ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:


(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

[Lootifer]

The last page reminded me of bum fighting for some reason...

[Juan_Bottom]

[GreecePwns]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:


(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

Exactly. My position includes the banning of said donations altogether.

[Woodruff]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:

(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

Where did I say it has been implemented? I made the statement that it absolutely can. Do you disagree?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

Clearly, you're not understanding the term "limitation on spending of funding". It doesn't matter how much money the candidate has...they're limited on spending only a certain amount. That would help significantly in getting the money out of politics, in my opinion.

[Woodruff]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:


(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

Exactly. My position includes the banning of said donations altogether.

Mine as well, which is why I like the public funding of campaigns idea.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:

(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

Where did I say it has been implemented? I made the statement that it absolutely can. Do you disagree?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

Clearly, you're not understanding the term "limitation on spending of funding". It doesn't matter how much money the candidate has...they're limited on spending only a certain amount. That would help significantly in getting the money out of politics, in my opinion.

(1) I asked to see if it was implemented in other countries. If it was, then it helps to know the outcomes. Obviously, you're not aware of the literature, so I shouldn't bother asking you again.

(2)Clearly, you underestimate humanity's ability to find substitutes, or work around the rules. If a candidate can only spend a certain amount, then why couldn't someone spend for him? If the candidate's party can only spend a certain amount, then why not have the expenditures burdened by relevant organizations which directly support the candidate's party? If the candidate can't spend over a certain amount, then others could give him facilities for $0.00. See what I mean?

"Limitation on spending of funding" doesn't mean much. Besides, why? What good would it do?

Then, how? How can such a reform be implemented? (saxi brought a good point earlier).

[Woodruff]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:

(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

Where did I say it has been implemented? I made the statement that it absolutely can. Do you disagree?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

Clearly, you're not understanding the term "limitation on spending of funding". It doesn't matter how much money the candidate has...they're limited on spending only a certain amount. That would help significantly in getting the money out of politics, in my opinion.

(1) I asked to see if it was implemented in other countries. If it was, then it helps to know the outcomes. Obviously, you're not aware of the literature, so I shouldn't bother asking you again.

What literature? You mean I can't have an idea without knowing all the literature about it as to when and where it has ever been implemented?

(2)Clearly, you underestimate humanity's ability to find substitutes, or work around the rules. If a candidate can only spend a certain amount, then why couldn't someone spend for him? If the candidate's party can only spend a certain amount, then why not have the expenditures burdened by relevant organizations which directly support the candidate's party? If the candidate can't spend over a certain amount, then others could give him facilities for $0.00. See what I mean?

No, I do not see what you mean. I mean that explicitly, nothing would be spent on that campaign outside of what the candidate spent. Let the candidates be their own voice for a change.

Then, how? How can such a reform be implemented? (saxi brought a good point earlier).

We have these neat things called laws. Now, I'll be the first to admit that passing such a law through Congress is...to put it mildly...less than a snowball's chance in hell. After all, I can't imagine that more than an exceptional few would have any interest in cutting off their moneybags. Which of course points out exactly why it needs to be done.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:

(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

Where did I say it has been implemented? I made the statement that it absolutely can. Do you disagree?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

Clearly, you're not understanding the term "limitation on spending of funding". It doesn't matter how much money the candidate has...they're limited on spending only a certain amount. That would help significantly in getting the money out of politics, in my opinion.

(1) I asked to see if it was implemented in other countries. If it was, then it helps to know the outcomes. Obviously, you're not aware of the literature, so I shouldn't bother asking you again.

What literature? You mean I can't have an idea without knowing all the literature about it as to when and where it has ever been implemented?

(2)Clearly, you underestimate humanity's ability to find substitutes, or work around the rules. If a candidate can only spend a certain amount, then why couldn't someone spend for him? If the candidate's party can only spend a certain amount, then why not have the expenditures burdened by relevant organizations which directly support the candidate's party? If the candidate can't spend over a certain amount, then others could give him facilities for $0.00. See what I mean?

No, I do not see what you mean. I mean that explicitly, nothing would be spent on that campaign outside of what the candidate spent. Let the candidates be their own voice for a change.

Then, how? How can such a reform be implemented? (saxi brought a good point earlier).

We have these neat things called laws. Now, I'll be the first to admit that passing such a law through Congress is...to put it mildly...less than a snowball's chance in hell. After all, I can't imagine that more than an exceptional few would have any interest in cutting off their moneybags. Which of course points out exactly why it needs to be done.

1) I don't get it. Clearly, you don't have an answer to the question. That's okay, Woodruff. Get over it.

2) Ah, yes, laws.

"Hey, BBS, so how's that anarcho-capitalism gonna work?"

Oh, you know, competitive legal systems and laws. You know, laws. Yeah, that's it. Laws.

(2)Clearly, you underestimate humanity's ability to find substitutes, or work around the rules. If a candidate can only spend a certain amount, then why couldn't someone spend for him? If the candidate's party can only spend a certain amount, then why not have the expenditures burdened by relevant organizations which directly support the candidate's party? If the candidate can't spend over a certain amount, then others could give him facilities for $0.00. See what I mean?

No, I do not see what you mean. I mean that explicitly, nothing would be spent on that campaign outside of what the candidate spent. Let the candidates be their own voice for a change.

Yeah, because laws, Woodruff. Laws!

[Juan_Bottom]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

Our annual debt has been over $1 trillion since Obama took office. The total federal debt has grown by $5 trillion under Obama, which is a 50% increase over what it was when he took office. He's done nothing to actually cut spending. Plus, he enacted Obamacare where only the taxes have already started: the majority of the spending doesn't start until 2014. The only reason that annualized amount looks so small is because the government spending was already way too high to begin with, which means Obama can keep adding to it without the percent change going up as much. When your budget is 50% higher than your predecessor, you can have a much larger increase in actual dollars spent before you change the annualized numbers by a percentage. Simple math there.

That image came from Forbes.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?




Also:
Job Creation Under Democratic Presidents Roughly Double That Of GOP: Report

sorry about your little butt

[Night Strike]

Juan, just because Forbes posted the article doesn't mean my points are invalid. Plus, they spend time blaming the entire 2009 budget year on Bush, even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and Obama was a member of Congress. (Although Obama probably only voted "present" instead of taking an actual vote on the spending.)

And why doesn't your jobs chart include Obama? Every month we've documented how poorly the economy is doing under him in both its complete anemia in adding new jobs and the number of people completely leaving the work force. If we had the same number of people in the workforce as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be over 11%. How is that a successful job environment and economy?

[saxitoxin]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").

In other words, Player may have designed the pretty chart with the brightly colored shapes.

[Phatscotty]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").

In other words, Player may have designed the pretty chart with the brightly colored shapes.

Yup, I debunked this on my buddy's brothers wall the other day. That article (rightly so) points out that the first 14-16 months of Obama's term was out of Obama's control (thus Bush's fault). It also rightly points out how Congress controls the power to spend money.

What the article ignores though, and this is of major fucking importance, is that the Democrat-controlled Congress of 2007 takes a lot of blame for the crash of 2008. Yup, you guessed it. The economy tanked about 20 months after the Democrats took Congress in early 2007.

[saxitoxin]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").

In other words, Player may have designed the pretty chart with the brightly colored shapes.

Yup, I debunked this on my buddy's brothers wall the other day.

So, in other words, all the major players have debunked it: Associated Press, Washington Post, PhatScotty.

[Phatscotty]

BOOM!

[Juan_Bottom]

Juan, just because Forbes posted the article doesn't mean my points are invalid. Plus, they spend time blaming the entire 2009 budget year on Bush, even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and Obama was a member of Congress. (Although Obama probably only voted "present" instead of taking an actual vote on the spending.)

No Rick didn't.

This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").

In other words, Player may have designed the pretty chart with the brightly colored shapes.

The chart didn't come from the article.

The article was an opinion piece, and you should check out the comments. Rick Unger defends his article against everybody, including the associated press. Peter Ferrera and Doug Bandow wrote opposing opinion articles for Forbes, and they kinda got into a wordy scuffle with Rick Unger. The later probably won the argument when he linked a story about Doug Bandow taking Bribes.
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... s-for-sale

This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").

But upheld by Politifact!!!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/

So, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

[Juan_Bottom]

BOOM!

Caught it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Spending at time 0 = 100.

President 1 (4-year term): 5% increase (105)
President 2 (8-year term) : 10% increase (115.5)
President 3 (4-year term): 2% increase (117.8 )

President 3 claims the lowest increase in spending, and his crowd of supporters roar fiercely at such a feat.

However, spending is still increasing, and previous spending from earlier presidents is not reduced. By neglecting to reduce previous spending, does a president permit such increases in spending?


An analogy: a ship is sinking. Captain 1 and captain 2 slowly increase the rate at which the ship takes in water. Captain 3 allows for the previous intake of water, but adds water in a slightly less rate. Nevertheless, the crowd cheers because Captain 3 let in water at a slower rate, which is great and all, but the ship is still sinking.

[BigBallinStalin]

Furthermore, what about Obama's role as president in 2008? The 2009 - 2013 category neglects this. So, PolitiFact added in spending under Obama's presidency in 2008, and here are the results:

show

Okay, so at least we're a bit more accurate, but nevertheless Romney's claim is false.


Also, what accounts for the reduced spending in 2009-2013? Can all credit be attributed to Obama? No, because the Republican-dominated Congress kept Obama's spending in check. So, that's a fact which Obama fans should at least acknowledge.

[GreecePwns]

No. The President has complete control over the federal government's spending, BBS. Just like he has complete and total control over the economy.

[BigBallinStalin]

No. The President has complete control over the federal government's spending, BBS. Just like he has complete and total control over the economy.

I admit defeat. Cue the propaganda posting battle between JB and PS.

[Phatscotty]

Just another example of Intolerance from the left. One example of many. If someone from the Tea Party did this, it would be all over the news. But this violent attacker is on the left, so nobody will hear about it.

[PLAYER57832]

Just another example of Intolerance from the left. One example of many. If someone from the Tea Party did this, it would be all over the news. But this violent attacker is on the left, so nobody will hear about it.

I see, so one jerk is obviously representative of the whole.. and you have admitted this every time we pointed to, not individuals, but groups at rallies and such?

[Night Strike]

How the looming Obamacare taxes are hurting the economy now and in the future:

An Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer says it's scrapping plans to open five new plants in the coming years because of a looming tax tied to President Obama's health care overhaul law.

Cook Medical claims the tax on medical devices, set to take effect next year, will cost the company roughly $20 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities over the next five years.

"This is the equivalent of about a plant a year that we're not going to be able to build," a company spokesman told FoxNews.com.

He said the original plan was to build factories in "hard-pressed" Midwestern communities, each employing up to 300 people. But those factories cost roughly the same amount as the projected cost of the new tax.

"In reality, we're not looking at the U.S. to build factories anymore as long as this tax is in place. We can't, to be competitive," he said.

Company executive Pete Yonkman first revealed the scuttled plans in an interview with the Indianapolis Business Journal. The company later confirmed the decision to FoxNews.com.

The Affordable Care Act imposed a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices beginning in 2013. It is projected raise nearly $30 billion over the next decade.

But the Cook Medical spokesman said the impact is greater than just a 2.3 percent uptick in taxes. He said the impact on actual earnings is another 15 percent, and he projected the company's total tax burden next year will rise to over 50 percent.

Republicans and medical device makers have been railing against the tax all along, with the GOP-controlled House approving a bill last month to repeal it. The Senate, though, hasn't taken it up.

A recent study by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, though, said the complaints by the industry are exaggerated.

"The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt," the study said. It also said repealing the tax would "undercut health reform" by requiring Congress to offset the repeal by potentially killing spending provisions in the law and by potentially encouraging similar repeals.

Cook Medical is part of a family of companies that produce medical devices for surgery, obstetrics, gynecology and other fields.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/indiana-company-scraps-plans-for-expansion-over-obamacare-device-tax/#ixzz21rkchysJ

[Phatscotty]

Just another example of Intolerance from the left. One example of many. If someone from the Tea Party did this, it would be all over the news. But this violent attacker is on the left, so nobody will hear about it.

I see, so one jerk is obviously representative of the whole.. and you have admitted this every time we pointed to, not individuals, but groups at rallies and such?

When playing by the lefts rules, demonstrated clearly and repeatedly over the last few years directed at the Tea Party..... then ABSOLUTELY! Hell, there were ZERO examples of the Tea Party being violent, but that sure didn't stop the left from labeling us violent. Were you equally concerned about that?

However, if you read the post, it says this is ONE example. So you are gonna have to do a better job misrepresenting