2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ryan

[kiki5711]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

Let's not forget that Obamacare is modeled after the MA health care system, which Romney championed and still backs as working excellently....

NOT REALLY:

So, how does Massachusetts pay for it's healthcare plan?

Governor Romney paid for his state's healthcare in three ways. TWO of those ways were taking Federal Funds and one of them was a State Tax.

FIRST: The first was taking 380 million dollar payment from the government. President Bush, at that time wanted to stop this program, but they negotiated the deal and Pres. Bush said they could keep the 380 million dollars if they put it towards a Universal Health Care Plan.

So, in order to keep that money coming to the State of Mass, they covered everyone they possibly could under the Medicaid Program, so they could get a match (as you know the Federal Gov. also pays for part of Medicaid).

SECOND: Federal Medicaid Dollars are now covering both kids and adults up to 300% of poverty line.

That is an INCREDIBLE deal for the State of Mass. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they are getting subsidized by the rest of the country.

THIRD: There is, and was before Romney was Gov. of Mass, a tax that would cover hospitals who TREAT the uninsured, they have to cover their cost somehow, right?.



It's not possible for every state to imitate this health care. I bet nobody knew that the rest of the country's taxes were supporting his health care for his state! And he brags and brags how successful it was. I don't think Obamacare is carbon copy of that plan.

[Coito ergo sum]

Kiki, please knock the huge font thing off. It's very Creationist of you, especially with the interspersing of various words in all caps for no reason.

[Kristie]

Kiki, please knock the huge font thing off. It's very Creationist of you, especially with the interspersing of various words in all caps for no reason.

I have a friend that does the caps thing, says it's the emphasized words. I use ' ' or turn it italic.

[Kristie]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

Let's not forget that Obamacare is modeled after the MA health care system, which Romney championed and still backs as working excellently....

I am right in thinking that some Republicans think the MA health care system is soooo much better because it's implemented by the state govt? I don't understand the reasoning behind that. I've heard a few guys here claim that if the state implemented certain things, it would be ok, but not ok if it was by the President or federal govt. It's still the govt implementing things, why does it matter what level it's done at?

[Coito ergo sum]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

Let's not forget that Obamacare is modeled after the MA health care system, which Romney championed and still backs as working excellently....

Romneycare - 70 pages.
Obamacare - 2000 pages.

The similarities must be endless.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, just illustrating the point that you folks don't give hoot about "details" UNLESS it's being asked of Romney. I'm kind of tired of one way conversations where people ask me to do a bunch of work, and then when I ask for the same courtesy in return, I get nothing. If you want something from me, post something specific an detailed as to Obama's plan, and why you support it (other than him being Wonder Boy Obama and all).

I'm assuming that when you talk about a "trillion dollar tax increase", you're referring to the plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire on $250,000+ incomes?

No, that is an incorrect assumption, since letting the Bush tax cuts expire on only those making $250,000 would not raise $1,000,000,000,000.

Unfortunately, in large part owing to the two wars launched around the same time, that cut is unsustainable. Does it suck for those unfortunate souls making that much? I'm sure it does. But we can't keep pretending that we can get more stuff with less tax and the math will somehow work, which is exactly what the Romney campaign is claiming but won't back up.

The expiring Bush tax cuts are not only those on the people making over $250,000. The expiring Bush tax cuts will raise the 10% tax bracket back up to 15% and the 25% tax bracket back up to 28%, and on up. The low income threshold at which people start paying any taxes at all will also go back up to where it was. So, EVERYONE gets a tax increase. The idea that only those making $250,000 or more get hit when the rates go up is just flat out wrong.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

Dude -- of course it has 2000 pages of details, but do you not remember the fight before it was passed? BEFORE it was passed, the supporters of Obama and Obamacare didn't need to know those details. What part of this is so hard for you to grasp? Just because we "found out the details after it was passed" doesn't mean we fucking knew them all along. Christ on a flippin' bicycle, dude. Why would Pelosi have to say "we need to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill" if the details were already known?

None of you asked for a single detail when you were touting Obama in 2008, and you know it. Hope and Change is enough for you lot.

[Ian]

Yeah, nobody was discussing what Obamacare would entail during the year or so before it was passed. We just found out all that stuff when it was signed. Sure, nobody was talking about the details then, nosiree bob. Except for Republicans talking about death panels and a big government takeover.

I think you may be genuinely delusional sometimes. I really do. You're just telling yourself what you want to believe, and re-writing history to boot; your Pelosi quote is out of context, as usual.

As for Romney's tax plan, I can understand your frustration. Those darn nonpartisan tax policy analysts are always obfuscating the truth when it comes to Republican math.

[Kristie]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

Dude -- of course it has 2000 pages of details, but do you not remember the fight before it was passed? BEFORE it was passed, the supporters of Obama and Obamacare didn't need to know those details. What part of this is so hard for you to grasp? Just because we "found out the details after it was passed" doesn't mean we fucking knew them all along. Christ on a flippin' bicycle, dude. Why would Pelosi have to say "we need to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill" if the details were already known?

None of you asked for a single detail when you were touting Obama in 2008, and you know it. Hope and Change is enough for you lot.

Taken out of context, that does sound bad. But, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... _blog.html

[Wumbologist]

Yeah, another one of those pesky facts. Fortunately, it's against the leftist religion to acknowledge facts.

Fortunately, it's against the rightist religion to put things in context.

I'm assuming that when you talk about a "trillion dollar tax increase", you're referring to the plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire on $250,000+ incomes? Unfortunately, in large part owing to the two wars launched around the same time, that cut is unsustainable.

Our spending increased (Under Bush, mind you), and at the same time, while the revenue might have been the largest *annual* increase, it was the lowest it's been as a share of the GDP in over 50 years. The revenue should naturally increase as the economy and population grow, and it did, but at a much slower rate than it had in a long time. However, the budget's natural growth did not slow, in fact, it increased by hundreds of billions of dollars to send aircraft carries and tanks and airplanes and soldiers halfway across the planet in two wars, one of which both parties are now willing to admit maybe wasn't the smartest move in the history of smart moves. The Bush tax cuts certainly didn't spur the growth they were supposed to, and hopefully I don't need to show you a graph of the growth that occurred under the Bush administration to demonstrate that.

At it's core, the math is simple. You can't take in less and spend more at the same time if you're trying to reduce the deficit.

[Wumbologist]

As for Romney's tax plan, I can understand your frustration. Those darn nonpartisan tax policy analysts are always obfuscating the truth when it comes to Republican math.

They can't possibly be non-partisan if the numbers don't agree with the Repubs.

[Wumbologist]

No, that is an incorrect assumption, since letting the Bush tax cuts expire on only those making $250,000 would not raise $1,000,000,000,000.

Ok. Point me to what it is that you're referring to, then.

The expiring Bush tax cuts are not only those on the people making over $250,000. The expiring Bush tax cuts will raise the 10% tax bracket back up to 15% and the 25% tax bracket back up to 28%, and on up. The low income threshold at which people start paying any taxes at all will also go back up to where it was. So, EVERYONE gets a tax increase. The idea that only those making $250,000 or more get hit when the rates go up is just flat out wrong.

Except nobody's talking about letting the whole of the tax cut expire. Just the $250k+.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

Let's not forget that Obamacare is modeled after the MA health care system, which Romney championed and still backs as working excellently....

I am right in thinking that some Republicans think the MA health care system is soooo much better because it's implemented by the state govt? I don't understand the reasoning behind that. I've heard a few guys here claim that if the state implemented certain things, it would be ok, but not ok if it was by the President or federal govt. It's still the govt implementing things, why does it matter what level it's done at?

Generally, that is a Constitutional claim as distinct from a propriety or quality claim.

We live in a federal constitutional republic, and we have two main tiers of sovereignty. The States are governments of general jurisdiction, and they have what are called "general police powers" etc. Their constitutions contain plenary grants of authority, except as limited in certain other provisions that carve out things like free speech, religion, and other things. The federal government is a government of limited jurisdiction and powers -- the lawmaking power of the federal government is set forth in Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution which "enumerates" the powers "delegated" by the States to the federal government. The political theory here is that the US government only has those powers which the States consented to give it, whereas the states have broader, general authority.

The most prominent example that illustrates "Our Federalism" is the police force. Note that in the US we do not have federal police. We only have State police and local police. So, many people would object if the federal government was going to create a general federal police force to investigate crime and such. However, those same people would likely not suggest it is equally improper to have State police forces and local police. The only arguable exceptions are the FBI, DEA and ATF agents, who are analogous to police, but they don't have general police powers, can't pull you over for speeding, and can't arrest you for state crimes except in the same manner as a citizens arrest. The FBI can only investigate and prosecute federal crimes and those crimes all have a constitutional basis that supports them -- i.e. - like federal wirefraud and financial crimes are based on the "interstate commerce clause" of the US Constitution. If the federal government tried to expand FBI jurisdiction into, say, general theft, shoplifting, and muggings, etc., it is probable that the law would be found to be unconstitutional because it would be found to be beyond delegated federal authority under the constitution.

So, that's the reason for the general objection.

There is less of an objection, though, because Obamacare was upheld as constitutional because the Court found it fell within the Congress' power to levy taxes.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, that is an incorrect assumption, since letting the Bush tax cuts expire on only those making $250,000 would not raise $1,000,000,000,000.

Ok. Point me to what it is that you're referring to, then.

I'm referring to the fact that there aren't enough dollars in the expiring Bush tax cuts for only those making over $250,000 to raise the $1 trillion.

Now, if you think the math has been done that shows that the numbers do add up, surely you're going on more than trust. Surely you've seen "the details" of that, right? You think it's vital to have the details and see the math, don't you?

The expiring Bush tax cuts are not only those on the people making over $250,000. The expiring Bush tax cuts will raise the 10% tax bracket back up to 15% and the 25% tax bracket back up to 28%, and on up. The low income threshold at which people start paying any taxes at all will also go back up to where it was. So, EVERYONE gets a tax increase. The idea that only those making $250,000 or more get hit when the rates go up is just flat out wrong.

Except nobody's talking about letting the whole of the tax cut expire. Just the $250k+.[/quote]

No, the Obama administration IS talking about it because they said, flat out, that they want at least a $1 trillion tax increase, and the math doesn't add up to $1 trillion if all you're talking about it $250k plus tax increase due to Bush tax cuts expiring.

[Kristie]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

Let's not forget that Obamacare is modeled after the MA health care system, which Romney championed and still backs as working excellently....

I am right in thinking that some Republicans think the MA health care system is soooo much better because it's implemented by the state govt? I don't understand the reasoning behind that. I've heard a few guys here claim that if the state implemented certain things, it would be ok, but not ok if it was by the President or federal govt. It's still the govt implementing things, why does it matter what level it's done at?

Generally, that is a Constitutional claim as distinct from a propriety or quality claim.

We live in a federal constitutional republic, and we have two main tiers of sovereignty. The States are governments of general jurisdiction, and they have what are called "general police powers" etc. Their constitutions contain plenary grants of authority, except as limited in certain other provisions that carve out things like free speech, religion, and other things. The federal government is a government of limited jurisdiction and powers -- the lawmaking power of the federal government is set forth in Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution which "enumerates" the powers "delegated" by the States to the federal government. The political theory here is that the US government only has those powers which the States consented to give it, whereas the states have broader, general authority.

The most prominent example that illustrates "Our Federalism" is the police force. Note that in the US we do not have federal police. We only have State police and local police. So, many people would object if the federal government was going to create a general federal police force to investigate crime and such. However, those same people would likely not suggest it is equally improper to have State police forces and local police. The only arguable exceptions are the FBI, DEA and ATF agents, who are analogous to police, but they don't have general police powers, can't pull you over for speeding, and can't arrest you for state crimes except in the same manner as a citizens arrest. The FBI can only investigate and prosecute federal crimes and those crimes all have a constitutional basis that supports them -- i.e. - like federal wirefraud and financial crimes are based on the "interstate commerce clause" of the US Constitution. If the federal government tried to expand FBI jurisdiction into, say, general theft, shoplifting, and muggings, etc., it is probable that the law would be found to be unconstitutional because it would be found to be beyond delegated federal authority under the constitution.

So, that's the reason for the general objection.

There is less of an objection, though, because Obamacare was upheld as constitutional because the Court found it fell within the Congress' power to levy taxes.