Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 133

Thread: White House-No more Spending Cuts

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    12-28-15 @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Ok, so tell me, "very liberal" what is an acceptable source of information that is acceptable to you? Apparently Forbes is a right wing rag even though it quotes CBO and Kaiser Foundation data. So apparently CBO is only credible when it gives you what you want and not credible when it offers something different than you want?
    To me? I like BEA, OMB, CBO and White House released (raw) data, since under the Constitution the information must be reported to the People from "time to time." And while imperfect, as all data is to one degree or another, it's as reliable as it gets, in part, since it's frequently revised. For example, as to revenue following the timing-out of Bush Tax Cuts (come-Obama since he urged their renewal for 2 years), CBO got it "wrong." But not wrong, only a projection based on then current assumptions; but when better base-data came in, CBO revised it, upwardly. So if I were a Lefty Retard and not what I self describe as "Very Liberal," I could say, "Revenue increasing forces in Obama policy are working, so CBO had to revise their revenue projections for 2013." But you'd call "BS" on that, I'd hope (since it is). But you cannot see that Forbes is doing exactly that, taking a revised prediction, based on who knows (Forbes ain't saying), and then attributing it to some magical forces within a law that 1) does not have them; and 2) in fact has anti-competitive forces built right in. Utter BS. USDA Prime Bull [that word].

    But that's just me. I'd rather know what's actually going on than to persist in a delusion, however comforting it might be for me, ideologically.

    How about you, Connie. Where do you prefer getting yours?
    Last edited by Sisyphus; 07-29-13 at 03:50 PM.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    12-28-15 @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    This thread should bring out the best in partisan politics.
    Which one doesn't? Hahahahahaha

  3. #93
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Sisyphus View Post
    To me? I like BEA, OMB, CBO and White House released (raw) data, since under the Constitution the information must be reported to the People from "time to time." And while imperfect, as all data is to one degree or another, it's as reliable as it gets, in part, since it's frequently revised. For example, as to revenue following the timing-out of Bush Tax Cuts (come-Obama since he urged their renewal for 2 years), CBO got it "wrong." But not wrong, only a projection based on then current assumptions; but when better base-data came in, CBO revised it, upwardly. So if I were a Lefty Retard and not what I self describe as "Very Liberal," I could say, "Revenue increasing forces in Obama policy are working, so CBO had to revise their revenue projections for 2013." But you'd call "BS" on that, I'd hope (since it is). But you cannot see that Forbes is doing exactly that, taking a revised prediction, based on who knows (Forbes ain't saying), and then attributing it to some magical forces within a law that 1) does not have them; and 2) in fact has anti-competitive forces built right in. Utter BS. USDA Prime Bull [that word].

    But that's just me. I'd rather know what's actually going on than to persist in a delusion, however comforting it might be for me, ideologically.

    How about you, Connie. Where to you prefer getting yours?
    I prefer bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. You claimed that Medicare Part D drove up costs. Prove it by Treasury Data. The Bush tax cuts have continued and haven't been changed so where is that revenue growth that Obama policies have generated?

    You are exactly right regarding CBO numbers as they always have to revise the numbers just like in the Forbes article the revised CBO numbers show Medicare Part D working. The Kaiser Foundatioh also claims the program is working but you won't consider those sources since apparently they are listed in what you consider a rightwing rag.

    Name for me one program that Obama has ordered cut showing he is interested in cutting expenses? The Sequester was his idea and then he fought the cuts and now as the thread topic shows is resisting any further cuts. Rather than cut and return power to the states, he would rather have the taxpayer fund bad behavior by increasing taxes and most of is supporters agree.

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    12-28-15 @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I prefer bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. You claimed that Medicare Part D drove up costs. Prove it by Treasury Data. The Bush tax cuts have continued and haven't been changed so where is that revenue growth that Obama policies have generated?

    You are exactly right regarding CBO numbers as they always have to revise the numbers just like in the Forbes article the revised CBO numbers show Medicare Part D working. The Kaiser Foundatioh also claims the program is working but you won't consider those sources since apparently they are listed in what you consider a rightwing rag.

    Name for me one program that Obama has ordered cut showing he is interested in cutting expenses? The Sequester was his idea and then he fought the cuts and now as the thread topic shows is resisting any further cuts. Rather than cut and return power to the states, he would rather have the taxpayer fund bad behavior by increasing taxes and most of is supporters agree.
    No. I said (MC-D) is widely considered the worst legislation, fiscally, ever passed ... of course, "widely" meaning from an objective analyst standpoint, and neither Mother Jones nor Forbes.

    What it is is a program that was supposed to cost $40 B a year, and seems to have come in at circa $55 B a year. Not horrible if buying drugs for those who could not get them. But it did not do that. It merely added cost for tax payers, and individuals, in a program so convoluted they had to send out instructions and run a national ad campaign to get folks to come into the system.

    And of course, the silver lining, which is why lobbyists in DC are so well-paid, and in fact grossly underpaid (I make the industry Billions and only make Millions????)

    1. Prohibits the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies;
    2. Prevents the government from establishing a formulary

    Those are competitive forces other countries use to drive down Script-cost per capita, which we not only do not use but are prevented from using, in law; and thus we pay more per capita than any other modern nation, and near double what the UK pays. And it's not just a cost to Medicare for a measly ~$55B a year; it's the broader US drug market not having a strong cost-lowering component, raising costs across the spectrum, making MC-D a fiscal nightmare for government, businesses and individuals of every age.
    Last edited by Sisyphus; 07-29-13 at 04:24 PM.

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    12-28-15 @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I prefer bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. You claimed that Medicare Part D drove up costs. Prove it by Treasury Data. The Bush tax cuts have continued and haven't been changed so where is that revenue growth that Obama policies have generated?

    You are exactly right regarding CBO numbers as they always have to revise the numbers just like in the Forbes article the revised CBO numbers show Medicare Part D working. The Kaiser Foundatioh also claims the program is working but you won't consider those sources since apparently they are listed in what you consider a rightwing rag.

    Name for me one program that Obama has ordered cut showing he is interested in cutting expenses? The Sequester was his idea and then he fought the cuts and now as the thread topic shows is resisting any further cuts. Rather than cut and return power to the states, he would rather have the taxpayer fund bad behavior by increasing taxes and most of is supporters agree.
    I cannot, off the top of my head. He did it another way, which in my opinion was friggin' awful, starving programs across the discretionary spectrum, irrespective of whether they are or are not vital. Here's how: Go after accounts; cut the discretionary account by $700 B and then nick mandatory account for another $300 B; a Trillion less spending for Congress to appropriate, which, thankfully, since no budget has passed since 2010, Dems in the Lege have blocked.

  6. #96
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    01-03-14 @ 10:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    642

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    No, Obama has done nothing to cut the deficits. GW Bush never had a trillion dollar budget deficit and Obama has had four in a row. Stop buying what you are told and actually do some research. Proposing a 3.77 trillion dollar budget is never going to cut the deficit. The last Bush budget was 3 trillion and Obama has never had a 3 trillion dollar budget.

    Congress has a low approval rating, so what? Congressional elections are local not national.

    The deficit that Bush submitted for fiscal year 2009 was less than 500 billion dollars.

    Obama was in charge when our credit rating dropped and Obama claimed he had the solutions to the problems he inherited. In fact Obama has failed in that there are still 2 million fewer employed today than when the recession began at a cost of over 6.2 trillion to the debt. Shall I continue? Doubt it for what is the use? What is it about liberalism that creates your kind of loyalty?

    History tells a different story from the one you proffer. When Bush took office, President
    Clinton had left a $5.6 trillion surplus, and when Bush left office, President Obama
    inherited an $11 trillion deficit.

    Bush's last six months almost lead to a Worldwide Economical Depression. Our largest
    banks began to fail and the stock market took a nose dive because of deregulation. He
    left our country on the brink of collapse. Let's never forget he approved tax cuts for the
    very rich, which has never created jobs for the poor.

    Who can ever forget 9/11 and Bush's deafness regarding the warnings? Who can ever forget
    Hurricane Katrina and Bush's lack of leadership and failure to react?

    He lied about the Iraq war, which has killed about 6,000 Americans, wounded or crippled
    for life about another 40,000. He deemphasized the Afghan war that was focused on
    Al Qaeda to do a poor job in Iraq. Of course, he placed both wars on credit

    He okayed Gitmo, the most inhumane detention center ever created by man and
    approved the use of torture.

    The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Foundation charged Bush and Cheney with war
    crimes and torture in absentia.

  7. #97
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Sisyphus View Post
    No. I said (MC-D) is widely considered the worst legislation, fiscally, ever passed ... of course, "widely" meaning from an objective analyst standpoint, and neither Mother Jones nor Forbes.

    What it is is a program that was supposed to cost $40 B a year, and seems to have come in at circa $55 B a year. Not horrible if buying drugs for those who could not get them. But it did not do that. It merely added cost for tax payers, and individuals, in a program so convoluted they had to send out instructions and run a national ad campaign to get folks to come into the system.

    And of course, the silver lining, which is why lobbyists in DC are so well-paid, and in fact grossly underpaid (I make the industry Billions and only make Millions????)

    1. Prohibits the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies;
    2. Prevents the government from establishing a formulary

    Those are competitive forces other countries use to drive down Script-cost per capita, which we no only do not use but are prevented from using, and thus we pay more per capita than any other modern nation, and near double what the UK pays. And thus it's not just a cost to Medicare for a measly ~$55B a year; it's the broader US drug market not having a strong cost-lowering component, raising costs across the spectrum, making MC-D a fiscal nightmare for government, businesses and individuals of every age.
    Do you have any concept of what the Democrat proposal was for Medicare Part D? Stop buying what you are told and get the facts. Show me through Treasury data that it cost more than intended and if so why doesn't CBO agree with you?

    The Federal Govt. is the worst negotiator ever since their is no incentive to cut costs. You ought to know that.

    I find it quite interesting that on a thread about Obama refusing to cut anything you want to bring up Bush. Obama had a chance to cut the Medicare Part D program but rather than cut it he implemented Obamacare which makes things worse. So keep dodging and keep blaming Bush in a thread about Obama spending. That is what liberals do best

  8. #98
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Sisyphus View Post
    I cannot, off the top of my head. He did it another way, which in my opinion was friggin' awful, starving programs across the discretionary spectrum, irrespective of whether they are or are not vital. Here's how: Go after accounts; cut the discretionary account by $700 B and then nick mandatory account for another $300 B; a Trillion less spending for Congress to appropriate, which, thankfully, since no budget has passed since 2010, Dems in the Lege have blocked.
    He did no such thing, every budget item had increased spending, there were no cuts or starving of any programs. Obama did propose a 3.77 trillion dollar budget and did fight the sequester cuts so the point remains nothing Obama has implemented cuts spending and nothing he has implemented has improved the economy.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    12-28-15 @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Do you have any concept of what the Democrat proposal was for Medicare Part D? Stop buying what you are told and get the facts. Show me through Treasury data that it cost more than intended and if so why doesn't CBO agree with you?

    The Federal Govt. is the worst negotiator ever since their is no incentive to cut costs. You ought to know that.

    I find it quite interesting that on a thread about Obama refusing to cut anything you want to bring up Bush. Obama had a chance to cut the Medicare Part D program but rather than cut it he implemented Obamacare which makes things worse. So keep dodging and keep blaming Bush in a thread about Obama spending. That is what liberals do best
    Not really, since it was all over the board, and had been for years, when Dems urged a prescription drug benefit. But Bush 43 jumped in a seized the initiative creating a program that's a wet dream for Big Pharma and a huge cost for Americans across the age spectrum.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    12-28-15 @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: White House-No more Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    He did no such thing, every budget item had increased spending, there were no cuts or starving of any programs. Obama did propose a 3.77 trillion dollar budget and did fight the sequester cuts so the point remains nothing Obama has implemented cuts spending and nothing he has implemented has improved the economy.
    Check 2011, and learn something. ($770B cut in discretionary account; $360B cut in mandatory account ... every Dem in the Senate voted nay, thank god.)

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •