ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Woodruff]

The facts are that business, big corporate businesses, are actually doing quite well. That is why the 1% you hear about are doing so well. Its just the rest of America, including many smaller businesses, that are not doing so well.

Which is the exact reason why regulations have to be cut. Thank you for making my point for me. Regulations are written so they either directly benefit the big businesses or indirectly because the big businesses already have the lawyers and manpower to comply with those regulations. Furthermore, higher regulations make it harder for new businesses to enter the marketplace, which just allows those that already exist to become even more powerful. And this is all because the government decides they have to get involved in every facet of the marketplace instead of letting it run.

Your argument is that big businesses won't do as well financially if regulations are removed? I don't think that logically follows.

[PLAYER57832]

[
And by the way, I've been all for the government to stop providing endless welfare to people because then people will demand they get more pay from their employer, but you refuse to support any cuts to welfare. Perpetual welfare (aka, government) provides these cover-ups to employers who don't pay high wages, but you demand the government keeps handing out money.

You have not proposed honest limits to welfare, you propose cuts, and "anyone not wealthy can just buck it up" attitude.... and instantly assume anyone not fully agreeing with you is happy to have any regulation, more welfare.. etc. It just doesn't work that way.
This is pretty far off the topic, so I won't get into the rest here.

I will say that the countries problems are not caused by too much regulation, nor are they caused by employers having to provide healthcare coverage.

[BigBallinStalin]

Who defines what a "real wage" is?

Player does.

Or the market does.

[Symmetry]

Who defines what a "real wage" is?

Player does.

Or the market does.

Seriously dude, are you going door to door looking for someone to talk to now?

[BigBallinStalin]

Who defines what a "real wage" is?

Player does.

Or the market does.

Seriously dude, are you going door to door looking for someone to talk to now?

Why do you all of the sudden post this?

It seems like you wish to antagonize me. Oh, but you'd never try to troll or bait people, amirite?

Besides, it would be best if you stopped derailing the thread. You can say whatever to me on my wall or via PM.

[Symmetry]

Who defines what a "real wage" is?

Player does.

Or the market does.

Seriously dude, are you going door to door looking for someone to talk to now?

Why do you all of the sudden post this?

It seems like you wish to antagonize me. Oh, but you'd never try to troll or bait people, amirite?

Besides, it would be best if you stopped derailing the thread. You can say whatever to me on my wall or via PM.

Cute. At least your ban calmed you down from the openly advocating for my death stuff. Work yourself down a few more notches, and perhaps the cries for attention will fall on less deaf ears.

Not that I have a problem with deaf people.

It was a metaphor.

Deaf people can read and type.

I just signed "hello" in ESL, but I couldn't show that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Who defines what a "real wage" is?

Player does.

Or the market does.

Seriously dude, are you going door to door looking for someone to talk to now?

Why do you all of the sudden post this?

It seems like you wish to antagonize me. Oh, but you'd never try to troll or bait people, amirite?

Besides, it would be best if you stopped derailing the thread. You can say whatever to me on my wall or via PM.

Cute. At least your ban calmed you down from the openly advocating for my death stuff. Work yourself down a few more notches, and perhaps the cries for attention will fall on less deaf ears.

Not that I have a problem with deaf people.

It was a metaphor.

Deaf people can read and type.

I just signed "hello" in ESL, but I couldn't show that.

I'm not sure why you wish to derail this thread for some personal amusement. Whatever could your ulterior motive be here?

[Night Strike]

The facts are that business, big corporate businesses, are actually doing quite well. That is why the 1% you hear about are doing so well. Its just the rest of America, including many smaller businesses, that are not doing so well.

Which is the exact reason why regulations have to be cut. Thank you for making my point for me. Regulations are written so they either directly benefit the big businesses or indirectly because the big businesses already have the lawyers and manpower to comply with those regulations. Furthermore, higher regulations make it harder for new businesses to enter the marketplace, which just allows those that already exist to become even more powerful. And this is all because the government decides they have to get involved in every facet of the marketplace instead of letting it run.

Your argument is that big businesses won't do as well financially if regulations are removed? I don't think that logically follows.

Governmental regulations artificially increase the barriers of entry for new competitors to enter a market. Those regulations benefit the big companies because they're already entrenched in the market and helps to stave off anybody who may come in and do a better job or simply undercut their prices. Big businesses may or may not do better with less regulations, but it IS known that the consumer will do better because there will be more options available. Competition benefits the consumer while regulations benefit those who already have a substantial share of a market.

[Symmetry]

The facts are that business, big corporate businesses, are actually doing quite well. That is why the 1% you hear about are doing so well. Its just the rest of America, including many smaller businesses, that are not doing so well.

Which is the exact reason why regulations have to be cut. Thank you for making my point for me. Regulations are written so they either directly benefit the big businesses or indirectly because the big businesses already have the lawyers and manpower to comply with those regulations. Furthermore, higher regulations make it harder for new businesses to enter the marketplace, which just allows those that already exist to become even more powerful. And this is all because the government decides they have to get involved in every facet of the marketplace instead of letting it run.

Your argument is that big businesses won't do as well financially if regulations are removed? I don't think that logically follows.

Governmental regulations artificially increase the barriers of entry for new competitors to enter a market. Those regulations benefit the big companies because they're already entrenched in the market and helps to stave off anybody who may come in and do a better job or simply undercut their prices. Big businesses may or may not do better with less regulations, but it IS known that the consumer will do better because there will be more options available. Competition benefits the consumer while regulations benefit those who already have a substantial share of a market.

Idiocy- a regulation saying that you can't sell rat poison as flu medication benefits consumers. Sure it stifles all those free marketeers who wanted to start up an unregulated medicinal company, and while you may trust that the initial swathe of corpses would dissuade other folks from doing business with them, you'll still have a bunch of dead folk.

More options for medical treatments are great, as long as there are regulations that show that the options are effective.

[Night Strike]

Idiocy- a regulation saying that you can't sell rat poison as flu medication benefits consumers. Sure it stifles all those free marketeers who wanted to start up an unregulated medicinal company, and while you may trust that the initial swathe of corpses would dissuade other folks from doing business with them, you'll still have a bunch of dead folk.

And yet regulations that state you must submit 1099 forms to anyone who does more than $600 of contract work for you doing a calendar year adds several hours of work to small businesses that they don't have the time or money to provide. Meanwhile, it's easy for a big company to just add that to the pile of things to do because they probably have many accountants on staff unlike the small S-corporation being run in the neighborhood strip mall. There are both necessary and unnecessary regulations. The vast majority of the ones we have added under this administration are harmful and burdensome.

[Woodruff]

The facts are that business, big corporate businesses, are actually doing quite well. That is why the 1% you hear about are doing so well. Its just the rest of America, including many smaller businesses, that are not doing so well.

Which is the exact reason why regulations have to be cut. Thank you for making my point for me. Regulations are written so they either directly benefit the big businesses or indirectly because the big businesses already have the lawyers and manpower to comply with those regulations. Furthermore, higher regulations make it harder for new businesses to enter the marketplace, which just allows those that already exist to become even more powerful. And this is all because the government decides they have to get involved in every facet of the marketplace instead of letting it run.

Your argument is that big businesses won't do as well financially if regulations are removed? I don't think that logically follows.

Governmental regulations artificially increase the barriers of entry for new competitors to enter a market. Those regulations benefit the big companies because they're already entrenched in the market and helps to stave off anybody who may come in and do a better job or simply undercut their prices. Big businesses may or may not do better with less regulations, but it IS known that the consumer will do better because there will be more options available. Competition benefits the consumer while regulations benefit those who already have a substantial share of a market.

I understand the argument you're making here, and I don't necessarily disagree with it...but the idea that big businesses won't do as well financially if regulations are removed simply doesn't make any sense at all.

Are there regulations that are pretty unnecessary? Almost certainly.
Is that the majority of regulations? No, not in my opinion.

[PLAYER57832]

Nightstrike.. my answer is moved, since this has little to do with healthcare any longer.

[oVo]

If this Healthcare Reform was nicknamed Romneycare
--after what was "accomplished" in Massachusetts--
would Republicans tolerate it and give it a chance?

[Night Strike]

If this Healthcare Reform was nicknamed Romneycare
--after what was "accomplished" in Massachusetts--
would Republicans tolerate it and give it a chance?

Nope, because the government doesn't have the authority to force a person to purchase a private product. It also doesn't have the authority to tell a business what products they have to provide for purchase.

[Juan_Bottom]

If this Healthcare Reform was nicknamed Romneycare
--after what was "accomplished" in Massachusetts--
would Republicans tolerate it and give it a chance?

Nope, because the government doesn't have the authority to force a person to purchase a private product. It also doesn't have the authority to tell a business what products they have to provide for purchase.

George Washington:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... -mandates/

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

[Juan_Bottom]

Nation’s Debt Shrinks To Lowest Figure In Six Years

But, a ray of hope has appeared. New reports have shown that the nation’s debt has shrunk to a level not seen in 6 years, and the trend is continuing. Now our nation’s debt has dropped to $40 trillion, reducing our debt to GDP ratio to 3.29. While the amount owed is still great, this trend of paying off our debt and not increasing it shows a mental shift in the United States.

[Night Strike]

In 2008, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead, he doubled it in his first year and kept it essentially the same for the 3 years after that. The only reason it marginally fell in 2012 was because Congress wasn't handing out blank checks.

[Phatscotty]

And to think that a 400 billion deficit was enough to get me in the street protesting Bush's spending

When Obamacare kicks in a few months from now, I'm sure the spending will go down even more and the deficit will get even smaller....

The deficit is ONLY a trillion dollars???????????
HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PLAYER57832]

In 2008, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead, he doubled it in his first year and kept it essentially the same for the 3 years after that. The only reason it marginally fell in 2012 was because Congress wasn't handing out blank checks.

Funny how you seem to forget WHY Obama got such a mess to begin with.... and it certainly wasn't too much regulation of banks.

[Night Strike]

In 2008, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead, he doubled it in his first year and kept it essentially the same for the 3 years after that. The only reason it marginally fell in 2012 was because Congress wasn't handing out blank checks.

Funny how you seem to forget WHY Obama got such a mess to begin with.... and it certainly wasn't too much regulation of banks.

Because he chose to enact massive governmental spending programs instead of cutting governmental expenditures in leaner times of less governmental revenues. Your assumption is that it's the government's job to address recessions, when it's not.

[PLAYER57832]

In 2008, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead, he doubled it in his first year and kept it essentially the same for the 3 years after that. The only reason it marginally fell in 2012 was because Congress wasn't handing out blank checks.

Funny how you seem to forget WHY Obama got such a mess to begin with.... and it certainly wasn't too much regulation of banks.

Because he chose to enact massive governmental spending programs instead of cutting governmental expenditures in leaner times of less governmental revenues. Your assumption is that it's the government's job to address recessions, when it's not.

No assumptions. I rely upon FACTS.

The biggest reason for the huge debacle was allowing banks to bundle loans they had to know were largely not going to be paid back, and somehow claim they were "securitized" .. or AAA rated investments simply because they were bundled. It happened because loan managers were allowed to issue loans with essentially no responsibiilyt themselves as to whether the loans were worth making.

It happened because so many large companies keep cutting and cutting wages... while increasing their pockets with no regard to how it impacts employees or even the communitees in which the families reside.

It happened because too many people seemed to think that if a few people were willing to pay 200K for a shack... then who were they to say "no"... and of course the banks knew they would not have to take real responsibility, but hey.. isn't everyone supposed to be a loan expert before they bother to take out a mortgage? According to you.. yes!

You also seem to think that it is government aid that makes people need food, need clothing, need medical care, because, according to you, if the government were not willing to step in these things would just magically not be needs.

(of course, you ALSO say that employers have no obligation to pay enough to cover those things, so the idea that these people.. mostly already working, trying to raise kids, will just be able to go get another job is, well.... not happening).

Nightstrike, it would be really nice if you would ever put ALL of your positions together and see how hypocritical your "stands" really and truly are... and for heaven's sake stop pretending like every problem you have, this country has is the result of government over regulation. Its just not true.

[Night Strike]

So how do any of those things you list necessitate governmental spending packages of hundreds of billions of dollars? Especially when many of those problems were due to the government changing the standards the banks operated on? Banks previously made sub-prime loans only 1% of the time. The government changed that to force the banks to do it 10% of the time because they decreed that it was a right to own a home and the banks weren't being "fair" to minorities. In exchange, the government said those loans could be packaged together and sold to illegal government-owned corporations to be backed on the full faith and credit of the United States.

[Juan_Bottom]

https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl ... YPZBfvqlgs

[Night Strike]

https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=797&q=completely+wrong&oq=comple&gs_l=img.1.0.0i3l2j0l8.1393.2375.0.4951.6.6.0.0.0.0.97.362.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.vYPZBfvqlgs

Yep, Obama's plans are completely wrong for this country. They are close to European style socialism than American Constitutional freedoms.

[john9blue]

https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=797&q=completely+wrong&oq=comple&gs_l=img.1.0.0i3l2j0l8.1393.2375.0.4951.6.6.0.0.0.0.97.362.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.vYPZBfvqlgs

did you just hear about this? i thought you were more in tune with the liberal loudspeakers. were you on vacation?