So you are longing to recreate the conditions that got us to 14,000? Good god man, have you learned nothing?
Remember, we said Bush would run the country into the ground, and we were right. Now we’re saying Obama will minimize the damage. You should probably listen.
Except I haven’t really seen anything that Bush has done that qualifies as “running this country into the ground”, unless you’re talking about the Iraq war, which I support and am fairly happy with the way it’s going. The big problem we face today is the economy being in the dumpster, and while the Republicans aren’t blameless here (Bush’s insane deficit spending has had a real effect), the majority of what we’re dealing with can be directly attributed to DEMOCRATIC politicians enacting DEMOCRATIC ideals under a DEMOCRATIC president. The chickens have come home to roost under a REPUBLICAN administration, so Bush gets the blame. Other than the spending, economically Bush has been a fine president. He cut taxes, he attempted to reign in Fannie and Freddie, the economy has grown consistently under his tenure. What’s the beef?
Oh, right. The housing bubble and the financial crisis we’re in now. Fine and dandy, except that that was an arrow shot into the air by Clinton. It landed on Bush, but it’s not his fault.
Hold the phone here big guy. You’re fairly happy with spending somewhere in the range of 2 TRILLION (Time) to 3 TRILLION (WaPo) dollars on this war? Certainly something needed to be done about the Taliban, but as I recall, there were no Iraqis on those planes on 9/11. I’m pretty sure there were a minimal number of Islamic Fundamentalists there before the war as well. What was this war about again? Was it worth 2 TRILLION DOLLARS?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth here… But is your thesis that it merely LOOKS like Democrat administrations do better fiscally (when we look at the actual numbers) because it takes a while for their bad policies to lead to bad results?? If this is what you’re saying, then I think you’re full of shit. My apologies in advance if I misinterpreted you.
OTHER THAN THE SPENDING, Bush has been a fine president? OTHER THAN THE SPENDING? That’s the whole frigging point here, is it not? He spent you into the ground!
If you’re perfectly happy with the Iraq war, you’re either insane or stupid. You’ve also conveniently overlooked the fact that Afghanistan is now mostly a no-man’s land, the incompetent-or-deliberately negligent Federal response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes, the significant erosion in personal freedom, and the complete failure of the Bush Administration to actually make the country any safer - the sole grounding of the “mandate” he got in 2004, remember…
…oh, and the fact that Bush told bin Laden he couldn’t run and couldn’t hide, upon which bin Laden promptly ran and hid.
If this is all Clinton’s fault, I’m sure you’ll show me some evidence that Bush attempted to avert the crisis but was foiled by the cough Republican-controlled cough Congress, yes?
Or that Clinton was responsible for all the deregulation in the first place? Or any Democrat, for that matter? Even if we assume (which is by no means a given) that Fannie and Freddie are all Barney Frank’s fault, how are you finding a way to pin the rest of the financial crisis on the Democrats?
I do work, which is why I get pissed off that the wealthy are able to game the system so severely to their advantage, and then game the public discourse so dramatically as well (e.g. pretending that estate taxes affect some hard working farmer instead of some heiress who spends her time walking around with a dog in a bag). I’m not jealous, I just have too strong an ethic of justice and equity to want to see us end up in a manorial system.
See, that’s the problem with those who want to cut spending; you want to cut spending on things you disapprove of, but if we are spending $10 billion a month on nation building half way around the world, well, that’s OK with you. Fine, then; I support universal health care and would be happy to spend taxes collected from you to fund it. How do you like them apples?
There is a false dichotomy right there. 
Anywho, Weirddave, what you aren’t seeing is that W. Bush came in on a powerful economy. He dropped tax revenue by cutting taxes on primarily the rich. And now or economy is in the shitcan, people earn less and there is more unemployment.
Would it make sense to you that we should raise taxes back to the Clinton level, which was obviously not punitive since our economy was doing well so we can not deficit spend?
Not to mention you parroted the lie about Obama’s spending above. I posted a factcheck link that shows that Obama is suggesting something like 50 billion more than McCain in spending. He’s also going to more than make up for that on tax revenue.
I don’t understand all the pissing and moaning. No amount of justification on the part of the people who are merely going to see their taxes back at pre-Bush levels will convince me that they are motivated by anything other than greed.
Outside of major city areas where cost of living can be obscene, about 40-50k a year WILL pay for nice small home in a decent area, various insurances, food, transportation and a little put by for entertainment or retirement. You might be living check to check, but you get by and maintain a decent standard of living. If you have children, that figure probably needs to be adjusted up 10k per child.
These people are making roughly 5 times that amount. That is to say, they are earning enough to support 4 more adults with the same responsibilities. Shut the fuck up and pay a little something back to the society that helped you earn your wealth. If you inherited it, then shut the fuck up and sew your lips shut while your at it.
No shit. Iraq is easily the largest drain on our resources. If you want to cut spending, that’s the first thing you should be yelling about. If you want to lose weight, stop eating the damn chocolate cake every day. Until that happens, the three sodas per day aren’t exactly an issue.
$10 Billion a month is less than we spend on the interest on our debt. Anti-war people make out like it’s some huge number, but in context it’s not at all. You wanna provide UHC for $10 Billion a month? Go for it, I’ll be the biggest supporter. Unfortunately, UHC will cost somewhere between 3 and 4 trillion dollars a year. That’s a whole different ballgame.
Hentor: Why the fuck do you care what the wealthy do? As a point of fact they don’t game the system, they fund the system, more than half of all income taxes are paid by just 5% of the population, but that’s beside the point. I hear this a lot: whine But Bill Gates/Warren Buffet/Ted Turner/Donald Trump/Paris Hilton/rich person du jour gets such and so or does this or that. My whole attitude is so what. So what? Who cares what “the rich” get? Seriously. I work hard, I support my family in a comfortable lifestyle, we’re happy I could care less what someone else has. Life’s too short for jealousy man. Take care of yourself and your family and let the rest go.
Neither, thanks. I have approached this whole Iraq war from a different perspective than most. I’ve said all along that it was a 15-20 year commitment, at least. Nothing I’ve seen changes my mind about that; I was right when I said it, I’m right now, and things are moving along quite satisfactorily in that time frame.
The Bush administration has failed to commit the resources to Afghanistan that are needed. Both candidates pledge to change that, I see no reason to doubt them.
I don’t see that at all. First of all, you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of exactly what the Feds role in disaster relief is, but more importantly, pretty much everywhere except Louisiana, it’s been fine. Why do you suppose that is, hmmm?
Name one. Seriously. The left has been playing this tune like we’re getting searched by the Gestapo on our way to church, but I haven’t seen any of it. Tell me, in what way am I any less free than I was in 1999?
In what way. There must be some examples you can cite, I’m all ears.
You can’t just walk into Mordor my friend. Of wait, you mean they did? This is a complete and utter failure by the Bush administration.
Sure, knock yourself out. Again with the party bullshit. Who cares? Some Republicans worked with Democrats to block reform, and they were wrong, wrong wrong to do so. Again, what the hell does party have to do with it?
Because Fannie and Freddie caused the entire thing. They were the match that lit the fuse. Yes, other factors contributed, and they need to be addressed and dealt with, and some new government regulations are needed. But without the distortion of the market caused by Fannie and Freddie, none of this would have happened. None of it.
Explain, please.
Aside from the fact that your $3-4 trillion a year is a lunatic fringe fabrication, so what? I support it, therefore it is justified. Isn’t that how your logic works?
It’s not a lunatic fringe fabrication, it’s the actual figure on what we spend on health care from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Try again.
And no, that’s not how it works, but if you want to make a comparison, try making a comparison between equivalent expenditures.
Explain what? That spending and the war are two different things?
The total cost of the (UK) NHS is about $75 billion per year, according to the last budget (although I think it was a bit less using-then current exchange rates). The population of Britain is ~60 million.
$75bn. x 5 = $375 bn.
Assuming that 15% or so of the population opts to retain private health insurance after UHC (which is about the norm in other countries), and that we opt to spend twice as much money on national healthcare than Britain (which is unlikely), UHC would cost $1.5 trillion at most.
By way of comparison, total healthcare spending in the US was $2.3 trillion last year.
What are you happily committing 15-20 years of US involvement for? What’s it in for us? What’s in it for anyone, other than Al Quaeda and Al Muhajiroun? Personally, I’d prefer we stopped sending soldiers off to die.
[QUOTEI don’t see that at all. First of all, you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of exactly what the Feds role in disaster relief is, but more importantly, pretty much everywhere except Louisiana, it’s been fine. Why do you suppose that is, hmmm?[/QUOTE]
[del]Because Bush hates black people.[/del]
Possibly because the current FEMA director wasn’t selected for his horsemanship. I could be wrong.
Government-provided healthcare is cheaper than private healthcare.
It’s just odd that you’re ready to believe that the candidates are lying about their promises on one issue yet you’re ready to believe that the same candiates are completly truthful about their promises on the other issue.
No, in fact, it’s not. That canard is based upon a study of Medicare that almost completely omitted all of the administrative costs on the government’s side and emphasized them for the private sector. Here’s a link explaining that. The link is to an insurance industry publication, but the study it talks about was done by an actual economist and has been peer reviewed.
And your Great Britain comparison is meaningless. I’ll use your $2.3 trillion number, although I’ve seen figures over $3 trillion, that’s what I was referencing above. To duplicate the health care that we have now-not improve it as UHC fanatics claim, just duplicate it- that’s how much you’ll have to spend. If you spend less, then the quality and availability of care will go down. You can argue it’s worth it to cover the 8-10 million uninsured in this country, but that’s an argument I don’t buy at all. I do recognize that it’s a legitimate argument, from a socialist point of view though.
The very nature of politics and government bureaucracies makes some things nearly impossible-like actually cutting spending-so I tend to doubt claims along those lines, no matter how much I want to believe them (and believe me, I want to believe them). Other things-like deciding where to focus resources in a war- are relatively easy for a president to do, so I tend to believe candidates a lot more there than on the former issue. Make sense?
The very nature of private industry makes it more expensive. Government agencies don’t have a profit motive.