Current or modern politics in the United States

[9876543210]

savage560,

Originally Posted by savage560

The Herritage Foundation proposes a HC plan,as they state,"For those who need it", in their statement.

Just makes me wonder who doesn't need healthcare?

[9876543210]

Scounds,

Recognize anything about that list of Rodaks? Straight out of the mouths of Lubpbaugh, Hannity or any of the other clowns at Faux.

And somebody above "claims" to be a conservative but wants me to pay for him to be able to play with his toys? Thats not very conservative.

No, there are no conservatives remaining.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by awboy33

It has been being reported for several days by the other news organizations that hundreds of thousand of people are losing their health insurance, because of the ACA. And their premiums and deductibles have all been rising instead of going down as Obama promised.

This is where "spin" comes into it. The claim that people are losing their health insurance carries the implication that they cannot replace it, that they are being forcibly placed in a state of uninsured. Which is not the case. Hundreds of thousands of people who are currently insured will have to change insurance plans because their current coverage does not meet the new legal standards. So they will have to change insurance plans to one that does meet the legal standards, which likely means more legal protection for them.

Premiums and deductibles are rising, for some. They are also dropping, for some. What is happening is that the costs for the healthy who never make a claim and the costs for those with pre-existing medical conditions who have been paying thru the nose for their "insurance" are converging. This is normal for insurance that actually covers everyone. The same thing happens with automobile liability insurance. Teenage drivers are actually paying about 1/3 IIRC of what they would be if they were the only insured drivers and everyone else is paying more than they would if no teens were insured. The costs are spread among all the insured to keep the costs reasonable for everyone for the good of our society has a whole.

(That's the theory at least. On the other hand if you don't like team work or caring about your friends, neighbors, co-workers and everyone else you depend on for everything in your life, then its a horrible idea.)

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Scounds,

Recognize anything about that list of Rodaks? Straight out of the mouths of Lubpbaugh, Hannity or any of the other clowns at Faux.

So what? Rodak is making the argument on the board and I am making a counter argument. To be truthful, do you think every single political thought you have (or I have) is original?

Originally Posted by 9876543210

And somebody above "claims" to be a conservative but wants me to pay for him to be able to play with his toys? Thats not very conservative.

It is you, not Rodak, who is introducing gun control (you are referencing the Newtown thread) and you are doing so in order to make a point against Rodak. It wasn't Rodak who mentioned gun control, so if you want to remind him of something he said somewhere else, shouldn't you do it openly, overtly and courteously? Otherwise it's a personal dig at him and that's against the rules of fair play.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by savage560

The Herritage Foundation proposes a HC plan,as they state,"For those who need it", in their statement.

Of course, once upon a time, the Heritage Foundation proposed what became PPACA.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Scounds,

No, there are no conservatives remaining.

Never mind about individuals; as a general philosophical point this is interesting. I happen to think that the USA is the most conservative of all the world's true democracies; it is your left who are an endangered species. In the UK, you yourself (Savage too) would be considered conservatives. But in the sense you mean, it is noticeable that your political boundaries have changed. I think many former natural republicans, who would once have supported Nixon-Ford (let alone Eisenhower), had they been old enough, are now "fiscally conservative Democrats". What do you think?

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

To be truthful, do you think every single political thought you have (or I have) is original?

Of course not. But I do use my own words in my own order. I don't just cut and paste or plagiarize (like Rand Paul).

It is you, not Rodak, who is introducing gun control (you are referencing the Newtown thread) and you are doing so in order to make a point against Rodak. It wasn't Rodak who mentioned gun control, so if you want to remind him of something he said somewhere else, shouldn't you do it openly, overtly and courteously? Otherwise it's a personal dig at him and that's against the rules of fair play.

Well, I think I'm pointing out hypocrisy. It wasn't so much against Rodak as against these "supposed" conservatives who are so full of it as to amaze me. And I thought I was being courteous by not mentioning names.

[9876543210]

scounds,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Never mind about individuals; as a general philosophical point this is interesting. I happen to think that the USA is the most conservative of all the world's true democracies; it is your left who are an endangered species.

Agreed.

In the UK, you yourself (Savage too) would be considered conservatives.

Well, I partially agree. I am very conservative fiscally. Personally, today, I hate to spend money and am very careful when an expense is needed. As far as government expenditures are concerned I am still a fiscal conservative in that I don't think the government should be spending money on everything. If they are going to spend money on something it should be on things that help people; education should be no. 1, welfare for those "human beings" that need it (not corporations). But in return for that assistance "human beings" should be willing to give back in whatever way they can.

Corporations, meanwhile, shouldn't be eligible for much of anything. If thats "conservative" then I'm guilty (and actually proud of it). But a lot of that today is considered "liberal" and, yet again, I have no problem with that. Again, I'm proud of it.

But these people we see today calling themselves "conservatives" aren't conservatives. I'd actually call them anarchists. People who are bent on destruction, not construction. The examples are so numerous that it would probably take me days to put an exhaustive list together. But the final straw was (and may be again) their effort to shut down the government and quit paying the bills. What, in any way, shape or form, is conservative about that? I've yet to hear one so called "conservative" explain that. All they do is hem and haw and then change the subject. I could go on and on.

But in the sense you mean, it is noticeable that your political boundaries have changed. I think many former natural republicans, who would once have supported Nixon-Ford (let alone Eisenhower), had they been old enough, are now "fiscally conservative Democrats". What do you think?

In general, I agree. I'm sure, if I was old enough, I would have supported Eisenhower. But I didn't support Nixon primarily because of Viet Nam but also because of something that is difficult to explain. Let me just say there was always, to me, something "slimy" about the guy. Nixon did some good things but I couldn't support him. But I must say that I'd probably support him more than these "conservatives" today. They're even slimier.

I don't think I'd agree that former natural Republicans are now "fiscally conservative Democrats". I think most of them would, like me, now consider themselves "fiscally conservative independents". There are good and bad things about Democrats but, for the most part, they lost me after the Chicago Democratic convention.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

scounds,



Agreed.



Well, I partially agree. I am very conservative fiscally. Personally, today, I hate to spend money and am very careful when an expense is needed. As far as government expenditures are concerned I am still a fiscal conservative in that I don't think the government should be spending money on everything. If they are going to spend money on something it should be on things that help people; education should be no. 1, welfare for those "human beings" that need it (not corporations). But in return for that assistance "human beings" should be willing to give back in whatever way they can.


But these people we see today calling themselves "conservatives" aren't conservatives. I'd actually call them anarchists. People who are bent on destruction, not construction. The examples are so numerous that it would probably take me days to put an exhaustive list together. But the final straw was (and may be again) their effort to shut down the government and quit paying the bills. What, in any way, shape or form, is conservative about that? I've yet to hear one so called "conservative" explain that. All they do is hem and haw and then change the subject. I could go on and on.

In general, I agree. I'm sure, if I was old enough, I would have supported Eisenhower. But I didn't support Nixon primarily because of Viet Nam but also because of something that is difficult to explain. Let me just say there was always, to me, something "slimy" about the guy. Nixon did some good things but I couldn't support him. But I must say that I'd probably support him more than these "conservatives" today. They're even slimier.

I don't think I'd agree that former natural Republicans are now "fiscally conservative Democrats". I think most of them would, like me, now consider themselves "fiscally conservative independents". There are good and bad things about Democrats but, for the most part, they lost me after the Chicago Democratic convention.

I don't know the situation in the US but in the UK the biggest section of welfare spending is on pensions.These have been paid for by their recipients over their working lives. Whether or not the other recipients of welfare are actually in a position to put something back is a matter of individual circumstances.Basically we pay into the scheme when things are going well and when it goes wrong we can claim benefits.The existence of such a scheme risks having people who play the system ,this does happen, but it's very much a minority (despite what the Daily Mail says) and would not justify removing the provisions.
Don't forget what money is for. It's about what it can give you and if you avoid spending it your bank balance will rise but you aren't benefitting from it.In the end it simply means that you leave more to your descendants.

[9876543210]

knobby109,

Originally Posted by knobby109

I don't know the situation in the US but in the UK the biggest section of welfare spending is on pensions.These have been paid for by their recipients over their working lives.

As far as I understand things, we do things a little bit differently here. Throughout a person's working life (as long as you are working for somebody else) people pay into social security which becomes available to someone at about age 65 (there are provisions for getting it at age 62). A few people can qualify for Social Security at a younger age IF (and this is a big IF) they have some type of mental or physical disability. I only know one person thats qualified for this and they have both. But Social Security is not considered welfare because people do pay for this throughout their working lives. But, Republicons (who hate the idea of Social Security) are constantly trying to obfuscate SS with welfare. They really want to go back to the times when someone could no longer work they were thrown out on the street.

Whether or not the other recipients of welfare are actually in a position to put something back is a matter of individual circumstances.Basically we pay into the scheme when things are going well and when it goes wrong we can claim benefits.The existence of such a scheme risks having people who play the system ,this does happen, but it's very much a minority (despite what the Daily Mail says) and would not justify removing the provisions.

I don't really feel qualified to discuss welfare that much as its changed so much since the Clinton administration. I know its still there but what effect it has anymore I really don't know. We used to have all kinds of discussions about "welfare queens" but not that much anymore. Most of the welfare I'm familiar with nowadays is corporate welfare. We do have plenty of that.

Don't forget what money is for. It's about what it can give you and if you avoid spending it your bank balance will rise but you aren't benefitting from it.In the end it simply means that you leave more to your descendants.

Well, basically, my primary influence for being a penny pincher are my parents and grandparents who all were products of the depression. I used to hear all kinds of horror stories from them. But I haven't always taken their advice to heart. When I was younger I used to make really good money and spent most of it. Also, I've had at least three college level Econ courses so I understand the concepts.