Boehner says Obama can't run on economic record

[Neotrotsky]

CBO also said the ruling added uncertainty to its estimates but it has put
forward a number that comes down in the middle of possible outcomes.


In March 2011, CBO said that ‘Obamacare’ would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over ten years
"savings" in little over a year went down by 126 billion

How much more will the "savings" go down by next year?

This just a fancy way of saying that Papa ObamaCare is going to cost more than originally thought —
or more than they managed to convince themselves it was going to cost.


We see how gov't estimates of spending have worked out in the past

Spending Program
Medicare Part A
What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
What it actually cost- $67 billion a year

Entire Medicare Program
What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
What it actually cost- $110 billion a year

Medicare relief to states for hospitals
What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
What it actually cost- $17 billion a year


Side note
Papa Obama is just deficit spending 1 trillion a year
There a 1000 billions in a trillion

84 billion is nothing

In fiscal year 2011 alone, the federal and state government spent $910 billion on "welfare" programs

 

[Mr. Shaman]

CBO also said the ruling added uncertainty to its estimates but it has put
forward a number that comes down in the middle of possible outcomes.


In March 2011, CBO said that ‘Obamacare’ would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over ten years
"savings" in little over a year went down by 126 billion

How much more will the "savings" go down by next year?

This just a fancy way of saying that Papa ObamaCare is going to cost more than originally thought — or, rather, more than they managed to convince themselves it was going to cost.




We see how gov't estimates of spending have worked out in the past

Spending Program
Medicare Part A
What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
What it actually cost- $67 billion a year

Entire Medicare Program
What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
What it actually cost- $110 billion a year

Medicare relief to states for hospitals
What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
What it actually cost- $17 billion a year

Spending Program
Medicare Part D​

"Tom DeLay bribed Rep. Nick Smith to vote for the legislation, using the political future of Smith's son for leverage. DeLay was later reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee.

The leadership told Rep. Jim DeMint that they would cut off funding for his Senate race in South Carolina if he didn't vote for the bill.

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.”

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, a "no" vote, spent the night "hiding on the Democratic side of the floor, crouching down to avoid eye contact with the Republican search team."

Rep. Butch Otter, who provided one of the final votes after hours of arm-twisting from the Republican leadership, said, “I thought there was a chance I would get sick on the floor.”

Among the key findings:

* Under the MMA, Medicare has been significantly overpaying private plans under Medicare Advantage. In 2005, Medicare overpaid private plans by at least 7% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $2.7 billion. In 2006, overpayment reached 11% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $4.6 billion.

* Under the MMA, Congress set aside $10 billion for an unnecessary subsidy (or "stabilization fund") to regional PPOs. This year, however, 88% of beneficiaries have access to a regional PPO, before the so-called "stabilization fund" was even tapped--no subsidy was necessary.

* Medicare Part D drug prices are substantially higher than the prices obtained by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which negotiates prices on behalf of consumers. For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was higher than the lowest price secured by the VA. Yet Congress refused to let Medicare negotiate directly with the drug companies, as the VA does.

* Bottom line: this report shows that, unfortunately for consumers and taxpayers, the MMA has not even come close to meeting the high expectations set for it by Congress. Consumers are getting hurt and taxpayers fleeced, while insurance companies and drug manufacturers are raking in money faster than they can count it. Congress needs to move away from this deeply flawed privatization model, and instead focus on strengthening Medicare.​

 

[Neotrotsky]

Thanks for proving my point!


Gov't programs always end up costing more
than they claim

Really once this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care starts
to fully roll in ...God knows the unexpected costs not yet factored in

For example:

About one in 10 employers plan to drop health coverage when key provisions of the new health care law kick in less than two years from now, according to a survey to be released Tuesday by the consulting company Deloitte.

Nine percent of companies said they expect to stop offering coverage to their workers in the next one to three years, the Wall Street Journal reported. Around 81 percent said they would continue providing benefits and 10 percent said they weren’t sure.

The companies, though, said a lot will depend on how future provisions of the law unfold, since most of the key parts are scheduled to take effect in 2014. One in three respondents said they could stop offering coverage if the law requires them to provide more generous benefits than they do now, if a tax on high-cost plans takes effect in 2018 as scheduled or if they decide it would be cheaper for them to pay the penalty for not providing insurance.​

Thanks for reminding me
Also in that report

- Employers will pay $4 billion more in taxes than the Congressional Budget Office had previously expected.

- individual workers will pay $1 billion to $1.5 billion more than original projected

and with projected "savings" in little over a year going down by 126 billion

God only knows what next years "saving" will be

This is what we need in this economy- more taxes




Papa Obama care- nothing more than a large regressive tax
Indeed

"Health care Reform is winning" but sadly
it is at the cost of the American worker

 

[Mr. Shaman]

7/23/2012


Rebirth Of U.S. Industry​

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wow an opinion piece
The acutal title says"

The End of Chinese Manufacturing and Rebirth of U.S. Industry
and the article has NOTHING to do with Papa Obama and it is an opinion
piece on why he (the author) thinks "technology" could help in the next decade...

If anything Papa Obama's anti business regulations will dampen any
business creativity - unless you consider crony capitalistic kickbacks to
his donors as some plus ....

Are you really this pathetic?
Do you even read the crap you put up?
How old are you- two?

Dude please stop with the BIG font


The Hill 7/23

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy.
34 percent say Obama is the most to blame
23 percent who say Congress is the culprit.

18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
​

All that time and ads by Papa Obama to blame
everybody else- but it is not working

No wonder his campaign ran a deficit the other month

Again

Why Obama Will Lose?
Because he deserves to...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

July 25, 2012

Homebuilder Stocks;
$urging​

".....shares of homebuilders are on track to have their best year on record, with the Standard & Poor’s Supercomposite Home Builders index up 48 percent so far in 2012."

. . . . . . ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Dude please stop with the BIG font

$urging!!!!!

.

.

.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Boehner says Obama can't run on economic record | US National Headlines | Comcast

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner (BAY'-nur) says President Barack Obama can't run for re-election on his economic record so his campaign will "pull out every bogey man that they can."

The Ohio Republican tells CBS News that he and Obama were close to a deal to break the budget stalemate when Obama "lost his courage."Boehner says he agreed to raise revenue by overhauling the tax code and Obama initially accepted changes in entitlement programs. Instead, the speaker says, Obama ended up advocating higher tax rates for the wealthy.

Boehner says he believes former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is well prepared for the general election "and will appeal to more than half of America." He predicts Obama "is going to make the election about anything other than his failed economic policies."

Boehner's record as Speaker is dismal, so is his record as a speaker.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If anything Papa Obama's anti business regulations will dampen any business creativity - unless you consider crony capitalistic kickbacks to his donors as some plus ....

July 24, 2012

Home Values;
First Year-Over-Year Increase
Since 2007!!!

.

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Boehner says Obama can't run on economic record | US National Headlines | Comcast

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner (BAY'-nur) says President Barack Obama can't run for re-election on his economic record so his campaign will "pull out every bogey man that they can."

The Ohio Republican tells CBS News that he and Obama were close to a deal to break the budget stalemate when Obama "lost his courage."Boehner says he agreed to raise revenue by overhauling the tax code and Obama initially accepted changes in entitlement programs. Instead, the speaker says, Obama ended up advocating higher tax rates for the wealthy.

Boehner says he believes former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is well prepared for the general election "and will appeal to more than half of America." He predicts Obama "is going to make the election about anything other than his failed economic policies."

Boehner's record as Speaker is dismal, so is his record as a speaker.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2RloNSp8tc]GOP House Leader A Lazy Drunk? - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Neotrotsky]

HUD: New housing sales dropped 8.4% in June, much steeper than analysts expected:

Sales of new single-family houses in June 2012 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 350,000, according to estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is 8.4 percent (±12.4%)* below the revised May rate of 382,000, but is 15.1 percent (±16.7%)* above the June 2011 estimate of 304,000.

The median sales price of new houses sold in June 2012 was $232,600; the average sales price was $273,900. The seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of June was 144,000. This represents a supply of 4.9 months at the current sales rate.​

Reuters July 25, 2012 New Home Sales Post Biggest Drop in Over a Year

New U.S. single-family home sales in June fell by the most in more than a year and prices resumed their downward trend, suggesting a set back for the budding housing market recovery. …

The housing market had been improving in recent months, with new home construction in June hitting its highest level since October 2008 and confidence among home builders this month touching its best level in more than 5 years.

Last month, the median price of a new home fell 3.2 percent from a year ago, adding to the report’s weak tenor.
​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

August 3, 2012

U.S. Hiring PICKS UP​

"The addition of 163,000 jobs in July follows three months of sluggish hiring and shows that the U.S. economy is likely resilient enough to keep growing at a modest pace."

. . . . . .

"Right HERE....FAUX Noise & Porky Limbaugh!!!!"​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

August 3, 2012

July Job Report;
$tock$ $OARING!!!!!​

​

 

[Mac1958]

.

Yikes

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

.

Yikes

.

"Yeah.....I'd say we have the next-12-years sewed-up."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

August 3, 2012

Global Stocks
JUMP!!​

"World stocks rallied, U.S. oil jumped nearly 5 percent and the euro surged on Friday on news U.S. employers increased hiring in July by the most in five months and on renewed optimism that Europe was closer to action on its debt crisis."

*

 

[Mr. Shaman]

August 17, 2012

Obama;
Better For WORLD'S Economy​

"Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent U.S. president Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed on Friday.

Democrat Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither".

The result was different among respondents in the United States, where a slim majority thought Romney would be better for their businesses than Obama."

. . . . ​

 

[naturegirl]

august 17, 2012

obama
better for world s economy

twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent u.s. President barack obama wins the next election than if his republican challenger mitt romney does, a poll showed on friday.

Democrat obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for romney. The rest said "neither".

the result was different among respondents in the united states, where a slim majority thought romney would be better for their businesses than obama."

. . . . ​

rotflmbo!!!