BakaBT

Discussion Forums => General Discussions => Politics => Topic started by: Lucerin Red on March 03, 2010, 01:09:36 AM

Title: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Lucerin Red on March 03, 2010, 01:09:36 AM
,
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: fohfoh on March 03, 2010, 01:13:36 AM
Everyone just needs to calm down and think slowly.
We should all just lighten up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-jcDRFId68)
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Meomix on March 03, 2010, 01:24:04 AM
A meteor should just slam into the White house already, they are already beyond help. Heck they are even preparing a law to bring back BLACK SLAVERY. AND WHILE OBAMA IS CURRENTLY STARING THEM IN THE FREAKING FACE NO LESS.

Please Omnipotentities, just save everyones misery and just slam the place down. 
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: relic2279 on March 03, 2010, 08:56:00 AM
He can't just suspend all spending. You failed to link, or mention what the spending was about. Even Clinton, who put us in the positives still spent money.

So after all your "rabble rabble, omgwtfbbq Obama is a hypocrite!" I have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Quote
Heck they are even preparing a law to bring back BLACK SLAVERY.

Did you read that in an email from your grandma titled "Fwd Fwd Fwd Fwd Fwd: Obama is bringing back Slavery!" ? ::)
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Lucerin Red on March 03, 2010, 11:22:01 AM
,
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: relic2279 on March 03, 2010, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: Lucerin Red on March 03, 2010, 11:22:01 AM
But Bunning wasn't suspending ALL spending, he was suspending something that hadn't been put in the budget, and all he was asking for, was that we take something less necessary out of the budget to make up for the increased expenditure.

It's like if you need to buy a new bike because your old one broke, but you didn't put a new bike in your personal budget and you need a bike right now, so you cut your funds for repairing a window because you'll be able to get to at a later time

Wait, I still am not sure what you are talking about.

At first, I thought Obama proposed this pay as you go plan, and wanted to spend some money, and you were being critical of his wanting to spend some money.

Now, I have less of an idea of what is going on :P
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Lucerin Red on March 03, 2010, 12:34:44 PM
,
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Meomix on March 04, 2010, 01:07:04 AM
Quote from: relic2279 on March 03, 2010, 08:56:00 AM
He can't just suspend all spending. You failed to link, or mention what the spending was about. Even Clinton, who put us in the positives still spent money.

So after all your "rabble rabble, omgwtfbbq Obama is a hypocrite!" I have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Quote
Heck they are even preparing a law to bring back BLACK SLAVERY.

Did you read that in an email from your grandma titled "Fwd Fwd Fwd Fwd Fwd: Obama is bringing back Slavery!" ? ::)

Digg.com -> Official News Article -> "GOP Thinks they should bring back black slavery of course not obama's bloody decision" -> Que epic rage.
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: lx4 on March 04, 2010, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Lucerin Red on March 03, 2010, 01:09:36 AM
I mean, we love Obama

Quote from: Lucerin Red on March 03, 2010, 01:09:36 AM
There are lots of things the federal government would be better off doing, but if we can't pay for it, we shouldn't do it.

Wait these two statements dont go together. I like Obama too but his whole economic policy since taking office has been, lets build infrastructure, create jobs, save business and pump a shitload of money in to the economy to try to save it. None of these thing America can afford without borrowing to pay for it. 
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Lucerin Red on March 04, 2010, 10:10:03 PM
,
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: relic2279 on March 04, 2010, 11:12:49 PM
Quote from: Lucerin Red on March 04, 2010, 10:10:03 PM
it fucks everything up, like the health industry. Do you want to know why health care is so expensive, because of legislation that puts us in a corporatist system instead of a capitalist one.

No offense, but WHAT? Health care is the least regulated industry in the US. It's the most capitalistic market that exists in the US because it's the only industry that is free of anti-trust laws. Our health care sucks because it is too free of regulation.

Quote
You should be outraged in the manner of which he performed things. Pushing through the stimulus package as quickly as he did only made us sure of one thing, the only people that knew what was in it were the people that wrote it, the lobbyists. They had the legislation far before any of the congressman,

 :o

That legislation was already passed and through congress before Obama was elected. By a REPUBLICAN senate. He signed it within the first week of taking office.


This explains everything:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Lucerin Red on March 05, 2010, 04:37:06 AM
,
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: relic2279 on March 06, 2010, 07:19:42 AM
Quote from: Lucerin Red on March 05, 2010, 04:37:06 AM

...le sigh, no, it is not free of regulation.

Never said it completely free of regulation. I said it was one of the least regulated industries in the US.


Quote
which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws.

Not really, no. If we had real government intervention, we'd have a public option. Something to compete with the juiced up insurance companies. Competition is good, right? Capitalism right?

Quote
Therefore, this is NOT capitalism. In order for it to be capitalism, there has to be competition and freely fluctuating prices,

Are you forced to have an HMO? You can buy any insurance you'd like. If you don't like Ford's health insurance, then go buy the best there is. Nothing is stopping you. That IS capitalism. Hell, if you're rich enough, you don't even need insurance. Just pay the hospital directly. How is that NOT capitalism? It might not be 100 percent pure capitalism, but it's pretty damn close.


Quote
the insurance company is unable to terminate your policy due to you becoming more likely to collect. This is not because of government regulation, but because this is the option that companies provided and consumers selected through capitalism.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of how insurance works. They certainly can terminate your insurance. An insurance policy is for a set amount of time. When an insurance company renews their policy with the employers company, if you are to much of a risk, getting cancer treatment, whatever, the insurance company is within their rights to raise their new policy rate/quote to unthinkable levels to get the employer to let you go. Dropping you from coverage. This is what happens most often. They also can look for errors in your paperwork, judgment, reporting your history to find a way to cancel you. Their motivation is profit. Not your health.



Quote
with a Democrat Super-Majority.

Ugh... I really hate that word. There is/was never no super majority. They're counting people like Joe Lieberman and other independents who often vote republican. Not to mention blue dogs who are only democrat in name, but have republican voting records.
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Lucerin Red on March 22, 2010, 01:38:00 PM
,
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Graeystone on April 20, 2010, 07:21:58 PM
Obama's ignorance is mind boggling. An executive order is not needed to stop a spending bill. The president already something called a Veto.
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: kyanwan on April 20, 2010, 09:25:30 PM
Quote from: fohfoh on March 03, 2010, 01:13:36 AM
Everyone just needs to calm down and think slowly.
We should all just lighten up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-jcDRFId68)


My country has AIDS.  It's a form of AIDS called "the national debt."

We could be getting our antivirals, but certain legislators on both sides would rather go around having promiscuous sex, smoking, drinking, and eating XL size Burger King triple cheeseburgers 4 times a day - and making things worse all across the board.

Now it's going from the country had AIDS to the country's got AIDS, Liver failure, kidney failure, heart disease, lung disease, and cancer.   Well, maybe not the cancer.  I exaggerated a little.   But the country's definitely got crabs.  You know it.
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: Animade on April 22, 2010, 01:17:13 AM
Cutting or controlling government spending means gutting social security, veterans and medicare. Which in turn would also smack state budgets across the head. HA at republicans ever doing that. Even uncle newt who is the defacto spokesperson for the party admitted he'd borrow the US into insolvency before raising taxes and well before cutting ss/vet/medicare spending.

The current deficit is no problem, we can easily deal with it. It's the projected deficits that are and they come from ss/va/mc. The recession is over however the baby boomers are retiring so lol guess what part of government spending is going to exponentially grow.

The government had to do something to stem the bleeding in health care. To force corporation to return windfall profits to consumers. The classification of "independent contractor" had to be modified. They way it works in the US "employees" receive health care and lately most company payrolls had few employees. 10% of the people need 90% of the care. You can't have healthy young people not paying into the system that takes care of older folks and then have them at the last minute go oh well I'm starting to get old so maybe I should only now get health insurance.

It had to be done. Of course being watered down didn't help anyone. However the republicans took the view of, if it works (which it has everywhere else) obama will get all the credit and we'll lose our pants come future elections. So they took the Rush stance and wished it to fail by taking direct action to make it fail.

So really what's another 10B here and there. That's not the problem. All the earmarks are not the problem. Heck the 100B in spending cuts proposed by obama is just faux pose since he's merely freeing up resources to spend on high speed rail. Which is a good thing. For free market principles to work in health insurance you'd probably need 100M to lose it. Yea that sounds like a wonderful future. Isn't that how free markets govern corporations? Let them fail and take the retirements of 450,000 people with them. Especially when for the next two decades we may very well be a country for old men.

Also lol at the Chinese taking over, it wasn't to long ago that it was the Japanese that were going to rule the world.
Title: Re: I love Obama, but f*(k that Republican for listening to Obama's executive order
Post by: kyanwan on April 22, 2010, 05:56:58 PM
Quote from: Animade on April 22, 2010, 01:17:13 AM
Cutting or controlling government spending means gutting social security, veterans and medicare. Which in turn would also smack state budgets across the head. HA at republicans ever doing that. Even uncle newt who is the defacto spokesperson for the party admitted he'd borrow the US into insolvency before raising taxes and well before cutting ss/vet/medicare spending.

It's a state by state problem.

My own state - our DSS - Department of Social Services combined with Department of Education - they're the bulk of the state's spending.   Teacher salaries make up 90% of the DOE's budget. 

Every year - they give them all great raises, then say "we don't have enough money" - and they cut band, gym, sports, textbooks, paper -

Is that right?   Look at it from a liberal perspective - is it right to shortchange kids who haven't even gotten a chance yet ... while stuffing your own pockets?   The AFT of CT all votes Democrat by the way.

How does this look to you?   Is this right?   Sure, I understand that teachers need money, yes - however - when they've got people making 6 digits across the whole system ... the whole board of education having cell phones paid by us, fleet cars so they don't put wear and tear on their own cars ... the amount of waste is astronomical.   Social services - as horrible as they sound, as bad as they sound - nationwide, are a sliver of the problem.

In my state on the other hand, well, they take up just as much of our state budget as the entire state education system.   That's a disgrace.

Then on top of it all - with the federal healthcare bill - we're going to have a STATE system (Charter oak), with another STATE system on top of it (sustinet) ... all voted in by Democrats. 

A triple layer of redundancy.

Is that right?

---

It's like this on the national level as well.   We've got 50 departments of education across the 50 states.   Then each municipality has their own.   Then we have a FEDERAL one that does what ... exactly?   Then on top of it all, they're all massively bloated.   Picture this, for example. 

Imagine the central EPA (the bureaucratic portion) - restructured.  50 of the top environmental representatives from each of the states, to voluntary positions.   You get a say on the national level for being the commissioner in your state.

Pour all the funds of the current EPA into the states, respective to their environmental importance.   Use fair factors to determine the importance ( such as population, rate of urbanization, population, land use, etc.   Like Nevada might get a bonus for the population growth, while North Dakota or Alaska might not. )   I believe the state agencies, who are on the state grounds 365 days a year ... would do a better job at managing their own state ... than the Federal agency way off in DC would.

Big cuts of tens of billions of dollars, with a bigger and better return.

There's plenty of bloat to trim - Our government, is like a 900lb lardass.   You could trim off 300lbs - it'll be 30% lighter.  It'll still be a lardass ... but a leaner one.  :P

( Mind you, if our government were a 140lb guy - lol - we'd be an anarchy.  So that's un-doable.   Ideally - with my lardass picture, I'd say 500lb would be a nice weight for our country. )