The Tea Party
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Oh, Please do stop!
I appreciate the attempt at humor by making an internet diagnosis of me(talk about losing control over your health care, lol).
I have strong views, but I am not an ideologue driven by passion who lets it overcome rationality. This psycho-analysis and quote of a great mind is a great way to change the subject instead of providing a simple answer to a simple question! I am free in thought, rest assured!
If you really knew me, you would know I am no screaming ass liberal, but rather moderate Democrat. I hang out with Cops, business owners, economists, etc. Not left wing whackos in Berkley or Cambridge, MA. My posts indicate my moderate views in many areas. In fact, the last letter I wrote to a politician was on behalf of my brother, who is seeking a change in Massachusetts concealed carry law from "may issue" to "shall issue' for criteria meeting law abiding citizens. No, I am not an NRA person, I support background checks, etc, but I am not the kind of person who is repulsed by the thought of someone owning a gun. Just a short story about me. I am sure you have one!
Thank you for your concern, but I am really not driven by passion so much as reason. Hence my emphasis on simple, empirical numbers.
You are 100% right, almost everyone can come up with some data to back up their opinion, but that does not mean that the very specific number we are talking about backs you up here.
I realize, I should not be asking for detailed explanations. All I really want, and I have repeated it over and over, and that is the reason for the tacky bold and colors, etc, is for you to see that on this one, tiny, little number called tax% of GDP, your claim was wrong.
I am objective here, not trying to say that any number you throw up is going to be false on its face, just saying that it is a FACT, just as sure as the sun will rise in the East, that tax to GDP ratio has not increased in the last few years.
Of course, you can find plenty of legitimate statistics to use plenty of different ways to back your views(conservative, and THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT) on Obama or the deficit or what have you.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, down to what I really want to say.
And the sarcasm is all in the past now, mind you!
I realize that sometimes, I can get carried away! In my attempt to make or explain a point, I get way too sarcastic or way too happy with the bolds and the colors.
I will always have to watch my posting style, and I have tried my best to let my reasonable side show through most of the time.
Please understand that it is not personal, and as much as we can disagree, know that I always appreciate the discussion.
You said I seem like a passionate and informed young man, and truly, thank you for the compliment!
I noticed in your profile that you are in the National Guard, so thank you for serving our country!
U2 fan to U2 fan, neither one of us could be that bad!
I think we are alright now, maybe a little closer to understanding each other.
I will see you around.
Greg Ander
Boston, MA
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
After some additional research, I see that the CBO and OECD do in fact use different calculations to determine revenue to GDP estimates. Thank you for pointing that out and I apologize for the confusion.
It is the CBO’s version, and not the OECD’s, which is historically at 18.3 percent. According the CBO report, “Over the 2010–2019 period, under the assumptions for CBO’s baseline, total outlays would average 23.4 percent of GDP” (pp. 3) – still a significant increase.
It is the CBO’s version, and not the OECD’s, which is historically at 18.3 percent. According the CBO report, “Over the 2010–2019 period, under the assumptions for CBO’s baseline, total outlays would average 23.4 percent of GDP” (pp. 3) – still a significant increase.
At least you are giving me some credit
That was over the line a bit, my apologies!
Yes, outlays. Meaning spending. Not revenue
Which is still a problem of course, as 23.4 for spending compared to 18 for revenues is quite an imbalance.
A challenge.
Democratic ideas wont solve it alone.
Republican ideas wont solve it alone.
And that, AEON, is the common ground.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Hey, truly, thanks a lot!
See you around here, and know that the tone I took will never be back.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Again, I was a little quick with the trigger - you are correct - the spending is projected at 23.4 (historically around 20). However, the revenue will be down to 14.9 in 2010 (I think you pointed this out earlier as well), which makes the imbalance a bit more glaring.
But I do agree regarding the common ground...(also - I've been an Independent for a few years now)
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
No worries - you have a sharp mind and I see you love logic (and maybe a little love for rhetoric) - you're on the right track in my opinion. Pick up a copy of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations and you'll be good to go!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I never take anything in here personal.
I do think the GOP will pick up at least 4-5 seats in the Senate and around 25 in the House.
I may revise my opinions as Nov gets closer.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Not sure I understand, I made no supplementary claim!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
fact? the sun rises,
if it rises, does it also travel across the heavens and then fall ?
it appears to rise, due to our vantage point on a rotating earth.
if it rises, does it also travel across the heavens and then fall ?
it appears to rise, due to our vantage point on a rotating earth.
I appreciate someone playing the devil's advocate, but come on, deep.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I am really not trying to cause an argument,
I am just suggesting that a better example for a 'fact' would be that the earth rotates
I am sure when that phase was coined,
people did believe it was a fact that the sun rose in the east and traveled around the earth on a daily bais.
I am just suggesting that a better example for a 'fact' would be that the earth rotates
I am sure when that phase was coined,
people did believe it was a fact that the sun rose in the east and traveled around the earth on a daily bais.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Maybe the caustic response to a fair question I've ever seen on this forum.
I for one will no longer waste my right-wing-white-supremacist hate engaging this poster.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
People get riled up and post things 
and some take the time to re-evaluate what they post
and some take the time to re-evaluate what they post
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
and some take the time to re-evaluate what they post
And some people actually respond to questions rather than run and hide for a while till things calm down again.
(Not you, deep.)
deep
Blue Crack Addict
(sometimes it is me)
one might think the best answer to someone, is to ignore them
(this is not directed at anyone specific)
none of us are compelled to answer any question,
I do agree this place works best when we can get an exchange of opinions
some people seem to be driven by a desire for a certain response that may not be forth coming,
often times I consider my unanswered questions, to be:
a. a surrender to my argument
b. the person was too busy to respond
c. my question was so profound, the person is stupefied to silence
d. the person did not see it
or who knows?
any of those could be correct, none of them probably are.
one might think the best answer to someone, is to ignore them
(this is not directed at anyone specific)
none of us are compelled to answer any question,
I do agree this place works best when we can get an exchange of opinions
some people seem to be driven by a desire for a certain response that may not be forth coming,
often times I consider my unanswered questions, to be:
a. a surrender to my argument
b. the person was too busy to respond
c. my question was so profound, the person is stupefied to silence
d. the person did not see it
or who knows?
any of those could be correct, none of them probably are.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Indeed (yes, helps to have some expertise in your field, doesn't it?).
Sad, but true. It really made me mad when he wasn't allowed to join in the primary debates. I'm sorry, is he running? Yes? Then let him be part of the discussion, let him have his platform just like everyone else.
He likely still would've been too far left for some people in the end, though, anyway *Sigh*.
Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. If he can get as many voters from (almost) all areas of the political spectrum on his side, he can use that to his advantage the next time a politician tries to shut him down ("I've got the public on my side. We work for the public. We should listen to them; if you don't want to, then you won't be working here next year").
The media's dropped the ball on a lot of things over the years. This is why comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert became more trusted in recent years, 'cause they were the only ones telling us what was actually going on! Ah, what an insane world we live in... If Walter Cronkite were around today, he wouldn't have let half this crap go unnoticed.
I know they're suggesting tactics, not ideology. But again, while I agree in some respects, at the same time I'd argue that it would come off a bit hypocritical of the left to ask Obama to do the very thing they couldn't stand seeing Bush do. I just personally want Obama to put legislation through because he genuinely thinks it's what's best for the country, not because he's trying to please one group of people or another. Like I said before, if a president makes a law and there's a logical, good reason behind it, whether I personally agree with the law or not, I'll respect the decision because of the intelligence involved in making it.
I realize my line of thinking is hopelessly idealistic, though. Ah, well. I'm gonna cling to it anyway.
Oh, yeah, I know. Me thinks some people need to look up the definition of the word "majority".
Exactly! And a few sound ones at that, ones that people in the middle and on the left could look at and go, "Yeah, that makes sense, I can support that".
I really don't understand what constitutes "far left" anymore. According to some people, I'd be considered "far left" because I support gay rights or health care reform or whatever...and I don't consider myself far left at all. I definitely lean to the left on social issues especially, but I still see myself as fairly middle-of-the-road. And besides that, I don't pick my political views based on left vs. right, I pick my views based on what makes sense/is fair versus what doesn't make sense/isn't fair to me.
Yeah. I think if there's one thing the country can definitely agree on, irregardless of which party you support, it's that the media, for the most part, sucks in terms of covering politics
.Bush won in 2004 because of a few determined "values voters" and the fact that we were in the midst of a war and generally we don't change presidents during a war situation. That's all (that and the fact that a lot of people weren't that enthused about Kerry. I voted for Kerry, but I know others weren't all that impressed by him).
Yes. I think it's sad it had to take some people until his second term, until Katrina, to wake up and realize, "Whoa, this guy really sucks at his job!", but eh, that be the playing hand we got, I guess.
Yes, great discussion on (almost) everyone's account!
Angela, see you around, look forward to your posts!
Thanks
. Same to you!Angela
Absolutely, and I think Obama has done that.
Health care, he has bent over backwards to get advice from all sides as to what works best, and it shows in the bill. With the majority the Dems had, they could have easily said "we're just going to do it our way, no outside, expert input needed, thank you." Instead, Obama selected Peter Orszag, the foremost health economist in the country, as his OMB director.
Obama stuck to his guns, even though it was not resonating with the people(overall perception, I realize health care reform provisions have majority support).
In this way, he went with the "sound public policy/do what's best for the country" view while others questioned the very premise of sound public policy being a legitimate justification for acting given the popular masses screaming for Scott Brown.
Believe me, I understand.
My Dad did a good amount of work for Kerry's last competitive Senate campaign, against a popular rising Republican star of the time, Bill Weld who was Governor of MA at the time.
Kerry is most certainly, without a doubt:
1.)An ACQUIRED TASTE- the first few times I met him, even though I was in elementary school, he came across as someone completely different than anyone I had ever met. Cold, dispassionate, academic, patrician, etc.
Then after he came to trust my Dad a bit more(I think my Dad opening his Real Estate office to phone banks for free had something to do with it!), he would come in and start talking about his motorcycles, the Red Sox, classes I was taking in school, etc.
I have met him a few times since, and when he is with a specific group of people and not in a debate or on TV, he comes across entirely different. I have never met anyone whose public and private personas differ so much. In fact, I have often wondered why someone with Kerry's money has not found an image coach to bridge this gap.
The most notable John Kerry experience I ever had was in 2007, when my friend and his Army unit were having a pre deployment ceremony at a Hotel in Boston. They were going to Afghanistan.
Every soldier, and there must have been 40-50 of them, had a name tag on at the formal ceremony where they met Kerry, Ted Kennedy, The Mayor of Boston, The Governor, Police and Fire Chiefs and various and assorted veterans groups, etc, you get the idea. Kerry spoke briefly to each then.
Later on, at the reception, as politicians and other notables were making their way around the room and the name tags were gone, John Kerry was the only one still calling people by their names. He had remembered every single one of them, and talked to them and was generally interested in hearing their stories. Politicians who routinely do better at the backslapping, machine type game of "know people, know names, know faces" were flunking a test Kerry was passing with flying colors!!
So I feel this is a good example of my general thoughts on Kerry:
Other politicians who are media darlings and very popular and known as the life of the party remember b.s. political people and connect best with glad handing, phony politicians.
Kerry reserves his genuine individual recognition, attention and gratitude for the people and things that actually matter, like our Armed Forces and small businesses.(Ask any Republican on the committee, Kerry is a highly effective advocate for small businesses in his committee work)
2.)Easy for REASONABLE people to misinterpret entirely- You don't have to be a right wing nut to believe the "liberal elitist, so far left he is in China, out of touch jerk" line about Kerry, because, in his public appearances, he far too often plays into this perception.
The reality is of course Kerry started out notable for how moderate he was in comparison to many other Democrats. He ran his 1st Senate campaign on free trade and has always supported it, he immediately started investigating members of Congress and broke the BCCI scandal, which sent many fellow Democrats packing! Kerry's response was so what, I don't care if they're Democrats, they broke the law. Kerry, much like Obama in 2008, took a more moderate economic viewpoint than that of his primary rivals. He has questioned affirmative action as we know it and was ruthless in attacking Dean/Gephardt's proposed tax increases in 2004.
Additionally, he was the first Democrat to warn against demonizing the entire Patriot Act, and was constantly reminding people that he wrote many of the money laundering provisions in it. He advocated, and the Dems adopted(as has been seen in reauthorization debates under Democrats) a view of the Patriot Act that simply stated the obvious: "the 1% of it that was John Ashcroft's long time wet dream and was clearly over the line should be fixed, and the rest is pretty damn non controversial." In 2006, the egregious provisions that led to the most abuse were fixed and the rest was kept. 2009/10 has furthered this model of the Patriot Act.
Kerry has never been an ideologue.
Well, surprise, surprise, FYM, U2387 is rambling again!
Long story short, Kerry VERY understandably does not generate excitement in people who do not know him or his work extremely well.
Indy.
I admit it. I am guilty of not waiting that extra 30 seconds of breathing before phrasing my response to that post that you mention!
I was trying to make something similar to the following point that I will paraphrase, and I think it is valid:
I find it difficult to ignore this.
Instead of typing that line("I find it difficult to ignore this") to AEON, I lashed out with the 8 yrs old comment. Not something I am proud of, nor is it something I will be putting on a resume or brag sheet.
So I should not have responded the way I did. I said as much to AEON.
Also, regardless of my past, which I am about to address, this is quite unnecessary and quite unfair.
I was clearly referring to white supremacist hate present in violent militia organizations. Not implying that you or AEON or any other person, Democrat or Republican, FYM poster or non blue crack addict, is a white supremacist hate monger
Though they are no excuse for my responses, where again, I should have waited just 30 seconds before hitting "submit reply," can you see how a line like the one I quoted(claiming someone made a generalization they far from made) from you could reasonably leave another poster frustrated and at a loss for words?
_______________________________________________________________
Now, INDY, I really want you to listen to me here like Diamond did to me in 2008 and like AEON did to me yesterday!
I get along great with both posters now.
I really only see myself as having a strained for good lost cause forum relationship with one poster, and that is as much my own fault as it is his.
Many of my responses to what I feel are your unfair characterizing of people and things are knee jerk, done in the heat of the moment things. Again, that is not smart, and I am working on it.
I have been trying for a while now, and I hope you have noticed, Indy to let you know that I am far from argumentative and angry and unfair in person.
I have no interest in getting personal with you or anyone.
I have tried to tell you, with no responses so far whenever I do this, that I have no interest in personally attacking or offending or insulting you in my posts.
Diamond and AEON realized 2 things when I took a deep breath, stepped back and told them "hey, I crossed the line, its not personal, I wish it did not come off like that, I am actually a reasonable person, and my name is Greg."
1.)That I am conscious of the fact that my posting style and attitude is not perfect and it truly affects me when people feel personally attacked or belittled or yelled at. Safe to say they realized that this was not my overall intent, or my intent at all to attack them personally.
My posting style is something I have to watch. Before 2008, I never discussed politics on forums, and since, I have only really come over here to FYM in spurts. I am still on a serious learning curve in terms of making the things I would never say in real life, face to face interaction compatible with the things I would never post on forums.
2.)That the admittedly poor taste, poor self control, poor etiquette lash outs that I occasionally have are much less common than the times when I engage in intelligent, reasonable discussion.
Though it matters not whether you agree with a single word I say or argument I make or have made (and you don't have to and there is nothing wrong with that) you can't deny that the majority of what I post here is substance.
It just seems, and I hope you can prove me wrong, that you are now out to show that I am some kind of loser, angry troll not worth anyone's time and citing what amounts to the stupid, angry 1% of the stuff I have posted here.
I have been in thread warned a few times by the mods, no official warnings. I catch myself and make amends with the individual poster in public a good amount of the time, how many here do that? I'd say this is pretty good, given the FYM frequent posters of today who have in the past turned up on the very public banned/suspended members list!
Again, less than cool headed posts in the past, U2387 pleads guilty.
Blatantly crossing the line in the past, U2387 pleads guilty.
I am genuinely sorry for anything you have seen as over the line from me.
Know that, just like with Diamond and AEON, you, Indy500, will never see this tone from me again!
That is not a sarcastic post begging for a sarcastic response, that is my promise to you!
I will see you around here, no doubt, Indy, and things will be toned down in the future.
We both care about the country we live in enough to be informed, and isn't that more than the vast majority can say? Isn't that common ground right there?
I will probably be hanging out in Everything You Know... and U2 360 Tour Central over FYM as we get closer to the tour resumption and possible new material from our favorite band!
Contrary to what some(not necessarily you) may think, I do not have endless time to spend at this blue place and I am really no FYM fan at all.
Back to real life, take care, Indy!
-Greg Ander
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
U2387 said:
Do you think it is possible that rational people can be skeptical that government run health care will reduce costs while simultaneously improving care and expanding coverage?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Aeon,
Based on your question, I presume you are against the Health Reform.
I have posted about the costs of my Health Ins., what I pay and what I get.
Can you tell us what costs and program your family uses for Health Care?
Based on your question, I presume you are against the Health Reform.
I have posted about the costs of my Health Ins., what I pay and what I get.
Can you tell us what costs and program your family uses for Health Care?
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I am certainly for Health Care reform, just not in a manner that increases government involvement. I think the great sage Ringo Starr said it best, “Everything the government touches turns to crap.”
One of the editors from reason.com made this statement that I think summarizes my current view:
I hold the view that only a free market approach to health care is the best possible solution. Please do not confuse today’s state-sponsored insurance cartel with the free market – for I assure you, it is far from that.Terry Michael said:
Ackbar smells a trap…
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Terry Michael, a self-proclaimed libertarian Democrat stated:
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Just one stupid employee could cost Geico 15% or more in car insurance business. The voice-over guy called Tea Partiers mentally retarded and potential killers, and was subsequently fired.
? Geico Cancels a Hater - Big Government
? Geico Cancels a Hater - Big Government
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
They should have fired the Geico caveman-even though he didn't leave the voicemails
He seriously creeps me out
He seriously creeps me out
Sure, that is possible.
I would not want to live in Sweden or another single payer country where all healthcare is provided by the government.
Why should AEON or U2387 pay a tax for Bill Gates' kids health care?
The bill that was just passed was not a government takeover of our health care system, and it is not government run.
It basically tinkers around the edges of our current system. Its almost the status quo on steroids, with a few important regulatory reforms(pre existing conditions) mixed in.
It is largely based on ideas that Republicans and Democrats have come up with and supported.
While you are right that the level of government involvement is increased, it is really in 2 areas-
1.)Regulations-Pre existing conditions now covered, limits on companies arbitrarily dropping coverage, allowing 26yr olds and younger to remain on their parents' plan, etc. These are widely supported and not my knowledge, were not among the controversial aspects of the bill when it was debated in Congress.
2.)The sliding scale affordability subsidies for those buying in the exchanges. This is in large part the government shifting money and all of us getting a better bang for the buck. When the uninsured go to emergency rooms, the government picks up the tab that the patient cannot pay. We, the taxpaying citizens get no benefit from this. With the subsidies, they are covered by an insurance plan, thereby increasing the pool of the privately insured, which spreads risks and cuts costs.
This is a modest increase, if any, in the level of government involvement. Our health care system-insurers Medicaid, Medicare, individual market and employer provided health insurance plus providers doctors, hospitals and clinics has always been regulated and subsidized to a great extent by the government.
Back to your original question, all independent agencies looking at this bill have said it will reduce costs and expand coverage.
I am no expert on health care, but I think the premise was this:
1.)Cost reductions through incentives to modernize, liability reforms, pay for outcomes and not volume of procedures and increased competition(exchanges). Small businesses can band together to bargain in the exchanges.
2.)Shifting of money we already spend from dead ends(the uncompensated care pool for emergency room visits) to vehicles that help provide coverage that will increase the pool and spread risk(subsidies).
3.) 1 and 2 plus modest incentive changing tax increases(cadillac tax, medical device tax) will save us enough money to be able to pay for expanded coverage.
4.)I have the same skepticism you have when someone says it in a speech or in a campaign proposal, but when there is an actual bill introduced that makes sense to the CBO, economists, etc and they feel it will cover more people and reduce the deficit, then I'll accept that.
Terry Michael is expressing a perfectly legitimate, justified fear that Medicare, and lets just throw in Medicaid with it and call it entitlements, entitlements are blowing up our budget.
Very true. Entitlements are the biggest driver of our long run fiscal imbalance.
But why?
This is where Terry Michael and I diverge.
There is nothing inherent in the design or as he claims, lack thereof, behind Medicare that makes it an explosively expensive program going forward.
Medicare and Medicaid have not become so mind numbingly expensive because the 1960s Great Society do gooders couldn't add or subtract or couldn't anticipate anything beyond 1970.
They in fact have no costs in and of themselves, absent 2-4% overhead, which is much lower than private plans!
The reason they have become so expensive and so straining on our budget is because they are simply vehicles through which we pay for the most expensive and rapidly inflating service in the country, health care.
Since these programs pay for health care, they will naturally expend more when health care costs in general rise. A graph of the 2 trends, superimposed over each other, would be indistinguishable. Medicare did not start exploding due to poor design before health care costs started exploding for whatever reason.
So Terry Michael is correctly identifying the causes of the structural deficit, but not going a step further and addressing the cause of the causes, which is health care costs.
In this context, I don't understand what he is worried about.
"Obama-Pelosi care" actually has mechanisms to reduce costs, and if you listen to Obama, one of the biggest reasons he has for wanting to get this done so badly is to control the out of control growth in entitlement budgets. Health care reform is actually the biggest deficit reduction bill we have passed in many years.
Peter Orszag has many writings on the topic of health care costs strangling entitlements which in turn are strangling our federal budget.
Obama used his writings as the basis for a lot of the legislation, and made him his OMB director.
- Status
Similar threads
