So hard to find good reliable sources these days. May take me some time, but deficits and budgets on government spending are something I will be trying to find...

I do have to point out though, that in 2008/2009 there would have been the largest deficits as a result of government bailouts, would there not? Was the bailout money given in large lump sums or short term payments?

I don't want to get into a debate on whose worse, i think you will find that "cognitive dissonance" runs at least equal in that of democrats. For instance, republicans may seek tax refuge , deregulation, etc. for the wealthy, but democrats will flat out pay them large sums of tax payer money and strut around like they are heroes for doing so...

That being said:

The ACA carries with it flaws that may send out healthcare spiraling down faster than before. These flaws have not been addressed. Yes, more people who didn't have health insurance will now have it. However the new taxes on medical equipment will increase costs, not letting doctors deny insurance will increase costs(doctors actually lose money with certain insurances), insurance being used more frequently will also increase costs (as we are adding a third party who all need to get paid), more paperwork will decrease the amount of care provided to patients (doctors already spend several hours per workday on paperwork for medicare/medicaid). With increasing costs and decreasing efficiency, who will float the bill? I worry because there aren't provisions that I am aware of, that will protect doctors salaries (or any other healthcare provider by that matter). Lower salaries = less doctors + more patients = lower quality of care, and higher burnout for healthcare workers.

I do agree we need to do something, but the philosophy of "lets pass it to see whats in it" can be quite dangerous. I would argue that perhaps to do nothing would have been a better approach than pushing through this particular bill.

We need more debate, more research, and less political games.

Wow...just...wow.... I've discovered a whole new level of disgust. They have gone too far.

The spec ops communities of all branches (at least Navy and Army)are definitely no fan of the current administration. This is with good cause. Spec ops are supposed to be under the radar for many reasons, one of which, is the protection of these soldiers' family members. This behavior is quite offensive.

Is this income tax or all combined taxes and fees? For instance, the U.S. claims to only collect a couple thousand a year on "taxes" per person. However, they are only speaking of income tax. There are state income taxes, sales taxes, vehicle registrations, various permits, fees for licenses, social security, medicare, property tax, inflation, etc.

Nor is it of being a democrat....

You are right, republicans have painted themselves in a corner. Had they been smart, they would have let this ACA through. If the system failed, it could become ammo in the next campaign, winning them ground.

Not sure if I would like republicans to be rid of, as they hold the democrats at bay. Either party unchecked would wreck our country in a single 4 year term...

Wish we could abolish both, and actually have elections not based on a party system, but on actual ideals, plans, and information.

Im not even so sure that he was responsible fore driving too close. Seems they were driving erratically, he got cut off... He stopped for a bit, then sped off. Perhaps he was met with aggression? If that were the case, I cannot blame him for his actions.

Libertarians?

Really, i may be out of touch a bit, but they really tried to put congress on this plan?

New taxes on medical equipment and supplies, doctors no longer being able to refuse insurance companies, and possible(likely) increase in "red tape"...

I agree that our deficit needs to be worked on. I have an issue with the ramifications, economically, involved with raising taxes during a recession...
Building a cash reserve may not be a bad idea, if and only if, we somehow fix our spending problem, or else those reserves will never exist regardless of taxes. In fact, what is likely to happen is a dependency on the new income to maintain spending hikes. Then we are at ground zero once again. Historically this has happened multiple times.



I commend you for understanding that the famous "loop hole" everyone keeps talking about (where the upper 1% only pay 15% in taxes) is actually talking about capital gains. From an economics standpoint raising capital gains would #1 discourage investors from investing in stock, and #2 decrease the value of retirement plans.

Another thing to think about is the fact that many people, particularly middle class, get ahead through real estate. Either they have land handed down to them, or they buy a house or apartment building instead of renting, to build equity. This would also fall under capital gains.

The issue I see, is not in attacking a demographic or class of people, but in massive corporations, internationally, dodging taxes. We need to look into companies like google, Pfizer, and other companies, paying zero tax, because they can arrange all income to appear to be made in other countries (with no tax), and all expenses to occur in the U.S. If we could close this loop hole, while simultaneously lowering our high corporate tax rates, perhaps we could attract more business in the U.S. thereby, increasing government revenue as jobs start pouring in (and by the loophole being closed). It would be a win-win, instead of a win-lose (unless you happen to be the upper echelon of one of these companies).

Just a thought...

Agreed.

Another reason is the political ramifications on our administration during sensitive times. The Obama administration had gained approval by killing Bin Laden, and "cutting off the head of Al-Qaeda". We were led to believe that this would cripple that terrorist faction.

Seems it didn't work as planned. To admit that would hinder the campaign advantage.

Unfortunately any party and any campaign (with a very few exceptions) would do the same thing.

It's called politics.

Couple these together, and i believe we have answered the OP.

I also have a fear. As we attempt to bleed those that are lining their pockets, they keep getting richer and doctors are now taking pay cuts. I see this happening as we speak. Doctors are getting laid off or take a cut in pay, while the hospital CEO gets a $200,000 bonus this year, on top of his already seven figure income.

Doctors, even at $200,000 a year, are very under paid. If we don't make provisions to protect them from blanket policies that go after those that actually do get overpaid, then our entire system will come crashing down around us over the next decade or so.

I have to admit, yes, the for-profit system we have developed is a scam. Yes, there are too many people lining their pockets on a system that seems to bleed from average person.

I agree that health insurance, in general, was a terrible idea economically. It adds too much red tape, and now there are hundreds of thousands of workers that are providing no actual benefit, but are now collecting money from the average person.

In fact, there are a few doctors offices, and clinics who refuse government insurance, and many of them refuse all insurance unless the bill is catastrophic. The resulting bill paid for these clinics is about $40 for a doctor visit (you can often make the visit on the day of scheduling).

So yes, I agree, something needs to be done...

That being said; I have a few issues with the new healthcare plan...

First of which is forcing doctors offices and clinics to accept payment via insurance. This, by itself, would either severely jack up the prices at all the cheaper, more efficient clinics/offices mentioned above, or shut them down.

Second of which are the taxes that are being placed on medical equipment/supplies/etc. This would also have an affect of increasing cost of care, forcing people to use insurance more often.

Third, which may or may not be the case, is the potential for increasing that infamous "red tape" that gums up our system and further increases costs, while at the same time, lowers quality of care as physicians spend several hours a work day filling paperwork instead of treating patients.

Yet, most violent crimes (including firearm homicides) occur in metropolitan areas. This is a trend set worldwide. Another trend is the relationship to economic factors. Violence/crime always seem to follow poverty...

If there were guarantees that gun control would stop at the registration level, I would have no problem with it. There is no such guarantee.

This is a reasonable concern. AR 15's and even the real assault weapons (the military issue ones) are designed to wound (albeit mortally) and have little stopping power. Shotguns are designed to stop and kill. Not to sound morbid, but I've seen people run several blocks after taking a couple rounds to the torso before dropping. People that do enough close quarters often change weapons to a larger caliber, or go with shotguns. Either way, when chaos falls, it is easier for the untrained person to hit a target with a shotgun than a rifle. Also, those who use shotguns don't have to sacrifice as much range as many think.

Using this logic, our first step towards stricter gun laws is disarming law enforcement. In all fairness people would be more willing and open minded about new laws if this were to happen...

I have said this before...

I am not saying the government is our enemy. They are not necessarily out to enslave us, yet. It is, however, the natural course of any entity to seek expansion, power, and control (this is seen as "progression". Innocent enough until it crosses a line. This line has been crossed many times, by many countries throughout history. There is no reason to think we are an exception, but plenty of reasons to fear that we are not. The second amendment is a tool to help keep these forces at bay.

Heck, if we can't enforce our current laws why bother making new ones? Unless we are relying on an "honor" system... Hmm...

I with respect to your studies, perhaps you have discovered that many of those responsible for making laws pertaining to "gun control" were, in fact, the same ones committing the crimes. Therefore gun control wouldn't have prevented these from occurring as the law makers weren't held to the same laws.

Furthermore I would like to point out, that the laws these "gun nuts' are against, are blanket ones like magazine capacities, and outlawing firearms based on looks (hidden behind the "assault weapons" bans. Incrementalism is alive and well, and it seems that there is a bigger push to make new rules instead of enforcing those already in place.