Yes, we have become a plutocracy...AGAIN...after progressives and New Deal Democrats created a more democratic republic and ended the reign of the Robber Barons...
It was the great American socialist Ronald Reagan who ended 'tax and spend' and replaced it with 'borrow and spend'
Yes, we have become a plutocracy...AGAIN...after progressives and New Deal Democrats created a more democratic republic and ended the reign of the Robber Barons...
It was the great American socialist Ronald Reagan who ended 'tax and spend' and replaced it with 'borrow and spend'
So you are against borrow and spend?
Most Americans would agree, about 80% of them, in fact, agree.
That is why I propose an amendment passed via the states to restrict such borrowing.
Do you really like democracy? If so, about 80% of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment of some kind and term limits in Congress.
Could you get behind such a movement?
Yes, we have become a plutocracy...AGAIN...after progressives and New Deal Democrats created a more democratic republic and ended the reign of the Robber Barons...
It was the great American socialist Ronald Reagan who ended 'tax and spend' and replaced it with 'borrow and spend'
So you are against borrow and spend?
Most Americans would agree, about 80% of them, in fact, agree.
That is why I propose an amendment passed via the states to restrict such borrowing.
Do you really like democracy? If so, about 80% of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment of some kind and term limits in Congress.
Could you get behind such a movement?
Why don't you just take a more humane approach...drop a nuclear bomb on America. Death would be instantaneous, and prevent long drawn out suffering...
Here is your word for the day...Greece
How to Destroy the US Economy Balance the Budget - Forbes
Yes, we have become a plutocracy...AGAIN...after progressives and New Deal Democrats created a more democratic republic and ended the reign of the Robber Barons...
It was the great American socialist Ronald Reagan who ended 'tax and spend' and replaced it with 'borrow and spend'
So you are against borrow and spend?
Most Americans would agree, about 80% of them, in fact, agree.
That is why I propose an amendment passed via the states to restrict such borrowing.
Do you really like democracy? If so, about 80% of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment of some kind and term limits in Congress.
Could you get behind such a movement?
Why don't you just take a more humane approach...drop a nuclear bomb on America. Death would be instantaneous, and prevent long drawn out suffering...
Here is your word for the day...Greece
How to Destroy the US Economy Balance the Budget - Forbes
Here is what then Senator Obama said in 2006 about government spending.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.
This is just rank demagoguery. As Obama himself explained yesterday, it's simply not the case that increasing the debt limit causes the United States to owe more money. The gap between revenue and expenditures exists one way or another. Lifting the statutory debt ceiling simply allows that gap to exist without causing secondary and tertiary economic disruptions.
And so Obama gets in the Oval Orifice and what does he do? He does the same damn things if not worse. In your opinion, was or is Obama lying or just clueless about economics?
I'm no economist, but when I see the likes of Obama get up and sell a stimulus package on the premise that it will decrease unemployment by a certain measurable percentage and it does not, I know Obama is no economist either.
For the most part, I think that Keynesian economics is voodoo economics and a failure. I place no faith in the empty words of empty suits like Barak Obama, nor do I this article in Forbes magazine who sells men like Obama.
All I know is that the Republic survived just fine without socialist economists like Keynes and the implementations of his voodoo policies for over 100 years. There is no need to raise massive debt.
So why exactly did Greece "fail" do you reckon? Is it because they tried to balance the books?
Yes, we have become a plutocracy...AGAIN...after progressives and New Deal Democrats created a more democratic republic and ended the reign of the Robber Barons...
It was the great American socialist Ronald Reagan who ended 'tax and spend' and replaced it with 'borrow and spend'
So you are against borrow and spend?
Most Americans would agree, about 80% of them, in fact, agree.
That is why I propose an amendment passed via the states to restrict such borrowing.
Do you really like democracy? If so, about 80% of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment of some kind and term limits in Congress.
Could you get behind such a movement?
Why don't you just take a more humane approach...drop a nuclear bomb on America. Death would be instantaneous, and prevent long drawn out suffering...
Here is your word for the day...Greece
How to Destroy the US Economy Balance the Budget - Forbes
Here is what then Senator Obama said in 2006 about government spending.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.
This is just rank demagoguery. As Obama himself explained yesterday, it's simply not the case that increasing the debt limit causes the United States to owe more money. The gap between revenue and expenditures exists one way or another. Lifting the statutory debt ceiling simply allows that gap to exist without causing secondary and tertiary economic disruptions.
And so Obama gets in the Oval Orifice and what does he do? He does the same damn things if not worse. In your opinion, was or is Obama lying or just clueless about economics?
I'm no economist, but when I see the likes of Obama get up and sell a stimulus package on the premise that it will decrease unemployment by a certain measurable percentage and it does not, I know Obama is no economist either.
For the most part, I think that Keynesian economics is voodoo economics and a failure. I place no faith in the empty words of empty suits like Barak Obama, nor do I this article in Forbes magazine who sells men like Obama.
All I know is that the Republic survived just fine without socialist economists like Keynes and the implementations of his voodoo policies for over 100 years. There is no need to raise massive debt.
So why exactly did Greece "fail" do you reckon? Is it because they tried to balance the books?
Yea, the republic survived just fine especially under Keynesian economics. It was run on a 'tax and spend' philosophy. Enter Ronald 'voodoo' Reagan, the welfare queen who wanted to borrow and spend.
LOOK at our debt before Reagan in the chart below...from 1940 to 1980 was Keynesian economics.
Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy.
Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
President Obama tried to increase revenues by a tax increase on the wealthy, REMEMBER? And Democrats all signed up for PAYGO, and NO Republicans voted yea on PAYGO...REMEMBER THAT??
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Yes, we have become a plutocracy...AGAIN...after progressives and New Deal Democrats created a more democratic republic and ended the reign of the Robber Barons...
It was the great American socialist Ronald Reagan who ended 'tax and spend' and replaced it with 'borrow and spend'
So you are against borrow and spend?
Most Americans would agree, about 80% of them, in fact, agree.
That is why I propose an amendment passed via the states to restrict such borrowing.
Do you really like democracy? If so, about 80% of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment of some kind and term limits in Congress.
Could you get behind such a movement?
Why don't you just take a more humane approach...drop a nuclear bomb on America. Death would be instantaneous, and prevent long drawn out suffering...
Here is your word for the day...Greece
How to Destroy the US Economy Balance the Budget - Forbes
Here is what then Senator Obama said in 2006 about government spending.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.
This is just rank demagoguery. As Obama himself explained yesterday, it's simply not the case that increasing the debt limit causes the United States to owe more money. The gap between revenue and expenditures exists one way or another. Lifting the statutory debt ceiling simply allows that gap to exist without causing secondary and tertiary economic disruptions.
And so Obama gets in the Oval Orifice and what does he do? He does the same damn things if not worse. In your opinion, was or is Obama lying or just clueless about economics?
I'm no economist, but when I see the likes of Obama get up and sell a stimulus package on the premise that it will decrease unemployment by a certain measurable percentage and it does not, I know Obama is no economist either.
For the most part, I think that Keynesian economics is voodoo economics and a failure. I place no faith in the empty words of empty suits like Barak Obama, nor do I this article in Forbes magazine who sells men like Obama.
All I know is that the Republic survived just fine without socialist economists like Keynes and the implementations of his voodoo policies for over 100 years. There is no need to raise massive debt.
So why exactly did Greece "fail" do you reckon? Is it because they tried to balance the books?
Yea, the republic survived just fine especially under Keynesian economics. It was run on a 'tax and spend' philosophy. Enter Ronald 'voodoo' Reagan, the welfare queen who wanted to borrow and spend.
LOOK at our debt before Reagan in the chart below...from 1940 to 1980 was Keynesian economics.
Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy.
Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
President Obama tried to increase revenues by a tax increase on the wealthy, REMEMBER? And Democrats all signed up for PAYGO, and NO Republicans voted yea on PAYGO...REMEMBER THAT??
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Blame Reagan? Blame the GOP?
I'm sorry, I thought Dims had both houses in Congress with Obama in the Oval Orifice in 2008 and did nothing but ram corporate mandated health care down our collective throats without one GOP vote needed
Once again, more demagoguery without a shred of substance.
I see no one wanting to reverse course.
Yea, the republic survived just fine especially under Keynesian economics. It was run on a 'tax and spend' philosophy. Enter Ronald 'voodoo' Reagan, the welfare queen who wanted to borrow and spend.
LOOK at our debt before Reagan in the chart below...from 1940 to 1980 was Keynesian economics.
Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy.
Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
President Obama tried to increase revenues by a tax increase on the wealthy, REMEMBER? And Democrats all signed up for PAYGO, and NO Republicans voted yea on PAYGO...REMEMBER THAT??
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Blame Reagan? Blame the GOP?
I'm sorry, I thought Dims had both houses in Congress with Obama in the Oval Orifice in 2008 and did nothing but ram corporate mandated health care down our collective throats without one GOP vote needed
Once again, more demagoguery without a shred of substance.
I see no one wanting to reverse course.
Completely non sequitur reply...
We were talking about debt not health care....so YES, the GOP is to blame for our debt...Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his administration.
But if you insist on talking about health care reform debt, let's see how the CBO scored the Affordable Care act in regards to debt...
While Democrats briefly controlled Congress, they put us on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory. If future Congress did nothing, the Extended-Baseline Scenario was already in place.
But, IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the ACA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.
The CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.
Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)
The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.
The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.
The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.
Yea, the republic survived just fine especially under Keynesian economics. It was run on a 'tax and spend' philosophy. Enter Ronald 'voodoo' Reagan, the welfare queen who wanted to borrow and spend.
LOOK at our debt before Reagan in the chart below...from 1940 to 1980 was Keynesian economics.
Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy.
Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
President Obama tried to increase revenues by a tax increase on the wealthy, REMEMBER? And Democrats all signed up for PAYGO, and NO Republicans voted yea on PAYGO...REMEMBER THAT??
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Blame Reagan? Blame the GOP?
I'm sorry, I thought Dims had both houses in Congress with Obama in the Oval Orifice in 2008 and did nothing but ram corporate mandated health care down our collective throats without one GOP vote needed
Once again, more demagoguery without a shred of substance.
I see no one wanting to reverse course.
Completely non sequitur reply...
We were talking about debt not health care....so YES, the GOP is to blame for our debt...Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his administration.
But if you insist on talking about health care reform debt, let's see how the CBO scored the Affordable Care act in regards to debt...
While Democrats briefly controlled Congress, they put us on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory. If future Congress did nothing, the Extended-Baseline Scenario was already in place.
But, IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the ACA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.
The CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.
Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)
The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.
The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.
The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.
Sorry, but I could really care less what the CBO says.
Before the vote on Obamacare the CBO projection for costs were much lower than the projection after Congress voted for it, and when Obamacare was passed the CBO almost immediately issued another projection correcting their original projection.. This shows blatant trickery within the CBO just to get legislation passed, therefore, they have lost all credibility in my sight.
Furthermore, how much money do you reckon the government can save by treating us like those dying in the VA? I'm sure if they continue on ignoring the sickest and oldest patients they can save a gem on heath care. Wouldn't that be nice.
As Robert Reich stated in the video I supplied, the fix was in from the beginning. Government panels will not decide on how long we live.
Why is it that Dims are all about "saving money" when they talk about abortion and health care, but silent when illegals cross the border in mass at taxpayer expense?
Face it, you are a partisan hack that has basically ignored most of what I've presented because you simply don't like it.
Yea, the republic survived just fine especially under Keynesian economics. It was run on a 'tax and spend' philosophy. Enter Ronald 'voodoo' Reagan, the welfare queen who wanted to borrow and spend.
LOOK at our debt before Reagan in the chart below...from 1940 to 1980 was Keynesian economics.
Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy.
Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
President Obama tried to increase revenues by a tax increase on the wealthy, REMEMBER? And Democrats all signed up for PAYGO, and NO Republicans voted yea on PAYGO...REMEMBER THAT??
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Blame Reagan? Blame the GOP?
I'm sorry, I thought Dims had both houses in Congress with Obama in the Oval Orifice in 2008 and did nothing but ram corporate mandated health care down our collective throats without one GOP vote needed
Once again, more demagoguery without a shred of substance.
I see no one wanting to reverse course.
Completely non sequitur reply...
We were talking about debt not health care....so YES, the GOP is to blame for our debt...Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his administration.
But if you insist on talking about health care reform debt, let's see how the CBO scored the Affordable Care act in regards to debt...
While Democrats briefly controlled Congress, they put us on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory. If future Congress did nothing, the Extended-Baseline Scenario was already in place.
But, IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the ACA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.
The CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.
Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)
The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.
The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.
The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.
Sorry, but I could really care less what the CBO says.
Before the vote on Obamacare the CBO projection for costs were much lower than the projection after Congress voted for it, and when Obamacare was passed the CBO almost immediately issued another projection correcting their original projection.. This shows blatant trickery within the CBO just to get legislation passed, therefore, they have lost all credibility in my sight.
Furthermore, how much money do you reckon the government can save by treating us like those dying in the VA? I'm sure if they continue on ignoring the sickest and oldest patients they can save a gem on heath care. Wouldn't that be nice.
As Robert Reich stated in the video I supplied, the fix was in from the beginning. Government panels will not decide on how long we live.
Why is it that Dims are all about "saving money" when they talk about abortion and health care, but silent when illegals cross the border in mass at taxpayer expense?
Face it, you are a partisan hack that has basically ignored most of what I've presented because you simply don't like it.
Calling Democrats 'Dims', you reveal that the partisan hack is you.
I am getting tired of your 'conspiracy theories', and sticking your head in the sand when I confront you with FACTS you don't want to hear.
FACT: the ACA is finally addressing 'the sickest patients'. People who never had health insurance are now showing up at doctor's offices.
And you also brought up 'the oldest patients'...Sarah Palin, Republicans and the right wing media cost all Americans a lot of money when she/they blatantly LIED, by calling 'advance directives' "death panels'
FACT: About 30% of Medicare payout is spent on the last year of an old person's life. Often it is because of expensive heroic efforts that family members OK because they don't know what grandma or grandpa would want. At that point grandma and grandpa are no longer cognizant.
There was a very important cost saving provision in the ACA. It would have paid for 'advance directives'.
'Advanced directives'
It’s hard to imagine how a compassionate, family-friendly measure — a measure that ultimately respects individual rights — could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.”
But, prepare yourself for more lies and more nonsense, because President Barack Obama has decided to do the right thing — and his critics already have resorted to fear-mongering and name-calling.
The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.
It’s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis — while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.
Too often, those decisions are made when it’s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision — and at times it’s nothing more than a guess.
Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn’t we trust the individual — in advance and when thinking clearly — to make that decision?
For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here’s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?
The issue of death panels became so hot during this year’s debate on health-care reform legislation that Democrats decided to pull that provision from the bill.
2009
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'
2010
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'
Yea, the republic survived just fine especially under Keynesian economics. It was run on a 'tax and spend' philosophy. Enter Ronald 'voodoo' Reagan, the welfare queen who wanted to borrow and spend.
LOOK at our debt before Reagan in the chart below...from 1940 to 1980 was Keynesian economics.
Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy.
Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
President Obama tried to increase revenues by a tax increase on the wealthy, REMEMBER? And Democrats all signed up for PAYGO, and NO Republicans voted yea on PAYGO...REMEMBER THAT??
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Blame Reagan? Blame the GOP?
I'm sorry, I thought Dims had both houses in Congress with Obama in the Oval Orifice in 2008 and did nothing but ram corporate mandated health care down our collective throats without one GOP vote needed
Once again, more demagoguery without a shred of substance.
I see no one wanting to reverse course.
Completely non sequitur reply...
We were talking about debt not health care....so YES, the GOP is to blame for our debt...Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his administration.
But if you insist on talking about health care reform debt, let's see how the CBO scored the Affordable Care act in regards to debt...
While Democrats briefly controlled Congress, they put us on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory. If future Congress did nothing, the Extended-Baseline Scenario was already in place.
But, IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the ACA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.
The CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.
Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)
The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.
The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.
The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.
Sorry, but I could really care less what the CBO says.
Before the vote on Obamacare the CBO projection for costs were much lower than the projection after Congress voted for it, and when Obamacare was passed the CBO almost immediately issued another projection correcting their original projection.. This shows blatant trickery within the CBO just to get legislation passed, therefore, they have lost all credibility in my sight.
Furthermore, how much money do you reckon the government can save by treating us like those dying in the VA? I'm sure if they continue on ignoring the sickest and oldest patients they can save a gem on heath care. Wouldn't that be nice.
As Robert Reich stated in the video I supplied, the fix was in from the beginning. Government panels will not decide on how long we live.
Why is it that Dims are all about "saving money" when they talk about abortion and health care, but silent when illegals cross the border in mass at taxpayer expense?
Face it, you are a partisan hack that has basically ignored most of what I've presented because you simply don't like it.
Calling Democrats 'Dims', you reveal that the partisan hack is you.
I am getting tired of your 'conspiracy theories', and sticking your head in the sand when I confront you with FACTS you don't want to hear.
FACT: the ACA is finally addressing 'the sickest patients'. People who never had health insurance are now showing up at doctor's offices.
And you also brought up 'the oldest patients'...Sarah Palin, Republicans and the right wing media cost all Americans a lot of money when she/they blatantly LIED, by calling 'advance directives' "death panels'
FACT: About 30% of Medicare payout is spent on the last year of an old person's life. Often it is because of expensive heroic efforts that family members OK because they don't know what grandma or grandpa would want. At that point grandma and grandpa are no longer cognizant.
There was a very important cost saving provision in the ACA. It would have paid for 'advance directives'.
'Advanced directives'
It’s hard to imagine how a compassionate, family-friendly measure — a measure that ultimately respects individual rights — could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.”
But, prepare yourself for more lies and more nonsense, because President Barack Obama has decided to do the right thing — and his critics already have resorted to fear-mongering and name-calling.
The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.
It’s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis — while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.
Too often, those decisions are made when it’s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision — and at times it’s nothing more than a guess.
Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn’t we trust the individual — in advance and when thinking clearly — to make that decision?
For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here’s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?
The issue of death panels became so hot during this year’s debate on health-care reform legislation that Democrats decided to pull that provision from the bill.
2009
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'
2010
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'
It's like Robert Reich admitted in the video I provided. People will not live as long and there will be less innovation and drive to care for the sickest of the sick. On top of that we have the example of what government health care is already doing to veterans.
So there we have it, we have an Obama advisor admitting to what I'm saying and we have the example of government run health care doing exactly what I'm suggesting.
And no, the GOP does not care. In fact, the whole VA scandal was presented to none other than John McCain, a Republican. Do you know what he did? He had the doctor fired who tried to blow the whistle on the scandal. Had it not been for some no name Congressman who helped blow the scandal apart, it very well may have all been swept under the rug, which to me is scary as hell.
And that really is the hell of entitlements. In reality, you are not really entitled to anything. In the end you are forever held hostage to the whims of those in government threatening to cut you off, which is especially problematic once you have become dependent upon them.
Hence, rioting in Greece.
Completely non sequitur reply...
We were talking about debt not health care....so YES, the GOP is to blame for our debt...Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his administration.
But if you insist on talking about health care reform debt, let's see how the CBO scored the Affordable Care act in regards to debt...
While Democrats briefly controlled Congress, they put us on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory. If future Congress did nothing, the Extended-Baseline Scenario was already in place.
But, IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the ACA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.
The CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.
Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)
The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.
The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.
The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.
Sorry, but I could really care less what the CBO says.
Before the vote on Obamacare the CBO projection for costs were much lower than the projection after Congress voted for it, and when Obamacare was passed the CBO almost immediately issued another projection correcting their original projection.. This shows blatant trickery within the CBO just to get legislation passed, therefore, they have lost all credibility in my sight.
Furthermore, how much money do you reckon the government can save by treating us like those dying in the VA? I'm sure if they continue on ignoring the sickest and oldest patients they can save a gem on heath care. Wouldn't that be nice.
As Robert Reich stated in the video I supplied, the fix was in from the beginning. Government panels will not decide on how long we live.
Why is it that Dims are all about "saving money" when they talk about abortion and health care, but silent when illegals cross the border in mass at taxpayer expense?
Face it, you are a partisan hack that has basically ignored most of what I've presented because you simply don't like it.
Calling Democrats 'Dims', you reveal that the partisan hack is you.
I am getting tired of your 'conspiracy theories', and sticking your head in the sand when I confront you with FACTS you don't want to hear.
FACT: the ACA is finally addressing 'the sickest patients'. People who never had health insurance are now showing up at doctor's offices.
And you also brought up 'the oldest patients'...Sarah Palin, Republicans and the right wing media cost all Americans a lot of money when she/they blatantly LIED, by calling 'advance directives' "death panels'
FACT: About 30% of Medicare payout is spent on the last year of an old person's life. Often it is because of expensive heroic efforts that family members OK because they don't know what grandma or grandpa would want. At that point grandma and grandpa are no longer cognizant.
There was a very important cost saving provision in the ACA. It would have paid for 'advance directives'.
'Advanced directives'
It’s hard to imagine how a compassionate, family-friendly measure — a measure that ultimately respects individual rights — could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.”
But, prepare yourself for more lies and more nonsense, because President Barack Obama has decided to do the right thing — and his critics already have resorted to fear-mongering and name-calling.
The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.
It’s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis — while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.
Too often, those decisions are made when it’s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision — and at times it’s nothing more than a guess.
Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn’t we trust the individual — in advance and when thinking clearly — to make that decision?
For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here’s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?
The issue of death panels became so hot during this year’s debate on health-care reform legislation that Democrats decided to pull that provision from the bill.
2009
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'
2010
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'
It's like Robert Reich admitted in the video I provided. People will not live as long and there will be less innovation and drive to care for the sickest of the sick. On top of that we have the example of what government health care is already doing to veterans.
So there we have it, we have an Obama advisor admitting to what I'm saying and we have the example of government run health care doing exactly what I'm suggesting.
And no, the GOP does not care. In fact, the whole VA scandal was presented to none other than John McCain, a Republican. Do you know what he did? He had the doctor fired who tried to blow the whistle on the scandal. Had it not been for some no name Congressman who helped blow the scandal apart, it very well may have all been swept under the rug, which to me is scary as hell.
And that really is the hell of entitlements. In reality, you are not really entitled to anything. In the end you are forever held hostage to the whims of those in government threatening to cut you off, which is especially problematic once you have become dependent upon them.
Hence, rioting in Greece.
You are misrepresenting what Reich said. He said "we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people"
He is right...we DO have a for-profit before patients cartel run wealth care system that is designed to avoid sick people.
And we also have the most expensive health care system in the world, and the only 'out-comes' that are at the top of the heap are the profits doctors, hospitals, insurance cartels and big pharma make.
In term of medical out-comes for American citizens, we are lower that Greece...
Americas Health Care System at the Bottom of the Heap
A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for all adults (15-74 years old) and for just the older population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much bang for the buck each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.
Increasing Health Care Costs
It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, Americas costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.
Mortality Rates
The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.
Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:
1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland
Conclusions
Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?
The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at well-being of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.
Universal vs. Private Health Insurance
There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
