You really don't get the connection between lobbyists and the military? Really? And the whole "I have nothing more to say to you" claim I always found pretty lame.
The "I have nothing more to say to you" is made to conspiracy theorists and other lobotomized, brain deficient liberals, who barely have a single-digit IQ. I just smile, shake my head, and walk away.
The fact is that out of the 650 billion the military spends a large majority of that money goes to private business.
The military, per se, DOESN'T own the factories that build fighter jets, tanks, guns, etc, and puts out contracts for private industry to bid on for those things. They also bid out other services that private industry can and does do cheaper and faster. If they didn't, that $650 billion defense budget you bitch about would be $2 trillion.
Now, I assume you aren't for socializing military production, correct me if I'm wrong. And because of that lobbyists will have a huge interest in how the government hands out their contracts and what military programs and operations the military engages in.
So, lobbyists determine how the military hands out contracts and determines what military programs and operations the military engages in. Right, OK. Can you get any more convoluted. And here I thought the CNC determined what operations the military engages in. Silly me.
Again, what rules would you have for what lobbyists could and could not do in this case? Why is this such a hard question for you to answer?
Again, if the government had less control over the day to day regulation of business in this country, there would be no need for lobbyists soliciting for "special exceptions". Why is THAT so hard for you to understand.
The fact is you can't opt out of those benefits and whether or not that is a good idea is certainly a debatable issue since I don't think you should have a right to opt-out. But again, my point here is that people have been paying in to social security and medicare for decades. We have all been paying for a benefit when we paid in to those programs. This money does not belong to the federal government and never has.
IF it was a "benefit", as you claim, then you most certainly CAN opt out. If it was indeed true that "this money does not belong to the federal government and never has", then my family would get the balance of what was left, right? If I died tomorrow, how much would my family get? Answer: $255! I pretty sure I've paid a hell of a lot more than that into it.
The Galveston plan still forces you to buy social security type insurance even though it isn't part of social security but instead a individual retirement package. Are you okay with that?
Yes. Like I said, if I died today, under SS, my family would receive $255. If I died under the Galveston plan, or even my own, the money becomes part of my estate.
Government is made up of people we vote for. Remember when Al Gore proposed a lock box? What did you think of that idea?
I thought it was funny as hell, and about 25 years too late. LBJ done "broke that piggy bank".
Because every time we see an example of people that control regulations and policy having a financial stake in those very same regulations and policies have turned out disastrous. Which should be no surprise to anyone, it should be totally expected and obvious. If I make millions of dollars in wall street and you put me in charge of regulating wall street you really think I'm going to do what is right for the country and not what's right for my own bank account?
So, you're saying what would benefit your bank account wouldn't benefit the economy.
I"m certainly not that naive.
Although you are somewhat myopic and one-dimentional in your thinking.
What do you mean about there is no "if" about healthcare. There are many people in this country that can't afford or can't get healthcare from private sources. Healthcare isn't cheap. Nor are pre-existing conditions something you control. What would you do about those people?
You said, and I quote; "If they can't get healthcare..." You said NOTHING about affording it.
And I just don't buy the idea that if the government gives you a tax break everyone is going to go out and donate that extra money to help people.
I don't care if you if you "buy it" or not. If the government took less from us, I'm sure more would "trickle down" to those that need it.
Let me also repeat one more time what I said above. 1 million homeless.
A figure that "floats" according to whether or not the occupant of the White House has a (D) or a (R) after their name.
48 million on social security.
85% of which are retired.
And 44 million on medicare.
90% of which are retired.
How many of those people do you think can help themselves but simply wont. How many do you think want to help themselves but can't.
Since most have retired, they have already "helped themselves".
So you just agreed with me, the only things republicans proposed were no healthcare for illegals, tort reform, and private savings accounts.
Do I think illegals should get healthcare that they don't pay for? No. Do I think if a illegal shows up in a emergency room with a stab wound but no insurance should we treat him? yes, I think so. Do you disagree?
I didn't disagree. I stated as much.
How much would tort reform save you think? The CBO says about 3%, what do you think and what do you base that on?
The CBO also said "Obamacare" would "only cost" about $800 billion the first 10 years, after which they upped the figure to $1.2 trillion.
Personal medical saving accounts would not work for most average americans, the math doesn't add up. Half of the households in this country live on an income under $50,000 a year. If you ignore taxes that means half of the households in this country lives under $4,000 a month with each household in that category having about 2.5 people. Then half those people live under $25,000 a year which is under $2,000 a month. How much money each month do you think these households would have to put in to their savings account each month? If you do $500 each month (what I pay for rent) that's $6,000 a year. Is $6,000 a year enough to provide healthcare for 2.5 people for their entire life? How about $12,000 a year, is that enough when you consider how your healhtcare costs increase as you get older? How much do you think you would pay a year if you had no coverage and were 65 years old? A simple doctor check up is a couple hundred bucks. And don't get me started on medication.
I feel like you keep drifting to different ideas. Let me remind you that I said this debate was controlled by corporate interests and you said BS to that. I reminded you that insurance companies are getting a requirement that everyone buy their product while drug companies got a deal where no other country can compete with them.
The only requirement that everyone has to buy insurance is in the Obamacare law. You do not now, nor have you ever had to buy health insurance.
Do you think corporate interests had nothing to do with that?
No. Your figures don't jive with real world scenarios. My oldest son makes less than $25,000/year, and he is covered under a MSA. He has had it for over 7 years and pays for all his health care out of it. Today, he has over $5,000 in the account. This is after having emergency surgery back in 2009.
Again, didn't answer the question. You said the democrats were able to cram anything they wanted down our throats. The democrats wanted a public option (atleast thats what they claimed) but didn't get it. How does that jive with your argument that they got everything they wanted?
Again, it's all about POWER. If the government controls your health care, they control YOU. GOT IT!
As I said above, the BUsh administration handed out trillions of dollars to banks and asked almost nothing in return. Yes, Obama continued those policies.
Bush tried on 8 different occasions to conduct congressional oversight into the banking industry. EVERY time, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd told him nothing to see here, move along.
Yet you don't seem to be very angry at the people that got those trillions of dollars with no strings attached. In fact you think those same people making policy is a swell idea.
Math must not be a strong subject for you, as well as reading comprehension. I'll type slow, so you can keep up.
TARP was $300 billion. Got that.
And the "same people" as you say, ARE making the policy. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Dodd and Frank. Look it up. They wrote the "regulations" that are supposed to "fix" what they ****ed up!
You again miss the point. The republicans are playing you guys, I'm just wondering how long before you realize that. Even if this passes the house they can hold up other budgets until the senate atleast meets them half way. But they won't do that, and you as a conservative that says the government is about to fall off a cliff is okay with that?
The government is "falling off a cliff" NOW, unless you think borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent is a GOOD thing.
