Somebody FREAKIN shoot me!!!!

[GregWeld]

The 47% was a 'reference' for those folks that Romney figured he could not reach regardless of what he said... I used it in the same manor. A reference to MKelcy - that I wasn't really interested in trying to change his mind. I figured he wasn't going to agree to ANYTHING that I would say.


I don't recall him (Romney) --- or me (GregWeld) --- labeling them as stupid.. or poor... The reference was simply that you can't reach everyone.


See, to me this is part of the problem. We get bogged down arguing semantics rather than the basic issues. Sorry - you can count me out of arguments like that. They're pointless. Let's stick to just trying to find, or arguing about, a solution rather than picking up on whether someone watches Fox news - or wants to challenge an idea based on semantics.

[realcoray]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

See, to me this is part of the problem. We get bogged down arguing semantics rather than the basic issues. Sorry - you can count me out of arguments like that. They're pointless. Let's stick to just trying to find, or arguing about, a solution rather than picking up on whether someone watches Fox news - or wants to challenge an idea based on semantics.

Ok so here's a question. Let's say they come to an agreement before the end of the year. Let's say it has revenue and cuts in the ballpark of halfway in between what the first offers were, in the range of 2 trillion, probably 1.2 revenue, 800 cuts. Clearly not the silver bullet to the deficit but a start and just generally calms everyone down.

Next year, let's say they negotiate tax reform and vastly simplify the tax system. This is widely anticipated as both sides want to do it although of course they differ on the details, but let's again assume it ends up balanced. The expectation is most rates would drop except capital gains which may increase, but it's way early to say.

All of that happens, does your view of the president change at all? Take all of your ideas about what you think would fix things, like a flat tax and realistically look at what can be accomplished, and what would at least qualify as him doing a satisfactory job?

[GregWeld]

Originally Posted by realcoray

Ok so here's a question. Let's say they come to an agreement before the end of the year. Let's say it has revenue and cuts in the ballpark of halfway in between what the first offers were, in the range of 2 trillion, probably 1.2 revenue, 800 cuts. Clearly not the silver bullet to the deficit but a start and just generally calms everyone down.

Next year, let's say they negotiate tax reform and vastly simplify the tax system. This is widely anticipated as both sides want to do it although of course they differ on the details, but let's again assume it ends up balanced. The expectation is most rates would drop except capital gains which may increase, but it's way early to say.

All of that happens, does your view of the president change at all? Take all of your ideas about what you think would fix things, like a flat tax and realistically look at what can be accomplished, and what would at least qualify as him doing a satisfactory job?

That would qualify handily in my book! Then if "they" would modify Obamacare to create some cost controls in healthcare....he'd be the guy I voted for in 2008.

[realcoray]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

That would qualify handily in my book! Then if "they" would modify Obamacare to create some cost controls in healthcare....he'd be the guy I voted for in 2008.

What sort of cost controls?

You know I work in a business related to health care and the fascinating thing that I've learned since being exposed to it is how very dependent health care providers are on government help.

Here's an example. If you are a health care provider, the government will pay you 44k to adopt electronic health records and demonstrate you're using them. That's 44k PER doctor. The software to do that is not cheap but many facilities profit from the program.

Now, in a year or two, if you haven't switched over the government will start to penalize you. Now, how can they do that, that encourages people to switch? Cut medicare payments by 1%. It goes up from there, but a 1% cut in medicare payment is a legitimate incentive to these places to sometimes spend millions of dollars to be ready to avoid not getting that 1%.

In essence, any tweak at all to medicare reimbursements causes doctors to not be pleased.

A major source of cost increases is useless tests and imaging that occurs. Everyone who bonks their head, demands a MRI and hospitals LOVE that because while the machines do cost millions, it's a huge profit center for them.

The difficulty here is who can step in and question the need for the MRI. You don't want your insurance being a dick when you legitimately need one, and the hospital is unlikely to police themselves, in particularly with a procedure with nearly no risk of being sued and some risk of being sued if you miss something.

Of course being sued is part of the cost of health care and should probably be looked at, but you have to balance things out. On one hand everyone makes mistakes but a doctors mistakes can mean your family member died. They should probably be capped or some sort of sliding scale of awards, I'm not sure. I can say that the doctors most likely to be sued for malpractice, make the most money to compensate for that.

[Mkelcy]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

The 47% was a 'reference' for those folks that Romney figured he could not reach regardless of what he said... I used it in the same manor. A reference to MKelcy - that I wasn't really interested in trying to change his mind. I figured he wasn't going to agree to ANYTHING that I would say.


I don't recall him (Romney) --- or me (GregWeld) --- labeling them as stupid.. or poor... The reference was simply that you can't reach everyone.


See, to me this is part of the problem. We get bogged down arguing semantics rather than the basic issues. Sorry - you can count me out of arguments like that. They're pointless. Let's stick to just trying to find, or arguing about, a solution rather than picking up on whether someone watches Fox news - or wants to challenge an idea based on semantics.

That's pretty funny because I've tried to engage you on who the real drivers of the economy are, and you "surrender," and then talk about all the folks you're keeping employed building a car trailer.

New housing starts at an annual rate of approximately 900,000 units in November mean jobs for housing construction, furniture, appliances, cars, schools, etc. We need consumers to buy those houses, which the "job creators" building them apparently think will be there, even in this Obama dominated economy.

You may think that car trailers, yachts and wine cellars for the 1% are the drivers of the economy, but that's simply not the case. Without consumers, there are no jobs. Perhaps you disagree and can explain why; or perhaps you disagree but can't explain why.

Here's the simple non-semantic assertion - without consumers, there are no jobs, and putting more dollars in the hands of the lower and middle class more directly translates to consumer spending and, yes, jobs.

Notice, no semantics, just clear assertions based on facts. But feel free to "surrender" again and preach to the true believers about the 47% leeches who are destroying this country.

[GregWeld]

Originally Posted by Mkelcy

That's pretty funny because I've tried to engage you on who the real drivers of the economy are, and you "surrender," and then talk about all the folks you're keeping employed building a car trailer.

New housing starts at an annual rate of approximately 900,000 units in November mean jobs for housing construction, furniture, appliances, cars, schools, etc. We need consumers to buy those houses, which the "job creators" building them apparently think will be there, even in this Obama dominated economy.

You may think that car trailers, yachts and wine cellars for the 1% are the drivers of the economy, but that's simply not the case. Without consumers, there are no jobs. Perhaps you disagree and can explain why; or perhaps you disagree but can't explain why.

Here's the simple non-semantic assertion - without consumers, there are no jobs, and putting more dollars in the hands of the lower and middle class more directly translates to consumer spending and, yes, jobs.

Notice, no semantics, just clear assertions based on facts. But feel free to "surrender" again and preach to the true believers about the 47% leeches who are destroying this country.

I'm pretty sure that what I was saying is that I don't care to engage YOU. I love to discuss all kinds of stuff. I'm just not going to do so with YOU. You're like a drunk guy in the bar - you just want to pick a fight. I'm not interested in discussions like that.

[Mkelcy]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

I'm pretty sure that what I was saying is that I don't care to engage YOU. I love to discuss all kinds of stuff. I'm just not going to do so with YOU. You're like a drunk guy in the bar - you just want to pick a fight. I'm not interested in discussions like that.

I get that, many folks would prefer to avoid discussing an issue with someone who both disagrees and can muster facts rather than reaping the praise of the adoring sycophants.

Have at it, I won't bother trying to introduce facts into your wealthy guy pity party any more.

[Bucketlist2012]

Originally Posted by Mkelcy

I get that, many folks would prefer to avoid discussing an issue with someone who both disagrees and can muster facts rather than reaping the praise of the adoring sycophants.

Have at it, I won't bother trying to introduce facts into your wealthy guy pity party any more.

Your posts are why no one takes you seriously....You went off the edge and you cannot crawl back up...

No one takes you serious anymore. And you are to blame. you see RealCorey doesn't agree with us, but the way he discusses things makes us want to discuss things with him...He posts like an adult, you don't..BIG difference..

We can continue discussing opposing views with an Adult, Real Corey...He doesn't agree with some of us, but it is a pleasure to exchange ideas with him..You, like greg says, the drunk at the bar...No one listens...You want to be heard ? Change your attitude..

[camcojb]

let's get this back on track so we don't have to shut it down.

[Bucketlist2012]

Originally Posted by camcojb

let's get this back on track so we don't have to shut it down.

You bet

I will be exiting stage left..

After all,this is a CAR site...