? great? but it isn't anymore of a reality with one party or the other; it is just different priorities. or you mock it because in your opinion it can never be reality?[COLOR="blue"][/COLOR]
these are the kinds of things that you'd say to a hostage...I know you want to leave but the door is locked and there is noone that can hear you no matter how loud you yell so just give up and accept what's going to happen to you....

sorry, I have more faith in this country and it's citizens and in the possibility that we can elect exceptional leaders that will nudge us back on the "whole limited government, for the people, etc " thingy..

Hope and Change.....
scottw is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 08:33 PM   #26
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
these are the kinds of things that you'd say to a hostage...I know you want to leave but the door is locked and there is noone that can hear you no matter how loud you yell so just give up and accept what's going to happen to you....

sorry, I have more faith in this country and it's citizens and in the possibility that we can elect exceptional leaders that will nudge us back on the "whole limited government, for the people, etc " thingy..

Hope and Change.....
mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 09:09 PM   #27
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Who is middle class? According to this article $70k married jointly is middle class. Who is rich and who is poor? Seems like everyone has a different answer to this question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline  
Old 08-20-2012, 12:16 AM   #28
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So we are reduced to a hopeless muddle of "plans" for how the federal government will run our lives. There is no escape. The planners and bureaucrats differ only in priorities. Ultimately, it must be class warfare. Marx was right.

Funny how raising the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200 will mean that federal government services will have to be cut. And because those services will be cut, the middle class will have to pay more for education, car repairs, e.coli outbreaks and all the other services the federal gvt. provides. States actually pay most of their education costs, and most of the cost of road repairs. We could not possibly prevent e.coli without the federal gvt. And "all the other services the federal government provides" would better not be named. The massive list of agencies, subsidies, and programs included in those services might make us wonder what is left for the rest of us to do and how it got that way. Of course, it would explain what the author means when he says "In other words Ryan's tax cut is a great deal--if you don't actually rely on the federal government for anything."
Some might even wonder why we rely on the federal government to do so much for us. We expect a few things, like the military, you know, like what the Constitution delegates to the government. But "all the other services the federal government provides"--yeah, better not print a list.

On the other hand, we are so used to it . . . why not? Maybe the government can do even more. Life is such a terrible burden for the middle class and poor . . . the government has done such a wonderful job for us . . . look how much longer we live, and how it takes care of our health, and creates jobs for us, and gives us money and food stamps when it doesn't create enough jobs for all of us . . . yeah! And if making the 2% pay more for our stuff, so what? Somebody has to pay for it. They don't need it. They send our jobs overseas. The more they get, the less we do. What's fair is fair. Politicians like Ryan and Romney are not for us. They are for the rich.

So, the author talks about Ryan's budget plan, but how does that compare to the current congressional budget. Oh, right, there is no budget. Apparently, the federal government doesn't need a budget. Silly of Ryan to concoct one. That is so twentieth century. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.

Last edited by detbuch; 08-20-2012 at 12:23 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 08-20-2012, 03:36 AM   #29
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
mitt Romney of Romney care?
"ROMNEYCARE"

In November 2004, political leaders began advocating major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured.

At the same time, the ACT (Affordable Care Today) Coalition introduced a bill that expanded MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage and increased health coverage subsidy programs and required employers to either provide coverage or pay an assessment to the state. The coalition began gathering signatures to place their proposal on the ballot in November 2006 if the legislature did not enact comprehensive health care reform, resulting in the collection of over 75,000 signatures on the MassACT ballot proposal. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation also sponsored a study, "Roadmap to Coverage," to expand coverage to everyone in the Commonwealth.[17]

Attention focused on the House when then-Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, speaking at a Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation Roadmap To Coverage forum in October 2005, pledged to pass a bill through the House by the end of the session. At the forum, the Foundation issued a series of reports on reform options, all of which included an individual mandate. At the end of the month, the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing approved a reform proposal crafted by House Speaker DiMasi, Committee co-chair Patricia Walrath and other House members.[18]

Massachusetts also faced pressure from the federal government to make changes to the federal waiver that allows the state to operate an expanded Medicaid program. Under the existing waiver, the state was receiving $385 million in federal funds to reimburse hospitals for services provided to the uninsured. The free care pool had to be restructured so that individuals, rather than institutions, received the funding.[19]

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[20] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[21] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[22] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.


the lesson of "ROMNEYCARE"

In 2012, the Blue Cross Foundation of Massachusetts funded and released in April research that showed that the 2006 law and its subsequent amendments – simply in terms of measuring the state-budget effect on the uncompensated care pool and funding subsidized insurance (see Background section above) had cost approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2011 vs approximately $1 billion in fiscal year 2006. Some of this doubling in cost was funded by temporary grants and waivers from the United States federal government.

The Blue Cross funded research did not address the increased costs in premiums for employers and individuals or other market dynamics – such as increased providers' costs and increased co-pays/deductibles – necessary to meet minimum creditable coverage standards that were introduced in Massachusetts by other parts of the 2006 legislature and its resulting regulations. Separate research on Premiums and Expenditures released by the Massachusetts DHCFP in May 2012 found that fully adjusted premiums per member per month (PPMPM) for Massachusetts residents covered by comprehensive private insurance policies (approximately two thirds of the state population) increased approximately 9% in both 2009 and 2010 (latest data available) for subscribers in the "merged market," 7% in the midsized group market, and 5.4% in the large group market. These premium increase do not reflect actual resident experience particularly in the merged market because Massachusetts regulations allow age and other rating factors (e.g., even if premiums were held flat for 55 year olds living on Cape Cod in construction work from year to year, the 55 year old in 2009 would pay 10% more in 2010 for the same policy, possibly with lesser benefits).

Because of this combination of a larger than anticipated effect on the state budget (see 2012 Blue Cross research compared to Governor Romney's proposal to the Medicaid Commission in 2006) because of the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform and continued growth above inflation for private insurance (see DHCFP research), the legislature is considering strict provider price controls as of May 2012 with expected passage by July 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...-america-next/

"Under Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts has tried a couple of methods for limiting the government’s exposure to rising health-care costs. First, Patrick forced insurers to stop raising premiums, which led to a predictable train wreck, as insurers started hemorrhaging cash. When a state appeals board overturned Patrick’s decree, he shifted gears, and began going after the prices charged by hospitals and doctors. On Friday, the Massachusetts House unveiled new legislation toward that end. And progressive health-care observers around the country are taking notes."

Last edited by scottw; 08-20-2012 at 04:55 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 08-20-2012, 10:41 AM   #30
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So we are reduced to a hopeless muddle of "plans" for how the federal government will run our lives. There is no escape. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.

Yup, throw your hands in the air and say" nothin we can do about it", might as well
just go along with it. Forget the fact that we are broke,they have the sheeple convinced
down the road all will be well and we will all live in Govt. Nirvana.
Move on, nothing to see here.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com