Cash For Clunkers Hurt The Environment [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Cash For Clunkers Hurt The Environment

Kathianne

01-06-2013, 04:50 PM

More of the 'Green War On Science':

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/cash_for_clunkers_actually_hurt_the_environment.ht ml

 January 5, 2013 Cash for Clunkers actually hurt the environment Rick Moran


Tell me this isn't a government operation: (http://news.yahoo.com/why-cash-clunkers-hurt-environment-more-helped-024848694.html)

Though almost a million people poured into car dealerships eager to exchange their old jalopies for something shiny and new, recent reports indicate the entire program may have actually hurt the environment far more than it helped.

According to E Magazine (http://www.emagazine.com/blog/the-cash-for-clunkers-conundrum), the "Clunkers" program, which is officially known as the Car Allowance Rebates System (CARS), produced tons of unnecessary waste while doing little to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The program's first mistake seems to have been its focus on car shredding, instead of car recycling. With 690,000 vehicles traded in, that's a pretty big mistake.

According to the Automotive Recyclers Association (http://www.a-r-a.org/index.asp) (ARA), automobiles are almost completely recyclable, down to their engine oil and brake fluid. But many of the "Cash for Clunkers" cars were never sent to recycling facilities. The agency reports that the cars' engines were instead destroyed by federal mandate, in order to prevent dealers from illicitly reselling the vehicles later.

The remaining parts of each car could then be put up for auction, but program guidelines also required that after 180 days, no matter how much of the car was left, the parts woud be sent to a junkyard and shredded.

Shredding vehicles results in its own environmental nightmare. For each ton of metal produced by a shredding facility, roughly 500 pounds of "shredding residue" is also produced, which includes polyurethane foams, metal oxides, glass and dirt. All totaled, about 4.5 million tons of that residue is already produced on average every year. Where does it go? Right into a landfill.

E Magazine states recycling just the plastic and metal alone from the CARS scraps would have saved 24 million barrels of oil. While some of the "Clunkers" were truly old, many of the almost 700,000 cars were still in perfectly good condition. In fact, many that qualified for the program were relatively "young," with fuel efficiencies that rivaled newer cars.

And though the point was to get less fuel efficient cars off the roads, with only 690,000 traded in, and over 250 million registered in the U.S., the difference in pollutant levels seems pretty negligible.

...

SassyLady

01-06-2013, 05:18 PM

Is anyone really surprised about this?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-06-2013, 05:18 PM

Results don't matter. The pure intentions outweigh even backfiring catastrophic results. That is at the core of liberalism ,where ideology trumpets reality and good intentions outweigh all..
They must maintain that "unassailable fixed concept" in order to maintain their highly inflated sene of superiority!
They live for that sense of Superiority!!-TYR

Believe it or not years ago I was great friends with a very liberal co-worker. We got along splendidly and talked about even highly contentious subjects with no problem ever occurring. One day during lunch we were discussing what ifs. I brought up what if we had a civil war and it was the Conservatives fighting the Liberals for the future of the country. After much discussion I looked him squarely in the eyes and said, my friend should that be the case I'd have to gun you down just like I would all the enemy but I want you to know Id do so with a very heavy heart. He didn't even flinch, just smiled and said, Id do the same to you but want you to know I wouldn't be happy about it at all..
I paused , thought for a sec. and told him, well you have no concept of what a relief it is to hear that!!
Here I was thinking that you'd do it with the same happy face that you wear when voting to steal my money to buy votes and make life easy for the worthless lazy slobs!!
I got nothing but silence from him for about four days. Then he approached me and said, you brought that subject up just to be able to deliver that last line , didnt ya?
I smiled and said, could be, could be amigo. He smiled and said , well pull the danger out my friend it struck home and has been hurting for four days now.
I turned my back and said, you first amigo , mine's been rusted in place for a couple decades now , yank very , very hard!!
He merely smiled and replied, was wondering when you'd notice , are we still on for Saturday night poker game??
I replied, Sure amigo, I welcome the chance to take your money fairly..--:laugh:, and I always did until he got another job, moved to Cali.. He was a lousy poker player but still a good guy.. Kinda rare as far as liberals go..-;)
His name was Jonathan Becker, I've always wondered how he faired in Cali.. --Tyr

Robert A Whit

01-06-2013, 05:55 PM

Is anyone really surprised about this?

Ummmm

Obama!!!!!!!!

Democrats!!!!!

Sure.

Believe it or not years ago I was great friends with a very liberal co-worker. We got along splendidly and talked about even highly contentious subjects with no problem ever occurring. One day during lunch we were discussing what ifs. I brought up what if we had a civil war and it was the Conservatives fighting the Liberals for the future of the country. After much discussion I looked him squarely in the eyes and said, my friend should that be the case I'd have to gun you down just like I would all the enemy but I want you to know Id do so with a very heavy heart. He didn't even flinch, just smiled and said, Id do the same to you but want you to know I wouldn't be happy about it at all..
I paused , thought for a sec. and told him, well you have no concept of what a relief it is to hear that!!
Here I was thinking that you'd do it with the same happy face that you wear when voting to steal my money to buy votes and make life easy for the worthless lazy slobs!!
I got nothing but silence from him for about four days. Then he approached me and said, you brought that subject up just to be able to deliver that last line , didnt ya?
I smiled and said, could be, could be amigo. He smiled and said , well pull the danger out my friend it struck home and has been hurting for four days now.
I turned my back and said, you first amigo , mine's been rusted in place for a couple decades now , yank very , very hard!!
He merely smiled and replied, was wondering when you'd notice , are we still on for Saturday night poker game??
I replied, Sure amigo, I welcome the chance to take your money fairly..--:laugh:, and I always did until he got another job, moved to Cali.. He was a lousy poker player but still a good guy.. Kinda rare as far as liberals go..-;)
His name was Jonathan Becker, I've always wondered how he faired in Cali.. --Tyr

I dunno how he is doing.

I keep remembering when I was a Democrat. That lasted from birth till about 1978-9. I know I changed just in time to help Reagan win.

I have to laud the man as our best ever president.

Anyway, when I was a Democrat, it was because I was raised in a totally Democrat famiily. Nobody in the family voted for republicans. I think it is still mostly that same way today.

So, what was my mindset as a Democrat?

Well, my family taught me that the rich were bastards. That money ruined you. That to be rich meant you committed crimes.

I ask you. Who the hell wants to vote for somebody like that?

But then I saw the damage done by Carter.

I normally had not asked anybody to tell me their party to be pals with them. I could go a long time and not even bring up politics. I probably had a lot of fun with people of either party and had no idea what party they supported.

But I attribute my change to self study. I started going to book stores and buying a few books. I wanted to know more about how the system works, what got it started and I learned a lot about Thomas Paine. I had not heard of him during school. And I took college prep.

Then I picked up the book that changed my life. A book called, A Time For Truth by William E. Simon.

I don't see how a sane person can read Simon's book and remain a Democrat. So long as they also read Thomas Paines works.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-06-2013, 07:31 PM

I dunno how he is doing.

I keep remembering when I was a Democrat. That lasted from birth till about 1978-9. I know I changed just in time to help Reagan win.

I have to laud the man as our best ever president.

Anyway, when I was a Democrat, it was because I was raised in a totally Democrat famiily. Nobody in the family voted for republicans. I think it is still mostly that same way today.

So, what was my mindset as a Democrat?

Well, my family taught me that the rich were bastards. That money ruined you. That to be rich meant you committed crimes.

I ask you. Who the hell wants to vote for somebody like that?

But then I saw the damage done by Carter.

I normally had not asked anybody to tell me their party to be pals with them. I could go a long time and not even bring up politics. I probably had a lot of fun with people of either party and had no idea what party they supported.

But I attribute my change to self study. I started going to book stores and buying a few books. I wanted to know more about how the system works, what got it started and I learned a lot about Thomas Paine. I had not heard of him during school. And I took college prep.

Then I picked up the book that changed my life. A book called, A Time For Truth by William E. Simon.

I don't see how a sane person can read Simon's book and remain a Democrat. So long as they also read Thomas Paines works.

:beer: :clap: :beer:, lost souls always welcomed into the light!!--Tyr

April15

01-06-2013, 09:08 PM

Kathianne

01-07-2013, 03:19 AM

It seems to me that the article is just plain wrong. I have, in my younger days, scrapped cars for the money. When all the car was dismantled there was no residue at all. Everything was recycled as scrap of one kind or another. So I think this Rick Moran fella should maybe go scrap a car or two before opening his mouth.

Except they didn't allow doing what 'you claim' to have done:

...According to E Magazine (http://www.emagazine.com/blog/the-cash-for-clunkers-conundrum), the "Clunkers" program, which is officially known as the Car Allowance Rebates System (CARS), produced tons of unnecessary waste while doing little to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The program's first mistake seems to have been its focus on car shredding, instead of car recycling. With 690,000 vehicles traded in, that's a pretty big mistake.

According to the Automotive Recyclers Association (http://www.a-r-a.org/index.asp) (ARA), automobiles are almost completely recyclable, down to their engine oil and brake fluid. But many of the "Cash for Clunkers" cars were never sent to recycling facilities. The agency reports that the cars' engines were instead destroyed by federal mandate, in order to prevent dealers from illicitly reselling the vehicles later.

The remaining parts of each car could then be put up for auction, but program guidelines also required that after 180 days, no matter how much of the car was left, the parts woud be sent to a junkyard and shredded.

Shredding vehicles results in its own environmental nightmare. For each ton of metal produced by a shredding facility, roughly 500 pounds of "shredding residue" is also produced, which includes polyurethane foams, metal oxides, glass and dirt. All totaled, about 4.5 million tons of that residue is already produced on average every year. Where does it go? Right into a landfill.

E Magazine states recycling just the plastic and metal alone from the CARS scraps would have saved 24 million barrels of oil. While some of the "Clunkers" were truly old, many of the almost 700,000 cars were still in perfectly good condition. In fact, many that qualified for the program were relatively "young," with fuel efficiencies that rivaled newer cars...

glockmail

01-07-2013, 08:32 AM

The Clunkers thing was bad in so many ways, not just for the environment. It seems to me that modern politicians are very good at thinking up schemes to destroy wealth.

fj1200

01-07-2013, 08:40 AM

The Clunkers thing was bad in so many ways, not just for the environment. It seems to me that modern politicians are very good at thinking up schemes to destroy wealth.

I don't know that they destroyed any wealth here but they certainly succeeded in limiting the supply of used cars, raising the prices, and harming poor people who rely on used cars. :thumbsup: libs.

glockmail

01-07-2013, 08:42 AM

fj1200

01-07-2013, 10:00 AM

You take something that is worth money and you destroy it. How is that not destroying wealth?

Give more in rebate than the car is worth. Then you just have your standard government unseen consequences.

Kathianne

01-07-2013, 04:34 PM

I don't know that they destroyed any wealth here but they certainly succeeded in limiting the supply of used cars, raising the prices, and harming poor people who rely on used cars. :thumbsup: libs.

The biggest waste was not even recycling what was salvageable. None of that was done, indeed I'm fairly certain is was prohibited. Doesn't make sense.

Give more in rebate than the car is worth. Then you just have your standard government unseen consequences.

While April 15th thought he had a point, he didn't. The cars were just squashed to be off road. No recycling of parts.

House sold for knock down or 'property buys' are totally salvaged by builder to 'salvage shops.' Have a hundred fifteen year old house? Doors and windows will not be found at Home Depot. You can have them custom milled, but cost is pretty pricey. Go to salvage shop, lots of big, old oak doors, lots of knobs that will fit, plenty of skeleton keys. Same with wooden floors, old ceiling lights, etc.

Robert A Whit

01-07-2013, 05:17 PM

:beer: :clap: :beer:, lost souls always welcomed into the light!!--Tyr

Thank you Tyr. Bear in mind I got unlost by 1979. 34 years ago and I have tried hard to live up to the principles. I was watching yesterday a you tube video of some young smart ass trying to argue with Milton Friedman. His face told the entire story. He was so frustrated that Milton's truth put back into the sack of errors the young guys idealogy.

It seems to me that the article is just plain wrong. I have, in my younger days, scrapped cars for the money. When all the car was dismantled there was no residue at all. Everything was recycled as scrap of one kind or another. So I think this Rick Moran fella should maybe go scrap a car or two before opening his mouth.

I too have scrapped out a dozen old cars in my youth. But this is about shredding. We scrapped, they shredded.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=604922#post604922)
I don't know that they destroyed any wealth here but they certainly succeeded in limiting the supply of used cars, raising the prices, and harming poor people who rely on used cars. :thumbsup: libs.

Kathianne:

The biggest waste was not even recycling what was salvageable. None of that was done, indeed I'm fairly certain is was prohibited. Doesn't make sense.

Making cars scarce, though used, as FJ said, drove up prices of used autos. Those depending on used cars suffered. I would say that when they were forced to pay higher prices, they lost wealth. The seller gained wealth. In economics it was balanced. But then we always have to endure the democrats whining that they hate the rich and don't want to help them.

Well, they did.

Yes, as Kathianne explains, they did not part out cars to preserve wealth, they turned a higher price part into chunks of metal. They apparently created a lot of contamination.

Bear in mind, all dirty sites were not saw as dirty sites until somebody else had to do the clean up.

Take Mare Island Navy base in CA for instance. I worked there. Nobody informed me we made the land dirty. But later on, they had to clean up that island.

April15

01-07-2013, 09:45 PM

I too have scrapped out a dozen old cars in my youth. But this is about shredding. We scrapped, they shredded.As you live close by me take a drive to Redwood City and out seaport road. There you will find cars being shredded. The cars are scrap vehicles.

Except they didn't allow doing what 'you claim' to have done:The quote is misleading at best. The article is wrong. What more can a man say? I know people in the car business and auto wrecking business. I collect scrap iron as a hobby to recycle/shred and have not seen what is described in the article.

Kathianne

01-07-2013, 10:22 PM

April15

01-08-2013, 08:30 PM

The 'man' could provide a link showing it wrong.http://www.cashforclunkers.org/cash-for-clunkers-officially-over-dealers-still-have-time.html
This is just a quick google find.

The NADA has this to say. http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2011/08/31/cash-for-clunkers-retrospective-two-years-later/

Kathianne

01-08-2013, 09:00 PM

http://www.cashforclunkers.org/cash-for-clunkers-officially-over-dealers-still-have-time.html
This is just a quick google find.

The NADA has this to say. http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2011/08/31/cash-for-clunkers-retrospective-two-years-later/

Both are from when it was being touted as stimulus or a success for stimulus of auto industry. Both have proven false. Neither have to do with the issue of environment, which you personally used the idea of recycling the parts for leaving small or you claimed, 'no imprint, no dust.' That it wasn't done, has been shown.

fj1200

01-09-2013, 09:48 AM

The NADA has this to say. http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2011/08/31/cash-for-clunkers-retrospective-two-years-later/

“We [NADA] think in hindsight that C4C was a very very good thing, from the standpoint that it gave this economy a jolt,” said Wade. “It gave us a jolt to push it. And we thought it was going to give it a jolt and keep it going, but we fell back into basically where we were.”
In fact, new car sales dropped lower in the month following the C4C incentive program, and remained low so opponents of the program argue that all it did is advance would-be buyers to their purchasing during the incentive period, with the federal contribution, but did not actually stimulate buying that wouldn’t have taken place over time anyway.

And that's your argument FOR?

glockmail

01-09-2013, 03:37 PM

Give more in rebate than the car is worth. Then you just have your standard government unseen consequences.Governments giving money away is not creating wealth. :slap:

Robert A Whit

01-09-2013, 03:46 PM

The quote is misleading at best. The article is wrong. What more can a man say? I know people in the car business and auto wrecking business. I collect scrap iron as a hobby to recycle/shred and have not seen what is described in the article.

Try to explain though that CA laws are often stronger than Federal laws so what gets done in the communist area of Northern CA does not apply to the rest of the USA.

Around the SF Bay Area things get done different than fed law calls for.

April15

01-11-2013, 06:40 PM

Try to explain though that CA laws are often stronger than Federal laws so what gets done in the communist area of Northern CA does not apply to the rest of the USA.

Around the SF Bay Area things get done different than fed law calls for.This may be true.

bingster

01-13-2013, 03:37 PM

Believe it or not years ago I was great friends with a very liberal co-worker. We got along splendidly and talked about even highly contentious subjects with no problem ever occurring. One day during lunch we were discussing what ifs. I brought up what if we had a civil war and it was the Conservatives fighting the Liberals for the future of the country. After much discussion I looked him squarely in the eyes and said, my friend should that be the case I'd have to gun you down just like I would all the enemy but I want you to know Id do so with a very heavy heart. He didn't even flinch, just smiled and said, Id do the same to you but want you to know I wouldn't be happy about it at all..
I paused , thought for a sec. and told him, well you have no concept of what a relief it is to hear that!!
Here I was thinking that you'd do it with the same happy face that you wear when voting to steal my money to buy votes and make life easy for the worthless lazy slobs!!
I got nothing but silence from him for about four days. Then he approached me and said, you brought that subject up just to be able to deliver that last line , didnt ya?
I smiled and said, could be, could be amigo. He smiled and said , well pull the danger out my friend it struck home and has been hurting for four days now.
I turned my back and said, you first amigo , mine's been rusted in place for a couple decades now , yank very , very hard!!
He merely smiled and replied, was wondering when you'd notice , are we still on for Saturday night poker game??
I replied, Sure amigo, I welcome the chance to take your money fairly..--:laugh:, and I always did until he got another job, moved to Cali.. He was a lousy poker player but still a good guy.. Kinda rare as far as liberals go..-;)
His name was Jonathan Becker, I've always wondered how he faired in Cali.. --Tyr

 I agree that liberals are prone to develop superiority complexes. Please hear my confession.
I’m 46 years old and have been working since I was 14. Never have I availed myself of any government programs because I’ve kept employed. I sure wouldn’t have a problem doing so, because I, like you, have paid into these programs. I, unlike you, realize that these programs are not charity-I PAID FOR THEM! I refuse to allow my government to cut these programs to give a tax break to the “job creators”-rich people, by the way, who aren’t going to kick in more jobs with another tax break.
If we feel superior, it’s because of the unbelievable junk your politicians feed you to vote against your own quality of life. Looking at a map showing debtor states vs creditor states it becomes quite clear which party takes advantage of government programs. 9 out of 10 debtor states (states that receive more federal money that they pay) are red states. The creditor states are always blue.
I refuse to believe in “death panels”, “birtherism”,” trutherism”, and that my president can change the Bureau of Statistics unemployment numbers to help his election. I don’t disbelieve, because I let myself be misled by my politicians or fake news shows; I disbelieve because I read. I read the portion of Obamacare that Sarah Palen said was the “death panel” section. I have seen both Obama’s short-form birth certificate, heard the Hawaiian governor swear countless times he’s seen the long form, seen the long form, and know that all states of this country don’t automatically issue long-form birth certificates. I used a “hospital certificate” for years. I also don’t believe George Bush blew up the twin towers.
I see tea partiers with their sign “keep your government hands off of my medicare” and pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache and I laugh out loud at the ignorance! I remember Obamacare from the 90’s when Newt Gingrich put a similar system forward to stop Hilary Clinton’s version of health care. I read a huge paper on the Heritage Foundation website making the case for individual mandate-only to see they took the page down later and denied what the original page said. Of course, there’s Romney’s plan that even conservatives said was exactly the same until the primaries were over. The whole concept of Obamacare is conservative: quit taking advantage of the emergency rooms and go out and buy your own health insurance. What is more “lift yourself up by your bootstraps” can you get?
It’s not that Obama is so liberal. He’s not. Real liberals know this better than anyone. It’s that the conservative party has swung so far right, they no longer believe in anything that is popular anymore. To make it worse, they’ve forgotten that good government has to be about compromise. Compromise is not a bad word. It’s necessary to govern ALL of the people, not just the extreme ones.

fj1200

01-13-2013, 03:48 PM

I agree that liberals are prone to develop superiority complexes. Please hear my confession.
I’m 46 years old and have been working since I was 14. Never have I availed myself of any government programs because I’ve kept employed. I sure wouldn’t have a problem doing so, because I, like you, have paid into these programs. I, unlike you, realize that these programs are not charity-I PAID FOR THEM! I refuse to allow my government to cut these programs to give a tax break to the “job creators”-rich people, by the way, who aren’t going to kick in more jobs with another tax break.
If we feel superior, it’s because of the unbelievable junk your politicians feed you to vote against your own quality of life. Looking at a map showing debtor states vs creditor states it becomes quite clear which party takes advantage of government programs. 9 out of 10 debtor states (states that receive more federal money that they pay) are red states. The creditor states are always blue.
I refuse to believe in “death panels”, “birtherism”,” trutherism”, and that my president can change the Bureau of Statistics unemployment numbers to help his election. I don’t disbelieve, because I let myself be misled by my politicians or fake news shows; I disbelieve because I read. I read the portion of Obamacare that Sarah Palen said was the “death panel” section. I have seen both Obama’s short-form birth certificate, heard the Hawaiian governor swear countless times he’s seen the long form, seen the long form, and know that all states of this country don’t automatically issue long-form birth certificates. I used a “hospital certificate” for years. I also don’t believe George Bush blew up the twin towers.
I see tea partiers with their sign “keep your government hands off of my medicare” and pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache and I laugh out loud at the ignorance! I remember Obamacare from the 90’s when Newt Gingrich put a similar system forward to stop Hilary Clinton’s version of health care. I read a huge paper on the Heritage Foundation website making the case for individual mandate-only to see they took the page down later and denied what the original page said. Of course, there’s Romney’s plan that even conservatives said was exactly the same until the primaries were over. The whole concept of Obamacare is conservative: quit taking advantage of the emergency rooms and go out and buy your own health insurance. What is more “lift yourself up by your bootstraps” can you get?
It’s not that Obama is so liberal. He’s not. Real liberals know this better than anyone. It’s that the conservative party has swung so far right, they no longer believe in anything that is popular anymore. To make it worse, they’ve forgotten that good government has to be about compromise. Compromise is not a bad word. It’s necessary to govern ALL of the people, not just the extreme ones.


Please indicate why a state is creditor or debtor.

And BO is a liberal. Practically every "solution" that is proposed is one of larger government that focuses on symptoms rather than the cause.

bingster

01-13-2013, 04:02 PM

fj1200

01-13-2013, 04:04 PM

Creditor states pay more in federal income tax than it receives in federal money. The opposite is true of debtor states.

I know that, I asked you as to why a state is one or the other.

bingster

01-13-2013, 04:09 PM

Please indicate why a state is creditor or debtor.

And BO is a liberal. Practically every "solution" that is proposed is one of larger government that focuses on symptoms rather than the cause.

That's rich. Conservatives don't believe gun deaths have anything to do with guns. On this issue as in all issues, Obama is looking at all causes.

I know that, I asked you as to why a state is one or the other.

The poorer states (usually red) don't pay as much federal income taxes as they get back. White is actually the largest group of citizens receiving food stamps, for instance.

This goes to a point I've made before- I'll be willing to bet 67% of Romney's 47% is Republican.

The poorer states (usually red) don't pay as much federal income taxes as they get back. White is actually the largest group of citizens receiving food stamps, for instance.

This goes to a point I've made before- I'll be willing to bet 67% of Romney's 47% is Republican.

It's also a response to the critique many conservatives have that liberals don't want to work and just want to kick back and receive welfare checks.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-13-2013, 04:45 PM

I agree that liberals are prone to develop superiority complexes. Please hear my confession.
I’m 46 years old and have been working since I was 14. Never have I availed myself of any government programs because I’ve kept employed. I sure wouldn’t have a problem doing so, because I, like you, have paid into these programs. I, unlike you, realize that these programs are not charity-I PAID FOR THEM! I refuse to allow my government to cut these programs to give a tax break to the “job creators”-rich people, by the way, who aren’t going to kick in more jobs with another tax break.
If we feel superior, it’s because of the unbelievable junk your politicians feed you to vote against your own quality of life. Looking at a map showing debtor states vs creditor states it becomes quite clear which party takes advantage of government programs. 9 out of 10 debtor states (states that receive more federal money that they pay) are red states. The creditor states are always blue.
I refuse to believe in “death panels”, “birtherism”,” trutherism”, and that my president can change the Bureau of Statistics unemployment numbers to help his election. I don’t disbelieve, because I let myself be misled by my politicians or fake news shows; I disbelieve because I read. I read the portion of Obamacare that Sarah Palen said was the “death panel” section. I have seen both Obama’s short-form birth certificate, heard the Hawaiian governor swear countless times he’s seen the long form, seen the long form, and know that all states of this country don’t automatically issue long-form birth certificates. I used a “hospital certificate” for years. I also don’t believe George Bush blew up the twin towers.
I see tea partiers with their sign “keep your government hands off of my medicare” and pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache and I laugh out loud at the ignorance! I remember Obamacare from the 90’s when Newt Gingrich put a similar system forward to stop Hilary Clinton’s version of health care. I read a huge paper on the Heritage Foundation website making the case for individual mandate-only to see they took the page down later and denied what the original page said. Of course, there’s Romney’s plan that even conservatives said was exactly the same until the primaries were over. The whole concept of Obamacare is conservative: quit taking advantage of the emergency rooms and go out and buy your own health insurance. What is more “lift yourself up by your bootstraps” can you get?
It’s not that Obama is so liberal. He’s not. Real liberals know this better than anyone. It’s that the conservative party has swung so far right, they no longer believe in anything that is popular anymore. To make it worse, they’ve forgotten that good government has to be about compromise. Compromise is not a bad word. It’s necessary to govern ALL of the people, not just the extreme ones.


1. Like to compromising obama has been doing so much of in his first term!!??? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

2. Like the compromising he did on his obamacare fiasco!!???:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

3. Like the compromising he has been doing on the cutting spending!!!!????? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

4. Like the compromising obama did on the offshore drilling ban!!?? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

5. Like the compromising obama did on the "not raising taxes now" !!!?? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Dude, you crack me up... really , you do..:laugh:--Tyr

bingster

01-13-2013, 05:01 PM

1. Like to compromising obama has been doing so much of in his first term!!??? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

2. Like the compromising he did on his obamacare fiasco!!???:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

3. Like the compromising he has been doing on the cutting spending!!!!????? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

4. Like the compromising obama did on the offshore drilling ban!!?? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

5. Like the compromising obama did on the "not raising taxes now" !!!?? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Dude, you crack me up... really , you do..:laugh:--Tyr

Exactly like that. Again, obamacare is conservative. We wanted single payer.
He cut Medicare by 716 billion dollars. Not to mention ending two wars that weren't paid for.
Drilling ban is temporary.
Obama care was only tax raising. If Norquist won't blame the Republicans, you can't blame Obama.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-13-2013, 05:10 PM

Exactly like that. Again, obamacare is conservative. We wanted single payer.
He cut Medicare by 716 billion dollars. Not to mention ending two wars that weren't paid for.
Drilling ban is temporary.
Obama care was only tax raising. If Norquist won't blame the Republicans, you can't blame Obama.

All that while you pretend he didn't give us an additional 6 trillion dollars in new debt!
Kinda like shooting piss ants and declaring that you are elephant hunting isn't it??
And we haven't even touched on his foreign policy bullshat yet.--:laugh2: ---Tyr

bingster

01-13-2013, 05:41 PM

All that while you pretend he didn't give us an additional 6 trillion dollars in new debt!
Kinda like shooting piss ants and declaring that you are elephant hunting isn't it??
And we haven't even touched on his foreign policy bullshat yet.--:laugh2: ---Tyr

Most of that 6 trillion was on programs he didn't pass. The two wars, tax cuts, medicare part d, etc... He did spend almost a trillion on stimulus that stopped the economy from bleeding jobs. Republicans aren't interested in slowing real spending, it they were, they would talk about cutting defense. We're currently above cold-war spending and conservatives want to increase that. Our safety net spending increases are more due to increases in cost of medical care and folks still out of work than anything else. Yea, go ahead, keep pushing the conservative myth that cutting taxes on the job creators will not only be "deficit neutral" but will spur job growth. Trickle down is a myth.

Companies don't hire because they get a tax cut. They hire because more people spend money on their goods.

Can you name a single presidential candidate who didn't run on lowering the deficit? I can only remember one president who did actually accomplish it (Clinton).

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-13-2013, 06:35 PM

Most of that 6 trillion was on programs he didn't pass. The two wars, tax cuts, medicare part d, etc... He did spend almost a trillion on stimulus that stopped the economy from bleeding jobs. Republicans aren't interested in slowing real spending, it they were, they would talk about cutting defense. We're currently above cold-war spending and conservatives want to increase that. Our safety net spending increases are more due to increases in cost of medical care and folks still out of work than anything else. Yea, go ahead, keep pushing the conservative myth that cutting taxes on the job creators will not only be "deficit neutral" but will spur job growth. Trickle down is a myth.

Companies don't hire because they get a tax cut. They hire because more people spend money on their goods.

haha, how about the 900 billion one(first estimate) he did force down our collective throats(obamacare) that has now turned out to be at least a 3.9 trillion dollar boondoggle and far likely to cost even more??
Your refusal to admit to his EXTREMELY HIGH AND UNNECESSARY spending and his denial of it being a problem points to your lack of credibility IMHO.-TYR

Robert A Whit

01-13-2013, 06:48 PM

I agree that liberals are prone to develop superiority complexes. Please hear my confession.
I’m 46 years old and have been working since I was 14. Never have I availed myself of any government programs because I’ve kept employed. I sure wouldn’t have a problem doing so, because I, like you, have paid into these programs. I, unlike you, realize that these programs are not charity-I PAID FOR THEM! I refuse to allow my government to cut these programs to give a tax break to the “job creators”-rich people, by the way, who aren’t going to kick in more jobs with another tax break.
If we feel superior, it’s because of the unbelievable junk your politicians feed you to vote against your own quality of life. Looking at a map showing debtor states vs creditor states it becomes quite clear which party takes advantage of government programs. 9 out of 10 debtor states (states that receive more federal money that they pay) are red states. The creditor states are always blue.
I refuse to believe in “death panels”, “birtherism”,” trutherism”, and that my president can change the Bureau of Statistics unemployment numbers to help his election. I don’t disbelieve, because I let myself be misled by my politicians or fake news shows; I disbelieve because I read. I read the portion of Obamacare that Sarah Palen said was the “death panel” section. I have seen both Obama’s short-form birth certificate, heard the Hawaiian governor swear countless times he’s seen the long form, seen the long form, and know that all states of this country don’t automatically issue long-form birth certificates. I used a “hospital certificate” for years. I also don’t believe George Bush blew up the twin towers.
I see tea partiers with their sign “keep your government hands off of my medicare” and pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache and I laugh out loud at the ignorance! I remember Obamacare from the 90’s when Newt Gingrich put a similar system forward to stop Hilary Clinton’s version of health care. I read a huge paper on the Heritage Foundation website making the case for individual mandate-only to see they took the page down later and denied what the original page said. Of course, there’s Romney’s plan that even conservatives said was exactly the same until the primaries were over. The whole concept of Obamacare is conservative: quit taking advantage of the emergency rooms and go out and buy your own health insurance. What is more “lift yourself up by your bootstraps” can you get?
It’s not that Obama is so liberal. He’s not. Real liberals know this better than anyone. It’s that the conservative party has swung so far right, they no longer believe in anything that is popular anymore. To make it worse, they’ve forgotten that good government has to be about compromise. Compromise is not a bad word. It’s necessary to govern ALL of the people, not just the extreme ones.

I wish you had used numbered points to make your case.
I will see what I can do. Some of your claims are not conservative republican points.
While you paid into the programs, you paid pennies compared to the vast sum of dollars you will get. The budget of this coountry can't sustain such extreme profits to the people collecting.
I suspect that over 99 percent of the public has not seen the actual math worked out.

Sure, it is easy to live off the generosity of your neighbors so long as they feel generous. It is a ponzi scheme in fact.

How many Alices do you think there are (real first name - I know her finances) that collect $1,100 per month that can't have paid to the feds over her entire life over a couple hundred dollars? Why does she collect. She has the AD disorder and is grossly fat. She qualifies as disabled. FAT is why she is set up for life. HER mouth works very well.

This system has to lead to abuses. It is built in.

The question has not been the rich getting a tax break, it has been that when they invest or earn, it is their money. We don't own their money or investments. Who are we to declare that by keeping their money they got a break? That is how a communist thinks.

Democrats think more like the Mafia who believes that the store owner owes them a cut of their income and that is what they preach as government.

What is the difference in you paying the mafia protection money or paying it to government?

Skipping the birther issues since this was started by an attorney that fought to get Hillary elected and never was part of the republican party issue, and moviong to the next issue.

Your debtor creditor by states is problematic for many reasons. It actually means nothing much at all. Not all states have the mega cities that are the favorite places of Democrats to live. Look up the big cities and you discover they are ran by democrats.

This country has fallen victim to what a founder mentioned. When the public can vote the public money to themselves, they vote for politicians to accomplish that. This has been part of your confession in fact.

At your age, you probably don't have regular doctor appointments over health issues but I know my doctors have all told me, not one or two, all of them, that they plan major changes to their practice due to this obamacare. I have already had Medicare refuse care since to them it was not needed. But this happened AFTER the fact so the doctor and hospital did not get paid. You will learn later how the system already works and this is before the major part of Obamas care kicks in. If you want Medicare Advantage, tough shit since Obama yanked 700 billion dollars out of the program you insist you paid for and are entitled too.

As to death panels, if it happens you may have cancer in the colon and are told by the panel as I was, you can't have the examination paid for by health care, and you die, your family will call it a death panel. But since this has not happened to you yet, keep having faith in the Democrats form of govermment.

I will say this much, their form of government would baffle the founders since it is vastly different than the constitution calls for.

bingster

01-13-2013, 06:57 PM

haha, how about the 900 billion one(first estimate) he did force down our collective throats(obamacare) that has now turned out to be at least a 3.9 trillion dollar boondoggle and far likely to cost even more??
Your refusal to admit to his EXTREMELY HIGH AND UNNECESSARY spending and his denial of it being a problem points to your lack of credibility IMHO.-TYR

The CBO has scored Obamacare as reducing the deficit. I know Republicans don't like the CBO, it was put into effect to keep politicians honest after all.

Credibility- hum bug!

Robert A Whit

01-13-2013, 07:20 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606469#post606469)
Most of that 6 trillion was on programs he didn't pass. The two wars, tax cuts, medicare part d, etc... He did spend almost a trillion on stimulus that stopped the economy from bleeding jobs. Republicans aren't interested in slowing real spending, it they were, they would talk about cutting defense. We're currently above cold-war spending and conservatives want to increase that. Our safety net spending increases are more due to increases in cost of medical care and folks still out of work than anything else. Yea, go ahead, keep pushing the conservative myth that cutting taxes on the job creators will not only be "deficit neutral" but will spur job growth. Trickle down is a myth.

Companies don't hire because they get a tax cut. They hire because more people spend money on their goods.

haha, how about the 900 billion one(first estimate) he did force down our collective throats(obamacare) that has now turned out to be at least a 3.9 trillion dollar boondoggle and far likely to cost even more??
Your refusal to admit to his EXTREMELY HIGH AND UNNECESSARY spending and his denial of it being a problem points to your lack of credibility IMHO.-TYR

:clap::clap:
Both wars were approved by both parties.

A key to understanding Obama is how he refuses to accept any responsibility or blame.

He runs a steady deficit of well over 1 trillion per year but it is not his fault heh?

That is so amusing. Funny how Democrats want all the credit for social security and medicare but they sure shun part D which is a steady cost to patients who need treatment. Part D is very expensive. Though I also use it a ton, it still hurts the rest of the nation to pay for the bills and I think even Bingster agrees on that part.

Then they suffer from not studying where the Feds spend most of the money.

Leads them to a kind of blindkess.

He tripled the forces sent to Afghanistan for some odd reason since not even the Al Qaeda has been fighting there and OBL had fled to Pakistan chased off by Bush.

Democrats practice trickle down all the time. Tell Obama he is wrong. I do it a lot.

The term trickle down is an invention of Democrats. Republicsns don't talk like that.

The CBO has scored Obamacare as reducing the deficit. I know Republicans don't like the CBO, it was put into effect to keep politicians honest after all.

Credibility- hum bug!

So, though you praise medicare, you don't mind it a bit that he chopped a huge chunk out of Medicare?

Why won't Democrats call their changes to social programs making it private? When Bush wanted to make some private, he caught hell.

Obama takes Medicare private and none of you complain? He is helping insurance agents a hell of a lot.

bingster

01-13-2013, 07:29 PM

I wish you had used numbered points to make your case.
I will see what I can do. Some of your claims are not conservative republican points.
While you paid into the programs, you paid pennies compared to the vast sum of dollars you will get. The budget of this coountry can't sustain such extreme profits to the people collecting.
I suspect that over 99 percent of the public has not seen the actual math worked out.

Sure, it is easy to live off the generosity of your neighbors so long as they feel generous. It is a ponzi scheme in fact.

How many Alices do you think there are (real first name - I know her finances) that collect $1,100 per month that can't have paid to the feds over her entire life over a couple hundred dollars? Why does she collect. She has the AD disorder and is grossly fat. She qualifies as disabled. FAT is why she is set up for life. HER mouth works very well.

This system has to lead to abuses. It is built in.

The question has not been the rich getting a tax break, it has been that when they invest or earn, it is their money. We don't own their money or investments. Who are we to declare that by keeping their money they got a break? That is how a communist thinks.

Democrats think more like the Mafia who believes that the store owner owes them a cut of their income and that is what they preach as government.

What is the difference in you paying the mafia protection money or paying it to government?

Skipping the birther issues since this was started by an attorney that fought to get Hillary elected and never was part of the republican party issue, and moviong to the next issue.

Your debtor creditor by states is problematic for many reasons. It actually means nothing much at all. Not all states have the mega cities that are the favorite places of Democrats to live. Look up the big cities and you discover they are ran by democrats.

This country has fallen victim to what a founder mentioned. When the public can vote the public money to themselves, they vote for politicians to accomplish that. This has been part of your confession in fact.

At your age, you probably don't have regular doctor appointments over health issues but I know my doctors have all told me, not one or two, all of them, that they plan major changes to their practice due to this obamacare. I have already had Medicare refuse care since to them it was not needed. But this happened AFTER the fact so the doctor and hospital did not get paid. You will learn later how the system already works and this is before the major part of Obamas care kicks in. If you want Medicare Advantage, tough shit since Obama yanked 700 billion dollars out of the program you insist you paid for and are entitled too.

As to death panels, if it happens you may have cancer in the colon and are told by the panel as I was, you can't have the examination paid for by health care, and you die, your family will call it a death panel. But since this has not happened to you yet, keep having faith in the Democrats form of govermment.

I will say this much, their form of government would baffle the founders since it is vastly different than the constitution calls for.

I'm not going to point by point this. You did a marvelous job, by the way. I will say that Obama's death panel had nothing to do with your situation. It wasn't put into place to deny services, only to streamline and avoid redundancies.

Look around the earth for a minute. We can smile, wrap ourselves in the flag, and can imagine ourselves as so unique, looking at other countries is heresy. But, lets do that. Canada has a 28% top income tax rate and they have universal health care (by the way, you didn't dispute that Obamacare is a Republican idea). Our top tax rate is higher than Canada, but lower than the European countries and they have universal health care. Yes, Europe was hit hard during the Great Recession, but they would have recovered by now had they used stimulus, instead of austerity measures to combat it.
In fact, I challenge you to find any country in the world without universal health care that you would care to visit, let alone live in. So, my argument is that it's not crazy impossible thinking that we can at least match the quality of life of these other countries. Instead, we pay the most of any country on earth on healthcare but have one of the worst systems in the industrialized countries. It was #38, but that was before Obamacare.
As for gouging the rich, we don't have trouble subsidizing oil companies, giving tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, tax breaks on yahts, but we need to just cut, (not reduce costs) just cut our safety net. Don't you dare touch our bloated military. I don't accept that.
Instead of all that, we are racing at top speed to increase our income disparity. According to a recent survey I looked at, there were 5 levels of disparity with (I think it was Finland) at the top (best level-closest to no disparity). Most of Europe and Canada was in the 1st or 2nd tier and we are in the 3rd tier-same as China, and the earnings graph shows us getting worse and worse.
Keep allowing the Republicans to use catchy descriptions of this being class warfare, while Koch brothers keep getting them elected, and we won't be pining to achieve Europe's standard someday. We'll be pining for Tia Juana.

Robert A Whit

01-13-2013, 08:15 PM

The poorer states (usually red) don't pay as much federal income taxes as they get back. White is actually the largest group of citizens receiving food stamps, for instance.

This goes to a point I've made before- I'll be willing to bet 67% of Romney's 47% is Republican.

What makes you think they are poor states?

Are you telling us that republicans are poorer than Democrats?

I'm not going to point by point this. You did a marvelous job, by the way. I will say that Obama's death panel had nothing to do with your situation. It wasn't put into place to deny services, only to streamline and avoid redundancies.

Medicare does deny health care. I am not blaming Obama. I don't believe his program improves this a bit. My doctors are alarmed. Would you not be worried when your doctor is alarmed?

Look around the earth for a minute. We can smile, wrap ourselves in the flag, and can imagine ourselves as so unique, looking at other countries is heresy. But, lets do that. Canada has a 28% top income tax rate and they have universal health care (by the way, you didn't dispute that Obamacare is a Republican idea).

I am happy you are not trying to sell the balderdash that Republicans don't care. I believe you say that since the program is alleged to be fathered by Romney.
I find it hard to compare Canada or others to this country given the vast differences.

Our top tax rate is higher than Canada, but lower than the European countries and they have universal health care. Yes, Europe was hit hard during the Great Recession, but they would have recovered by now had they used stimulus, instead of austerity measures to combat it.

Opinion is welcome here. But I don't see the connection. Even in this country, the bulk of stimulis went to keep public workers and a lot ended up in the banks of the rich. See, they own the companies that do infrastructure etc. But that money was not from taxes, it came from borrowing from countries willing to loan. I have always wondered why Obama has no budgets. Do you know? He can't get his own party to do one.

In fact, I challenge you to find any country in the world without universal health care that you would care to visit, let alone live in. So, my argument is that it's not crazy impossible thinking that we can at least match the quality of life of these other countries.
Trouble is, if you line up their spending and contrast it with the USA, very different. I don't see health care as a function of government. At least not by the Feds. If locals decide they want it, even at state level, at least I can leave the state to seek lower expenses.

Instead, we pay the most of any country on earth on healthcare but have one of the worst systems in the industrialized countries.

Well, why do you think insurance companies can make it better? Look at Obama care. They drive you into the doors of insurance companies.

It was #38, but that was before Obamacare.
As for gouging the rich, we don't have trouble subsidizing oil companies, giving tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, tax breaks on yahts, but we need to just cut, (not reduce costs) just cut our safety net

We do not subdize oil companies. The rich you speak ill of pay the bulk of all income taxes and at times they are double taxed. They pay most of what you call subsidies. A myth is that oil companies collect money from the Government. That myth may not go away. I don't think any leader in this government, going way back decided to have tax breaks to lose jobs. It is too complex for this discussion. Do you call child credits a subsidy to the poor?

. Don't you dare touch our bloated military. I don't accept that.

I don't like having so much military. I prefer that the best size is the proper size to make sure we have a solid core of highly skilled soldiers. It takes too much time to really train troops and leaders. With a very solid core, hopefuly by keeping an eye on countries that may attack us, we can be strong that way. I would like the military pros to comment what they think. I was drafted many years ago. My help to this topic is a lot of time discussing it along with the job I had in an army HQ when I was in. Also, the Army appointed me a leader for training purposes.

Instead of all that, we are racing at top speed to increase our income disparity.

I wish everybody had hands on business experience. They would not be so hasty to make such claims. The kids of the affluent of course can start a business easier but that does not mean they are successful.

I do not see the Government as the agent to change incomes from some A group to some Z group.

Maybe this story can help you understand since it is an example that no doubt is repeated all over the USA.
Ed (friend of mine) escaped W. Virginia with gas money. He came to CA and did labor jobs. Painted doors by hand at a door factory. Got some less cost rent by him and his wife managing an apartment building.

Ed came with his brothers. Charlie and John.

Ed decided since he like to race drag cars, to try to make it in business. His two brothers were simply not thinking that way.

Ed finds some small gas station and tried to make a go. He then tried a small all purpose auto repair shop. He fed his family.

Figuring he had to change, he decided to specialize with automatic transmissions. Ed is one of the most honest people I ever met and a very generous person. Ed took his extra cash and put it into real estate. Over time the property increased so much in value it amounted to several million dollars.

Ed hired his brothers. Paid them well. Gave each a pension. Hired his oldest son who learned the automatic transmission business and he is also rich. Expaned his shops. Made sure he owned the land and buildings.

Sold one commercial property to an oil company and the next door property to McDonalds. Those netted him about 1.7 million dollars. He moved to Oregon and put several million dollars into more investment property there that has a large monthly cash flow.

What is the message? Out of his entire family, he is the only one, other than the one son, that decided to try to make a lot of money. John ran one shop for Ed and had a bad drinking problem and did fine with the shop so long as ED showed up daily to keep it on track. Charlie ran the other shop and did very well. But he never had an interest in having his own shop. He bought 11 acres of nice mountain land with a very nice home using me as his agent. I like his property very much. I have not checked on the value lately but doubt it is worth a million. Charlie had a home close to me that he let his kid live in. That home would sell for about $700,000 today but he probably gave it to his kid.

Point here is that you can't make us all equal. You will find some of us do not really want that much. Ed simply had a good business head. An he makes no show of his money.

According to a recent survey I looked at, there were 5 levels of disparity with (I think it was Finland) at the top (best level-closest to no disparity). Most of Europe and Canada was in the 1st or 2nd tier and we are in the 3rd tier-same as China, and the earnings graph shows us getting worse and worse.
Keep allowing the Republicans to use catchy descriptions of this being class warfare, while Koch brothers keep getting them elected, and we won't be pining to achieve Europe's standard someday. We'll be pining for Tia Juana.

All blue replies above belong to Bob (Robert)

Funny to me is the way democrats think. They pick some person with a lot of money and make a big deal out of him. The next election cycle they will blame some other rich guy.

Remember the last rich guy they blamed?

Scaiffe is his name. Now it is the Koch brothers turn. That is very amusing.

bingster

01-14-2013, 12:55 AM

All blue replies above belong to Bob (Robert)

Funny to me is the way democrats think. They pick some person with a lot of money and make a big deal out of him. The next election cycle they will blame some other rich guy.

Remember the last rich guy they blamed?

Scaiffe is his name. Now it is the Koch brothers turn. That is very amusing.

You can pick anyone you want, the Koch brothers fund and keep alive fake grassroots groups like the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606494#post606494) I'm not going to point by point this. You did a marvelous job, by the way. I will say that Obama's death panel had nothing to do with your situation. It wasn't put into place to deny services, only to streamline and avoid redundancies.

Medicare does deny health care. I am not blaming Obama. I don't believe his program improves this a bit. My doctors are alarmed. Would you not be worried when your doctor is alarmed?-yea, I would. don't blame you there.Look around the earth for a minute. We can smile, wrap ourselves in the flag, and can imagine ourselves as so unique, looking at other countries is heresy. But, lets do that. Canada has a 28% top income tax rate and they have universal health care (by the way, you didn't dispute that Obamacare is a Republican idea).

I am happy you are not trying to sell the balderdash that Republicans don't care. I believe you say that since the program is alleged to be fathered by Romney.
I find it hard to compare Canada or others to this country given the vast differences.I don't know what the vast differences are, but I do know that they are wildly popular and not as expensive as ours. I have to believe they take the insurance companies out of the equation

Our top tax rate is higher than Canada, but lower than the European countries and they have universal health care. Yes, Europe was hit hard during the Great Recession, but they would have recovered by now had they used stimulus, instead of austerity measures to combat it.

Opinion is welcome here. But I don't see the connection. Even in this country, the bulk of stimulis went to keep public workers and a lot ended up in the banks of the rich. See, they own the companies that do infrastructure etc. But that money was not from taxes, it came from borrowing from countries willing to loan. I have always wondered why Obama has no budgets. Do you know? He can't get his own party to do one. I don't see him getting one past this House. He can't even prevent them from holding the world economy hostage.

In fact, I challenge you to find any country in the world without universal health care that you would care to visit, let alone live in. So, my argument is that it's not crazy impossible thinking that we can at least match the quality of life of these other countries.
Trouble is, if you line up their spending and contrast it with the USA, very different. I don't see health care as a function of government. At least not by the Feds. If locals decide they want it, even at state level, at least I can leave the state to seek lower expenses. You're not going to see it at state level. Even Romneycare was only because of a sweet subsidy from the federal government. I know you don't see it a function of the federal government. That's part of the definition of conservative.-not a shot, just a fact that you would agree with.

Instead, we pay the most of any country on earth on healthcare but have one of the worst systems in the industrialized countries.

Well, why do you think insurance companies can make it better? Look at Obama care. They drive you into the doors of insurance companies. That's where I've stated I am at odds with this "liberal" president. An insurance subsidized health care system is not what this country needs. It does very little to lower the cost of healthcare-which is our safety nets biggest problem. but I'll take a first step and hope for change later.

It was #38, but that was before Obamacare.
As for gouging the rich, we don't have trouble subsidizing oil companies, giving tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, tax breaks on yahts, but we need to just cut, (not reduce costs) just cut our safety net

We do not subdize oil companies. The rich you speak ill of pay the bulk of all income taxes and at times they are double taxed. They pay most of what you call subsidies. A myth is that oil companies collect money from the Government. That myth may not go away. I don't think any leader in this government, going way back decided to have tax breaks to lose jobs. It is too complex for this discussion. Do you call child credits a subsidy to the poor?-You need to visit your own think tank-The Heritage Foundation.

Oil Subsidies That Should Be Removed
First, let’s take a look at oil subsidies that are obvious and unnecessary. Congress should eliminate the following subsidies:

Government R&D. The Department of Energy (DOE) has spent taxpayer dollars on oil research and development, including funding for unconventional oil, gas, and coal. Although President Obama’s FY 2012 budget request significantly cuts funding for the Office of Fossil Energy, decreasing its size by $417.8 million below the FY 2010 appropriation, it does not go far enough. The only funding in this area should maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for which the President’s budget requests an appropriate $121.7 million. Eliminating all other fossil energy funding would save $399 million.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit. Oil producers receive a 15 percent tax credit for costlier methods and technologies, such as injecting liquids and carbon dioxide into the earth. Many EOR processes are no longer in use, and the tax credit applies only when the price of oil falls below a certain level.
Marginal Well Production Credit. Marginal wells produce 15 or fewer barrels of oil per day, produce heavy oil, or produce mostly water and fewer than 25 barrels of oil per day. The marginal well production credit is another safety-net tax provision. This is another preferential tax credit that Congress should repeal.-Taken from a conservative site "Heritage Foundation" What’s an Oil Subsidy? By Nicolas Loris (http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/l/nicolas-loris) and Curtis S. Dubay (http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/d/curtis-dubay) May 12, 2011

Those are only the oil subsidies that the Heritage Foundation believes in getting rid of. There are many more. Yea, I know the rich pay most of the taxes (and I resent your mis-charactorization-I'm not speaking "ill" of them-I just believe in a more progressive tax structure), Boehner loves to complain that the top 10% pays 70% of the country's income taxes. That's huge and I agree it's huge, but other sources have said that they control 73% of the wealth-not much of a progressive tax structure. As for corporate taxes, General Electric paid $0 in taxes last year (2011)-I heard that from MSNBC, a station owned by General Electric.

. Don't you dare touch our bloated military. I don't accept that.

I don't like having so much military. I prefer that the best size is the proper size to make sure we have a solid core of highly skilled soldiers. It takes too much time to really train troops and leaders. With a very solid core, hopefuly by keeping an eye on countries that may attack us, we can be strong that way. I would like the military pros to comment what they think. I was drafted many years ago. My help to this topic is a lot of time discussing it along with the job I had in an army HQ when I was in. Also, the Army appointed me a leader for training purposes.-Good job. Thank you for your service.

Instead of all that, we are racing at top speed to increase our income disparity.

I wish everybody had hands on business experience. They would not be so hasty to make such claims. The kids of the affluent of course can start a business easier but that does not mean they are successful.

I do not see the Government as the agent to change incomes from some A group to some Z group.

Maybe this story can help you understand since it is an example that no doubt is repeated all over the USA.
Ed (friend of mine) escaped W. Virginia with gas money. He came to CA and did labor jobs. Painted doors by hand at a door factory. Got some less cost rent by him and his wife managing an apartment building.

Ed came with his brothers. Charlie and John.

Ed decided since he like to race drag cars, to try to make it in business. His two brothers were simply not thinking that way.

Ed finds some small gas station and tried to make a go. He then tried a small all purpose auto repair shop. He fed his family.

Figuring he had to change, he decided to specialize with automatic transmissions. Ed is one of the most honest people I ever met and a very generous person. Ed took his extra cash and put it into real estate. Over time the property increased so much in value it amounted to several million dollars.

Ed hired his brothers. Paid them well. Gave each a pension. Hired his oldest son who learned the automatic transmission business and he is also rich. Expaned his shops. Made sure he owned the land and buildings.

Sold one commercial property to an oil company and the next door property to McDonalds. Those netted him about 1.7 million dollars. He moved to Oregon and put several million dollars into more investment property there that has a large monthly cash flow.

What is the message? Out of his entire family, he is the only one, other than the one son, that decided to try to make a lot of money. John ran one shop for Ed and had a bad drinking problem and did fine with the shop so long as ED showed up daily to keep it on track. Charlie ran the other shop and did very well. But he never had an interest in having his own shop. He bought 11 acres of nice mountain land with a very nice home using me as his agent. I like his property very much. I have not checked on the value lately but doubt it is worth a million. Charlie had a home close to me that he let his kid live in. That home would sell for about $700,000 today but he probably gave it to his kid.

Point here is that you can't make us all equal. You will find some of us do not really want that much. Ed simply had a good business head. An he makes no show of his money.

That's a heck of a great story and sounds like a good friend. I'm not looking for equality, and I cringe when my liberal friends use the term "fairness"-even at a flat tax, the millionaire will most likely pay several times more money that I will, and the cops will not necessarily come several times faster when he calls them.
I'm just looking for at least enough progressiveness to allow the middle class and the poor to start doing a little better each year instead of staying flat over the last 30 years-while top 10% has increased by 600%.-I think that was from the Tax Policy Center, or the Census-I forget and I'm too tired to look it up right now.

According to a recent survey I looked at, there were 5 levels of disparity with (I think it was Finland) at the top (best level-closest to no disparity). Most of Europe and Canada was in the 1st or 2nd tier and we are in the 3rd tier-same as China, and the earnings graph shows us getting worse and worse.
Keep allowing the Republicans to use catchy descriptions of this being class warfare, while Koch brothers keep getting them elected, and we won't be pining to achieve Europe's standard someday. We'll be pining for Tia Juana.

I used red-also I'd like to say a couple things about prior posts:
When referring to my debtor state post, you supposed it had to do with big cities full of Democrats. No, I don't think so. If there were enough big cities of Democrats to cause a state to be a Debtor state, wouldn't it be a blue state? I'm sorry, most debtor states are red states. Your stereo-type is just wrong; there are plenty of poor white people who vote Republican.

Short P.S. to the preceding....
I do have experience in business. No, I don't own a business, and I recognize the difference, but I did manage drug stores for the last 23 years. Most of that time, I was at least in charge of payroll at two different companies (about a third of the time I was in charge of everything). I know that drug stores run on a 7 to 12% payroll percent. High volume stores run on the lower percent and low volume stores run on the higher percent. My point is, I know why a drug store hires people, and believe me, it has to do with my customers getting their unemployment, social security, welfare, or payroll checks and has nothing to do with their taxes. Unemployed people, poor, and some middle-class people don't pay federal income taxes. Give the country the year off (from federal income tax) and it wouldn't affect my store in the least. My customers need a check or a job, and more of them need a check or a job for me to hire more. Period. (Trickle down is a crock-it just expands that disparity I was talking about-that's also why it really started and took off like a shot from the 80's-thanks Reagan and Friedman-sp?)

fj1200

01-14-2013, 06:21 AM

That's rich. Conservatives don't believe gun deaths have anything to do with guns. On this issue as in all issues, Obama is looking at all causes.

It's true. Every proposal to a problem is based in more government regulations and intrusion on freedoms and that the "problem" is almost always a symptom and not an underlying cause. Has BO been looking into our treatment policies for those with mental issues as a cause? OTOH, how did guns come up again?

And your last statement is provably false. Not to go off-topic but his "solution" to our deficit, for example, only looks at tax cuts on the rich as the cause when tax rates have virtually zero to do with tax revenues and only lip service is paid to controlling spending. The unemployment rate is far more correlated, I'd argue recessions are actually causative, to deficits than tax cuts.

The poorer states (usually red) don't pay as much federal income taxes as they get back. White is actually the largest group of citizens receiving food stamps, for instance.

This goes to a point I've made before- I'll be willing to bet 67% of Romney's 47% is Republican.

I'm asking you the policy drivers that create the debtor/creditor state issues. I would submit to you that if you are unaware why the situation exists then the point you are trying to make is false. And who is questioning the racial makeup of food stamp recipients?

It's also a response to the critique many conservatives have that liberals don't want to work and just want to kick back and receive welfare checks.

:dunno: So you just want to argue against "many conservatives"?

Instead, we pay the most of any country on earth on healthcare but have one of the worst systems in the industrialized countries. It was #38, but that was before Obamacare.

You'll pardon me if I don't accept your #38 as being an impartial look by an impartial organization. We do pay the most but once correcting for non-medical related issues we have the best outcomes in the world. Not many will say that our system couldn't be better but the level of regulation that we have is incredibly high, and a single payer system, Medicare, is so large that it dominates the overall workings of the system. There are many that ignore those effects and to still proclaim our system as "free-market;" it's clearly not.

As for gouging the rich, we don't have trouble subsidizing oil companies, giving tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, tax breaks on yahts, but we need to just cut, (not reduce costs) just cut our safety net. Don't you dare touch our bloated military. I don't accept that.

Could you point me to the Overseas Job Shipment and Economic Recovery Act please.

Did you really just state that we should cut our safety net yet advocate for the expansion of one in the same post?

Instead of all that, we are racing at top speed to increase our income disparity... We'll be pining for Tia Juana.

:rolleyes: What is evil about income disparity?

bingster

01-14-2013, 06:57 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png

:clap::clap:
Both wars were approved by both parties.

A key to understanding Obama is how he refuses to accept any responsibility or blame.

He runs a steady deficit of well over 1 trillion per year but it is not his fault heh?

That is so amusing. Funny how Democrats want all the credit for social security and medicare but they sure shun part D which is a steady cost to patients who need treatment. Part D is very expensive. Though I also use it a ton, it still hurts the rest of the nation to pay for the bills and I think even Bingster agrees on that part.

Then they suffer from not studying where the Feds spend most of the money.

Leads them to a kind of blindkess.

He tripled the forces sent to Afghanistan for some odd reason since not even the Al Qaeda has been fighting there and OBL had fled to Pakistan chased off by Bush.

Democrats practice trickle down all the time. Tell Obama he is wrong. I do it a lot.

The term trickle down is an invention of Democrats. Republicsns don't talk like that.

So, though you praise medicare, you don't mind it a bit that he chopped a huge chunk out of Medicare?

Why won't Democrats call their changes to social programs making it private? When Bush wanted to make some private, he caught hell.

Obama takes Medicare private and none of you complain? He is helping insurance agents a hell of a lot.

I know both parties voted for both wars. I'm not passing blame, I'm explaining the 6 trillion.

He didn't make Medicare private. He made people get private health insurance. There's a difference. Yes, he cut Medicare (without affecting benefits); what do you think the Republicans are holding the world economy hostage for right now? They want huge cuts to both Medicare and Social Security even those the poles say even more Republicans don't want than Democrates (67% to 64%).

I don't like Obamacare. I think it's a necessary first step. I would rather take the insurance companies out of the equation.

We need to cut the military.

mundame

01-14-2013, 06:59 PM

I
We need to cut the military.

Too late. We just offered to support the French with their war on Mali, today.

That's what we need, yet another war.

Kathianne

01-14-2013, 07:20 PM

Too late. We just offered to support the French with their war on Mali, today.

That's what we need, yet another war.

Don't forget he just reported that we supported France, Friday in Somalia.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/01/13/obama-authorized-u-s-participation-in-botched-french-somalia-rescue-mission/

President Obama informed Congress Sunday evening that U.S. forces were present in Somalia on Friday for a French raid to rescue a hostage from al-Shabaab.

The attempt to rescue the intelligence officer who had been held by the terrorist group for three years went very wrong, though.One French commando was killed in the operation and another is missing. Al-Shabaab claimed that the commando is now their hostage.

And French army consultant Denis Allex, the pseudonym for the intelligence officer, is presumed dead.

“Extremely violent fights took place, during which everything leads us to think that Mr. Allex was shot dead by his kidnappers,” France’s Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told reporters at a news conference Saturday. Al-Shabaab claimed Allex is still alive and in their hands.

Obama sent his notice in accordance with the War Powers Resolution to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate President Pro Tempore Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) today.

“United States forces provided limited technical support to the French forces in that operation, but took no direct part in the assault on the compound where it was believed the French citizen was being held hostage,” Obama wrote.

...

Robert A Whit

01-14-2013, 08:32 PM

I know both parties voted for both wars. I'm not passing blame, I'm explaining the 6 trillion.

He didn't make Medicare private. He made people get private health insurance. There's a difference. Yes, he cut Medicare (without affecting benefits); what do you think the Republicans are holding the world economy hostage for right now? They want huge cuts to both Medicare and Social Security even those the poles say even more Republicans don't want than Democrates (67% to 64%).

I don't like Obamacare. I think it's a necessary first step. I would rather take the insurance companies out of the equation.

We need to cut the military.

I plan to reply to your much longer post so be patient. Meantime I will speak to these points.

Medicare of course is not the same program as the ACA law. He cut Medicare so he can spend on the ACA. Funny eh?

And while the idea of insurance getting more share of the public money is not so much the problem, it is that he drove vusiness to insurance companies. I should have said he has tried to privatize even more some health care but by force.

Both wars are not the cause of most of the spending.

I isolate the part where the payroll is a huge factor and no matter where troops are placed, they still must be paid. If you pull out one division, they still get paid even if in the USA. The only extra cost for payroll is combat duty pay. That is not a large expense.

You may correctly say they use more fuel in theater than in the USA. But even so, that is not why he has such an enormous deficit.

He did cut Medicare and did affect benefits. That money won't be paid to doctors and hospitals. How can having less medicine and hospital costs be a benefit to me or you as you age?

As to Republicans slashing medicare and so forth, no doubt that is a valid point. So, is your aim to have the Feds spend more on such things or less?

I believe with your backgrouind you are able to make many good points. And I respect that.

Kathianne

01-14-2013, 10:56 PM

Don't forget he just reported that we supported France, Friday in Somalia.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/01/13/obama-authorized-u-s-participation-in-botched-french-somalia-rescue-mission/

Worse news:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/01/shabaab_releases_pho.php

Shabaab has released photographs of a French commando who was captured during a failed raid to free a hostage late last week (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/01/shabaab_kills_captur.php). The French commando, who was initially reported as captured, died in Shabaab custody, the al Qaeda affiliate said. Shabaab also said it has "reached a unanimous verdict on the fate" of Denis Allex, the French intelligence operative who has been in custody since the summer of 2009, but has not disclosed what will be done with him.

French commandos attempted to free Allex, who they believed was being held at a safe house in Bula-Marer, a town under Shabaab control. Two French commandos and 17 Shabaab fighters are reported to have been killed; Shabaab has claimed that only two of its fighters and numerous civilians were killed during the the French operations.

Shabaab released three photographs of the commando as well as a photograph of captured weapons along with an official statement on its Twitter site (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/kn2dqu), @HSMPress (Harakat Al-Shabaab Al Mujahideen Press Office). The terror group claimed the Frenchman pictured was the "the French commander leading the operation." The rank of the commando who was captured has not been confirmed by French officials.

"The commander was deserted by his comrades after a fierce firefight and subsequently captured by the Mujahideen," Shabaab stated. "HSM paramedic teams arrived at the scene shortly after the firefight had ended and transferred him to a hospital at the base, but he succumbed to his injuries hours later."

One photograph shows the French commando placed on a tarpaulin, surrounded by gear, (https://twitter.com/HSMPress/status/290804482344898560/photo/1) including weapons, magazines, body armor, a helmet with night vision goggles, and other equipment [pictured above]. Another photograph shows silenced submachineguns and and a silenced pistol, magazines, and what appears to be a map of the area where the commandos conducted their mission. On Twitter, Shabaab described the seized equipment as "Ghaneema," (https://twitter.com/HSMPress/status/290812215475437568/photo/1) or prizes captured during war.

Shabaab also claimed it "managed to retrieve valuable information from the soldier before his death," but did not specify what information was obtained.

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/01/shabaab_releases_pho.php#ixzz2I0rqDKb6

...

How this thread went from cash for clunkers to this? I've not a clue.