In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect

[Yes, insurance prices will go down. Can you read clearly, Mr. F? Remember that we write English here.

Mr. Fitnah has declared war against America.
Based on what historic precedent?

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf
 
When I get the conloons mad, my work is done.

Oh, Mr. F? Post material that applies.

And, you are such a John Birch wannabee.
 
[Yes, insurance prices will go down. Can you read clearly, Mr. F? Remember that we write English here.

Mr. Fitnah has declared war against America.

Part 2

You are not a Republican, so you don't count.
And you're not a conservative. So you have no business discussing conservative values.

I am not a reactionary, you got that right. (1) Fiscal responsibility, (2) transparency, (3) lower taxes, (4) regulations that foster business competition and (5) prevent businesses betting against the welfare of the country, and treason laws for punishing violations of (5).
If you can put aside your victory dance.
(1) Fiscal responsibility
Please link to post and threads where you condemn the stimulass package and the New Health care bill.
(2) transparency
Please link to post and threads where you condemn the behind the doors meetings that created the landrue Louisianan purchase and bought off Congressman Sestak
 
When I get the conloons mad, my work is done.

Oh, Mr. F? Post material that applies.

And, you are such a John Birch wannabee.

Part 2

You are not a Republican, so you don't count.
And you're not a conservative. So you have no business discussing conservative values.

I am not a reactionary, you got that right. (1) Fiscal responsibility, (2) transparency, (3) lower taxes, (4) regulations that foster business competition and (5) prevent businesses betting against the welfare of the country, and treason laws for punishing violations of (5).
If you can put aside your victory dance.
(1) Fiscal responsibility
Please link to post and threads where you condemn the stimulass package and the New Health care bill.
(2) transparency
Please link to post and threads where you condemn the behind the doors meetings that created the landrue Louisianan purchase and bought off Congressman Sestak
 
Im not entirely convince Mr .Starkey knows what he is talking about . He seems unable to answer his claims with any substantive proof.
That is disappointing .
 
1. Mr. Fitnah has offered material that does not apply to the future.

2. Mr. Fitnah and daveman, both economic predators, have offered nothing of worth here for America in the future.

3. They are in the small minority, they will always be in the small minority, and they are fun to make fun of.
 
1. Mr. Fitnah has offered material that does not apply to the future.

2. Mr. Fitnah and daveman, both economic predators, have offered nothing of worth here for America in the future.

3. They are in the small minority, they will always be in the small minority, and they are fun to make fun of.
You insist on not answering the questions.
People can read ,that isnt good for you.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2470858-post116.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2470860-post117.html
 
1. Mr. Fitnah has offered material that does not apply to the future.

2. Mr. Fitnah and daveman, both economic predators, have offered nothing of worth here for America in the future.

3. They are in the small minority, they will always be in the small minority, and they are fun to make fun of.
And your idea of worth for America's future is "Whatever Democrats want!"

Sorry. You lack credibility. No matter how much you stamp your feet and insist you're relevant. :lol:
 
The tax hikes should be higher and spending reduced. I used to believe in taking Washington's allowance away as a means to reduce their spending. But lower taxes didn't stem the tide of federal spending. I think the only chance now in having us think twice about spending is by paying-as-we-go for these programs instead of putting them on the credit card of future generations.
 
If lower taxes don't reduce spending, you think Higher Taxes will?
 

Forum List

Back
Top