Obamacare implosion

HB of CJ wrote:Like already said at least twice, I have had a series of small strokes. Words formally OK can now not be sounded out. The phrases all seem alike to me. Also have lost my German, Russian and Spanish. What little I had. Speellling nots impourtant. Intent ist..

Sorry about the strokes. Your arguments are getting across in such a way that makes sense in spite of it. I may not agree with you but I understand you.

The basic problems with Democracy are that people are selfish at heart and that a high percentage of people think only in the short term. To get a Democracy to function we have to overcome it. Identifying the problem is easy, identifying workable solution(s) is hard.

One problem that comes from the selfish, short term nature of humanity is the classic problem of once people realize they can vote themselves money from the common purse they do so until the Democracy collapses. That tendency shows up in all economic classes from welfare dependent voting for those who increase benefits to public unions voting to elect their friends in order to get themselves raises to those who use crony capitalist connections to rake in millions or even billions etc.

So the hard part, how do we stop it?

Limiting the franchise is one way to do it. Historically it has been utilized successfully to maintain Democracies over a large period of time. So it is a legitimate solution but I don't think it is a particularly good one as it often leads to abuse of the disenfranchised. To truly make a limited franchise work, there would have to be strict institutional controls put in place to protect them. In theory it could be done. In reality it would be very difficult.

The founders tried to address this by putting in place all of the checks and balances they did. It has been remarkably effective, at least for 200 years. Will it be able to last 1000?

The points some of the posters have made are legitimate. When people voted to raise taxes to increase police funding they are saying that I want to spend some of my money to increase the public safety of my friends/family. If enough taxpayers agree, then taxes are increased. 47% now do not pay taxes on the Federal level. When they vote, they are not saying lets take some of my money and increase my security/health/roads etc, they are saying I want to take YOUR money to increase MY security/health/roads etc. People are selfish and shortsighted. When you vote to increase your taxes to get a benefit, then you are balancing your own needs, the need for money vs the need for the benefit. Your selfishness cancels itself out. But for the 47%, there is no cancellation effect. Democracy can survive a small number of these voters but is 47% a small enough number? What if it increases to 51%, 60% etc? Where is the tipping point? When does Democracy collapse?

As is the nature of governments, there has been a mission creep of Federal government. Pretty much from Day One. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was the first really big one. And governmental power has been increasing steadily ever since. In recent decades the 16th and 17th amendments of the constitution have allowed it to accelerate dramatically. (16th = income tax, increased the amount of money available to the government exponentially. Mission creep is expensive. 17th = Senators elected by voters instead of by state legislators. Election of the Senate by legislators ensured that the Federal government would limit intrusions on the state governments. Without this check, the Federal government has been steadily eroding the power of state governments ever since.)

Some think this increase in power is a good idea, but the problem is where does it stop and how on earth do you stop the juggernaut when it's power grab has gone far enough? Even for the liberals who want big government, there is a point where government power becomes too much. That line may be located in different places for the libertarians, conservatives, moderates and liberals but at some point some place that line will be reached for all of them. And when they point is reached they will all have to figure out how do you stop this thing? Government by it's very nature will always want more power. Those in power want more power and they will bend the rules, erode the check/balances etc to keep increasing their power. How do we stop them?

HB of CJ wrote:Ah. When an opponent or opponents revert to petty side show personal attacks and do not stay on track with the disscussion at hand, then they already know they have lost the debate totally and are grasping at straws to prop up their non supportable position. Looks very like you guys have lost this one. Sorry. Respectfully.

Like already said at least twice, I have had a series of small strokes. Words formally OK can now not be sounded out. The phrases all seem alike to me. Also have lost my German, Russian and Spanish. What little I had. Speellling nots impourtant. Intent ist. Please understand that I also pay a lot of taxes today. Respectfully.

Ok, respectfully, given your condition how do you think you would fare on any test you proposed to set up to weed out the "dumb" voters? I imagine it would impact how well you test so when the government comes along to evaluate this:

"How can citizenship be earned? Very simple. Must be smart. Must speak, read and rite the language. "

... and here you are with your stroke induced difficulties doing *exactly that* do you think it's appropriate for you to be denied your right to vote on your own government based on the impairment you have incurred?

If not, why not? I'm guessing that you failing any such test is ok because you have a 'good excuse'... but exactly how many good excuses do you imagine are out there that would cause a person to test poorly and how are you going to account for them all? Or is the answer just "screw it, tough luck on you if you can't pass the test for any reason... no government representation for you"?

biochem wrote:The points some of the posters have made are legitimate. When people voted to raise taxes to increase police funding they are saying that I want to spend some of my money to increase the public safety of my friends/family. If enough taxpayers agree, then taxes are increased. 47% now do not pay taxes on the Federal level. When they vote, they are not saying lets take some of my money and increase my security/health/roads etc, they are saying I want to take YOUR money to increase MY security/health/roads etc.

It is unbelievable how persistent this myth is... or it would be unbelievable for anyone not aware that there is a constant orchestrated effort by the GOP to perpetuate it in order to whip up their base into resenting a largely fictional national demographic and voting based on that resentment.

First of all, income taxes do not constitute the sum total of federal taxes. That 47% figure refers only to income taxes. FAR more than 47% of the population pay federal taxes in the form or payroll and other taxes. (And I don't know why we're not counting State and Local taxes in this picture, but whatever.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/201 ... -the-poor/

The number of people who don't pay *any* federal taxes is more like 10%, not 47%


2. Of the small percentage that actually do not pay federal taxes, that is not a static population. It is not some group of leeches that just hang out voting in election after election for people to give them stuff paid for with other people's tax money. Just for one example, a large chunk of the people not paying income taxes in particular are in that group because they qualified for the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you look at people who qualified for EITC, studies find that well over half those people are in that group for under 2 years before moving up the income ladder and incurring an income tax burden.... and it's closer to 80% who move off the program if you extend that time period to 5 years. Which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. It provides a temporary safety net to keep people on their feet until they're self sufficient again. Which is a long term *good thing* for the economic health of the nation. Today's tax refund recipient is tomorrow's net tax payer BECAUSE they were kept on their feet and enabled to resume productive contributions to society.

It is not some big group of people hanging out on the dole from the taxpayers. The vast VAST majority of people who have ever received that credit ARE taxpayers who have at one time or another only temporarily dipped into a state where they had no net tax burden. Most of their lives they're paying net taxes, so those things they're voting to spend taxes on? That's their damn taxes too.

http://pfr.sagepub.com/content/39/5/619.abstract

Etc... the GOP is constantly whipping their base up into a resentful frenzy against a demographic which simply doesn't exist in any significant size. And that base just keeps falling for it year after year after year because it fits their internal narrative of them being the hard working upstanding responsible citizens and those "tax and spend liberals" just wanting to give free stuff away to their moocher base and paying for it with the Republican voters hard earned tax money. Which is 100% complete fantasy bullshit, but it makes them feel all superior so they just cling to the fiction that there's this large groupd of people out there exploiting their tax dollars and that's why they lose any election they come out on the wrong side of. Because of the vast fantasy army of liberal moocher voters!

biochem wrote:The basic problems with Democracy are that people are selfish at heart

Actually no, that has been quite thoroughly disproven. It is in fact that people are NOT selfish that is one of the primary reasons that economic theory often doesn´t work as they "should".

biochem wrote:One problem that comes from the selfish, short term nature of humanity is the classic problem of once people realize they can vote themselves money from the common purse they do so until the Democracy collapses. That tendency shows up in all economic classes from welfare dependent voting for those who increase benefits to public unions voting to elect their friends in order to get themselves raises to those who use crony capitalist connections to rake in millions or even billions etc.

Last election here, one of the biggest problems the Social democrats had, was that they didn´t wan´t to raise taxes, they lost votes on that.

Do YOU vote only to get money from the "common purse"? If not, then don´t assume others do. Even if you do, ask around and you will find that a big chunk of people will have trouble even understanding the question.

biochem wrote:Limiting the franchise is one way to do it.

Great idea, lets save democracy by abolishing it. Genius.

Do look at history and what that idea has caused.

biochem wrote: Historically it has been utilized successfully to maintain Democracies over a large period of time.

Specify which ones.

biochem wrote:The founders tried to address this by putting in place all of the checks and balances they did. It has been remarkably effective, at least for 200 years. Will it be able to last 1000?

Nope. I´ll be surprised if nothing radical happens before it´s 300 years.
The US system has been locked down, and a simple truth is, as times go by, you either change or get swept off the map.

Thinking that someone in the 18th century got everything right, or even close to right, it´s just silly.
Yes there´s all the fun with amendments. And yeah, those are working out sooo great.

What equals the constitution here has been changed or even replaced several times per century, and nearly all of it has been for the better. Instead, US almost goes back to civil war over "Roe vs Wade" and a number of other verdicts that one or the other loud minority hates.

biochem wrote: 47% now do not pay taxes on the Federal level. When they vote, they are not saying lets take some of my money and increase my security/health/roads etc, they are saying I want to take YOUR money to increase MY security/health/roads etc. People are selfish and shortsighted. When you vote to increase your taxes to get a benefit, then you are balancing your own needs, the need for money vs the need for the benefit. Your selfishness cancels itself out. But for the 47%, there is no cancellation effect. Democracy can survive a small number of these voters but is 47% a small enough number? What if it increases to 51%, 60% etc? Where is the tipping point? When does Democracy collapse?

Seriously... You REALLY don´t understand people at all do you? Or politics.

I´m just too stunned to write a serious answer to that...

You bundle up that "47%" as if it was one group. Amazing. If you bothered to check, you might find that those 47% tend to NOT vote the same. They often vote very similar to the rest of the voters, sometimes the split shifts a bit one way or the other, but rarely is it a large split.

biochem wrote:As is the nature of governments, there has been a mission creep of Federal government. Pretty much from Day One. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was the first really big one. And governmental power has been increasing steadily ever since. In recent decades the 16th and 17th amendments of the constitution have allowed it to accelerate dramatically. (16th = income tax, increased the amount of money available to the government exponentially. Mission creep is expensive. 17th = Senators elected by voters instead of by state legislators. Election of the Senate by legislators ensured that the Federal government would limit intrusions on the state governments. Without this check, the Federal government has been steadily eroding the power of state governments ever since.)

*snigger*

Yeah, please DO go back in time, try it.
There´s always some fascination in watching a disaster unfold.

You haven´t bothered to figure out WHY those changes were made have you? Maybe you should.

biochem wrote:Some think this increase in power is a good idea, but the problem is where does it stop and how on earth do you stop the juggernaut when it's power grab has gone far enough? Even for the liberals who want big government, there is a point where government power becomes too much. That line may be located in different places for the libertarians, conservatives, moderates and liberals but at some point some place that line will be reached for all of them. And when they point is reached they will all have to figure out how do you stop this thing? Government by it's very nature will always want more power. Those in power want more power and they will bend the rules, erode the check/balances etc to keep increasing their power. How do we stop them?

And just the fact that you mix this up with the previous part, just shows that you dont understand.

Yeah, there are some people that are powerhungry bastards that will abuse and exploit the system.

So, don´t make it easy for them. And whether you have a "big government" or not doesn´t matter, it´s whether your checks and balances WORKS that matters.

USAs "divide power" system is a nice concept, but it doesn´t really work very well in practise. Too much "nepotism" and waaaayyy too much bribery and lobbying.

gcomeau wrote:...

If not, why not? I'm guessing that you failing any such test is ok because you have a 'good excuse'... but exactly how many good excuses do you imagine are out there that would cause a person to test poorly and how are you going to account for them all? Or is the answer just "screw it, tough luck on you if you can't pass the test for any reason... no government representation for you"?

And then there´s funny extremes, people like me and my best friend.

My friend is smart and has an organisational skill that makes him nearly unbeatable in strategy games. But have him sit down and do a test? He is absolutely TERRIBLE at doing tests, it doesn´t matter if he knows enough for a Phd on a subject, if it´s a test he just doesn´t do well.

Meanwhile, me? I´m so bloody annoying because i can sit down and take a test on something i have never even heard about before and still get a passing grade. I even got perfect scores twice back in school on subjects i had missed reading completely.

Does that make me as much better of a voter as my test scores would be better than that of my friend? *LOL*

Hardly.

Etc... the GOP is constantly whipping their base up into a resentful frenzy against a demographic which simply doesn't exist in any significant size. And that base just keeps falling for it year after year after year because it fits their internal narrative of them being the hard working upstanding responsible citizens and those "tax and spend liberals" just wanting to give free stuff away to their moocher base and paying for it with the Republican voters hard earned tax money. Which is 100% complete fantasy bullshit, but it makes them feel all superior so they just cling to the fiction that there's this large groupd of people out there exploiting their tax dollars and that's why they lose any election they come out on the wrong side of. Because of the vast fantasy army of liberal moocher voters!

Hear hear...

I'll avoid a wall of text by just saying that I'm replying to biochem (even though it also contradicts RFC's Haven history).
What developed countries came through the GFC best, and continue to have strong economic performance? In approximate order - Australasia (Australia & New Zealand), Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark, Sweden etc), Canada, and the big Europeans (UK, Germany and France). What about their economies had the strongest correlation to their resilience? All have national welfare/health nets, and varying government financial controls on the top end of town.

This real world example totally refutes the Tea Party mantra that the unwashed lazy masses will keep voting for bread and circuses until they destroy their country's economy. Contrary to the far right's opinion the average citizen of a free and well informed democracy is not a fool.
Surveys in my country have shown that the actual fools (low socioeconomic, poorly educated, unemployed, etc) tend to vote conservative, as at every election they believe the simplistic slogans that conservatives use. Then a few years later they front up again, oblivious to the fact that none of those previous slogans actually were implemented.

Quite literally just went through it here with a by election.
Lots of promises of urgent things, lots of sheeple who somehow forgot that the rep who retired was a senior government minister 18 months ago. If the items were urgent he would have done it then.
Some for the neighbouring electorate, except that guy was the premier.

"If elected we will do this" kind of fails when the party didn't do it when in charge.
But the sheeple still vote for them anyway.
I hate living in a safe seat. Marginals always get the money.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Bear in mind this is more or less a hit piece. But he does provide some numbers and the impacts.

is it worth anything?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron ... le/2576796

Posted for your amusement,
T2M

PS The reason I saw this was looking on real clear politics on polling for the ACA. Which by there charts has never been more than ~45%.