• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House-No more Spending Cuts

Sisyphus said:
Sure, if the article has actual data and not data that's been parsed in service of Stevie's priority numero uno: be a supply-side apologist and defend everything his beloved GOP does.
Click to expand...

How would you know since you never read it?
 
For example, Connie, this bit of fiction:

"The competitive forces built into Part D have kept costs down." Patent lie. The law specifically eliminates competitive forces with a provision that bars Medicare from bidding for lower cost meds, as most other countries can and do, thus paying lower prices for prescriptions.
 
Sisyphus said:
For example, Connie, this bit of fiction:

"The competitive forces built into Part D have kept costs down." Patent lie. The law specifically eliminates competitive forces with a provision that bars Medicare from bidding for lower cost meds, as most other countries can and do, thus paying lower prices for prescriptions.
Click to expand...

Really, have you ever looked at the actual expenditures in the budget to verify what you are being told? Tell me this information is false as well and support it by posting Treasury data? I do understand the willingness of someone "very liberal" to not want to read anything that might contradict your brainwashing

The competitive forces built into Part D have kept costs down. At an average of just $38 a month, premiums are 27 percent below where the government expected them to be. They’ve been essentially flat since 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Low premium costs, in turn, mean less taxpayer money for subsidies. In fact, Part D costs are 40 percent below where the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) initially predicted. Over the past six years, the CBO has lowered its long-term cost projections for Part D by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Really, have you ever looked at the actual expenditures in the budget to verify what you are being told? Tell me this information is false as well and support it by posting Treasury data? I do understand the willingness of someone "very liberal" to not want to read anything that might contradict your brainwashing
Click to expand...

"The competitive forces built into Part D have kept costs down." What competitive forces? Name one aspect of the law that creates more competition. I've already cited where it specifically eliminates the key competitive component every other nation uses: leverage it's buying power to get lower prices.
 
Sisyphus said:
"The competitive forces built into Part D have kept costs down." What competitive forces? Name one aspect of the law that creates more competition. I've already cited where it specifically eliminates the key competitive component every other nation uses: leverage it's buying power to get lower prices.
Click to expand...

Since you aren't going to read the article it might be easier to post the entire article but then that is what liberals always do, want someone else to feed them the information you need. Read the article as it answers your question. Then maybe we can get back on the thread topic?
 
Conservative said:
Really, have you ever looked at the actual expenditures in the budget to verify what you are being told? Tell me this information is false as well and support it by posting Treasury data? I do understand the willingness of someone "very liberal" to not want to read anything that might contradict your brainwashing
Click to expand...

So and in conclusion: it's Rightie BS. It takes a snippet (projected costs were higher than actual) and then makes a BS contention that competitive forces were the cause, when no such components exists within the law, and in fact, the one every other country uses to great effect, has been specifically barred from use by Medicare.

Fact. Not Forbsean BS.
 
Conservative said:
Since you aren't going to read the article it might be easier to post the entire article but then that is what liberals always do, want someone else to feed them the information you need. Read the article as it answers your question. Then maybe we can get back on the thread topic?
Click to expand...

Since you did read it, presumably; and further claimed I am ignoring "actual data," what actual data are you speaking of?
 
Sisyphus said:
Since you did read it, presumably; and further claimed I am ignoring "actual data," what actual data are you speaking of?
Click to expand...

Your leaning is definitely correct, "very liberal" as you will ignore anything that flies in the face of what you have been told by sources you want to believe are credible. Too bad all those sources do is make you look foolish. Now when didn't "your" President fix what you see as a problem when he had total control of the Congress, 2009-2010? "Your" President is incompetent and doesn't want to lower costs because he only wants to create dependence. Guess liberals always need dependent people for their own power.
 
Conservative said:
Your leaning is definitely correct, "very liberal" as you will ignore anything that flies in the face of what you have been told by sources you want to believe are credible. Too bad all those sources do is make you look foolish. Now when didn't "your" President fix what you see as a problem when he had total control of the Congress, 2009-2010? "Your" President is incompetent and doesn't want to lower costs because he only wants to create dependence. Guess liberals always need dependent people for their own power.
Click to expand...

Empty rhetoric. The last dying breath of the cut-and-run crowd. I am in awe.
 
Sisyphus said:
Empty rhetoric. The last dying breath of the cut-and-run crowd. I am in awe.
Click to expand...

You also bait and troll when you want to divert from the reality that you have been brainwashed. You see, no liberal understands the private sector and the benefits of competition to price controls. According to a liberal the govt. is the answer and we have seen how that has worked out 17 trillion in debt later. Keep promoting bigger govt. as that sure makes you look brilliant.
 
Conservative said:
You also bait and troll when you want to divert from the reality that you have been brainwashed. You see, no liberal understands the private sector and the benefits of competition to price controls. According to a liberal the govt. is the answer and we have seen how that has worked out 17 trillion in debt later. Keep promoting bigger govt. as that sure makes you look brilliant.
Click to expand...

Yawn; stupid partisan rhetoric is no recovery from your prior empty rhetoric post, nor from your BS contention that I was ignoring "actual data," since your link to a Rightie Rag had no such thing in it, nor even references to actual data sources, that I could see.
 
Conservative said:
Democrats never learn, they are too arrogant to learn always believing that the previous group of Democrats never spent the money the right way and that this current group can do better.
Click to expand...


It's the common failing of Democrats and progressives that they are far more focused on the goal than the process.
 
Sisyphus said:
Yawn; stupid partisan rhetoric is no recovery from your prior empty rhetoric post, nor from your BS contention that I was ignoring "actual data," since your link to a Rightie Rag had no such thing in it, nor even references to actual data sources, that I could see.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
Sisyphus said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Sisyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Sisyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Check 2011, and learn something. ($770B cut in discretionary account; $360B cut in mandatory account ... every Dem in the Senate voted nay, thank god.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom