Would the GOP types push the USA into default ?

Then you'd be right. The worst thing for the young is what the conservatives tell you is good.
Conservatives are quite often middle-aged (at least) white men with comfortable careers. Is it wonder their world-view tends to be unsupportive of young people?
 
Conservatives are quite often middle-aged (at least) white men with comfortable careers. Is it wonder their world-view tends to be unsupportive of young people?


Not at all. But there is a lot of work going on these days to convince people that it is. Just as there is a lot of effort to push the idea that monetary stimulus mainly hurts the poor and labor. Or that welfare mainly hurts the poor and black.

It's all a part of using disinformation to convince people to act against their own interests.
 
Let it be known I'm not trying to say conservatives are always bad here.

I am of the firm belief Bush II (Well, both Bushs really) was a fine president who handled the nation's economic woes in the very early 00s correctly.

And the economic problems we're having now were caused by bipartisan deregulation of the banking sector.

It's funny...We're given the chance over and over to realize that oversight is needed...And we never seem to learn.
 
Not at all. But there is a lot of work going on these days to convince people that it is. Just as there is a lot of effort to push the idea that monetary stimulus mainly hurts the poor and labor. Or that welfare mainly hurts the poor and black.

It's all a part of using disinformation to convince people to act against their own interests.
The decrease in the quality of education also plays a part in this. Look at the new anti-piracy education being introduced in California, for example.
 
Let it be known I'm not trying to say conservatives are always bad here.

I am of the firm belief Bush II (Well, both Bushs really) was a fine president who handled the nation's economic woes in the very early 00s correctly.

And the economic problems we're having now were caused by bipartisan deregulation of the banking sector.

It's funny...We're given the chance over and over to realize that oversight is needed...And we never seem to learn.
Bush I was a fine president. Bush II, on the other hand....
 
Let it be known I'm not trying to say conservatives are always bad here.

I am of the firm belief Bush II (Well, both Bushs really) was a fine president who handled the nation's economic woes in the very early 00s correctly.

And the economic problems we're having now were caused by bipartisan deregulation of the banking sector.

It's funny...We're given the chance over and over to realize that oversight is needed...And we never seem to learn.

Bush II sucked. And there's rarely been a president worse on economics. There's nothing he didn't screw up.
 
Bush II sucked. And there's rarely been a president worse on economics. There's nothing he didn't screw up.

What did Bush II himself do wrong?

The GFC was certainly not his adminstration's "fault".

And he made the smart decisions of cutting taxes during the early 00s recession to prevent further economic erosion.
 
I'm pretty sure the GOP will push the US into a default unless the Dems surrender first, and I hope the US does default. If the GOP does enough damage to the country, then even the American public will notice that there's a problem and might even be bothered to do something about it- namely, by removing the Teahadists from office and punishing the saboteur lawmakers who created this mess. Unless things get dire, people simply won't care enough to make the needed changes.
 
I'm pretty sure the GOP will push the US into a default unless the Dems surrender first, and I hope the US does default. If the GOP does enough damage to the country, then even the American public will notice that there's a problem and might even be bothered to do something about it- namely, by removing the Teahadists from office and punishing the saboteur lawmakers who created this mess. Unless things get dire, people simply won't care enough to make the needed changes.
As much as I'd like to clean house, that won't mean much without sweeping the Dems out as well.
 
As much as I'd like to clean house, that won't mean much without sweeping the Dems out as well.

They're not exactly the ones who took the government and economy hostage because they lost two elections and can't accept negotiation.:confused:

Unfortunately the problems are so deep down that even wiping the government clean will just provide openings for new politicians at least as bad, so this crippling problem has no actual solution.
 
They're not exactly the ones who took the government and economy hostage because they lost two elections and can't accept negotiation.:confused:
They took the government and economy hostage by winning two elections and negotiating where it was dubyously warranted (eg 2008/2010). Those who were negotiated with have "changed sides" so to speak.
 
What did Bush II himself do wrong?

The GFC was certainly not his adminstration's "fault".

And he made the smart decisions of cutting taxes during the early 00s recession to prevent further economic erosion.


Bush, by himself, did not cause the GFC. But he is one of 2 people who could have stopped it, yet all of his policies made it both more inevitable, and worse when it did hit.

The Bush tax cuts, on the other hand, or the same hand, were the worst policies of the Bush administration. 1st, they were utterly unnecessary for economic reasons. The recession at the time was neither severe, nor anything that normal counter-cyclical policies couldn't have handled by themselves. 2nd, the design of them, where the benefit went overwhelmingly to the rich, meant that they had only the most tiny and trivial possibility of having an economic benefit at all. 3rd, they did not expire fast, and so are a permanent source of government debt. 4th, they were a major fueling source of the housing bubble, and so in the long run all of the effects of the tax cuts were harmful to the country.

What Bush did for causing the GFC is that 1, cut taxes on the rich, and 2, made certain that any financial regulations remaining on the books would not be enforced in practice. So what he actually did was pour gas on an existing fire.
 
So Bush II didn't start the fire? It's been always always burning since the world's been turning?

The scandal that brought down Obama's Presidency is complicated, but few can debate that a foreign-born Al-Qaeda agent usurping the White House is a terrible period in America's history. His brutal, public beheading of freedom fighters Glenn Beck and Alex Jones during his 2010 State of the Union is remembered as a disaster that divided the country over whether or not to be afraid of the President, but perhaps the worst incident of his Presidency was his murder of ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi during the 2012 election. His Al-Qaeda membership was revealed by constitutional tea-patriots who stormed the White House and took back America in late 2013, leading to his impeachment and removal of office due to violations of the 28th Amendment which banned Islam, socialism, and other liberal nonsense.
 
So Bush II didn't start the fire? It's been always always burning since the world's been turning?

The GFC had been building since the Reagan Administration. The single best predictor that there will be a financial crisis in a country is that finance has been deregulated. If you deregulate finance, it will almost certainly lead to a crisis. And the deregulation mania really started in the 80s. It just reached it's peak in the 00s.

Bush was selected to be president because special interests figured that they could get him to do virtually anything they wanted him to. To a very great extent, they were right. Had 9/11 not happened, special interests would have had the perfect president in Bush. And even that mostly served special interests.
 
One thing I don't understand. This Affordable Healthcare thing was already compromised and turned into law. It was looked at by those 9 in funny black frocks and found not to sodomise the constitution.

Months ago.

So why is this a thing now?

Compromised? It was rammed through without a single Republican vote.

The Supreme Court had to twist logic into pretzels to justify taxing someone for not engaging in commerce.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chi...-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it


It's a thing now because the entire thing starts on January 1st and there is no rolling it back once the subsidies begin.

How about the supply of doctors?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi...-a-20000-doctor-shortage-is-set-to-quintuple/

So let's see:
Insurance mandated by law.
10,000 pages of new regulations.
More patients.
Less doctors.
Each newly minted doctor starts out $170,000 in debt and must charge big dollars or go bankrupt. (And student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so their life is over essentially if they go that route)
Government will pay the rest of a silver plan beyond a certain % of a person's income thus removing any natural limits on how high the price can go.


Bearing all this in mind, will insurance rates go up or down over time based on the principles of supply and demand?


Then we get to the issue of calculating Obamacare subsidies.
It is purely based off of how much money you made that year and how many people are in your family.
You pay the premiums all year and get the tax credit subsidy the following year as a refund.
I doubt you can get an upfront loan to pay for the insurance in expectation of the subsidy 1 year later because you have to earn a certain amount of money to qualify for it. And it scales quite rapidly depending on whether you make $12,000 or $24,000.

For this math challenged country, it will be a struggle to line up people's expectations with reality.


The biggest subsidy and hardest calculation is for the older working poor.
They could spend thousands of dollars on health insurance all year expecting to get a refund that pays for 95% of it, but if they get laid off in say October, and only make $11,200 that year and don't reach 100% of the poverty level ($11,500 if single), they get $0 at tax time instead of $3000 or $4000.

If you have a kid, the poverty rate you have to earn past goes up by $4000, so an unplanned pregnancy might mean the difference in your refund check being $2500 or $0.
I guess you could just not claim the kid as a dependent at tax time, but what about someone with 7 kids doing this to go from 9% to 2% subsidy by leaving off 3 kids?
Does not claiming a kid lower the poverty level that applies to you?

And the poverty rate is indexed to inflation, so if you are right on the line make sure to demand a $.10 raise every year. Have to pay attention or you get clobbered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Heh, Alaska and Hawaii have different poverty rates than the rest of the country.

Does anyone even know for sure yet whether the unemployed get hit with the tax penalty yet?
I've looked around and all I can get is "depends"

If any of these examples are in error, it is not obvious to me where the error lies. Doubtless there are rules about these very things somewhere in those 10,000 pages.
Maybe the answers are in here http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/29/2682291/obamacare-questions-2/


Seems like 1 more surprise bankruptcy for poor Americans to me unless they are skilled at math and planning ahead.
 
The GFC had been building since the Reagan Administration. The single best predictor that there will be a financial crisis in a country is that finance has been deregulated. If you deregulate finance, it will almost certainly lead to a crisis. And the deregulation mania really started in the 80s. It just reached it's peak in the 00s.

Bush was selected to be president because special interests figured that they could get him to do virtually anything they wanted him to. To a very great extent, they were right. Had 9/11 not happened, special interests would have had the perfect president in Bush. And even that mostly served special interests.

I'd agree that deregulating finance is suicide. :goodjob:

Check out what Reagon's financial advisor thinks about all of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Seems... pessimistic
 
Compromised? It was rammed through without a single Republican vote.



That's utter bullcrap. Nothing was rammed through. And if the Republicans didn't vote for it, the only reason for that is that they refused from day one to be part of the process at all. Every Republican did everything in their power to prevent any law from being passed, without any regard to the contents of those laws. The fact that Republicans were given as much opportunity to participate as they were was a travesty. They certainly did not deserve it, based on their actions.


I'd agree that deregulating finance is suicide. :goodjob:

Check out what Reagon's financial advisor thinks about all of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Seems... pessimistic


Jesus frakkin christ. Stockman? Stockman is a radical ideologue who doesn't know even 5% about economics as you do. :rolleyes:
 
Then you'd be right. The worst thing for the young is what the conservatives tell you is good.

Oh really?

http://watchdog.org/109045/healthy-young-key-to-obamacare-arent-buying-it/

Monthly premiums under Obamacare will go up for young people in all 50 states, according to a study released Thursday by the center-right American Action Forum. Premiums will average more than $187 per month in 2014, up from $62 per month in 2013, a 202 percent increase, the study said.

Several Millennials told us why they won’t bother to sign up.

“An entire generation is being turned into a part-time workforce” because of Obamacare, said 22-year-old Patrick Richardson, a senior at the University of Toledo in Ohio who considers himself fortunate to have health insurance through his employer.

“When you do the math, it’s cheaper to pay the penalty, but that’s not the way the system was designed. It counts on young people enrolling, but young people don’t want any part of it,” he said.

Several people said they would rather cough up the $95 penalty in the first year for being uninsured than pay hundreds of dollars each month in premiums for Obamacare.

“If we weren’t covered on our parents’ health insurance, my friends and I would pay the fine rather than pay for the higher cost of health insurance,” said Keith Leslie, a 23-year-old graduate student at Florida State University in Tallahassee still covered by his parents’ health plan.

The penalty for not buying insurance jumps to $700 in 2016.

It's going to be tough on the young adults who aren't on a parent's plan.
Have to buy it. Have to pay triple for it. Or go without and pay $700 starting in 3 years. (Probably less, the article exaggerates here a little I think)
Hopefully they can make it to $11,500 each year to qualify for the subsidy.
And can swing that 1st year before the subsidy can start help paying for next year's premiums.


Always a pleasure debating with you. :hatsoff:
Some real sharp people on this forum for sure.
 
Down with socialism ! :mad:

Spoiler :
red-state-socialism.jpg

This basically proves my point, as the givers side feature pretty much all the states I would imagine secede first. Save for Alaska and Hawaii, who would probably secede quickly after them due to the Jones Act.
 
Back
Top Bottom