President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1497

On November 19 2012 12:35 kmillz wrote:


I did take note of the disclaimer, but it still doesn't mean unemployment is suddenly booming.

On November 19 2012 11:27 kmillz wrote:


His point is fucking absurd..he thinks its good to be a welfare state only citing one thing about children born out of wedlock in Sweden doing fine to back this up. Also to say we aren't facing social disintegration is a complete denial of how divisive our country has become...and no Obama did not make things better, as many hoped he would.

The U.S. is facing rising unemployment and poverty, economic dependence, declining civil rights, increased political corruption, generalized legitimacy crisis, capital controls, failing infrastructure, disappearing middle class, media control, devalued currency, militarization of civil life, and militarization of foreign policy, but we're definitely not facing social disintegration. Yeah..ok.

On November 19 2012 13:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
OP appears to be missing the state ballots which null and voided Obamacare?

Anyway i didn't like Obama or Romney but at least with Obama in the US is being more cautious with the current middle east situation.If Romney was in the US could already be sending troops into Gaza by now.

On November 19 2012 15:21 Funnytoss wrote:


Allowing Israel to do whatever it wants in blatant violation of pretty much every single international law regarding the conduct of occupied territories isn't exactly "cautious". It's not anything new, of course, or unique to Obama, but I think it's fair to say that the President could have responded a bit differently than he did, if not for the strength of AIPAC.

On November 19 2012 12:51 coasts wrote:


So are you saying the U.S. should just stick to its current system cause it's gotten them this far? Cause the points you made would kinda argue in favour of something different, and perhaps more socialistic, being introduced.

On November 19 2012 16:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Yes my point was it is 'cautious' compared to what Romney would most likely do.
You do recall McCains 'Bomb bomb Iran' "joke" yes?

On November 19 2012 17:16 kmillz wrote:
I'm just pointing out how obviously irrelevant this is. Last time I checked, Romney and McCain are not the same person. Same party, but not the same people. At least provide something as relevant as Romney's specific policies to support your claim as opposed to someone else's joke.

On November 19 2012 16:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Yes my point was it is 'cautious' compared to what Romney would most likely do.
You do recall McCains 'Bomb bomb Iran' "joke" yes?

On November 19 2012 17:16 kmillz wrote:


Uhh...no. I am saying the exact opposite.Definitely as far from socialistic as possible and as far from authoritarian policies to be honest. Where are you getting that? I support a libertarian policy. I am saying that the U.S. needs drastic changes, and re-electing Obama is not helping.

On November 19 2012 20:27 HellRoxYa wrote:


He's probably getting it from the fact that... the problems are addressed with a more socialist political position? And they are, on the flipside, exacerbated by strict libertarian policies? Want to see the middle class disappear completely? Go full retard with libertarianism. I mean the entire core of the philosophy is that that'd be fine, and fair, since everyone gets what they deserve. Even if that means there will be extreme polarizations between rich and poor.

Also, reality isn't fit for easy solutions, not unlike what libertarianism proclaims to offer. History is a really useful tool concerning this.

On November 19 2012 21:33 kmillz wrote:


Yes, speaking of history, remember all of those great things we got from the constitution? Well alot of those things we once had now have a few asterisks attached to them. It is totally in your opinion that higher taxes and more government control helps the economy, but my analysis suggests otherwise. Whether or not going about a more libertarian policy would cause a greater disparity between the poor and the rich is a possibility from a "fairness" perspective, but high taxes hurt the poor far more than the rich, so I don't think that is fair either.

On November 19 2012 22:08 HellRoxYa wrote:


I don't care what you believe. Yes, higher taxes hurt poor more than they hurt wealthy, which is why you tax wealthy more than you tax poor. How is that relevant? Do you not understand political philosophy, is that where the problem lies? From your posts about what your percieved problems are and your ideas for how to fix them I would kind of assume so.

Edit: And again, history tells a pretty good story when it comes to political philosophy and its real world effects.

On November 19 2012 22:38 kmillz wrote:


Taxes are higher for the rich than they are for the poor. Cutting spending would be far more beneficial to stimulating the economy than simply raising taxes. You can't just cut welfare spending to improve the economy though, you have to cut across the board, including the military (less involvement in other countries affairs). We're taking money from poor people in our country and giving it to rich people in poor countries while many of our own people are in poverty here. Then we try to pay for both these undeclared wars and excessive welfare spending by raising taxes on the rich, but you could tax 100% of rich peoples income and it still wouldn't be enough to balance the budget without cutting spending, so any increase in taxes without any cuts in spending will temporarily delay the inevitable economic collapse we are currently facing. Therefore, more is needed to be done that simpy raising taxes, so what do we cut? I'd start with downsizing the military and get rid of Obamacare, and try some type of healthcare reform that doesn't completely destroy businesses that can't afford it (even if they originally supported it). After we see the difference being more fiscally responsible has made, then we can talk about tax increases if they are needed.

On November 19 2012 23:26 paralleluniverse wrote:

Cutting spending stimulates the economy? Keep living in la-la land: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491&currentpage=1423#28442

Also, Obamacare reduces, not increases the deficit. Therefore, repealing it would increase the deficit, in fact, by $109 billion.

Those calculations incorporate an assumption that the provisions of current law would otherwise remain unchanged throughout the next two decades. However, current law includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. [Emphasis added] For example, the ACA reduced payments to many Medicare providers relative to what the government would have paid under prior law. On the basis of those cuts in payment rates and the existing “sustainable growth rate” mechanism that governs Medicare’s payments to physicians, CBO projects that Medicare spending (per beneficiary, adjusted for overall inflation) will increase significantly more slowly during the next two decades than it has increased during the past two decades. If those provisions would subsequently be modified or implemented incompletely even in the absence of H.R. 6079, then the budgetary effects of H.R. 6079 could be quite different—but CBO cannot forecast future changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates.

The immediate physician fee reductions required under current law are clearly unworkable and are almost certain to be overridden by Congress. The productivity adjustments will affect other Medicare price levels much more gradually, but a strong likelihood exists that, without very substantial and transformational changes in health care practices, payment rates would become inadequate in the long range. As a result, actual Medicare expenditures are likely to exceed the projections shown in the 2012 Trustees Report for current law, possibly by considerable amounts.
In practice, of course, lawmakers may enact any number of changes to the Medicare program in coming years. While some of these are likely to address the adequacy of provider payment rates, others may be designed to reduce expenditure levels or growth rates in other ways that may be more sustainable over time. In view of the very substantial uncertainty associated with possible changes to Medicare, readers should interpret the current-law Medicare projections cautiously. For example, the 2011 Trustees Report showed estimated Part B expenditures of $220.5 billion for 2012. The actual amount is now expected to be $246.9 billion, which is $26.4 billion or
— 2 1 —
12 percent higher than last year’s estimate, principally because Congress overrode the 29-percent reduction in physician payment rates that would otherwise have taken effect for 2012 under the SGR formula. The possibility of changes to the productivity adjustments for other provider payment updates is both less certain and more distant—but the impact of these changes could ultimately be much larger than the effect of continuing SGR overrides.
Thus, the current-law projections should not be interpreted as the most likely expectation of actual Medicare financial operations in the future but rather as illustrations of the very favorable impact of permanently slower growth in health care costs, if such slower growth can be achieved. The illustrative alternative projections shown here help to quantify and underscore the likely understatement of the current-law projections in the 2012 Trustees Report.
While the substantial improvements in Medicare’s financial outlook under the Affordable Care Act are welcome and encouraging, expectations must be tempered by awareness of the difficult challenges that lie ahead in improving the quality of care and making health care far more cost efficient. The sizable differences in projected Medicare cost levels between current law and the illustrative alternative scenarios highlight the critical importance of finding ways to bring Medicare costs—and health care costs in the U.S. generally—more in line with society’s ability to afford them.

On November 20 2012 00:10 kmillz wrote:


You are correct, provided that the provisions of the current law remain unchanged over the next 2 decades, as the CBO stated in the tail end of the letter about the impact of repealing the ACA:



There is a pretty good case for why current law will not hold in this report which comes to the following conclusion:

On November 20 2012 00:14 semantics wrote:
Cutting spending flat out esp the military would call economic contractions for the US, saying flat out cutting will stimulate the economy is so out wrong for so many reasons. You'd be putting a lot of government contractors out of work, although i don't really care for some of them who use prison labor for less then minimum wage all while charging full competitive pricing because the way the laws are written.