First and foremost Rush is an entertainer and damn good at what he does. Do I think he represents the GOP or Tea Party? No, although they do share similar views. Rush has an incredible research team and does surface a lot of relevant information.
As far as being a true conservative I'd say sure he is; too much so for my taste. Example: When he applauded Oil companies for record profits when gas hit $4 bucks a gallon. While I understand they have a small profit margin it is in poor taste to applaud them when so many people were having a difficult time afford the gas hike.
I'm open to any comments. Especially by those of the conservative beliefs. I really just want to know if the Republican party, conservatives, or tea partiers really feel like Rush Limbaugh has the pulse of the republican nation. I'm sure some of you already know what my feelings are on the matter, and I will discuss them with you, but I just wanted to get a few general reactions to the question.
You're welcome for the support, but are you really serious about the statement of doubling the national debt within ten years? Seriously, take a look at the following page to see what I mean.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/
Here's just a few examples.
1838 3.3 million
1839 10.4 million 3 times the previous year
1862 524 million
1863 1.1 billion 2 times the previous year
1982 1.1 trillion
1986 2.1 trillion twice the debt in less than 5 years
2000 5.6 trillion
2007 9 trillion almost twice the national debt in less than ten years
Not only has it happened Kaz, but many times throughout our country's history we have doubled, even tripled the national debt in far less time than 10 years. Now I'm not saying we should just forget about it, or that we shouldn't try to resolve the national debt any time soon, but clearly their should be a long term plan to reduce the deficit. Short term plans, like that of Clinton's have only led to future recessions. Trying to balance the budget the way a lion goes after his morning snack is not the way to ensure financial stability in this country. It has always had awful, sometimes catastrophic affects in the long run.
I would love to see every American soldier come home, but that's just not a realistic venture. Lowering the amount of troops across the globe would certainly help both morale and deficits for the United States, but we have to have some form of front line defense. Cutting certain items from the defense budget would certainly help for sure. I would really like to see that. As I would hope you would agree, and I apologize for using such an obvious Trekkie comment, but I believe Quark from Deep Space Nine said it worst. "War is good for business." Yet if you look at year by year comparison of the national debt during every year of any major war the United States has seen fit to enter you would see the awful truth. War is definitely NOT good for business. I don't care if the next president is white, black, asian, republican, democrat, or independent. So long as he is not another War-mongering idiot that wishes to sacrifice soldier's lives for no good reason and drive our national debt into the ceiling.
Sorry, but I do beg to differ when it comes to this fall and upcoming elections. Though some may TRY to make it about the health care reform, the simple fact of the matter is that most Americans are far more concerned about the financial stability, or lack thereof than those who are concerned about the health care reform. And those polls are current. As time passes people will lose interest in the health care debate and more will focus on the debt and unemployment of this nation. As well they should. Time will tell.
It's a love hate relationship Rick. Although I hate to admit it, aside from Dennis(should probably add Tom from 7daybuzz as well), the guy who developed this site, you are one of the only left(disgustingly left) leaning individuals who comes with tough arguments.
The debates me and you have are what I hope will be an everyday occurrence with many more people as the site progresses. We are about to start a significant marketing campaign so website traffic should be up in the week ahead. As always, Thank You for your support.
Can you pull up in history when the National Debt was doubled in ten years time?
It really is quite tough to argue with someone who thinks it's a negative to pay down debt. If there is one thing I'm absolutely sure of it's that President Obama isn't going to be cutting spending thus will be increasing the debt as he's projected by more than a trillion dollars each (aside from one or two of them; in the billions) year for the next decade. The only thing I can see him doing to reduce expenditures would be to bring the troops home as he promised other than that it’s spending, spending, spending.
You mention that it is an issue that needs addressed yet there are no reductions to the debt projected in any of the next ten years; just record deficits year after year. Are we supposed to spend like drunken sailors (excuse the pun) without so much as an intention to balance the budget even for a single year?
The American people will not be forgetting about the health care bill by November and Democrats will see record losses in Congress. (Both Houses) The only concern I have is the strategy of the Obama administration in timing the negative effects of the Health Care Bill and the timing on the Stimulus spending. It really is sad to watch them play politics with the future of our nation.
Holding off on the individual benefits until 2014 as well as individual mandates. Spending drops in the bucket of the stimulus money in the first year and unleashing funding over a year later which happens to coincide with Mid-Term elections.(I thought Obama said we had to pass the bill or face catastrophic consequences: Not an exact quote.) The thing that liberals don't realize is that people like me who haven't paid much attention to what Washington does on a daily basis in the past are now evaluating every move they make. (We were busy living our lives, working hard, paying our OWN way.) More and more Americans are waking up every day. (Thank God) One of the biggest problems Obama has is his golden lie of the campaign; Change. He campaigned on changing the way Washington operates yet is continuing as he loves to put it; status quo of DC. This is killing and will continue to kill him with independent voters.
Let’s pray that there are more hard working Americans that understand personal responsibility than bottom feeders who have their hands out begging for a piece of Obamas stash.
Mama Kaz. I don't mean to be crass about your statement that "When our leader tells you that you can keep your own doctor and insurance he is lying to you...", but really. You said you would tell us why you believe this, but your explanation after that statement doesn't really seem to explain much of anything except a belief that rising medical costs are due to those who have insurance through a government funded program. Is that really your basis for the previous statement? Because I have read several parts of H.R. 3962 and have seen no indication of losing provider care or doctor simply because of these reasons? Do you have any actual proof of this statement? Just curious. I'd like to read it if it does exist.
Meanwhile I would like to cite a few problems with your latter statements beyond losing your doctor and insurance. I'm not really sure how you come to believe that a single payer system would be the downfall or collapse of the entire system. Canada, for example, with a single payer system has been operating under such conditions since 1970 and has shown significant improvements in the overall health of their nation. Before 1970 when Canada had a health care system much like our own their health statistics almost mirrored our own, but after adopting a single payer system their statistics have changed dramatically. While the average life expectancy of an American is around 77 years of age, Canadian's average life expectancies have risen to 80 years of age. In addition to that fact the per capita cost for Canadian citizen's health care coverage is around $3,000 dollars while American's per capita cost per patient is almost twice that. They also have a lower infant mortality rate. These figures are all found in statistics run by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control just in case you're wondering where I saw them.
Considering just those few facts above I also noticed a study done by the University of California at San Francisco that showed the United States could save well over $161 Billion dollars every year in paperwork alone if we were to convert to a single payer system. And that figure is not abstract amounts deducted from a federal budget, it's actual dollars we would not pay out of our own pockets to cover the cost of normal insurance paperwork. Literally meaning that Americans would get to KEEP that money.
Now, as for the statement you made about for profit insurance companies and doctors who supposedly can not afford to operate with such low rates that they have to pass on their costs to the insurance companies, you might want to take a look at the following statement and study done by doctors and researchers.
There are two criteria used to judge a country's health care system: the overall success of creating and sustaining health in the population, and the ability to control costs while doing so. One recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares mortality rates in private for-profit and nonprofit hospitals in the United States. Research on 38 million adult patients in 26,000 U.S. hospitals revealed that death rates in for-profit hospitals are significantly higher than in nonprofit hospitals: for-profit patients have a 2 percent higher chance of dying in the hospital or within 30 days of discharge. The increased death rates were clearly linked to "the corners that for-profit hospitals must cut in order to achieve a profit margin for investors, as well as to pay high salaries for administrators."
“To ease cost pressures, administrators tend to hire less highly skilled personnel, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists…,” wrote P. J. Devereaux, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the lead researcher. “The U.S. statistics clearly show that when the need for profits drives hospital decision making, more patients die.”
I personally find this to be reprehensible, that the American dollar has a higher value than the life of just one human being.
I will support the single payer system to my dying breath, which if I'm lucky under that system will mean I'll live a little longer than under the current one, then so be it. It's ridiculous that one would worry that a doctor might not be able to afford the new Lexus he has had his eye on because of such low rates and overhead. In this system of Me, Me, Me, when will we ever start to think of others? I too will fight to the bitter end to make certain that every one I know knows just how awful of a system we currently have, and that we can not simply try to provide for "just me". That's just a very selfish and mindless way to think and behave toward our fellow Americans. In this society we must learn that when we help others, we in turn help ourselves. When the only person to benefit is just you, the rest of us simply do what? Suffer? I want to believe that I'm more compassionate than that, and I would expect others to do the same.
Just something else for you to consider. I LOVE this site. It rocks. You and Mama Kaz keep me on my toes. I literally cannot wait to see what you guys post. :-)
Kaz, you know very well that the CBO document is simply an estimate that does not take into account legislation that may be in the near future. As far as the GDP/GNI is concerned I know that it has fallen 3%. This is not a good sign for the current economy, but if you look over the years we have recovered from periods where the GDP/GNI had fallen by 26% (1929-1937 The Great Depression). In fact, we have recovered from countless recessions and a depression every time. Now, let me say that I don't believe that at some point we shouldn't try to figure out how to balance the budget somehow, but statistically this country has gone into several recessions soon after experiencing a lowering of the national debt.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1998-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 9%. Recession began 2001
Certainly I'm not saying we shouldn't address the issue of the federal budget at all, just that sharp decreases in the national debt over short periods of time seem to do more harm than good. We should act on the federal budget and national debt. Which by the way a Gallup poll shows is far more important to the American people by over 20% than health care reform. Come November of this year the American people aren't going to give a rat's behind about health care any more. The only figure that can hurt democrat's chances this fall will be that ugly 9.7% number. If they manage to bring that number down to around 8% or 7.5% before August I would say that the only change this fall will be republican strategies if they have any hope for taking Congress back. Basically you can argue about this percentage or that percentage where GDP/GNI is concerned because as time will tell it will increase over the next few years just as it has after every recession has ended. You can also argue the President's budget and the increases of the federal debt that are nothing more than estimates on a status quo Congress, but eventually new legislation will be introduced concerning the budget over the coming months and years that may very well decrease these numbers. Neither you nor myself carry a crystal ball that can ultimately predict the decisions of Congress or their lasting effects. Truth is that only time will tell if Obama's policies will work? I know where you stand, and you certainly know where I stand, and we can throw these figures around all day, but in the end I know our President is trying to do well. I believe in him, and always will. Only time can truly be a judge of a President's successes or failures.
First let me address the credibility of the source by providing one that should pass your credibility check. Here is a link to the CBO document: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/03-05-apb.pdf
Here's what the CBO said: Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from
$7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent
of GDP) at the end of 2020.
So Im being forced into recruitng and not really sure if i want to do it.... at the sametime i dont know if its time to get out. i love being deplyed and i love fighting for my country but im kind of tired of all the bs and retarded people that are over me..... what do yall think? i havent deployed in over 4 years and i weld now im not in the fight like i used to be and i miss it.
LOL, I've been called many things Kaz, but naive is not one of them. You need to read what I typed a little better. When I said billions I meant to each nation, not as a whole. I'm very well aware of our debt to foreign nations. As for the national debt, yes we are compounding it year after year, but the amazing jumps in recent decades can be attributed to just a few circumstances. One of course is overspending by the government on a number of programs that neither work anymore or are a flagrant misuse of federal dollars. The other circumstance, and perhaps the biggest reason, is simply inflation. The only person being naive about that little fact is you. Our debt would have increased just as much under McCain, Obama, or anyone else for that matter. To blame Obama entirely for our current debt is just plain silly and NAIVE. As for Social Security Kaz, just use a little common sense for God's sake. The fact we paid out more this year than the revenue we took in is because unemployment was not expected to exceed 8.2%, but we are currently holding at 10%. Not to mention the fact that people are just living longer than they used to. People are still drawing checks at an age that most of us never thought we'd see. Here's a suggestion. Quit trying to drum up a conspiracy where none exists. Obama does not plan to ruin this country. That's just ignorant to believe something that foolish. Do you honestly believe that every person around him wants the same thing you think Obama wants. To run this country into the ground? No. They do not, and neither does he. I am optimistic because I'm tired of being pessimistic. And here's another suggestion. I lived through 8 years of perhaps one of the worst presidents in our nation's history. If I can endure Bush Jr. you can endure 8 years of Obama. I'm arrogant about Social Security because unemployment will go down, people will pay more into the program and sadly enough, people will die. By the way, as far as the report from Wikipedia concerning the "estimate" of the debt/gdp, even Wikipedia has a disclaimer at the top of the page that doubts the neutrality of the report and some who contributed to it. If you're going to cite pages please read them in their entirety first. It helps with the credibility of your statements.
i think with out trust in each other a relationship cannnont last at all. there will always be that qusetion is she really at work is she really doing what she said she will be doing. trust me i know!
As far as being a true conservative I'd say sure he is; too much so for my taste. Example: When he applauded Oil companies for record profits when gas hit $4 bucks a gallon. While I understand they have a small profit margin it is in poor taste to applaud them when so many people were having a difficult time afford the gas hike.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/
Here's just a few examples.
1838 3.3 million
1839 10.4 million 3 times the previous year
1862 524 million
1863 1.1 billion 2 times the previous year
1982 1.1 trillion
1986 2.1 trillion twice the debt in less than 5 years
2000 5.6 trillion
2007 9 trillion almost twice the national debt in less than ten years
Not only has it happened Kaz, but many times throughout our country's history we have doubled, even tripled the national debt in far less time than 10 years. Now I'm not saying we should just forget about it, or that we shouldn't try to resolve the national debt any time soon, but clearly their should be a long term plan to reduce the deficit. Short term plans, like that of Clinton's have only led to future recessions. Trying to balance the budget the way a lion goes after his morning snack is not the way to ensure financial stability in this country. It has always had awful, sometimes catastrophic affects in the long run.
I would love to see every American soldier come home, but that's just not a realistic venture. Lowering the amount of troops across the globe would certainly help both morale and deficits for the United States, but we have to have some form of front line defense. Cutting certain items from the defense budget would certainly help for sure. I would really like to see that. As I would hope you would agree, and I apologize for using such an obvious Trekkie comment, but I believe Quark from Deep Space Nine said it worst. "War is good for business." Yet if you look at year by year comparison of the national debt during every year of any major war the United States has seen fit to enter you would see the awful truth. War is definitely NOT good for business. I don't care if the next president is white, black, asian, republican, democrat, or independent. So long as he is not another War-mongering idiot that wishes to sacrifice soldier's lives for no good reason and drive our national debt into the ceiling.
Sorry, but I do beg to differ when it comes to this fall and upcoming elections. Though some may TRY to make it about the health care reform, the simple fact of the matter is that most Americans are far more concerned about the financial stability, or lack thereof than those who are concerned about the health care reform. And those polls are current. As time passes people will lose interest in the health care debate and more will focus on the debt and unemployment of this nation. As well they should. Time will tell.
The debates me and you have are what I hope will be an everyday occurrence with many more people as the site progresses. We are about to start a significant marketing campaign so website traffic should be up in the week ahead. As always, Thank You for your support.
Can you pull up in history when the National Debt was doubled in ten years time?
It really is quite tough to argue with someone who thinks it's a negative to pay down debt. If there is one thing I'm absolutely sure of it's that President Obama isn't going to be cutting spending thus will be increasing the debt as he's projected by more than a trillion dollars each (aside from one or two of them; in the billions) year for the next decade. The only thing I can see him doing to reduce expenditures would be to bring the troops home as he promised other than that it’s spending, spending, spending.
You mention that it is an issue that needs addressed yet there are no reductions to the debt projected in any of the next ten years; just record deficits year after year. Are we supposed to spend like drunken sailors (excuse the pun) without so much as an intention to balance the budget even for a single year?
The American people will not be forgetting about the health care bill by November and Democrats will see record losses in Congress. (Both Houses) The only concern I have is the strategy of the Obama administration in timing the negative effects of the Health Care Bill and the timing on the Stimulus spending. It really is sad to watch them play politics with the future of our nation.
Holding off on the individual benefits until 2014 as well as individual mandates. Spending drops in the bucket of the stimulus money in the first year and unleashing funding over a year later which happens to coincide with Mid-Term elections.(I thought Obama said we had to pass the bill or face catastrophic consequences: Not an exact quote.) The thing that liberals don't realize is that people like me who haven't paid much attention to what Washington does on a daily basis in the past are now evaluating every move they make. (We were busy living our lives, working hard, paying our OWN way.) More and more Americans are waking up every day. (Thank God) One of the biggest problems Obama has is his golden lie of the campaign; Change. He campaigned on changing the way Washington operates yet is continuing as he loves to put it; status quo of DC. This is killing and will continue to kill him with independent voters.
Let’s pray that there are more hard working Americans that understand personal responsibility than bottom feeders who have their hands out begging for a piece of Obamas stash.
Meanwhile I would like to cite a few problems with your latter statements beyond losing your doctor and insurance. I'm not really sure how you come to believe that a single payer system would be the downfall or collapse of the entire system. Canada, for example, with a single payer system has been operating under such conditions since 1970 and has shown significant improvements in the overall health of their nation. Before 1970 when Canada had a health care system much like our own their health statistics almost mirrored our own, but after adopting a single payer system their statistics have changed dramatically. While the average life expectancy of an American is around 77 years of age, Canadian's average life expectancies have risen to 80 years of age. In addition to that fact the per capita cost for Canadian citizen's health care coverage is around $3,000 dollars while American's per capita cost per patient is almost twice that. They also have a lower infant mortality rate. These figures are all found in statistics run by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control just in case you're wondering where I saw them.
Considering just those few facts above I also noticed a study done by the University of California at San Francisco that showed the United States could save well over $161 Billion dollars every year in paperwork alone if we were to convert to a single payer system. And that figure is not abstract amounts deducted from a federal budget, it's actual dollars we would not pay out of our own pockets to cover the cost of normal insurance paperwork. Literally meaning that Americans would get to KEEP that money.
Now, as for the statement you made about for profit insurance companies and doctors who supposedly can not afford to operate with such low rates that they have to pass on their costs to the insurance companies, you might want to take a look at the following statement and study done by doctors and researchers.
There are two criteria used to judge a country's health care system: the overall success of creating and sustaining health in the population, and the ability to control costs while doing so. One recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares mortality rates in private for-profit and nonprofit hospitals in the United States. Research on 38 million adult patients in 26,000 U.S. hospitals revealed that death rates in for-profit hospitals are significantly higher than in nonprofit hospitals: for-profit patients have a 2 percent higher chance of dying in the hospital or within 30 days of discharge. The increased death rates were clearly linked to "the corners that for-profit hospitals must cut in order to achieve a profit margin for investors, as well as to pay high salaries for administrators."
“To ease cost pressures, administrators tend to hire less highly skilled personnel, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists…,” wrote P. J. Devereaux, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the lead researcher. “The U.S. statistics clearly show that when the need for profits drives hospital decision making, more patients die.”
I personally find this to be reprehensible, that the American dollar has a higher value than the life of just one human being.
I will support the single payer system to my dying breath, which if I'm lucky under that system will mean I'll live a little longer than under the current one, then so be it. It's ridiculous that one would worry that a doctor might not be able to afford the new Lexus he has had his eye on because of such low rates and overhead. In this system of Me, Me, Me, when will we ever start to think of others? I too will fight to the bitter end to make certain that every one I know knows just how awful of a system we currently have, and that we can not simply try to provide for "just me". That's just a very selfish and mindless way to think and behave toward our fellow Americans. In this society we must learn that when we help others, we in turn help ourselves. When the only person to benefit is just you, the rest of us simply do what? Suffer? I want to believe that I'm more compassionate than that, and I would expect others to do the same.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1998-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 9%. Recession began 2001
Certainly I'm not saying we shouldn't address the issue of the federal budget at all, just that sharp decreases in the national debt over short periods of time seem to do more harm than good. We should act on the federal budget and national debt. Which by the way a Gallup poll shows is far more important to the American people by over 20% than health care reform. Come November of this year the American people aren't going to give a rat's behind about health care any more. The only figure that can hurt democrat's chances this fall will be that ugly 9.7% number. If they manage to bring that number down to around 8% or 7.5% before August I would say that the only change this fall will be republican strategies if they have any hope for taking Congress back. Basically you can argue about this percentage or that percentage where GDP/GNI is concerned because as time will tell it will increase over the next few years just as it has after every recession has ended. You can also argue the President's budget and the increases of the federal debt that are nothing more than estimates on a status quo Congress, but eventually new legislation will be introduced concerning the budget over the coming months and years that may very well decrease these numbers. Neither you nor myself carry a crystal ball that can ultimately predict the decisions of Congress or their lasting effects. Truth is that only time will tell if Obama's policies will work? I know where you stand, and you certainly know where I stand, and we can throw these figures around all day, but in the end I know our President is trying to do well. I believe in him, and always will. Only time can truly be a judge of a President's successes or failures.
Here's what the CBO said: Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from
$7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent
of GDP) at the end of 2020.