national health care...how awesome!

[Dan Kone]

I love how republicans raid social security, try to make cuts to it, spend the money set aside for it, then complain that it doesn't work.

Yeah, if you break stuff it won't work. That really isn't news.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes, the CBO has it's limitations.

But Proggies use it as the gold standard lately.

I am trying to speak your language here, Buck.

So I used CBO numbers.

But the stark reality is far more ominous. I doubt sincerely that SS will make it to 2037 as things stand.

want to apologize to me for criticizing my citation of their numbers as a general reference then?

or does it only serve as a general reference when you use it?

 

[UncleBuck]

I love how republicans raid social security, try to make cuts to it, spend the money set aside for it, then complain that it doesn't work.

Yeah, if you break stuff it won't work. That really isn't news.

i lol'ed.

you have a good way with words, my friend.

 

[Dan Kone]

i lol'ed.

you have a good way with words, my friend.

thx. I'm glad there is at least one person who doesn't find my posts completely smug and arrogant.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I love how republicans raid social security, try to make cuts to it, spend the money set aside for it, then complain that it doesn't work.

Yeah, if you break stuff it won't work. That really isn't news.

I'm not defending the practice, but to hang it solely on Republicans is disingenuous.

Perhaps you should do a little research on who first started cooking the books on SS.

I'm sure it's on Wikipedia somewhere, but I'll save you the trouble.

It was LBJ.

want to apologize to me for criticizing my citation of their numbers as a general reference then?

or does it only serve as a general reference when you use it?

Wait. What?

When you use the numbers - good. When I use the numbers - bad.

Am I tracking?

Historically, the CBO underestimates the ill-effect of anything they study because they are limited by Congress on the factors they use to make any estimate.

I have said that previously and I stand by it.

It does not change my argument one iota.

In fact it reinforces it. I say SS will run out before 2037.

thx. I'm glad there is at least one person who doesn't find my posts completely smug and arrogant.

'Smug and arrogant' is NOWHERE near how I would describe your style.

Not even close.

 

[UncleBuck]

Wait. What?

When you use the numbers - good. When I use the numbers - bad.

Am I tracking?

Historically, the CBO underestimates the ill-effect of anything they study because they are limited by Congress on the factors they use to make any estimate.

I have said that previously and I stand by it.

It does not change my argument one iota.

In fact it reinforces it. I say SS will run out before 2037.

so when i use the numbers given by the CBO as a general reference - bad. when you use them - good.

we could go round and round playing that game.

as far as your last statement goes, a positive attitude does not ensure positive results. but a negative attitude almost always ensures negative results.

you know you will never get rid of SS, so why spit on it?

are you so regressive that you yearn for the glory days when the majority of old people routinely lived in poverty?

some golden years.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

so when i use the numbers given by the CBO as a general reference - bad. when you use them - good.

we could go round and round playing that game.

as far as your last statement goes, a positive attitude does not ensure positive results. but a negative attitude almost always ensures negative results.

you know you will never get rid of SS, so why spit on it?

are you so regressive that you yearn for the glory days when the majority of old people routinely lived in poverty?

some golden years.

Which brings us to 2038.

Or considerably earlier if you doubt the CBO's methodology, as I do.

What then?

Silver years?

Bronze years?

Copper years?

Nothing is too big to fail, Buck. It's just a matter of time.

 

[UncleBuck]

Which brings us to 2038.

Or considerably earlier if you doubt the CBO's methodology, as I do.

What then?

Silver years?

Bronze years?

Copper years?

Nothing is too big to fail, Buck. It's just a matter of time.

i don't doubt that it may fail. it very well could.

an attitude like yours would only accelerate that failure.

looking for solutions (there are many) would prevent or delay a possible failure.

i have stated my two preferred solutions: raising the cap and raising the age (with the possibility to take benefits at a reduced rate at the same age).

you have stated your solution: outlaw it.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

i don't doubt that it may fail. it very well could.

an attitude like yours would only accelerate that failure.

looking for solutions (there are many) would prevent or delay a possible failure.

i have stated my two preferred solutions: raising the cap and raising the age (with the possibility to take benefits at a reduced rate at the same age).

you have stated your solution: outlaw it.

I have no problem whatsoever with raising the age.

Your party does, however.

As far as raising the cap is concerned; that's means testing unless you intend to also scale the benefits to the amount contributed.

And don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of means testing...

as long as you extend it to the right to vote.

 

[Dan Kone]

'Smug and arrogant' is NOWHERE near how I would describe your style.

Not even close.

Why thank you.

 

[UncleBuck]

I have no problem whatsoever with raising the age.

Your party does, however.

As far as raising the cap is concerned; that's means testing unless you intend to also scale the benefits to the amount contributed.

And don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of means testing...

as long as you extend it to the right to vote.

sorry buddy, you pay your taxes, i'll pay mine, and we all get one vote.

i'm all for scaling up benefits for those who pay in over the 106K cap.

at least we agree on one thing.

 

[medicineman]

thx. I'm glad there is at least one person who doesn't find my posts completely smug and arrogant.

Make that two.

 

[medicineman]

Two words, Public option, or better yet, single payer. Take the insurance companies out of the picture, along with employer based coverage and any other ponzi scheme. Pay a flat tax and get complete coverage. Rich dicks could spend all their money on the snob doctors that didn't want to be part of the program, but everyone would be covered and have much better coverage than now, even with the average insurance coverage, which really doesn't do very much for the patient.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Why thank you.

You're welcome?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

sorry buddy, you pay your taxes, i'll pay mine, and we all get one vote.

i'm all for scaling up benefits for those who pay in over the 106K cap.

at least we agree on one thing.

We agree on quite a few things, Buck.

Here's a list right off the top of my head:

Equal protection under the law for EVERY citizen regardless of, well... everything.

Abortion. Even though I am against it personally, I accept it as public policy because it is a matter of privacy.

We both believe in the re-legalization of the blessed herb. In fact, that agreement extends to our stance on the entire War on Drugs.

I want the Afghan war ended. I want the vast majority of our overseas troops home providing Homeland Security; primarily on our coasts and borders. There may be some daylight between us on that one, but we mostly agree.

There are more, but I think you get my meaning. I'm sure you could think of a few as well.

But those are overshadowed by the Godzilla-sized issues we disagree on.

Take the health care issue, or example; since it is the topic of the thread.

I am not against it per se. I simply don't think it is any business of the Federal government.

It is a state responsibility. If the Legislature in my state were to decide to go in that direction, I would examine the issue thoroughly at that time, and then make my determination on whether to support it or oppose it.

 

[UncleBuck]

We agree on quite a few things, Buck.

Here's a list right off the top of my head:

Equal protection under the law for EVERY citizen regardless of, well... everything.

Abortion. Even though I am against it personally, I accept it as public policy because it is a matter of privacy.

We both believe in the re-legalization of the blessed herb. In fact, that agreement extends to our stance on the entire War on Drugs.

I want the Afghan war ended. I want the vast majority of our overseas troops home providing Homeland Security; primarily on our coasts and borders. There may be some daylight between us on that one, but we mostly agree.

There are more, but I think you get my meaning. I'm sure you could think of a few as well.

But those are overshadowed by the Godzilla-sized issues we disagree on.

Take the health care issue, or example; since it is the topic of the thread.

I am not against it per se. I simply don't think it is any business of the Federal government.

It is a state responsibility. If the Legislature in my state were to decide to go in that direction, I would examine the issue thoroughly at that time, and then make my determination on whether to support it or oppose it.

we agree on military draw down as well.

and i'm sure if we got into it, we could agree on a constitutional and national system for ensuring health care to all citizens that does not cost us two arms and two legs.

 

[jeff f]

No it's an activist judge ruling because it goes against previous supreme court rulings. He's trying to change the predetermined meaning of the constitution from his bench. That's why he can be considered an activist judge.

Under this judge's interpretation much of what congress has done in the last 100 years would be considered unconstitutional. He's highlighting the commerce clause while ignoring the elastic clause.

you are out to lunch on this one.

an activist judge would have rewritten the law from the bench. that didnt happen in this case at all.

he struck down the law. that is exactly what judges are to do. is it or isnt it.

activist ruling would be like the massechussetts gay marriage ruling. they wrote law from the bench. this judge rewrote nothing.

but you dont really care about truth, you just want to keep repeating what the proggressives tell you to say.

 

[beardo]

You cant force me to buy healthcare insurance. You can't force someone to get healthcare and you shouldn't force them to get insurance. what are you going to do if they can't afford helth insurance? put them in prison? maybe we could make it a capital crime to be uninsured. That would solve unemployment

 

[UncleBuck]

what are you going to do if they can't afford helth insurance? put them in prison?

the patient protection and affordable care act has been law for almost a year now. that you still don' know the answer to this question is a testament to your density.

 

[Dan Kone]

you are out to lunch on this one.

an activist judge would have rewritten the law from the bench. that didnt happen in this case at all.

he struck down the law. that is exactly what judges are to do. is it or isnt it.

activist ruling would be like the massechussetts gay marriage ruling. they wrote law from the bench. this judge rewrote nothing.

but you dont really care about truth, you just want to keep repeating what the proggressives tell you to say.

Who told me to say that? I don't hear anyone calling that guy an activist judge. That's all me baby

This judge is choosing to ignore supreme court precedence. That is making policy from the bench. Judges don't get to pick and choose which parts of our legal system they can ignore in order to make national policy. That is being an activist judge. Just because you like the outcome, that doesn't make the ruling on the level.

But it's all good. the supreme court will dismiss this quickly.