So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon 369 Replies latest social current

• 

  BizzyBee

  Cutting through the dogmatism and derisiveness, you both make some good points.

  My remarks were in the context of home-schooling (of which I am not a fan), but I also question the glaring omission of the fact that the democratic party of Lincoln's day is not the democratic party of today. In fact, the two parties began a complete ideological switch starting around the turn of the century.* If you don't know this, political history can be difficult to argue.

  And to the issue, I recognise the boundries were along mostly state lines, but not all. It was not a geographical issue, it was a state's rights issue and that issue was within the political parties.

  njws, could you elaborate on this point?

  *http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-rubino/democratic-and-republican-ideologies_b_3432210.html
• 

  Band on the Run

  BizzyBee is factually correct. Oh, objective facts trouble the right wing. Indeed, I doubt Dwight Eisenhower or Nelson Rockefeller would find any common cause with today's GOP.

  There is NO room to negotiate. A valid law was enacted with proper procedures. Its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. President of the United States Obama has no power to negotiate. Hooligans will not bring down this country. The Const'n provides a way of addressing these politcal issues. The solution is not extortion or paralysis of our country. An international fiscal crisis may be the result. Millions of people around the world will be affected, including Americans who favor the Tea Party. No, the solution is not a do what I want or I will throw a tantrum and disrupt the United States at home and abroad. There is serious fallback b/c Obama cancelled his trip to Asian. The Tea Party sided with China. Elections are the vehicle for change.

  The ACA is legislation. It can be amended or rescinded by the next legislative session if the Tea Party can elect new members of Congress. This is unAmerican to its core. It smacks of the KKK and the Nazis. Today it is the ACA. Tomorrow it will be our civil rights and civil liberties held hostage by a clear minority of bullies and tyrants.

  Build a war chest for the next campaign. Organize. Register new voters. Debate opponents in lawful ways. It is so sad that any American believes these actions are legitimate. They are lawless and against the const'n. Somehow I am not surprised b/c when has the Tea Party endorsed American values. The democracy standard is majority rules with the exception of express civil rights of the minority. There is no express civil rights against the ACA.
• 

  DogGone

  BizzyBee, great example of how to respectfully respond. Bring up the Great Realignment. It adds context while not negating her point.

  BOTR- you are clearly erudite and well spoken. I appreciate reading your posts a great deal. But, comments like "objective facts trouble the right wing" are exactly what i'm talking about. Frankly, I think you are too smart, too good for low balls like that.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  All politics aside, to date, NOT ONE PERSON has even acknowledged the elephant in the room and to which has now been alluded to twice:

  How will ACA actually be paid for?

  The USA's imagined debt ($17 trillion) and its REAL debt ($211 trillion and growing) makes it painfully obvious there is no money to pay for ACA-yet another massive, and arguably the largest, entitlement program ever enacted by government.

  The median American family is living on the same income it had...in 1970. But, it's 2013 and medical care isn't pegged to 1970's prices.

  The government is at the tipping point of not being able to service even the interest on the national debt.

  In real terms, neither the Federal Government nor the average American has the money to pay for this grandiose idea or the grandiose ideas it's already supporting by out-of-control borrowing and spending.

  It does not matter whether you support ACA or oppose it. The numbers don't lie! There is no money to pay for it!! Again I ask- why is this so hard to acknowledge?

  I anticipate very acerbic responses that ignore what I've just said. What would be appreciated is this: if someone can demonstrate mathematically why I'm wrong, go ahead. I'd appreciate the insight.
• 

  designs

  Shirley- the actual math will come in a few years as everyone is signed on or there are States that present a viable alternative. Over a decade we will move toward a more socialist medical system which other progressive countries have managed successfully.

  Health care is a human right and you will pay for others such as infants with poor health and the aged.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  the actual math will come in a few years

  The actual math is already here. I'm not addressing only ACA- I'm talking about how ACA fits into and already broken, insolvent system. The "we'll have to wait ten years to see" answer is no different than a person who has maxed out their credit cards, keeps asking the bank to raise his credit limit, charges it up to the next limit, cannot pay for the debt they already owe, and cannot acknowledge they've already passed to the point of no return, yet hopes that "in ten years" it'll all magically work out.

  BTW- I asked for mathematical answers as to how the current situation is sustainable, not speculation and daydreams.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Government sponsored health care programs like this take a fews years to build up a financial base to even come close to balancing itself off.

  Its just unfortunate that US Federal debt has grown so large now that it makes creating a good intentioned empathic social program like this

  get off the ground, not to mention the backed by private insurance companies Republican congress trying to throw anything it can to not make it work.
• 

  DogGone

  Shirley, the letter from the Congressional Budget Office to the Speaker was earlier linked. In all the posts above you may have missed it. The CBO reports that when you add up the costs for the new programs, savings in the act, and new revenues included, the ACA will reduce deficits.

  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

  Two imporant points though

  1. The projections are noted to be "highly uncertain"
  2. If you felt the country was going bankrupt before you might not be comforted to know it will just do it a tiny bit more slowly.

  Personally, I think the US outlook is great given the relative increase in the affordability of labour, the huge expansion of cheap domestic energy, the improvement in the consumer debt load, and the massive changes in spending and revenues that were worked out by the parties before the last election. I'm helping a Canadian company setup a manufacturing plan in the NE right now, precisly because of the energy and labour savings. This shutdown isn't helping things, I might add!

  I was pretty gloom and doom on the USA a few years ago. I actually think it is on a great track for economic expansion over the next decade. But, truly, that is just the guess of an ignorant Canadian. I have to respect the Republicans, with whom I'm not ideologically aligned, for helping improve the fiscal outlook.
• 

  designs

  Yes and simply closing offshore tax havens US corporations use can bring another trillion home every year. These are not patriots these are just the latest robber barons.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Designs, you still are evading a direct answer in favor of raising unrelated issues.

  Martians could some day swoop in and pay off the US national deficit and pay for ACA, too, but I prefer to stay grounded in reality. Sure, a trillion dollars in repatrioted offshore funds would be great, but in the big picture, it barely puts a dent in ACA or the Federal debt and solves neither long-term problem. And we both know, the US Govt. is never going to force their friends in the corporate world to pay taxes on all that money they've socked away in foreign banks.

  designs: "can bring another trillion home every year". Sorry, designs, you are misinformed! US corportions have aprox. $1.3 trillion in profits in tax havens- of which, if taxed, would result in aprox. $92 billion in taxes. Nothing compared to the overall US deficit, national debt or the cost of ACA.

  ---

  DogGone, the CBO numbers have been revised (not a big shock). Not only is there no budget offset, ACA will be more expensive than initially projected (as usual, the real cost must be hidden in order to rally support):

  "The Congressional Budget Office has extended its cost estimates for President Obama's health care law out to 2022, taking in more years of full implementation, and showing that the bill is substantially more expensive -- twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.

  In a largely overlooked segment of the CBO's update to the budget outlook released Tuesday, the independent arm of Congress found that the bill will cost $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.

  That only counts the cost of coverage, not implementation costs and other changes.

  ...

  that the $1.76 trillion estimate includes only the costs of coverage, not implementation and other costs. He argues that all those drive the price up even further over the first full 10 years of the law.

  "The full accounting of the bill is $2.6 trillion. That's a fair and accurate analysis of what the bill would cost, according to CBO,"

  In all, some 30 million people will remain without health coverage, according to the estimate.

  Sessions noted that the study projects spending in accordance with the law will add at least $700 billion to the deficit in the years 2010 to 2019 -- its first 10 years of enactment.

  "Sadly, it may prove much worse than that," he said."

  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/cbo-health-law-estimate-shows-much-higher-spending-beyond-first-10-years/

  ---

  Again, I'm asking someone to demonstrate mathematically how a broke government is in a position to support a program it can't afford, adding it to a long list of its current programs it can't afford.