Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Jenny1919
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:12 am
SL Name: Jenifer Smithson
Caste: Outlaw
Role: Panther
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby Jenny1919 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:40 pm

TreatRothschild wrote:I'm still waiting to find out what "failed" means.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/failed?s=t
User avatar
Thyri
Posts: 948
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:02 am
SL Name: Thyri Carver
Caste: Scribe
Role: Free Woman

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby Thyri » Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:32 am

Mat I'd agree with this convoluted reasoning IF Obamacare was the only thing I was concerned about this election. What I'm most concerned about is jobs, the economy, and the rising deficit. I dont know if moving back to the gold standard, auditing the fed, and somehow bringing home every single troop that is presently overseas and dismantling the US military would fix these issues (probably not since at the moment the US military is one of the largest consumers of american manufacturing that there is... soo umm probably reductions in the military, while hot button issues for sure, its not the time to dismantle the US Military)

If defeating Obamacare was my only issue, maybe. But I have larger issues out there. Of anything the libertarians say, one thing I do believe. Balanced Budget Ammendment. We could have done it with Clinton. We had a balanced budget there. (the horrors the staunch republican and evil conservative saying Clinton did something right!!) We can have a balanced budget again. It will take sacrifices from ALL. It will take sacrifices in entitlement spending. Might take a few medicare cuts. Definitely would have to reduce SOME of the tax cuts across the board. And then see where we're at budget wise. But no politician at the moment is willing to vote for a balanced budget ammendment.

We're too worried about universal healthcare, illegal immigration and gay marriage. I could care less what gay folk do. Let them be gay and proud. Do we really need to be spending our federal government's time and energy worrying about this?
Be very polite. -Flagg RIP 2009
User avatar
TreatRothschild
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:11 pm
SL Name: I'm Treat Dammit!
Role: Magistrate and Love Cthulhu
Home Stone: Hesius
Location: NJ

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby TreatRothschild » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:26 pm

Jenny1919 wrote:
TreatRothschild wrote:I'm still waiting to find out what "failed" means.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/failed?s=t

Oh, please. Don't try to be cute. Tell me what you mean by Europe is "failed". Although your link to a dictionary reference tells me you don't really have a clue.
Let me give you some advice bastard. Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby Glaucon » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:53 am

A rule, constitutional or otherwise, that says that a government should always balance it's budget is bad for the following reasons:

1. Impractical: When things go bad, economically, government income goes down (less tax revenue) and, if there is any sort of welfare system in place for people losing their jobs, costs will go up. So, that would mean heavy spending cuts elsewhere. And assuming that such spending isn't wasted and that it is spend on things that are worthwhile, as decided by the people's respresentatives who are democratically elected, such cuts are damaging to the general good. When doing anything with money, it is better to have a steady budget that doesn't fluctuate a lot, rather than a budget that goes up and down all the time.

2. Keynesian economics: Like it or not, if a government starts cutting spending drastically when things go bad, economically, this will amplify the economic downturn, make matters worse. You should want a government to 'cushion' the effects of economic highs and lows, not amplify them.

3. International politics & war: The sinews of war are infinite money. A country that cannot borrow money (and fail to balance it's budget) cannot access the same amount of money as a country that can borrow. Which means that, should there be a major war, that country will be limited in what it can do, militarily, by what it gets in revenue that year. And thus, not being able to borrow would also affect it's threat potential in times of piece/international politics. A major world power needs to be able to borrow. (Of course, someone like Ron Paul doesn't want the USA to play the part of major world power).

Of course, the above doesn't mean that it is not good to want to balance the budget over the long term or that it isn't true that the USA, like many countries, has been over-spending for far too long (which I feel it has, I feel it has both been over-spending and under-taxing and that it ought to have balanced it's budget beteen 2004 and 2007, at least, when things weren't going badly, economically).
Jenny1919
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:12 am
SL Name: Jenifer Smithson
Caste: Outlaw
Role: Panther
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby Jenny1919 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:45 am

Glaucon wrote:2. Keynesian economics: Like it or not, if a government starts cutting spending drastically when things go bad, economically, this will amplify the economic downturn, make matters worse. You should want a government to 'cushion' the effects of economic highs and lows, not amplify them.


how exactly would that amplify it? Government is the biggest burden on society today and people want to make it bigger???... If we rid 3/4ths of government we would be thriving.. Take California as an example.. They have like 20 Billion dollar deficit... Illegal immigrants cost the State 23 Billion... Hello if they stopped giving in to the illegal immigrants sent them home Do whatever they need todo They wouldnt be in a deficit... If someone came in and Axe'd 3/4ths the government programs, offices, people, we would be running surpluses and be debt free with low taxes for everyone. Cheap gas, financial security for all
User avatar
TreatRothschild
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:11 pm
SL Name: I'm Treat Dammit!
Role: Magistrate and Love Cthulhu
Home Stone: Hesius
Location: NJ

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby TreatRothschild » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:54 am

How do you "rid" yourself of 3/4 of government without causing more problems than you cure? Most importantly, are *all* levels and types of government included in your purge? Like...the military?
Let me give you some advice bastard. Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby Glaucon » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:24 am

Jenny1919 wrote:
Glaucon wrote:2. Keynesian economics: Like it or not, if a government starts cutting spending drastically when things go bad, economically, this will amplify the economic downturn, make matters worse. You should want a government to 'cushion' the effects of economic highs and lows, not amplify them.


how exactly would that amplify it? Government is the biggest burden on society today and people want to make it bigger???...


Well, the first question I could answer, (economics 101, but no problem), but the second question and the stuff following it makes it clear that you are connecting the dots of what I wrote with dots in the clouds blown by Fox News smoke signals, so... it would be pointless.
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby Mat » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:30 am

keynesian is questionable at best depending on what expert you talk to.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him
Resolver Bouchard
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:26 am

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby Resolver Bouchard » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:29 pm

Jenny1919 wrote:
Glaucon wrote:2. Keynesian economics: Like it or not, if a government starts cutting spending drastically when things go bad, economically, this will amplify the economic downturn, make matters worse. You should want a government to 'cushion' the effects of economic highs and lows, not amplify them.


how exactly would that amplify it? Government is the biggest burden on society today and people want to make it bigger???... If we rid 3/4ths of government we would be thriving.. Take California as an example.. They have like 20 Billion dollar deficit... Illegal immigrants cost the State 23 Billion... Hello if they stopped giving in to the illegal immigrants sent them home Do whatever they need todo They wouldnt be in a deficit... If someone came in and Axe'd 3/4ths the government programs, offices, people, we would be running surpluses and be debt free with low taxes for everyone. Cheap gas, financial security for all


If you are getting rid of 2/3rds of the government who is going to be sending these immigrants home?

Government provides stability, stimulates the economy and protects those who are unable to protect themselves. There is always scope for improving the way that it operates and reducing its size and cost but if you go too far down that route you'll end up with anarchy.

Public corruption and waste are the enemy, not the whole entire system.
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: Reelect Obama to get rid of Obamacare?

Postby Mat » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:32 pm

Resolver Bouchard wrote:
Jenny1919 wrote:
Glaucon wrote:2. Keynesian economics: Like it or not, if a government starts cutting spending drastically when things go bad, economically, this will amplify the economic downturn, make matters worse. You should want a government to 'cushion' the effects of economic highs and lows, not amplify them.


how exactly would that amplify it? Government is the biggest burden on society today and people want to make it bigger???... If we rid 3/4ths of government we would be thriving.. Take California as an example.. They have like 20 Billion dollar deficit... Illegal immigrants cost the State 23 Billion... Hello if they stopped giving in to the illegal immigrants sent them home Do whatever they need todo They wouldnt be in a deficit... If someone came in and Axe'd 3/4ths the government programs, offices, people, we would be running surpluses and be debt free with low taxes for everyone. Cheap gas, financial security for all


If you are getting rid of 2/3rds of the government who is going to be sending these immigrants home?

Government provides stability, stimulates the economy and protects those who are unable to protect themselves. There is always scope for improving the way that it operates and reducing its size and cost but if you go too far down that route you'll end up with anarchy.

Public corruption and waste are the enemy, not the whole entire system.

Agree with some just dont agree with the gvt having a role in stimulating the economy or providing stability.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron