ABC Scurrilously Implies Trimming Federal Spending Will Lead to More Deaths

[Foxfyre]

You're not interested in an honest debate. If you were, you wouldn't be posting claims that Ryan's plan will drop employment to under 3%.

I have not in my entire life ever claimed or even suggested that anybody's plan would drop unemployment to any number, let alone under 3%. Again do have a nice evening.

That Heritage analysis you just linked to did exactly that.

I am not the Heritage Foundation. You aren't real big on precision are you.

Perhaps you can post the statement that says that? I was generally under the impression that the Heritage Foundation considers around 4% unemployment essentially full employment as do most competent economists.

 

[Polk]

I have not in my entire life ever claimed or even suggested that anybody's plan would drop unemployment to any number, let alone under 3%. Again do have a nice evening.

That Heritage analysis you just linked to did exactly that.

I am not the Heritage Foundation. You aren't real big on precision are you.

Perhaps you can post the statement that says that? I was generally under the impression that the Heritage Foundation considers around 4% unemployment essentially full employment as do most competent economists.

Here you go...

That sounds unbelievably good, and for good reason—the figures in the Heritage analysis are simply outlandish. According to the study cited above, Mr Ryan's plan will bring the unemployment rate down to 6.4% next year, 4.0% in 2015, and 2.8% in 2021.


Facts and figures: Best budget ever | The Economist

 

[Foxfyre]

That Heritage analysis you just linked to did exactly that.

I am not the Heritage Foundation. You aren't real big on precision are you.

Perhaps you can post the statement that says that? I was generally under the impression that the Heritage Foundation considers around 4% unemployment essentially full employment as do most competent economists.

Here you go...

That sounds unbelievably good, and for good reason—the figures in the Heritage analysis are simply outlandish. According to the study cited above, Mr Ryan's plan will bring the unemployment rate down to 6.4% next year, 4.0% in 2015, and 2.8% in 2021.


Facts and figures: Best budget ever | The Economist

Are you really that dishonest Polk? You didn't take anything from the article I quoted. You went to the radical leftwing hate-everything-conservative Economist which is not given to representing much honestly and certainly isn't representing the Heritage analysis--different from the piece I quoted from--honestly.

I am not posting this for your benefit as you obviously cannot or will not debate on the merits of anything.

I do hope those who are interested in facts are paying atteniton however.

Doesn't it embarrass you to post such tripe?

 

[midcan5]

Did the wingnut who started this thread say the same about Palin's death panels? If not then please get a large 'hypocrite' tattoo asap.

The thing that interests me most about these debates is how the right so quickly defends corporate power and corporate think tanks over the people. Think tanks contain anything but thought, they are corporate tools that started early last century as sales propaganda, but have blossomed into idea control. While I later revised this, I sense nothing has changed and the wingnuts still march to the corporate pied piper. http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

And just to annoy my many followers more data.

'You Probably Thought All That Money Was Being Spent on the Search for New Drugs' [ this is a more conservative site ]

"It’s official. The drug industry’s chief lobbyists — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — raised and spent at least $101.2 million in 2009 on advocacy efforts during the contentious health care debate, according to IRS documents the group filed in mid-November." http://healthblog.ncpa.org/you-prob...-was-being-spent-on-the-search-for-new-drugs/

"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame]

National Institute on Money in State Politics | Follow The Money
The Conservative Nanny State

 

[daveman]

If the VA is considered one of the best health care organizations in the world, God help us all. Have you ever spent an evening in a VA emergency room? I have. Our veterans are entitled to first rate healthcare as written into their contract in return for putting their lives on the line for their country. Many if not most aren't getting that.

You're still living a few decades back...

The Best Care Anywhere - Phillip Longman

That was during the Bush Administration. Funny how the Left was constantly screeching about how horribly Bush was treating veterans, isn't it?

 

[daveman]

The only think Heritage's analysis is useful for is as toilet paper.

So...you got nothin'.

 

[Jroc]

Notice, no ideas, no suggestions (except raising taxes) no conversation, same as Obama wait for the Republicans to come with some suggestions, then attack them for it. Obama is supposed to be the President, the leader of the country, it would seem that Paul Ryan is the president, not Obama he must be the most political president we have ever had. .Truly pathetic in my view, I would have more respect for these people if they would actually come up with some kind of plan, then we can have a debate, but demonizing the Ryan plan is not a plan ..Oh by the way unemployment just went up to 9.1% oh happy days

 

[Sallow]

Well, I don't have trouble with Abortion. Or the death penalty. And I think that while war is reprehensible..sometimes you gotta fight 'em.

You?

Well, I obviously oppose abortion on demand. The death penalty is imposed for crimes, and rightly so. And, yes, of course, wars sometimes have to be fought.

But the issue here is leftists creating a sense of resentment and entitlement, then dependency, then entrenched, generational poverty, then debt and tyranny, and then pretending to care about the lives and wellbeing of others.

Well first..you hypocrisy is duly noted. Which is nothing new for a conservative, in fact it's a badge of honor in that realm.

Second..I pointed out a direct correlation to de-funding and deaths of 2 people. That was very real. Jan Brewer cut the funding of two previously approved procedures which resulted in these people dying.

And you guys come up with the Orwellian terms which have very little to do with reality. The reality of "generational poverty" started with things like slavery and defacto aparthied in the form of Jim Crow Laws..and there was very little parity was given toward those ills. And the mild attempts at making up for those misdeeds were and are still met with vigorous opposition from Conservatives. That's just one example..there are a plethora of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the VA is considered one of the best health care organizations in the world, God help us all. Have you ever spent an evening in a VA emergency room? I have. Our veterans are entitled to first rate healthcare as written into their contract in return for putting their lives on the line for their country. Many if not most aren't getting that.

You're still living a few decades back...

The Best Care Anywhere - Phillip Longman

That was during the Bush Administration. Funny how the Left was constantly screeching about how horribly Bush was treating veterans, isn't it?

I haven't really checked it out fully, but I believe the Bush administration increased veteran's benefits, most especailly healthcare benefits, more than any other administration has ever done.

And I believe the Obama administration, most especially if it continues to 2016, will be on record as doing the most damage to healthcare for seniors of any administration in history.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It will..

Uh-huh. Lefty playing his victimization card again to subvert liberty. "The marginalized dependents".



More of the same nonsense as the homeless scam of the 1980s.

what's scurrilous about it, rightwingnut?

She called me a rightwingnut.

I'm undone.

Lefty . . . the hilarity and irony of it all.

In another tread I wrote:

Some of you will never get it. A small percentage rate of taxation levied against a large economic pie gives more revenue against real spending than a large percentage rate against a small economic pie. High rates of taxation shrink economies and, beyond a certain threshold, diminish the amount of revenue the government actually collects. Low rates of taxation grow economies and the influx of revenue.​

jillian's response:

the rightwingnuts (not moderate conservatives) are naive...their ideas counter intuitive... and simplistic.​

Counter intuitive implies nuance, complexity, not simplicity. On the other hand we have Lefty Economics 101:

High tax rates = high revenue.
High government spending = economic growth.


Reality
$1.25 trillion budget deficit.

$14, 351, 906, 401, 952 national debt.

Spending went mostly to the public employees and programs of the several states without stimulating private sector, just as conservatives predicted.

Housing Market gets increasingly worse.

Both measured and real unemployment increase.

Economic growth remains sluggish, still way behind historical norms (incessantly threatening a double dip).

Growth in revenue influx remains sluggish, still way behind historical norms.

Skyrocketing inflation on food and gas.

And as we have seen again and again lefty inevitably characterizes real spending reduction and program reform as unacceptable. IT IS HE WHO WILL NOT STOP SPENDING UNLESS COMPELED TO DO SO!

Lefty's economics IQ = 0.

More on the Keynesian Fantasy. . . .

 

[daveman]

You're still living a few decades back...

The Best Care Anywhere - Phillip Longman

That was during the Bush Administration. Funny how the Left was constantly screeching about how horribly Bush was treating veterans, isn't it?

I haven't really checked it out fully, but I believe the Bush administration increased veteran's benefits, most especailly healthcare benefits, more than any other administration has ever done.

And I believe the Obama administration, most especially if it continues to 2016, will be on record as doing the most damage to healthcare for seniors of any administration in history.

The left was screeching about Bush "cutting veteran's benefits!!" But they were lying. Funding went up, just not as much as the VA requested.

Leftism and honesty are contradictory.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Did the wingnut who started this thread say the same about Palin's death panels? If not then please get a large 'hypocrite' tattoo asap.

The thing that interests me most about these debates is how the right so quickly defends corporate power and corporate think tanks over the people. Think tanks contain anything but thought, they are corporate tools that started early last century as sales propaganda, but have blossomed into idea control. While I later revised this, I sense nothing has changed and the wingnuts still march to the corporate pied piper. http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

And just to annoy my many followers more data.

'You Probably Thought All That Money Was Being Spent on the Search for New Drugs' [ this is a more conservative site ]

"It’s official. The drug industry’s chief lobbyists — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — raised and spent at least $101.2 million in 2009 on advocacy efforts during the contentious health care debate, according to IRS documents the group filed in mid-November." http://healthblog.ncpa.org/you-prob...-was-being-spent-on-the-search-for-new-drugs/

"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books

National Institute on Money in State Politics | Follow The Money
The Conservative Nanny State

You can hug and kiss all the other Obamatons all you like. You're not getting Universal Health Care...EVER.
Pay for your own God damned health insurance.
I am sick and tired of you fucking freeloaders trying to get something for nothing and expect the producers to fulfill your self indulgence.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, I don't have trouble with Abortion. Or the death penalty. And I think that while war is reprehensible..sometimes you gotta fight 'em.

You?

Well, I obviously oppose abortion on demand. The death penalty is imposed for crimes, and rightly so. And, yes, of course, wars sometimes have to be fought.

But the issue here is leftists creating a sense of resentment and entitlement, then dependency, then entrenched, generational poverty, then debt and tyranny, and then pretending to care about the lives and wellbeing of others.

Well first..you hypocrisy is duly noted. Which is nothing new for a conservative, in fact it's a badge of honor in that realm.

Second..I pointed out a direct correlation to de-funding and deaths of 2 people. That was very real. Jan Brewer cut the funding of two previously approved procedures which resulted in these people dying.

And you guys come up with the Orwellian terms which have very little to do with reality. The reality of "generational poverty" started with things like slavery and defacto aparthied in the form of Jim Crow Laws..and there was very little parity was given toward those ills. And the mild attempts at making up for those misdeeds were and are still met with vigorous opposition from Conservatives. That's just one example..there are a plethora of others.

What a bunch of crap.
These things are de-funded because they are too costly. The taxpayers cannot continue to fund these schemes.
Generational poverty has it's roots in the New Deal and Great Society programs which supporters claimed would end poverty. What these things have done is create a permanent underclass of people who have come to expect 100% government support of their lifestyles.
3/4's of all public assistance recipients are gaming the system. These are people able to work, refuse to work and expect to get paid for it. Meanwhile us working class people are out there slugging it out, doing the right thing, playing by the rules and living within our means. We have to battle with you people who's compassion begins and ends with your grubby paws in our wallets. Why is it you people are so reluctant to write a check?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I obviously oppose abortion on demand. The death penalty is imposed for crimes, and rightly so. And, yes, of course, wars sometimes have to be fought.

But the issue here is leftists creating a sense of resentment and entitlement, then dependency, then entrenched, generational poverty, then debt and tyranny, and then pretending to care about the lives and wellbeing of others.

Well first..you hypocrisy is duly noted. Which is nothing new for a conservative, in fact it's a badge of honor in that realm.

Second..I pointed out a direct correlation to de-funding and deaths of 2 people. That was very real. Jan Brewer cut the funding of two previously approved procedures which resulted in these people dying.

And you guys come up with the Orwellian terms which have very little to do with reality. The reality of "generational poverty" started with things like slavery and defacto aparthied in the form of Jim Crow Laws..and there was very little parity was given toward those ills. And the mild attempts at making up for those misdeeds were and are still met with vigorous opposition from Conservatives. That's just one example..there are a plethora of others.

What a bunch of crap.
These things are de-funded because they are too costly. The taxpayers cannot continue to fund these schemes.
Generational poverty has it's roots in the New Deal and Great Society programs which supporters claimed would end poverty. What these things have done is create a permanent underclass of people who have come to expect 100% government support of their lifestyles.
3/4's of all public assistance recipients are gaming the system. These are people able to work, refuse to work and expect to get paid for it. Meanwhile us working class people are out there slugging it out, doing the right thing, playing by the rules and living within our means. We have to battle with you people who's compassion begins and ends with your grubby paws in our wallets. Why is it you people are so reluctant to write a check?

Just like that story being kicked around re the mentally disturbed guy drowning and authorities standing on shore letting him succumb to hypothermia and drown in relatively shallow water because 'budget cuts didn't allow them to be certified to save him.' Whatever happened to saving somebody's life because it is the right thing to do instead of seeing it as the taxpayers responsibility through government?

It would be wonderful if government could provide our every desire, save us from every peril, protect us from all harm, and we wouldn't have to worry about anything at all.

Unfortunately, whatever any of us receive 'free' from government is paid for out of somebody else's labor, effort, ability, personal wealth. And when there aren't enough of us left to provide that labor, effort, ability, personal wealth, then we become the backward, miserable, impoverished, and enslaved servants of a government who won't easily give up that power.

Those in government will live very well. The rest of us won't like it very much until all of us who have tasted liberty have died off. Then people will accept misery and lack of freedom as normal as they did before our Founders gave us this great country.

 

[Trajan]

So, you've got nothing...

unlike others I have never taken a stand on ryans plan, I think its a good starting point, now, what do YOU have ...anything...? any plan at all? debt ceiling? medicare? 2012 budget? maybe he needs to campaign more, in a fugue state, perhaps something will come to him....

Yeah, I have takes on all three. I'll start with the debt ceiling:

Raise it. Congress makes the decision about what the debt will be when they pass a budget. If Republicans are serious about cutting the budget, cut the budget. Default isn't going to be an effective fig leaf. Also, it would still need be raised by quite a large amount even if they got their dream plan.

so, thats the answer? just raise it, no bills on cutting spending nothing, thats not a plan its a cop out...it took months of hemming and hawing to get a lousy 30 billion dollars remember that?

The dems are not serious about cutting anything but defense, been there done that, and sorry thats just lame trash and a cop out too.....they have zero and they are laid bare, everything is a scared cow; from cowboy poetry to entitlements.....they have no clothes.....thx for playing.

 

[Polk]

I am not the Heritage Foundation. You aren't real big on precision are you.

Perhaps you can post the statement that says that? I was generally under the impression that the Heritage Foundation considers around 4% unemployment essentially full employment as do most competent economists.

Here you go...

That sounds unbelievably good, and for good reason—the figures in the Heritage analysis are simply outlandish. According to the study cited above, Mr Ryan's plan will bring the unemployment rate down to 6.4% next year, 4.0% in 2015, and 2.8% in 2021.


Facts and figures: Best budget ever | The Economist

Are you really that dishonest Polk? You didn't take anything from the article I quoted. You went to the radical leftwing hate-everything-conservative Economist which is not given to representing much honestly and certainly isn't representing the Heritage analysis--different from the piece I quoted from--honestly.

I am not posting this for your benefit as you obviously cannot or will not debate on the merits of anything.

I do hope those who are interested in facts are paying atteniton however.

Doesn't it embarrass you to post such tripe?

Does it embarrass you to make batshit crazy claims like that a right-wing publication like The Economist is "radical leftwing"?

 

[Immanuel]

But then again..the deaths of Americans never concerned you righties much.

Yeah. Right. And how many abortions for the sake of convenience are we up to now? Almost 40 million?



Wait! That's not funny. That's a holocaust.

Well, I don't have trouble with Abortion. Or the death penalty. And I think that while war is reprehensible..sometimes you gotta fight 'em.

You?

Isn't it a problem that too many Americans do not have a problem with Abortion?

Immie

 

[Polk]

unlike others I have never taken a stand on ryans plan, I think its a good starting point, now, what do YOU have ...anything...? any plan at all? debt ceiling? medicare? 2012 budget? maybe he needs to campaign more, in a fugue state, perhaps something will come to him....

Yeah, I have takes on all three. I'll start with the debt ceiling:

Raise it. Congress makes the decision about what the debt will be when they pass a budget. If Republicans are serious about cutting the budget, cut the budget. Default isn't going to be an effective fig leaf. Also, it would still need be raised by quite a large amount even if they got their dream plan.

so, thats the answer? just raise it, no bills on cutting spending nothing, thats not a plan its a cop out...it took months of hemming and hawing to get a lousy 30 billion dollars remember that?

The dems are not serious about cutting anything but defense, been there done that, and sorry thats just lame trash and a cop out too.....they have zero and they are laid bare, everything is a scared cow; from cowboy poetry to entitlements.....they have no clothes.....thx for playing.

If you want to cut spending, pass bills to cut spending. The debt ceiling will have to be increased even under the most draconian Republican proposals though, so claiming cuts will save the day is utter nonsense.

Also, Democrats aren't serious about cutting anything other than defense? How do you explain Obama's proposal to cut almost 800 billion in non-defense discretionary spending over the next twelve years (defense spending would only be reduced by 400 billion over the same span)? Or further reducing the increase of cost per beneficiary in Medicare?

Also, when did you see Democrats pushing for major cuts in defense spending? There was a sizable reduction in defense spending at the end of the Cold War, but Republican opposition to those cuts were because they wanted to cut even more.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here you go...

Are you really that dishonest Polk? You didn't take anything from the article I quoted. You went to the radical leftwing hate-everything-conservative Economist which is not given to representing much honestly and certainly isn't representing the Heritage analysis--different from the piece I quoted from--honestly.

I am not posting this for your benefit as you obviously cannot or will not debate on the merits of anything.

I do hope those who are interested in facts are paying atteniton however.

Doesn't it embarrass you to post such tripe?

Does it embarrass you to make batshit crazy claims like that a right-wing publication like The Economist is "radical leftwing"?

No rightwing publication refuses to provide bylines or sources for most of its articles.
No rightwing publication promotes increased federal spending on education and healthcare.
No rightwing publication promotes additional government intervention in other areas.
No rightwing publication encourages us to look to Europe for answers to economic issues.
No rightwing publication blames economic woes on Obama's opponents.

The Economist does all of this. Which is no doubt why you like it.

 

[Polk]

No rightwing publication refuses to provide bylines or sources for most of its articles.
No rightwing publication promotes increased federal spending on education and healthcare.
No rightwing publication promotes additional government intervention in other areas.
No rightwing publication encourages us to look to Europe for answers to economic issues.
No rightwing publication blames economic woes on Obama's opponents.

The Economist does all of this. Which is no doubt why you like it.

The Economist sources the claims in it's articles. You are correct that it does not provide bylines, but what is even remotely political about that? I'm sure you can cherry-pick articles to back each of your claims, and I could dig and find articles showing just the opposite. The fact remains the paper is a mainstream right-of-center publication, which endorsed Reagan in 1980, Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000. It did endorse Clinton in 1992, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008, but it would be misleading to believe that shows balance. The Kerry endorsement was directly stated as being the choice between the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, the paper refused to endorse Reagan in 1984 because he was too liberal for their tastes.