Jump to content

Healthcare reform


kapkomet

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 07:00 PM)
If you want this country to survive, you have to get off of the government entitlements. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh, because that's the only way you know how to look at things. You've been suckered into the part of the population that says government is the only thing that can fix your way to anything that life throws at us as a country. At what point does it stop? That's what has made this country the most economically thriving country in the world was that the government generally stayed the hell out of the way until the last 70+ years (except Reagan - who only solved 65% of the problem and made the other 35% way worse). We WERE different, that is part of it. Liberals don't seem to want to admit that. They are always looking for the next entitlement or handout. Those rich f***ers can handle it! Evil bastards SHOULD pay the lower classes (redistribution of wealth is what we SHOULD be about). That thinking is so wrong. What the hell ever happened to making your own way?

 

Now with all that said, there ARE times when the government should step in. I understand helping people up from difficult issues, and the safety nets. But fix the damn problems with the existing infastructure before you create the biggest entitlement of them all - but hell no, we can't do that, because then the power of the government wouldn't be what it is becoming.

Yeah taxes and big government is just killing China's economy right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 01:01 PM)
He's being mocked because all he does is talk about improving how the government operates, he doesn't actually do anything to back up his promises.

 

 

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 01:59 PM)
Yeah, still searching C-SPAN for the coverage. Where is it, Barry?

wtf are you guys talking about? 8th grade civics anyone? The topic was the Senate and you guys are bringing up Obama and transparency as if they were all the same thing for some reason and Obama is running this show. Come on now. You all know better but choose to act like this... why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 10:39 PM)
wtf are you guys talking about? 8th grade civics anyone? The topic was the Senate and you guys are bringing up Obama and transparency as if they were all the same thing for some reason and Obama is running this show. Come on now. You all know better but choose to act like this... why?

 

 

He's the party leader... he needs to clean that s*** up. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 11:38 PM)
It's not even remotely the same. You can't compare the two.

My point being that you talked about some vague concept of "small government" being the reason for the U.S. having a booming economy in the past and glossed over/ignored all the other reasons that was actually true. The United States was never some mythical place where everything is different and jobs just magically came here, there were several factors that made the U.S.'s global position what it was and a lot of those things will probably never be repeated. I just threw China in there because they are eating our economic lunch right now and they obviously don't have small government (s*** their government and business sector's objectives are the same thing) or low taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 11:39 PM)
He's the party leader... he needs to clean that s*** up. :lol:

Yeah, to some degree, but the Senate rules are what they are and it's kinda impractical for Congress to just change they way they do their daily business (i.e., carry out negotiations in committee) just because the president wants them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 10:46 PM)
Yeah, to some degree, but the Senate rules are what they are and it's kinda impractical for Congress to just change they way they do their daily business (i.e., carry out negotiations in committee) just because the president wants them to.

 

 

I know that. But since I-Bama's up in there fixin' everything up... he needs to get that crap fixed. :lol:

 

I'm kidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 10:44 PM)
My point being that you talked about some vague concept of "small government" being the reason for the U.S. having a booming economy in the past and glossed over/ignored all the other reasons that was actually true. The United States was never some mythical place where everything is different and jobs just magically came here, there were several factors that made the U.S.'s global position what it was and a lot of those things will probably never be repeated. I just threw China in there because they are eating our economic lunch right now and they obviously don't have small government (s*** their government and business sector's objectives are the same thing) or low taxes.

You get the UAW to work for $2 per hour, and scrap pensions, and we can kick China's butt again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 10:05 PM)
Leave it to an unemployed conservative to root for a douche that received a $73M bonus for doing nothing to better society.

If the company stock has performed well, he has helped millions of people who hold their stock either singularly or as part of a 401k package somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 12:09 AM)
You get the UAW to work for $2 per hour, and scrap pensions, and we can kick China's butt again.

Hey look, someone gets it. But let's slash the government in half and this will TOTALLY happen, that's the only thing holding us back

I know you're exaggerating to make a point, but without the auto workers and that manufacturing middle class being prosperous (because of those unions that eventually did themselves in) we don't have economic prosperity in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Edited by lostfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

American cars still have reputations for being pieces of s***. Not true anymore IMO, but they put out substandard crap for so long that this perception is still burned in peoples minds.

 

As long as GM is still around, I'll probably never own anything other than a Chevy.

Edited by lostfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say, I'm pretty impressed with the Malibu, Cruze and the Volt when it comes out.

 

The GMC Terrain too.

 

I'm also starting to get a crush on the Ford Flex.

 

And if Chrysler lives long enough to start releasing Fiat platform products, look out. Fiat's been making some great autos the last ten years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 08:04 PM)
They are a federally based program. What they are doing without saying this is what they are doing is setting the market so that private insurers will still get the shaft. You all keep talking like all these people that are getting mandated are going to private insurers. That's not what is going to happen because there's no profit in these policies. No profit, no private insurance. Yea! That's what you want anyway.

 

Good. I am 100% behind any bill that f***s private insurers right in the ass as of last week.

 

More seriously, I would be 100% opposed to any plan that mandates me purchasing something from a very limited number of private companies. I may not think socialism is the best idea, but it's not as bad as corporatism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 10:39 PM)
wtf are you guys talking about? 8th grade civics anyone? The topic was the Senate and you guys are bringing up Obama and transparency as if they were all the same thing for some reason and Obama is running this show. Come on now. You all know better but choose to act like this... why?

 

 

So he lied when he said we are going to change the Wash. works? He said he would not sign a bill that was not deficit neutral. This bill starts collecting taxes in 2010-11 and does not start spending until 2014. 1o years of spending puts this bill at 1.8-2.5 trillion in cost. No way is this deficit neutral.

 

 

And on a side note, why did this NEED to get passed before Christmas?

 

 

There has never been a piece of legislation ram rodded through like this one. Oh what the hell, its only 16-17% of our economy.

 

 

Keep up the good work guys.

 

Another thing, when the give the wash to the unions by exempting them from the cadillac plan tax, how do we make for that lost revenue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 10:44 PM)
My point being that you talked about some vague concept of "small government" being the reason for the U.S. having a booming economy in the past and glossed over/ignored all the other reasons that was actually true. The United States was never some mythical place where everything is different and jobs just magically came here, there were several factors that made the U.S.'s global position what it was and a lot of those things will probably never be repeated. I just threw China in there because they are eating our economic lunch right now and they obviously don't have small government (s*** their government and business sector's objectives are the same thing) or low taxes.

 

 

China is a joke. Their economic #'s may be a bigger farse than ours. Can you say "bubble brewing". Look to short the Chinese mkt in the coming year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 07:45 AM)
China is a joke. Their economic #'s may be a bigger farse than ours. Can you say "bubble brewing". Look to short the Chinese mkt in the coming year.

Great, all of our jobs are coming back from China then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 07:42 AM)
So he lied when he said we are going to change the Wash. works? He said he would not sign a bill that was not deficit neutral. This bill starts collecting taxes in 2010-11 and does not start spending until 2014. 1o years of spending puts this bill at 1.8-2.5 trillion in cost. No way is this deficit neutral.

 

 

And on a side note, why did this NEED to get passed before Christmas?

 

 

There has never been a piece of legislation ram rodded through like this one. Oh what the hell, its only 16-17% of our economy.

 

 

Keep up the good work guys.

 

Another thing, when the give the wash to the unions by exempting them from the cadillac plan tax, how do we make for that lost revenue?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I said, but ok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 06:10 AM)
If the company stock has performed well, he has helped millions of people who hold their stock either singularly or as part of a 401k package somewhere.

 

yeah, some look at this as the ultimate nobility. I look at the fact that his policies bankrupted many and killed quite a number. But the 401k thing, that's pretty good. Pinochet made a lot of people money, as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 06:45 AM)
China is a joke. Their economic #'s may be a bigger farse than ours. Can you say "bubble brewing". Look to short the Chinese mkt in the coming year.

I've seen you post in here for years, providing your advice on the markets. I've seen you suggesting shorting everything under the sun, but I don't think I've ever seen you suggest going long in anything, ever.

 

Just thought that was interesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 09:21 PM)

1. From a political point of view, and a legal one, I have no problem with this at all. Cigna is a successful company, they aren't being stilited up by the government. If they want to pay the guy that kind of money, fine.

 

2. From a purely personal point of view - one which I would not expect the government to build laws around - that is an obscene amount of money for a guy LEAVING a company, especially one that has complained so loudly about health care legislation. Its hypocritical in the extreme, and a little disgusting to me. But again, that's only my feeling, and since this is a healthy, private, legally operated business, they can go right ahead.

 

3. One thing this does highlight is, the problem of health care and profitability often (but not always) being diametrically opposed. This is why I have said I'd be ecstatic of the government could find ways to encourage more non-profit businesses in that field, in any way possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...