Originally posted by utherpendragonWell, it's a bit more accurate to look at debt as a percentage of GDP, which dropped during Clinton's second term. In this graph you can clearly see the change in fiscal policy after Reagan took office.
[b]The numbers below do NOT reflect the actual National Debt. Instead, they reflect the amount of the INCREASE in the National Debt during each presidential term.
> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Fi ...[text shortened]... lowthebeltway.com/2010/01/21/obamas-first-year-increase-in-national-debt-already-record-setting/[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
Originally posted by utherpendragonThat might be true IF you give Obama credit for the 2009 Budget, which was signed into law in 2008.
Or, to put it another way, after one year, Obama is already in fourth place for increasing the national debt behind George W. Bush II, George W. Bush I, and George H.W. Bush. He’s already out-paced Bill Clinton’s entire eight years in office, and is only a few hundred billion dollars away from passing Reagan’s two terms.
Anyone want to guess where ...[text shortened]... lowthebeltway.com/2010/01/21/obamas-first-year-increase-in-national-debt-already-record-setting/
That being said without a doubt the stimulus spending is enormous, and we can debate the merits of the spending. We can also debate who gets blame/credit (point of view) considering, for example, in one fell sweep Bush signed nearly a Trillion worth of bank bailouts.
But the point is.... the Republicans are not - NOT the party of fiscal responsibility.
Originally posted by generalissimoPick from the following:
[b] I also think the Republican strategy of block and filibuster everything possible has been very effective politically. I think it's disgusting and shameful
so you're one of those liberals who think the republicans should just shut up and do as they're told?[/b]
A: "Block and filibuster everything" and "shut up and do as you're told" are the only two possible choices.
B: You just used a blatant strawman argument.
Which is reality?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI was only pulling your leg.
Pick from the following:
A: "Block and filibuster everything" and "shut up and do as you're told" are the only two possible choices.
B: You just used a blatant strawman argument.
Which is reality?
I do think some things had to be blocked by the republicans, but overall Im totally against the way partisanship prevents real reform from taking place.
Originally posted by utherpendragonwell, I do think the current system needs to change, but like I said before, the republicans had to block some of the things proposed, like for example the govt option.
do you find compulsory health care a good thing for this nation and the "real reform" the majority of Americans want?
but to answer your question, I don't see what is so bad about compulsory healthcare.
Originally posted by generalissimoWell,I should of said compulsory health insurance,not health care.
well, I do think the current system needs to change, but like I said before, the republicans had to block some of the things proposed, like for example the govt option.
but to answer your question, I don't see what is so bad about compulsory healthcare.
"The legislation's centerpiece is really the "individual mandate" - an unprecedented legal requirement that Americans purchase health insurance under penalty of law. The mandate is nearly universal, and without it, as President Obama admitted to a joint session of Congress, the legislation would fall apart.
Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy.
But is it constitutional?"
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11042
This is the big sticking point. For the Feds to say you MUST have health insurance or get fined or jailed.
Originally posted by utherpendragonmaybe the constitution needs to change in order to be relevant in modern times.
[b]Well,I should of said compulsory health insurance,not health care.
"The legislation's centerpiece is really the "individual mandate" - an unprecedented legal requirement that Americans purchase health insurance under penalty of law. The mandate is nearly universal, and without it, as President Obama admitted to a joint session of Congress, t ...[text shortened]... king point. For the Feds to say you MUST have health insurance or get fined or jailed.[/b][/b]
have you ever thought about the consequences of not making health insurance compulsory?
Originally posted by utherpendragonI've dealt with the argument that the mandate is unconstitutional before; IMO it has little merit. If the government can legitimately reduce your taxes if you buy a house and make mortgage payments, I see no rational reason why it couldn't increase your taxes if you decide not to buy health insurance.
[b]Well,I should of said compulsory health insurance,not health care.
"The legislation's centerpiece is really the "individual mandate" - an unprecedented legal requirement that Americans purchase health insurance under penalty of law. The mandate is nearly universal, and without it, as President Obama admitted to a joint session of Congress, t ...[text shortened]... king point. For the Feds to say you MUST have health insurance or get fined or jailed.[/b][/b]
Of course, a requirement of this sort is not going to be politically popular in isolation. But no one has proposed how the system would work for private insurance companies without it. If healthy people can refuse to buy insurance until they are sick while those in poorer health do buy insurance, the companies are going to be unprofitable (or a lot less profitable).
A single payer system avoids this problem but it's not in the cards for the US for a while yet.
Originally posted by utherpendragonFined or jailed? WROOOOOONG!
[b]Well,I should of said compulsory health insurance,not health care.
"The legislation's centerpiece is really the "individual mandate" - an unprecedented legal requirement that Americans purchase health insurance under penalty of law. The mandate is nearly universal, and without it, as President Obama admitted to a joint session of Congress, t king point. For the Feds to say you MUST have health insurance or get fined or jailed.[/b][/b]
That's something pushed by the right-wing talking heads and it's a lie. What was proposed was implementing a *tax* for those who don't comply. Now, in the most extreme cases of tax evasion (typically involving millions of dollars in unpaid taxes) people have can and do server jail time.
So based on that the right says, "They're going to throw you in jail if you don't get health insurance!" Why not just call it a tax? Aferall almost everyone already knows there are penalties for tax evasion. I guess that would be far too honest, and heaven forbid the Repubs don't push exaggerated sensationalism about everything.
But leave it to the tree hugging liberal socialist marxist community parasites to come up with a mandate, right? Except..... it was originally a Republican idea. It was their answer to Clinton's proposal for an employer mandate. They like the individual mandate because it promoted "individual responsibility."
Many of these Republicans are still in office today and they expressed "shock and horror" about having an individual mandate.
Yet... here they are touting it.
More from the last link I posted
Is it constitutional?
If you think the answer is a self-evident "no," then you haven't been following the Supreme Court over the past seven decades. Instead of serving as a shield against states that attempt to interfere with interstate commerce, the commerce power today has become a sword that the federal government wields in pursuit of a boundless array of socio-economic programs.
The Supreme Court has held that the power to regulate interstate commerce extends to trade within a single state if it has a substantial effect on interstate markets. Even noncommercial activities within a state can be restricted if they threaten to undercut federal regulation of interstate markets.
That's the framework into which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) shoehorned his health bill. What he came up with is a paper-thin pretense for asserting extra-constitutional powers.
First, Reid tried obfuscation. Tucked away in that 2,074-page bill is a citation of a 1944 Supreme Court ruling that deemed insurance to be interstate commerce. Reid conveniently omitted any reference to the McCarran-Ferguson Act passed the very next year, which gave states absolute authority to regulate health insurance.
That law's effect has been to bar individuals from purchasing health insurance across state lines. Accordingly, there is no interstate market to be affected, much less undercut.
Reid's second ploy was to pretend that forcing Americans to purchase a product that many of them do not want is integral to the regulation of our national health-care system. Perhaps so, but only if the Constitution's commerce clause, which was intended to eliminate state barriers to interstate trade, becomes the vehicle by which the federal government can compel people to engage in intrastate trade. Not even the Supreme Court's tortured commerce-clause jurisprudence goes that far.
Robert A. Levy is chairman of the board of the Cato Institute. Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
More by Robert A. Levy
More by Michael F. Cannon
If Congress were interested in using the commerce clause for its intended purpose, we would be debating the Health Care Choice Act, which would permit the interstate purchase of individual health policies. The Democrats, however, bottled up that bill in committee.
They would rather exploit the cartelization of health insurance in selected states to argue for a government-run insurance company. Never mind that a major reason for those cartels is the prohibition against purchasing insurance across state lines.
Finally, Reid would enforce this unconstitutional mandate with an unconstitutional tax. The Senate bill attaches a penalty for not complying with the mandate to the Internal Revenue Code. But the penalty is not based on income, so it's not an income tax. And it's not based on the value of the policy not purchased, so it's not an excise tax. Instead, the tax is a fixed amount based on family size. That means it's levied per person and therefore a "direct tax" under the Constitution, which requires that such taxes be apportioned among the states according to their population, as determined by the census.
The individual mandate would extend the dominion of the federal government to virtually all manner of human conduct - including the non-conduct of not buying health insurance - by establishing a federal police power that is authorized nowhere in the Constitution. Democrats will have legislated a new quasi-crime, and perhaps the sole offense in our history that can be committed only by people of a certain income, since those below the poverty line would be exempt from the mandate.
Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI read it before you cut and pasted it. I'm not impressed; the health care industry is clearly subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause - it would make a mockery of Congress' delegated power if the biggest industry in the US which comprises over one-sixth of the economy as measured by GNP was not.
[b]More from the last link I posted
Is it constitutional?
If you think the answer is a self-evident "no," then you haven't been following the Supreme Court over the past seven decades. Instead of serving as a shield against states that attempt to interfere with interstate commerce, the commerce power today has become a sword that the federal g ...[text shortened]... nomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.[/i][/b]
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI was referring to the the Baucus plan.
Fined or jailed? WROOOOOONG!
That's something pushed by the right-wing talking heads and it's a lie. What was proposed was implementing a *tax* for those who don't comply. Now, in the most extreme cases of tax evasion (typically involving millions of dollars in unpaid taxes) people have can and do server jail time.
So based on that the righ ...[text shortened]...
Yet... here they are touting it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUxV6UGzo6g
"The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds."
"Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level – about $66,000 for a family of four – would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/08/fines-proposed-for-going_n_279724.html