Democrat Party's War on America Grows

[Night Strike]

In an attempt to steer this thread away from the realms of fantasy I shall make a factual observation : It would appear that certain conservatives on this forum have thrown in the towel and already conceded a November victory for Obama , hence the grossly exagerated rhetoric.

Where's the exaggerated rhetoric? I can immediately think of a news story for every single one of those issues Phatscotty posted. I'm not going to go find links for all of them, but they're all founded on actual events and comments.

Exaggerated - Unduly or unrealistically magnified.
I trust this will aid your comprehension.

Oh yeah, I forgot that we have to stop magnifying all the horrible actions Obama and his Democrats have been taking so they can keep doing it to the American Constitution and people. ANY pointing out of their actions is an exaggeration because they're not really trying to "fundamentally transform" the country.

By all means continue to exaggerate the evils of your supposed enemies , increased dogma and polarisation can only uplift political debate . I cite the outstanding recent success of the Republican party as a fine example of the tactics you advocate.

So which ones are exaggerations? My point still stands: according to you, just pointing out what they have done is an exaggeration. Are we not allowed to debate the actions of this administration when deciding whether or not they should be reelected?

And the credit rating was not lowered because of the debt increase (and we can argue about what/who caused that) but because certain politicians threathened to let the US default on its obligations. The debt ceiling was not going to be raised for any new incremental spending but for spending already agreed to by both parties. If they had just increased the debt ceiling right away (of course I do agree with you the government expenditure has to be cut) instead of threathening to default (knowing that in the end the ceiling would increase no matter what) then the rating would not have been lowered. Ironically by doing this, they caused governmnent spending to increaase because of higher interest rate/risk spread.

More revisionist history. Why did the downgrade come after the debt ceiling had been raised? It's because the raters saw that the compromise did nothing to bring down the long-term projections of continually growing debt. And even if it was based on the US threatening to default, the only one pushing for default was Obama. We take in roughly 66% of the money we spend every month, which means we have plenty of money to pay the interest on the debt first. Paying the interest on our debt means that by definition we would not default. The president was simply playing scare-tactic politics to get the public on his side, just as he has done with issues like conservatives wanting to have dirty air and water and wanting to push grandma off the cliff. It's blatant dishonesty that has nothing to do with the truth.

[spurgistan]

Hmm, it's weird how S&P put revisionist history into their explanation of why they downgraded the debt rating (besides the more obvious explanation that "We have no idea what the f*ck we are doing.")

[ViperOverLord]

Which examples I provided are rhetoric?

Found one.

our health care system is socialist

You can split hairs about whether its socialist or crony capitalism. Either way it's Unconstitutional, inefficient, anti freedom, grossly expensive and a boon to society.

[Timminz]

You can split hairs about whether its socialist or crony capitalism.

Such a fine line between them, I know.

[patches70]

The goal of the leftists is to get to a single payer healthcare system. Socialized medicine with that single payer the Federal Government. Obamacare will accomplish that goal.

Come 2013 every American will be required to purchase health insurance under penalty of law. For those people who work for companies that don't offer health insurance or work for one the the more than 1,500 companies and organizations that received a waiver, those individuals will have to purchase insurance on the market.

Now you non-Americans might not realize this but workers who get insurance through their company, the company pays half of the monthly premium, the worker pays the other half. All taken out of the worker's check each week. For the individuals who go to purchase their own insurance will have to pay the entire premium themselves. It's very expensive.

Not only that, but to pay for Obamacare the worker will not be able to deduct those premium costs on their taxes. As it is now the premium is taken before taxes. That is going to change. Even for workers who get insurance through their company.

Now it's time for a bit of critical thinking. Those people who have to purchase insurance on the open market will find it incredibly expensive. Not to worry though, if people can't afford that then they can purchase the Federal Government insurance plan. Think of it as a vastly expanded Medicaid program sold on the open market. It will be far cheaper. Those who don't get insurance from their employer will end up on the government plan by the simple fact of economics.

Now the companies that do offer insurance, they will find that they can save money by dumping their own insurance plans and pay the fine. So long as the fine is less than their yearly costs for the health benefits. You see, companies that provide insurance actually pay the medical bills, not just half the premiums. The insurance company merely administrates the workers policies, the bills are paid by the employers (at a discounted rate depending on the insurance provider). This is called self insured. For example, the company I worked for had sweet insurance until one year it cost the company $30 million in costs for a single year. After that, the company was forced to make the workers pay more, enacted deductibles and paid only 80% of the individuals bills.

If that company sees that it's costing $30 million to provide health care but would only have to pay a $20 million fine, then it makes economic sense for the company to dump the healthcare benefit and save itself $10 million. This will happen. Companies will dump their insurance plans and not feel bad because they pay a fine and all their workers can get the Government plan easily.

In the end, the only thing left is the Government plan. They (the government) don't have to worry about making a profit or being efficient or share holders and such things. It doesn't matter if the government pays out more than it takes in through premiums because they can just print more money or tax the people more.

Obama claimed that Obamacare would only cost $900 billion over 10 years. The CBO just last week reported that the actual cost of Obamacare over 10 years will be $1.76 trillion. Obama was only half right.

The government package will have to be cheap, to mandate that people must buy something and at the same time mandating that insurance cover more, the cost of that insurance will rise. The government plan will be subsidized by public money and for the first ten years will operate at a loss (a severe loss). At the end of such time there will be no private insurance left and the government can cut benefits, increase premiums, set price ceilings or do whatever they want and there won't be any other options left.

Then we will have our single payers socialized medicine and it will be a disaster because it is unsustainable in the US. Certainly if we also have to defend the freaking world and fight everyone's wars for them.
There is a reason why we've had to pay into the system of Obamacare for the last three years before benefits kick in come 2014. It's going to be a disaster and they know it. But before it becomes clear to the entire nation it will be too late to fix it without draconian measures.

[thegreekdog]

Man, I wish I had checked Off Topics today...

Some points:

(1) AAFitz - I hope you're trying to be funny because your pro-Democrat rhetoric is as disturbing as Phatscotty's pro-Republican rhetoric. For example, your suggestion that "[t]he republican party is owned by and completely worksf or the top 1%... while getting those in dire need of the Democratic policies to argue against them." What Democrat policies are you referring to? The bailout of the banks? The hiring of ex-financial advisors to head up SEC groups to regulate the financial industry? The Affordable Care Act boondoggle for health insurance companies? The opt-outs for 200+ companies? The Patriot Act? Which one is it? I refer you to Bones' accurate assessment of the political situation in this country (it's on page one of this thread).

I gave the thread the appropriate amount of serious posting it deserved...to be honest...I think I over achieved.

I wonder if this is your shortest post ever?

[ViperOverLord]

You can split hairs about whether its socialist or crony capitalism.

Such a fine line between them, I know.

It makes a lot more sense when you put the full quote. That's your fine line.

You can split hairs about whether its socialist or crony capitalism. Either way it's Unconstitutional, inefficient, anti freedom, grossly expensive and a boon to society.

[Lootifer]

As if a Democrat couldn't write up a similarly intended post against what Republicans are doing, right?

Can't we all just agree that bi-partisan politics is what is truly destroying America? Or is it just easier to blame the side you don't agree with?

This.

Also PS take a god damn plain english course already. Your writing style is appaling.

[Phatscotty]

As if a Democrat couldn't write up a similarly intended post against what Republicans are doing, right?

Can't we all just agree that bi-partisan politics is what is truly destroying America? Or is it just easier to blame the side you don't agree with?

This.

Also PS take a god damn plain english course already. Your writing style is appaling.

that's just what happens when I only put 5 seconds into it, but this isn't the first paragraph protocol complaint either. Oh well, give it an honest effort to focus on what was written rather than how, see if you come up with anything.

[Timminz]

You can split hairs about whether its socialist or crony capitalism.

Such a fine line between them, I know.

It makes a lot more sense when you put the full quote. That's your fine line.

You can split hairs about whether its socialist or crony capitalism. Either way it's Unconstitutional, inefficient, anti freedom, grossly expensive and a boon to society.

So we might as well call the health care system in the USA "fascist"? Or maybe "run by baby rapists", or "the Anitchrist". I mean, those are all terrible things, so it shouldn't matter which description we use for it, right?

If you ever want to be taken seriously in a debate, I recommend you learn the meaning of words before you try using them. You'll find a lot more success when you use the words that mean what you're actually trying to say.

[Lootifer]

As if a Democrat couldn't write up a similarly intended post against what Republicans are doing, right?

Can't we all just agree that bi-partisan politics is what is truly destroying America? Or is it just easier to blame the side you don't agree with?

This.

Also PS take a god damn plain english course already. Your writing style is appaling.

that's just what happens when I only put 5 seconds into it, but this isn't the first paragraph protocol complaint either. Oh well, give it an honest effort to focus on what was written rather than how, see if you come up with anything.

Oh i read it. Seems fine to me. But like the post I quoted: couldn't any polar opposite of you whip up exactly the same kind of crap on the GOP? (and no im not going to [dig up the replublican equivilent], I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that bi-partisan politics is what is truly destroying America).

edit: lol plain english first cut, you are correct in the thing about 5 seconds effort, mine was, if anything, worse ><

[notyou2]

I don't understand where you republicans are coming from concerning Obama and the constitution. It was Bush that used the constitution as a doormat and wiped his feet on it daily all while you lot defended him and his cronies.

[Night Strike]

I don't understand where you republicans are coming from concerning Obama and the constitution. It was Bush that used the constitution as a doormat and wiped his feet on it daily all while you lot defended him and his cronies.

At least if it was a doormat it still existed and could be picked up, dusted off, and reread. Obama is working to shred it to pieces so that this country is no longer recognized.

[pimpdave]

This thread title is extreme and vile and stuff.

[Lootifer]

I don't understand where you republicans are coming from concerning Obama and the constitution. It was Bush that used the constitution as a doormat and wiped his feet on it daily all while you lot defended him and his cronies.

At least if it was a doormat it still existed and could be picked up, dusted off, and reread. Obama is working to shred it to pieces so that this country is no longer recognized.

And boy will the world mourn!

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand where you republicans are coming from concerning Obama and the constitution. It was Bush that used the constitution as a doormat and wiped his feet on it daily all while you lot defended him and his cronies.

I couldn't agree more. Although, technically, technically, Obama is doing the same stuff Bush did (Patriot Act and torture) PLUS forcing people to buy health insurance on pain of imprisonment PLUS going to war without getting the approval of Congress. So, Obama is technically worse than Bush in terms of abiding by the Constitution.

But, I don't want to split hairs.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't understand where you republicans are coming from concerning Obama and the constitution. It was Bush that used the constitution as a doormat and wiped his feet on it daily all while you lot defended him and his cronies.

I couldn't agree more. Although, technically, technically, Obama is doing the same stuff Bush did (Patriot Act and torture) PLUS forcing people to buy health insurance on pain of imprisonment PLUS going to war without getting the approval of Congress. So, Obama is technically worse than Bush in terms of abiding by the Constitution.

But, I don't want to split hairs.

So.... who are you two voting for president?

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand where you republicans are coming from concerning Obama and the constitution. It was Bush that used the constitution as a doormat and wiped his feet on it daily all while you lot defended him and his cronies.

I couldn't agree more. Although, technically, technically, Obama is doing the same stuff Bush did (Patriot Act and torture) PLUS forcing people to buy health insurance on pain of imprisonment PLUS going to war without getting the approval of Congress. So, Obama is technically worse than Bush in terms of abiding by the Constitution.

But, I don't want to split hairs.

So.... who are you two voting for president?

Ron Paul or the Libertarian candidate (once I've had time to research the Libertarian candidate's position).