yyz28

This thread is highly entertaining.

It really is maddening isn't it?

This was a train wreck. Nothing else to say. Very disappointing.

I'm sorry - UH fan dumping on another program for being "Average" really makes me laugh my ass off... ...sayin'.

The mighty dollar always trumps all. It will be interesting to see what moves are made. TCU is the most natural replacement, but I can't imagine they can back out of the Big East now... SMU just isn't going to happen. Houston doesn't seem likely, though demographically they fit. We are like Houston without the recent success, so I just can't imagine a scenario where we're a real play. ...so, that almost makes me think they have to go outside of Texas - BYU is thrown around a lot - it would expand the footprint of the Big 12. ...BYU is sort of an odd demographic fit for the Big 12.

Interesting spin. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Rick Perry running for President, but I'll bite. While it is mainly government driving the spending during a time of war, wartime spending by the government (particularly during the period of history we're talking about here) was VASTLY different than Stimulus & Project spending as seen in the New Deal and 2009 Stimulus Act. First, during WWII, virtually all US manufacturing and agricultural processes were diverted from producing product for the private sector and put towards the war effort. General Motors built Airplanes. Ford built Tanks. We had VERY unlimited supplies of agricultural goods and they were rationed - meaning that every bit that could be produced was being consumed in the effort. HUGE demands on factories that were not historically able to run at the productivity required meant that manufacturing innovation had to take place. Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering technologies took quantum leaps forward during wartime to keep up. Since most able-bodied men were overseas fighting, women joined the workforce on mass for the first time and began to earn extra dollars to spend in their households. Waste wasn't an option as every resource (capital, fossil fuels, raw materials, food) was needed to support the war effort. Government funds were spent VERY efficiently during this time. If a job took 3 guys, 2 were assigned and were expected to make it happen... ...and usually they did. There wasn't any of this $200 for a toilet seat (sarcasm, to be sure, but always the go-to example of government waste) crap in 1942. Folks who lived through this time and contributed sell themselves short by giving the credit to FDR, a President who time has shown to be pretty weak on economics. He was a good wartime President, but he wasn't making much progress on the economic crisis of the time until Japan hit us in Pearl Harbor and we went all in. How we manufacture changed. How we worked changed. Who was working change. most of the models of efficiency business (particularly manufacturing) follow were created at that time. It wasn't some temporary road construction jobs or building a dam, it was something with far more impact than those types of temporary projects (and thus jobs) could ever hope to have corrected. The real proof in the pudding came in 2009, when we tried it again with the same results. Only this time - there is no WWII to give bad policy cover.

neat article.

Polls don't mean much, but the ebb and flow of economic indicators are far more telling. We were WELL into WWII before there was an uptick, and years into the big spending in the New Deal there was no economic benefit being felt in any measurable way. Kram is correct, and if you do some real reading on the subject, including point of views both ways, I think you'll find reason to question the story fed us for so many years. WWII got us out of the great depression, not the New Deal.

Well, there are 311,800,000 (roughly) Americans. Do the math on your 50 million which I'll capitulate is correct for sake of this discussion, and you've got... 16%. Yup, one percent more than my figure (which was based on 2009 numbers that the healthcare bill was shoved down our throats on) but closer to 15% than the 20% you quote. ...but even at 20%, you're destroying a system that is covering 80% of Americans by installing law that: A. will not actually cover that many more people as we have discovered during the months since the passage (...cause we had to pass it to see what was in it after all). B. does not provide incentive for companies to keep employees on coverage. C. does not provide enough incentive through the mandate to force people to buy it (fine is a fraction of the cost of the insurance). D. will lower quality and choices for the 80% who currently DO have coverage. E. now that all the details are known is clearly a political step to single payer which the people simply wouldn't have accepted this time around. It is interesting to note that since this president has taken office and since this bill has passed, fewer, not more, people have healthcare coverage. This isn't because of the evil health insurance companies or mean corporations, it's because unemployment is skyrocketing and many of the jobs that are available don't offer benefits. Many of the folks filing bankruptcy for medical bills HAVE health insurance. What does Obamacare do to stop that situation? I heard it used over and over again as a reason we needed this bill, but never once have I heard it explained how this bill stops that nonsense? You know, you say "politics aside" then you play politics. I never said, nor did the folks against THIS type of healthcare reform that the system is perfect. It is FAR from it. I run two of those companies that are facing the double digit increases. There isn't a THING in Obamacare that shows me that will stop. In fact this year AFTER the bill was passed, I had a larger than normal increase. Now that Obamacare has passed and I have a small company that won't be penalized, I could just drop coverage, say "screw my employees" and take an extra 5 figures out of here a month home with me. I'm not going to, because I think health insurance is important. ...but I don't FORCE my employees to take the coverage. I have no right. The Government can't FORCE them to take it either. They have no right. The heavy handed measures in this bill should have been a last resort, not a first step. As has been stated in this thread over and over again, there are lots of other ideas that would help and don't include MORE government involvement, but rather less. Decrease the paperwork, red-tape and government oversight of the healthcare industry. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Broaden the ease for small businesses to pool, and allow them to do so across state lines. (I have different policies for my employees in Dallas vs my employees in Chicago, both on Blue Cross/Blue Shield. How dumb is that?) ...but empowering the IRS, and creating a situation where the Federal Government blows through yet another firewall in the Constitution is not the answer to the healthcare problem in this country. It will only serve to fan the flame and turn the problem INTO the crisis it was manufactured into to get the American people to surrender a little more liberty to the federal government. Good debate, and I appreciate you coming back into continue it.

Glick, the problem is that that none of those facts can be directly linked to our healthcare system.

You forgot the Earthquake in Japan.

Does anyone actually ever do the math on any of this, or do you just make broad blanket statements without knowing why actions were taken or what the impact really was? For instance. The Texas budget for 2010 was 182 Billion, of which 75.5 Billion (or 41.1%) was spent on education, and 59.7 Billion was spent on healthcare (or 32.8%, mostly covering unfunded mandates from the federal government). So when you've got the two largest line items that account for 75% of total spending in the state, and one of them you don't have much room to wiggle because of there is a federal government mandate to spend the money, where do you think the biggest place you can cut is? This sort of parallels this situation in Washington, where nobody is willing to take on Social Security and Medicare and other Entitlements, even though not doing so only prolongs the problem, and a true solution to the debt situation CAN NOT EXIST without restructuring them. The difference is that the politicians in Austin tackled the issue, though unpopular, because the founders of the state had the foresight to understand that politicians needed to be forced to live within their means and thus included a balanced budget clause in our state's constitution, one of a very few number of oversights the founders of the nation made. So, in Austin, they handled it the best they could. Yes. They had to cut education spending as it was the biggest line item in the budget that they could actually do anything about. And they didn't cut it 10 billion like the fear mongers all claimed they would. Not 7 Billion. Not 5 Billion. ... but 4 billion in cuts to 75.5 billion dollar line item. Education spending was cut by 5.3%. ...and moreover, total spending was cut 15.2 billion. So this education spending cut accounted for 26.6% of the cut to the budget, even though education spending is 41.4% of total state spending. ...so it can be argued that they did everything they could to avoid huge cuts to education spending, and, indeed, forced the bulk of the cuts on other areas of spending. I find it funny that people in this thread attack the governor for a decrease in spending on state parks, education and their own pet project then start railing that he has overseen the largest increase in the state's debt in history (a debt which is the result of accepting municipal bonds and not state level spending, and that isn't serviced by interest payments, but let's still use it as a political hot potato since the average citizen doesn't understand this fact). I don't find Perry perfect, and he's done a good deal I wasn't excited with. His involvement with TTC and the HPV vaccine issue both are high on this list of things that I'm not a big fan of. He hasn't been as conservative as I'd like him to be. ...but when I look at the landscape of the folks in the GOP primary at present and narrow it down to the folks who could actually win the nomination, I then have to consider who of those people have the best chance in the general election. It's Romney or Perry. Given the choice, I'll take the guy who DIDN'T pass socialized medicine in their state. I predict he'll win the Nomination, grab one of the tea party favorites as his running mate. I think the early attacks from the Whitehouse on Perry indicate they believe he's the favorite as well. ...but to be honest, unless this economy REALLY improves quickly, which I don't see happening given the current (and likely future policies of this administration) I think we could nominate Elmer Fudd and beat Obama next year. The economy and the fact that it has gotten SO MUCH worse since he took office will be the albatross around his neck, and he will be Carter-ed for it.

So many logical fails in this thread. First is the idea that without mandate most people won't have insurance. Well, that's an obvious fail. Before this manufactured crisis, there were roughly 15% of the population without health insurance. That means that the other 85% of us either made the choice to put a priority on our healthcare and that of our families or have it arranged for us by some other means. 85% of us are covered, and we're going to change that coverage for 85% of us to make sure the other 15% (who aren't denied medical care today mind you, they simply don't have insurance) have some sort of coverage. I have to agree with Kram in insisting that the Auto Insurance discussion be dropped from consideration, as it is an absolute non-sequitor. I will also echo that many plans were put forward by folks other than the ultra left leaders who were in absolute control when this was passed, including a documented several step plan released by the then Republican leaders in congress. These ideas were never given any press time, or so much as a moment on the floor of congress, and the Press just echoed the Democrat talking point that "the Republicans don't have any ideas, they are the 'Party of No!'". ...and for me, in the end, even if I like lots of the ideas within, if a measure is put in place by an unconstitutional mandate, the ends CAN NOT justify the means, as liberty is eroded and firewalls further broken down. If they can ignore the 10th amendment and the interstate commerce clause, they can just as easily ignore the first amendment.

Everyone beat me to it. The federal mandate as in Obamacare requires all citizens, simply for being alive, to buy a product or pay a fine. The comparison to Auto Insurance fails immediately on several fronts. First, you make a choice to drive a vehicle or to get a driver's license. If you don't make the choice to own a car or drive, you don't have to purchase insurance. Second, the state mandates insurance as a cost of driving a vehicle, and the rules for insurance minimums, at what point you must have insurance, etc, as allowed in the 10th Amendment. Finally, the fine for failing to carry insurance is enforced through the legal system where you enjoy due process, whereas the mandate in Obamacare is enforced by the IRS, and it just is. No due process. No legal procedure. The "Auto Insurance" argument thrown out by supporters of Obamacare has been and remains a straw man argument.

I tried that... But having to deal with family strife for years vs. "manning up" hardly seems worth it.

I could give a flip less about the insurance companies. I want the Constitution to be followed. I believe this law and the mandate is unconstitutional. ...the businesses and individuals who will be hurt by this law and the amount of liberty we surrender should this law stand far outweighs the pain a few insurance companies will face... ...but based on what I've read, most Insurance companies are pretty screwed by this law too... ...especially in the long run as this law does what it was designed to do and lead to single payer... That's REALLY going to suck for insurance companies when that happens.

Well, it has been planned for a while, but I guess it wasn't until I was updating my calendar this week that I figured out that my Sister-In-Law's wedding (which I am in) is the evening of September 10th. ...so, how do I get out of my Wife's Sister's wedding so I can come to the game without getting divorced. Any ideas? Crap.

To eat May's grain in April will never be a permanent solution to the problem.

Obviously there hasn't been much policing of the Dorms then. ROTFLMAO! If everyone in the group consented, it's no harm no foul in terms of her scholastic career at UNT. Now, if they want to fire her for the embarrassment she caused the University, I'm OK with that, but expelling a college kid who's a bit wild and experimenting with sex? Might as well close the place down. Sayin'.

Yup... that first amendment sure is a bitch, ain't it? There is some economics 101 stuff being missed. Double Eagle mentioned them here, and I have in about 50 threads over the years here, but they are worth repeating - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CORPORATE TAXES - If you raise taxes on corporations, workers or consumers or both end up taking up the slack. The investors or the evil "wealthy corporations and rich investors" aren't going to be the ones absorbing these tax cuts. You (and other fellow average Americans) will be when you don't get that raise, or the cost of a company subsidized benefit goes up, or you get laid off. YOU and other Average Americans take it in the shorts as prices for necessities and consumer goods go up so that profit margins can be maintained. So when you increase corporate tax rates and/or close tax loopholes that businesses take advantage of, you are in effect raising taxes on the working class and the consumer. THE UPPER 1% OF TAX PAYERS EARN 20% OF THE INCOME and PAY 38% OF THE TAXES. So again, I ask you and anyone who buys into this "end the tax cuts for the rich" class warfare stuff, "HOW MUCH IS FAIR? WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?" If the upper 1% is covering 38% of the tax burden for all of us, and that isn't enough, how much SHOULD they be kicking in? I'm not looking for more words, more class warfare, more why these people suck (all of which is completely irrelevant) I'm looking for a number. SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE! - Social Security is not in the condition it is now because the Rich have had all this money, or because we're not taxing enough, or because the Estate Tax has too large a exemption - it is broke because generation after generation of politician of all stripes and from all parties, have taken the money paid into Social Security, and against the rules of the original legislation, have placed the money in the general treasury and spent it, instead of saving it as an investment as was promised the American People. These politicians were aided in this crime (which is exactly what it is, and any private citizen or investment house that did this would be shut down and their executives would be behind bars) by the Supreme Court who sided with the Government when this was challenged back in the 40's and again in the 50's. No amount of additional revenue can fix this or any other entitlement program. The only way to deal with these systemic problems is to reform, from the foundation up, how they are funded and paid, and then for future congresses to have their hands tied on these structures so that they may not STEAL the money again. Glick, I admire your passion and respect your opinion. That being said, some of the things you said to Kram, including some pretty personal shots at his smarts, really shows a lack of class. We can all disagree, but calling names and treating someone who doesn't agree with you like they are stupid doesn't do much for your credibility, IMHO. ...but that's just me. Good thread.

While I may not agree, I applaud you for having the nuts to say what you mean!

...and the thought that is is a win on Taxes is laughable. This legislation doesn't include a tax hike, but what's slated to happen over the next few months results in one: The Bush tax cuts expire; Obamacare tax hikes begin. That'll be the largest tax hike in history. We have to balance the budget. We have to stop spending. BOTH PARTIES have been spending like drunken sailors. This has to stop, or our kids don't get a future.

This bill gets nothing done, except put us further in debt. It's a setup. This commission is 6 on 6 R vs. D and thus will turn into a deadlocked mess, and the result of the Deadlock is that the biggest thing the Federal government is supposed to do (Defense spending) is what will suffer while entitlements continue to rock along despite the fact that they can't be sustained into the future. This is NOT a win for Republicans. First, other than the few initial cuts, and there are not many, the rest can be (and if history holds, will be) voted down by future congresses. Second, we have just jumped the debt to 16.5 Trillion, because 14.4 isn't enough, I guess. Finally, the Republicans have just given Obama until this commission has to have it's report ready an opportunity to continue to demand tax increases and demagogue the issue for another 6 months engaging in disinformation and class warfare. Other than avoiding the press dumping on them (which is what they do anyways) I'm not sure how any Conservative can feel this is a good deal or a win for our sides. Spending has not been cut. The tax issue has not been put to bed. We're going to get downgraded anyways. Where's the win?

Illegal Immigrants (and often others in various communities) get by sales taxes often by doing business in closed circles. Flea markets, roadside grocers etc are pretty common down in the valley. Federal dollars are a big part of what is funneled to education, and is allocated based on heads, but the bulk of the households I'm talking about here don't pay any federal taxes, so those monies are not being offset at all. Yes, their rent may be funding the property taxes, but the value of this property is a biggest factor that determines its tax value. You can play the stereotype out on your own. Ditto sales tax. Lower income individuals and those who operate completely on cash will pay far less in sales tax than those who have a bank account, debit card, etc. You can find it hard to believe, but the next time you're paying your property taxes if you live in Dallas, take a close look at the parkland hospital line item, and then go check out the waiting room. You then combine these factors in with simple items like the ability of parents to donate time/materials/money to their kid's school districts and the importance of education in the home, and it is easy to see how some school districts far out perform others in the state even though the state/local/federal money being spent per child is the same.

A few important things to include in the thought process that isn't listed in that article - mainly because the facts are not politically expedient for a left-leaning blog site. 1. Deficit shifting has been going on in Austin (and in every other state capital) for years now. It essentially allows the states to pay forward on long-term projects and projects that span fiscal years so that the budget can balance on paper. 2. For all of the cries of accounting tricks in that article, I didn't see anything showing from whom the State of Texas borrowed the money, at what interest rate and under what terms in order to have a true debt. 3. There is no line-item in the budget for interest to be paid on this debt. It would seem if we had debt, we'd be paying for it in the form of interest payments. 4. The only debt that really shows up on the books are unfunded liabilities, in the form of bond backing the state has done both at the statewide level and for local governments. The state often backs up local municipalities and counties when they are seeking funds for projects, particularly education and infrastructure projects. They are motivated to throw their credit behind smaller/weaker locals as it keeps the state from having to fund some of these projects themselves. ...the comments to the article are even more mis-leading. Texas has made moves that make the state VERY desirable. 25 people from California move to Texas every day. Businesses are relocating here by the drove. These migrations push up the tax base and over the long haul will allow the state to do quite well in terms of revenue in the future. The biggest challenge the state faces today in terms of being able to maintain the budget (and is one of the biggest reason why this state's education system is stretched so thin) is the illegal immigration/anchor baby problem. ...and when you compare the outcome of Northern counties in the state vs. Southern counties in the state, you will see that our education system is in league with the top 25% of the country. When education isn't important at home, it won't be important to the Student. Far too many on the dole in this state, and education for far too many people who shouldn't be here and aren't contributing to the tax base is the reason we have a budget problem here. Politicians won't say this because it isn't PC, but it is the truth.