Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19864 Aug 9, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>AND possibly the entire country.
Exactly
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19865 Aug 9, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Let's not forget that the federal constitution compels or mandates certain functions & responsibilities that some people use in arguments as 'socialist' & likely every state constitution does too. The examples of police, fire & schools being socialism is somewhat ludicrous.
Especially when governed by states, counties & cities.
Not only that, but police, fire and schools are actually regulated by the people and not the politicians. Some places only have the Sheriff to rely on for protection and perhaps a volunteer fire department if that. It's the people who fund these entities and decide on how much they will pay in taxes to have them.

Government is good for some things and terrible for others. But if you put a businessman in charge of government, chances are he will run the government like a business and make it a success. If you take a professional politician and have him run a business the way he ran a government, chances are that business will fold up in a matter of a few years.
Pops

Newport, KY

#19866 Aug 9, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only that, but police, fire and schools are actually regulated by the people and not the politicians. Some places only have the Sheriff to rely on for protection and perhaps a volunteer fire department if that. It's the people who fund these entities and decide on how much they will pay in taxes to have them.
Government is good for some things and terrible for others. But if you put a businessman in charge of government, chances are he will run the government like a business and make it a success. If you take a professional politician and have him run a business the way he ran a government, chances are that business will fold up in a matter of a few years.
Thanx for completing & clarifying what I didn't do so well. That being that in the lower tiers of government the people rule.
NO one that I can think of equates Washing D.C. as being "of the people, by the people & for the people" any longer.
Let me add that;
Our Founding Fathers would possibly be for a new armed revolution & agree with that or not, I would understand.
There was a reason that the Constitution that they penned & signed, LIMITED the powers of the Federal Gov & they were very specific as to the responsibilities of the Federal Government while EXCLUDING everything else.
It keeps power closer to the people!
Old Guy

New Carlisle, OH

#19867 Aug 9, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It was? Then why didn't it receive any support? Why was it never introduced as serious legislation by the Republican party?
Your questions contain false premises. The bill including a health insurance mandate WAS introduced by the Republicans and had 21 co-sponsors in the Senate:

"In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."

Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey)."

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/...
Old Guy

New Carlisle, OH

#19868 Aug 10, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
But if you put a businessman in charge of government, chances are he will run the government like a business and make it a success.
"And then we get the big three—the men widely considered by historians to be the worst presidents of the modern era: Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush. One left the country on the verge of a depression, one left the country in a depression, and one presided over such corruption and ineptitude that despite the failings of the other two he still manages to get the lowest ranking of them all. And yet all three made millions of dollars in the private sector before entering politics. All three were successful businessmen (a newspaper publisher, a mining tycoon, and the owner of a professional baseball team)."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/0...
BUBBA

Kenton, OH

#19869 Aug 10, 2013
Who cares about the dang governor.

Since: Aug 12

United States

#19870 Aug 10, 2013
UdintEARNthat wrote:
<quoted text>
I never b1tched about paying taxes. Is this another one of those sneaky GOP ploys? Besides, we all know those companies fled the country under GW Bush. You kookie Tea Baggers. Always trying to rewrite history.
.
Fled the country???? NCR, the last fortune 500 company left in Dayton fled to Georgia. High Tech company Agilysis in Solon fled to Georgia.
.
The Tea Party knows you're so full of shitt yer eyes are brown.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19871 Aug 10, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Thanx for completing & clarifying what I didn't do so well. That being that in the lower tiers of government the people rule.
NO one that I can think of equates Washing D.C. as being "of the people, by the people & for the people" any longer.
Let me add that;
Our Founding Fathers would possibly be for a new armed revolution & agree with that or not, I would understand.
There was a reason that the Constitution that they penned & signed, LIMITED the powers of the Federal Gov & they were very specific as to the responsibilities of the Federal Government while EXCLUDING everything else.
It keeps power closer to the people!
If our founding fathers could come back today, they would be outraged at what's taking place.

By design, states were to operate like miniature countries and only congregate for national matters. Healthcare coverage is not a national matter. Neither are retirement benefits, food, shelter, seat belt laws, midnight basketball courts, cell phones, government air conditioners or environmental policies.

These are all state issues and should only be addressed by the state. Our founders would be outraged at how state dependency on federal government allows them to bypass states rights. The very idea that the federal government threatens states by withholding road funding if you don't comply with their wishes gives the federal government unlimited power.

The biggest threats to our freedoms in this country are bureaucracies and liberal appointed judges. It is these entities that create or manipulate laws against our wishes. You can't elect them, vote them out or impeach them.

I think if the founders could come back and rewrite the Constitution, it would look nothing like it does today. They would look upon the land and see sloths nursing at the breast of the federal government at the expense of the responsible, and make sure the new Constitution would prohibit such abilities. Hell, half of the people in this country are living partially or entirely off of the federal government. This is not what our founders had in mind and in fact, had the opposite goal.

John Kennedy thought the success of this country depended not on what the country can do for the citizens, but what the citizens can do for their country. Barack Obama and his ilk believe the success of our country depends on what the country can do for the citizen, and not what the citizens can do for the country.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger, on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison. Annals of Congress, 1794
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19872 Aug 10, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your questions contain false premises. The bill including a health insurance mandate WAS introduced by the Republicans and had 21 co-sponsors in the Senate:
"In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."
Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey)."
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/...
I see you left out the most important part:

"The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009,"

In other words, it was all lip service and reactionary to HillaryCare which ushered in the historic Congressional turnover from Democrat to Republican leadership. 21 co-sponsors? You do realize there are 100 Senators, don't you?

What I asked for was a "serious" attempt by Republicans for national healthcare, not a dog and pony show. The Republicans had no intention of taking over 1/6 of our economy.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#19873 Aug 10, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
and you are brain washed.
Explain exactly how for 30 years insurance I paid for myself, has gone up because of GOP Teabaggers?
Exchange? How about buy your insurance from a provider you choose and can pay for.
Some employers provide insurance to help retain employees, but employees share in the expense.
Being self employed, I pay 100% of my benefit package for family of 4, for 25 years. Now I am re-married on my working wife's medical plan. She pays $360 a month, and employer pays remainder. In the end, she pays it all because the employers consider it a cost of the employee.
The exchange is the Government takeover of healthcare, and corrupt politicians determining whom receives treatment.
Refusing your exchange is what exactly should be done. There is no free lunch. Someone has to pay.
Healthcare is 25% of our entire economy. You want to assist the government in taking that over to continue the socialist movement in this country.
woo-boy.....you have a problem. The 2nd amendment. Many have died to keep this country free, and many willing to die defending it. You liberal loud mouths won't be willing to die for anything, because you are too busy making excuses.
Before America becomes full blown socialist, expect patriots to Declare Independence from the run away government, and revolt taking it back.
Our military swore to up hold the constitution. The constitution limits government. What % of active military do you think would follow what they swore to up hold?
Better yet.....what percentage of Officers do you expect to live up to their promise?
everyday is a ticking bomb for this administration. This administration has and is continuing to move America backwards.
Loud mouths like yourself will spin and pass the blame.
The Obama reign has caused America great damage, and is close to causing war amongst race, and society class. The war needs to be against this over reaching government that is bankrupting us on purpose.
Wow! your IQ test results came back. They're negative.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#19874 Aug 10, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If our founding fathers could come back today, they would be outraged at what's taking place.
By design, states were to operate like miniature countries and only congregate for national matters. Healthcare coverage is not a national matter. Neither are retirement benefits, food, shelter, seat belt laws, midnight basketball courts, cell phones, government air conditioners or environmental policies.
These are all state issues and should only be addressed by the state. Our founders would be outraged at how state dependency on federal government allows them to bypass states rights. The very idea that the federal government threatens states by withholding road funding if you don't comply with their wishes gives the federal government unlimited power.
The biggest threats to our freedoms in this country are bureaucracies and liberal appointed judges. It is these entities that create or manipulate laws against our wishes. You can't elect them, vote them out or impeach them.
I think if the founders could come back and rewrite the Constitution, it would look nothing like it does today. They would look upon the land and see sloths nursing at the breast of the federal government at the expense of the responsible, and make sure the new Constitution would prohibit such abilities. Hell, half of the people in this country are living partially or entirely off of the federal government. This is not what our founders had in mind and in fact, had the opposite goal.
John Kennedy thought the success of this country depended not on what the country can do for the citizens, but what the citizens can do for their country. Barack Obama and his ilk believe the success of our country depends on what the country can do for the citizen, and not what the citizens can do for the country.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger, on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison. Annals of Congress, 1794
It's 2013 not 1794, they didn't have huge corporations, Wall Street and huge banks buying the government back then.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19875 Aug 10, 2013
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>It's 2013 not 1794, they didn't have huge corporations, Wall Street and huge banks buying the government back then.
The US Constitution was written in stone and only to be changed by the Amendment Process.

They didn't have Wall Street or huge corporations back then, but they didn't have environmental kooks, unions and many irresponsible people back then either. Wall Street and corporations don't change the fact that our US government is not a social club. It is not a loan industry. It is not supposed to be a safety net.

Nobody's tax money in Texas should be paying for my neighbors housing. Nobody in Utah should be paying for my kids lunch in our Ohio schools. Nobody in California should be paying for retirement of a Michigan resident.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. And when we elect to have the federal government control all of these things, we surrender more of our liberty to that federal government.

Madison was correct back then, and he is correct today.
Old Guy

New Carlisle, OH

#19876 Aug 10, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you left out the most important part:
"The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009,"
In other words, it was all lip service and reactionary to HillaryCare which ushered in the historic Congressional turnover from Democrat to Republican leadership. 21 co-sponsors? You do realize there are 100 Senators, don't you?
What I asked for was a "serious" attempt by Republicans for national healthcare, not a dog and pony show. The Republicans had no intention of taking over 1/6 of our economy.
I see, so when you said "Then why didn't it receive any support?" you really meant was "It wasn't supported by every Republican in the Senate." And a "serious" attempt is only one that succeeds and becomes law?

But I find it interesting what you are saying about the Republicans back in 1993 --- that when they were confronted with a serious Democratic healthcare proposal, they made up a response which was not really serious. So they were deceiving the public, and had no real interest in healthcare legislation? Was that Heritage Foundation plan on which it was based also just part of the scam?

More to the point, when you are confronted with hard evidence that you are wrong on a matter of historical fact do you ever just admit your error and move on? This all started with you denying that the healthcare mandate had Republican origins. I presented you with the Heritage Foundation document, and then you responded that nothing ever came of it. When presented with evidence of a Republican bill incorporating those ideas that had 19 Republican co-sponsors, you blow that off as not "serious" by some standard that only you understand.
Pops

Newport, KY

#19877 Aug 10, 2013
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>It's 2013 not 1794, they didn't have huge corporations, Wall Street and huge banks buying the government back then.
Not quite true. They didn't have Microsoft & Exxon either but they had monopolistic shipping magnates, huge land owners, lumber companies, coal companies, merchants of cotton & tobacco, trappers & trading companies etc. And YES, they had large banks. I would say that ALL were comparable to the massive companies of today.
The type of company is not relevant, it is the proportion of the GDP. That's where the power is.
Pops

Newport, KY

#19878 Aug 10, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If our founding fathers could come back today, they would be outraged at what's taking place.
By design, states were to operate like miniature countries and only congregate for national matters. Healthcare coverage is not a national matter. Neither are retirement benefits, food, shelter, seat belt laws, midnight basketball courts, cell phones, government air conditioners or environmental policies.
These are all state issues and should only be addressed by the state. Our founders would be outraged at how state dependency on federal government allows them to bypass states rights. The very idea that the federal government threatens states by withholding road funding if you don't comply with their wishes gives the federal government unlimited power.

I think if the founders could come back and rewrite the Constitution, it would look nothing like it does today. They would look upon the land and see sloths nursing at the breast of the federal government at the expense of the responsible, and make sure the new Constitution would prohibit such abilities. Hell, half of the people in this country are living partially or entirely off of the federal government. This is not what our founders had in mind and in fact, had the opposite goal.
John Kennedy thought the success of this country depended not on what the country can do for the citizens, but what the citizens can do for their country. Barack Obama and his ilk believe the success of our country depends on what the country can do for the citizen, and not what the citizens can do for the country.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger, on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison. Annals of Congress, 1794
Please let me add that Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have".
In more modern times Kennedy also said "..that we can not tax ourselves to prosperity" & Ron Reagan,'The government isn't the solution to the problem, the government IS the problem", & then Maggie Thatcher said, "Socialism only works until the government runs out of the peoples money". It seems to me that 'WE' have run out of other peoples money or we wouldn't be 16 TRILLION in debt.
We don't need to point the finger at any one president or any one congress, we need to point the finger at the voters. Especially the ones that forgot Kennedy's words that you have already posted; what the people can do for their country.
We need to quit F'ing it up and start sucking it up.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19879 Aug 10, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, so when you said "Then why didn't it receive any support?" you really meant was "It wasn't supported by every Republican in the Senate." And a "serious" attempt is only one that succeeds and becomes law?
But I find it interesting what you are saying about the Republicans back in 1993 --- that when they were confronted with a serious Democratic healthcare proposal, they made up a response which was not really serious. So they were deceiving the public, and had no real interest in healthcare legislation? Was that Heritage Foundation plan on which it was based also just part of the scam?
More to the point, when you are confronted with hard evidence that you are wrong on a matter of historical fact do you ever just admit your error and move on? This all started with you denying that the healthcare mandate had Republican origins. I presented you with the Heritage Foundation document, and then you responded that nothing ever came of it. When presented with evidence of a Republican bill incorporating those ideas that had 19 Republican co-sponsors, you blow that off as not "serious" by some standard that only you understand.
It wasn't a serious bill. That's what I'm saying. It's called "throwing the dog a bone." The same thing is going on today with immigration reform. Republicans don't really want immigration reform. They are just putting on a show so when Democrats accuse them of being against immigrants, the Republicans have something they can defend themselves with.

This is how the game is played, and if you want to follow it, you have to learn what's BS and what isn't. Politicians will say one thing and do another. We've had representatives sponsor bills and then vote against their very own bill. Harry Weed comes to mind. Keep the liberals happy by getting a bill against guns, and then vote against it to keep other people happy and hope the MSM doesn't make a big deal out of it.

If Republicans were serious about national healthcare, they would have introduced a serious bill after they took leadership of Congress. They didn't. They soon realized that the public was totally against national healthcare.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19880 Aug 10, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Please let me add that Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have".
In more modern times Kennedy also said "..that we can not tax ourselves to prosperity" & Ron Reagan,'The government isn't the solution to the problem, the government IS the problem", & then Maggie Thatcher said, "Socialism only works until the government runs out of the peoples money". It seems to me that 'WE' have run out of other peoples money or we wouldn't be 16 TRILLION in debt.
We don't need to point the finger at any one president or any one congress, we need to point the finger at the voters. Especially the ones that forgot Kennedy's words that you have already posted; what the people can do for their country.
We need to quit F'ing it up and start sucking it up.
Easier said than done.

I often use my raccoon analogy to make the point.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage, so you give him a nice hunk of roast beef. The raccoon dines in delight taking advantage of the gift you gave him. Now try to take that roast beef away from him and see what happens.

That's the way people are--especially when it comes to government goodies. Once you give that raccoon that roast beef, there is no taking it away without getting bit. Even the most conservative politicians realize this, and they don't dare to take away government goodies.

The exception to that was Welfare Reform created by Newt Gingrich. But the only reason he tackled that is because of the numerous complaints by voters who got sick of seeing people using welfare as a way of life.

We've seen this in the past. Democrats are born liars, so you have to watch what you say and do. If you are against the federal government forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control, the Democrats lie and call it a War on Women. Back in the 90's, the Republicans created block grants for states for welfare and the school lunch program. This took out a lot of government paper pushers, so the Democrats retaliated by saying Republicans want your children to starve. Medicare Reform? The Democrats said Republicans wanted old people to die.

When you deal with people as dishonest as the devil himself, you have to be very clever on what you say and do.
Old Guy

New Carlisle, OH

#19881 Aug 10, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If Republicans were serious about national healthcare, they would have introduced a serious bill after they took leadership of Congress. They didn't. They soon realized that the public was totally against national healthcare.
Really? Most of the older folks I talk to like the idea of no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And my younger friends like having their kids covered by their insurance until they are 26. Other aspects of the Affordable Care Act have also found wide public support:

"The Kaiser poll shows that some of the major provisions of the law enjoy tremendous bipartisan support, with 71% of respondents supporting Medicaid expansion, 80% of people supporting the new health insurance exchanges and closing the Medicare “doughnut hole,” and a whopping 88% of people in favor of health insurance tax credits to small businesses."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/30657/obama...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19882 Aug 10, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Most of the older folks I talk to like the idea of no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And my younger friends like having their kids covered by their insurance until they are 26. Other aspects of the Affordable Care Act have also found wide public support:
"The Kaiser poll shows that some of the major provisions of the law enjoy tremendous bipartisan support, with 71% of respondents supporting Medicaid expansion, 80% of people supporting the new health insurance exchanges and closing the Medicare “doughnut hole,” and a whopping 88% of people in favor of health insurance tax credits to small businesses."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30657/obama...
problem is the cons out weigh the pros.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#19883 Aug 10, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Most of the older folks I talk to like the idea of no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And my younger friends like having their kids covered by their insurance until they are 26. Other aspects of the Affordable Care Act have also found wide public support:
"The Kaiser poll shows that some of the major provisions of the law enjoy tremendous bipartisan support, with 71% of respondents supporting Medicaid expansion, 80% of people supporting the new health insurance exchanges and closing the Medicare “doughnut hole,” and a whopping 88% of people in favor of health insurance tax credits to small businesses."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30657/obama...
I guess it depends on who you ask:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/big-majoritie...

If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs for free.

Let me ask: do you think it would be a good idea that we force auto insurance companies to take customers with dangerous driving records or multiple DUI"s? What do you think that would do to your insurance rate?

How about insurance companies that insure homes? Do you think the government should force insurance companies to cover people who are constantly getting flooded out or repeated house fires? And if so, what do you think that would do to your home insurance rates?

If you answered no to both of those questions, then why would you approve of health insurance companies being forced to accept people with preexisting conditions?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Things are hard for retards 1 hr Doctor Holliday 3
News Ohio microwave-baby mom to be sentenced (Sep '08) 5 hr Noel Nosirrah 9
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 13 hr Save you lives 19,719
"Is it racist hate to question the Welfare State?" Sat Sky King 10
News Smoking-violation fines go unpaid (May '11) Sat Schmones 56
Is it racist to equate race with welfare? Sat Net Nut 1
Springboro Fish Market Coming Soon!!!! Fri Mindylynn 6
Springboro Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Springboro People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]