What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

The Health Care plan was a Republican plan. It wasn't left, it was right.
Bush's Medicare Prescription "D" program was left of the Obama Health Plan.
The appeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is no more liberal than it is conservative. Now if he repealed DOMA that would be something.
Reagan actually accomplished the raising of Taxes. Obama has yet to accomplish that.

He's a right winger. No two ways about it.
I thought RR accomplished the raising of tax revenue, which is different than raising taxes. IIRC, tax rates were 70% when RR took office. He wanted a flat rate (file on a post card). What we got was a 50% rate and a removing of deductions and write-offs (but not all).
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

I thought RR accomplished the raising of tax revenue, which is different than raising taxes. IIRC, tax rates were 70% when RR took office. He wanted a flat rate (file on a post card). What we got was a 50% rate and a removing of deductions and write-offs (but not all).

Not true.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html\

The following year, Reagan made one of the greatest ideological about-faces in the history of the presidency, agreeing to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security. In almost every way, the bailout flew in the face of conservative ideology. It dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees and employers, brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients. (As an added affront to conservatives, the tax wasn't indexed to inflation, meaning that more and more people have gradually had to pay it over time.)

It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

The second funniest thing that happened under Reagan was his complete reversal of fiscal policy from tax cuts to tax increases which stopped the debt hemorrhage and saved the economy -- exactly the opposite of what the supply siders said should happen.

The 70's "oil shock" (read: the West finally having to pay market price for energy after decades of international theft) that had hurt all the western economies had started to abate already, which meant that the economy was going to get stronger through the 80's. The GOP still almost destroyed this with their original policy, though it wasn't so much the tax cuts as the single funniest thing that happened under Reagan: his explosion of military spending. The reason that was funny is how it happened. The original estimates for defense were based on a math error, but Reagan approved them anyway because he literally didn't understand budgeting and his team never bothered to investigate the numbers. OMB ran the numbers, found the errors, and thought they had discovered a wonderful way to counterbalance the revenue loss of the tax cuts with spending reform, but Reagan was too weak politically at that time (trickle down was understood within the GOP establishment as a Trojan Horse to lower the top marginal rate, but "voodoo economics" that couldn't last long past the initial windfall) to agitate his most dependable corporate support by lowering military expenditures.

So he let it ride. The tax increases and the revived economy covered the mistake in the military budget, without which Reagan might have actually balanced the budget and been a lucky fraudulent hero rather than a lucky fraudulent spendthrift.

Reagan and Obama are brothers from another mother. They both campaigned out of one side of their mouth while governing out of the other side, they both faced economic situations which were completely out of their control, and they both relied on charismatic popularity that had zip to do with their actual policies and everything to do with cultural narratives.

I'm sure they'll laugh together in heaven someday; just like Clinton and Harding.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

The Health Care plan was a Republican plan. It wasn't left, it was right.

Scoobs, you've trotted out this line before, and I have a follow up question for you. I'm going to assume that you're basing this statement on the GOP's counter proposal to the Clinton effort in the early 90's, which called for an individual mandate. Question: Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the GOP at the time had no intention of passing this proposal, nor did they even believe in it, but rather needed to present an alternative liberal-lite plan to shield themselves from "what's your idea then?" counter-attacks?

I ask you this because if the GOP was so hell bent on passing their own version of health care reform, why did they not do so when they had total control of the government?
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

I ask you this because if the GOP was so hell bent on passing their own version of health care reform, why did they not do so when they had total control of the government?

Kinda like how when the Dems had total control of the government a few years ago they couldn't pass their own version of health care reform either.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Scoobs, you've trotted out this line before, and I have a follow up question for you. I'm going to assume that you're basing this statement on the GOP's counter proposal to the Clinton effort in the early 90's, which called for an individual mandate. Question: Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the GOP at the time had no intention of passing this proposal, nor did they even believe in it, but rather needed to present an alternative liberal-lite plan to shield themselves from "what's your idea then?" counter-attacks?

I ask you this because if the GOP was so hell bent on passing their own version of health care reform, why did they not do so when they had total control of the government?

Without at least a public option the plan was a giveaway to insurance companies and pharma. Single payer would be a democratic/left plan. Also, the sheer number of conservatives (including their likely nominee) are known supporters of the individual mandate.

That law is a right wing cluster **** of the highest magnitude.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Without at least a public option the plan was a giveaway to insurance companies and pharma. Single payer would be a democratic/left plan. Also, the sheer number of conservatives (including their likely nominee) are known supporters of the individual mandate.

That law is a right wing cluster **** of the highest magnitude.
Baby steps. By the year 2500 we might even cover half the population.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Immigration is likely to be a wedge issue next year. And here's the mayor of New Haven suggesting non-citizens, including illegals, be allowed to vote in municipal elections. Our friends on the left love to advance "slippery slope" arguments. How about here? The only votes the illegal portion of the non-citizen population should be permitted to cast are selecting a mode of transportation to take them back where they came from. Just to be clear, the only ones casting any votes around here, ever, should be citizens, period. It's probably inevitable that this position will be called racist by the usual suspects.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...to-Allow-Non-Citizens-to-Vote--135569598.html
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Huntsman: 59.6%.....4 of 11
Obama: 57.2%.....4 of 11
Romney: 43%.....2 of 11

Obama 66.7%
Paul: 40.1%
Huntsman: 33.5%

I probably should have answered more "none of the above"...

I think Huntsman makes me want to vomit the least among the republican candidates.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Anyone wonder if Obama will come out publicly for same-sex marriage if he is reelected? Our previous governor in Maine said he supported civil-unions for same sex couples but not marriage his first term, and then his second term signed a law extending marriage rights to same sex couples (but the law was struck down by a "people's veto" before it could take effect). He said he had come to believe it was a question of equal protection under the law and that a civil union was not equal to civil marriage. It is still impossible for a presidential candidate to get elected if they are on record supporting same sex marriage, but during a second term he wouldn't have to worry about electability. I think the same was true in our state a few years ago, but I am fairly certain now the next governor from Maine (D or I) will state their support for same sex marriage on the campaign trail (unless the republican doofus we have in office now manages to get reelected -- he only ended up in office because an independent and democrat split 61% of the vote and he won with 39%)
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Anyone wonder if Obama will come out publicly for same-sex marriage if he is reelected?
No reason to. I don't think that's where he's going second term or even post-second term. It's been a heavy haul to get even smart 50-somethings this far. Cementing the legal standing of orientation as a suspect category is the end game. Then gays will melt in the melting pot like everybody else has, and civil decisions like "marriage" will sort themselves out based on your congregation's mean SAT. In 50 years, homophobia dressed as Jesus will look just as ugly as racism dressed as Jesus does now, and the handful of old coots still wallowing in it will be just as despised and powerless.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Immigration is likely to be a wedge issue next year. And here's the mayor of New Haven suggesting non-citizens, including illegals, be allowed to vote in municipal elections. Our friends on the left love to advance "slippery slope" arguments. How about here? The only votes the illegal portion of the non-citizen population should be permitted to cast are selecting a mode of transportation to take them back where they came from. Just to be clear, the only ones casting any votes around here, ever, should be citizens, period. It's probably inevitable that this position will be called racist by the usual suspects.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...to-Allow-Non-Citizens-to-Vote--135569598.html


That guy has to be desperate for votes. Seems like on a local level, people would be more ****ed off about non-taxpayers making decisions. That's been my experience at least.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

When Roger Ailes blows his dog whistle, he does not mess around:

foxinfographicfail_romneyisobama.jpg
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Without at least a public option the plan was a giveaway to insurance companies and pharma. Single payer would be a democratic/left plan. Also, the sheer number of conservatives (including their likely nominee) are known supporters of the individual mandate.

That law is a right wing cluster **** of the highest magnitude.

Scoobs no offense but I don't think you're the proper judge of what constitutes a left wing plan. A govt mandate to get insurance is in no way, shape or form consistant with conservative ideology. Nor is telling insurance companies who they have to cover (pre-existing conditions). An absolutist might object to the notion that the bill wasn't 100% what they wanted. Lets call that Naderism. My financial brain tells me a negotiation whereby sick people are being covered in exchange for healthy younger people having to obtain coverage is a good trade off. As an aside, I wouldn't use Mitt Romney's backing of an individual mandate as proof of its conservative lineage. When he was governor Romney was about as liberal as I am.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Scoobs no offense but I don't think you're the proper judge of what constitutes a left wing plan. A govt mandate to get insurance is in no way, shape or form consistant with conservative ideology. Nor is telling insurance companies who they have to cover (pre-existing conditions). An absolutist might object to the notion that the bill wasn't 100% what they wanted. Lets call that Naderism. My financial brain tells me a negotiation whereby sick people are being covered in exchange for healthy younger people having to obtain coverage is a good trade off. As an aside, I wouldn't use Mitt Romney's backing of an individual mandate as proof of its conservative lineage. When he was governor Romney was about as liberal as I am.

I rest my case.

In the 1970's, during the Nixon Administration, the Democratic Party began to advocate for a single payer plan to insure all Americans. Nixon and his party disliked the plan and explored alternate approaches, which included mandated health insurance for all Americans. Comprehensive reform was not successful in gaining enough Congressional traction to evolve into legislative action.

During the George H. W. Bush Administration, Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts was pushing a Single-Payer system as a solution for the health care problem, and Conservatives pushed back with a defined Individual Mandate. Bush's plan, came from a health systems economist named Mark Pauly, was to tie the individual mandate to taxation, with means testing based on income that would effect the amount a person would have to pay. This would have catastrophic coverage, which would've left a number of large holes in the program. Also included was a clause that would cover all pre-existing. Two basic components of the Affordable Care Act.

Things crystallized further during the Clinton Administration and Hillary Clinton's efforts to address health care. Republicans, fighting back once again, submitted a formal proposal, "Coverage of Preventative Services: Provisions of Selected Current Health Care Proposals." This proposal included, on page 25, a provision for an individual mandate.

The line of Conservatives who supported this idea is a rather long one. It includes conservative watch dog group The Heritage Foundation. It also includes such high profile republicans Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Dole, Jim DeMint, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Robert Bennett, Christopher Bond, Bill Frist, John McCain and Tommy Thompson. Not to mention the Nixon and Bush Sr. Administrations.

http://reasonableconversation.blogspot.com/2011/05/individual-mandate-crazy-democratic.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top