Barack Obama: The Real Problem.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jbunny**

Please enlighten me as to what taxes do not come from the governement?

**Frazzled**

US has some, if not The highest tax rates in the developed world. Fed, state, and local can meet or exceed 50%.

**ShumaGorath**

jbunny wrote:Please enlighten me as to what taxes do not come from the governement?

Many would argue the insurance infrastructure we now have. We by law must participate in it to receive health care (or drive!) beyond simple emergency care and the rising cost business health care providers is one of the leading drivers preventing the rise of wages in jobs in America (wallmart for instance is quite pro health reform, and is the nations largest employer).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:US has some, if not The highest tax rates in the developed world. Fed, state, and local can meet or exceed 50%.

You just described virtually every western developed nation on the planet.

**Frazzled**

Which eliminates your argument that we have lower tax rates. We have the same rates PLUS healthcare costs.

Remember boys and girls, in the US, if you're happy with the DMV, you'll love government healthcare.

**JohnHwangDD**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Medicare for Sr. citizens of poor income. Medicaid for everyone of poor income.

Raise the tax burden high enough, and everybody becomes "poor".

Which is the plan, right?

Yeah, raise the taxes high enough and we might actually start making as much per capita as Denmark or Germany. How awful that would be!

I must admit, I did my studies before "new math," but the mathmatics of that statement eludes me.

I was just using the same logic DD was.

Excuse me?

If the Dems have their way and apply confiscatory taxes as they want to, then people's discretionary incomes go down. It's not ordinary people get raises when taxes go up. If discretionary income goes down, you have less money available for fixed costs like food, shelter, clothing. Ergo, higher takes, broadly applied will make us all poorer, while simultaneously giving Big Government an even larger share in people's lives by taking more and more choices away from the person.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Which eliminates your argument that we have lower tax rates. We have the same rates PLUS healthcare costs.

Remember boys and girls, in the US, if you're happy with the DMV, you'll love government healthcare.

Please see attached graph. I was a bit late in attaching it. I figured a visual aid would help our friends who like shiny colors.

If the Dems have their way and apply confiscatory taxes as they want to, then people's discretionary incomes go down. It's not ordinary people get raises when taxes go up. If discretionary income goes down, you have less money available for fixed costs like food, shelter, clothing. Ergo, higher takes, broadly applied will make us all poorer, while simultaneously giving Big Government an even larger share in people's lives by taking more and more choices away from the person.

Funny then, how the most rapidly rising cost to the average american household is healthcare costs. The reformation of which being something you are trying every step of the way to prevent. Go ahead, keep taxes low, cut down health reform, and watch as healthcare continues to bloat and becomes 20% of gdp. Then 30%. Not that the economy could handle that much.

**Frazzled**

Hence my statement that your argument is mathmatically correct.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Which eliminates your argument that we have lower tax rates. We have the same rates PLUS healthcare costs.

Remember boys and girls, in the US, if you're happy with the DMV, you'll love government healthcare.

Please see attached graph. I was a bit late in attaching it. I figured a visual aid would help our friends who like shiny colors.

Graph is pretty but irrelvant.
What the comparable?
Federal only?
Local and state?
Include average VAT and user fees
How about SSI and other programs across nations?

Lies, damn, lies and statistics baby.

**Fateweaver**

ShumaGorath wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Medicare for Sr. citizens of poor income. Medicaid for everyone of poor income.

Raise the tax burden high enough, and everybody becomes "poor".

Which is the plan, right?

Yeah, raise the taxes high enough and we might actually start making as much per capita as Denmark or Germany. How awful that would be!

He also brought about change. Democrats are becoming Republicans and it looks like Mass. will have a Republican in TK's old seat.

And all he had to do was have absolutely nothing to do with the recession that cause that very change! Remember kids, vote republican when you want economic bubbles, and vote republican because democrats don't know how to handle the economy. I mean, the economy crashed then a Democrat got into office! He must have caused it! Vote red!

Democrats aren't jumping ship because of the crappy economy. They are jumping ship because Obamanation is disgracing them.

Of course being a liberal flunkie you'll see it like all other liberal flunkies do. "Oh it's Bush' fault the economy is bad and the Democrats that are jumping ship because of the pork barrel HCR Bill are only doing so because of the economy.

Yeah, because I'm sure Senators and governors who make 6 figure salaries are being hurt by the economy so bad that they feel the need to blame Obama and so are jumping ship.

Love how you attack me by bringing up a point I did not even introduce into the conversation. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are sub-par Shuma.

**ShumaGorath**

Democrats aren't jumping ship because of the crappy economy. They are jumping ship because Obamanation is disgracing them.

I see you know nothing about the local politics of Massachusetts then.

Of course being a liberal flunkie you'll see it like all other liberal flunkies do. "Oh it's Bush' fault the economy is bad and the Democrats that are jumping ship because of the pork barrel HCR Bill are only doing so because of the economy.

Mmm. Yes, eight years of mis applied stimulus, encouraging de regulation, and refusing to enforce trade deals because of a twisted sense of trickle down globalized economics. Absolutely nothing to do with it there!

Yeah, because I'm sure Senators and governors who make 6 figure salaries are being hurt by the economy so bad that they feel the need to blame Obama and so are jumping ship.

Senators like Arlen Specter!

Love how you attack me by bringing up a point I did not even introduce into the conversation. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are sub-par Shuma.

Well if you ever brought up a good point I wouldn't have too.

**Fateweaver**

I brought up the point Dems are jumping ship because of Obamanation; from their own fething mouths.

What other point do I have to make. You brought up the economy thing, I didn't because Dems are NOT jumping ship because of the economy. They are jumping ship because the HCR Bill is a failure and Obama and associates are failures.

You know as well as I do if Obama was doing a semi-competent job in this country the Dems would be backing him, economy be damned.

Comprende?

**JohnHwangDD**

ShumaGorath wrote:Funny then, how the most rapidly rising cost to the average american household is healthcare costs. The reformation of which being something you are trying every step of the way to prevent. Go ahead, keep taxes low, cut down health reform, and watch as healthcare continues to bloat and becomes 20% of gdp. Then 30%. Not that the economy could handle that much.

As we're dealing in hypotheticals, if the Dems had their way, healthcare would have grown even faster.

It's funny, but how is it that anybody can argue that government healthcare will magically "reform" and become super efficient. Have Mediare costs come down year over year? How about Medicaid? Or VA costs? Or military health? You'd think that, if the government really were reform-oriented, they'd be able to show us how this would work, given their volume. Particularly if you fold in the various state and local governments.

But maybe you're talking about similar cost savings and reform from things like Homeland Security? Or Transportation?

Go on, give me a concrete, multi-Billion dollar (Trillion-dollar) government program that exemplifies the sort of "reform" savings and efficiency that we'd get in healthcare.

Surely, this part must be easy...

**jbunny**

ShumaGorath wrote:
jbunny wrote:Please enlighten me as to what taxes do not come from the governement?

Many would argue the insurance infrastructure we now have. We by law must participate in it to receive health care (or drive!) beyond simple emergency care and the rising cost business health care providers is one of the leading drivers preventing the rise of wages in jobs in America (wallmart for instance is quite pro health reform, and is the nations largest employer).
.

Not sure if I follow your logic on this one. Are you saying that since we are forced to have health care it's a tax?

If you are then you are wrong on a few things. We are not forced to have insurance YET. It might be wise to have, and I do, but you are not required to have any insurance. You will also be treated if you go to the hospital, even if you have no insurance or are not able to pay.

Under Obama'a plan we would be required to have insurance and that would be a tax. Under the propsed law if we do not buy insurance then we would be taxed ( correctly termed a "fine" by the IRS).

What about Auto insurance you say? Well first you are not required to have auto insurance. If you want to drive your car on public roads you are required to have insurance. You are not required or obligated to drive on public roads. Also those are state laws and not Federal laws.

People seems to forget that the Federal Government only has limited power according to the Constitution. If the Constitution does not state it then the Federal government does not have it.

**Crimson Devil**

Fateweaver wrote:I brought up the point Dems are jumping ship because of Obamanation; from their own fething mouths.

What other point do I have to make. You brought up the economy thing, I didn't because Dems are NOT jumping ship because of the economy. They are jumping ship because the HCR Bill is a failure and Obama and associates are failures.

You know as well as I do if Obama was doing a semi-competent job in this country the Dems would be backing him, economy be damned.

Comprende?

You are making the mistake of thinking the Democrats are a unified movement like the Republicans. They are not, and never were. They are a coalition of smaller interests gathered together for a variety of reasons. President Obama could be at 100% approval and still lose Democrats. This is why the Republicans have been so successful at opposing everything so far.

**sebster**

Fateweaver wrote:I brought up the point Dems are jumping ship because of Obamanation; from their own fething mouths.

What other point do I have to make. You brought up the economy thing, I didn't because Dems are NOT jumping ship because of the economy. They are jumping ship because the HCR Bill is a failure and Obama and associates are failures.

You know as well as I do if Obama was doing a semi-competent job in this country the Dems would be backing him, economy be damned.

Comprende?

No, I don't comprehend, nor do most political analysts including the venerable Mr Frazzled, from this post, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/239999.page#719858.

"Respectfully, I disagree. to quote the Clinton administration "its the economy stupid." Obama was actually trailing until everything went to heck in a handbasket. In time honored US tradition, we fired the CEO and are trying a new CEO. If he doesn't turn the ship around we'll fire him to. The US electorate does not tolerate losers on the military or economic front. Its like clockwork."

Or maybe we can go with this post, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/258336.page#1008616;
"In 2 weeks my car gets repossessed and my auto insurance will get canceled. Again, tell me why this HCR Bill is so damned important to me. Wow so I can get coverage if I get swine flu. Big deal. Had I not lost my job I could pay cash out of my pocket for a 15 min visit to have Doc. Quacknuts tell me I have a flu, give me a shot and send me home."

You may or may not care what that guy had to say, but he seemed to think the economy was the important issue. Admittedly, his politics are all over the shop, the most important issue day by day is whatever allowed him to complain about Obama. Still, look him up if you want, he goes by the name fateweaver.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

The problem I see for Obama is that no matter what he does it will never, ever match the soaring rhetoric that he blathered about in eloquent speeches before the election.

With McCain you knew you would get a guy who would knuckle down to business in the domestic front and smite foes in foreign policy.

Obama had to cure cancer, bring world peace, shower gold upon the masses and make GW have an across the board 10% price drop.
to make matters worse he got the Nobel Peace prize for doing absolutely nothing and recieved it as he ramped up troop numbers in the Middle east.

Problem for the republicans is that they need a candidate who not only rally the right but also appeal to the centre.

Obama should lose plenty of votes as the next election will not be as historic so fewer people should be voting.

**Kilkrazy**

This is a very exciting debate!

Let's all remember Rule No.1 and try to avoid the use of emotive pejorative vocabulary such as "flunky".

**JohnHwangDD**

Given that the D messiah couldn't even seal the deal to elect a D into Teddy's seat, one has to wonder how much of the mystique remains.

**Frazzled**

"Respectfully, I disagree. to quote the Clinton administration "its the economy stupid." Obama was actually trailing until everything went to heck in a handbasket. In time honored US tradition, we fired the CEO and are trying a new CEO. If he doesn't turn the ship around we'll fire him to. The US electorate does not tolerate losers on the military or economic front. Its like clockwork."

This one was healthcare, but the economy was the underlying factor. The American people did not elect obama to convert hard left. they voted him because the economy sucked and he WAS NOT BUSH (as his administration constantly reminds). But if the economy was rocking along, yea I'd have put good money on the Democrat. 10% unemployment means the economy is Job #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Obama adminstration forgot that, and let Congress craft a slew of left wing legislation that had nothing to do with the economy. Its now coming home to roost.

Just like Reagan they are going to get hammered in 2010. However, if the econmoy is still at 9-10% it will be like Clinton, not Reagan.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:This one was healthcare, but the economy was the underlying factor. The American people did not elect obama to convert hard left. they voted him because the economy sucked and he WAS NOT BUSH (as his administration constantly reminds). But if the economy was rocking along, yea I'd have put good money on the Democrat. 10% unemployment means the economy is Job #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Obama adminstration forgot that, and let Congress craft a slew of left wing legislation that had nothing to do with the economy. Its now coming home to roost.

Just like Reagan they are going to get hammered in 2010. However, if the econmoy is still at 9-10% it will be like Clinton, not Reagan.

That sounds about the sum of it - the election was definitely a straw poll on healthcare*, with a heavy dose of the economy, all rounded off with Coakley's woeful performance.

I didn't post your comment on the economy to challenge you - I think you've been pretty consistant on this. But I stumbled across your post while I was looking for fateweaver's quote and thought I'd chuck it in there to see if having a respected rightwinger like yourself might make him reconsider. Then I found his own words saying the same thing... but funnily enough he hasn't returned to this thread.

*I would certainly disagree that the healthcare bill is leftwing, I can't say it clearly enough but it simply isn't. But the bill is certainly costing the Dems support - the very idea of Democrat healthcare reform has got the rightwing scared enough that they've already returned to the GOP despite the Bush years, while the actual bill is so watered down that the progressives aren't as inspired as they were when they though they were going to get meaningful reform.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:

*I would certainly disagree that the healthcare bill is leftwing, I can't say it clearly enough but it simply isn't. But the bill is certainly costing the Dems support - the very idea of Democrat healthcare reform has got the rightwing scared enough that they've already returned to the GOP despite the Bush years, while the actual bill is so watered down that the progressives aren't as inspired as they were when they though they were going to get meaningful reform.

I am not saying that the current abomination is leftwing either-sorry if that came across. I am saying that its an abomination all its own making. its not a healthcare reform bill-its a horror show of special interest givebacks to pharma, AARP, and other special interests, bribes to various districts, no tort reform, and a robin hood method that eviserates Medicare. As I said here or another thread, show me a CD style system that everyone has to be in (no system for haves and have nots) adjusted to the lessons learned from the Canadians or others, and you've my vote. i;ve been through the current systems and know they are barely functional. But I want to fix it, not create a monster even worse.

But that would take time, and we had to rush out a plan...

**Tyyr**

I think that's something worth pointing out. I think most people would agree something needs to be done about the healthcare system. It's a dysfunctional monstrosity. What it comes down to is a disagreement on the way it should be fixed. What's being proposed doesn't look like it's going to fix anything.

**Frazzled**

I scarily agree with this guy and I can't stand this guy. Obama needs to heed the advice and do what Clinton did. The US would be better off with real workable legislation:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013221708478134.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Blame the Left for Massachusetts
Democrats should be willing to seek common-ground reforms.Article Comments (329) more in Opinion »Email Print Save This ↓ More

By LANNY J. DAVIS
Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. Would that it were so. This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message—and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better.

It's the substance, stupid!

According to polls, fears about the Democrats' health-care proposal played a prominent role in Mr. Brown's victory yesterday. In the last several months, the minority congressional Republicans have dominated the message on health care—and stamped on the Democratic Party the perception that we stand for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity when it comes to Medicare.

How is that possible? The Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?

View Full Image

Associated Press

President Barack Obama
•Slideshow Then there were the two "deals" that put congressional Democrats in a worse light than the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere"—as impossible as that might have seemed—as an emblem of the special interest politics Barack Obama ran against. We Democrats had to explain to Massachusetts voters and other Americans why non-Nebraskans and nonunion members have to pay more taxes, while Nebraskans and union members get to pay less. Those two deals seem to have alienated most people across the political spectrum. That's not easy.

Somehow, in the last 12 months, we allowed the party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to morph into the party of George McGovern (or more accurately, his most ardent supporters) and Howard Dean, who called for the defeat of the Democratic health-care bill if it had neither a public option or Medicare buy-in. (He couldn't possibly have been speaking for the 31 million uninsured people in taking that all-or-nothing position.)

In 1996, Mr. Clinton was the first Democrat to win re-election since FDR—expanding the electoral map once again into western, southern, and sunbelt states. He did so by creating a new ideological hybrid for a still-progressive Democratic Party: balanced-budget fiscal conservatism, cultural moderation, and liberal social programs administered by a "lean and mean government." This New Democrat combination appealed to Ross Perot independents concerned about deficits, and also to traditional Republican suburbanites who were culturally moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights but opposed to high taxes and wasteful, big-government bureaucracy.

Then, in 2008, Barack Obama added something extra: a commitment to a "new politics" that transcended the "red" versus "blue" partisan divide. He explained this concept clearly in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech and during his 2008 presidential campaign. It meant compromise, consensus and bipartisanship, even if that meant only incremental change. The purists on the left of the Democratic Party who demanded the "public option" or no bill at all apparently forgot that candidate Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option; nor did it include a government mandate for everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a significant tax approximating the cost of that insurance—the "pay or play provision" in both the Senate and House bills.

Bottom line: We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions.

That's what Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters were telling national Democrats yesterday. The question isn't just, will we listen? The question is, will we stop listening to the strident, purist base of our party who seem to prefer defeat to winning elections and no change at all if they don't get all the change they want.

Stay tuned.

Mr. Davis, a Washington, D.C., attorney and a weekly columnist for "The Hill" newspaper, was special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996-98. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

**Crimson Devil**

I sincerely doubt there will be any new movement on healthcare this generation. Politicians are a cowardly lot and none would be brave enough to actually vote for it now. Maybe in 2020.

**ShumaGorath**

Crimson Devil wrote:I sincerely doubt there will be any new movement on healthcare this generation. Politicians are a cowardly lot and none would be brave enough to actually vote for it now. Maybe in 2020.

The waiting game is dangerous considering the upward spiral of health care costs per capita and as part of GDP.

**Crimson Devil**

Agreed, but do you really think either party will risk tackling this issue again so soon? They'll talk about it, but they won't do anything until healthcare is around 25% GDP.

I would like to be wrong on this.

**JohnHwangDD**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:I sincerely doubt there will be any new movement on healthcare this generation. Politicians are a cowardly lot and none would be brave enough to actually vote for it now. Maybe in 2020.

The waiting game is dangerous considering the upward spiral of health care costs per capita and as part of GDP.

At some point (and apparently, we're not even close to being there, yet), America will reassess healthcare in a rational way. The idea that the trend will continue unchecked isn't realistic - people just don't get that sick that often.

The problem is that healthcare isn't inherently rational. The question is how America will handle the hard choices, like terminal care. A LOT people will have to die, sooner rather than later, and expensive, heroic care just isn't realistic for everyone.

**Crimson Devil**

Are you applying to work on a Death Panel?

**Tyyr**

No, it's called being realistic. Right now my 89 year old great grandmother is in the hospital. She was just diagnosed with cancer. Her doctor, without even waiting for the test results to get back (late today or early tomorrow) began telling her she needs chemo. The woman, and I love her dearly, is already on 14 different medications. She's got congestive heart failure but has survived for over a decade with it. Quite frankly I question the doctor's sanity in recommending that a nearly 90 year old woman with multiple health issues under go chemo therapy without even seeing the test results to identify the specific type of cancer and get a better assessment. That's the modern US medical system.

I reiterate, I love my great grandmother but I have a hard time agreeing that she needs to undergo chemo. I honestly have my doubts that she'll even survive it given her dodgy health right now. She'd be putting herself through multiple bouts of chemo therapy when she's already in poor health for a chance to live a few more years. I don't like either option right now. On one hand the odds are good that the cancer will kill her within a year to two years tops. If the chemo is successful, and it might not be, she'll suffer through it for months along with months of recover, and still likely die within the next five years.

At some point you have to accept defeat and that death is a natural part of life. Rather than dragging it out and condemning her to months or even years in the hospital maybe it would be better for her to go home and enjoy what time and health she's got left without going through chemo and die with a little dignity.

It's an ugly unpleasant choice, especially for her most of all but that's the choice to be made and its already obvious what side the medical establishment is coming down on. It's the side to spend a huge amount of money to put her through a lot of agony and rob her of the joy in her life to try and stave off the reaper for another year or two. That's the attitude of modern medicine and frankly I don't think its the right one, but I also don't think that choice should belong to anyone but my grandmother.

**JohnHwangDD**

Crimson Devil wrote:Are you applying to work on a Death Panel?

No, but we'll need them if we're going to contain health costs in any significant way.

AARP card? No long-term care for you!
____

@Tyyr: thanks for sharing. That's gotta be tough on all of you, and utmost respect to you and your family. I'm going to continue the example for just a bit.

Terminal care with chemo, etc is expensive. Rationally, if those treatment costs became low-cost end-of-life hospice care (e.g. morphine drip) it would free up money for FREE flu and H1N1 vaccinations for EVERYONE. Or simply FREE scheduled vaccinations for everyone - "childhood" disease epidemics could be completely eradicated across the nation. That's powerful stuff that costs money that we don't have, simply due to money being a finite resource that disproportionally (by its very nature) goes into heroic terminal care.

But it's a problem because it's hard to explain that managed health care costs are a zero-sum game. If we do national vaccinations, we cannot provide ANY Stage 3 Cancer care aside from end-of-life hospice, nor ANY Stage 2 for seniors. Not a happy message to send to the most selfish generation of seniors the world has ever seen (Boomer Seniors). Tough Love, indeed.

**Frazzled**

Better idea. No health care until you're thirty. At that point your genes have proven themselves a little more and you're worth taking care of. Too many young punks trying to walk on my yard.