Is Obamacare Restricted To The Restaurant Industry?

 

http://stutteringmessiah.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/obamacare.jpg

From HuffPo……

Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter says that Obamacare will result in a $0.11 to $0.14 price increase per pizza, or $0.15 to $0.20 cents per order, Pizza Marketplace, a trade publication, reports.

Under Obamacare, the company, which is the third-largest pizza takeout and delivery chain in the United States, will have to offer health care coverage to more of its 16,500 total employees or pay a penalty to the government.

One Papa John’s franchise owner in Texas, Judy Nichols, says the law could interfere with her ability to open more restaurants.

“I have two options, I can stop offering coverage and pay the $2,000 fine, or I could keep my number of staff under 50 so the mandate doesn’t apply,” she told Legal Newsline. Nichols added that the law may cost her between $20,000 to $30,000 extra in taxes. “Obamacare is making me think about cutting jobs instead,” she said.

McDonald’s also expects Obamacare to cost each of its 14,000 franchises between $10,000 and $30,000 annually, according to Businessweek. But, like Schnatter, the company remains optimistic it is well placed to handle the extra costs.

Representatives from other restaurant chains may be less hopeful, however, including Burger King, Quiznos and Dunkin’ Donuts, all which have expressed concern the law may hurt business, according to the Wall Street Journal.

I won’t even start with the “this isn’t a tax” meme.  You can pay it directly, or indirectly, but, you will pay it.  Suddenly, though, this doesn’t seem to be taxing the right group of people!  And, even worse, these types of mandates have a cascading and multiplying effect. 

Sure, originally, Papa Johns is only going to charge 15-20 cents more per order.  But, then, what happens when the grocer/produce people have to do the same?  What happens when the trucker industry has to do the same?  And the rest of the transport industry?  So now, the 20 cents is suddenly more like a couple of dollars.  Did you notice the franchise owner debating on whether to expand or not?  So, we’re raising the costs and decreasing jobs.  But, the decrease in jobs directly effects sales. 

And, these people don’t go that deep in the steps for final product!  Think how many industries are involved in auto production or home building?  Each step starting from the company which provides the raw material to the company which provides the finished product must add to costs or ensure they don’t expand over 50 employees.  Well, there is another option to avoid all of this.  MOVE OFFSHORE! 

One Big A$$ Mistake America!!  One Big A$$ Mistake.  Sad smile  I’m getting me another beer.

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

286 Responses to Is Obamacare Restricted To The Restaurant Industry?

  1. ThePhDScientist says:

    Oh more republican BS. “Did you notice the franchise owner debating on whether to expand or not?” You know the TRUE reason a franchise owner expands or not (not the hyperbolic, fake outrage reason)? It’s whether or not they have a middle class buying their goods. You don’t expand because you think taxes are going to be low next year, even though no one is buying your product. Likewise, when the pizza’s are flying off the shelf you don’t close up stores because taxes are going up a few percentage points.

    “One Big A$$ Mistake America!! One Big A$$ Mistake.” YES! What is every other Western Democracy in the world thinking by providing their people with “reasonably” affordable health care! Besides our system is just great, no need to try and start working on it!

    When did the Republican mind get so small and simple?

    • suyts says:

      Sigh…. businesses expand when they can make a profit. There’s two things which have to happen. One the business must provide a good or service which is demanded. AND TWO, the public must be able to afford it. If she doesn’t expand, it is because she can’t provide one or the other.

      Ph, your “small and simple” comment is a bit objectionable. What part of AFFORDABLE do you not understand? I wish everything could be rainbows and unicorns. But, that’s not reality. This is only going to expand the costs of healthcare. And, now we’re going to mandate to a class that it will be provided which they cannot provide today. This is detrimental to the poor, why can’t you people understand this?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        First please don’t take the condescending “sigh’, you know all tone with me, because I’m absolutely, 100% sure my knowledge of the US health care system past, present, and future is substantially greater than yours.

        But let’s go with your simplified model of business. #1) Health care reform has nothing to do with the product so we can forget that. #2) The public must be able to afford it! Ahhhha! Good point. But let’s think a bit more about how the public affords something. If a 10.00 pizza goes up 15 cents most Americans are still going to buy it. However what happens when a families health care costs go up 7-9% annually? Suyts can you tell me what’s happened to the average American families health care costs over the past 30 years?

        “This is only going to expand the costs of healthcare”. Well, I know on this board we don’t like published data (well we do, but only for trying our hardest to poke holes in it), but according to the CBO – no that’s actually a false statement. But since you’re so knowledgeable, why don’t you explain to me why America is the only wealthy Western democracy that is unable to provide some form of basic health care for all citizens?

        • culturaldissent says:

          If it’s not going to expand the cost of healthcare, then how are all those extra few million people going to get insured? Oh yeah, now insurance companies will have to cover pre-existing conditions as well. That doesn’t come for free you know.

          High deductable insurance plans have become the norm now in employer-provided insurance because the old plans were becoming more expensive.

        • philjourdan says:

          I am absolutely 100% sure that it is not greater than anyones. Your usage of ad hominems and racial slurs is absolutely 100% sure more frequent than anyone’s except perhaps Byrd’s. But that is all you can be sure of with your posts.

          I am absolutely 100% sure that Suyts and almost everyone else posting here knows a lot more than you. *Sigh* – Ignorance demonstrated by the Phaux Scientist again.

      • suyts says:

        Lol, sis, I’m absolutely, 100% sure your knowledge of the U.S. healthcare system is less than mine. Past, present, and future.

        I was a nurses aide in a youthful time. I was a medication aid later. I was a combat medic in the service. I was later an allergy/immunology technician in the service. Later, I was an EMT as well. I once was the head pharmaceutical technician for a hospital pharmacy.

        Ph, I was the real deal. You can play in your lab all you want. I was ground floor, hands dirty and bloody. Oh, did I mention I was once the working poor? A person without insurance with a family? Your presumption is gob-smacking!

        But, let’s go with your silly posit, “#1) Health care reform has nothing to do with the product so we can forget that. “….. Ph, it has to do with the cost of the product!!! How can you not understand this? If the owner has to pay more for labor to create the product, then the product costs more. This directly effects supply and demand, both!

        As far as your #2, as I stated above, the end price will be substantially higher than 15 cents. But, more importantly, I didn’t say we should continue with status quo. I adamantly oppose such a thought. But, change, just for the sake of knowing something is wrong doesn’t mean it’s a better solution, and more often than not, it is a worse option. As is this case.

        The CBO….. nice. That’s such a pinball, I don’t reference it. Ph, the reason because costs are increasing is because we don’t all have insurance? Reason that one out for me will you? THE CURRENT INSURANCE STRUCTURE IS WHY THE COSTS INCREASE!!!! Adding more to it will only serve to increase the costs. Have your CBO talk to me. I’ll run their numbers for them. Have you ever once seen where the CBO has demonstrated reasonable projections?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          LoL oh so your experience as nurse’s aid and EMT prepared you well to understand the the flaws in the US health care system? Tell me what kind of studies you participated in/conducted looking at multiple facets of the US health care and private insurance system and understanding how those affect cost and health outcomes? I can give you a couple that I worked on in graduate school. However I guess under your logic, the janitor at Apple, can also build the iPhone!?!? No, what’s gob smacking is your arrogance, written all over this blog where you proclaim to know so much more than all the people that are actually paid to do the studies on the things you “blog” about.

          As far as your #2, as I stated above, the end price will be substantially higher than 15 cents. Here again we have “Suyts Land” then we have what the data shows. You really do make me laugh. So the author estimated maybe 15 cents increase, but to make your story stronger, you are unilaterally claiming Papa Johns pizza will in fact increase more at this franchise. Haha, you are a riot!

          Oh and now you know more than the people working at the CBO. Astoundingly you also know more than all the scientists studying climate. I mean the limits to your knowledge are really endless. Oh not wait, no, you’re just an opinionated know-it-all, who in reality doesn’t know jack-$hit.

          It’s a great world to live in when you’re always right. And all the adults doing the hard work are always wrong!

      • The PhD

        Not only are you a total clone, but you are sickeningly smug.

    • Judy Nichols says:

      You do not understand at all. I can not open a fourth unit because I am currently at the max number of employees to be considered a small business. If I even raise my sales above their current level, I will need to add a team member and that will cost me an additional $2000 tax per new team member. There’s not enough money to be made in pizza to overcome the additional taxes that 50 new team members would cost me should I move forward with my plan to expand. I currently can not afford to offer my team members health insurance and they can’t afford it either.

      Watch this and hopefully you’ll be open to enlightenment:

      Judy Nichols

      • suyts says:

        Judy, sorry about the delay in getting your comment posted. It was in my spam bucket. Your contribution to the conversation is deeply appreciated. From now on, you’ll be able to freely post without the hassle of moderation.

        Thanks again,

        James

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          BTW Suyts nice call on taking your blog posting info from a teabagger rally! A place known for truth and wisdom! LoL

        • suyts says:

          Are you talking about this post? This came from the Huffington Post.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I’m talking about where the actual event took place. A structured political spectacle to make a point with highly dubious numbers/accounting!

        • Me says:

          Suyts aks him what a teabagger is? 😆

        • suyts says:

          Lol, I’ll let you ask him.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of subjective: Global warming denialists who conduct no actual research but pretend to have the expertise to find flaws in published literature and thus claim the work is invalid. SUBJECTIVE!

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 8, 2012 at 8:14 pm

          Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of subjective: Global warming denialists who conduct no actual research but pretend to have the expertise to find flaws in published literature and thus claim the work is invalid. SUBJECTIVE!”

          xxxxxxxxxx

          Ha ha ha ha 🙂

          Post-normal Science [ Pseudo-science ] is …ONLY SUBJECTIVE SPECULATION.

          To make your above argument – even… halfway logical – You would need to defend AGW CAGW as Normal Science.

          To defend AGW CAGW as Normal Science you need empirical evidence that there is no divergence from the hypothesis.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        I wonder how you respond to this. Are you open to the enlightenment? Seems not everyone believes the numbers?

        http://blog.beaumontenterprise.com/bayou/2012/07/31/beaumont-biz-owner-obamacare-slavery/

        • philjourdan says:

          Ah, the canned response of phd! A blog. Now that is authoritative. Next, he will pen his own opinion to refute more facts. A natural progression. We all know that blog writers are much more knowledgeable than business creators.

    • philjourdan says:

      I love reading ignorant rants by bigots. It is so refreshing to be able to honestly read a childish drivel and know – at least you are not that stupid.

      Keep posting! YOu make me laugh. YOu are indeed the epitomy of the ugly american.

  2. culturaldissent says:

    Looks like Texas has a 1% revenue based franchise tax unless she qualified for 0.5%. That puts her revenue at about 1.4 million. If she claims 36,627 profit, that means her cost of payroll and all that is about 1.37 million. Assuming 100% of her costs go to payroll (and not rent, and not ingredients), for 85 employees that’s a little over 16k per year per employee. That’s a damn brutal profit margin, with almost all of it eaten up by taxes. Even a 1% tax on revenue can make the difference between expanding and hiring more employees vs. having to close shop. Add in other costs and it’s game over

    My math: 14,048/.01 (based on her tax pay and known 1% tax rate to calculate revenue) = 1,404,800 revenue. With a profit of 36,627 that means her expenses were 1,368,173. Dividing that expense by 85 employees gives $16,096 per employee.

    If her premiums go up then she’ll probably have to drop coverage as she says. 90*85*12 is $91,800. A change in premium by 40% reduces her profit to zero.
    If her expenses are averaged out per month, that’s $114,014 per month. Her profit for the year will cover 32% of a month’s expenditure. I wonder how many other businesses are running that kind of risk.

  3. ThePhDScientist says:

    BTW You do understand that virtually every other Western democracy provides some form of universal coverage to their citizens and yet spend nearly 1/2 per patient as America does. That means these other Democracies are spending a substantially lower percentage of GDP to pay for health care costs. Money that could go in to financing infrastructure, investing in science, technology, paying off debt?

    • culturaldissent says:

      And every other Western Democracy has a debt load up to their eyeballs. Maybe if we all go off the cliff together then we won’t be jealous of those that managed to cling to the edge and climb back up.

      http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        REALLY! LOL! I love GOP math. Hmmm guess you haven’t checked debt as a percent GDP in quite awhile huh? Why don’t you see how those socialist economies of Sweden, Switzerland, and German are doing?! Countries who all provide universal health care coverage. Here let me help you out with those debt to GDP numbers: Sweden (37.4), Switzerland (48.65), Germany (81.5).

        And the United States with it’s efficiently fragmented network of bumbling private health insurance companies who drive up the cost of care and exclude around 40 million americans. Debt as a percent of GDP (102.9). And where’s all the debt money going? If you guessed that huge chunk was going to health care, you’d be right!

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, the bumbling network of private health insurance companies. The ones that the Repubs wanted to be able to cross state lines to be able to clear the less efficient companies out of business. The Dems absolutely rejected the idea and wouldn’t allow this to come to a vote. The fractionated insurance companies were mandated by the Dems.

        • culturaldissent says:

          Yes, because somehow your labeling me as connected to the GOP (where I have zero connection) invalidates reality.

          I hope you enjoy living in the socialist wonderlands.

        • suyts says:

          For most, it is impossible to reconcile that people who come to similar conclusions are diverse.

          People complain about gridlock and what not, but, they insist on putting people in boxes.

          It is never considered that two very diverse people can come to the same conclusion. They must have the same ideology.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Now try addressing the actual point. You know the one that YOU made. I think it went something like “And every other Western Democracy has a debt load up to their eyeballs.” But one of the first countries we see, Sweden, which makes teabaggers roll over in their grave from socialism-itis, carries a far smaller debt burden than does the capitalist United States. And you say?

        • DirkH says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm
          “REALLY! LOL! I love GOP math. Hmmm guess you haven’t checked debt as a percent GDP in quite awhile huh? Why don’t you see how those socialist economies of Sweden, Switzerland, and German are doing?! Countries who all provide universal health care coverage. Here let me help you out with those debt to GDP numbers: Sweden (37.4), Switzerland (48.65), Germany (81.5).”

          Move to Germany, pay German taxes and social insurance, and tell me how you like it. OECD says tax load on workers/employees is highest in Belgium with 55% and second highest in Germany with 50% – we do have 20% VAT as well so that and 70% energy and fuel taxes come on top of income tax. OECD is a left wing think tank in Paris, so they are not exactly bitter clingers from flyover country but rather progressive utopists, just FYI.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Again you’re just as foolish at the other posters. Another one of you mind-numbing idiots said al those other countries are in “debt up to their eyeballs” and that’s how they afford health care. And as I very accurately pointed out, no actually the US with it’s abysmally inefficient and overpriced health care system is in far more debt!

      • suyts says:

        Ph, you’re confusing a couple of things. % of GDP isn’t what is saving Greece or the U.S. It’s a stupid statistic. It’s almost as stupid as comparing U.S. society to other western cultures. I’m pretty sure you don’t want us to emulate Switzerland.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh. Smart Boy. See Suyts is at least smart enough to know many of these “socialistic” countries carry much lower debt burdens than the US. So he takes the tactic of calling it a “stupid statistic”, which it’s absolutely not. Really only a stupid person would say that. And I’m not confusing anything I’m addressing the posters comment above.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And by the way – we could absolutely learn a thing or two from Switzerland about their health care system. The problem is the small-minded teabaggers, such as yourself, have this mindset that what we have in America is obviously the best in the world! Even if it’s not perfect it’s better than everyone else and thus we would never want to try and learn from other countries. What they spend 1/2 as much on health care as we do? Oh that’s because their citizens are all waiting in line for treatment and dying of every disease! Ahhh the Republican brain!!!

        • suyts says:

          Ph, you realize Switzerland is probably the most successful banking nation in the history of mankind? They arm every citizen. They compel military training. You know if we did the things the Swiss did, it would parallel much of what the TEA party and like minded people advocate. And, then maybe, JUST MAYBE, we’d have enough money to ensure all of the people in our country. But, then you’d lose a bit, wouldn’t you.

          Sweden rates pretty good as far as capitalism and economic freedom. The top 25 as I recollect, but, I’ve been drinking it could be it the top 15.

          If you knew what you were advocating you wouldn’t. Try learning about the people, first. It”s important to understand before you compare us to them.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha ok Suyts. Please tell Romney to make that part of his next platform. He wants to make the US more like Sweden! Apparently you’re forgetting the percent of taxes that Sweden collects and the amount of social welfare Swedish citizens receive. You really will try and say anything to make yourself sound correct! It’s you who needs to wisen up my friend. LOL! “Sweden, the new global symbol for capitalism!”

        • suyts says:

          Sigh, hang on let me see if I bookmarked Dirk’s offering. He’s demonstrated this a couple of times.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha oh great we’re going to defer to one of your buddies as the expert economist on global debt. And then we’ll do what next? Reference one of your blog posts as the authority on climate change? You really are clueless as to the way the world works aren’t you? Have you gotten so caught up in this blog that you’ve forgotten reality outside of it? Reality that basically disagrees with virtually everything you write?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And honestly are you seriously going to convince me now how Sweden is a worldly symbol for capitalism? With their 60% tax rate, their free health care for all, free education, social security, payments for child birth etc etc…HONESTLY? REALLY? Have you absolutely no shame?

        • suyts says:

          Lol, 60% is a little high there. But, Ph, what do you think you are paying here?

          Assuming you’re making about 100g/yr, you’re in at 30% with just federal income tax alone. State? Sales tax? Property tax? Luxury tax? Investment tax? Interest earned tax?

          Honestly, what percentage do you believe you’re paying and how much different is it from Sweden?

          Ph, if you’re making 100g and single, and not finding a place to hide it or move it, you’re paying over 50% or damn close to it.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Wow again you highlight your absolute cluelessness on anything going in the world or at home. 1) No 60% is not at all high for Sweden – LOOK IT UP! 2) Actually I make over 100K and no I certainly pay nowhere near 30% in federal taxes. Just so you’re aware how marginal income tax rates actually work (in case you ever decide to file??) the rates for 2012 on a married couple in US are 15% on up to 70,000 and 25% on income up to 142,000. That means if you make 100K – you pay 15% on 70,000 and 25% on the next 30,000 ASSUMING you have no deductions, which almost all of us have. Mortgage tax deduction, dependent children deduction etc. etc.

          All I can say is WOW! Think, learn, before speaking!

        • suyts says:

          PhhhhTTTT!!!!! Ph, I’ll leave it right there, if you’re good with it.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          At any rate, I still love Sweden being the new teabagger symbol for CAPITALISM. You don’t mind if I share that one do you, I know some people who are really going to get a kick out of that twisted logic. Really will say anything, no matter how outrageous and egregious to try and win an argument.

          Curious, does this type of thinking also apply to climate science or just to topics where your knowledge is clearly minimal?

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, you should look into what goes into those stats. You should check out Switzerland as well, while you’re there. Yes, have fun with that. You should discuss it and discuss it again.

          Ph, I don’t blow smoke up anyone’s a$$. There it is, now tell me how it’s wrong.

        • DirkH says:

          The PhdScientist, your knowledge about Sweden is hopelessly obsolete. They defaulted in the early 90ies and reformed their welfare states, even their socialists agreed with that; and are now a highly competitive economy. Their effective tax rate is lower than Belgium or Germany according to the OECD (yet still higher than the US – standard of living is consequently lower – rather high prices for consumer goods.)

          I don’t find the OECD statistic where they combined income tax, VAT and others but it shows even in the income tax alone.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

  4. suyts says:

    “LoL oh so your experience as nurse’s aid and EMT prepared you well to understand the the flaws in the US health care system?….. blather, blather, bs…..”

    Yeh, Ph, there are people how sit around and jabber about crap they know nothing about and write papers. Others, we live it, experience it, and learn it. Yeh, turns out that janitor just might have an IQ of about 145. So, now, tell me, who’s in a better position to know? Somebody who talks about it, or some body who walks about it?

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      I’m sorry, but changing an old person’s diaper and providing sponge baths for bed-ridden patients does not actually qualify one for performing open-heart surgery, nor does it qualify them to have any in-depth understanding of the fragmented health insurance network and it’s effect on health outcomes in the United States. That is why one person is called doctor and one person is called the assistant to the nurse.

    • suyts says:

      Sure, that’s right, but how about understanding first hand about the difference between cost of production of medicine and wholesale, retail, and all of the other tiers of medicine which I had to be in the other positions.

      I’m sorry, it is impossible for some pontificating ideologue blathering bs with like situated pontificating ideologues blathering the same bs to adequately appreciate wtf they’re blathering about.

      Ph, what do you know about the poor? I’m guessing nothing. Now, ask me. The guy that wiped their ass. Or the guy who did things you can only pretend to imagine.

      The difference is I know both. Theory and practical application. You’re going to pretend never having to practically apply your silliness is somehow more valid than one who has done both. Go with that. I like it.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Haha…First of all you have no idea where I came from. I worked myself through school and got myself into school by cleaning office spaces, bartending, volunteering in hospitals etc. But I don’t think it’s a pissing match over who had the $hittier job. At the end of the day, whether you want to believe it or not. Education and RELEVANT experience actually matter. And no changing adult diapers does NOT is not relevant, and does not give you any credibility on complex medical or private insurance issues.

      • suyts says:

        Again, you’ve no idea. What part of the other experiences and education part did you miss out on?

        Here is what I stated, …..“I was a nurses aide in a youthful time. I was a medication aid later. I was a combat medic in the service. I was later an allergy/immunology technician in the service. Later, I was an EMT as well. I once was the head pharmaceutical technician for a hospital pharmacy.”

        It’s okay that you characterize this as putting diapers on someone, but, you know that’s disingenuous. It does tell me though, that you’re not familiar with the many functions of these various jobs. I did tell you I know the difference of cost of production, wholesale, and retail cost of pharmaceuticals. And the different tiers of the pricing. What is it you don’t think I know? How hospitals are built or how they’re funded? Or the equipment? Or the pharmaceuticals?

        You work in a lab. …… what do you know?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha It’s really a waste of my time. Next you’ll tell me you know how to perform open-heart right? I mean you were there in the hospital and open-hearts were going on down the road next to you. Not work in, run a lab. Sit on several committees that oversee budgets, strategic planning and that little bit about having actual done a fair amount of “actua scientific research” and publishing on the topic. But clearly that doesn’t compare with being a head pharmacy technician. Interestingly though I have a family member who worked for nearly 15 years as a Pharm Tech and really has no idea about the health care structure/private insurance industry system – well clearly your experience must have been unique.

        • suyts says:

          “Interestingly though I have a family member who worked for nearly 15 years as a Pharm Tech and really has no idea about the health care structure/private insurance industry system – well clearly your experience must have been unique.”

          That’s one explanation. Honestly, I have no idea how your family member wouldn’t know at least something about it, even if they were just in retail. I mean, don’t they do private pay, insurance, medicaid, medicare? Well, yes, yes they do. They even enroll in pharma rollouts. But, hey.. we all have our niches. Clueless, maybe it’s genetic?

        • HankH says:

          PhD,

          What the he11?

          Have you performed open heart surgery? I haven’t and I doubt you have by your BS lines. I’ve done enough “actua scientific research” and published enough on topics to know when I’m listening to the rants of a lab tech. You discount field experience, Pharm Tech, and the rest of medical discipline, like you’re the only one who makes a difference. Bull $hit. If you had any understanding of medicine and research, you would humbly acknowledge that from the EMT to the field medic, to the MD, to the researcher, it’s a team. Knowledge flows up and it flows down. There’s no ivory tower as you pretend to occupy. To demean any touch point is absolute ignorance, arrogance, and self aggrandizement. Sorry, but a real PhD wouldn’t be so dismissive of the rest of the team.

  5. ThePhDScientist says:

    And I suppose you’ve sat around and witnessed the earth not getting warmer for centuries and that’s why you’re so much smarter than the scientists who’ve studied, trained, and actually performed climate-related experiments? Now I’m starting to see how the delusions of grandeur have been forming over time…

    • suyts says:

      Lol, that’s fine, you’ve already articulated about a child writing a paper which he had no practical experience about what he was writing about. Delusions of grandeur, indeed.

    • DirkH says:

      ThePhDScientist says:
      August 7, 2012 at 9:21 pm
      “And I suppose you’ve sat around and witnessed the earth not getting warmer for centuries and that’s why you’re so much smarter than the scientists who’ve studied, trained, and actually performed climate-related experiments?”

      From nursing to climate science with nothing but an argumentum ad verecundiam, that’s our The PhdScientist. You embody everything that’s wrong with the current activist science, IF you ever left the janitorial business.

      • suyts says:

        Where’s your link about the economic freedom of the various countries?

        • James,

          I wouldn’t hold your breath expecting ThePhD to actually back what he says. All you’re going to get is his half witted knowledge of things confirmed by inept evidence couched in sophomoric insults.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha 1/2 witted knowledge from the guy who says “No ObamaCare health system, that ThePhD thinks is so great, anywhere in the world has ever worked better than the system now in place in the US” You are another complete fool – who has no knowledge of health care beyond what you saw on Fox News. Gimme a break! It’s starting to get funny, how delusional you people are.

          Then you give each other a high five and think that validates your incorrect postings. LOL

          It is comical and more proof no one on this blog actually knows what “science” is.

        • Again, we see more of your vacuous opinionPhD.

          Things in other countries work better than in the US? Like in England the flooded system leads to women having babies while laying on the gurney in the corridor of the hospital. Or waiting for months until it’s your turn for simple out patient procedures to be done. Yeah, ThePhD, socialized medicine works great.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Must be the wrong one Dirk as Sweden is not even in the top 10! The great capitalistic nation that it is!

    • philjourdan says:

      Name one scientist at the forefront of AGW with a degree in Climatology.

      Just one.

      Then appologize to your host for your ignorance.

      • suyts says:

        I’m happy just to have his comments contrasted with mine. It’s illustrative.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Yes! Especially illustrative when Sweden is now hailed as a prime example of capitalism at it’s finest and a low debt burden! LoL

        • suyts says:

          Ph, do you read some of the responses to your comments, or do you, as I suspect, simply disregard all of views contrary to your world view? I have demonstrated to you that in terms of economic freedom Sweden is 21st in the world. If you don’t like how I termed it, look at what Dirk had to offer. The idea that Sweden is a socialist utopia is silly. As pointed out, they have more economic freedom than Germany, Japan, and well, most of the rest of the world. And still, our standard of living is higher. Are you advocating that we should have a lower standard of living?

        • DirkH says:

          ThePhdScientist, you have not been to Sweden, and you have not made business with Swedes. I did both, 10 years ago, and Stockholm is a vibrant city brimming with business. It has nothing in common with the socialist welfare state; that didn’t work, and the Swedes dumped it a long time ago

        • suyts says:

          He will blithely ignore your comment, in that it doesn’t square with his version of reality.

          In his mind Sweden is a very successful socialist welfare state which all countries should look to emulate. Reality is a difficult thing for some people.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha. I’ll quickly respond to the blithely ignore comment to remind you that as much as I enjoy this back and forth banter, some of us are still part of the work force and therefore have less time to respond to every crack pot comment.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        LoL. Do any of you even remember how the Sweden comment came up? I never once advanced the idea that Sweden was the utopia that we should all dream for. My point was to the commenter who said that all other countries providing universal health care to their citizens were in debt up to their eyeballs. We know that is simply not true.

        We also know three things for certain about Sweden: 1) Their personal income tax rate is significantly higher than the United States – you can easily verify this. 2) They provide significantly more social welfare to their citizens than the United States including universal access to care, free education, extensive maternity/paternity leave (among other benefits. 3) They carry a far small debt burden than the United States.

        If you wish to disagree with those points then please disagree with actual numbers and cite reputable publications backing up your numbers. No, simply linking out to Dirk’s reply on another blog post does not count as reputable information we can take to the bank!

        • suyts says:

          And yet, their corporate tax rate is significantly lower than the U.S. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/450px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

          Which goes to my point about characterizing Sweden as a socialist nation, and the cumulative tax rates around the world. So, if we want to rid ourselves of many of the other taxes we have and put them under the personal income tax column, what do we come up with? Likely only marginally different than Sweden’s, and the many other countries of first world status.

          You really should read Dirk’s links he provides. To my recollection, I have not linked to his comments, but rather to the information he has provided.

          By law, well before Obama, the U.S. allowed for universal access to our healthcare system. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise. We also provide for free education. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise. We also, by law, allow for maternity/paternity leave, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. Have you based any of your arguments in reality?

          Yes, Sweden carries less of a debt burden. Do you believe there may be other factors involved or is the debt burden contingent upon the length of paternity leave offered?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          As for your corporate tax rate argument, that’s a whole other bag of worms that I don’t have the time to get into. You cannot take the “stated” rate as what companies actually pay since we know at least 30 large profitable corporations have been paying no federal income taxes over the past several years. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

          “By law, well before Obama, the U.S. allowed for universal access to our healthcare system” — LoL It this statement thus meant to imply that US citizens have equivalent or better access to care than Swedish citizens? The commonwealth fund and AMA would disagree with this argument (and they didn’t even include Sweden in their analysis). http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx

          “We also provide for free education. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise”. Let’s be clear we provide free K-12 education. Sweden and many other countries provide free higher education! Once our students get ready for college we load them up with unheard of levels of debt (the next great financial crisis blooming)! Debt which can’t be discharged in bankruptcy court thanks to the financiers lobbyists in Washington!

          “We also, by law, allow for maternity/paternity leave, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.” Haha you’re stretching again, but I love it! US law provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave! Oh so generous. That is, of course, unless you work for a company with less than 50 employees, you haven’t been in your position for at least 12 months, or you have an income which puts you in the top 10% of wage earners (did men write that law to discourage successful women from having babies?) Let’s contrast that with the Swedish law for maternity leave. Swedes (men and women) are given 480 days of paid paternity leave (to be taken any time up to the child’s 8 birthday). This leave is paid – 80% of their regular working wage! WOW – that’s generous!

        • suyts says:

          The point was if we’re going to discuss these issues, we should at least have a bit of truth interspersed with your assertions.

          So, we’re not talking about access, rather, we’re talking about level of care. This could have been easily addressed without a sweeping and in many ways a draconian law.

          We’re not talking about granting maternity leave we’re talking about mandating companies to pay for personal choices. Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the idea we should encourage reproduction by people unable to afford children without outside assistance. But, that’s just me.

          We’re not talking about free education we’re talking about different educational systems altogether.

          And, then when you consider all that you’re advocating, we see that there isn’t any large difference in objective look at the quality of life enjoyed by both nations. Again, I don’t think it proper to compare different cultures and places with such fundamental demographic differences.

          But, this is the problem with Obamacare. The entire law was written based on unfounded assumptions and attempted to correct problems which didn’t exist. We used a huge sledge hammer to swat at a fly, and in the end it didn’t address the fundamental reason why our health-care costs continue to increase.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          “We used a huge sledge hammer to swat at a fly, and in the end it didn’t address the fundamental reason why our health-care costs continue to increase.”

          And here again is why you’re dead wrong. HEALTH CARE IS A HUGE, DEFICIT BUSTING, JOB KILLING PROBLEM! (Not a fly!!!) If we let it go at it’s current pace it will bankrupt the country. Obamacare is the only proposal which attempted to adequately cover the vast numbers of un/underinsured, while beginning to reign in costs. There is MUCH more work to be done for sure, but at least someone finally took the wheel and begin to steer.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          BTW Suyts to you have any objective idea of how the US compares to other countries as far as health outcomes are concerned. I know we had the whole chat about your vast experience as a pharmacy technician and I suppose it’s possible that while printing labels for prescription bottles you were expected to read global health rankings and statistics, but do you remember any of those?

        • suyts says:

          My goodness you really are clueless about our healthcare system. I think you have that confused with retail pharmacy work.

          Global health rankings…. sure which ones? You point them out, make sure they aren’t subjective, and I’ll go over them with you.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Now would “subjective” BE anything that comes from an academic medical center that was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal? I know around these parts we simply dismiss anything we dislike as untrue (journal articles, CBO statistics etc.) It almost makes providing any articles irrelevant, when they can be so easily dismissed by ideologues, no?

          http://blog.targethealth.com/?p=1091

        • suyts says:

          You’re a research scientist and you don’t know what subjective is? Tell me, have you ever read material from an academic medical center that was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal that contained subjective judgements?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh stop the BS. Let’s be honest here. Anything you politically disagree with is considered incorrect information or subjective. Please show me evidence to the contrary!

        • suyts says:

          No, you stop the bs. What the hell you don’t know objective from subjective? Show me something which can be measured and quantified without interjecting personal biases and ensuring like things are measured to like things and I’ll go over it.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Just take the article I gave you and follow it’s sources. You can find all the reading you want, without the authors “subjective” err correct assertions.

        • suyts says:

          It took me about 2 minutes to find the first error.

          World Health Organization (WHO) dedicated its annual World Health Report to a comparison of healthcare across the globe.[4] In this exhaustive analysis, American superiority was not borne out: the United States ranked 32nd for infant survival, 24th for life expectancy, and 54th for fairness.

          Yes, that’s true we did. But the authors of the WHO report didn’t account for the different methods of reporting infant mortality. This has been well documented try googling it. And then, of course, we jumped right into the “subjective” definition of “fair”. Ph, can you show me something that isn’t so ideologically slanted?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahahaha and then what? Maybe we jump 10 places to 22nd? Woohoo! Good thing we spend 2X as much as the next guy! As I said you only need follow the sources listed in the report if you want the numbers without the commentary. But then we’ll have more excuses about how it’s not really as bad as they say it is?

        • suyts says:

          I’m wondering what you’d expect that we should be given our circumstances. Do you think our overall health is a statement to the healthcare provided or other underlying causes?

          You know, some countries prohibit immigration of poverty stricken people. Some places have less violent crime. Other places don’t tolerate illicit drug use. Other places still put a higher premium on safe sex practices….. and on and on. Much of that has nothing to do with the health care system, and much to do with societal priorities.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And all of the deaths that are attributable to lack of access to care? All of the studies showing that folks who have a primary care physician tend to weigh less than those without?

          But you’re right about culture. In this country rather than going for a run, the baggers show up at Chick-Fil-A and chow down on ultra-high fat and calorie filled foods to show they stand for discrimination against gays!

        • suyts says:

          “All of the studies showing that folks who have a primary care physician tend to weigh less than those without?” Correlation vs causation? How does a visit to the doctor cause weight loss? If one visits too often will they become emaciated?

          Is everyone you disagree with a “bagger”? Ph, with all of your personal biases which exude from your comments, how do you manage objective analysis?

        • suyts says:

          No one said “let it go at its current pace”. But, by destroying jobs, we see that the federal budget will have less money to deal with the problem.

          Again, this law does nothing to contain costs and over burdens small businesses.

          The escalating cost increases are due to no one being responsible for the bill. So no one cares about the cost. This law did not address this issue.

          For instance, I get a prescription, the pharmacy charges my insurance company $100. What do I care? The insurance company paid for it. The insurance company doesn’t care, because it can then demonstrate the necessity to raise the premiums to cover the increase costs. Pharma comes out with a new better same as the last drug and press the flesh with the M.D.’s to prescribe this better drug which costs $150 per regime. Rinse and repeat. That is of course, only pharma considerations. The same can be said about equipment and other materials.

          There is no cost control in Obama’s plan. Only less job and a higher tax/fee rate.

        • Me says:

          😆 You’re a research scientist and you don’t know what subjective is? Good one suyts! LMAO!

        • Me says:

          Suyts ya see it’s last one BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

        • Me says:

          Suyts so how is pHDouche able to post like he did above, and Me post all go to the bottom of this pile here?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Umm, because no one cares to see your useless blathering? 😀

        • Me says:

          Again I wasn’t talking to pHDouche, so how was he able to post like he did above? And no offence to the Douche that is pH or that I am interacting with him errr whatever…….

        • Me says:

          WOW now that is amazing! 😕

        • suyts says:

          Huh? He’s just clicking on the very first reply thing, or are you referencing something else?

        • Me says:

          That is exacly what I am doing above but it is out of sequence, it seems his (by the time lines) should be at the bottom here too, as there is no reply point to anything above that I see to this post here. But yet he is able to post anywhere here, and it doesn’t follow the flow. So how is he able to do it? Below is the last reply post that I followed….. Now can you see it?
          ————————————————————————————————————————

          ThePhDScientist says:

          August 8, 2012 at 1:10 pm

          LoL. Do any of you even remember how the Sweden comment came up? I never once advanced the idea that Sweden was the utopia that we should all dream for. My point was to the commenter who said that all other countries providing universal health care to their citizens were in debt up to their eyeballs. We know that is simply not true.

          We also know three things for certain about Sweden: 1) Their personal income tax rate is significantly higher than the United States – you can easily verify this. 2) They provide significantly more social welfare to their citizens than the United States including universal access to care, free education, extensive maternity/paternity leave (among other benefits. 3) They carry a far small debt burden than the United States.

          If you wish to disagree with those points then please disagree with actual numbers and cite reputable publications backing up your numbers. No, simply linking out to Dirk’s reply on another blog post does not count as reputable information we can take to the bank!

          Reply

        • suyts says:

          Oh, I see what you’re saying. I think it was me…… not you, me, but me me. 🙂

          My comment here….. suyts says:
          August 8, 2012 at 7:46 pm (Edit)

          is out of sequence. It could be because I started to respond from the admin app as opposed to like we all normally do….. I do that when the thread gets too long…. or it could be because of so many comments on this post.

          It starts to act goofy when we get a lot. We’re getting close to 150. I don’t really know.

        • Me says:

          All I know it is out of sequence, and as far as I know that shouldn’t happen. I told you I see things like this, things that don’t make sense, So I do know that shouldn’t happen and you should look into it. Look and see what happened to Jo Nova a couple days ago.

        • suyts says:

          Well, that’s true, I should see about what’s going on with the WP people.

        • Me says:

          Your welcome, I guess!

        • suyts says:

          I hadn’t noticed until you said anything. It’s appreciated.

        • Me says:

          Alrighty then, Cheers!

        • Me says:

          So how was pHDouche able to do this here? Have you found out anything yet?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha! Wow that “Me” guy is both stupid and obsessed!

          I know of a couple good psychiatrists – I think you should definitely seek help!!!!

        • Me says:

          😆 suyts it appears pHDouche is speaking from experience here! Ya know about he knows of a couple good psychiatrists….. LMAO!

      • kim2ooo says:

        I hold the Very same degree in climatology as Mr Hansen – Mr Jones – Mr Mann – Mr Gore

  6. The PhD with more of his vacuous knowledge of the world.

  7. 11 cents and 15 cents sounds like so little. But when it’s on every order someone, somewhere, is getting mind blindingly rich. Since all that money is going to the government it’s people in the government getting rich—just like Russia under Leninism/Marxism. And Occupiers think Obama is not a 1%er. the truth is he is nothing but an elitist. Did you see his wife’s $7000.00 jacket last week!

    http://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/michelle-obama-8217-7-000-jacket-critics-grumbling-160800294.html

  8. When ThePhDScientist says he knows a lot about something get ready for his diatribe of propaganda. Because that’s all you’re getting baby.

  9. The very few people in America that don’t have health care and also want health care are used to guilt people into enormous taxation and Marxist redistribution of wealth. No ObamaCare health system, that ThePhD thinks is so great, anywhere in the world has ever worked better than the system now in place in the US. Americans didn’t want ObamaCare. It was put on America without her consent.

    I can only hope Romney will keep his word and make attacking ObamaCare his first priority.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Hahaha oh you’re a friggin idiot and you say i’m smug and wrong? Yet you make baseless declarations you have no chance of backing up. Tell me Amino Acids, does America have the greatest, most efficient health care system in the world?

  10. DERise says:

    Let’s not forget the big plus of Obamacare, it forces all insurance (including Church provided) to provide contraceprion services (including abortion services) what could possibly be bad about that http://washingtonexaminer.com/abortionist-sees-aborting-ugly-black-babies-as-a-service-to-the-taxpayers-apparently/article/2504231

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Haha we’re not even going to get into the crazies who want to convince us about flying snakes and punishing the sins of homosexuality while blissfully ignoring gluttony!

      Let’s not forget that at least 28 states (can’t remember the exact number from Guttmacher) already have laws that require insurers to provide contraception services (many of these being Republican states). Only now that this was instituted as part of Obamacare did these governors and “church leaders” decide to FAKE some outrage over the whole thing. I hope the church leaders lose their tax exempt status! Theirs is nothing more than a ploy to influence politics.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        my bad – talking, not flying snakes. Both equally implausible fairy tales!

      • DERise says:

        Try looking at the video in the link. That was the purpose of the post. It is an abortion doctor saying he aborts “ugly black babies”. Not really a nice use of taxpayer dollars, not someone I want My hard earned money going to, not what Planned Parenthood claims to be about, but exactly what their mission of thier founder Margret Sangar was.
        I figured most of the regulars (at least those that have read some of my posts) here would pick up on this one quickly. Most thoughtful people would look at the link before running off on a tangent. I expected your reaction.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No my reaction is to the stupid assertion that one person saying crazy things, should be given any credence or even any though at all. If that were the case we would have to say all of Christianity in the United States is nothing more than a radical terrorist organization, since we know your camp certainly has it’s share of crazies doing things liking bombing clinics to shooting abortion docs – all in the supposed name of Christ.

          Do you honestly think this video should be taken seriously? I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it was a staged/fake put together by some right wing fringe group!

        • DERise says:

          People say or do things in stressful interview/confrontational situations http://www.towleroad.com/2010/06/watch-rep-bob-etheridge-dnc-assaults-student-on-dc-sidewalk.html. Staged/fake put together video segments are usually the Bailiwick of the main stream media http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,305709,00.html.

      • kelly liddle says:

        When you read my comment below just think of what you have just said. You seem to have identified a problem. Compulsory insurance to cover something that can’t really be insured against. I have no religious issue with it as I am not religious and consider that argument silly but surely you can’t have sex accidentally. How can you insure against a voluntary event? Second point is who is the US can’t afford a pack of condoms or other contraceptive products? So 28 out of 50 states have put up costs on something for no logical reason (I suspect from both parties) and now you want the stupidity to go federal.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          The thing about many of the church’s/bishops is they’re opportunists. They feign outrage when they think they can influence politics and that is explicitly outlawed in maintaining their tax exempt status.

      • DirkH says:

        How is a tax exempt church influencing politics different from George Soros’ tax-exempt OSI that has the express goal of influencing politics? Tax the churches and also tax all liberal foundations. You would have your fiscal problems solved in no time. Gotta look how much money has already been funneled into the tax exempt foundations….

        • DirkH says:

          Here’s wikipedias list of the biggest foundations.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_foundations

          Notice that they are often worth much much more than they say in the table. I know it because the Bosch foundation is in the list with an “endowment” of 6.9 bn USd – but they own 92% of Robert Bosch GmbH, a company with a yearly revenue of 51 bn EUR, about 61 bn USD.

        • suyts says:

          There’s money, and then there is money. The thing about churches are that to enjoy tax exempt status they cannot make political statements or advocacy.

        • DirkH says:

          Well, then they should rename themselves to “progressive think-tank”.

        • suyts says:

          Yes, wouldn’t that cause some howls of protest! 🙂

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          whoops that was here: 🙂

          The thing about many of the church’s/bishops is they’re opportunists. They feign outrage when they think they can influence politics and that is explicitly outlawed in maintaining their tax exempt status.

    • Why don’t you say ‘hah’ one more time PhD.

      You are nothing but a bomb thrower.

  11. kelly liddle says:

    Phd
    I am Australian and I we have what can be considered a universal health system (there is no pure universal health system so far as I know) You claim you want a simular system to ours and I would say great but Obamacare is not that system. Obamacare or Romneycare are just additions to the mix. If you want to fix something first you must identify the problems. The data is as follows US healthcare costs in excess of double of ours as a percent of GDP and would be either side of double in absolute dollar terms. Government spending on healthcare in the US is in excess of Australia’s entire spending. Health indicators such as life expectancy, HIV prevalance, number of hospital beds per capita, number of doctors per capita are worse for the US. See this website http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS/countries and also browse by country on this website if you do not believe my figures https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ . So even though some suggest that private healthcare in the US is best in the world if you have the money basically (i don’t doubt this) this is not good enough and in reality if it is not an emergency situation, I as an Australian can access that anyway.

    So Phd what problems can you identify and how do you believed they can be solved? If you support Obamacare tell us what existing problems this new legislation will solve.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Thank you finally someone who actually talks some sense about the US health care system. There are certainly a lot of problems with it, as Kelly aptly points out! I agree with you that Obamacare is not the solution, but rather a first step in admitting and attempting to fix the problem. Quite honestly I would like to get rid of the middlemen known as private insurance. They account for a huge chunk of the waste in the system, drive up costs for patients, and make it much more expensive for physicians to run their own practices.

      What Obamacare does is first give everyone some access to care (as happened in Massachusetts under Romneycare). From Mass have substantial evidence that overall health has gone up and that for the first time ER visits among non-Elderly adults are starting to drop. Contrast this to major cities in Texas where the county hospitals ER departments have waits of 48-72 hours because every uninsured is seeking care there. That is no way to run a health care system. Especially when it is all of us US tax payers who have to pay for the high cost of ER bills for the uninsured.

      Obamacare finally puts regulations on insurance companies as to how much they can screw you versus how much of the gold they have to spend back on the consumer. As well as protections for those with preexisting conditions. Kelly do you hear patients in Australia fighting with their insurance company because after years of paying their premiums they get cancer and now insurance won’t pay or has found a way to drop them? We do all the time where I work.

      Obamacare also begins to look at medicine more smartly in terms of evidence-based practices and keeping track of who is doing what and what outcomes they’re are achieving.

      I’ll concede what we needed in addition to Obamacare was a strong public option! Unfortunately it was the conservative party that blocked that from ever happening. However, that doesn’t mean it can never come back. As Obamacare is implemented and we get through the first challenges of how to cover most Americans, then we have to continue the dirty work of bringing down costs. Of course some of that is in the law now with the provisions I already mentioned about forcing companies to spend a certain percent of premiums on actual coverage (and not “administrative” expense), evidence-based best practices etc. But, at some point conservatives will have to realize one of the major drivers of costs are the private insurance companies and they need some “public” competition.

      • suyts says:

        Quite honestly I would like to get rid of the middlemen known as private insurance. They account for a huge chunk of the waste in the system,……
        “What Obamacare does is first give everyone some access to care “
        But later you said, ” Contrast this to major cities in Texas where the county hospitals ER departments have waits of 48-72 hours because every uninsured is seeking care there.”.
        And then you state, ” As Obamacare is implemented and we get through the first challenges of how to cover most Americans.”

        Ph, the profit margin for insurance companies was quite low prior to Obamacare compared to other successful industries in the U.S. But, it still boggles my mind how that even if you believe the insurance companies were screwing people that we fixed anything by compelling people to do business with the very people you believe were “screwing” these people. We sure showed them a thing or two.

        Clearly, by your own statement, the uninsured has enjoyed access to healthcare.

        Prior to Obamacare, most Americans were covered. 70% had health coverage.

        The argument that the costs are now shifted from the tax payer is a bizarre statement. We are all now compelled to purchase insurance. For the people who will in short time be insured by the mandate, their health care costs are now shifted to the people who are already insured, the American taxpayer, by mandate. Somehow, the point that I’m paying for it by hirer premiums is a savings to me is lost.

        Additionally, as you pointed out, insurance companies are middlemen. This law introduces many more “middle” men. Boards, bureaucracies, and regulatory entities. This is somehow going to magically control costs. Other than Nixon’s price control on gas prices, which caused huge shortages throughout the land, can you name me an instance where adding a multitude of bureaucratic layers controlled any costs?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha yup that’s right! The usual bagger answer, government is the ONLY problem. We just need to get rid of government and it will all get better! And it was government that sold all those mortgage-backed securities and lent all those sub prime mortgages to lenders leading to the worst financial crisis in history. Heaven forbid we should have regulations!

          Just give us the Keystone pipeline and we will be rich with all of 5,000 jobs..? Who cares if we screw up the water supply over Nebraska. I know, I know we can ‘trust’ the oil companies not to spring a leak! Who’s with me, New Orleans!?

        • suyts says:

          Lol, Ph, you’re not scoring any rhetoric or logic points for the left. Those mortgaged backed securities? Yes, our government built that.

          As I stated, Keystone isn’t significant for what it would accomplish “right now”, but rather what it would accomplish in the near future. The water supply issue was adequately addressed, twice and already met the approval of the state dept. OTOH, is there a legitimate reason to be against 5000 jobs and a huge pipeline infrastructure upgrade? Or additional oil supply that doesn’t come from despots and people hostile to the U.S.? The fact is, it’s stupid not to let individual investors build it. Soon enough, we’ll be building one anyway. There’s trillions barrels of shale oil just west of where the pipeline is planned. Oh, that’s right, the Dems want us to be dependent upon the very despots and hostile nations and don’t want us to have our own sources of revenue and energy.

          Now that you’ve introduced the word reality into the conversation, here’s a reality Dems need to acknowledge. Wealth creation starts with the ground. Be it farming, mining, drilling….. any real wealth created in this world came from this world(ground and/or sea). Our economy is dependent upon our ability to produces things. And, our ability to move the produced materials. This requires two things. Cheap, reliable energy (electricity) and cheap and reliable fuel (gasoline, diesel, etc.) Without acknowledging those two things and the two simple concepts of wealth creations and moving an economy, nothing else attempted will be of any lasting or real effect.

          These are inescapable realities. And while I’m not sure Romney deeply understands these concepts, I know he’s not openly hostile towards them as Obama is. And, I also know to secure these things it takes little government intervention to ensure they happen. People would do these things on their own. If these concepts were embraced our economy would simply take off.

        • suyts says:

          Yes, I wonder if Ph has seen it.

          The Keystone XL pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer for some 250 miles. To help put this number in perspective, there are currently almost 21,000 miles of pipelines crossing Nebraska, including almost 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. Many miles of these pipelines co-exist with the Ogallala Aquifer. In addition, oil wells have been drilled and are in production within areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer, including in western Nebraska.

      • kelly liddle says:

        “Obamacare finally puts regulations on insurance companies as to how much they can screw you versus how much of the gold they have to spend back on the consumer.”

        This has good intentions but lets pretend I am an insurer. I am assuming they are very big companies so the barriers to entry are very high. So what am I going to do about this problem Obamacare might present to me. I am going to actually encourage healthcare costs to rise as I now work on a commission basis (i really don’t think they cared before but this will guarantee they don’t care). Higher healthcare costs = higher profits.

        Phd
        Your question about insurers not paying in Australia does not exist because can just go to a public hospital and get that care.

        So the only reason to get insurance is if you earn too much have to buy it or will pay more tax. Yes we have probably copied you guys about 10 to 15 years ago and I don’t like it. The other reason to buy it is basically so you get put at the front of the queue especially if it is what we call elective surgery such as a hip replacement. You might live in excruciating pain but you are not about to die. This is what Amino was referring to with the NHS I am guessing. Alternately just pay the cash and get it done when you want in the country you want assuming you can afford it and the time also if it is overseas because after a major operation it is advisable not to travel too soon.

        With medical horror stories you can find them in any country regardless of the system. The only thing is how frequent are they and that is actually very hard to measure (nobody boasts about that and in many cases it is covered up). Also in any spread out country like Australia or US there will be a big difference in levels of care depending on how rural you are and this can’t be avoided.

        • suyts says:

          Exactly, the insurance companies, now instead of being disinterested parties towards the pricing now would want them to be higher because of the percentage limits.

      • philjourdan says:

        Nice talking points and like most talking points, completely false. Obamacare does nothing for access to health care. Everyone had it before – by law. Anyone could get health care by going to the emergency room- by law.

        What obamacare does is contradict your very point. It institutionalizes the layer between the doctor and the patient – the health insurance you hate so much. Now, you no longer can deal directly with the doctor, you HAVE to have insurance. Period. End of story. So it is not even a good first step. It is a step backwards – BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION.

        The problem never was health insurance companies. They were indeed vilified because of the inevitable extraordinary cases that arise in any endeavor. The problem was and is the government. It was the government that mandated HMOs and their sad sack cousins the PPOs. It is the government that is denying treatment (the largest insurer is medicare/medicaid that regularly denies procedures and life saving techniques). Instead of actual reform to the system, Obamacare merely compounded the problems already inherent in the system.

        Liberals do not think – and they take pride in their ignorance. A bad law is never better than no law. With no law, you have a blank canvas to address the problems and fix it. With a bad law, you already start with a handicap that politicians never want to remove. So the weakest link becomes an institutional part of the final solution, which then is by defintion flawed.

        Obamacare is taxing the middle class over $500 with 21 new taxes. It violates every precept of liberalism except one. It grows government. But then that is liberalism for you. Too stupid to know when they cut off their nose to spite their faith.

        • suyts says:

          Growing govt is always the goal

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh Phil I love your logic, but it’s completely a$$ backwards…

          “The problem never was health insurance companies. They were indeed vilified because of the inevitable extraordinary cases that arise in any endeavor”

          Err wrong – the problem is the United States is the only country where the health insurance companies turn huge profits acting as the middleman between patient and doctor hospital…Do you have any concept of reality or do you just spout teabagger Fox news talking points?

  12. kelly liddle says:

    James and Phd
    Here is one to stir both Republicans and Democrats up, if the exponential growth seen over the last 10 years in health (private and public spending) and defense continues at it’s current rate by 2035 American’s will have to work 2 days for healthcare and 2 days for defense leaving one day to earn money for yourself if you want a 5 day week. I didn’t actually work the numbers out but would be close.

    • suyts says:

      No doubt, what Ph failed to appreciate was that I didn’t say we should remain as we were prior to Obamacare, but rather Obamacare is exactly the wrong prescription for this country.

  13. kelly liddle says:

    Amino
    One of your comments at 8.24am contradicts itself because to have a simple outpatient procedure done they can catch a plane and get it done elswhere and can get it done in a private hospital in Britain immediately just like in the US. I have the same comment to you as to Phd identify the problems.

  14. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 7, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    LoL oh so your experience as nurse’s aid and EMT prepared you well to understand the the flaws in the US health care system?

    LOL! A new tact for you. An appeal to a mythical authority. I am sure your experience (if it even exists) makes you more knowledgeable about heart transplants than Dr. Christiaan Barnard.

    So by the impecable logic of the Phony – the world’s most knowledgeable expert on pollution is – The Oldest Garbage collector!

    Congratulations, you have just equated yourself to your local sanitation engineer!

  15. Republicans would have us believe Obamacare is bad for America. Is there any doubt that a Romney administration would favor the rich and increase the income gap in our country while leaving millions of our citizens uninsured and unprotected? Mitt is a pariah in Mormon Clothing and will stop at nothing to expand an empire of greed for the rich in this country. Can his sacred Mormon underwear gain him enough donations to buy this election? See for yourself as Mitt dons his tighty-whities sent from the Good Lord Himself at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear.html

    • suyts says:

      So, we have a discussion about Obamacare and you use this to attack Romney’s religion? Do you have anything to offer pertinent to the conversation?

    • DirkH says:

      ” Mitt is a pariah in Mormon Clothing and will stop at nothing to expand an empire of greed for the rich in this country.”
      http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/tell-us-how-mitt-romney-has-destroyed-your-life-t9436.html

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Well we do know Romeny is in it for the rich (either that or he’s lying about keeping his tax plan deficit neutral). It’s now been definitively proven that Republicans can’t do math. You can cut taxes for everyone and not add to the deficit. And when you cut all popular deductions you actually start to increase the tax bill for the middle class, while still giving your ultra wealthy friends a big tax break!

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually, if you READ his plan, you would find that he is in it for the middle class since they benefit the most from his plan. But then that woudl destroy your talking points!

          You gain no credibility demonstrating a talent to spout mindless talking points. But I guess mindless is all you know.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh you’re another jack ass who refuses to look at the evidence. Give me some numbers big boy and tell me how you cut the rates as low as Mitt without either 1) increasing taxes on the middle class through elimination of tax deductions or 2) adding to the national debt.

          Number don’t lie, but PhilJourdan does!

    • kim2ooo says:

      Republicans would have us believe Obamacare is bad for America.
      xxxxxxxx
      AND Democrats have yet to show us that ObamaTax is good for America.

      Mr Brandt Hardin,
      Do you have a thing for guys undies?
      I mean, it’s all good, if you do 🙂

    • kim2ooo says:

      I bet you are heck on those Scots, being the men undies inspector and all – What do they wear under their Kilts?

    • Brandt Hardin (@DREGstudios)

      Thanks for the dose of mindless hate.

      • suyts says:

        I haven’t yet, figured out the motivation behind such senseless attacks. Do these people believe it accomplishes anything other than display their senseless hate? If anything, this would encourage a rational person to move in the opposite direction than people like Brandt.

        • philjourdan says:

          Your critical flaw is in the following clause: “Do these people believe it accomplishes anything ”

          They are not thinking, and therefore there is no belief in their actions. When you are immersed in a culture of hate, it becomes a natural and regulapersonana. Thus they see it as normal – as the rest of us would think of being courteous.Insteadad of opening a door for an old gentleman or lady, they are inculcated into the system of stomping on the toes and slamming it in their face. To them, that is natural. And they demonstrate it constantly.

    • philjourdan says:

      There is plenty of doubt that Romney would favor the rich. That is a talking point of Obama, but there is no evidence that suggests it is true. Indeed, Romney’s record in public life shows us exactly the opposite. That he did not favor the rich.

      If you want to appear intelligent, you have to at least present intelligence. And spouting talking points is not the way to present intelligence.

  16. sth_txs says:

    Maybe some of us could afford ‘basic’ health care if the damn government stopped inflating the currency or taxing us to death. What does the Phd libtard say about that?

    It amazes me that my copay is sometimes half of what the total reimbursement is with insurance.

    I don’t believe Americans need ‘basic’ medical care to be subsidized. I wonder how much more medical care would be available if we could get more nurse practitioners (basic) as opposed to this nonsense of having a doctor for everything that ails us.

    Why do I have to see a doctor to get a prescription for anti biotics? And don’t tell me this is bad when the USDA/FDA approve mountains of anti biotics for use in the raising of live stock for consumption.

    Anything government touches usually screws it up more.

  17. Pingback: A Follow-up With Obamacare Post | suyts space

    • suyts says:

      Jo is up to her usual high standards of delivering excellent spankage. Though for me it’s difficult to get worked up about Oreskes, she’s been at this for years and people laugh at her.

      • philjourdan says:

        Apparently not everyone as she is still on speaking tours. I guess sheep need to be lied to on a regular basis.

        • DirkH says:

          My theory is that Leftists need and seek a constant flow of affirmation, as they constantly hit against reality which undermines their faith in their flawed pseudoreligion. Leftism without external support withers away like a sand castle.

      • suyts says:

        Well, yeh, alarmists will pay good money for someone to tell them their paranoid delusions are true.

        I’m thinking about developing an alter ego to bilk them out of their money while there’s still money in it. 🙂

        • philjourdan says:

          Until the world is a frozen ball of ice, there will be money in it. They have found a cash cow and will milk it like a parasite on a host until the host is dead. You cannot gorge parasites.

        • suyts says:

          It would be easy to do. We know all of the talking points, and they eat it up! Big oil! GISS! Smoking! Droughts! Floods! Capitalism!

          All you have to do is interject some inanity under those topics and they’ll pay for it!

        • DirkH says:

          “to bilk them out of their money while there’s still money in it.”

          There is always money in it. Old leftists are no good. Teenage leftists are your target demographic.

        • DirkH says:

          “It would be easy to do. We know all of the talking points, and they eat it up! Big oil! GISS! Smoking! Droughts! Floods! Capitalism!”

          Just grab text from grist and Komment Macht Frei (grauniad).

        • suyts says:

          Agreed, but you have to wait until they themselves have money to give you.

        • DirkH says:

          Parents. Heritages. Only-childs with pocket money to burn. (I’m not saying they’re all leftists. But some are. Sell those your trinkets.)

        • suyts says:

          Yes, that would be the way!

        • DirkH says:

          If you want to give it a serious try: Use dropshippers.
          Use these for info about Internet marketing:
          http://www.warriorforum.com

  18. One thing we can see The PhD knows is where the caps lock key is.

  19. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 8, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    LoL. Do any of you even remember how the Sweden comment came up? I never once advanced the idea that Sweden was the utopia that we should all dream for. My point was to the commenter who said that all other countries providing universal health care to their citizens were in debt up to their eyeballs. We know that is simply not true.

    Nice non sequitur. I issued you a simple challenge which had nothign to do with Sweden (of Which DirkH is much more familiar than your talking points). Are you now retracting your false allegation? Or will you answer the question:

    “Name one scientist at the forefront of AGW with a degree in Climatology. Just one. Then appologize to your host for your ignorance.”

  20. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 8, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    As for your corporate tax rate argument, that’s a whole other bag of worms that I don’t have the time to get into. You cannot take the “stated” rate as what companies actually pay since we know at least 30 large profitable corporations have been paying no federal income taxes over the past several years.

    Ignorance abounds. No company pays taxes in Sweden if they lose money. Just like in the US. GM does not pay taxes in Sweden on sales in the US – just as Saab does not pay taxes in Sweden on sales in the US. In other words, it is not a “whole other bag of worms”, it is the same bag of worms. Sweden does not tax profits subject to foreign taxation, just as no other first world country does. And not all corporations in Sweden make money every year, so not every corporation in Sweden pays taxes every year, just like in the rest of the first world countries.

    In other words, you are completely and utterly wrong. It is YOU trying to introduce strawmen. It is you who do not know what they are talking about. It is you proudly crowing about your ignorance.

    Now, would you care to start debating the issues at hand? Or continue to try to divery attention away from the issue with non sequiturs and straw men?

  21. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 8, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Haha there’s that teabagger we all have grown to know and love. Come to the rescue of your masters?

    Haha, there is that racist homophobic bigot spouting his hatred again.

  22. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 8, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    BTW Suyts to you have any objective idea of how the US compares to other countries as far as health outcomes are concerned. I know we had the whole chat about your vast experience as a pharmacy technician and I suppose it’s possible that while printing labels for prescription bottles you were expected to read global health rankings and statistics, but do you remember any of those?

    BTW phd, do you know how the US compares to other countries on the illegal alien issue? And have you factored those into your data? And do you know how the US compares to other countries in Premature births – and how that is factored into the statistics?

    How about we try something easier – in deference to your demonstrated ability – how about you tell us what you KNOW (not opinion, facts) about the health care statistics content.

  23. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 8, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    BTW Suyts nice call on taking your blog posting info from a teabagger rally! A place known for truth and wisdom! LoL

    Never been to a gay bashing rally – so how did you like it phd? Apparently you are the only one here who is homophobic and attends gay bashing rallies.

  24. philjourdan says:

    World Health Organization (WHO) dedicated its annual World Health Report to a comparison of healthcare across the globe.[4] In this exhaustive analysis, American superiority was not borne out: the United States ranked 32nd for infant survival, 24th for life expectancy, and 54th for fairness.

    Hey phd, for those who cannot fathom the difference between objective and subjective, check out the last clause. Now objectively define fairness.

    It can’t be done. It is SUBJECTIVE. So much for your research.

  25. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 8, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of subjective: Global warming denialists who conduct no actual research but pretend to have the expertise to find flaws in published literature and thus claim the work is invalid. SUBJECTIVE!

    LOL! That is not ANY kind of dictionary definition. You really are clueless about what subjective is. YOu have no idea! And I thought you were just being obstinate, not totally ignorant!

  26. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 8, 2012 at 8:18pm

    Umm, because no one cares to see your useless blathering?

    See? You are wrong again. Since you apparently care so deeply that you have to come back for more humiliation every time.

  27. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 9, 2012 at 9:45 am

    Oh Phil I love your logic, but it’s completely a$$ backwards…

    “The problem never was health insurance companies. They were indeed vilified because of the inevitable extraordinary cases that arise in any endeavor”

    Err wrong – the problem is the United States is the only country where the health insurance companies turn huge profits acting as the middleman between patient and doctor hospital…Do you have any concept of reality or do you just spout teabagger Fox news talking points?

    Unfortunately for you, talking points are not facts. And the facts support my facts. So since you have no facts, you are merely being a good sheep and repeating what you have been told.

    FACT: The ROI in the insurance industry is 5% or less. That puts them at the lower end of the ROI of most industries. While some of the better run insurance companies earn a 5% ROI, most earn in the range of 2-3%. Hardly stellar and hardly huge. If you invest $100,000,000,000 in a company and only get $1,000,000,000 in return, you are wasting your time (you can do that in a much more safe environment called a Bank). So while sheep gasp at earning $1b, the fact is that the investment is only returning 1%.

    Do you ever use your brain for anything except ad hominems?

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Unfortunately (and as usual) you fail to understand the debate around health care. We’re not talking about whether private insurance companies make more profit than oil companies. (BTW Big Boy, what’s the ROI for American’s health care spending? Let’s see about 17.4% of GDP towards health care and what do we get for that?)

      FACT: The private insurance industry has administrative costs ranging anywhere from 10-30% depending on whether we’re talking about small or large group plans or the most messy of them all – the individual market. Of course this only takes into account the monetary waste on the side of the insurer, next we have to calculate in the administrative costs (err waste) that physician and hospital billing departments must incur to deal with this fragmented network of plans. One study looking only at California puts the number around 20% of total health care spending.

      So Big Boy when we’re talking about 30% of trillions of dollars – how much waste do we have in the private insurance system? Do you have ever have an opinion that wasn’t formulated by Fox News?

      • philjourdan says:

        YOur first paragraph demonstrates your complete ignorance of business (Are you really Obama in drag?). REVENUE =/= PROFIT. Period. And what you fail to realize is that while England and Canada ONLY count necessary medical expenditures, the US figure includes ELECTIVE procedures (stuff like Lazik, or Boob Jobs – you need the latter). So they are not comparable. In addition, the socialized medicine countries ONLY count what the Government forks over – not what people spend on their own (so the trip to the US by the Newfoundland Premier is not part of THEIR cost, but is a part of ours). So your racist diatribe is merely more ignorance. And bereft of any factual data.

        FACT: The Government, on EVERY program has administrative costs ranging from 20% to over 50%. There is the Federal cost, then the state cost then the local (if applicable) cost. In one program alone (Chapter 2), the federal rules for the State (the feds have already charged their vigorish) states “up to 10% of the grant amount may be spent on administrative costs”. Look closely at that statement. Up to – for normal people that means they can spend no more than that amount, but they are not OBLIGATED to spend that amount. Yet the states spend exactly 10%. Why? They can. So that is 10% (a dime of every dollar) that never reaches its intended recipient. Add the federal 10-20%, plus a local matching of 10% and on a “good” program, only 60 cents of every dollar makes it to the intended beneficiary.

        Those are the facts Herr Kleagle. And that is what is happening with health care. FACTS. The current estimate for Obamacare is $2.6 trillion to insure what? 15 million people! Do the math phd! That means Obamacare is spending over $170k to insure EACH individual!

        And you mock the private health care? Show me where ANY private insurer spends over $170k to insure ANY individual!

        So you ever think before you write? Or are you naturally sheeple? These are all FACTS. Go to the CBO to get the lastest figures on the cost of Obamacare. ANd go to the CBO to get how many are CURRENTLY uninsured, and how many will be after Obamacare. And last, take a course in Accounting 101. So you can learn the difference between revenue and net profit.

        Mr, Kleagle.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          ROFL. Yeah boob jobs big boy that’s what’s inflating our medical costs. LoL

          Sadly you really think you know what you’re talking about!

  28. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 9, 2012 at 9:47 am

    Oh you’re another jack ass who refuses to look at the evidence. Give me some numbers big boy and tell me how you cut the rates as low as Mitt without either 1) increasing taxes on the middle class through elimination of tax deductions or 2) adding to the national debt.

    Number don’t lie, but PhilJourdan does!

    Talking to yourself again? My my, I would not have thought you were smart enough to call yourself a jackass. But then wonders never cease.

    You want the numbers? The middle class pays an effective rate of about 10% in taxes. Why? Deductions. Eliminate the deductions, and you could reduce the rate to 10%. net difference, 0.

    You are wrong again. I do not lie, but you apparently are math impaired. Try again.

    BTW: I am not saying he is going to eliminate all the deductions, nor is he going to reduce the rate to 10%. That is for demonstrative purposes for the sheep that do not know how to calculate percentages – like fraudulent phds.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Oh the simpleton math! Get an accountant to help you run the numbers this time. Mitt’s plan is a farce! He cannot lower the rates as he claims and keep his plan deficit neutral. He will be forced to eliminate just about every deduction the middle class loves – essentially raising their tax rates.

      Whether or not you choose to believe that is your problem? And we know you don’t believe in data if it doesn’t fit your political ideology.

      But the issue has been settled. Mittens plan, NOT FEASIBLE!

      (BTW Notice the lack of any credible counter response from Mittens people on the Tax Policy Center analysis!) “Ahh yup you all caught us” said the Mitt campaign. Fortunately Mitt can count on ideologues like you to not read the writing on the wall!

      • DirkH says:

        PhdScientists, you heard of google. Now is your change to use it. Enter http://www.google.com into that thing up there at the top of the program you’re staring at. Now enter “Laffer curve” in the middle of the screen. Hit enter.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Fox News talking point – irrelevant to the discussion. If you lived here you would realize taxes are the absolute lowest they’ve been in the United States in about 50 years. Every main stream economist knows that the only prescription for the US is both revenue increases and spending decreases.

          Sorry the deniers won’t win that one!

        • suyts says:

          Yes, Ph, and I just demonstrated on how to increase revenues. and I’ve demonstrated how increasing taxes makes little difference on total tax receipts.

          Most mainstream economists acknowledge the Laffer curve.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Man suyts! What are you doing on a blog when you’ve got all the answers for what troubles the US? You don’t really need to told how woefully inadequate and naive your government is the problem, just drill baby drill response is – do you?

          You’re right about one thing the Keystone pipeline would be great – for CANADA! It will give us what 5,000 jobs? (wow huge boost to the revenue department) It will allow the Canadians to get their crude down to the refineries in Texas and off to the international market place!

          And most main stream economists know we’re nowhere close to that tipping point on the Laffer curve.

        • suyts says:

          I didn’t say we were at the tipping point. I’m saying it we stay within the reasonable bounds with the tax rates, our receipts wont go much up or down regardless of the few percentage points people are quibbling about. It simply wont effect our deficit. The only way to significantly increase federal tax receipts is to put people back to work. Drilling, of course, would only be part of the answer. More importantly would be for cheaper, more reliable electricity, which has nothing to do with oil in the U.S.

          And, yes, this blog contains the answers to much of Americas economic woe. Pay attention, you might learn something.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha you’re so full of yourself it’s scary. Next you’re going to tell me this blog has the most up-to-date scientifically accurate information on global warming. If you believe that, I’ve got a statue of liberty I can sell you!

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Really why didn’t Simpson-Bowles just consult with Suyts – I mean all the answers are here! LoL

      • philjourdan says:

        Let me see if I got this correct. Should I believe a man who has started numerous sucessful businesses, employing thousands of workers, or some faker who does not know the difference between revenue and net income?

        And notice how you fail to come up with a single detail of Romney’s plan, instead just dismissing it out of hand because of your ignorance of simple accounting.

        Yea, like I am going to even give any credibility to your irrational hatred? Please! I am not a sheep like you! You have yet to write a single intelligent sentence on a subject you are clearly incompetent on.

        You are a walking punch line for a moron.

    • suyts says:

      Ph, I hate to interject in the midst of your conversation with Phil, but, most tax analysis is inherently incorrect because they try to calculate the incalculable, or they ignore it all together.

      Tax rates, in the way the U.S. presently uses them have little to do with the revenue of the U.S. government. See Hauser’s law. The fact is, if I were king for a day, I could easily increase the federal receipts without touching the tax code, and without additional federal expenditures. And, I could easily reduce federal expenditures without touching the tax code. How much increasing the receipts and reducing expenditures is always the question. So, when people say this tax plan will or won’t work, take it with a grain of salt, because the tax code is only part of the equation.

      If you’re wondering how I could easily increase receipts ….. rescind the EPA most recent rulings on coal. This would immediately put recently laid off workers back to work and paying taxes. Stamp the “okay” for the Keystone pipeline. This would immediately put more people to work, paying taxes.

      If we rolled back some of the EPA’s more egregious rulings, we could save on regulator expenditures. In spite of this administration’s promise to cut out redundancy at the federal level, we haven’t. All of this, and much more, can be done irrespective of our tax code.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Well I think you’re living in a bit of fantasy land. I guess we could also let the oil companies drill anywhere they damn well please – hey that would put some more people back to work.

        However, the truth is that those sort of fanciful stimulus activities were actually put into the analysis of Mitt Romney’s plan. Actually the tax policy center did everything they could to try and make Mitt’s plan work – including adding in unrealistic numbers of stimulus growth and getting people back to work. And you know what happened – his numbers still didn’t add up.

        Now I know around this board we don’t like numbers or science, unless it fits our ideological agenda, but at some point we’re going to have to stop being deniers and read the writing on the wall!

        • suyts says:

          Lol, Ph, you’re hilarious. One of the biggest criticisms of Romney is that he’s lacked specifics on his plan. But, the TPC was able to do analysis on Romney’s plan, which lacks specifics. So you quote the TPC, and then claim we don’t like numbers or science. Does you’re “science” include crystal ball gazing? The TPC’s last analysis on Romney was in March.

          Then, of course, the question would be, Mitts plan opposed to what? We’ve suffered under Obama’s debt accumulating plans for 3 1/2 years. Resulting in what? Nothing but high unemployment and a period of the greatest debt accumulation in the history of the world. But, Mitts numbers don’t add up? Okay, who’s doing the addition for team Obama?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha! Oh so instead of trusting real world economists you’re confined that Mitt Romney is going to pull some magic out of his hat and make his stated numbers work, huh? He’s got some brilliant dream team with the answer and they’re just not sharing it because????

          You’re a fool!

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          *confident

        • suyts says:

          Do you think it necessary to misrepresent what I’ve stated? Is this some requirement from the left?

          Ph I’ve never stating anything about Romney’s plan for the very reason I’ve noted earlier. There isn’t enough detail to make any assumptions about them.

          So, before ascribing the “fool” characteristic, I’d ask who you think is more foolish? Someone who withholds judgment, awaiting more information? Someone who makes judgments without the requisite information? Or, someone who trusts the people who make judgments without the requisite information?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And tell me again why don’t we have any details this late in the game? We can go with the info given and there’s no chance of making it work. So what should we do? Take Mitt on his word that he’ll get it all fixed up later? Another Bush tax cut deficit bomb?

        • suyts says:

          Ph, I’m really interested in your definition of “work”. What does it mean to you that some budget will or won’t work? We’re operating on no budget at the moment is this “working” for you? Your talking about Bush tax cuts? Obama has extended them every year he’s been in office. This includes the years Dems held the majority in both House and Senate. So, blaming those on Bush is a bit dishonest, no? They are as much of Obama’s as they are Bush’s.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Man you twist and turn just like a little snake. So you don’t like that Obama has extended the Bush tax cuts? But you do like that Romney will cut taxes even further?

        • suyts says:

          I didn’t say that. I’m simply pointing out that its a bit odd that you’d talk about Bush, and talk about Romney, but you’re not mentioning what Obama has done. In the context of Romney, I think its rational to compare the alternative, rather than making references to a guy who hasn’t been president for 3 1/2 years.

          And, I think if we’re going to talk about a tax plan that “works”, we probably ought to come to an agreement on the term. Then we can make the proper comparisons and contrasts from one candidates non-plans to the other candidates non-plans.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And what I remember is a President Obama trying extremely hard to cut a deal with John Boehner and get nearly 4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. I remember Obama bucking the parties liberals and agreeing to a lot of sacred cow spending cuts. I also remember the Republicans being so scare of their overlord Grover Norquist that any revenue increase was off the table! Even at a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases – it was far too much for them!

          What do you say to Mann and Ornstein? Two very well respected political historians. Who concur the Republican party has gone off the ideological deep end?

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

        • suyts says:

          I thought we’ve already been over this one? Perhaps it was someone else. The reason why leftist perceive Republicans as unreasonable is the because the membership of the party got tired of the constant caving to the extreme left and pretending it was any compromise. Look at what all of that compromise has brought us!

          So, yes, if they wish to characterize Republicans being obstructionists to the left, I say good for them. And, so does most of the country.

          We got tired of the constant assault on our society, laws, culture and history. We’re still tired of the enslavement through entitlement. We’re tired of forfeiting our future in deficit spending. We’re tired of the constant usurpation and centralizing of power to the fed. We’re tired of the wealth confiscation. But, most of all, we’re simply tired of the left.

        • suyts says:

          BTW, that $4trillion number is all imaginary. There never was any $4trillion in cuts. It was $4 trillion in cuts of anticipated spending which was pure fantasy as well. It was a ridiculous engagement on both sides and anyone else who got caught up in it.

          But, Obama knew this. He had two years to propose his imaginary cuts to Pelosi, but he never did. Anyone believing that was something other than political theater needs their heads examined.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha no it was me, I just wanted to see how your answer changes depending on which Republican cause you’re trying to advance! I’m glad you’ve finally admitted you’re a committed ideological Republican (if that wasn’t glaringly obvious by just looking at the posts on this board).

          I guess Mann and Ornstein see it different. They’ve studied congress for 40 years and they see today’s Republican party as completely out of touch with reality. As wanting to fundamentally change the way America is run. As completely ignoring any science (and reality) they disagree with.

          Hey now I know why you’re a bagger – that just described you to a tee (tea?)! 🙂

        • suyts says:

          Ph, you never fail to amaze me in your inability to understand what I’m saying. I’m not so much ideologically Republican, but rather, embrace them in their opposition to the left.

          As to the M&O article. It amazes me about their inability to grasp the lessons learned from times past. ——- Bush senior compromised with the left. The Repubs, held their noses and ran him for re-election. The left mercilessly punished Bush sr. for the very compromise they demanded. You, M&O and Obama all seem to advocate that Repubs should be more like Bush Sr. Lol, I bet you all do!

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        No Suyts what the left wants is the tea baggers to come to grips with reality. Americans are not going to agree that social security and medicare should go away any time soon. Nor are they comfortable putting those programs into the hands of Mitt Romney’s buddies at the big banks.

        Let’s just admit Mann and Ornstein are much more objective than you. They call for the Republicans to admit to economic and political realities and work with the Democrats to get things accomplished. We can’t simply have Republicans calling for deficit-busting lower taxes and wishful thinking on health care.

        But you’re right. The real reason Republican’s won’t compromise with Obama is because they think that putting the country into the shitter is their way of winning back the White House. Then they can get in there and run up the deficit with their tax cuts on the wealthy err “job creators”…

        • suyts says:

          Is it necessary to use a sexual innuendo each time you reference half of the American public? Can you name me one recognized politician advocating an end to social security and medicare? Is that you simply parroting leftist talking points or do you honestly believe the TEA party advocates getting rid of SS?

          Economic realities? Are you kidding me? Ph, you just gave me the best laugh of the day! Deficit-busting tax cuts? HAHAHAHA!!! As opposed to the deficit busted and would still remain, deficit spending tax increases proposed by the left?

          Sure, tell me which Dem has a balanced budget plan? Or, can you tell me what tax rates would achieve a balanced budget?

          Repubs don’t have to put the country in the shitter, Obama was happy to do the job. Again, if Obama didn’t like the tax structure, he had ample time to fix it while his party held large majorities in both houses.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Now I know why this is called “suyts space” because you’re living in your own world! First 1/2 of the country are not baggers. Last time I checked the tea baggers had nearly as low an approval rating as congress!

          Tell me Suyts which Republican has a balanced budget plan? George W Bush put the country in the shitter and Obama was left trying to dig us out of it, with no help from the baggers.

        • suyts says:

          Which Dem does? You said Romney’s tax plan wouldn’t “work”. This heavily implies that there may be a viable alternative out there. Obama is trying to dig us out by increasing the regulatory burden? Imposing the insurance mandate? Closing coal gen plants? Nixing “shovel ready” privately funded projects like the keystone? Throwing our money away on renewable fantasies? What, exactly, has he done, or even proposed that would move this economy ahead?

          The fact is, it seems like everything he does is to thwart growth. When all he has to do, what any president would have to do, is ensure the government stays out of the way for a while.

        • philjourdan says:

          The left wants to eat the goose laying the golden eggs. That is all they want.

          As far as what gays want, some are left and some are right. But I would suspect all live in reality. Unlike you. Talking points are not reality. Not even close.

  29. kelly liddle says:

    Bernanke has the answer “Print baby Print”

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Well it’s probably safer than drill baby drill, but the problem is the money is going to the banks and not to the people.

      • DirkH says:

        You learned to use google? Fine. Now we have a slightly more difficult task.
        Google “Friedman helicopter” (without the quotes) to find out what Milton Friedman meant when he explained what happens when a helicopter drops money on “the people”.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Tell me Dirk, is it tough being a teabagger wannabe while living in Germany? I mean really you should move to the US so you can march in their rallies with some guns on your side and some teabags on the brim of your fishing hat!

      • philjourdan says:

        Not hardly. Bernanke’s solution is a tax on everyone – and does nothing for the government debt. It is called I-N-F-L-A-T-I-O-N. Which means everyone has less, including the governemnt.

        Economics 101. Try a course.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, it’s a bit frustrating because this idea is gaining a lot of traction, not just here but also in Europe. People are always looking for shortcuts around doing real work.

  30. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Hahaha! Wow that “Me” guy is both stupid and obsessed!

    I know of a couple good psychiatrists – I think you should definitely seek help!!!!

    Looky here! Now he is talking to himself and insulting himself! I guess he realizes he has lost every debate, even the one with himself! No one needs to use insults with phd, he seems to be insulting himself for all of us!

  31. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 9:35 am

    Fox News talking point – irrelevant to the discussion. If you lived here you would realize taxes are the absolute lowest they’ve been in the United States in about 50 years. Every main stream economist knows that the only prescription for the US is both revenue increases and spending decreases.

    Ignorance talking point (don’t know about Fox since I have not seen them talking about it). Federal INCOME tax is pegging at 18% of GDP – the historical AVERAGE over the last 50 years. Now for the math challenged (raise your hand phd), that means that some years were a wee bit lower, and some years were a wee bit higher. And that means since it is the AVERAGE, it cannot possibly be the “lowest in the last 50 years”. Dirk knows more about your country than you do. But then he does not have to filter everything through talking points to see reality.

    Try his suggestion – if you can actually spell google.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Two words Big Boy: FACT CHECK. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/

      Taxes are going to have to go up for everyone and spending is going to have to come down if this country will ever climb out of debt. There is no if’s, and’s or but’s about it. The rich can afford to pay more now, the rest of us, as the economy stabilizes, are going to have to contribute as well. Those are the FACTS!

        • philjourdan says:

          Hmmm… From your own link:

          2001 19.5 18.2 1.3
          2002 17.6 19.1 -1.5
          2003 16.2 19.7 -3.4
          2004 16.1 19.6 -3.5

          2005 17.3 19.9 -2.6
          2006 18.2 20.1 -1.9
          2007 18.5 19.6 -1.2
          2008 17.6 20.8 -3.2

          What part of about 18% do you not understand?

          Now, could receipts have fallen off since Obama took office? Now why would that happen? Hmm……maybe 16% unemployment? Maybe an aborted recovery? What tax cuts has Obama instituted? Hmmm……NONE? How many tax increases has Obama instituted? 21. What happens when you RAISE taxes? INCOME goes DOWN!

          Shazaam! Thank you for playing. Come back when you actually rebut what I stated.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha you arrogant twat. You don’t get to change your story in mid-stream when I prove you wrong. Here is what your said “Federal INCOME tax is pegging at 18% of GDP”.

          Now that you were proven wrong you’re blaming Obama for tax increases and GDP THAT IS NOT PEGGING 18%….. LOL WHAP SHAZAAM BIG BOY just got caught in more of his B.S.!!

          Man you’re stupider than I ever imagined!

          By the way big boy, the vast vast vast majority of Americans are paying less taxes now than when Obama took office (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/01/barack-obama/obama-says-taxes-lower-middle-class/).

          So come back when you’ve got a little TRUTH to share and you’re not just stroking your own big belly and patting yourself on the back. OK!?!

      • suyts says:

        Ph, Do you realize you’ve presented the argument that we don’t have to raise taxes in order to increase revenues? Look at your tax policy link again. Yes, as a percentage of GDP, we’re at the low end. But, with almost exactly the same tax rate, in 2007 we collected 18.5%. And, we’re projected to collect 19% in 2015. Now, I don’t believe the 19% in 2015, but why do you think it is projected?

        Now, how is that possible, do you believe? Currently, our GDP is about $15.5 trillion. If we do increase our receipts as a percentage of GDP to 18% -19%, then we could increase our gross receipts by about $500 billion. But, if the percentage does increase, without increasing taxes, this hints at an increase in GDP itself. Which would further increase federal revenues, but more to the point, this also hints at more people contributing in taxes. (See the left side column)

        More people contributing in taxes under current tax code means there is less need for entitlements. Therefore, we can cut spending without harming the needy and without creating barriers for upward movement in income levels with progressive tax increases.

        Again, couching this in terms of % of GDP isn’t the proper thing to do, because we can lower our total receipts while increasing the % of GDP contributed to federal revenue.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And Suyts we also had a budget deficit in 2007 as well – even with higher revenue increase (and probably a much higher budget deficit than what was reported at the time as we know the Bush administration had some fancy accounting tricks for keeping their wars off the books).

          Now of course we can cut spending, but why do you suggest entitlements for the needy are drivers of the budget? Don’t you mean we can first cut spending on our ridiculously bloated defense budget to help cut into the debt and deficit and as more people are back to work we can begin trimming back these domestic programs?

          Couching this in terms of %GDP is certainly the appropriate thing to do as it allows us to compare revenue rates over time. If you didn’t want to “couch” it in terms of %GDP (as PhilJourdan did) then we’re back to seeing that actual tax rates are also the lowest they’ve been in 30 years. So clearly to get a better view of what is going on with taxes and revenues we need to see what the tax rates are and what % of GDP is coming in as revenue and going out as spending. I’ll actually give PhilJourdan that point, we need to look at both, problem is he’s wrong it’s not currently around 18% of GDP…Now just because you don’t like the way those numbers look doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to look at, that’s just denialism!

          Furthermore we don’t know if the tax policy center is assuming Bush era tax breaks ending when they project 19% revenue in 2013. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that we’re going to have this huge economic boom that leads to that much higher revenue coming in.

        • suyts says:

          The defense budget could easily be trimmed. All we have to do is change the procurement procedures. Did you catch that we’re paying $26 a gallon fuel for our “green Navy”? And, to be sure, I’d prefer going after that sort of waste and tax payer gouging first.

          But, in the end, we all know SS and Medicare have to be addressed. By the time us boomers all get retired, there’s no amount of taxing which can cover the costs.

          I believe Phil did state “average”, but I’ll let you guys argue that point.

          The thing is, the 15% Obama has accomplished is an outlier. Bush, with his cuts and all averaged 17.625% of GDP. And, no, the wars weren’t unaccounted, the just weren’t budgeted. They went straight to the debt. And, they still do.

          Ph, if Obama had his way and ended the cuts for the “rich” it would generate about $69 billion. Do the math.

          “There is certainly no evidence to suggest that we’re going to have this huge economic boom that leads to that much higher revenue coming in.”

          We find ourselves in complete agreement with this statement. I’m working to change that outlook.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Please see what I wrote all say it again! WE ARE ALL GOING TO HAVE TO PAY MORE. We know the rich can afford it, so they can start paying more next year. We know the economy is still a bit fragile so the middle class (drivers of this economy) should be given another couple years to recoup some of what they lost in the recession and then they’re going to have to contribute a little more as well. We also continue to trim spending along the way, starting first with defense and then the other two of the big 3.

          So yes we do agree. Only, I don’t see Mittens proposal of tax cuts for the rich as the way forward. Or you could say no, Mitt is going to cut rates for everyone, but of course we know in doing this he’ll add to the national debt. Here’s the thing, been there done that -doesn’t work!

        • suyts says:

          What tax cut for the rich? Do you have any specifics on that? Further, please read what I’ve been saying. There is no amount of taxes which are going to get us out of this hole.

          Only by growing the economy and there by increasing the fed revenue, do we have a chance to escape a Greece like debt crisis.

          Why tax people more when we know it can’t work?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Please read what I’ve been saying. Taxes are at all time lows, even if we cut spending (as we need to do) we still can’t get out this whole. The only chance we have to escape a Greek like debt crisis is to realize the government needs to BOTH decrease tax spending and increasing revenues. It’s wishful thinking to think that this revenue increase is going to come wholly from “growing the economy” when tax rates are at their lowest rates in decades and the market remains unconvinced that the US is serious about tackling it’s debt problems.

          Furthermore, we know the US has a crumbling infrastructure and that other countries, especially the Chinese are making leaps and bounds in their technological advances. This means that it is and will continue to be impossible to cut government spending as deeply as someone such as Paul Ryan would suggest. In fact infrastructure spending and basic science research, among others, are very wise governmental investments that have paid and continue to pay huge dividends.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          *sorry i’m multitasking, excuse the multiple spelling and grammatical errors.

        • suyts says:

          Ph, the reason why cuts have to come first is because our govt can’t let the increased revenue just sit there. They will spend it as soon as they get it. If any increase in taxes resulted in increased revenue, which isn’t convincing at this moment, then it would immediately be spent. There’s no point in pursuing that avenue. Neither party has demonstrated that they can leave money to sit there. Cuts first, and then see what we need.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Wrong, cuts and revenue increases as part of one big compromise package! If the Republicans can’t come around to that then boot them all out of office!

      • philjourdan says:

        Fact check is not the primary source. I gave you the primary source. Try again. Fact check is merely a political tool that likes to spin things. Go to the primary source. YOu do know how to do that, correct? Probably not, but it was worth a shot.

        FACT CHECK with the primary source. bls.gov and GAO.gov. They have the actual figures. Not spin.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahahaha Phil everyone knows Obama cut taxes on the middle class.

          Wait let me start over, maybe if I present this the way you and other on this board speak you’ll understand.

          Hahahaha Phil everyone who collects a paycheck and is not on the government’s teat collecting unemployments knows that Obama cut taxes on the middle class. Since you’re likely unfamiliar with payroll – google the Obama pay roll tax cuts!

          Haha and now FactCheck is a political spin tool. Hahaha! It’s like one conspiracy theory after another for you isn’t it big boy? Now you’re talking about the same GAO that reports Obamacare has a net positive effect on the long-term fiscal outlook, right?!? How can they be trusted!

        • suyts says:

          Ph, A cut in our SS entitlements is a bit of a stretch to an actual tax cut. But, I do thank him for letting me keep an extra $20.

  32. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Man suyts! What are you doing on a blog when you’ve got all the answers for what troubles the US? You don’t really need to told how woefully inadequate and naive your government is the problem, just drill baby drill response is – do you?

    You’re right about one thing the Keystone pipeline would be great – for CANADA! It will give us what 5,000 jobs? (wow huge boost to the revenue department) It will allow the Canadians to get their crude down to the refineries in Texas and off to the international market place!

    And most main stream economists know we’re nowhere close to that tipping point on the Laffer curve.

    Love the strawmen. You failed to address a single point Suyts made, and instead attacked him for a point he has not made. Actually, you used the shotgun and accused him of making several points he did not make. Do you read? Do you understand what you read? Or are you merely an automaton that is wound up and then regurgitates the talking points fed into you?

    I suspect the latter and that is why you are a racist homophobic bigot.

  33. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Haha! Oh so instead of trusting real world economists you’re confined that Mitt Romney is going to pull some magic out of his hat and make his stated numbers work, huh? He’s got some brilliant dream team with the answer and they’re just not sharing it because????

    What real world economists would that be? Timmy? Never worked a day in his life in the private sector (but managed to bilk the government out of thousands of tax dollars). Summers? Ditto. Krugman? Well, he did work a day of his life in the private sector – for ENRON!

    Yea, I can see your economic gods. And none are real world. Just like you.

  34. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    And tell me again why don’t we have any details this late in the game? We can go with the info given and there’s no chance of making it work. So what should we do? Take Mitt on his word that he’ll get it all fixed up later? Another Bush tax cut deficit bomb?

    Bush tax cut deficit bomb? The Bush tax cuts cut one trillion over 10 years. TEN. Obama blew that in a single year. No, the Bush Tax cut is a nice whipping boy for ignorant fools, but realists who look at the numbers realize it is nothing but a drop in the bucket.

    There is not enough revenue in society to feed the federal spending monster. But then I doubt you have the intelligence to read that study.

  35. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    Haha you’re so full of yourself it’s scary. Next you’re going to tell me this blog has the most up-to-date scientifically accurate information on global warming. If you believe that, I’ve got a statue of liberty I can sell you!

    Just like a liberal – to sell what is not theirs.

    I would not say that Suyts has all the information. But it is apparent he knows infinitely more than you do.

  36. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Man you twist and turn just like a little snake. So you don’t like that Obama has extended the Bush tax cuts? But you do like that Romney will cut taxes even further?

    So a tax cut for Obama is good? What differentiates a Bush dollar from an Obama Dollar? If the tax cuts were bad for Bush, but good for Obama, how does the economy know the difference?

    Yea, I can see your phd is not in thinking.

  37. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    And what I remember is a President Obama trying extremely hard to cut a deal with John Boehner and get nearly 4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. I remember Obama bucking the parties liberals and agreeing to a lot of sacred cow spending cuts. I also remember the Republicans being so scare of their overlord Grover Norquist that any revenue increase was off the table! Even at a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases – it was far too much for them!

    What do you say to Mann and Ornstein? Two very well respected political historians. Who concur the Republican party has gone off the ideological deep end?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

    You remember incorrectly. As Obama never did that. He agreed to many things, and then renegged on them. Indeed, he submitted a budget (which does not require Boehner’s approval) that showed increasing debts. Obama never proposed any solution that reduced the debt. Period.

    Here’s another one for you. Debating 101 – Opinions are not facts. Did you get your degree from a box of cracker jacks? I doubt any accredited college gave you one.

  38. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Now I know why this is called “suyts space” because you’re living in your own world! First 1/2 of the country are not baggers. Last time I checked the tea baggers had nearly as low an approval rating as congress!

    Tell me Suyts which Republican has a balanced budget plan? George W Bush put the country in the shitter and Obama was left trying to dig us out of it, with no help from the baggers.

    Yes, the generally accepted view is that about 3% are gay, and part of that number is women, who would not qualify. However, most polls show that about 50% of the nation either do not care or are sympathetic to gay causes. SO you lose again.

    I am sure you are a riot at a rainbow parade.

  39. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 13, 2012 at 7:52 am

    ROFL. Yeah boob jobs big boy that’s what’s inflating our medical costs. LoL

    Sadly you really think you know what you’re talking about

    Happily I do. I notice that you merely perform another drive by ad hominem racist attack without refuting anything I wrote. At least you are getting smart enough to know that your lies do not refute my facts. Still not smart enough to know that useless insults and opinions do not refute facts either.

  40. ThePhDScientist says:

    LOL. Phil if you weren’t such an arrogant child I would really find you a riot! I’m not sure which right wing website you’re getting you’re using to form your illogical and incorrect opinions, but nowhere in any of your posts have you actually provided any real reasons why US health care costs are so much more expensive than those of other countries.

    If you want to do the real boring work of actually understanding the problem, I can recommend some rather dry reading for you. Why don’t you start here (http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Policy-Research.aspx) and get back to me in a couple weeks when you can get some real-life grasp on the problem?!?

    What you’ll notice Phil, nowhere in there is “underreporting of boob jobs in the United States” put forward as a reason why our health care costs are so much higher than those of other Western democracies. BUT I will say that has given myself and some of the people I work with a good hearty laugh. So I thank you for that! It still amazes me what kind of ridiculous fact-free ideas come out of our fair tea-party!

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Oh and until you grow up and start providing some thoughtful responses, you’re going to get my “drive-by” posts as I don’t have countless hours to respond to such ridiculous things! Sorry, I wish I did – it is fun!

      • philjourdan says:

        I have provided a lot of thoughtful responses – when the occassion merits. You sticking your fingers in your ears while yelling lalalalala (can you spell that one?) is not an occassion. You ranted and babbled without me posting a single word. So why do I have to provide anything thoughtful – when you do not have the capacity to think?

    • philjourdan says:

      Sorry phd, I present facts, back them up with sourcing. A concept foreign to you. Not opinion, facts. I have noticed you are alergic to them. And I have noticed that when faced with a factual presentation, you resort to your childish games of ad hominems and denail.

      Your maniacal laughs bother me not. I already know I occupy your head. That is entertainment enough for me. To watch you make a fool of yourself with a child, and then to blame everyone else for your own inadequacies.

      YOu are doing more damage for every cause you support than all the facts on earth. You think you are so smart, but anyone will tell you (even your mickey mann) that a raving lunatic is not a poster boy for a cause.

  41. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 10:13 am

    And Suyts we also had a budget deficit in 2007 as well – even with higher revenue increase (and probably a much higher budget deficit than what was reported at the time as we know the Bush administration had some fancy accounting tricks for keeping their wars off the books).

    Now of course we can cut spending, but why do you suggest entitlements for the needy are drivers of the budget? Don’t you mean we can first cut spending on our ridiculously bloated defense budget to help cut into the debt and deficit and as more people are back to work we can begin trimming back these domestic programs?

    Couching this in terms of %GDP is certainly the appropriate thing to do as it allows us to compare revenue rates over time. If you didn’t want to “couch” it in terms of %GDP (as PhilJourdan did) then we’re back to seeing that actual tax rates are also the lowest they’ve been in 30 years. So clearly to get a better view of what is going on with taxes and revenues we need to see what the tax rates are and what % of GDP is coming in as revenue and going out as spending. I’ll actually give PhilJourdan that point, we need to look at both, problem is he’s wrong it’s not currently around 18% of GDP…Now just because you don’t like the way those numbers look doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to look at, that’s just denialism!

    We sure did have a deficit in 07 and 08. Less than $400b each. When did the deficits soar? When obama took over. Tax rates are NOT the lowest in 30 years. Tax REVENUES are. And why? Could it be that 16% unemployment? Could it be over 1 million FEWER workers today than 4 years ago? I am still inhabiting your head. And you are still babbling.

    Your numbers prove my point. And DISPROVE your opinions and lies.

    Back to school for you. The rate was 28% in 1988 – let’s see, if I carry the 1, and subtract the 2, that means 24 years ago! Shazaam!

    I know you do not feel like the fool. You are not smart enough to know when you have been owned.

  42. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Please see what I wrote all say it again! WE ARE ALL GOING TO HAVE TO PAY MORE. We know the rich can afford it, so they can start paying more next year. We know the economy is still a bit fragile so the middle class (drivers of this economy) should be given another couple years to recoup some of what they lost in the recession and then they’re going to have to contribute a little more as well. We also continue to trim spending along the way, starting first with defense and then the other two of the big 3.

    Hmmm…what was the percent in 2000? 18.2% of GDP (spending). What was my contention? 18%. Ok, I give you the .2%.

    What is the percent in 2012? 24.3% WOW! 33% higher! How about this. Instead of stealing more money, we REDUCE spending to 18%.

    What was it I said at the beginning? Oh yea, Revenues have been about 18% historically. Spending is now running at almost 25% The problem is not revenues. Let the people go back to work and you will get more revenue. But never enough to satisfy the federal monster.

    You have just been served again.

    Oh, and in case you are wondering, while I am using your figures, I fully acknowledge that are incorrect according to the GAO official numbers. However, they are close enoug for government work. Your work actually.

  43. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Please read what I’ve been saying. Taxes are at all time lows, even if we cut spending (as we need to do) we still can’t get out this whole. The only chance we have to escape a Greek like debt crisis is to realize the government needs to BOTH decrease tax spending and increasing revenues. It’s wishful thinking to think that this revenue increase is going to come wholly from “growing the economy” when tax rates are at their lowest rates in decades and the market remains unconvinced that the US is serious about tackling it’s debt problems.

    The solution for an alcoholic is not to give him MORE booze. It is to cut him off. The federal government has not shown any propensity to save when given more revenue. They do not need more. They can survive fine on their own.

    If they allow the private sector to grow. Obama has denied them that ability.

  44. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Wrong, cuts and revenue increases as part of one big compromise package! If the Republicans can’t come around to that then boot them all out of office!

    Like the compromise of 83 and 86? Like the compromise of 91? yea, they REALLY cut spending those years, right?

    Oh wait! No they did not. They simply SPENT more.

  45. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 15, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Haha you arrogant twat. You don’t get to change your story in mid-stream when I prove you wrong. Here is what your said “Federal INCOME tax is pegging at 18% of GDP”.

    Now that you were proven wrong you’re blaming Obama for tax increases and GDP THAT IS NOT PEGGING 18%….. LOL WHAP SHAZAAM BIG BOY just got caught in more of his B.S.!!

    What did I say at the beginning? Something about the Primary source? Oh, yea! GO TO THE PRIMARY SOURCE. I clearly stated “even using your figures”. Which means I used them to show you how wrong you were. I gave you the link to the GAO for the REAL figures.

    Try to keep up. And not be so childish. You have been shown the facts. But like a mule, no one can make you learn.

  46. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 15, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Hahahaha Phil everyone who collects a paycheck and is not on the government’s teat collecting unemployments knows that Obama cut taxes on the middle class. Since you’re likely unfamiliar with payroll – google the Obama pay roll tax cuts!

    No, the 21 tax cuts more than offset the Obama payroll (note not income tax) cut. The payroll tax cut merely is bankrupting SS that much faster. SO sell that to the seniors.

    As for Factcheck, it is indeed a political tool. Glad you understand. And the GAO does not report Obamacare has a net positive impact. When it was originally written, that was the claim. However as more of the bill is understood, they now classify it as a 2.7t dollar detriment (I do not guess you keep up with the times). So continue to resurrect ancient documents to support your now totally debunked opinions. I will continue to go to the source, because I want the truth. Not spin. I fully understand your inability to grasp the difference.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      But Factcheck wasn’t a political tool when you used it a few days ago in your response to me? You make me laugh big boy!

      AND BTW I didn’t know Obama had passed 21 tax “CUTS”..Wow he’s cutting taxes even more than I thought! Thanks for that info!

      • philjourdan says:

        YOu are delusional again. I did not use factcheck in a response to you. I go to the primary source since I found (in studying the AGW issue) that secondary sources are prone to manipulation by those who are in control.

        And I apologize for the misstatement. Obamacare has 21 tax increases. Unlike you, I can admit my mistakes. I am human after all, not a demigod that you consider yourself to be,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s