Commanders Post at The Warpath

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)

- Debating with the enemy (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=75)

- - Obama Care (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=30288)

[quote=12thMan;781925]Hmm...okay, you got me. Find me another one, besides Reagan's boy Meltzer.[/quote]Click on the second link and there's more.

[quote]And to compare Reagan's first 18 months to Obama's is being completely dishonest and ignoring what each president inherited. We just climbed out of the worst post war recession in history, due to in no small part the success of TARP ( which included baling out Detroit, which worked) and the stimulus program.[/quote]You may be too young to remember, and I was just a pre-teen, but what Carter left for Reagan was worse than what Obama walked in to.

[quote]With all due respect for Ronald Reagan but there is more and more data to suggest that trickle down economics, on the whole, failed. [/quote]Depends on the goals, from a liberal perspective for the gov't to redistribute wealth you would consider it a failure. If the goal was for the private sector to create jobs and expand the economy, it was a wild success.

[quote]But since Meltzer penned this wonderful non-partisan Op for WSJ, the econoomy logged it's biggest Q4 GDP growth in years, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years, and the president has issued an executive order for a federal review of regulations that may be too onerous on big business, I just don't know how you could conclude anything an absolute failure or success in the first 18 months of a presidency. [/quote]The only reason any of this happened was because of the very loud message the American people sent to Obama and the Dems in Nov. 2010.

[quote]But the main culprit behind why companies aren't hiring is because, well, they aren't hiring. They're hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, as you know. And the bottom line is companies are doing more with less these days. Corporate profits are strong, the DOW has crossed 12,000, and the outlook for economic expanision in 2011 is more upbeat.[/quote]The large companies are hoarding their cash because of uncertainty. No company is going to make large capital expenditures and hire personnel in this economic climate only to have those actions have a net negative effect on the bottom line due to gov't regulations/requirements. Had the Fed (Obama and Congress) let the free market work we'd have been out of this mess a while ago and the hit wouldn't have been so hard.

Good reading:
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576109772560128768.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"]Economy Picks Up Steam - WSJ.com[/URL]

From the article: "It took 12 quarters to recoup the losses and, on a per-capita basis, the economy is still not as large as it was before the recession took hold. Such a prolonged recovery is unusual: It took eight quarters to bounce back from the deep recession of the early 1970s."

Antoher one you'll enjoy:
[URL="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/13/so-much-worse-than-carter/print"]The American Spectator : So Much Worse Than Carter[/URL]

From the article: "The precedent for President Obama is not President Reagan, but President Carter. Indeed, he is not on the same trajectory as Carter, he is doing far worse. In 1978, the unemployment rate was 6.1%. Real GDP grew by 5.6%."

[quote=12thMan;781900]I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but more jobs were created in 2010 alone than the entire 8 years under Bush. Got that. Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.

[URL="http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-year"]It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years | NEWS JUNKIE POST[/URL]

/[U][COLOR=#670100]http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/[/COLOR][/U]

In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.[/quote]

But didn't we also loose more jobs so the net effect is actually less jobs?

[quote=12thMan;781925]Hmm...okay, you got me. Find me another one, besides Reagan's boy Meltzer. It just seems non-sensical to me for somone of Meltzer's stature to declare with absolute authority that President Obama's policies have failed after just 18 months in office. And to compare Reagan's first 18 months to Obama's is being completely dishonest and ignoring what each president inherited. We just climbed out of the worst post war recession in history, due to in no small part the success of TARP ( which included baling out Detroit, which worked) and the stimulus program.

With all due respect for Ronald Reagan but there is more and more data to suggest that trickle down economics, on the whole, failed.

But since Meltzer penned this wonderful non-partisan Op for WSJ, the [B]econoomy logged it's biggest Q4 GDP growth in years, [/B]Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years, and the president has issued an executive order for a federal review of regulations that may be too onerous on big business, I just don't know how you could conclude anything an absolute failure or success in the first 18 months of a presidency.

But the main culprit behind why companies aren't hiring is because, well, they aren't hiring. They're hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, as you know. And the bottom line is companies are doing more with less these days. Corporate profits are strong, the DOW has crossed 12,000, and the outlook for economic expanision in 2011 is more upbeat.

I'm betting if Meltzer was writing that article right now, his tone would be much different.[/quote]

Thats just twisting numbers to make things look better and both sides are guilty of twisting number. Comparing growth numbers to bad years just makes the numbers look better. If sales dropped off in my office to an all time low and then things started turning around I would not compare my sales to the crappy years I would look at the good years to get a good comparison. The goverment seems to always compare its shitty numbers to more shitty numbers which make them look better.

If I had a bad month and sold only 10 policies and the next month sold 20 and used the goverments math I would have 100% growth. When in the real world I would still be down about 60% from the better months.

Looks like Reagan had insurgents in his mist. WARNING, complex material discussed.

[YT]-UGQIkYEBPo[/YT]

[quote=saden1;781975]Looks like Reagan had insurgents in his mist. WARNING, complex material discussed.

[/quote]This guy publically mentioned he voted for Obama. Fried also believes the gov't has the right to tax people based on behavior that costs society as a whole.

I guess Reagan was a true leader and wasn't afraid to appoint qualified people who didn't necessarily toe the "party line" 100%.

Anywho, looks like the President needs to abide by the Federal judges decsion, or appeal to the SC.....good luck with that.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;781982]This guy publicly mentioned he voted for Obama. Fried also believes the gov't has the right to tax people based on behavior that costs society as a whole.

I guess Reagan was a true leader and wasn't afraid to appoint qualified people who didn't necessarily toe the "party line" 100%.

Anywho, looks like the President needs to abide by the Federal judges decision, or appeal to the SC.....good luck with that.[/quote]

The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all. You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama and stating the obvious when it comes to the constitutionality of excise taxes. Remember, if it isn't unconstitutional when challenged it is constitutional until the next successful challenge.

The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.

The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.

[quote=saden1;781985]The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all. You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama and stating the obvious when it comes to the constitutionality of excise taxes. Remember, if it isn't unconstitutional when challenged it is constitutional until the next successful challenge.

The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.

The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.[/quote]
I said back not sure if was this thread or another how all we need to do is look at the failing reform and syrocketing cost to health care in Mass. to see what the Obama plan will do,

[quote=saden1;781985]The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all.[/quote]Philosopically, debatable. Practically, yes. However the difference here is a person is forced to purchased heath care. If I don't want to pay a tax on cig, beer, gas, etc. I can chose not to buy them.

[quote]You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama[/quote]Again, very much up for debate :laughing-

[quote]The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.[/quote]At the end of the day I think we'll see a 5-4 ruling against Obamacare.

[quote]The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.[/quote]I wouldn't say none, but he's sure dug himself a good sized hole.

The reason they want to force people on health care is because that the only way Obama can push this plan. He wants to force the healthy people to buy ins to pay for all the people with conditions that will now get put into the system.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;782028]Philosopically, debatable. Practically, yes. However the difference here is a person is forced to purchased heath care. If I don't want to pay a tax on cig, beer, gas, etc. I can chose not to buy them.

Again, very much up for debate :laughing-

At the end of the day I think we'll see a 5-4 ruling against Obamacare.

I wouldn't say none, but he's sure dug himself a good sized hole.[/quote]

People who own a home get a tax break at the end of the year. You can choose not to buy a home in which case you won't get a tax break..or should I say get renter taxed. You are free to choose. The fee is a tax and waver of the fee is a tax break...it is all a matter of semantics and antics.

With all this said if Obama care is overturned I still like to see some type of reform.

[quote=firstdown;782104]With all this said if Obama care is overturned I still like to see some type of reform.[/quote]

There has to be.

Middle class can now get Medcaid.

So they just found this little error in the health care bill that they did not read. Funny how thing are missed when something is not read and I wonder how many other things are hidden in those pages.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490650/ns/health-health_care]Millions in middle-class could get Medicaid - Health - Health care - msnbc.com[/url]

[quote=firstdown;807836]Middle class can now get Medcaid.

So they just found this little error in the health care bill that they did not read. Funny how thing are missed when something is not read and I wonder how many other things are hidden in those pages.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490650/ns/health-health_care]Millions in middle-class could get Medicaid - Health - Health care - msnbc.com[/url][/quote]

So you're saying the bill should have included a clause that excluded middle class from Medicaid thus making the bill longer and harder to read? If only Cain was president...this whole healthcare bill could have been concisely written on 3 pages.

Don't worry, the fixable will be fixed with more words through the amendment process.

The well for healthcare reform has been poisoned. Republicans have demagogued a position they once firmly espoused - the individual mandate. Without it, I don't see how we bring down costs, while make healthcare affordable and accessible for everyone. I hear a lot of Republicans talking about repeal and replace, but it's going to be extremely difficult to insure the majority of Americans without including, at the very least, some elements of Affordable Care Act.

Firstdown, Mass residents really like the plan instituted under Romney. It would be nice to see the media cover that story at some point.