ABC Scurrilously Implies Trimming Federal Spending Will Lead to More Deaths

[Trajan]

Yeah, I have takes on all three. I'll start with the debt ceiling:

Raise it. Congress makes the decision about what the debt will be when they pass a budget. If Republicans are serious about cutting the budget, cut the budget. Default isn't going to be an effective fig leaf. Also, it would still need be raised by quite a large amount even if they got their dream plan.

so, thats the answer? just raise it, no bills on cutting spending nothing, thats not a plan its a cop out...it took months of hemming and hawing to get a lousy 30 billion dollars remember that?

The dems are not serious about cutting anything but defense, been there done that, and sorry thats just lame trash and a cop out too.....they have zero and they are laid bare, everything is a scared cow; from cowboy poetry to entitlements.....they have no clothes.....thx for playing.

If you want to cut spending, pass bills to cut spending. The debt ceiling will have to be increased even under the most draconian Republican proposals though, so claiming cuts will save the day is utter nonsense.

Also, Democrats aren't serious about cutting anything other than defense? How do you explain Obama's proposal to cut almost 800 billion in non-defense discretionary spending over the next twelve years (defense spending would only be reduced by 400 billion over the same span)? Or further reducing the increase of cost per beneficiary in Medicare?

Also, when did you see Democrats pushing for major cuts in defense spending? There was a sizable reduction in defense spending at the end of the Cold War, but Republican opposition to those cuts were because they wanted to cut even more.

we will as part of the debt ceiling, they just took a vote for a clean bill and? what happedned jesus chrsit dude....

he suggested, as in put forth a framework in his beat ryan over the head speech , he stole from the gang of 6 how are noe defunct.......its all just more talk sorry but you sound like a sheep, lets see the plan, please.

I have not seen a budget, have you, can you link me to one please? His last plan which contained nothing of which you alluded, was voted down 0-97....hello.
The senate has not passed a budget for over 2 years......hello. its YOUR senate, the house put one out there.......well?


I posted again, for the 9th time now the cuts to defense when obama took over on another thread, sorry not doing it for the 10th time....

 

[Trajan]

No rightwing publication refuses to provide bylines or sources for most of its articles.
No rightwing publication promotes increased federal spending on education and healthcare.
No rightwing publication promotes additional government intervention in other areas.
No rightwing publication encourages us to look to Europe for answers to economic issues.
No rightwing publication blames economic woes on Obama's opponents.

The Economist does all of this. Which is no doubt why you like it.

The Economist sources the claims in it's articles. You are correct that it does not provide bylines, but what is even remotely political about that? I'm sure you can cherry-pick articles to back each of your claims, and I could dig and find articles showing just the opposite. The fact remains the paper is a mainstream right-of-center publication, which endorsed Reagan in 1980, Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000. It did endorse Clinton in 1992, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008, but it would be misleading to believe that shows balance. The Kerry endorsement was directly stated as being the choice between the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, the paper refused to endorse Reagan in 1984 because he was too liberal for their tastes.

I had a subscription to the economist for years, you're wrong. and you're arguing in mitigation now...hello.

and-

According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.....

^ Emmot, Bill (8 December 2000). "Time for a referendum on the monarchy". Comment (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,408484,00.html. Retrieved 27 December 2006.

 

[Political Junky]

Here you go...

Are you really that dishonest Polk? You didn't take anything from the article I quoted. You went to the radical leftwing hate-everything-conservative Economist which is not given to representing much honestly and certainly isn't representing the Heritage analysis--different from the piece I quoted from--honestly.

I am not posting this for your benefit as you obviously cannot or will not debate on the merits of anything.

I do hope those who are interested in facts are paying atteniton however.

Doesn't it embarrass you to post such tripe?

Does it embarrass you to make batshit crazy claims like that a right-wing publication like The Economist is "radical leftwing"?

Apparently it doesn't embarrass him/her. Anyone who disagrees with a con is a leftist, commie, fascist, or any negative thing they can come up with.
Of course the Economist is conservative.

 

[Trajan]

Are you really that dishonest Polk? You didn't take anything from the article I quoted. You went to the radical leftwing hate-everything-conservative Economist which is not given to representing much honestly and certainly isn't representing the Heritage analysis--different from the piece I quoted from--honestly.

I am not posting this for your benefit as you obviously cannot or will not debate on the merits of anything.

I do hope those who are interested in facts are paying atteniton however.

Doesn't it embarrass you to post such tripe?

Does it embarrass you to make batshit crazy claims like that a right-wing publication like The Economist is "radical leftwing"?

Apparently it doesn't embarrass him/her. Anyone who disagrees with a con is a leftist, commie, fascist, or any negative thing they can come up with.
Of course the Economist is conservative.

apprently you have a reading fail but hey, par for the course...have a nice night...

 

[jeffrockit]

Medicare is 3% of our GDP. Health care is 17%. The VA, considered one the best health care organizations in the world spends 94 cents per dollar on patients. The other 6 cents is what's used for administration. What do health care companies spend on the people they issue policies to per dollar? How many policies does it take to make a single 120 million dollar paycheck for a health care CEO?

If Republicans would only answer those simple questions.

But to the entire budget, Medicare and Medicaid represent 33% and SS 21% which puts those 3 at over 1/2 of the budget. Cuts HAVE to be made in all areas or the system will simply fail. When it does, no money will be considerably worse than some money.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here you go...

Are you really that dishonest Polk? You didn't take anything from the article I quoted. You went to the radical leftwing hate-everything-conservative Economist which is not given to representing much honestly and certainly isn't representing the Heritage analysis--different from the piece I quoted from--honestly.

I am not posting this for your benefit as you obviously cannot or will not debate on the merits of anything.

I do hope those who are interested in facts are paying atteniton however.

Doesn't it embarrass you to post such tripe?

Does it embarrass you to make batshit crazy claims like that a right-wing publication like The Economist is "radical leftwing"?

You people are hooked on entitlements. You have a huge problem when fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint get in the way of entitlements.

 

[Foxfyre]

No rightwing publication refuses to provide bylines or sources for most of its articles.
No rightwing publication promotes increased federal spending on education and healthcare.
No rightwing publication promotes additional government intervention in other areas.
No rightwing publication encourages us to look to Europe for answers to economic issues.
No rightwing publication blames economic woes on Obama's opponents.

The Economist does all of this. Which is no doubt why you like it.

The Economist sources the claims in it's articles. You are correct that it does not provide bylines, but what is even remotely political about that? I'm sure you can cherry-pick articles to back each of your claims, and I could dig and find articles showing just the opposite. The fact remains the paper is a mainstream right-of-center publication, which endorsed Reagan in 1980, Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000. It did endorse Clinton in 1992, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008, but it would be misleading to believe that shows balance. The Kerry endorsement was directly stated as being the choice between the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, the paper refused to endorse Reagan in 1984 because he was too liberal for their tastes.

I had a subscription to the economist for years, you're wrong. and you're arguing in mitigation now...hello.

and-

According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.....

^ Emmot, Bill (8 December 2000). "Time for a referendum on the monarchy". Comment (London). Comment:Time for a referendum on the monarchy | UK news | The Guardian. Retrieved 27 December 2006.

Ignoring the trollish posts here. . . of which Trajan is not guilty. . . .

In defense of the Economist it has been more fiscally restrained and smaller government oriented than most leftwing publications, but its economic emphasis has been decidedly Kenysian, which no true conservative could endorse, it consistently pushes for higher taxes, and it pushes way far left on most social issues. It by far is not the worst or most dishonest leftwing publication which is why I frequently read it. But it is not a conservative publication and I find it not only hypocritical but dishonest in some of its editorial emphasis.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yeah, I have takes on all three. I'll start with the debt ceiling:

Raise it. Congress makes the decision about what the debt will be when they pass a budget. If Republicans are serious about cutting the budget, cut the budget. Default isn't going to be an effective fig leaf. Also, it would still need be raised by quite a large amount even if they got their dream plan.

so, thats the answer? just raise it, no bills on cutting spending nothing, thats not a plan its a cop out...it took months of hemming and hawing to get a lousy 30 billion dollars remember that?

The dems are not serious about cutting anything but defense, been there done that, and sorry thats just lame trash and a cop out too.....they have zero and they are laid bare, everything is a scared cow; from cowboy poetry to entitlements.....they have no clothes.....thx for playing.

If you want to cut spending, pass bills to cut spending. The debt ceiling will have to be increased even under the most draconian Republican proposals though, so claiming cuts will save the day is utter nonsense.

Also, Democrats aren't serious about cutting anything other than defense? How do you explain Obama's proposal to cut almost 800 billion in non-defense discretionary spending over the next twelve years (defense spending would only be reduced by 400 billion over the same span)? Or further reducing the increase of cost per beneficiary in Medicare?

Also, when did you see Democrats pushing for major cuts in defense spending? There was a sizable reduction in defense spending at the end of the Cold War, but Republican opposition to those cuts were because they wanted to cut even more.

800 billion over 12 years? Oh please.
66 billion per year of budget cuts with budgets rising well above 3 trillion dollars per year....Give me a huge fucking break

 

[Polk]

No rightwing publication refuses to provide bylines or sources for most of its articles.
No rightwing publication promotes increased federal spending on education and healthcare.
No rightwing publication promotes additional government intervention in other areas.
No rightwing publication encourages us to look to Europe for answers to economic issues.
No rightwing publication blames economic woes on Obama's opponents.

The Economist does all of this. Which is no doubt why you like it.

The Economist sources the claims in it's articles. You are correct that it does not provide bylines, but what is even remotely political about that? I'm sure you can cherry-pick articles to back each of your claims, and I could dig and find articles showing just the opposite. The fact remains the paper is a mainstream right-of-center publication, which endorsed Reagan in 1980, Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000. It did endorse Clinton in 1992, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008, but it would be misleading to believe that shows balance. The Kerry endorsement was directly stated as being the choice between the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, the paper refused to endorse Reagan in 1984 because he was too liberal for their tastes.

I had a subscription to the economist for years, you're wrong. and you're arguing in mitigation now...hello.

and-

According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.....

^ Emmot, Bill (8 December 2000). "Time for a referendum on the monarchy". Comment (London). Comment:Time for a referendum on the monarchy | UK news | The Guardian. Retrieved 27 December 2006.

Liberal means something very different in British politics than what it means here.

 

[Polk]

The Economist sources the claims in it's articles. You are correct that it does not provide bylines, but what is even remotely political about that? I'm sure you can cherry-pick articles to back each of your claims, and I could dig and find articles showing just the opposite. The fact remains the paper is a mainstream right-of-center publication, which endorsed Reagan in 1980, Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000. It did endorse Clinton in 1992, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008, but it would be misleading to believe that shows balance. The Kerry endorsement was directly stated as being the choice between the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, the paper refused to endorse Reagan in 1984 because he was too liberal for their tastes.

I had a subscription to the economist for years, you're wrong. and you're arguing in mitigation now...hello.

and-

According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.....

^ Emmot, Bill (8 December 2000). "Time for a referendum on the monarchy". Comment (London). Comment:Time for a referendum on the monarchy | UK news | The Guardian. Retrieved 27 December 2006.

Ignoring the trollish posts here. . . of which Trajan is not guilty. . . .

In defense of the Economist it has been more fiscally restrained and smaller government oriented than most leftwing publications, but its economic emphasis has been decidedly Kenysian, which no true conservative could endorse, it consistently pushes for higher taxes, and it pushes way far left on most social issues. It by far is not the worst or most dishonest leftwing publication which is why I frequently read it. But it is not a conservative publication and I find it not only hypocritical but dishonest in some of its editorial emphasis.

No true conservative could endorse Keynes? You realize that some of the biggest economic names on the right are Keynesians, right?