The facts prove that we must gut entitlement programs if we are to survive

It'll be cold day in hell before this happens too, but, what our government SHOULD do, is sit down with a COMPLETE list of EVERY government agency there is, ALL of them, and start closing the ones that aren't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I know that would be ESPECIALLY painful for obama, since he's grown the government more than any another president in history.

You people just dive head first into your lies. Where do you get this BS from?

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg


So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

You do realize that a small percentage in crease in the growth of spending can if the starting point is large enough be greater than a larger percentage increase from a lower starting point don't you?
 
You do realize that a small percentage in crease in the growth of spending can if the starting point is large enough be greater than a larger percentage increase from a lower starting point don't you?

And that is precisely why we have to use percentages when we describe growth rates of anything -- be it population, GDP or government spending.
 
It'll be cold day in hell before this happens too, but, what our government SHOULD do, is sit down with a COMPLETE list of EVERY government agency there is, ALL of them, and start closing the ones that aren't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I know that would be ESPECIALLY painful for obama, since he's grown the government more than any another president in history.

You people just dive head first into your lies. Where do you get this BS from?

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg


So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

You do realize that a small percentage in crease in the growth of spending can if the starting point is large enough be greater than a larger percentage increase from a lower starting point don't you?

Don't confuse him with facts, mathematics is a LOGICAL discipline.
 
You do realize that a small percentage in crease in the growth of spending can if the starting point is large enough be greater than a larger percentage increase from a lower starting point don't you?

And that is precisely why we have to use percentages when we describe growth rates of anything -- be it population, GDP or government spending.

3% of 2 trillion is the same amount of dollars as 2% of 3 trillion.

And the fact remains that we're spending over a trillion more a year than what we take in.

That is unsustainable.
 
You are wrong again.

The numbers don't lie....

While lawmakers from both parties squabble over tax rates, a fiscal crisis is looming on the horizon. Entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare to be precise -- have unfunded obligations of $48 trillion. By comparison, the fiscal cliff carries a price tag of roughly $650 billion.

Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe an estimated $11.3 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. It has been running deficits since 2010, according to the Social Security Administration.

Morning Bell: 3 Simple Solutions for Fixing Social Security
 
You are wrong again.

No sooner than I take you off the ignore list you post THIS ^^^ crap without giving us a link that proves he is wrong.

I Googled 'unfunded liabilities' and found something even you can understand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln559gjNpW4&feature=player_embedded]Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending - YouTube[/ame]
 
The numbers don't lie....

While lawmakers from both parties squabble over tax rates, a fiscal crisis is looming on the horizon. Entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare to be precise -- have unfunded obligations of $48 trillion. By comparison, the fiscal cliff carries a price tag of roughly $650 billion.

Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe an estimated $11.3 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. It has been running deficits since 2010, according to the Social Security Administration.

Morning Bell: 3 Simple Solutions for Fixing Social Security

Did you ever think about biting the real problem that is driving the cost of Medicare & Medicaid instead of eliminating the programs?
The US pays about double what every other country in the world pays for their healthcare. Every other country negotiates the prices that are charged for healthcare with the providers. Only Turkey and the US don't negotiate the priced to to be charged.
So, from 1999-2009 healthcare costs rose 131% and wages rose 38%.
Now it's a fact that healthcare's outrageous skyrocketing costs are the cause of the sad state of the financial position of Medicare/Medicaid. But it's not only those entities that are in trouble because of the runaway costs of healthcare. More and more people haven't been able to afford the costs. Businesses can't afford the cost and it's hurting their ability to compete on the world stage.
It basic common sense.
Can any convince me I'm wrong or at least try?

Absolutely! And it's very simple. Let me ask you this - why does an aspirin at your local pharmacy cost $.05, and yet cost $10 at a hospital?

Answer: Because many years ago, liberals dictated (ie like little Nazi's) that the healthcare industry must provide service to anyone - regardless of their ability to pay.

And because liberals don't comprehend business or basic economics, it never occurred to them that the healthcare industry was not going to eat those costs. They were going to pass it on to the paying consumer. Hence an aspirin in the hospital costs $10, to cover all of the non-paying parasites they are forced (ie slavery) to provide labor to.

Get rid of that monumental bit of liberal stupidity, and healthcare costs will plummet faster than a liberal controlled economy.

The rest of the world has socialized medicine and of course that means everyone is provided services. Therefore your observation is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The reason is that the healthcare industry and the governments of the world negotiate prices. Here in the US the healthcare industry owns our elected politicians, both the GOP and Dem. So basically, the healthcare industry is basically held un-checked as far a pricing goes. Their pricing is held in check in the rest of the world but in the US it isn't. So we in the US, get raped and gouged by the healthcare industry.
Nice try in trying to make this a partisan issue but that doesn't pas the truth test at all.
 
Last edited:
One, there will be entitlement reform in Medicaid not coupled to voucher: the latter will not happen. SS and Medicare only require the taxes collected for them be used only for them. Not hard to follow.

Two, massive cuts are required in Defense, the budget of which exceeds in total the budgets of defense of the next 25 countries combined.

Once those two imperatives are linked, grounds for consensus can be built.

Rott give us no base to argue with a flat statement, and whether you read me does not matter, because in discussion skills, you are not even worthy to lick the soles of my shoes. :lo: Tis what tis, Guy Pinestra.

I will help you out: you are back on ignore.



You are wrong again.

No sooner than I take you off the ignore list you post THIS ^^^ crap without giving us a link that proves he is wrong.

I Googled 'unfunded liabilities' and found something even you can understand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln559gjNpW4&feature=player_embedded]Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending - YouTube[/ame]
 
Last edited:
You are wrong again.

No sooner than I take you off the ignore list you post THIS ^^^ crap without giving us a link that proves he is wrong.

I Googled 'unfunded liabilities' and found something even you can understand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln559gjNpW4&feature=player_embedded]Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending - YouTube[/ame]

seriously? some college student's video?

:lmao:
 
GuyPinestra is having fun is all. He doesn't believe in entitlement reform at all. He wants them gone.
 
Did Congress not swipe money from Soc. Security...empty the coffers? Then they should be the ones to find a way to put it back.
 
If you raise the SS age to receive benefits then that will only increase the number of people applying for disability. I don't care how much longer people live...but their bodies wear out at the same apex as always. And you know what, people make more money on disability then they do on SS.
The whole premise behind raising the collection age is they hope more people will die so it doesn't have to be paid out to them. If you don't believe me that's fine. I'm 63 and I may live to be 78 but I'm stoved up. I can hardly count change back to my customers as a cashier, because of arthritis.
 
Congress looted the funds, GOP and Dem majorities, so they can put it back, not the American taxpayer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top