- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The political agenda of a man born with silver spoons in every orifice
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:08 am to redandright
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:08 am to redandright
quote:
There was never a question of the US being involved. It was how the representatives of the Directoire were to be treated, and how the revolutionary government was to be dealt with. Jefferson actually conspired with the French Minister Edmond Genet behind Washington's back to stir up trouble in Kentucky and Louisiana, and generally cause problems with the Brits. He was incredibly disloyal to Washington, and his meddling caused many problems for Washington.
Where is there credible evidence of this ? Everything I've ever read on the subject stated that Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington all stood united against Genet when he sought to end American neutrality against Britain by aiding the Spanish in Florida.
In Louisiana, it was obvious to Jefferson would've preferred the French to control the Port of New Orleans. However everything I've seen says that Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson all stood opposed to actually intervening into the matter between the French and Spanish control over Louisiana. Genet exceeded both the affording given to him by the French and the Americans in his matters and Kentucky Louisiana and quickly fell out of favor with Jefferson Washington.
Additionally, all three of these matters – Louisiana, Florida, and Kentucky - dealt with the Spanish and not the British. I suppose you could make the argument that what was good for the French was automatically bad for the British, however I think that's a little attenuated an argument.
ETA: I apologize for the poor grammatical structure of this post. I am dictating this into the iPhone. It's not 100% accurate.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 11:13 am
1
Posted on 4/12/14 at 12:09 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Where is there credible evidence of this ? Everything I've ever read on the subject stated that Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington all stood united against Genet when he sought to end American neutrality against Britain by aiding the Spanish in Florida.
Jefferson encouraged Genet when he first came to America, and even privately funded Pro-French newspapers, which criticized Washington's approach to the French. His encouragement of Genet when he first got here, is what led to Genet's outlandish behaviour. Genet went too far with his interfering in Florida, and Jefferson was forced to realize his errors, but much damage had already been done.
Washington was trying to maintain a precarious balance between the French and the Brits. He knew that the US could not afford to be drawn into an European War, and that it was too weak, and could eventually be a victim if it chose wrongly. He was also trying to keep the peace between pro-French Jefferson and pro-Brit Hamilton. And as much as I admire Jefferson for his work on man's natural right to freedom, he was capable of making huge blunders, and being incredibly petty. He certainly made Washington's life very difficult.
Again the whole point of my 1st post was that Jefferson was capable of brilliance, but he was also capable of boneheaded moves, and his encouragement of Genet in the beginning, and his rose colored view of the French Revolution are just 2 examples. And Rex's OP was that because of something Jefferson wrote in his latter years, which seemed to endorse income re-distribution, then income redistribution was OK. Well, Jefferson owned slaves, so does that make slavery ok?
One of the best books I've read in a long time is "Empire of Liberty", by Gordon S. Wood. Wood does a great job of explaining the diplomatic quandary the first 4 presidents faced in dealing with both the French and the Brits, and is balanced in his treatment of both Hamilton and Jefferson. Hope you get a chance to read it.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 3:11 pm to redandright
quote:
That would be 4.8 million americans. So let's assume you're right. That means then that assuming the White House is also right, and that 7 million enrolled (doubtful), that's 2.2 million previously uninsured that now have coverage. Obamacare is supposed to cost $1.76 TRILLION over the next ten years. Doing the math that's $176 billion dollars/year. That means 176 billion/2.2 million= $80,000/person/year.
So NYNolaguy does the math and shows that it takes $80,000 per person to sign up all the new insurance holders, asks Rex if this is worth it, and he completely ignores it.
So, Rex, do you believe the $80,000 per new insurance holder is a good way to spend our tax dollars?
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 7:01 pm to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
So, Rex, do you believe the $80,000 per new insurance holder is a good way to spend our tax dollars?
$80,000 would be an alarming number... good thing it's not true.
The CBO's latest projection of the cost of ACA is $1.25 trillion, not $1.76 trillion as NYNolaguy says. Also, the CBO's projection is based on 33 million fewer uninsured people, not 4.8 million. Also, ACA expands Medicaid and other benefits to people who already had insurance coverage. LINK
So, in a nutshell, NYNolaguy was winging it and got it grossly wrong. Not surprising.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 7:07 pm to Rex
Posted on 4/12/14 at 8:26 pm to Rex
quote:Ah, so, only $56,800 or per person... I feel much better now.
The CBO's latest projection of the cost of ACA is $1.25 trillion, not $1.76 trillion as NYNolaguy says.
quote:So by your estimate the program has failed some 28.2 million uninsured. Awesome result!
Also, the CBO's projection is based on 33 million fewer uninsured people, not 4.8 million.
quote:How does that lower expenditures?
Also, ACA expands Medicaid and other benefits to people who already had insurance coverage.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 8:28 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 8:37 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Ah, so, only $56,800 or per person... I feel much better now.
You're as dumb as a box of rocks. The $1.25 trillion is a 10 year projection based on 33 million people. If you're doing simple averaging in NYNolaguy's manner, that's less than $4000 per capita per year.
quote:
So by your estimate the program has failed some 28.2 million uninsured. Awesome result!
The program just started. It was never projected to lower uninsureds by 33 million in its first year.
quote:
How does that lower expenditures?
I didn't say it did. What I showed, to anyone with a brain, is that NYNolaguy's simple equation not only grossly distorted the per capita cost, but was internally invalid, anyway, because if he's measuring the incremental cost of insuring new people then both his numerator and denominator are wrong because he included people already insured.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:01 pm to Rex
quote:
You're as dumb as a box of rocks.
I always know I'm on the right track when you let the personal insults fly. quote:Only if you make the assumption that it's all marginal cost, and there are no fixed and overhead costs contained in the bill.
The $1.25 trillion is a 10 year projection based on 33 million people. If you're doing simple averaging in NYNolaguy's manner, that's less than $4000 per capita per year.
Obviously, given the regulatory, enforcement and infrastructure this isn't true. Not to mention overruns. For example, the website development costs the same. One signup, or 33 million sign ups.
quote:The program is FAR behind schedule. Just look at the mandates and regulations that have been delayed multiple times.
The program just started. It was never projected to lower uninsureds by 33 million in its first year.
quote:Well then, I have no idea why you included it inline with your argument. Presumably you presented it to bolster your position.
I didn't say it did.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:05 pm to Taxing Authority
That was nothing more than a treading water, don't know what to say but gotta have the last word so say anything no matter how half assed it is type of post, and I'll give it the response it deserves.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:07 pm to Rex
quote:
That was nothing more than a treading water, don't know what to say but gotta have the last word so say anything no matter how half assed it is type of post, and I'll give it the response it deserves.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:08 pm to Rex
quote:Seems like a good start.
have all these abolished:
Public schools
Taxation
Social Security
Welfare
the Federal Reserve
the Department of Energy
the Environmental Protection Agency
the Food and Drug Administration
OSHA
the Federal Communications Commission
the National Labor Relations Board
the FBI
the CIA
the Federal Trade Commission
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:08 pm to Taxing Authority
You seem to really be getting under Wex's skin. He just can't let some things go.
Including his fluffykins.
Including his fluffykins.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:11 pm to Rex
quote:
That was nothing more than a treading water, don't know what to say but gotta have the last word so say anything no matter how half assed it is type of post, and I'll give it the response it deserves
yeah thats not you at all right?
idiot
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:45 pm to Rex
quote:
It was never projected to lower uninsureds by 33 million in its first year.
If you take a look at my post with CBO statistics on pg 5, it was projected to at least reduce the number of uninsured by 14 million in 2014, so far it is at how many? Like 2.8 million have new plans, 6-7 million lost their plans? And that mythical "7 million" number the POTUS' admin is throwing around is for the amount of people that "signed up" with their state exchanges, and didn't actually purchase plans. This all ignores how much the average rate for healthcare has gone up, too. Eat shite.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News