Originally Posted By: JetStar
Originally Posted By: Derid
Holy shit, I did not want to enter this thread but dammit Jet, what you are saying is plain insane.

Your precious CBO report itself outlines huge increases in the percentage of GDP health care will eat up.

Fact: Obamacare introduces HUGE taxes as well.

Fact: You were taking data OUT OF CONTEXT in regards to effects of Obamacare

Fact: You have yet to acknowledge the costs and downsides of any program you favor. You make no move to acknowledge the presence of downsides or other consequences and instead post one liners with an out of context copy/paste, as if that somehow is making an argument that the upsides are better than the downsides.

Fact: your debate style is identical to that of a Fox News commentator, except you are making left-wing claims instead of right-ring claims. =P
Instead of insulting all of our intelligence by persisting in the myth that Obamacare is somehow free, just admit that you dont care who gets harmed, as long as your friends get insurance again and you get to feel "good" about that.

Secondly, that you would make such an insane claim that the "New Deal" somehow alleviated the Great Depression is concrete proof that not only have you not seriously researched, but listened only to some of the most extremist lefties. The economy was still shit after the New Deal, WW2 and its ensuing full employment is what ended the Great Depression.


I wont even get into the climate crap.

Having an opinion is great, continually expressing that opinion as fact despite all evidence to the contrary is silly.

Stop being silly.


Did you read the same CBO report that I did? Those cost projections were predicted with or without the healthcare bill.

Uh, no. So you are saying Obamacare had no effect on total percent of GDP healthcare eats up? We are definately reading different reports then.

The New Deal put lots of people to work and built a huge amount of valuable infrastructure and got the wheels of industry turning again. It did not solve all the problems of the time by any means, but it certainly helped.

Quantify this. Also, this is extremely disingenious - when people refer to the New Deal, most people think in terms of the Social(ist) safety nets and such. Were a few reasonable infrastructure projects included? Quite possibly so. However you were appearing to make the claim that this ended the Great Depression. Recent stimulus in current era also created jobs..... at an estimated cost of 400k per job created.

I think the United States was better for it.
WW2 certainly ended it, but could also be considered a government program. Our government subsidized all the war industry at the time. It is easy to forget that.


Are you seriously trying to draw a similarity between Obamacare, the New Deal, and WW2? Yes, War is indeed a govt program - however it is not easy to forget that, rather, I would say it is impossible. So whats your argument here?

I think you are being silly. I read the same things you do and I just cant see basis for your opinions. The current right wing agenda of trying to stimulate the economy with tax breaks is not only stupid, but is going to destroy this country and its economy plain and simple.

How is leaving more money in the economy, a plan to destroy it? Just FYI the theory that a planned economy was more efficient or effective than a free market was utterly destroyed in the 20th century.

And also, you apparently did not read the same things I did.

I challenge you, to produce the facts as you explain them on how much Obamacare is going to cost us.

I did, you refuse to acknowledge the existince of anything that does not agree with your preconception.

Got tired of your non sequitur copy/paste responses.

I will only play along with a Socratic defense for so long.


After everyones bitching about TARP and the stimulus, the CBO has stated that it is only going to cost us a total of 25 billion, which is NOTHING compared to the economic collapse that would have ensued if we did not act.

Economic collapse according to Bernake - the Goldman Sachs guy. Even if he was being above board, the fact that high powered Wall Street types are genuinely convinced that the world revolves around them and their clique of banking elite is also a truth. Just because they perceive a total meltdown due to their demise, does not mean the world would have ended for the rest of us.

I posted the link to the Frontline study on the meltdown, and I strongly support that view and the facts presented in it. Perhaps you should take the time to watch it.

Just like your Obamacare Frontline link, that was not a "study" so much as it was a reconstruction of the series of events from the perspective of those involved. Neither Frontlone episode serves as, or appears to be intended to fill the role of policy analyst. Yes, BErnake told Congressional leadership that the world would end if they didnt do something. This is his view, not an objective fact. The downsides to bailouts was the fact that they perpetuate the illusion that govt is morally entitled to intervene in private enterprise because of the opinion of a small group of policy analysts. This intervention was politically driven, and the govt was deciding "who lived, and who died" so to speak. This sets a bad predicament of predicating success in business upon political approval as opposed to market performance.

I just love that all the people that bitched about us intervening into the American car industry's failure have to eat crow. Not only were more than a million jobs saved, but we are being paid back in FULL and it wont end up costing us a dime. Just as promised, our government is backing out of those businesses, not taking them over like some bullshit communist conspiracy theory.

No crow need be et, as above the issue is precident. Well, not the sole issue.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that both unions and govt over-regulation are both largely responsible for US automaker difficulties in the first place. Having the govt create huge problems for business, then help prop up those businesses without acknowledging the overall policy failures is not a good thing.


Remember when Reagan bailed out Chrysler in the 80's. We got all that back to, and I dont think you can call Ronald Reagan a communist? Can you?



Responses in red.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)