Republicans: Fiscal Sanity

[Iowa10000]

b. As the President is the only elected official with term limits, the cost-cutting function is fitting as he is most likely to put the welfare of the nation above his caree

Well Bush 2 sure sold that one down the river.
The difference with line item veto or giving the president the right to just not spend the money that congress passed, would clearly be handled in two way by the two parties. Democrats would be looking for things that don't make sense spernding the money and the republicans would be looking for anything that spends money on helping the total population as being waste.

 

[finebead]

From the article "how bush bankrupted america" at Cato Institute (conservative think tank) by a Reagan republican:

The Medicare Debacle

Bush's instincts for activist government were evident in his No Child Left Behind bill, his steel tariffs, and his vigorous spending increases. They may have culminated in his administration's pulling out all the stops to pass the prescription drug entitlement for Medicare recipients.

Just how serious the administration had been about passing that monstrosity became apparent after the bill was safely signed into law, when it became known that the administration had covered up internal estimates of the true cost of the legislation, which was limited to $400 billion by the congressional budget resolution. Any amount higher than that would have been subject to a point of order that at least would have delayed the legislation and more than likely derailed it altogether.

The Congressional Budget Office, under pressure from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, published a 10-year cost estimate of $400 billion, even though CMS chief actuary Richard Foster knew that the cost would be at least $534 billion. As the Wall Street Journal observed, "It is undeniable that the Medicare bill wouldn't have passed in its current form had $540 billion been the accepted cost fiction." The CMS administrator threatened Foster's job, and the true cost of the program was not revealed until after the bill had passed.

But as is so often the case in Washington, the truth did eventually come out, disclosed by reporter Amy Goldstein in the Washington Post on January 31, 2004—almost six weeks after the drug benefit had been signed into law by President Bush. She reported that the $534 billion estimate, which eventually appeared in the president's budget, was widely known among those who negotiated the final provisions of the legislation. The CBO was eventually forced to admit that its original estimate was off and that the 10-year forecast should have been $557.7 billion.

The clearest indication of precisely how costly the drug bill will actually be came on March 23, 2004, when the Medicare trustees issued their annual report, as required by law. They showed that over the first 75 years of the drug program, now known as Medicare Part D, the cost would be $ 10.8 trillion in present value terms, with taxpayers footing the bill for $8.1 trillion of that.

But even that massive figure is only part of the story. In the 2004 Medicare trustees' report, the actuaries presented for the first time cost estimates in perpetuity. The actuaries estimated this cost, again in present value terms, at $21.9 trillion, of which $16.6 trillion would come out of future income taxes to pay for the drug benefit.

Once upon a time in the not-too-distant past, Republicans were deeply skeptical about so-called entitlement programs like Medicare. These are programs for which no annual appropriation is necessary. Spending is automatic for everyone and everything that meets specified criteria. In the case of Medicare, the principal criterion is simply being at least 65 years old. Historically, Republicans have felt that such programs—virtually free of budgetary control—were the epitome of bad policy.

Fast forward 22 years and we see a very different philosophy within the Republican Party. Instead of fighting entitlements, the party now embraces them.

The Rest of the Story

No sensible person argued that Medicare's policy of paying virtually unlimited sums for hospital care while paying nothing for prescription drugs made any sense. And no one denied that some seniors needed help paying for prescription drugs. But many already had perfectly good prescription drug coverage from their employers. Yet they, too, ended up being covered by the Medicare drug benefit.

I puzzled for a long time about why Republicans would write a bill that provided benefits even for those who had no need for them. They were making it more expensive without improving health care in any way at all.

The answer became clear when the New York Times reported that the drug program would reimburse corporations for the drug benefits they were already providing to their retirees. The federal government would send huge checks to some of the largest corporations in the United States for the costs that they were already contractually obligated to pay. The final legislation provides a 28 percent tax-free subsidy that is expected to average $660 per retiree per year.

The numbers are huge. After passage of the legislation, the Wall Street Journal reported that General Motors anticipated receiving $4 billion to cover its prescription drug costs. Other recipients included Verizon ($1.3 billion), BellSouth ($572 million), Delphi ($500 million), U.S. Steel ($450 million), American Airlines ($415 million), John Deere ($400 million), United Airlines ($280 million), and Alcoa ($190 million).

How Bush Bankrupted America

This legislation also prevented by law, the US govt. from negotiating volume discounts on the prescription drugs, we were obligated by law to pay list price, and we could not re-import the drugs from Canada and pay a lower price.

And, THERE WAS NO TAX TO PAY FOR THIS!!! It is a smooth net addition to the deficit. Take that Obama!!!

This was one of the most idiotic things the fiscally irresponsible republicans did in the last administration.

But the original poster, in her myopic desire to just bash the dems and forego any semblance of balance, was either unaware of just how bad this legislation is, or was highly biased and just wants to bash on democrats without trying to solve problems. If you want to solve problems, you should be after the truth, without regard to which party screwed up (not like Limbaugh).

 

[Toro]

First of all...I hesitated to even engage with you since Forbes announced that my Rangers were second in value to.....Toronto.

Oh, I'm more of a Rangers fan than of the Maple Laffs!

And careful of your conclusions, i.e. "as I would like there to believe there is at least one fiscally responsible party,..."

I didn't say that...exactly.

My OP was to take a swipe at Democrats...who are the no-doubt fiscally worse of the two.

I think this is generally true at the state level but I don't think it is true at the national level, at least based on contemporary history. At the state level, there is enforced discipline because of legal requirements for balanced budgets, so you get government that makes it difficult to indulge in fantasies such as Voodoo Economics. But at the national level, fantasies such as Voodoo Economics are able to linger, and people will believe whatever they want to believe because government can tap debt markets (almost) forever.

I don't take shots at conservatives who want to balance the budget by cutting spending, other than perhaps for timing. I think lower taxes and lower spending are generally better. But cutting taxes while not cutting spending is fiscally irresponsible. I'd rather pay higher taxes if politicians don't have the guts to cut spending, and instead avoid adult conversations by feeding the public fairy tales, because the future results will ultimately be catastrophic. We know Democrats are supposed to be fiscally irresponsible, right? But Republicans are far more hypocritical IMHO because they like to think they're fiscally responsible but instead delude themselves into believing fantasies such as Voodoo Economics. I really like Governor Christie. I sympathize with the Tea Party. But until I start hearing Republicans say "Cut my social security," "Cut my Medicare," "Cut my kids school budget," "Cut defense" when they say "Cut taxes and balance the budget," then I'll know they're serious.

 

[Ropey]

Now, as far as Clinton, don't believe the spin that his administration, with the aid and abetment of the media, tried to put out...he took the surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund, and called it revenue...it is a liability...and claimed said surplus.

Thank you for this new information (to me). I will research and get back on this. With arithmetic, A negative plus another negative does not equal a positive, so I see your point.

Thanks for the welcome

Edit. My post regarding the ideological differences with regards to the parties of the sitting President stands. I see that Clinton fudged, but I see that this fudging is often in play.

So, now I see no fiscal responsibility in any President regardless of party. The only error I seem to have made was to see Clinton as more responsible than so many others regardless of party affiliations.

Sadly...

 

[Toro]

Now, as far as Clinton, don't believe the spin that his administration, with the aid and abetment of the media, tried to put out...he took the surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund, and called it revenue...it is a liability...and claimed said surplus.

Thank you for this new information (to me). I will research and get back on this. With arithmetic, A negative plus another negative does not equal a positive, so I see your point.

Thanks for the welcome

Edit. My post regarding the ideological differences with regards to the parties of the sitting President stands. I see that Clinton fudged, but I see that this fudging is often in play.

So, now I see no fiscal responsibility in any President regardless of party. The only error I seem to have made was to see Clinton as more responsible than so many others regardless of party affiliations.

Sadly...

What PC is telling you is incorrect. Clinton didn't take the surplus out of the trust. The SS trust is made up of non-marketable debt. You can't take money out of SS because there is no money in there. There is only this debt that the government owes itself. What happened was that when the government ran a surplus, the government took in more money from taxes than it spent, simple as that. It didn't borrow from anywhere else. The trusts accrue debt based on a variety of assumptions, then the government essentially writes itself an IOU.

More here and here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First of all...I hesitated to even engage with you since Forbes announced that my Rangers were second in value to.....Toronto.

Oh, I'm more of a Rangers fan than of the Maple Laffs!

And careful of your conclusions, i.e. "as I would like there to believe there is at least one fiscally responsible party,..."

I didn't say that...exactly.

My OP was to take a swipe at Democrats...who are the no-doubt fiscally worse of the two.

I think this is generally true at the state level but I don't think it is true at the national level, at least based on contemporary history. At the state level, there is enforced discipline because of legal requirements for balanced budgets, so you get government that makes it difficult to indulge in fantasies such as Voodoo Economics. But at the national level, fantasies such as Voodoo Economics are able to linger, and people will believe whatever they want to believe because government can tap debt markets (almost) forever.

I don't take shots at conservatives who want to balance the budget by cutting spending, other than perhaps for timing. I think lower taxes and lower spending are generally better. But cutting taxes while not cutting spending is fiscally irresponsible. I'd rather pay higher taxes if politicians don't have the guts to cut spending, and instead avoid adult conversations by feeding the public fairy tales, because the future results will ultimately be catastrophic. We know Democrats are supposed to be fiscally irresponsible, right? But Republicans are far more hypocritical IMHO because they like to think they're fiscally responsible but instead delude themselves into believing fantasies such as Voodoo Economics. I really like Governor Christie. I sympathize with the Tea Party. But until I start hearing Republicans say "Cut my social security," "Cut my Medicare," "Cut my kids school budget," "Cut defense" when they say "Cut taxes and balance the budget," then I'll know they're serious.

True, State, unlike federal, budgets, cannot run as deficits. “Virtually all states have balanced budget requirements, so they must take actions to close these deficits.” (State Budget Deficits for Fiscal Year 2004 are Huge and Growing, Revised 1/23/03) So, what to do? Simple: conjecture a better world!

a. In 2008, states reported that their public-employee pensions were underfunded by a total of $438 billion. But independent estimates say the underfunding is closer to $3 trillion. Why? The states make up estimates of return at unbelievable levels: the median investment return factored in by state pensions is 8% a year! AEI - The Market Value of Public-Sector Pension Deficits

b. “The official state estimate in underfunded pension liabilities to New Jersey’s public workers stands at $46 billion. It is one of the highest liabilities in the nation, averaging $5,200 per capita. The estimate is based on an assumed rate of return on pension assets of 8.25 percent –“ National Taxpayers Union - Overvalued and Underfunded: New Jersey?s Pension Time Bomb

c. Now, what happens if the state cannot pay the pensions? Taxpayers are legally obligated to make up any difference between what’s been promised and what can actually be paid. Pension Pulse: Pension Woes May Deepen Financial Crisis

The rumor that has been around for several years is that the federal gov will 'nationalize' all 401's, retirement accounts, and promise some return, along the lines of Social Security.

Let’s see all of the debt in one place!
a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trilliond.
Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years


b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP

g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor


Last time I went to Toronto, the customs guy asked if I had anything to declare...I told him we were all Ranger fans...all he said was "that's unfortunate."


Cut entitlements? Cut anything?

President Obama has formed a commission to suggest cost-cutting. The problem with this mostly political assemblage, is that a) it’s recommendations are nonbinding, and b) it is not populated by business folks,

a. In 1981, President Reagan created the “Private Sector Survey on Cost Control,” also know as the Grace Commission. It had 161 executives, in 36 task forces. It cost $75 million, all paid for by private companies. Three years later, they came up with 2,500 cost-cutting and revenue-enhancing recommendations that would save the government $424 billion in three years, rising to $1.9 trillion per year by the year 2000. Grace Commission Report (PPSS)

b. The vast majority were ignored by Congress.

Congress is the problem.

 

[Ropey]

Now, as far as Clinton, don't believe the spin that his administration, with the aid and abetment of the media, tried to put out...he took the surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund, and called it revenue...it is a liability...and claimed said surplus.

Thank you for this new information (to me). I will research and get back on this. With arithmetic, A negative plus another negative does not equal a positive, so I see your point.

Thanks for the welcome

Edit. My post regarding the ideological differences with regards to the parties of the sitting President stands. I see that Clinton fudged, but I see that this fudging is often in play.

So, now I see no fiscal responsibility in any President regardless of party. The only error I seem to have made was to see Clinton as more responsible than so many others regardless of party affiliations.

Sadly...

What PC is telling you is incorrect. Clinton didn't take the surplus out of the trust. The SS trust is made up of non-marketable debt. You can't take money out of SS because there is no money in there. There is only this debt that the government owes itself. What happened was that when the government ran a surplus, the government took in more money from taxes than it spent, simple as that. It didn't borrow from anywhere else. The trusts accrue debt based on a variety of assumptions, then the government essentially writes itself an IOU.

More here and here.

But even if the transfer is simply paper, it's still transferred, and a reason as to why SS is not funded anymore.

I mean you can only go to the well so many times, even if you are tossing in rocks to raise the water level. The more I look into this, the more fakery I see.

 

[uscitizen]

This is also non-sense. I work for a multinational company, and where a product is produced has nothing to do with how much is charged in each company. I have one cost of production regardless of where it is, and one total pot of revenue.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Companies DO charge different prices for the same product in different countries.

Yep a pill manufactured in Costa Rica Is sold for much more money in the USA than in Mexico.

 

[Toro]

But even if the transfer is simply paper, it's still transferred, and a reason as to why SS is not funded anymore.

I mean you can only go to the well so many times, even if you are tossing in rocks to raise the water level. The more I look into this, the more fakery I see.

It's a bizarre system. If a company ran its books the way the government does, the CFO and CEO would go to jail.

Buuuuuut ...

This is the way the government has accounted for its books for decades. And based on this method - cash coming in relative to cash going out - the government ran surpluses in the late 90s.

 

[finebead]

From the article "how bush bankrupted america" at Cato Institute (conservative think tank) by a Reagan republican:

The Medicare Debacle

Bush's instincts for activist government were evident in his No Child Left Behind bill, his steel tariffs, and his vigorous spending increases. They may have culminated in his administration's pulling out all the stops to pass the prescription drug entitlement for Medicare recipients.

Just how serious the administration had been about passing that monstrosity became apparent after the bill was safely signed into law, when it became known that the administration had covered up internal estimates of the true cost of the legislation, which was limited to $400 billion by the congressional budget resolution. Any amount higher than that would have been subject to a point of order that at least would have delayed the legislation and more than likely derailed it altogether.

The Congressional Budget Office, under pressure from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, published a 10-year cost estimate of $400 billion, even though CMS chief actuary Richard Foster knew that the cost would be at least $534 billion. As the Wall Street Journal observed, "It is undeniable that the Medicare bill wouldn't have passed in its current form had $540 billion been the accepted cost fiction." The CMS administrator threatened Foster's job, and the true cost of the program was not revealed until after the bill had passed.

But as is so often the case in Washington, the truth did eventually come out, disclosed by reporter Amy Goldstein in the Washington Post on January 31, 2004—almost six weeks after the drug benefit had been signed into law by President Bush. She reported that the $534 billion estimate, which eventually appeared in the president's budget, was widely known among those who negotiated the final provisions of the legislation. The CBO was eventually forced to admit that its original estimate was off and that the 10-year forecast should have been $557.7 billion.

The clearest indication of precisely how costly the drug bill will actually be came on March 23, 2004, when the Medicare trustees issued their annual report, as required by law. They showed that over the first 75 years of the drug program, now known as Medicare Part D, the cost would be $ 10.8 trillion in present value terms, with taxpayers footing the bill for $8.1 trillion of that.

But even that massive figure is only part of the story. In the 2004 Medicare trustees' report, the actuaries presented for the first time cost estimates in perpetuity. The actuaries estimated this cost, again in present value terms, at $21.9 trillion, of which $16.6 trillion would come out of future income taxes to pay for the drug benefit.

Once upon a time in the not-too-distant past, Republicans were deeply skeptical about so-called entitlement programs like Medicare. These are programs for which no annual appropriation is necessary. Spending is automatic for everyone and everything that meets specified criteria. In the case of Medicare, the principal criterion is simply being at least 65 years old. Historically, Republicans have felt that such programs—virtually free of budgetary control—were the epitome of bad policy.

Fast forward 22 years and we see a very different philosophy within the Republican Party. Instead of fighting entitlements, the party now embraces them.

The Rest of the Story

No sensible person argued that Medicare's policy of paying virtually unlimited sums for hospital care while paying nothing for prescription drugs made any sense. And no one denied that some seniors needed help paying for prescription drugs. But many already had perfectly good prescription drug coverage from their employers. Yet they, too, ended up being covered by the Medicare drug benefit.

I puzzled for a long time about why Republicans would write a bill that provided benefits even for those who had no need for them. They were making it more expensive without improving health care in any way at all.

The answer became clear when the New York Times reported that the drug program would reimburse corporations for the drug benefits they were already providing to their retirees. The federal government would send huge checks to some of the largest corporations in the United States for the costs that they were already contractually obligated to pay. The final legislation provides a 28 percent tax-free subsidy that is expected to average $660 per retiree per year.

The numbers are huge. After passage of the legislation, the Wall Street Journal reported that General Motors anticipated receiving $4 billion to cover its prescription drug costs. Other recipients included Verizon ($1.3 billion), BellSouth ($572 million), Delphi ($500 million), U.S. Steel ($450 million), American Airlines ($415 million), John Deere ($400 million), United Airlines ($280 million), and Alcoa ($190 million).

How Bush Bankrupted America

This legislation also prevented by law, the US govt. from negotiating volume discounts on the prescription drugs, we were obligated by law to pay list price, and we could not re-import the drugs from Canada and pay a lower price.

And, THERE WAS NO TAX TO PAY FOR THIS!!! It is a smooth net addition to the deficit. Take that Obama!!!

This was one of the most idiotic things the fiscally irresponsible republicans did in the last administration.

But the original poster, in her myopic desire to just bash the dems and forego any semblance of balance, was either unaware of just how bad this legislation is, or was highly biased and just wants to bash on democrats without trying to solve problems. If you want to solve problems, you should be after the truth, without regard to which party screwed up (not like Limbaugh).

And of course, the repubs further lied about the "10 year cost" of medicare part D they passed, by NOT OPERATING THE PROGRAM AT ALL FOR THE FIRST 3 YEARS OF THE FIRST 10 YEARS!!!

So, they started at 400 billion, knowing full well it was 534 billion for the first 10 years, and not bothering to tell anyone the program would only operate for 7 years in the first 10 year window (a trick employed by the dems when they ran through Obamacare!).

The actual cost for the second ten years starting 2011 is $1 TRILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember, NO TAX WAS CREATED TO PAY FOR THIS PROGRAM, AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that is TRULY fiscally irresponsible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, a definition: The Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 -- better known as the Medicare Modernization Act -- created a new benefit called Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs.

Gauging its price is tricky. How do you measure the cost of something that will continue to accumulate over the years and and has no end date?

Brian Riedl, a federal budget expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, gave us a hint.

"Most people talk about costs in a 10-year period," he said. "When the Congressional Budget Office scores a bill, they often will score the 10-year costs."

OK, so we’ll look at the CBO’s Nov. 20, 2003 cost analysis of the program over its first decade, 2004 through 2013. It’s just shy of $400 billion.

That’s a long way from Scott’s $1 trillion.

What about a more recent estimate?

According to a fiscal 2011 analysis from the Office of Management and Budget, the cost of the program from 2011 to 2020 would be more than $950 billion, close enough to $1 trillion.

Is that a fair measure?

Well, better than the $400 billion from 2004-2013, says Riedl, noting that the program wasn’t fully implemented until 2006.

But he added that Scott could have been more clear in what period of time he measuring.

"I know as a budget geek what people mean, but I think a regular layman may think he means a trillion dollars a year," he said.

PolitiFact Virginia | Bobby Scott says Republicans created $1 trillion prescription drug plan

But don't worry, we'll run the govt. into the ground, debilitate the US dollar, so we can give billions to GM, etc., and their CEO's will have a more profitable company on the taxpayers backs, and their stock options and restricted stock awards will be worth hundreds of millions, so they won't even notice the impact of the depreciated dollar. And the big pharma CEO's love it too, can't negotiate for volume discounts (like Wal Mart does, so they are available), so its an early retirement rich plan for big pharma execs. That's $100 billion a year added to the deficit by the republicans back in 2003, not a dime in taxes to pay for it. And when you can't buy groceries because gasoline costs $10 a gallon, it will be worth it because we are taking such good care of our corporate leaders!

You can't really say the republicans are fiscally responsible, not at all...

 

[PoliticalChic]

But even if the transfer is simply paper, it's still transferred, and a reason as to why SS is not funded anymore.

I mean you can only go to the well so many times, even if you are tossing in rocks to raise the water level. The more I look into this, the more fakery I see.

It's a bizarre system. If a company ran its books the way the government does, the CFO and CEO would go to jail.

Buuuuuut ...

This is the way the government has accounted for its books for decades. And based on this method - cash coming in relative to cash going out - the government ran surpluses in the late 90s.

The proof that this is nonsense is to simply look at the government's own national debt summary- which I provided earlier.

Over the Clinton presidency there was a 41% increase in the national debt.

 

[Ropey]

But even if the transfer is simply paper, it's still transferred, and a reason as to why SS is not funded anymore.

I mean you can only go to the well so many times, even if you are tossing in rocks to raise the water level. The more I look into this, the more fakery I see.

It's a bizarre system. If a company ran its books the way the government does, the CFO and CEO would go to jail.

Buuuuuut ...

This is the way the government has accounted for its books for decades. And based on this method - cash coming in relative to cash going out - the government ran surpluses in the late 90s.

If you want to call them surpluses. Remember what the new Capitalist name for determining recession/depression?

Negative growth....

 

[NYcarbineer]

But even if the transfer is simply paper, it's still transferred, and a reason as to why SS is not funded anymore.

I mean you can only go to the well so many times, even if you are tossing in rocks to raise the water level. The more I look into this, the more fakery I see.

It's a bizarre system. If a company ran its books the way the government does, the CFO and CEO would go to jail.

Buuuuuut ...

This is the way the government has accounted for its books for decades. And based on this method - cash coming in relative to cash going out - the government ran surpluses in the late 90s.

The proof that this is nonsense is to simply look at the government's own national debt summary- which I provided earlier.

Over the Clinton presidency there was a 41% increase in the national debt.

And using those measures there was a 190% increase in the national debt under Reagan.

Now, who would one consider more fiscally responsible? Someone who presides over a 41% increase in the national debt,

or someone who presides over a 190% increase in the national debt?

That is not a rhetorical question, since most conservatives at least appear to consider Reagan to have been more fiscally responsible than Clinton.

Let's hear someone defend their belief in that regard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone see a pattern here?

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

Notice, that just for starters, she omitted

the Republicans 2 unpaid for wars in the '00's,

unpaid for Medicare part D,

Bush's 2001 tax cut that was explicitly for the purpose of getting rid of the Clinton surplus,

the unpaid for 2003 tax cut that had no economic justification,

the unpaid for Reagan military buildup,

the unpaid for Bush Sr. Iraq war

...for starters...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and just for irony's sake, the OP attacks the formation of Social Security as an example of Democratic fiscal insanity?

Somewhere's in another thread she was cheering Reagan for having saved Social Security in the 1980's.

Not only is she an R vs. D hack, she's hilariously inept at it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Democratic Congress's vote against the Iraq war was 147 to 110. The Democratic Congress did not authorize the war in Iraq, the Republicans did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From the article "how bush bankrupted america" at Cato Institute (conservative think tank) by a Reagan republican:

No sensible person argued that Medicare's policy of paying virtually unlimited sums for hospital care while paying nothing for prescription drugs made any sense. And no one denied that some seniors needed help paying for prescription drugs. But many already had perfectly good prescription drug coverage from their employers. Yet they, too, ended up being covered by the Medicare drug benefit.

[But the original poster, in her myopic desire to just bash the dems and forego any semblance of balance, was either unaware of just how bad this legislation is, or was highly biased and just wants to bash on democrats without trying to solve problems. If you want to solve problems, you should be after the truth, without regard to which party screwed up (not like Limbaugh).

And of course, the repubs further lied about the "10 year cost" of medicare part D they passed, by NOT OPERATING THE PROGRAM AT ALL FOR THE FIRST 3 YEARS OF THE FIRST 10 YEARS!!!

So, they started at 400 billion, knowing full well it was 534 billion for the first 10 years, and not bothering to tell anyone the program would only operate for 7 years in the first 10 year window (a trick employed by the dems when they ran through Obamacare!).

The actual cost for the second ten years starting 2011 is $1 TRILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember, NO TAX WAS CREATED TO PAY FOR THIS PROGRAM, AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that is TRULY fiscally irresponsible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, a definition: The Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 -- better known as the Medicare Modernization Act -- created a new benefit called Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs.

Gauging its price is tricky. How do you measure the cost of something that will continue to accumulate over the years and and has no end date?

Brian Riedl, a federal budget expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, gave us a hint.

"Most people talk about costs in a 10-year period," he said. "When the Congressional Budget Office scores a bill, they often will score the 10-year costs."

OK, so we’ll look at the CBO’s Nov. 20, 2003 cost analysis of the program over its first decade, 2004 through 2013. It’s just shy of $400 billion.

That’s a long way from Scott’s $1 trillion.

What about a more recent estimate?

According to a fiscal 2011 analysis from the Office of Management and Budget, the cost of the program from 2011 to 2020 would be more than $950 billion, close enough to $1 trillion.

Is that a fair measure?

Well, better than the $400 billion from 2004-2013, says Riedl, noting that the program wasn’t fully implemented until 2006.

But he added that Scott could have been more clear in what period of time he measuring.

"I know as a budget geek what people mean, but I think a regular layman may think he means a trillion dollars a year," he said.

PolitiFact Virginia | Bobby Scott says Republicans created $1 trillion prescription drug plan

But don't worry, we'll run the govt. into the ground, debilitate the US dollar, so we can give billions to GM, etc., and their CEO's will have a more profitable company on the taxpayers backs, and their stock options and restricted stock awards will be worth hundreds of millions, so they won't even notice the impact of the depreciated dollar. And the big pharma CEO's love it too, can't negotiate for volume discounts (like Wal Mart does, so they are available), so its an early retirement rich plan for big pharma execs. That's $100 billion a year added to the deficit by the republicans back in 2003, not a dime in taxes to pay for it. And when you can't buy groceries because gasoline costs $10 a gallon, it will be worth it because we are taking such good care of our corporate leaders!

You can't really say the republicans are fiscally responsible, not at all...

Certainly undestandable why you would post what seems to you to indict Repubs, but let's be clear.

You are attacking Repubs, rather than the economic tsunami rapidly approaching.

If that is your intent, fine, I will not defend President Bush's spending....

But if you would like a dose of reality, read on:
1. In the last 50 years, 44 of 'em have been in the red.

2. Our Trillion-Dollar War, by Edgar K. Browning of The Independent Institute:
When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that “. . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy.” Now that this “investment” has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:
Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?

If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. That’s $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577.
Right Truth: War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results

3. When L.B.J.’s War on Poverty initiatives are balanced against costs—the lost economic growth, the massively expanded taxation, the substantial increase in the size and scope of government, and the creation of a class of citizens completely dependent upon the government—the War on Poverty looks like a failure.

4. A cautionary tale from LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ discredits the progressive principle of more services via ever-expanding government. And, in fact, unemployment and inflation did occur simultaneously. “Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years.” Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it

5. “…he was schooled in governmental activism by the New Deal. As he scaled the political ladder in the years following World War II, Americans expected increasing benefits from Government, and L.B.J. was happy to provide them. He subscribed to what could be called a politics of plenty: more of everything for everybody. He was the ideal President for the insatiable 1960s.
HISTORICAL NOTES: L.B.J.: Naked to His Enemies - TIME

6. LBJ fit the progressive mold perfectly, and he wanted to continue FDR’s advances toward a cradle-to-grave European style government. The theater of endeavor was not as much economic equality, but racial, but still aimed at undoing the attempts of Truman and Eisenhower to return America to its tradition of fiscal responsibility (between 1946 and 1960, the national debt had fallen from 122% of GDP to less than 56% of GDP; over that period, America’s total deficit was some $740 million versus FDR’s deficit of $15.6 billion in 1946 alone. Historical Tables | The White House).

7. Notice how similar are the characteristics of Democrat administrations: Never having worked in the private sector during his entire adult life, the solvency of his programs was never a consideration. And, thanks to the New Deal and a world war, many Americans had been weaned away from traditions such as self-reliance, free enterprise, local control, and the kind of society that voluntarily helped its neighbors.

8. Using the rhetoric that goes back to President Wilson, Johnson proclaimed his ‘war’ on poverty. The bedrock of is plan came from the writings such as “The Other America,” by Michael Harrington, who claimed that there were millions of Americans drowning in poverty. Two problems:

a. “I work on an assumption that cannot be proved by Government figures, or even documented by impressions…” Michael Harrington, “The Other America: Poverty in the United States,” p. 17-18

b. Harrington had a political ax to grind. “Michael Harrington, Socialist and Author, Is Dead,” Michael Harrington, Socialist and Author, Is Dead - Obituary - NYTimes.com

c. LBJ and Congress had enacted hundreds of new subsidies, welfare programs, housing programs, urban programs, and educational programs. Federal Aid to the States: Historical Cause of Government Growth and Bureaucracy | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

9. Those of us on the right have warned progressives about the unintended consequences of policies not fully considered...folks like you. Here is how LBJ stuck his foot in it: LBJ accomplished the expansion of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). Under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and needed help to support the children. To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying. See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

a. The motto of liberalism: do whatever feels good, and don’t worry about the consequences.

b. Which explanation makes more sense: progressives couldn’t imagine these consequences, or they just didn’t care?

10. So, my biased friend, if you would like to go after Bush for spending, do so by all means....but remember Democrat LBJ was worse by several measures, including the fiscal timebombs of Medicare and Medicaid...

President Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ. From 2001 to 2006, Republicans controlled the presidency and House, and, with the exceptions of ’01 and ’02, the Senate. This was the 'conservative' Progressive Era. . Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest):
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%
c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House



BTW, contrary to the huge post about profits in the industry, FactCheck doesn't agree with the numbers you post:

. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan


Insurance Co. Profits: Good, But Not Breaking Records
Insurance Co. Profits: Good, But Not Breaking Records | FactCheck.org

 

[Ropey]

Fact Check is great. It looks as though Clinton and Reagan both kept their increases down. A Republican and Democrat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fact Check is great. It looks as though Clinton and Reagan both kept their increases down. A Republican and Democrat.

Even when Presidents wish to cut spending, the Congress (s) won't allow it.

We need a change in the way the work and how much time they spend in Congress.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First of all...I hesitated to even engage with you since Forbes announced that my Rangers were second in value to.....Toronto.

Oh, I'm more of a Rangers fan than of the Maple Laffs!

And careful of your conclusions, i.e. "as I would like there to believe there is at least one fiscally responsible party,..."

I didn't say that...exactly.

My OP was to take a swipe at Democrats...who are the no-doubt fiscally worse of the two.

I think this is generally true at the state level but I don't think it is true at the national level, at least based on contemporary history. At the state level, there is enforced discipline because of legal requirements for balanced budgets, so you get government that makes it difficult to indulge in fantasies such as Voodoo Economics. But at the national level, fantasies such as Voodoo Economics are able to linger, and people will believe whatever they want to believe because government can tap debt markets (almost) forever.

I don't take shots at conservatives who want to balance the budget by cutting spending, other than perhaps for timing. I think lower taxes and lower spending are generally better. But cutting taxes while not cutting spending is fiscally irresponsible. I'd rather pay higher taxes if politicians don't have the guts to cut spending, and instead avoid adult conversations by feeding the public fairy tales, because the future results will ultimately be catastrophic. We know Democrats are supposed to be fiscally irresponsible, right? But Republicans are far more hypocritical IMHO because they like to think they're fiscally responsible but instead delude themselves into believing fantasies such as Voodoo Economics. I really like Governor Christie. I sympathize with the Tea Party. But until I start hearing Republicans say "Cut my social security," "Cut my Medicare," "Cut my kids school budget," "Cut defense" when they say "Cut taxes and balance the budget," then I'll know they're serious.

True, State, unlike federal, budgets, cannot run as deficits. “Virtually all states have balanced budget requirements, so they must take actions to close these deficits.” (State Budget Deficits for Fiscal Year 2004 are Huge and Growing, Revised 1/23/03) So, what to do? Simple: conjecture a better world!

a. In 2008, states reported that their public-employee pensions were underfunded by a total of $438 billion. But independent estimates say the underfunding is closer to $3 trillion. Why? The states make up estimates of return at unbelievable levels: the median investment return factored in by state pensions is 8% a year! AEI - The Market Value of Public-Sector Pension Deficits

b. “The official state estimate in underfunded pension liabilities to New Jersey’s public workers stands at $46 billion. It is one of the highest liabilities in the nation, averaging $5,200 per capita. The estimate is based on an assumed rate of return on pension assets of 8.25 percent –“ National Taxpayers Union - Overvalued and Underfunded: New Jersey?s Pension Time Bomb

c. Now, what happens if the state cannot pay the pensions? Taxpayers are legally obligated to make up any difference between what’s been promised and what can actually be paid. Pension Pulse: Pension Woes May Deepen Financial Crisis

The rumor that has been around for several years is that the federal gov will 'nationalize' all 401's, retirement accounts, and promise some return, along the lines of Social Security.

Let’s see all of the debt in one place!
a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trilliond.
Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years


b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP

g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor


Last time I went to Toronto, the customs guy asked if I had anything to declare...I told him we were all Ranger fans...all he said was "that's unfortunate."


Cut entitlements? Cut anything?

President Obama has formed a commission to suggest cost-cutting. The problem with this mostly political assemblage, is that a) it’s recommendations are nonbinding, and b) it is not populated by business folks,

a. In 1981, President Reagan created the “Private Sector Survey on Cost Control,” also know as the Grace Commission. It had 161 executives, in 36 task forces. It cost $75 million, all paid for by private companies. Three years later, they came up with 2,500 cost-cutting and revenue-enhancing recommendations that would save the government $424 billion in three years, rising to $1.9 trillion per year by the year 2000. Grace Commission Report (PPSS)

b. The vast majority were ignored by Congress.

Congress is the problem.

Video: The coming collapse in the state budgets Hot Air