It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If spending cuts kill jobs, "so be it": Boehner

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Let's be completely honest: Boehner said those words in context of the potential loss of FEDERAL jobs -- the payroll of which has reportedly grown over 200k just since Obama took office. Viewed in that context, it still might be blunt, but it is a truth. If you want to cut federal spending, there must be a commensurate negative impact on the federal payroll. I don't like Boehner at all (I think he is unstable and a fraud, like most of his peers and he is trying to seak $450M of pork into the budget for his district), but you telling half truths is just as bad.


Just exactly what "half truths" did I say? Other than my personal opinion, I think I found this article at the news site I linked in the OP. I'm not against cutting the federal budget, I'm just against killing jobs and hurting the poor in the process. I think there are much less painful places to cut.


So like most Americans, you want what is irrational and the rest are just NIMBY in their attitudes. Is there really much of value to be salvaged from what we've become?
edit on 16-2-2011 by pajoly because: brain cramp




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by QueSeraSera
 


Nice find, thanks. I should know better when I live nearly in the shadow of the St. Pete Times.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


You don't get it. Take health care for example. The government could give every person $100K and tell them that they need to use that for health care and that the government will insure anything over $100K. Now folks could take that $100K and put it into an investment account and get on average a 5% return ($5K/year) and use that to cover their general health care needs without touching the principal. That would cover health maintenance and leave $100K for serious issues, which face it the vast majority of people don't face.

If you smoke, do drugs, drink too much, become 100lbs over weight, drive motocross you certainly have a better chance of dipping into the $100K, which would erode your annual investment return. When you die, the $100K goes back to the government. If you blow the $100K, you are on your own.

Point being we don't need thousands of paper pushers in HHS, 1000+ IRS agents checking up on your coverage, the government telling what kind of care you need/can use. What we need is a bit of personal responsibility.

Would I advocate giving everyone that much dough? No, but I would rather take the entire cost of the government's health organization, eliminate it and take the savings and dole that up. That would be a whole lot more than the $100K and be done with this nonsense. This government has to run your lives nonsense needs to stop.

Can some folks handle the responsibility of having the money? No. Will some folks drink it, blow it or gamble it away? Yes. Tough. They can stand in line and get health care provided through clinics that are financed by charitable dollars. If they don't have one near them, they can either move to where one is or take the bus.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Let's be completely honest: Boehner said those words in context of the potential loss of FEDERAL jobs -- the payroll of which has reportedly grown over 200k just since Obama took office. Viewed in that context, it still might be blunt, but it is a truth. If you want to cut federal spending, there must be a commensurate negative impact on the federal payroll. I don't like Boehner at all (I think he is unstable and a fraud, like most of his peers and he is trying to seak $450M of pork into the budget for his district), but you telling half truths is just as bad.


Just exactly what "half truths" did I say? Other than my personal opinion, I think I found this article at the news site I linked in the OP. I'm not against cutting the federal budget, I'm just against killing jobs and hurting the poor in the process. I think there are much less painful places to cut.


So like most Americans, you want what is irrational and the rest are just NIMBY in their attitudes. Is there really much of value to be salvaged from what we've become?
edit on 16-2-2011 by pajoly because: brain cramp


It's not irrational to those who are not greedy. Why is it that most business owners think that every dime taken in by the business is their personal money and that anyone who provided a vital service in the course of that business is just mooching when they ask to be fairly compensated?

If they're that attached to every penny, maybe they should consider doing the business as a sole proprietor with no employees other than themselves. That way they will become aware of their true individual earning potential. Without those added employes to increase his production he may be surprised how little he makes.

I know how they could cut the budget by 90 billion annually and save lives at the same time. All we have to do is get the hell out of Iraq & Afghanistan. How come nobody is pushing that idea. Surely you remember those two wars we started at the same time we were giving tax cuts to the rich?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Maxmars
 


You don't get it. Take health care for example. The government could give every person $100K and tell them that they need to use that for health care and that the government will insure anything over $100K. Now folks could take that $100K and put it into an investment account and get on average a 5% return ($5K/year) and use that to cover their general health care needs without touching the principal. That would cover health maintenance and leave $100K for serious issues, which face it the vast majority of people don't face.

If you smoke, do drugs, drink too much, become 100lbs over weight, drive motocross you certainly have a better chance of dipping into the $100K, which would erode your annual investment return. When you die, the $100K goes back to the government. If you blow the $100K, you are on your own.

Point being we don't need thousands of paper pushers in HHS, 1000+ IRS agents checking up on your coverage, the government telling what kind of care you need/can use. What we need is a bit of personal responsibility.

Would I advocate giving everyone that much dough? No, but I would rather take the entire cost of the government's health organization, eliminate it and take the savings and dole that up. That would be a whole lot more than the $100K and be done with this nonsense. This government has to run your lives nonsense needs to stop.

Can some folks handle the responsibility of having the money? No. Will some folks drink it, blow it or gamble it away? Yes. Tough. They can stand in line and get health care provided through clinics that are financed by charitable dollars. If they don't have one near them, they can either move to where one is or take the bus.


You can't be serious. That's the craziest idea I've heard since health care savings accounts, a big favorite of the republican party. As if the poor had savings accounts or money to put in them.

In 1975, some 35 years ago, my wife burned her hand while making supper and it cost $38,000.00 before she left the hospital and a considerable amount after her stay for post operative care. $100,00.00 in todays health care environment couldn't be counted on to cover the cost of even one serious injury. Single payer health care works all over the world and there's no reason it won't work here.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Agreed a guy like that should lose all the compensation he is getting and will get. I get sick of seeing people ride the system and not really contribute.

Raist



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Right, and the government would ensure the amount over $100K. That would place your wife's account potentially at $0 and yours would remain at $100K. I think you'd be OK

If the single payer deal works so great why are they looking to shelve it in the UK and why are Canadians flowing over the border to get treatment in the US.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Right, and the government would ensure the amount over $100K. That would place your wife's account potentially at $0 and yours would remain at $100K. I think you'd be OK

If the single payer deal works so great why are they looking to shelve it in the UK and why are Canadians flowing over the border to get treatment in the US.


I'm not sure just exactly why this debate is trending towards health care unless you guys know something I don't. Is Boehner fixing to cuts health care as well or are they just going to defund it as per their original plan?

Anyway, so what happens the next time my wife gets hurt or sick? By the way, my account would have been overdrawn long ago as well. I can't tell you how many times I've been sewn up, had bones set, implants put in my jaw, run over by a forklift and even had pieces of metal drilled, yes I said drilled, out of my eye. Had to have my eyes X-rayed once to insure that no metal remained prior to having a MRI. Furthermore, what about children? Is $100,000.00 supposed to cover their lifetime healthcare cost?

I believe your other statement regarding the UK & Canada is nothing more than propaganda and deserves no serious response.
edit on 16-2-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Well if you were hurt on the job, your cash should not have been impacted. Workman's comp or business health insurance (for work related injuries only) could pay for that.

Your kids would get the $100K as well as the left over money from folks who die would roll back into the program

As far as David Cameron thinking that the UK NHS is substandard and needs to be overhauled, I'll let him speak for himself:

"'I don't think we should put up with a second rate - with coming second best,' he said"

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Additional info on how budget will affect Science and Technology can be found in this fresh thread.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
He's a typical polotician bought and paid for by corperate money think of your worst cuss word and pit it here........Boehner.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


By the way, I do think the $100K would fund your kids healthcare for life. At a reasonable return on capital you're going to make, as I said previously about $5K/year in return. The amount that is not used is returned to the account and continues to compound. I have kids. Each year they get an annual physical, two dental check-ups and probably one visit to the doctor for flu, chest virus, something like that. I don't have insurance and it costs me roughly $2k/year. OK, assuming that is an average, with compounding I would have $140K in his healthcare account at 11 years of age. That amount would continue to climb and were he to break an arm or something, I would pay for it.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

If spending cuts kill jobs, "so be it": Boehner


www.rawstory.com

"Where are the jobs?" was an oft-repeated slogan by Boehner during the 2010 midterm election cycle, as he and his colleagues attacked Democrats' stimulus and other spending programs.

But Boehner's remarks not only reveal that Republicans accept those two goals may be contradictory, they suggest that the GOP considers spending cuts a higher priority.
(visit the link for the full news article)




Each may do as she likes but as for me I say:

Never trust a suntanned boner.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join