Republicans: Fiscal Sanity

Discussion in 'Economy' started by PoliticalChic, Dec 17, 2010.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,786
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Article 15
    Offline

    Article 15 Dr. House slayer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    24,673
    Thanks Received:
    4,832
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,859
    Hmmm ... this is a PC thread so lemme guess ... Democrats = bad and Republicans = good?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,786
    Hmmmm...let's see, a personal note, but no credible disagreement with the post.

    Carry on.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. DaGoose
    Offline

    DaGoose Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,347
    Thanks Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +676
    Uh-huh. :eusa_hand:

    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. :lol:
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,786
    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.
     
  6. finebead
    Offline

    finebead VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    284
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +59
    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?
     
  7. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    republicans are simply dogs with different fleas. It's just that the democrats have rabies.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,786


    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.
     
  9. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,758
    Thanks Received:
    12,761
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,700
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,786
    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.
     

Share This Page