Dubstepforum.com

"If Barack Obama does nothing else in his term in office, this will make him one of the most consequential presidents in history. It's a huge transformative event in Americans' view of themselves and of the role of government. You can say, oh, well, the polls show most people opposed to it, but, if that mattered, the Dems wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Their bet is that it can't be undone, and that over time, as I've been saying for years now, governmentalized health care not only changes the relationship of the citizen to the state but the very character of the people. As I wrote in NR recently, there's plenty of evidence to support that from Britain, Canada, and elsewhere. More prosaically, it's also unaffordable. That's why one of the first things that middle-rank powers abandon once they go down this road is a global military capability. If you take the view that the U.S. is an imperialist aggressor, congratulations: You can cease worrying. But, if you think that America has been the ultimate guarantor of the post-war global order, it's less cheery. Five years from now, just as in Canada and Europe two generations ago, we'll be getting used to announcements of defense cuts to prop up the unsustainable costs of big government at home."

tr0tsky wrote:Less money on bombs and more on blood transfusions, surgeons and flu jabs?


Sounds good to me.

tr0tsky wrote:Less money on bombs and more on blood transfusions, surgeons and flu jabs?


Sounds good to me.

tr0tsky wrote:Less money on bombs and more on blood transfusions, surgeons and flu jabs?


Sounds good to me.

enaz wrote:

tr0tsky wrote:Less money on bombs and more on blood transfusions, surgeons and flu jabs?


Sounds good to me.

Errrm that's actually not at all what this bill does. Perhaps some research should be done before forming an opinion?

enaz wrote:So you know about politics but think this bill will cut the defense budget?

Do you think the government will spend a penny more on health care without passing those costs directly to the citizens?

enaz wrote:I thought the point of the thread was the article was completely reactionary and not at all based in reality. So you know about politics but think this bill will cut the defense budget? Do you think the government will spend a penny more on health care without passing those costs directly to the citizens? They surely won't eat themselves.

enaz wrote:I thought the point of the thread was the article was completely reactionary and not at all based in reality. So you know about politics but think this bill will cut the defense budget? Do you think the government will spend a penny more on health care without passing those costs directly to the citizens? They surely won't eat themselves.

the original article wrote:Five years from now, just as in Canada and Europe two generations ago, we'll be getting used to announcements of defense cuts to prop up the unsustainable costs of big government at home

tr0tsky wrote: (Unlike the British budget that got announced today and I've just finished typing up a paper on. PM me if you want to see my analysis of it)

uncle bill wrote:

tr0tsky wrote: (Unlike the British budget that got announced today and I've just finished typing up a paper on. PM me if you want to see my analysis of it)

PMs, Trots.

A budget of crass contradictions; this will go down as a dying Government’s final breath.

Though it seems that the finances of the public sector are stronger than have been predicted, though it seems (in the right-wing media, at least) that taxes on the highest earners in society would prompt a ‘brain drain’ and though it seems that the bean-counters’ razor has been in full swing, this is not a budget to be taken at face-value.

Grand, unemployment has not reached the staggering heights that we believed it may do at this time next year, but for the Governments’ bravado of investment into internship schemes for the 9.3% 16-24 year olds who are painfully labeled ‘NEETS’ a bitter taste is still left in the mouth of any Socialist when we hear of our savour: a ‘green’ bank. The Youth Employment Guarantee does not go far enough. 6 months is too long to be sat twiddling your thumbs before free training is offered. This should be immediate, on demand and effective.

The £2.5 billion ‘growth package’ is laughable. What happened to the £50 billion used to bail-out the banks? 2.5 is small fish. Sure, the £2 billion raised in bonus taxation will give those of us on the Left a feeling of satisfaction but this will not linger.

What the Government has ignored is the repeated calls to institute a ‘Robin Hood’ tax. A 0.05% tax on banks, hedge funds and financial transactions can – and importantly will- fill budget deficits and prompt economic recovery. This 0.05% can be applied differently to various markets and coordinated with market regulation to minimize affects on volatility. There’s no reason not to implement it.

Maybe with this tax we wouldn’t have to hear the eponymous phrase of this budget; “efficiency savings”. Let us not be deluded into thinking this is anything other than a ‘cut-back’. Public services being lost, working people paying for the crises of the rich. Yet, one department has faired well through the passed year: the Ministry of Defense have had an increase in budget spending. So much for concerns about the Labour government being more concerned with bombs than beds being nothing other than “vitriol”.

Though, it goes without saying that the real issue of this budget will be that of the duty on cider rising by 10% above inflation from Sunday. A united front from the homeless and those from the West Country should be on the cards.

A budget of contradiction indeed, and a dying Government’s last breath.

enaz wrote:Are you all aware that this bill would actually require every person having annual income above the poverty line to purchase private health insurance?

uncle bill wrote:

enaz wrote:Are you all aware that this bill would actually require every person having annual income above the poverty line to purchase private health insurance?

Yeah, I realise that and it looks like a complicated compromise of a system to anyone used to almost 100% public funding but fair play to the Democrats for getting this much through. The opposition to it was massive. Surely a step in the right direction?