Republicans: Fiscal Sanity

[PoliticalChic]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

 

[Article 15]

Anyone see a pattern here?

Hmmm ... this is a PC thread so lemme guess ... Democrats = bad and Republicans = good?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone see a pattern here?

Hmmm ... this is a PC thread so lemme guess ... Democrats = bad and Republicans = good?

Hmmmm...let's see, a personal note, but no credible disagreement with the post.

Carry on.

 

[DaGoose]

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country....

Uh-huh.

Then let's see you take each of the "above programs" and give us your opinion on whether they were good expenditures.

And then.....give us your opinion on whether the 3 Trillion cost of the Iraq War that ush started was worth it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country....

Uh-huh.

Then let's see you take each of the "above programs" and give us your opinion on whether they were good expenditures.

And then.....give us your opinion on whether the 3 Trillion cost of the Iraq War that ush started was worth it.

Alway glad to see a new name on the board...even folks as uninformed as you are...

Perhaps you can learn something here.

First, try to avoid the use of "us"...don't be afraid to stand on your own feet. Libs always seem to feel the need to have the crown behind them, eh?

Second, so glad to see that you haven't denied that the Democrats were and are responsible for the inception of the programs and policies that I outlined, and showed no ability to plan for the long term costs of same.

Third, try to catch up on you reading, as it seems to have missed:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. "
CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11, 2002

And this:
"The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it)."
Foreign Policy In Focus | The Democrats' Support for Bush's War



It seems, for the dolts on the left, once you use the word "Bush," that's all you have to say.

So easy to be a lib.

Good work.

 

[finebead]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

Let's just take one of those programs, Medicare, which is the most expensive. How else are you going to provide health insurance coverage for everyone over 65?

After WWII, most other nations chose nationalized healthcare, while the US decided it would be provided by your employer. That was fine while you were working (presumable to age 65). How are you supposed to cover everyone after 65? You will likely not be young (by definition) nor healthy, and monthly private insurance premiums would be prohibitive for all but the rich. The "Death Panels" at the private insurance companies would probably not even offer coverage for such expensive customers.

Most folks have not saved enough to retire and pay basic expenses like rent or house note, elec., food, gasoline, taxes, clothing, much less an expensive monthly health insurance tab to boot.

So, what was your other plan to provide health care for those over 65? Have you got this covered for yourself after 65 without resorting to Medicare, and if so, how?

 

[elvis]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

republicans are simply dogs with different fleas. It's just that the democrats have rabies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

Let's just take one of those programs, Medicare, which is the most expensive. How else are you going to provide health insurance coverage for everyone over 65?

After WWII, most other nations chose nationalized healthcare, while the US decided it would be provided by your employer. That was fine while you were working (presumable to age 65). How are you supposed to cover everyone after 65? You will likely not be young (by definition) nor healthy, and monthly private insurance premiums would be prohibitive for all but the rich. The "Death Panels" at the private insurance companies would probably not even offer coverage for such expensive customers.

Most folks have not saved enough to retire and pay basic expenses like rent or house note, elec., food, gasoline, taxes, clothing, much less an expensive monthly health insurance tab to boot.

So, what was your other plan to provide health care for those over 65? Have you got this covered for yourself after 65 without resorting to Medicare, and if so, how?

I see you joined way back in '07- but perhaps you were away during the time when Obamacare was being debated...and a huge number of posts explored exactly the question that you have asked...

But the point of the OP is the impending financial disaster that awaits our great nation due to the lack of fiscal planning, primarily by Democrats.

So, unless you would care to begin a thread specifically about the question in your post, a good one, too, let me briefly comment as follows.

1. The reason that healthcare was tied to the employer was that the government forbid raises at that time, and this was in lieu of raises.

2. Retired folks have auto insurance, and pay for what they desire, pick and choose between companies, even out of state ones, and do not have state imposed mandates for services that they do not wish.
This should be the model.

If there are needy folks who cannot do same, we could also give tax deductions, and the equivalent of food-stamp-debit cards...at this seems to have worked in that area.

Absolutely essential is the free-market mechanism: health savings accounts.

Look forward to your posts.

 

[boedicca]

Hey PC, I think you'll enjoy this: Cato Institutes $1T of annual spending cuts to balance the budget.

A Plan to Cut Spending | Downsizing the Federal Government

 

[PoliticalChic]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

Let's just take one of those programs, Medicare, which is the most expensive. How else are you going to provide health insurance coverage for everyone over 65?

After WWII, most other nations chose nationalized healthcare, while the US decided it would be provided by your employer. That was fine while you were working (presumable to age 65). How are you supposed to cover everyone after 65? You will likely not be young (by definition) nor healthy, and monthly private insurance premiums would be prohibitive for all but the rich. The "Death Panels" at the private insurance companies would probably not even offer coverage for such expensive customers.

Most folks have not saved enough to retire and pay basic expenses like rent or house note, elec., food, gasoline, taxes, clothing, much less an expensive monthly health insurance tab to boot.

So, what was your other plan to provide health care for those over 65? Have you got this covered for yourself after 65 without resorting to Medicare, and if so, how?

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0908/moneygo900.jpg
US Dept of Labor, april 2009
Here’s an interesting chart of the spending breakdown for the average U.S. consumer. It’s based a theoretical household “unit” consisting of 2.5 people, not individuals. Looks like such a household unit spends approximately $50,000 per year. Click on image for larger version.
Income before taxes $63,091
Average annual expenditures $49,638
2.5 in the family
1.3 earners, 67% are homeowners
Entertainment $2698 5.4%
Food 6133 12.4
Alcoholic Bev. 457 0.9
Healthcare 2853 5.7%
Tobacco 323 0.7
Housing 16,920 34.1
Transportation 8758 17.6
(gas&oil) 2384` 4.8
Average food spending was $6133, of which $3465 was spent on meals at home. Based on this data, one can conclude that the average consumer unit spends roughly $300 per month on meals prepared at home and roughly $225 per month on meals away from home.
Each year, the average American spends $1881 on “apparel and services”, for example, but only $118 on books.
The chart doesn’t include taxes because the government survey doesn’t include taxes. If the average consumer unit earns $63,091 but spends $49,648, there are $13,443 unaccounted for. The personal saving rate in 2007 was less than 1%, so I’m guessing that most of the unspecified money goes to taxes.

 

[boedicca]

Absolutely essential is the free-market mechanism: health savings accounts.

Agreed. Quite a few of us here have taken this position as part of a multiple element set of reforms:

- Decouple health insurance from employment via tax reform. Health insurance should be purchased by the consumer.
- Remove barriers to interstate competition.
- Tort Reform.

 

[boedicca]

Taxes gobble up nearly 40% of that median family's income.

The Tax Foundation - The Tax Burden of the Median American Family

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

Let's just take one of those programs, Medicare, which is the most expensive. How else are you going to provide health insurance coverage for everyone over 65?

After WWII, most other nations chose nationalized healthcare, while the US decided it would be provided by your employer. That was fine while you were working (presumable to age 65). How are you supposed to cover everyone after 65? You will likely not be young (by definition) nor healthy, and monthly private insurance premiums would be prohibitive for all but the rich. The "Death Panels" at the private insurance companies would probably not even offer coverage for such expensive customers.

Most folks have not saved enough to retire and pay basic expenses like rent or house note, elec., food, gasoline, taxes, clothing, much less an expensive monthly health insurance tab to boot.

So, what was your other plan to provide health care for those over 65? Have you got this covered for yourself after 65 without resorting to Medicare, and if so, how?

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0908/moneygo900.jpg
US Dept of Labor, april 2009
Here’s an interesting chart of the spending breakdown for the average U.S. consumer. It’s based a theoretical household “unit” consisting of 2.5 people, not individuals. Looks like such a household unit spends approximately $50,000 per year. Click on image for larger version.
Income before taxes $63,091
Average annual expenditures $49,638
2.5 in the family
1.3 earners, 67% are homeowners
Entertainment $2698 5.4%
Food 6133 12.4
Alcoholic Bev. 457 0.9
Healthcare 2853 5.7%
Tobacco 323 0.7
Housing 16,920 34.1
Transportation 8758 17.6
(gas&oil) 2384` 4.8
Average food spending was $6133, of which $3465 was spent on meals at home. Based on this data, one can conclude that the average consumer unit spends roughly $300 per month on meals prepared at home and roughly $225 per month on meals away from home.
Each year, the average American spends $1881 on “apparel and services”, for example, but only $118 on books.
The chart doesn’t include taxes because the government survey doesn’t include taxes. If the average consumer unit earns $63,091 but spends $49,648, there are $13,443 unaccounted for. The personal saving rate in 2007 was less than 1%, so I’m guessing that most of the unspecified money goes to taxes.

 

[Sallow]

Most of America's economic disasters were caused by Conservatives.

 

[Care4all]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

in 1992 for the CRA ....Clinton was NOT President....

And why didn't the republican Presidents veto these measures you imply were against republicans and did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures? and lastly why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?

if you can answer those relevent questions then i can comment with clarity.

 

[Trajan]

Hey PC, I think you'll enjoy this: Cato Institutes $1T of annual spending cuts to balance the budget.

A Plan to Cut Spending | Downsizing the Federal Government

you know what? despite this-

Military Expenses

Cato Institute defense experts Christopher Preble and Benjamin Friedman have proposed a lengthy list of cuts to U.S. military spending totaling $1.2 trillion over 10 years.15 By 2020, their proposal would reduce spending by about $150 billion annually, based on a strategy of restraint and reduced intervention abroad.

In proposing their plan, Preble and Friedman argue that the United States would be better off taking a wait-and-see approach to distant threats, while letting friendly nations bear more of the costs of their own defense. They note that U.S. policymakers have supported many extraneous missions for the military aside from the basic requirement to defend the nation. There is no doubt that America's military budget has become very bloated. Even aside from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Department of Defense spending roughly doubled between 2001 and 2011.16


I am in.

 

[Trajan]

Most of America's economic disasters were caused by Conservatives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

in 1992 for the CRA ....Clinton was NOT President....

And why didn't the republican Presidents veto these measures you imply were against republicans and did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures? and lastly why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?

if you can answer those relevent questions then i can comment with clarity.

Care...it says 1979, that would be Carter, Democrat.
It was Cuomo and Clinton who put the screws to the banks to force loans to obviate what they called Red Lining. (1992)

"...measures you imply were against republicans ..."
No I didn't.

"...why didn't the republican Presidents veto..."
Because all of the dates in the OP were during Democrat presidencies.


"...did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures?"
Were any that I have named offered by Republicans?

"...why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?"
This is the weakest defense offered against the OP.
You suggest changing the subject....I decline.

Perhaps you would Care to begin a thread called, say..."Wussy Republicans Won't Fight For What They Believe..."
I'd agree.

BTW...

"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most of America's economic disasters were caused by Conservatives.

Sally, the mask- frightening though it is, doesn't win the argument...

how about providng some evidence?

Otherwise it's just bloviating.

 

[rdean]

If the Republicans had their way, 98% of Americans would be living out of piano crates and cardboard boxes.

 

[Trajan]

Taxes gobble up nearly 40% of that median family's income.

The Tax Foundation - The Tax Burden of the Median American Family

humm since the median HH income is 49K..that makes those clowns at 63K rich, they can just suck it up and pay their fair share...