Government Spending Per Capita

[carlfense]

And Carl- It would be nice if it truly was ". . . government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people . . ." but, I'm pretty well convinced that isn't what has been happening for a long, long time. If you want to act like that is what is happening in Washington, go right ahead but we know better.

Actually . . . despite the bouts of dysfunction . . . I still believe that. Which governmental system would you prefer?

[JJ Husker]

If you recognize that, then why jump all over me in a thread with inherent ridiculous biases when I correct those biases? If this is something you're comfortable doing, that you feel needs doing, why the rancor in the "Obama lied" thread?

For something to do Actually, I guess I did it for the same reason you did the exact same thing. It's just one of those catch 22 situations where we both were responding to a bias even though I am now quite sure we're both aware it's not that cut & dried either way. You responded to a thread title and OP that hinted that Obama was responsible for tax increases and I responded to your post that claimed "There's ample evidence that the $100 you're on about here is a direct result of Republican nonsense." I made my response to you before you clarified your position in the thread. I guess it's just one of those things that happens before a persons entire position is fully explained. Unfortunately, I still have the feeling that you think I was incorrect to point out your biased comment against Republicans and that you still feel I have done something that you yourself didn't do. If we could just go have a beer (or wine if you prefer) together, I sincerely doubt we would talk about this crap at all.

[knapplc]

The difference being, I didn't call you out for correcting a bias which needed correcting, I pointed out your hypocrisy. If you're doing that just to alleviate boredom that's fine, but don't expect to be taken all that seriously in the future. Grain of salt, and all that.

[JJ Husker]

And Carl- It would be nice if it truly was ". . . government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people . . ." but, I'm pretty well convinced that isn't what has been happening for a long, long time. If you want to act like that is what is happening in Washington, go right ahead but we know better.

Actually . . . despite the bouts of dysfunction . . . I still believe that. Which governmental system would you prefer?

I can't name another that I would prefer but I sure do wish the one we had worked a heck of a lot better. You have to admit that the bout of dysfunction we have been experiencing for about the last 10 years has been extraordinarily counterproductive for the nation. I attribute that to increased polarity in the parties which I believe can be traced back to when W was initially elected. I feel the Dems were increasingly put out with the Gore and Kerry losses and that the Repubs became ridiculously obstructionist. Instead of either side working towards the middle, they have both gone further left and further right. IMO this is not a good or productive political climate for the country.

[carlfense]

I can't name another that I would prefer but I sure do wish the one we had worked a heck of a lot better. You have to admit that the bout of dysfunction we have been experiencing for about the last 10 years has been extraordinarily counterproductive for the nation. I attribute that to increased polarity in the parties which I believe can be traced back to when W was initially elected. I feel the Dems were increasingly put out with the Gore and Kerry losses and that the Repubs became ridiculously obstructionist. Instead of either side working towards the middle, they have both gone further left and further right. IMO this is not a good or productive political climate for the country.

Actually, by objective measures, only one party has moved significantly. (House only.)

 

Republicans used to be on board with climate change, individual health care mandates, etc. Now? Well . . . those have become Democratic positions only . . . and it's not because the DNC moved left.

[JJ Husker]

The difference being, I didn't call you out for correcting a bias which needed correcting, I pointed out your hypocrisy. If you're doing that just to alleviate boredom that's fine, but don't expect to be taken all that seriously in the future. Grain of salt, and all that.

I want to understand this claim of hypocrisy (really-not being purposely dense) because I really do not see where I did anything differently than you did or are doing. I never once stated that Obama was solely responsible for taxes increasing or that he had absolutely nothing to do with spending apparently decreasing. I have simply tried to point out that Republicans are no more to blame for taxes increasing than the dems or the President by addressing your post in the other thread, and, in this thread, I merely interjected that decreased spending would be more attributable to Congress than the President. That is similar to what you did in the other thread but where it differs is that I did not claim in this thread that Obama and/or the dems had nothing to do with decreased spending or that repubs were solely responsible for it.

 

About being taken seriously, the comment "For something to do " was made in jest and was an attempt to lighten the mood but it is also sort of how I view any time I spend commenting on HB or on the internet in general. I always have something else to do that I would classify as more important but I enjoy engaging in these discussions and sharing my opinion. So, in a manner of speaking, it is always simply for something to do. But, it just so happens that most of the time I would rather be doing this than the real work that I am currently avoiding by sharing this explanation. If that somehow downgrades my comments to be taken with a grain of salt that is your decision to make. I simply assume that everyone has more important matters (i.e. wife, kids, work, etc.) to attend to than sharing thoughts on an internet message board.

[JJ Husker]

I can't name another that I would prefer but I sure do wish the one we had worked a heck of a lot better. You have to admit that the bout of dysfunction we have been experiencing for about the last 10 years has been extraordinarily counterproductive for the nation. I attribute that to increased polarity in the parties which I believe can be traced back to when W was initially elected. I feel the Dems were increasingly put out with the Gore and Kerry losses and that the Repubs became ridiculously obstructionist. Instead of either side working towards the middle, they have both gone further left and further right. IMO this is not a good or productive political climate for the country.

Actually, by objective measures, only one party has moved significantly. (House only.)

 

Republicans used to be on board with climate change, individual health care mandates, etc. Now? Well . . . those have become Democratic positions only . . . and it's not because the DNC moved left.

I would like to see the source for this chart and to better understand the data used and the manner in which they arrived at graphing it before accepting it as gospel. Specifically if it is based on actual laws introduced and/or passed or if it is just based on preferences expressed. However, I will not attempt to claim that the right has not moved further right. In fact, I already acknowledged that point. The part of the graph that I am a little skeptical about is the apparent lack of movement left by the left. Both sides have paid a lot of lip service to left/right issues but it sure doesn't seem like much has actually been implemented in either direction. If anything, it seems to me that the only thing of significance actually adopted was Obamacare and that surely isn't because the Congress moved further right. It is difficult to be entirely objective when looking at it from our own points of view. I understand that a lot of things might appear "left" to me whereas those same things might appear neutral or right to you and vice versa. However, my original point still stands; Congress is not working together effectively to the benefit of we the people. They are still more interested in their party positions, getting re-elected, and maintaining and expanding their preferential treatment as compared to the average citizen.

[strigori]

Christie actually had a quote a couple of weeks ago that pretty much hit the nail on the head about congress. Regarding the Congressmen being more focused on 'palace intrigue' than on doing their jobs. Somewhere along the way people forgot that the core of politics is compromise, and that doing so is not failing.

[JJ Husker]

Christie actually had a quote a couple of weeks ago that pretty much hit the nail on the head about congress. Regarding the Congressmen being more focused on 'palace intrigue' than on doing their jobs. Somewhere along the way people forgot that the core of politics is compromise, and that doing so is not failing.

[carlfense]

I would like to see the source for this chart and to better understand the data used and the manner in which they arrived at graphing it before accepting it as gospel. Specifically if it is based on actual laws introduced and/or passed or if it is just based on preferences expressed.

http://voteview.com/downloads.asp

 

If anything, it seems to me that the only thing of significance actually adopted was Obamacare and that surely isn't because the Congress moved further right.

This helps prove my point. The central aspect of Obamacare . . . and the part that most infuriates the most partisan Republicans that I know . . . is a Republican idea from the late 80s to early 90s.

 

Far from being a radical left wing idea . . . it was a right wing idea. Since then the left embraced the idea (moving to the right) and the right fled further right.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

[carlfense]

Somewhere along the way people forgot that the core of politics is compromise, and that doing so is not failing.

I know one person who has been willing to compromise on virtually everything . . . to the chagrin of his more partisan constituents . . .

[strigori]

Somewhere along the way people forgot that the core of politics is compromise, and that doing so is not failing.

I know one person who has been willing to compromise on virtually everything . . . to the chagrin of his more partisan constituents . . .

Once up a time ago we called that Statesmanship...

[JJ Husker]

I would like to see the source for this chart and to better understand the data used and the manner in which they arrived at graphing it before accepting it as gospel. Specifically if it is based on actual laws introduced and/or passed or if it is just based on preferences expressed.

http://voteview.com/downloads.asp

 

If anything, it seems to me that the only thing of significance actually adopted was Obamacare and that surely isn't because the Congress moved further right.

This helps prove my point. The central aspect of Obamacare . . . and the part that most infuriates the most partisan Republicans that I know . . . is a Republican idea from the late 80s to early 90s.

 

Far from being a radical left wing idea . . . it was a right wing idea. Since then the left embraced the idea (moving to the right) and the right fled further right.

 

http://www.forbes.co...vidual-mandate/

Thanks for posting the links carl. I will attempt deeper reading later. I started in on it and it was a little mind-numbing for my current mood but, it looks like good information.

 

I would presume you are referring to the individual mandate. My comment would be that those aren't necessarily the most partisan Republicans it is offending but rather maybe some Republicans with a mean libertarian streak in them. I would like to see the individual mandate slightly tweaked and then I would be happy with it. I know that the only way to address the problem is to require everyone to have health insurance. But, semantically, I would like people to have the option of opting out but, that decision would have to preclude them from receiving care without paying up front. It is a fine line but I think an important one. Something deep down tells me our government should not be able to force us to purchase health insurance even if it is for our own good. But I doubt my way would ever be taken seriously because no way the bleeding hearts are going to make people responsible for making a bad decision. Of course that would also require refusing emergency care to illegal immigrants and we know that doesn't/won't ever happen.

[carlfense]

I would presume you are referring to the individual mandate. My comment would be that those aren't necessarily the most partisan Republicans it is offending but rather maybe some Republicans with a mean libertarian streak in them.

You presume correctly . . . and it's possible that the most die hard Republicans that I know have that libertarian streak . . . but what part of Obamacare do you think was more controversial than the individual mandate?

 

I would like to see the individual mandate slightly tweaked and then I would be happy with it. I know that the only way to address the problem is to require everyone to have health insurance. But, semantically, I would like people to have the option of opting out but, that decision would have to preclude them from receiving care without paying up front. It is a fine line but I think an important one. Something deep down tells me our government should not be able to force us to purchase health insurance even if it is for our own good. But I doubt my way would ever be taken seriously because no way the bleeding hearts are going to make people responsible for making a bad decision. Of course that would also require refusing emergency care to illegal immigrants and we know that doesn't/won't ever happen.

I'm fine with tweaking the law to make it more effective but I don't think that an opt out option is feasible given our current law.

 

I see only two possible options for the future of healthcare . . . the individual mandate works and private health insurance survives . . . or single-payer government provided healthcare. Out of those options I think that the former is less radical.

[BigRedBuster]

I am in no way claiming the current system works perfectly. It obviously needs to have some type of "fix" because health costs are going way out of whack.

 

There is a big part of this health care bill that doesn't make sense to me.

 

At first, it sounds great. Require everyone to purchase health insurance. (not sure that's constitutional but that is for another argument). BUT, in practice, does that really work? Let's look at our population. We have a group that is wealthy, a group that is middle class and a group that is poor.

 

Obviously the wealthy people can afford it. I'm just guessing but I would assume that most of the middle class can get health care through an employer.

 

That leaves what we happens with the poor. These people are anywhere from homeless and broke to having a job but doesn't pay hardly anything. How do these people pay for mandated health insurance plan? Well....I'm told they will fall under a part that gives them free coverage through the government.

 

What leaves me scratching my head is.....isn't that what we had before? We had a large amount of our population that either can afford their own coverage or get it through their employer and then we have a large group that the government gives it to them for free.

 

So, this "individual mandate" to me sounds great but it really isn't what it sounds like.

Now, admittedly, it has been a long time since I have read anything on this. But, I'm honestly confused on how this helps anything.