Tossica wrote:I wrote up a rather winded response yesterday and it was somehow lost in the posting process.
Kaemon, you are wrong. I am 100% positive that there are MANY people out there that would do a better job of running the country than Obama has. Unfortunately, this clown Romney is not one of them. He did a decent job of polishing his turd during the debate but it's still a pile of shit. He offered no details about what he actually plans on doing. His entire argument was basically, "I don't know what I'm going to do or how but it's going to be better than what you did!"
What is he going to replace Obamacare with? What happens to the 40million people that now have insurance that didn't before. How will bankrupt states pay for their own "poor"? How will a senior with pre-existing conditions "buy their own insurance" with a voucher? How will cutting taxes spur job creation when taxes are already at record lows? Shouldn't there be more jobs than people to work in them if low taxes was all it took? Which tax loopholes does he plan to eliminate to pay for his 5trillion dollar cut? How does he plan to work towards energy independence that he claims he is for? He mentioned the Canadian pipeline, off shore drilling, drilling in Alaska, etc. None of these things will help. That oil will all go to the market and NOT be used to make us independent. He's pro coal. Ok, at what cost? Does he suggest rolling back all the advances we've made in making it safer alternative? How does he justify a 2trillion dollar military spending increase? Who do you think gets that money? Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grummon, etc. Why is it ok to spend TRILLIONS of dollars on military contracts with HUGE profit layers built in but it's not ok to spend pubic tax dollars on health care? I do not understand for the life of me WHY this is even a debate!
Lots of hot fucking air. NO substance.
For the record, I prefer your 'Fuck the Republicans' responses. This one actually has some valid points and good arguments.
The problem with Obamacare is, as George Will noted, the unelected 15 board panel:
Late in the debate, when Romney for a third time referred to Obamacare's creation of "an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of (medical) treatment you ought to have," Obama said, "No, it isn't." Oh?
The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism's itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability.
Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB's proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.
These facts refute Obama's Denver assurance that IPAB "can't make decisions about what treatments are given." It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare's language that IPAB's proposals "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care."
By Obamacare's terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.
Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a Cato Institute study as "the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress."
This in all ways is a terrible, almost unconstitutional piece of legislation. I like a lot of things Obamacare does, but this is not one of them.
As far as military spending, both Bush and Obama have smartly gotten rid of a lot of terrible programs, but keeping a military that projects power and is at the top of the world is an expensive endeavor. I personally think we should completely revamp our military starting with removing 50% of the officers and consolidationg the four services into just two but that probably wouldn't fly with either party who likes their military spending bills for their states.
Anyways, you talk about 'bankrupt' states. How long do you think the Fed can continue to spend a 'trillion' more than it brings in? The problem is we need a balanced budget at the Federal level just like most states have. The government has staggering amounts of cash it brings in, and absolutely does not need to raise taxes, especially when we have the largest corporate tax rate in the world. The problem is we need to close loopholes and ensure companies pay their fair share. The fact Star Wars to this day has not made a profit is the best example I can see why raising the tax rate is completely worthless without the reform to ensure that revenues are fair and the fatcats who want more 'economic patriotism', but in actuality do not pay a fucking dime won't be able to dump all their bills and goals on small business and the smaller markets.
