Slashdot Mirror

It was not a predatory plan, it was a premium plan. It had excellent coverage. I'm not a lawyer nor an accountant so delving into the particular requirements of the thousands of pages of new regs that led to the policy's demise is a bit much to ask. I had the same policy for a number of years

I won't deny the possibility of what you're saying, I just don't understand how that's possible. Surely the ACA isn't outlawing "premium", "excellent coverage" plans, is it? Is that what you're alleging? That the ACA arbitrarily outlaws good plans? Why would such legislation even be drafted, to accomplish what goal? Furthermore, why wouldn't anyone be able to point out that bit of legalese responsible this and say "See -- This is why the ACA is terrible" in the years since it's been signed into law? It just doesn't add up to me. Surely out of the many millions of people complaining about the ACA, one of them would be identify the piece of the law that requires the cancellation of such "premium" plans, no? Do you understand how someone who hasn't been negatively impacted in the way you describe might be skeptical regarding such claims? I mean, I'll grant that it's possible, but it really just doesn't make sense.

The AHA doesn't lower costs, it raises them. All the insurers and health care providers have to ensure they're compliant which is not a cheap thing to do. That expense alone raises costs. I'm judging the performance based on my own costs. The amount billed for care I've received previously haven't changed significantly, it's the replacement plan paying out less. So it's not the cost of care that's increasing, it's my out of pocket expense. So the new plan costs more and covers less. Maybe I'm in an unlucky edge case, but I hear a lot of people say the same of their own situation. Even the health care providers I see are complaining about it.

Okay, so there's compliance costs. That's a very real cost in the healthcare industry. Some estimates of what percentage of healthcare costs are the result of compliance burdens are hard to believe. I won't deny that additional regulation in that industry could (and likely would) have significant costs. Even something as simple as the Sunshine Act (2007) has had a significant impact in the industry. I believe compliance (and all other) costs were included in surveys conducted that demonstrate that overall, the ACA has had a positive impact on the cost of healthcare. Looking at the numbers, it is evident that the cost of healthcare has continued to rise since the ACA hit, but the rate at which it is increasing has dropped to 3% (from 5%-7%). These numbers aren't very comprehensive. It would be nice to know not just the average impact, but the median and maybe even the distribution of cost impact. Maybe some small number of people is saving a huge amount and everyone else is getting a slight cost increase (although I don't think that's likely). Maybe some small number of people is getting royally fucked and everyone else is getting a slight cost decrease (also unlikely). These numbers only tell us that on average, the rise in costs has been somewhat stemmed, and that the increased costs of compliance have been more than countered by decreased costs elsewhere.

If Medicare pays so much, why had places like the Mayo Clinic dumped all their patients that have it? That's not a thing that is done lightly. That was a big talking point while the legislation was being debated. Many facilities across the country are faced with dropping those patients or charging more to everyone else to eat the loss. You're pointing to the pay as a problem, but it's not true that every doctor is raking in a fortune. With the decrease in compensation for services rendered, they have fit more patients in just to keep the lights on. Some specialists may be making a ton of money, but IMO, they've earned it

Which by the way, no politicians have referred to it as a "goddamn piece of paper."

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/...

Basically that statement was made up by a guy who is...well known to make shit up...and somehow it became repeated as "truff!" over and over enough to where some people believe it to be true.

Everyone essentially pays no taxes on necessary food/housing/etc... So it's actually better for the poor than the middle and upper classes.

Better for the poor, better for the rich, worse for the middle class.
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-fairtax/

Americans for Fair Taxation rejects the Treasury Department analysis, objecting that Treasury considers only the income tax. By leaving out payroll taxes (which are actually regressive) Treasury's chart makes the FairTax look worse by comparison. We found that including all the taxes that the FairTax would replace (income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes), those earning less than $24,156 per year would benefit. [David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation] agreed that those earning more than $200,000 would see their share of the overall tax burden decrease, admitting that "probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000" would see their percentage of the tax burden rise.

Show me an alternative tax structure that doesn't lower the tax burden for corporations or high earners by passing it onto the middle class and I'll support it.

Well, your scenario is exactly where you need to start using your real intelligence. Take for instance the conservative claim that climate scientists are just spinning their doomsday scenarios to get those "fat" research checks or to advance some other agenda.

Well, you do realize that claim originated from Frederick Seitz right? He was after all, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, decorated by NASA and a few other organizations, president of a university and set up and funded a complete lab at another. It's not like that argument was pulled out of thin air and follow the money which is the modern version of it is only the same that was put forward by the AGW crowd and even you somewhat round about in your post. I mean if anyone who is a "denier" is a paid shill, it can work both ways.

This is where you brains are supposed to kick in when you realize that energy companies are willing and able to fund their research in a lavish style that government research simply can't and won't match.

No energy companies sponsored Seitz when he made the claim. Some of the groups that were ran with his quotes but that's nowhere close to what you are implying.

Further, your brains should be able to tell the difference between honest attempts at research vs. simple attempts to delay and undermine research.

Yes, like when the democrats checked to see when the hottest day of the year would be, turned the AC off, did things to make the room hotter, and then scheduled a hearing on global warming? And yes, that is what happened in 1989 James Hansen later said he thought it was perfectly acceptable to exaggerate because he thought the cause made it necessary or some shit like that. (Its been a while since I read the link and it doesn't resolve any more for some reason).

Oh, and I should note that Wirth left politics specifically to take a high dollar job at one of Ted Turner's charities.

So yes, don't trust everything you are told, but use your analytical skills to understand motive and source reliability.

Indeed, if I had the time to find and show the connections between the political solutions to global warming and the scams behind them, some of which is outlined in Al Gore's book earth in the balance where he chastises how the conservatives inveighed against 'atheistic communism', along with the original Kyoto accords and support for groups like Jubilee2000 and it's offshoots

Even more recently, this crap continues to be distorted for political gain.

So yes indeed, do not trust everything you are told. Use your analytical skills to understand motive and source reliability.

Nothing is as clean as you think it might be. Politics has co-opted this subject from the start.

When Clinton left office, we had a surplus, not a deficit. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

Let's assume

Instead of your napkin calculations, maybe you should look for legitimate estimates.
Here's the Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45231

If you dig around some more, you'll find plenty of other people who have actually run the numbers and explained their forecasts.

In 2013, we saw the following rate increases due to Obamacare:

And if the insurance company doesn't spend 80% or 85% of those premiums on healthcare, they have to cut a check and return the excess to their customers.
Thanks Obama!

Also, here's a fact check for your numbers: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/how-not-to-use-a-survey/
There's a link to the original survey in there.
Four of fifty states had a sample size of 8 or greater.
The other 46 states had sample sizes of 6 or less.
There's either fuck all for competition in 46/50 states,
or maybe the numbers you quoted aren't very useful for drawing conclusions.

She saw Russia from her back garden which, given the location of her garden and the curvature of the Earth is unbelievably amazing!

Did she specify it was with the naked eye?

Maybe she used the $2.1 she got for the plane that was on ebay to purchase a Predator drone.

Or she used a telescope and the mirror on Hubble.

Maybe she has a TV in her garden and was watching a documentary on Russia.

Perhaps, shocking as it is (being a politician), she exaggerated or flat out lied.

But hey, the president apparently visited 57 states during that same campaign. ;-)

You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one), or "Birthers", which was certainly an organic meme, to describe people questioning Obama's origins. It's also a form of the "something-ers" form of describing a group (deniers, anti-vacciners, etc.), which as I recall sprang out of calling the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "truthers".

On the Republican side, Benghazi. The only "scandal" there is that it could be spun to make Hilary look bad. (She's a politician whom I loathe, and for whom I wouldn't vote, but Benghazi wasn't the first time, nor will it be the last time, that we lose people overseas.) Completely bogus non-scandal that froths up GOP voters into a tizzy, and just, coincidentally, against someone they already hate, and the most likely contender for a Presidential run in 2016.

On the Democratic side, the idea that Bush the Lesser described the Constitution as a "goddamn piece of paper." Whatever people think of the actual policies of that admnistration, he didn't say it. The only "source" was a blog, and the author of the post has has retracted the story. I still see it being cited almost nine years later.

According to factcheck.org he's doing oddly well as he finishes up his second term. Let's hope Aldrin's pressure works!

The budget is driven by non-defense spending - entitlements - which consume nearly every dollar in Federal Revenue that DC receives.

When you say entitlement, it evokes a bunch of money-grubbing welfare queens who have more and more children to increase their federal benefit. The truth is that the largest portion of the budget (24%) is social security, which isn't a government handout - it is funded by working taxpayers who have paid into the system for their whole lives.

Actually, social security isn't what you think it is. You have no right to anything in the fund, and your deposits are simply another tax to provide a wealth transfer. The funds paid in - especially today - simply do not cover outgoing expenses. What you pay in today covers about 80% of the money for other people - and it's a dropping percentage.

Well, it really go out of hand during the Regan era, and despite a few attempts to pull it back in, getting the levels of grandiose funding down for such activities is no easy trick.

Of course, Regan did it to "beat the Russians", and since they were willing to play along, they did it until they fell victim to economic collapse.

Bush Sr. did scale back the military, but generally kept the overall financial approach (remember the quotes from Universities of "voodoo economics)?

Clinton did the best at stemming the tide, but his work was quickly undone by Bush Jr. who started two wars, and simultaneously launched the biggest government funding of contractors that one can readily remembers.

After two rounds with Bush Jr, who actually borrowed money from China to pay-off America to vote for him (tax rebate incentive), let's tally the score, before we even get started with our seated president.

Twenty years of spending expansion, with an intermediate budget correction, which took six years to see some prosperity, which was quickly undone.

You shouldn't wonder of the virtues of the Republican party, they primary virtue seems to increase government spending. Of course, people don't know how to measure spending, they do it in dollars (here is an example); but really, since there is inflation every year, you should do it in percent all the "dollars", which our best approximate is the GDP.

So you can read one chart, and get what you want to believe or read another and get that. Unfortunately the average educational level of an American is dropping so low that they only consider total spending instead of percentages.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/...

It was NOT the House Republicans who publicly stated their goal was to stop Obama... it was Senator Mitch McConnell and you guys even take THAT out of context as a talking point and a political tactic. How about this little gem:

"Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop him. He must be stopped. " - Nancy Pelosi (Dimwit, CA), about Bush in 2005 interview

Of course, she frequently complains that Democrats NEVER treated Bush harshly (Ignoring things like Democrat Dennis Kucinich filing over 30 Articles of Impeachment against Bush, her own pledges to stop all his policies and force him to adopt all her policies, etc). What's HILLARIOUS about all the Democrat whining that Republicans want to "stop Obama" is - and ANYBODY can verify this via Google - NEARLY EVERY LEFT-WING WEBSITE AND ORGANIZATION spent the Bush years demanding that Democrats "Stop Bush" and Pelosi and Reid did everything they could to stop Bush (including blocking every budget and nearly every proposal he made after they took over congress in 2006)

The Republicans do NOT oppose everything Obama does - they have confimed many of his appointees, and have given him the money to run ALL of the government (including things they oppose, like planned parenthood and Obamacare) even though this outrages thier base supporters. The fact that a party opposes policies that are completely contrary to its principles is a PRINCIPLED opposition, NOT blind reactionary opposition or "racism"

Allow me to point you to The Obama Administration itself for proof that they Republicans have cooperated on many things - not one of these laws would have reached Obama's desk as bills to be signed had they not been supported in congress by the GOP. The funniest of all is the Ted Cruz bill about Iranian "diplomats" which Obama signed into law WITH A SIGNING STATEMENT saying he would not enforce it (EXACTLY the hypocrisy he denounced in his 2008 campaigned, and promised to never do.

Keep electing republicans and america will end up with so many starving and jobless people

Both the number of food-stamp recipients (starving) and unemployment (jobless) increased under Obama. Why, when the unemployment was 6% under Bush, he was blamed for "jobless recovery" by some. Worse, as his figure went further down to 5%, he was still blamed by others.

Obama's figure today — six years later — is still above 6% (despite millions leaving the workforce for good and thus not figuring into the count) — but you are blaming Republicans? Wow...

And, no, the mortgage-crisis was not Bush's fault. The do-gooding Democrats are to blame.

I looked at this: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/... and a wikipedia page about it.

The truth is rather less scary than the huffingtonpost or your initial comment make it seem. Among other things, she went along voluntarily, no force involved, and considered something similar to hazing. She was not forced to do drugs, and wasn't abducted against her will.

However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.

Only if they're not an authorized user. Crazy, I know, but many gun-owning adults trust their kids enough to let them shoot. Even in the case of this RFID system, there's a good chance that the watch will be stored right next to the gun. Safety systems only work if you use them... With me and my parents? You need the key and combination to the safe. I'd rate that as at least as effective as most biometric systems I can picture.

Alternatively, the teen could decide to commite suicide by another way. The most horrible I can think of that can actually happen would be the 'deliberately veer into incoming traffic on the highway' one. That asshole actually ended up surviving - he was in a premium SUV. The family in the car he struck, not so much.

which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

Gun manufacturers are a minor component of NRA funding, and the NRA is more moderate than you think.

Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.

I don't know if you're hopelessly pedantic, but if so, you're pedantic at being wrong. Half of all NRA money comes from member fees, and a good part of other half is from individual donations (esp. point-of-sale, since a lot of gun shops advertise "donate to NRA" when they ring you in).

No, you're cherry picking data to try to make an easily disproven argument. There was a short-term increase in crime, but long-term, both went down substantially after guns were regulated.

"Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...

Note that they didn't ban guns, they just regulated them, and gun ownership dropped from 7% to 5%. And saved a lot of lives.

Yes and the second Australia did, violent crime statistics went up.

This is a lie, plain and simple.

In fact, the exact opposite happened.

At the same time, you should understand that you can't "inherit" a deficit. The idea is poppycock.

Of course you can. If you inherit an economy in recession, your tax receipts are low, and your spending on entitlements - that spending which people are legally entitled to have - neither of which can be corrected by presidential or congressional fiat. Then you add a couple of wars to that, necessitating paying those troops and for their equipment etc, another substantial expense it will take time to correct even if you start on ending the war on day 1. You have numerous other spending that is politically untouchable, as the various lobbies will end the career of any politician that touches it, so congress won't touch it with a barge pole.

Only a relatively small portion of the budget is called 'discretionary spending' for a reason. And then you have a congress that is majority controlled by a party that wants to cut taxes (on the rich, mainly) at every opportunity no matter the situation, and is prepared to shut down the government entirely if it doesn't get its way.

So you can't legally cut much of the spending, and you're under constant pressure to cut taxes, not raise them. Your predecessor left you a huge recession, a massive red ink bank bailout, huge military and entitlement spending, and a completely intransigent congress. He's a president, not the magician he would have needed to be to pull out a balanced budget on day 1. There simply wasn't the legal leeway to massively cut spending or massively raise taxes to do so.

Don't just take my word for it - have a look at this graph of obama's time of spending vs bush for some additional background.

Then you factor in that relief and stimulus spending during a recession is considered the correct economic policy to reverse the recession and end it quicker. Once the recession is over, then you can implement austerity to reduce the deficit. Doing austerity too early just worsens the recession, and we end up back in the 1930s. Borrowing money early to get through a crisis is generally considered the right thing to do from prior experience. So a balanced budget on day 1 would have been a really bad idea anyway even if it had been possible.

Actually you're wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

Kindly don't contradict people that are right.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Because it is wholly owned by a consortium of private banks, and not subject to government audits?

No, because none of that is true. No one really "owns" the Fed.. The private banks are more like members than owners, government appointees have all the decision making power. Also, all the Fed banks are subject to audits by the GAO and independent entities.

I guess it's a good thing those exemptions don't actually exist, then.

The 9% number comes from multiple sources that say that the additional cost of providing insurance to qualified employees is around 8.9% (CBO) to 9.5% (Aetna and others). On the other hand, FactCheck has arguments that indicate the portion of the increase due to ACA is only about 2-3% http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/ . IMO, even 2-3% can be a burden if added to other increasing expenses, but 1.) I don't know where the margin is, and 2.) We are talking about estimates (which, by definition, lack precision).

> CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED BUDGET

The idea that Congress is constitutionally mandated to prepare a budget is one of many tea party memes that is easily debunked. The fact is the word budget doesn't even appear in the Constitution. Here's what factcheck.org has to say about it:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/palins-constitutional-stretch/

Here is what the Constitution says about it:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

In addition, as John McCain recently pointed out, Congress has not followed a basic budgeting process for 20 years. Your attempt to stick this on Obama and Reid is moronic and unjustified by any reference in the Constitution.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

The bottom line for those who don't like to read:

Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?
A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

So, we cut this program for low-income people saving 0 dollars. Hooray!

Highly misleading. Rates on the "super wealthy" are far from historically low. The only people currently benefiting from historically low taxes are the poor. Taxes on everybody else are around "average" historical values: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/ [factcheck.org] (and that article was before the December tax hike)

You're either a liar or an idiot. In any case, take a look at this chart and apologize for trying to misinform the readers of slashdot.

For bonus awesomeness, one of the articles you yourself link to (the money.cnn.com one) states: "By historical standards, those rates are pretty low. While income tax rates for top earners have been below 40% since 1986, they were as high as 91% in the 1960s" in reference to the increased rates Obama has proposed.

So fuck you and your greed, bullshitting about "envying" the rich. I don't envy greedy sociopaths; I hate them. The reason people are talking about taxing the rich is because they're the only ones that still have any money left to tax. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, you fuckwit. You really think we can fix the deficit by taxing poor people's welfare payments? How the fuck would that even make sense?

And we'd love to see healthcare reform

Oh of course. That's why see Republicans pushing for single-payer heathcare. That's why we see a flood of healthcare reform bills coming out of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Not a single Republicans is trying to break the entire economy to defund Obamacare because they're all so busy proposing alternative healthcare reforms. You're a sack of shit. Stop making excuses for your bullshit obstructionism.

"Highly misleading. Rates on the "super wealthy" are far from historically low. The only people currently benefiting from historically low taxes are the poor. Taxes on everybody else are around "average" historical values: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/ (and that article was before the December tax hike)"

You have cherry picked your timeline there my friend. I know for a fact, that corporate taxes were much higher in the 50s and this site agrees with me http://personal.psu.edu/sjh11/TCTaxBits/OtherTaxBits/TaxRates.shtml (to the tune of 90% corporate taxes, in what some white people call the golden age of american life). Taxing the rich, but especially corporations, is the way forward. Fix the loopholes in corporate tax, and make companies pay their fair share. We need to get out from under the market society, where wealth can buy anything and there is rampant inequality. (see http://blog.ted.com/2013/06/14/the-real-price-of-market-values-michael-sandel-at-tedglobal-2013/ for a newish highly topical ted talk about it)

Certain things like healthcare are a human right in most developed countries. As i understand it, the better solution of single payer healthcare was already shot down by american republicans, and obama and his right wing democrats. So this ACA is the best that the obstructionist republicans and not really leftist democrats could do to please their corporate masters.

Another good reason to up corporate taxes, take control away from the lobbyist's and corporate interests in washington. Hopefully you can agree that money should absolutely not be a part of political campaigns.

First of all, according to nonpartisan estimates, the ACA will reduce the deficit

Umm, I'll believe it when I see it. So far, it's added over 1.7 trillion in spending and put a severe crimp on business with new costs and regulations (such as mandatory electronic requirements). Or are you one of those "it's budget neutral" morons, simply because they embedded new taxes in it to "pay for it"? Believe it or not "new taxes + more spending + a failure to fix real spending growth problems" can very easily cause long term deleterious effects (some nonpartisan sources say the current continued economic malaise is a partial result of ACA).

If that happens, how could we possibly solve such a problem? Could it be that we could...pass a law raising taxes?

We already did that. Many times. Once during the Obamacare passage. Another time in December, on "rich" people. And as much as you like to believe that we can just endlessly raise taxes to solve our problems, it does actually have an effect on the economy.

From their current historically low levels, particularly as a fraction of GDP? And particularly on the super-wealthy?

Highly misleading. Rates on the "super wealthy" are far from historically low. The only people currently benefiting from historically low taxes are the poor. Taxes on everybody else are around "average" historical values: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/ (and that article was before the December tax hike)

And since you aren't advocating raising taxes on everyone (perish the thought), instead of only on the people you envy, I'm afraid your statement is false. Additionally, raising taxes on the super-wealthy can't possibly bring in enough money to cover our government's level of spending (again, per unbiased sources: http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/01/news/economy/income_tax_deficit/)

If I'm reading you right, what you're actually saying is that the ACA will cost money to implement,

That isn't a "maybe", that's a fact. And it's predicted cost is beyond estimates (with most of the heavy spending not even beginning until 2014). The belief that it's going to be a net deficit savings requires not only outright lies that try to use tax increases as "savings" but also lots of speculation (since it takes into account a metric ton of complete unknowns and tries to use them as "cost savings"): http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/a/Cost-of-Obamacare.htm

If you were 100% genuine about discussing the "cost" of something, that discussion should be held in a vacuum (namely, what I spend on the program vs what costs the program reduces). You can't chalk in additional revenue from additional taxes and try to pretend the program isn't costing 1.7 trillion in additional spending. At best, the net effect of the program is "1.7 trillion in spending minus the cost savings of the four things it's actually reducing: drug subsidies to wealthy/Hospital DSH Payments/Medicare Payments/Medicare Advantage Payments". Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Oh, and the net effect IS a deficit increase, based on those numbers. And it's a loss that we believe does nothing to address the real problem of high healthcare costs, and will likely continue to balloon in costs.

Doing stuff for people costs money. Helping poor people costs money.

And we'd love to see healthcare reform, reform that would actually help people. ACA does not. It passes the buck, shifts around costs, and tries to hide its massive spending behind tax increases. In reality, nothing has been don

Oh, and by the way, there never was a Clinton-era budget surplus; Politicians in both parties (Democrats AND "establishment" Republicans) love to pretend they have been fiscally responsible by simply leaving things "off the books". The so-Called Clinton surplus numbers were only projections and only valid if you pretended some of the biggest items on the books (Social Security and Medicare) had no future obligation (and therefore no need to actually save/invest the money coming into the programs, freeing that money up for current spending). Corporate executives who do their accounting this way (not including wall st bankers with Washington lobbyists) go to jail.

Do you have a source for this information? : This source seems to say otherwise. To take the important parts from the linked article:

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

and the part that you seem to be hinting at:

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

Sorry, but you are going to have to start posting something more credible, with specific links to actual statements that back that up. The only thing I can see is vague claims and nothing posting to the actual press release proving it. What I CAN find is the following:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

That article links to the following press release which (according to factcheck) was posted "about 10:00pm":
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197628.htm

In that press release, it says "we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed". Well, on that same factcheck page, it indicates that:

"Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead"

So unless you can provide something specific, an actual link to the press release from clinton, the state department, or a credible news source, which very clearly indicates Clinton stating the deaths of specific people who, at that time, had not yet died, and I can only assume that this is just a case of conspiracy nuts "misunderstanding" a few of the facts and going off on a wild goose chase.

Anyway, I don't see how expanding programs from 30+ years ago really qualifies as becoming a leftist state.

While you may be right in that there have been no significant qualitative changes, as Stalin once put it, "quantity has a quality all its own". If only a tiny sliver of the population is collecting tax-funded benefits, you are Ok. But, once that sliver expands beyond a certain threshold, it becomes bad.

On Obama's watch, the number of people receiving food stamps has increased dramatically. He added more people to the rolls in his one term so far, than Bush did in his two terms. Perhaps, that's because Democrats want more people on the dole — so as to keep more voters supporting the party of government. Heck, the current Administration runs advertisements encouraging people to sign-up — I can't imagine such enrollment efforts being considered, when the program was first introduced, can you?

But food stamps is just one example. The best measure of how far Socialism has crept upon a country is to look at how much of the GDP is spent by the governments (federal and local)... And by that measure we are looking pretty sad.

The House is gerrymandered. It does not accurately represent the will of the people, but rather represents the cumulative will of the parties in control of the states.

You act like there's some huge discrepancy, when in actuality the gerrymandering effect is far smaller (namely that it becomes the "will of the people" plus or minus a small number). At any rate, in 2010, the House took not only 63 House seats, but also 6 Senate seats (which are immune from the effects of gerrymandering). SO whereas you might be able to write off a 9% swing in the House, you can't write off a 5% swing in the Senate.

so clearly this can't be the will of the people, if half of them have no idea what the law is or will do.

Yet a majority of the populace disapproves of the bill, and polling shows it is MAJORLY partisan w/ 10% Republican support and 75% Democrat support: http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/

That's voter support, not politician. Compare that to a topic that actually was bipartisan, like background checks for guns (which carried strong support from both sides of the aisle): http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/23/broad-support-for-renewed-background-checks-bill-skepticism-about-its-chances/

The Democrats didn't give a flying fuck about the "will of the people" when they passed that bill. A plurality of people didn't want it and they passed it anyways.

I'm not sure how this could conceivably be seen as anything other than the political obsession of a minority of congress

Is that also how you viewed Obama's posturing on tax increases at the 250k+ line when we almost careened off the fiscal cliff in December? (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/15/report-boehner-offers-millionaire-tax-hike-obama-stands-firm-at-250k/). Because I certainly don't see the difference. And that demand had even less support than Obamacare in its current form: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/tax-cuts-and-americans-its-complicated/ (that's 43% in favor of Obama, 49% in favor of other alternatives). Support for Obamacare as is or Obamacare++ is at 38% whereas support for altering or eliminating Obamacare is at 62%: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/

You sir do not know what you are talking about.
None of what you say is true.
Which makes your chosen name appropriate.

Obamacare didn't cost jobs, employers did.
Obamacare didnt cause cuts in hours, employers did.
Obamacare didnt cause hiring freezes, or lost coverage, employers did.
Obamacare also does NOT cut medicaire.
These are all republican lies.

These are thing employers have been doing for years to lower their costs. They are just using Obamacare as an excuse to deflect blame. Obamacare increases coverage, makes it more widely available. Besides which, employer coverage is silly anyway, we are the only nation to rely on it. Moving away from it is good for everyone, allowing better job mobility (quitting a job doesnt mean loss of coverage). Combined with new restrictions on the individual market (cant be denied, cant be capped, etc), this is good for the consumer.

As for the "train wreck": ( http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/train-wreck-ad-goes-off-the-rails/ ) :

We asked Smith, a Baucus aide on the Senate Finance Committee, if the senator thinks that the law “isn’t working” and that “it’s a huge train wreck.” In an email, she told us: “[I]f you look at the context of that hearing and Senator Baucus’s exact comments, he was clearly commenting specifically on a concern he had regarding one aspect of implementation of the law — the rollout of a public awareness campaign. He remains a major supporter of the law, which is why he wants to ensure it is implemented correctly, so millions of Americans have the information they need to finally get the affordable health care that the law provides.”

You should read the link I posted instead of oversimplifying and trying to sound like you're teaching me something you obviously have not studied. Federal surpluses don't necessarily mean a decreasing debt. I was trying to be polite, but you are being rude, so let me say this again: your question is stupid.

The most recent surplus was the month of June 2013. There were annual federal surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000 under accrual accounting... even if you don't use unified (including social security surpluses), which is probably the counter-argument you've been waiting to make. 1998 can be made into a deficit with other accounting methods, but 1999 and 2000 were surpluses.

If you want to understand why your question is uninformed and misleading, I suggest you read How Did A Surplus Result In The National Debt Going Up?. For others reading, the short is that Social Security surpluses are converted to debt. When SS Surplus > on-budget surplus, ++ federal debt (although debt held by the public will decline).

Of course, a bunch of illiterate assholes are going to use that as their primary argument for cutting SS soon. They will point to the trillions of dollars in debt to SS, ignore that the debt is from SS being required to invest in the federal government, and then demand SS be cut because it's such a large part of our debt.

See, you'd think that, but then look at some of the fire arm stats: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Basicly it shows that firearm sales went up and the number of firearm related murders, assaults and robberies went down.

Then look at the number of deaths in other categories such as drunk driving or just driving in general: http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/causes-of-death-cartoon.jpg

Long story short (too late), people like to focus on the little things and blow them out of proportion while completely ignoring the larger issues or ignoring the fact that the majority of people get along just fine.

Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.

It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)

Thank you. I'm not on my normal PC right now, and don't feel like figuring out or resetting my password.

As for my style, I wanted to be as ridiculous as the AC I responded to.

And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.

There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments.

Yes, I know there is a range of views. I just think it's funny that certain partisans on the left act like they are the lone liberal voice, when they obviously are not.

This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you haven't said at all what you meant. "One of his books" is about the most annoying way of saying it possible. Even if I look up accusations against Obama's treatment of the constitution I can't find any such thing. It would really help if you gave an actual quote and said what you think is wrong with it.

No, I was making up the "in one of his books" line, to go with the original false claim of Bush saying it. I have read one of his books, by the way. It gives great insight into his current actions and policies.

Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.

It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)

And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.

There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments. This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you haven't said at all what you meant. "One of his books" is about the most annoying way of saying it possible. Even if I look up accusations against Obama's treatment of the constitution I can't find any such thing. It would really help if you gave an actual quote and said what you think is wrong with it.

There’s a Politico story making the rounds that says that members of Congress are engaged in secret, sensitive negotiations to exempt themselves and their staffs from Obamacare.

Well, they were secret, anyway.

The story has blown up on Twitter. “Unbelievable,” tweetsTPM’s Brian Beutler. “Flat out incredible,” says Politico’s Ben White. “Obamacare for thee, but not for me,” snarks Ben Domenech. “Two thumbs way, way down,” says Richard Roeper. (Okay, I made the last one up).

If this sounds unbelievable, it’s because it is. There’s no effort to “exempt” Congress from Obamacare. No matter how this shakes out, Congress will have to follow the law, just like everyone else does.

Based on conversations I’ve had with a number of the staffs involved in these talks, the actual issue here is far less interesting, and far less explosive, than an exemption. Rather, a Republican amendment meant to embarrass Democrats and a too-clever-by-half Democratic response has possibly created a problem in which the federal government can’t make its normal contribution to the insurance premiums of congressional staffers.

Maybe.

See? This is getting boring already.

Here’s how it happened: Back during the Affordable Care Act negotiations, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed an amendment forcing all members of Congress and all of their staffs to enter the exchanges. The purpose of the amendment was to embarrass the Democrats. But in a bit of jujitsu of which they were inordinately proud, Democrats instead embraced the amendment and added it to the law. Here’s the relevant text:

The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

(Snip)

But no one is discussing “exempting” congressional staffers from Obamacare. They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers.

“Even if OPM rules against us,” one staffer said, “it’s inaccurate to imply that any talks are aimed at exempting federal employees from routine mandates of ACA since any talks are about resolving the unique bind that the Grassley amendment puts federal employees in.”

This isn’t, in other words, an effort to flee Obamacare. It’s an effort to fix a drafting error that prevents the federal government from paying into insurance exchanges on behalf of congressional staffers who got caught up in a political controversy.

All you really need to know about Obamacare is: republicans lie, republicans lie, republicans lie.

subtract-out the 4.2 million jobs lost during his term, the jobs picture looks less rosy.

Sure, he says he's not responsible for anything that happened in his first term other than his healthcare bill and his stimulus bill (all the bad stuff is Bush's fault of course) but Obama was no country bumpkin who got elected and then came to Washington for the first time just in time to be inaugurated.... Obama and Biden were both Democrat Senators before and during the 2008 meltdown and the Democrats at that time controlled the Senate. No matter how you cut it, he bears at least some responsibility. The BLS table you cite is fine, but it's always easier to see a graph like this one

Furthermore, Ronald Reagan actually did come to Washington from the outside when he inherited a far worse economic situation from Jimmy Carter (I'm old enough to remember it quite well) and Reagan was faced with a congress dominated by the other party (the Democrats ran the House and Senate whereas Obama had an overwhelming 2-to-1 majority control of both the House and Senate) yet Democrats blamed Reagan for the Recession AND all the related job losses. For consistency sake, Obama gets the blame for all the job losses of his terms of office... or else all Democrats must now loudly proclaim that Reagan was a FAR BETTER president than they have been willing to admit.... you don't get to have it both ways.

No, but what is intentionally blaming the attack on a spontaneous mob protest over a movie?

That would be the ever honorable appeal to prejudice -- "see how violent those tribal muslims are? They'll blow up an embassy over a youtube video. Savages!"

(and you Obamabots who want to deny that this happened, here's the timeline ... though facts seldom stand in the way of your ability to ignore Obama's bloodthirsty character):

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Oh yeah, and criticizing George W. Obama does not make one a Republican. No liberal can actually utter a favorable word and Obama in the same sentence. He's the worst thing to happen to this country since GWB really hit the executive power expansion button, because Obama has taken what was radical, and normalized it.

In my experience people are fine to talk about the industries built up around alternative energies. You talk of "spectacular" fiscal abuses, but it's almost certainly overblown in your imagination. For example, Solyndra was just a small blip in the larger loan guarantee program. It is peanuts compared to $4 billion that is *given* to big carbon each year in tax breaks. Note, it costs the government more to give away $4 billion each year, than to offer loans to start-ups which have a bankruptcy rate of 11%. Not all money is lost when a company goes bankrupt -- only 4% of it is at risk.

But I'm sure that's a *spectacular* fiscal abuse, and just forking $4 billion a year over to big carbon, because otherwise the the most profitable industry in history wouldn't have enough money to line the pockets of conservative think-tanks and politicians.

Do you see the double-standard there?

What's unethical is Congress not having produced a reasonable and effective tax code. This is their job. Seriously the quality of the work products of the US Congress is really bad.

Corporations are required by law to operate to the benefit of their stockholders. Not avoiding taxes is in fact illegal.

Also I'm amazed the idea of GE not paying taxes is still prevalent. It's not true.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/

GE did not pay zero taxes. That's just bad reporting from the NY Times.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/

That link does little to refute what the parent posted. The article refutes Elizabeth Warren's claim that GE paid "nothing – zero – in taxes", not the parents assertion that they paid no corporate income taxes. The article does have a quote from a GE spokesman that says they paid a small amount of corporate income tax, but there is no data to back that up. FTFA: 'GE chief spokesman Gary Sheffer told Pro Publica: “We expect to have a small U.S. income tax liability for 2010.” How much? The company wouldn’t say.' When pressed on how much they paid in taxes to the US they refused to break down the numbers, only giving worldwide tax numbers. I don't necessarily believe that GE dodges all tax liability in the US but I don't think they are paying their fair share. The article says they paid 7% total worldwide taxes in 2010, that's a lower rate than I pay in sales taxes alone. Their total tax for property, income, excise taxes and a bundle of other things is at a lower rate than pretty much any single tax that I pay. This problem is certainly not confined to GE, most corporations pay a much lower rate than their nominal corporate tax rate. The article says "Again, the company has clearly been aggressive in reducing its tax burden through various tax credits and deductions created by the federal government" but what it doesn't mention is that those various tax credits are a result of lobbying by these corporations (and in some cases, the lobbyists wrote the bill). It's just another example of how the powerful are able to game the system while the less powerful end up footing the bill for the system. The powerful receive benefits from this system that is incommensurate to the amount they pay.

GE did not pay zero taxes. That's just bad reporting from the NY Times.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/

Yes, it would go a long way towards making us meteor-proof.

As for the descent into crazy land:

In February, when Obama released his fiscal year 2013 budget, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget criticized the president’s plan for relying on savings from winding down the two wars. Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan group, called it a “gimmick.”

“There are a number of good policies in this budget, but the use of this war gimmick is quite troubling,” said MacGuineas. “Drawing down spending on wars that were already set to wind down and that were deficit financed in the first place should not be considered savings. When you finish college, you don’t suddenly have thousands of dollars a year to spend elsewhere — in fact, you have to find a way to pay back your loans.”

Source: factcheck.org - under the heading $4 Trillion Seficit Reduction?

a contradicts d, b contradicts d.
c does not interact with any other claim, so we can throw it out.

a contradicts d

"He didn't put it on a credit card." contradicts "The government borrowed from itself"?

No, it does not. The married household has separate books but entangled finances. The Wife borrows money from the husband, and neither has a credit card. You are claiming it's impossible for the household to borrow from itself without using a credit card. I claim you are wrong.

"The federal government spent less than it took in." contradicts "The government borrowed from itself"

Again, you are saying it's impossible for for a husband to borrow from his wife without using a credit card, or other outside finance. He made $120,000 and she made $140,000 and he spent $140,000 and she spent $100,000, they had a surplus of $20,000 for the period, and he "borrowed" $20,000 from her.

I don't understand how you can't understand that. What is the problem?

Oh, and on the subject of whether the budget was balanced, I respond: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Actually the number of companies folding under this program was even lower than congress thought... about 11% Maybe we have different interpretations of "maths" but a little more than 1/10 companies receiving clean energy loans and tax breaks isn't "many" to me. Fact Check talked about this several times during the campaign last year.