I quote from a news source
“Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney jumped into the debate over the GOP's future Tuesday night, warning congressional Republicans against forcing a government shutdown in their quest to stop President Barack Obama's signature health care law.”
I guess those 'young guns' in the House of Representatives are too young to remember the last time this stunt was pulled by the 'eye of Newt Gingrich". I don't have to remind anyone who took the mallet on the head at that time (1995), it was a political disaster for the GOP and Clinton looked like the responsible adult in the room.
We wiill all know who is to blame for throwing another monkey wrench in the engine of Government and the conduct of the people's business.
I think the word nihilism best describes the idea of shutting down the U.S. government. Or, perhaps, al-Qaeda in America. Or, perhaps, one could say the best intentions of the noblest people can have grave consequences.
Sure, I understand that forcing Congress to cut $4 trillion in spending wasn't enough for some people. And I understand that if you hate Obama you hate ObamaCare. But just the threat of shutting down the government that the Republicans are making stops businesses from investing, jacks up interest rates for consumers, makes the U.S. debt cost more to service, raises unemployment, frightens the elderly (and makes them turn into Democrats) because of the thought of the threat of missing a Social Security payment or losing the Medicare health insurance.
Thanks for weighing in, Doc.
The GOP plan to hold up the show is going to hurt everbody, are they willing to pay such a price to make their point?
Since there is also a Democrat contingent threatening a shut down for their own reasons, (see reply to Cred above), was your "al-Qaeda in America" reference to both groups, or just the Republicans?
And where in the world did you get the info for your dire list of consequences, "...stops businesses from investing, jacks up interest rates for consumers, etc."?
While I don't care for the "al-Quada in America" remark at all, the rest of Billy's points are quite correct. Fortunately, the business I am in doesn't depend directly on the ups and downs of the economy, only indirectly, so my ability to plan is less sensitive to the Conservative's decision to let the government operate again as it once did, like in the 1980s, even, to some extent, the 1990s.
But to believe that business in general doesn't hold back its investing until they are certain which direction the gov't wants to take are economy, is simply being naive; I would do the same thing they are doing, sitting on my capital and biding my time or taking my money oversees.
It is a mathematical certainty that the Conservative's recalcitrance to compromise has driven up the debt tremendously by slowing down economic growth. There is no question in any economists mind that if the Conservatives and Democrats had come to a 1980s-style compromise, economic growth would be at least a point higher than it is now and would have started much sooner. Instead, Conservatives squandered their time trying and failing to make Obama a one-term President.
Unfortunately, your vouching for the Doc's statement isn't the type of informative confirmation I was expecting.
Especially since, to me, your response seems to be much more of an "everybody knows that" opinion, rather then a fact supported answer.
As I doubt you have researched the topic enough to validate your "any economist's mind" statement, - how about the easy one: Show me the math that supports your statement: "It is a mathematical certainty that the Conservative's recalcitrance to compromise has driven up the debt tremendously by slowing down economic growth."
I'm not trying to play games of dueling sources, but you speak with such conviction that you are right and everyone that doesn't agree is wrong - maybe providing a few sources that affirm your conviction would help your credibility.
Otherwise, I would say your response is well-matched to your user name.
You are certainly right about these points:
Some Republicans, (albeit a very small number), are threatening a shutdown if Obamacare cannot be de-funded.
Almost every media source, main-stream and alternative, (ie. internet, talk radio), are portraying this as a Republican threat.
But, does anyone hear that there is another side to that coin?
Some Democrats are also willing to shut down the government if they don't get what they want - elimination of the bi-partisan formulated Sequestration cuts.
One of the top Democrats in the House said Friday that his party should be willing to shut down the government this fall unless the spending cuts brought on by sequestration are ended.
Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.), the co-chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, said that he hadn’t blithely come to the conclusion that this type of political standoff was necessary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 … 59331.html
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), meanwhile, vowed to do “everything within my ability” to oppose a budget that maintains sequester-level spending.
Moreover, The Washington Post reported Friday that senior White House officials were weighing a strategy by which President Obama would threaten a veto of any bill that did not roll back the sequester. Administration officials have also signaled that the president would definitively veto any legislation that provided deeper cuts than those already in place with the sequester.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat … z2aeBAETjL
Meanwhile, some Democrats also are taking a hard-line position this time -- vowing a shutdown unless Republicans agree to replace the austere federal spending cuts known as sequestration with less drastic ones.
Sequestration, which started in March after Washington failed to agree on a more measured approach to spending reductions, has since cut $55 billion -- about 5 percent -- from the day-to-day operating budgets of federal agencies.
"There are lots of progressives who care about domestic discretionary spending who think that the Republicans are winning because with the sequester we have a gradual downsizing of the government going on that nobody's doing anything about,” said Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf. “If we just let it keep happening without having a confrontation about it we're losing. And Sept. 30 becomes a place to have a confrontation about it."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 … obamacare/
Admittedly I am taking these sourced quotes at face value, I did not try to "go to the horse's mouth" to confirm them.
But if they are true... Is this true?
We wiill all know who is to blame for throwing another monkey wrench in the engine of Government and the conduct of the people's business
Is it really only the Republicans that are threatening a shutdown?
If the Republicans are wrong for threatening such a strong measure to stop a piece of legislation they don't like, are the Democrats also wrong for the same reason?
Right, GA, if the Democrats are guilty of these kinds of tactics, I damn them to hell too. But it is only Right that is so arrogant to impose in this way, I'll wager you. Just watch. The last major example of this was in 1995 with catastrophic consequences for the GOP, so we know who has the track record. If I am wrong, as always, I will eat crow. i understand the reasoning of the rightwinger, he will want to keep all the toys to play with or he will go home......So if there is a problem, they will be behind it.
BTW, I see you are taken in my the latest Conservative spin on the Sequester, saying this was "planned" to be this way. That is the furthest thing from the truth, the Sequester was planned "Not To Happen" because it was made so terrible that the Conservatives would be forced to compromise during negotiations. But, they didn't. After causing America's bond rating to fall, they drove American's to the brink of huge tax increases before finally agreeing to a partial compromise, all the while knowing they can bring America to its knees again on the next debt ceiling debate.
I don't understand where you are coming from with this.
Nowhere in my post that you are responding to did I offer any spin or mention of a "plan" regarding the Sequestration. I only stated it was a bi-partisan piece of legislation.
So how was I taken in?
Are you saying the Conservatives involved in the Sequestration legislation purposely structured it to force "other" conservatives to compromise?
And are you saying it was the Conservatives that caused the bond rating drop?
And what is your "inside information" source that confirms it was all a conservative scheme to prime the pump for the next debt ceiling crisis?
You seem confident in your grasp of the situation, care to share the sources that support your confidence?
Because the that is the spin the Conservatives, e.g. McConnell, are putting on it. Yes, they agreed to it, but what they agreed to was "Not to let it happen" and they failed to keep their promise to the American People and let this disaster befall us. He makes it sound like this was the plan all along ... it wasn't.
But what about the Democrats that agreed to it? Now they are threatening a shutdown if it is not overturned?
Are you saying it's only a Republican issue?
You betcha'! The Democrats agreed to what? They agreed to a deal to come to a budget compromise with the Republicans with the full expectation of that happening because the alternative was too terrible to contemplate. Apparently, the Conservatives thought that the alternative, the Sequester, was just dandy, so they refused to compromise and forced the Sequester. Only the Conservatives wanted this, not the Democrats, they knew better and mistakenly thought the Conservatives would act rationally.
So, when you sift through both sides accusations, it apparently came down to the Dems of the Super Committee refusing to "compromise" on the amount of tax increases, and the Repubs on the committee refusing to compromise on the amount if spending cuts.
Here is Wikipedia's condensed version of the impasse'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … nd_failure
Of course their are more details, and more "he said - she said" accusations, but the bottom line is a deficit reduction plan wasn't achieved because both sides refused to compromise.
And the Sequestration bomb was dropped.
Yet, you say it was all the Repubs fault.
Of course you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to believe you are mistaken.
But, you can easily prove me to be wrong in thinking you are wrong - simply by presenting facts, (not talking points or shills), that support your opinion.
ps. The Budget Control Act of 2011, which created the Super Committee and the Sequestration Bomb, was a White House idea, the brainchild of White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling. Boehner and Reid originally opposed it. This doesn't seem to support your position that it was a dastardly Republican scheme from the beginning.
*the above information came from a quick Wikipedia perusal, and may or may not be accurate. But if it is, then one of those famous "20 minute Google searches" might have proved beneficial to you.
pss. I happen to think they were both at fault, so I am not defending the Repubs, just refuting the Democrat mantra that "It's all the Republicans fault!"
Let's see, if memory serves, the Democrats offered up $3 trillion in budget cuts plus 400 billion in Medicare savings (something Obamacare has already accomplished) and $1.4 trillion in tax revenues. The final Republican proposal was $1.2 trillion in budget cuts and a paltry $300 billion in revenue increases from loophole closing and a "Reduction" in the top marginal rate from 35% to 28% (I am not sure how that works mathematically, but that is what they said). Tell me again who wasn't willing to compromise?
In the end, the Democrats got their tax increase anyway and the Republicans got their Sequestration.
None of that changes the end result - both sides refused to compromise.
There have probably been hundreds of thousands of pages written defending, explaining, justifying one side or the other.
A minor discussion between us would just be a little more chaff in the wind.
After all, I could point out that there was a Toomey(sp?) compromise offered to the Dems, but they shot that down. And then you could counter that..., and then I would ... and so on. Your statement regarding the "already achieved" $400 million Obamacare savings proves that. From what I have been hearing, both the CBO and CBPP are saying something different.
My point is that I completely disagree with your contention that it was all the Republican's fault. I see too much supporting information for my opinion that both sides were wrong. I don't have a "home" team in this game, so I don't think I'm being ideologically swayed..
The Toomy compromise was was the one I listed, the one with lower marginal tax rates and less cuts in spending, not the final one that Republicans finally accepted two months later with higher marginal tax rates but a higher income threshold. The latter is what is called a compromise and if accepted in November, they could have gotten 3 trillion in spending cuts to go along with it; as it ended up they got nowhere near that much.
I agree, we can't change history, but we can get it correct.
My information on the Medicare savings is from the official source of such data, the one the CBO uses, the actuaries of the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services. $200 billion is accrued and projected through 2016 in Trust fund savings, the remainder is lower costs for seniors already accrued and projected through 2020, I believe.
Fortunately for America, they do not, Credence. I say fortunately because once America suffers through an unrequited period of acute, self-inflicted appendicitis, we will be rid of the greatest hindrance to true growth and progress (for all Americans, not just for the wealthy as the 1980s and 2000s saw) since the 1960s.
The best part about this is that even Mitt Romney was like "C'mon that's a terrible idea".
I guess conservatives are not necessarily republicans these days. I am a conservative, and I am opposed to the shutdown. How is shutting down the government going to help? It's a political move that will do nothing but make life difficult for some and anger a lot of people. It's a perfect example of the garbage governments do, the things a true conservative would loath. We want the government to do its job efficiently and with as little disruption to our lives as possible. This is a great disruption, and it is certainly not an efficient way to run a government. Conservatives should oppose this.
I do, however, feel their same frustration. It's time for a responsible budget. At some point, we need to check our spending and get serious about not kicking the can down the road. Liberals are literally buying votes at the cost of our future. Shutting the government, in an effort to make a point, is not the solution, and it is irresponsible. We conservatives complain when the POTUS is unyielding and difficult to work with. How is this behavior any different?
It goes without saying, EA, that I agree with the substance of your first paragraph.
Well, we say that conservatives are willing to continue tax breaks that we cannot afford for Thurston Howell, while gutting social programs, and that won't do.
Yes, it is time for a responsible budget, but it won't come from the GOP. What was it that the panderbear Mitt Romney said during the GOP debates? He said that even if there were 9 dollars of cuts for every dollar of increased revenue, he would not accept it. Sounds a lot like the GOP obstructionists in the House. This is not compromise, not even close. Well, the GOP is being put on notice that if they pull what they did almost 20 years ago, bringing the economy to a screetching halt, the blame will be firmly fixed upon them now, as it was then. The adverse political consequences will come upon them in 2014, much like we saw in 1996 as a result of Newt and his blunders We see the GOP as being stubborn and unyielding, but we will let them make the mistake of being strident and see how it plays on Main Street. The President will appear on Jay Leno, David Letterman and where ever else necessary to get the point across. We complain that the GOP house is stubborn and difficult to deal with. How is that behavior any different?
I see the president appearing on these shows as symptomatic of the problem he is having in Washington. He tries to go to the public to get things accomplished when he should be talking to Congress. Even some democrats have expressed frustration over that. To me, he just doesn't seem to have the leadership qualities necessary to bring democrats and republicans together. He's considered a polarizing president for a reason.
The GOP won't provide a responsible budget either. We can agree on that. Still, the GOP has tried to do some cuts, and the president has been unwilling to cut, saying the economy isn't strong enough. At some point, we need to do something about runaway spending. If not now, then when?
He already tried to 'talk to Congress' through his first term, where did it get him?
I applaud the President for getting the message out, instead of this issue seen as just an esoteric concept, why not get the man in the street to see what is at stake? He should be working that along with trying to get an agreement through Congress. I am not satisfied with GOP intransigence making a middle of the road approach impossible.
This is not going to be solved with the GOP getting 100% of what it wants, period. If they cannot accept that reality then they need to be prepared for the fallout from any and all sources. Turn up the heat and perhaps they will see the light. The pain necessary for cuts need to be shared across the spectrum and not extracted from one aspect of the budget. The sooner the GOP recognizes that, the sooner a solution can be in the offing. The public forum is a reminder to Republicans that if they hold up the show, everybody will know who is responsbile, so I would 'get crackin', if I were them.
Obama has offered to cut large portions of entitlements to the ire of his constituency on the left, while the conservatives sit there with hands folded, not budging.
I am sorry, but name me one Republican who cares about his district more than a principle which only in theory works but in practice is, and always has been a disaster, that doesn't buy votes as well.
Why no mention of the $2 trillion in cuts achieved so far that the Conservatives could have gotten without all of the brinksmanship and histrionics. Democrats have also agreed to another $2 trillion if only the Conservatives could learn to spell the word "Compromise".
The government has been shut down for as much as 17 days(Clinton) at a time in the last 40 years. It was shut down during Nixon, Carter, Regan, Clinton, and a couple of days during GW Bush administration. What happens when Washington goes home and nobody is there on Saturday and Sunday? Does the world come to an end. "NO". In the passed the workers get all their back pay in the end.
The biggest threat to the free market and my pocket book is debt. If we raise the debt ceiling and inflation goes up, who's going to pay the interest on our 7 Trillion in debt. "You and Me". Temporary politicians make permanent laws we have to live with. It doesn't make any difference what party. .But if I am correct the Democrat party had majority in both houses 2006-10 and currently have the senate and the presidency. Just saying,
I quote from Dr. Billy Kidd
"But just the threat of shutting down the government that the Republicans are making stops businesses from investing, jacks up interest rates for consumers, makes the U.S. debt cost more to service, raises unemployment, frightens the elderly (and makes them turn into Democrats) because of the thought of the threat of missing a Social Security payment or losing the Medicare health insurance."
I am not subjecting myself to all this because the GOP wants to have its cake and eat it too. They screw up this time, it will be crow that they get to eat. The debt ceiling has been raised countless until the president came into office. Why was the increase ok under Bush? What else I have to say can be found in my comment to Education Answer....
Thanks for weighing in
The "government" shuts down every time there is a significant snow storm in the D.C. area. It shuts down every week end. Everyone but essential personnel are asked to stay home when the snow shuts it down. WHY are there any personnel who are unessential in "government'? Shouldn't all nonessential personal be immediately terminated? Wouldn't that save a pretty penny.
Why do leftists insist that America cannot function without their giant, intrusive, inefficient, unconstitutional government when for the first 116 years of the country government was so much smaller as to be nearly invisible. At one time the only contact any one had with the government was their postman. We went from being a mere collection of colonies to being the largest economy in the world in those 116 years and now leftists want to end that.
I say shut it down, rip it out by its roots, throw it on a fire big enough for them to see it in Beijing and send a note that says, "America went crazy after FDR, but look out, we are back."
LMAO, I would try to answer most of this nonsense other than to note that from 1800 - 1930, during the heyday of your highly touted Conservative economics, per Capita GDP rose about 0.9% a year, on average. From 1940 until 2000, during the period of you claim to be failed liberal economics, per Capital GDP increased, on average, 3.2% per year. Then, in 2008, after an 8-year run of Conservative economics again, we wind up with the worst recession since 1937. Explain this to me please.
America's economy grew from virtually nothing to the greatest economy in the world between 1800 and 1930. By 1930, we were producing more goods than the rest of the world combined. How is that a failure? We certainly can't claim that now.
I'll say again, per capita GDP, a broad measure of economic output, and the only one I could find that went back to 1700, grew at a rate of only point 9 percent from 1800 to 1930. There might have been a few good years make America's glasses rose-colored, but, in the same time, not counting the Great Depression, there were 6 economically based minor recessions, and 12 economically-based major recessions (think 2008), and 5 economically-based depressions. There were also 19 other recessions, most minor, that were caused for other reasons. I don't care how you cut it, those are NOT good statistics!
Since 1940, per capita GDP, i.e., economic output, grew at a nice rate of 3.2%; all of it under Keynesian economic theory with only 9 minor economically-based recessions. Those are good statistics, no matter how you try to parse them.
I will have to check on your "combined" claim; it doesn't square with what I remember Europe and Asia doing during the Gilded Age.
Check away. It is a common, accepted fact that is taught both in history and economics. Even Wikipedia says, "The United States has been the world's largest national economy since at least the 1920s." So, prior to the date you set, 1930, our country had become the largest economy in the world. How is that a failure? It is obvious that most of our economic growth occurred between the two dates, 1800 to 1930, that you attribute to conservatives. Wikipedia does, however, mention a marked slowing in the economy, starting about 40 years ago, but that doesn't fit into the 1800-1930 date that you set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of … ted_States
Again, our country was but a blip on the world economic radar in 1800. We overtook Britain, in GDP, just a few years after our Civil War. Our growth during this period was astounding. American growth, from 1800 to and including World War II, marked the most significant economic growth in worth history. It is a fact.
What was the rate of inflation before the establishment of the Federal Reserve? The typical unskilled workman's wage remained unchanged for decades because the dollar had a fix rather than routinely inflated value. But we waste or efforts trying to explain anything to leftists, they are the ruination of humanity and will only be content when we all live in a Solzhentisyn story of misery and privation for the many and nice government jobs for the leftist elite.
Like speaking Manx to a Mongol - there is no point. One cannot awake one who pretends to be asleep.
You said, "WHY are there any personnel who are unessential in "government'? Shouldn't all nonessential personal be immediately terminated? Wouldn't that save a pretty penny."
GREAT POINT! +1
I was non-essential in terms of safety and security, which is what they are talking about. Yet, because of what I did for the Air Force, I was responsible for reducing their budget needs a minimum of several 10s of millions of dollars a year, according to an OSD report.
So, you are in favor of eliminating me, makes sense to someone, I am sure.
"I say shut it down, rip it out by its roots, throw it on a fire big enough for them to see it in Beijing and send a note that says, "America went crazy after FDR, but look out, we are back."
But you have to get past US first and that ain't gonna be a walk in the park.
Those that recklessly propose such a course, the shut down, will pay dearly on the political scene, shutting down any ability they (the right) will have to pursue its agenda.
This is a terrible bill, though. I have been out of work two years (over educated and under experienced) and now I have to buy health insurance? There's no way I can do that writing on the Internet, which I'm trying to turn into my main source of income. This is personal to me. I'm 29 and in great health because I have a great diet and exercise regimen. Why do I need to pay into healthcare? I'm buying something I don't need. The principal of choice is important to some people, and this measure is being arbitrarily shoved down our throats. If you don't want this plan, you should be able to opt out regardless of whether you have a cushy job with full benefits or not.
I suppose that you do not want to pay into social security, medicare or pay taxes, but receive all the services that these obligations provide, typical conservative thinking.... You are vulnerable to a lot more than krytonite, who pays when you get into an accident but you feel obligated not to pay the freight for the service. We pay for the uninsured or let them go without treatment, is the latter better? So you are going to pay either way, period. There are many civilized western societies that do a better job dealing with these kinds of services. Why must conservatives be so flintstonian about everything?
Actually, no you don't have to pay for health insurance, if you have no income to speak of because public assistance comes into play. If you do earn a little bit, then your part of the contribution is just as miniscule with the gov't picking up the rest of the tab via savings (some already being realized, others being hoped for) resulting from the program plus taxes of various sorts.
My point is, I don't want to pay for your health care simply because you refuse to get health insurance when you are able to. I personally think that if a person voluntarily has no health insurance, then all health care delivery needs to be on a cash only basis. If the voluntarily uninsured doesn't have or can't get the cash to pay the bill at the time of service, then the service should be denied; if that means he or she dies; so be it, that was their choice.
Sounds like you, @innersmiff, want 50 independent States and no America.
Why stop there? If we find it acceptable that the US can be independent from the British Empire, why can't we have independent counties, independent cities, independent districts, independent streets, independent houses, independent people?
Independent people? No, we aren't allowed to have that. The government knows what's best.
Once we are all captured and locked in the zoo, it isn't only the zoo keeper one must fear. Leftists love the idea of captivity and if you seek to end yours they will kill you. Through out the history of communist East Germany, it is ordinary people who help the state consume the tiny bits of liberty sought by others. If you want to be free, own your own property, not participate in their zoo, they will insist that that the government compel your participation, punish you and eventually, kill you.
It would be nice if the irresponsible ones like California, Maryland and Illinois were sent packing or if Texas seceded. Why not 50 independent states? America is finished anyway, might as well let each state fend for itself. I can honestly say that my state, Indiana, should dig a mote along its western border before that happens.
No one wants to pay taxes. Let's be honest.
There are, however, some things that need to be provided at the collective level. Those include services that are protective to your person and your property: things like police, fire and national defense. This also would include places like your prison. Prison is an unfortunate case because you are paying for the infractions of others, but there really is no way around it. Dangerous individuals cannot be kept in the same pool with the healthy because they infringe on others A. personal safety and B. property rights (see: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
A nation also needs laws, so taxes to employ a basic government (legislative, executive, and judicial) to execute the laws, choose the lawmaking body (elections) and collect the taxes are necessary.
Sometimes there can be savings from aggregate purchase of utilities, or government ownership of capital that can be bid out to private individuals like railroads and pipes. This is acceptable, as long as there is a competitive bidding process AND you can opt out of paying (for instance, tolls, where you can choose to pay or not). The key is choice, and economic liberty is what kept the United States as a premier power for centuries.
This health plan is a problem because it FORCES the healthy and the sick to both pay for the sick, even if the sick become ill through their own negligence. Unless you have health coverage, you will be taxed too and will find yourself paying for people who are abusive to their own bodies. You say "well don't they deserve health care too?"
A complicated question. I would like them to receive healthcare. However, not at our expense. I may even CHOOSE to give an ill person money, if I feel they will take care of themselves. Instead, our money will be forced into a pool, and SOMEWHAT redistributed among individuals who are sick through no fault of their own and those who are sick from things like tobacco, morbid obesity, and even hard drugs.
There should be a price for negligence. Not only because it is just, but also because less people will be negligent if there isn't a safety net. I think we would have a healthier society (but there are other variables).
All of this, of course, assumes the politicians, bureaucrats and middlemen insurance companies aren't going to take a huge chunk out of the collected money for this healthcare measure in the first place. There are collection, administrative, and implementation costs for everything. There is a substantial amount of literature on the tendency for governmental agencies to want to maximize their budgets if not kept in some sort of legal or allocative check.
Now for your personal attack.
Who said I was conservative? I resent that. You automatically assume I buy all conservative ideology because I dislike this healthcare reform act? I am actually a limited government libertarian, in favor of things that a lot of conservatives might vomit over. Please do not assume that who you are speaking with has some sort of non-malleable political identity. I think the American right and the American left are old, bloated, overpaid clowns.
Social security is irrelevant because it is almost certain to fail by the time I'd be old enough to collect anyway.
Furthermore, yes, it is tempting to take services that you've been paying into for this long. People think "eh, what the Hell, I've been paying into it this long anyway might as well GET as much as I can out of it."
That's why the welfare state, Keynesian/ Marxist model will explode in a ball of fire every time. There is no disincentive for over-consumption of your public resource and escalating costs will occur because of congestion.
People who aren't really very sick will be going to the doctor for a stuffy nose because "it's free anyway, why not!"
But this is not free. It's consuming resources we cannot afford to waste on services that matter very little to most of us, sometimes INCLUDING EVEN the direct consumer of the service.
Finally, I wish there was a less stupid alternative to shutting down federal government, but it looks like filibuster may be the last bastion of hope that we don't come under this terrible, terrible bill.
Thank you. I apologize if that came off a little harshly, but I needed to be clear. I believe this bill makes society as a whole more poor in America.
Great Big Jules, that is your opinion and you have a right to it, but it is not mine.
Ok you are a libertarian, that is better than a conservative, I stand corrected. Of course, SS is irrelevant to you, but you are against it in principal, as libertarian you must be
Well, I say raw capitalism sucks and is ultimately going to be basis of internal conflict if allowed to run its course unchecked.
Big Jules, I will defend your right to your opinion and do not want to come off as strident, it's just that from the left, our reality is much different. If you are libertarian, the chances are next to nil that those concepts will have any support outside of traditional GOP circles. So, what is the plan?
I'd actually like to see a movement to a four or five party system, brought on by the massive contingent of Americans that are tired of two parties.
I actually believe that both libertarian and socialist movements, plus also hyper conservatism, are gaining enough traction to make a serious impact on votes. It seems like every year I'm hearing more people identify as independent, libertarian, socialist, anarchist or something else.
I want to see each candidate have a pre allocated, equal amount of air time also. I'm tired of pay-for-commercial space elections based on contributions from PACs and bundlers. I really believe we will see four or five legitimate parties before all is said and done. The best way is to have a unite for choice movement, where there is power in numbers.
I keep looking at the Parliamentary system, essentially what you are describing, and how it works in those countries which chose to have it, which are most, that are free; I just can't seem to understand how that is better than what we have after watching both in operation. This is especially true in terms of the choice of who the elected officials will be; they are almost always handpicked by the Party. You may think that is the way it happens in America, it is not; just consider Obama.
There is nothing in our laws preventing multi-party; it is just the nature of the beast of how we operate and I don't even think it is the result of the money, as abhorrent as it is. Throughout our history, up until Lincoln, there have been a surprising number of Parties that actually gained some legitimacy, and the Republican Party wasn't one of them; that died with President Andrew Jackson when the Republican part of the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson died away and it simply became the conservative Democratic Party. In simplistic terms, the progressive elements of the remnants of the Republicans grew to be the Whigs who ultimately, for political reasons, ended up becoming the Lincoln Republicans.
My point is, in this whole process, through this multitude of political parties, they always, in order to survive, coalesced into one of two major Parties because of how Congress is set up and especially the way the House is run.
In the past, pre-1996, both Parties were broad enough to effect a multi-party system; each had their conservative, moderate, and liberal wings. As a consequence, government could function through compromise as was intended. But since 1996, one Party, the Republicans, is composed almost solely of conservative ideologues and therefore making compromise, as we have observed, difficult to impossible.
Just to pick on one point of what you said, for your beginning is quite correct.
Why is it that nobody seems to understand, nor apparently care, that those healthy people who chose not to buy insurance but who get sick or are in an accident anyway are FORCING YOU to pay for their health care. Why does that not bother you? Why is forcing you to pay fair and forcing them to protect themselves AND you, not? Those are your two choices and you seem to pick the latter. (
(Actually, I take that back, there is a third, cash on the barrelhead at time of service in the form of cash, a loan from a third party before the service is rendered, or proof of insurance prior to the need; otherwise it is denial of service and if you die, you die, ... your choice. I wonder how many healthy people would voluntarily sign up for insurance then, especially after the first few of them started dying in the waiting room.)
So the best option is allowing those uninsured WE CHOOSE to pay for, through things like family, friends, and charity. This way, the services are not being handed to those who abuse themselves at the expense of everyone else. Some deserve treatment, and some don't. Let's allow ourselves the option of choice as to who does.
Two of the government mass transit agencies in the San Francisco Bay area are about to strike, putting hundreds of thousand people on their own for transportation. How is that different than shutting down the government? The union train operators make upwards of 70k a year to push start/stop and open/ shut buttons. Remember these are government employees. Federally and State subsidized trains. Only the governor could stop it temporarily.
Here is another Wikipedia quote regarding our economy:
"From 1865 to about 1913, the U.S. grew to become the world's leading industrial nation."
Here are some additional quotes and matching sources:
"The period post-Civil War till the turn of the 20th century witnessed the greatest period of economic growth in American history. "
"By the beginning of the 20th century, per capita incomes were double that of Germany or France, and 50% higher than Britain."
http://www.quora.com/Economic-History/A … -the-world
"AMERICA has been the world's leading economic power since 1871."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd … ly-chart-8
What is wrong with Mitt...? all Obama has to do is give in to their requests. Presto * no government shut-down with the added bonus of no country-wide shut down (which surely could occur with implementation.)
I don't expect the man that I elected president to capitulate to ureasonable right wing demands from the House GOP. The President will properly make sure that the GOP is properly assigned the blame for being stubborn and intransigent. under the circumstance that there is a government shutdown.
...are they unreasonable if the "Affordable" Healthcare bill/act ends up being anything but? how come we don't know whats in it????? Hiding much? how do you know they are being unreasonable? there might be some good reason.
Good enough to shut down the government. I guess you don't trust their judgement.
Your suggestion is to be considered but what if it, ACA, is as stated and the GOP is merley taking a sclorotic ideological stance to prevent its passage? I do not know about you, but I think that is what this is really about. The only objections I hear are from the GOP right and I don't trust them.
I have to blame the Democrats and the President for not doing a better job in explaining how all this is going to work.......
I guess you don't listen to talk radio.
No, I watch the Sunday morning news programs with my favorites being the 'roundtables' bringing in folks from across the ideological spectrum to discuss an issue, where I get to hear the merit of both sides without sensationalism.
Only POTUS on Sirius/XM, the rest, both liberal and conservative, are there to simply entertain you, provide comic relief, and make the DJs and sponsors tons of money. You don't take them seriously do you? I mean Rush is at least honest about it, he calls his show "entertainment".
There are plenty of Democrats who have expressed doubts about the efficacy of your vaunted and inappropriately named Affordable Care Act. But no point in bring that up. Manx to a Mongol.
I will take my chances with Obama over the malignant GOP plans for the country in virtually every aspect of our lives.Because of GOP unreasonableness, the Left and the Democratic juggernaut is unstoppable, and you all know it and subsequently you accurately predict your own political demise. Keep all this stuff up and it will be here sooner than you think....
Don't you concern yourself, I understand your coarseness loud and clear and it is of no effect 'Manx to a Mongol"?
Its been a couple of years now, why haven't you read it, or at least a synopsis of it. I have and its not that hard.
What is wrong with the conservatives giving in to Obama and
Presto * no government shut-down with the added bonus of no country-wide shut down (which surely could not occur with implementation based on the history with social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, all of which were predicted to bring the country to its knees, but didn't.)
...its partial implementation has already proven to be restrictive to businesses and has already caused negative economic impact. Ask their employees who were laid off or demoted to part time status and/or reduced earnings, through no fault of their own, due to health care mandates.
And Is it morally right and fair to tax citizens for services/products they are not even going to get?
The answer is
Of Course Not.
I, for one, am glad they are standing their ground. The course of this nation depends on what they are doing.
And is it morally right to tax citizens to pay for health care for those who could afford to pay for their own insurance but refuse to? I have asked this question many times and have never gotten a straight answer.
And, you know, I have to wonder about all of these news reports and the big deal made by y'all about this supposed avalanche of companies doing as you said, cutting back workers hours or laying them off in order to avoid buying insurance for them under Obamacare. I find it strange because only 3% of those companies who fall under those provisions don't provide insurance coverage already; that means the other 97% already provide coverage!! And the gov't will help that 3% get coverage to boot!!!
So, it my belief that those few companies who are actually doing those things you mention are doing it for very selfish reasons that have very little to do with Obamacare.
it is still a pretty free country. It won't be. You'll see.
So it is your belief that the government of the United States has an obligation to force a citizen to buy something he does not want to buy. Why is buying insurance so important the the police power of the state should be employed to compel it? Perhaps what we should be insisting upon is that everyone buy their own medical care. After all, don't people who eschew purchasing insurance pay for their own medical care? What is so holy and sacred about buying insurance? Shouldn't those who are able merely buy their own medical care?
How about food, housing, clothing, education, transportation, beer, sexual companionship, recreation, entertainment, etc...should those who don't want to provide for their own wants be forced by the government to pay for their own wants? OR, as is the case, people who don't want to make more of their lives and live within their means should be cared for like pets by an over reaching, overweening government that seeks to place us all on a leftist run preserve where control will make us all equal.
After all a controlled population would get the food, medical care and education that the government provides for it without any pesky wealth or freedom or private property or liberty. After all, aren't all the tigers in the zoo treated the same, while tigers in the state of nature aren't. Leftists want us all to be tigers in the zoo, so they can tell us when to get our teeth cleaned, when to get our check ups and what we can eat, when we can breed, etc...and kill us if we escape.
We are finished as a free people precisely because of leftist entitlements that are now part of everyday life.
Thank you. It is by our nature that we are free, it is government that always threatens that natural freedom, hence the need for limits upon government. Our founders understood this, that is why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights to limits government authority. Our People have forgotten this wisdom and we are paying a terrible price.
You try to make the point that "After all, don't people who eschew purchasing insurance pay for their own medical care? ..."; no, they often don't, it is hard to come up with $12,000 for a simple surgery from the accident they were just in; and if they don't you will, through higher taxes and higher in insurance premiums.
Thinking out loud:
The only solution is for hospitals to lower their fees and turn away people who can't afford it or who don't have insurance.
Only then would people be motivated to get insurance.
However, we as a people are just too nice. I have heard the word, nice, in the 1400's meant, ignorant.
I would've died in a year in '08 if I did not have insurance for a certain procedure.
(My surgeon had begged me to get insurance after I broke my ankle in '04 without having any. I then got insurance because he made me realize that he and the hospital get shortchanged otherwise. I was very glad I had it in '08.)
We euthanize our dogs and cats easily, but we people seem to be afraid of our own deaths.
Q. What if we weren't (afraid of our own deaths?)
A. Those who can't afford health insurance would face the reality of not living as long as they otherwise might.
This topic poses a real dilemma in today's world. Its never been an issue in history.
That is a good way to get rid of all the poor, deny health care. We should implement that, it will solve the poverty problem, for only those who can afford a somewhat lower cost health care will be left alive.
The argument then is not over insurance but over those who will use but not pay for a product. Isn't that theft? Criminal conversion? or some other criminal activity? What does a mechanic do when a customer refuses to pay? Does the mechanic ask the government to force everyone to pay him? Or does he pursue payment from the dead beat?
The problem is that we think of medical care as a right rather than a product subject to the same market forces and rules as any other product. If someone cannot afford a product they save up, borrow to purchase it or purchase a less expensive alternative. Wouldn't a marketplace free from interference by insurance cartels and government meddling be a more responsive, wider reaching and more reliable - and not to mention - more liberating means of providing health care?
After all, we have grown enormously fat as a nation providing food in every conceivable form and at an incredible range of price and means of delivery.
If we could figure this out we would've by now. We are just too compassionate. Who will say to some one, (like me at that point... and my orthopedic surgeon easily could have,) No, I will not fix your 50% dislocated ankle because you can't afford it.
And yet that is exactly what is coming under Obamacare. Once you have reached a certain age, certain level of sickness or injury or have a particularly intractable or expensive illness the doctor will be forced - BY LAW - to tell you know and give you a pain pill and send you home to die, because there is not enough money for a massive, government run bureaucracy to decide who is and who is not treated. Government rationing is always unjust, miserable, punishing and always, without exception, produces shortages of the very thing it seeks to manage better than the amazing mechanism of free markets.
We are in for a giant heap of living hell on Earth simply because we are, once again, accepting the idiocy of government run economics.
and how is that any different from how it is today except it is the insurance companies making those decisions you say the gov't is going to make, which they aren't.
Please point out to me in the law where they are going to have that power. I have read a good portion of it and haven't seen anything like what you describe in there; but since I haven't read the whole thing, maybe it is in the part I haven't gotten to yet. But it is a fact that insurance companies currently wield that power and I have watched them use it.
It would be nice if the proposed healthcare program would work out. I don't see how it can. Where in the world is it successful? Small little countries like Finland? We have an extended republic. The states should handle their own health care issues. Not the Fed.
That's what they said about forming the Republic in the first place, America was too big for it to work; it did, so will Obamacare.
There are an increasing number of Democrats who say it will not, including those who helped write the bill in the first place.
Here is a story from the Washington Post recounting situations where concerns over government spending has harmed the patient, and Obamacare is not yet fully implemented.
The purported cost saving measures are anything but cost saving. The entire health care market is out of wack precisely because government has been involved in it for 40 years paying an ever increasing portion of health care dollars. Prior to Obamacare the government was paying 47cents of every healthcare dollar. What will happen to healthcare costs when that proportion increases is easy to foretell.
All of this is academic. We have come to accept that it is the responsibility of the government to force out of the hands of one man the product of his efforts and award that product to another who did nothing to earn it except own a vote and claim a need. This is the end of America.
Yes, the states should be able to do this on their own. I love the conservative sentiment behind your statement.
Still, I have no desire to see Obamacare fail just to make a point. Our country can't take that kind of a financial hit. So, even though I despise Obamacare, I hope it is a success. I hope the democrats prove me wrong.
What seems to almost always drives what conservatives call Federal overreach is the failure of a significant number of States to provide the basics, and yes, I am one of the ones that believe all Americans have a right to have access to basic health care, and that that access it shouldn't be dependent on other factors getting in the way of that access. Meaning while the states "should" be able to do this on their own, the fact is, too many of them didn't. The same is true for civil rights and education.
I'm not going to argue with the fact that neither most of the states nor the federal government has done much to control healthcare costs. That's a fact. Still, here's an example of how the government works:
In Arizona, people who are on assistance can have a doctor inoculate their children for free, and then the parent receives a 25 dollar gift card for bringing their child to get an inoculation. It COSTS me 40 dollars, after insurance and assuming I've hit my yearly deductible, to do the same thing. We're actually paying people to go to the doctor?
I don't trust the government to come in and fix anything when this is the kind of solution we see coming from our "leaders." I know some will say that this isn't part of Obamacare. I'm not saying it is part of Obamacare. I am saying that our government has already been regulating the health industry for years, to a great extent. Now, we have to have the government come in and regulate even more, because what we were doing wasn't working. Doesn't anybody see that as a bit odd? If a lot of regulation doesn't work, what we need is far more?
If my replies seem out of order, it is because there is no reply option to the response I want to reply to. So I have to go up the chain until I find the first reply option available.
@Education, I don't know of any American's who have gone to Canada either, but I have read of several stories of Americans going to India or even Mexico to get surgeries done because they either can't get them done here or they are too expensive.
The only real complaint about the Canadian system that I have actually heard (on the radio) from Canadians is the long wait for things like MRIs and other such tests. You can, just like in America, speed things up by paying for them yourself. But beyond that, almost to a person, they are quite happy with the way it is and the tax structure needed to pay for it.
Again, you make more fair points.
Still, what I hear from some of my friends in the medical profession is that when it's a serious illness, many people come here. For day-to-day illnesses and minor to serious surgeries, many of these countries are fine. For cutting-edge care, the kind that does cost a lot, many people come to America. One of my worries is that we MAY stop focusing on some of the most advanced procedures in favor of assembly line healthcare.
Also, there is absolutely no shortage of government regulation in healthcare right now. That regulation helped get us where we are now. Why should I trust the government to fix the problem when they have been part of it in the first place? I liken the existing government regulation of healthcare and Obamacare to pouring gas on a fire, expecting it to put out the flames, and then deciding to put more on it, because a little didn't work well.
I don't know if it my screen that limits the number of indentations or what, but after awhile, the "reply" option disappears, as mentioned before.\
Anyway, what are some examples, @Education, of gov't regulation that got us to where we are now are you referring to? Remember, the problems Obamacare is primarily trying to address is the inability of people 1) with pre-existing conditions not to receive health insurance, 2) insurance being terminated after being used too much, even from a single procedure, 3) small companies not being able to afford insurance for their employees, 4) making insurance affordable once a person is able to buy it, and 5) stop the skyrocketing cost of health care.
I do not have a problem with the goals of Obamacare. I have a problem with how it tries to achieve those goals.
I am a teacher. Let me give some examples of how the government wastes my time by regulating us.
1. All special education students can only be suspended for a maximum of 10 days, unless you hold a manifestation hearing. The result is that many, if not most, principals simply allow a misbehaved special education student to get away with more than the rest of the population.
2. If a student with a low IQ is in my class, and he/she is working to their potential, he/she does not qualify for special education. What a great system.
3. I have to spend how much time doing bureaucratic paperwork that the government mandates? I have 13 SE-1's on my desk right now. I have 3 IEP meetings scheduled. I have meetings scheduled for my ELL learners. The paperwork seems to be more important than the teaching. What we need is more government mandates. They seem to be working so well.
4. I have to prove, every year, that I am a highly qualified teacher. The government mandates this even though I am already certified, by the government, in four different areas of education. I hold 3 degrees that the government knows about, and I have been teaching for many years. I guess the government can't keep anything on file?
5. I have to be go through a ridiculous recertification system every 6 years. What's the purpose? It's a system that necessitates additional classwork and revenue for the university. What happens when you have taken ALL relevant coursework available? The state tells you that you should take classes that have absolutely nothing to do with what you teach. . .just so you can reach the minimum number of hours for recertification. We need more of this kind of regulation!
I could keep going and going, but I need to go to work ninety minutes before school starts. I need to do all the bureaucratic paperwork that is due by the end of the first forty-five days of school. My job has become a job of paperwork accountability; the kids seem to be second do the bureaucratic nightmare that the government has created. That's wrong.
By our government's mentality, we need more school regulation to fix the problem. In reality, the government is part of the problem.
You have my sympathy. Some aspects of education "reform" are making it worse.
I love teaching. Teaching is becoming less and less about teaching though. Federal and state regulations and unfunded mandates are making it difficult for teachers, principals, and even superintendents to do their jobs.
You have far more patience than I do, my friend. I got out of teaching in 1995, after ten years, precisely because of the things you have mentioned. A centralized education authority in the US has steadily eroded the overall quality of education. Indianapolis Public Schools was a fine institution until the establishment of the Department of Education, that was the beginning of a never ending decline.
Your irritation with regulations in education fall on somewhat sympathetic ears, @Education, but I thnk I am going to take this to a new Forum because 1) I want to respond directly to the comments, 2) it is a new topical area, and 3) it will probably generate a lot of comments.
I will be starting with your last post, if you don't mind.
Similar programs are successful in every other advanced country in the world. Costs are lower and results are better. Where do you get your information?
Canada is quite happy with their health care provisions?
Right... countries on the small side.
Let the states have some power again!
Wake up states! You are not here for the Foederal Government. The Foederal Government is here for Your benefit.
Any Governors out there?
Yes, @Kathy, Canadians are, in the main, happy with their health care program. According to a 2009 Harris-Decima poll, 82% of Canadians prefer their program over the one we have; go figure. Another poll, the Strategic Initiative poll in 2008 found after interview 1000 Americans and 1000 Canadians that "45 per cent of Americans felt Canada had a superior system, while 42 per cent thought the United States should stick with its own"; and that "the vast majority of Canadians, 91 per cent, felt that Canada's health care system was better than the United States".
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canadians-prefer- … z2cj84nrbA
I live across the river from Windsor, Ontario. And every time I meet a Canadian I ask how they like their health care system and whether they'd trade for ours. I have yet to meet a Canadian who would trade Canada's system for our U.S. system. They don't say theirs is perfect. Sometimes there's a wait for non-emergency procedures, and some come to the U.S. for special expertise--e.g. Sloan Kettering or other similar facility.
That is a fair point. Here is another one:
I have yet to see an American go to Canada for surgery, but some Canadians come here for surgery.
On the contrary, insurance companies do not tell you go home and die. Hospitals, doctors, charitable organizations, pharmaceutical companies and individuals all subsidize, waive, defray and ameliorate health care financial difficulties every day. Look at the Avastin story. Once Obamacare is fully implemented most of these means will be unavailable because financial efficacy will be determined by a federal bureaucracy - a heartless, headless rule and law driven bureaucracy.
As a general rule, @Relief, you couldn't be further from the truth in either of your assertions.
Do they say you have reached your coverage limit - yes. An insurance company cannot deny you care. Only a physician or medical facility can do that. There are alternatives to insurance that actually cost less than what the insurance, as third party, would pay for the medical care received. We have become dependent on the insurance cartels, the medicare/medicaid system and soon the Obamacare system - all of which serve to inflate the cost of medical care not mitigate it.
My hat's off to you. This is really a great discussion point.
Here's a true story:
A good friend of my lost his job, eight months into his wife's pregnancy. By the time she had the baby, he had a job but no insurance. There were minor complications, but they weren't cheap. The bill came to something around ten thousand dollars. The hospital immediately tried to bill the government, before even speaking to him. They did this, because he didn't have insurance. He was adamant that he wasn't a deadbeat and that he would pay. The hospital administrator was exasperated with him and couldn't understand why he didn't want the government to pay the bill. He talked them into putting him on a payment plan, and he made payments for many months.
The problem(s) should be evident.
And when you say "How about food, housing, clothing, education, transportation, beer, sexual companionship, recreation, entertainment, etc...should those who don't want to provide for their own wants be forced by the government to pay for their own wants? "; my response is no, they shouldn't because, unlike their health care, I don't have to pay for those things if they don't want to buy them but can afford them, besides, there is no insurance that covers those items like there is for healthcare. Next?
The only thing I want the gov't to force them to buy are those things they are forcing me to buy because of their own unethical (toward me) behavior. If their actions don't harm me, then the gov't has no business in their business; but, if their actions DO harm me, then I expect the gov't to protect me from their actions or lack of action. That is exactly what gov't is there for; to protect me from harm caused by others so that I don't go taking the law into my own hands.
Of course it isn't so put a stop to that immorality rather than heap another immorality on top of it by awarding the government the power to force a citizen to buy, he does not wish to buy. What would be next, force every citizen to buy an air filter for his home, after all those things a good, too. Or how about a gym membership, that is a good thing, too. How about a fine for not working out?
Government must remain limited or it will eat you, soul first and then body. Ask a Cuban, Pole, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Czech, etc... soul then body. Remember the images of Ceausescu's orphanages? There is no moral government.
We are on our knees now begging China to buy more bonds. We are $17 TRILLION dollars in debt - that is 106% of our GDP. I am not sure what you mean by not brought to our knees. It is because of leftist policies that subsequent generations will live in privation. Well done leftists, you have succeeded in making America just another leftist trash heap.
I'd call that on our knees. Isn't this the first time in American history that our debt to GDP has exceeded 100%?
So your blaming the 2008 recession on leftist policies? You must be since that is why the debt to GDP ratio exceeded 100% for a short while. Nice shifting of blame there, @relief. If you try to say it didn't, then you need to go back to Econ 1.
by ahorseback 5 years ago
That's just exactly what America needs right NOW! Shut this out of control spending machine down ! We should fire our congress , the president and senate immediately anyway ! I would move to Russia rather than watch the demise of this nation any further ! The absolutely ...
by Peeples 5 years ago
What are the negatives of shutting down the federal government?What negatives are there if the states run themselves?
by Make Money 9 years ago
by LindaSmith1 3 years ago
The announcement is on Zujava Blog http://XXX.zujava.com/blog/2015/04/29/i … out-zujava
by Holle Abee 4 years ago
I just got an email from Helium. They're shutting down on 12/15. If you have earnings there, request them now!I'm not surprised H is coming to an end. It's a shame, though, because it was the first place I wrote online. When their Marketplace was up and running, I did very well there. I was making...
by Credence2 4 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|