Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

  1. #11
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Ok I'll shoot

    Whatever one thinks in terms of the political aisle we sit on, let's acknowledge a few points of interest in regards to the chart.
    which side of the aisle does the Good Reverend sit on again?


    1.) With the Iraq withdrawl, this should in theory and practice lower DOD costs. I believe we have around $140b for both wars for this year, with a total DOD expense of $600b. Questions should be asked as to why we spend so much for defense. It is no longer a question of simply our own defense when we spend 48% of the world's total in comparison.Obviously something needs to change in the future.

    Interesting, still Obama is spending this amount. And we ARE still in afghanistan for the forseable future, and Obama is still touting "18 months" as if 18 months starts tommorrow...


    How much off the 1 trillion do you alot for this?



    2.) TARP payout should be ending. In fact we are now receiving funds originally paid out. By June $68b has been repaid - CNN


    hmm 1 trillion minus $68billion is?



    3.) Unemployment benefits paid out. Since unemployment itself is a fraction of one's previous income, and is limited in length, job recovery should both decrease pay outs as well as increase tax revenue...obviously. The key to after September will be when more of the stimulus is paid out to more and more of the shovel ready jobs. Ideally this would hopefully hold off an increasing unemployment rate, or best case begin to reverse the trend.
    What's a "shovel ready job" and what happens when they finish the task? how much of a trillion do you subtract here?

    4.) All indications both economically and politically are that there will be no more stimulus. Thus the $787b Recovery Act is limited to this fiscal year.

    Somethings missing....



    5.) Health care reform- If Congress can create the right health care reform bill that reduces costs, then one of the largest chunks of the budget (Medicare and Medicaid) should decrease.

    Ahh here it is.... So let me get this straight, Obama nationalizing health care will SAVE the government money?

    Are you serious?



    6.) 2011 the Bush tax cuts will expire, which while I am sure everyone focuses solely on the spending, let us not ignore the equation of revenue.

    Right, when those tax cuts expire, which is a tantamount tax increase on those making less than 250k, a campaign promise.

    How much tax revenue do you really think this will create? I mean choking a starving economy with oppressive taxes always works.


    7.) GM bailout greatly affected FY09...but will not in 2010. Question is, should this have been in FY08?



    So taking out all of what you posted, what would the deficit be?


    My point here is it is impossible to draw comparisons because the circumstances have changed greatly. I know the budget for this year is cannon fodder for many, but it is asinine to think that we would necessarily have seen a difference. It was near unanimous that we needed a stimulus package of significance in order to confront an economic crisis this deep, not seen since the Great Depression.

    Enjoy, and bash away.


    No it was not unanimous. not by a long shot. And given the stimulous, is an abitious health care plan really prudent?


    Let me ask you. Do you think Obama will balance the budget ever?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #12
    Educator sam_w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    09-24-09 @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    724

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    which side of the aisle does the Good Reverend sit on again?
    Depends on which side of the aisle you want, we do have to charge for seating...current sale price is $1.75 trillion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Interesting, still Obama is spending this amount. And we ARE still in afghanistan for the forseable future, and Obama is still touting "18 months" as if 18 months starts tommorrow...
    You are absolutely correct to point out that we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq. My point is that we should start seeing a decrease in the overall cost with regards to Iraq. My assumption is that as more responsibility is shifted to the Iraqi government, this will decrease our operating costs.

    One thing to keep in mind is that after the September Afghanistan elections we are suppose to have a strategy review which will give us a better understanding of how long we should expect to be in Afghanistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    hmm 1 trillion minus $68billion is?
    Would you throw $68b out of your bed for eating cookies? Ok, I agree that $68 is a paltry sum at the moment. But I wanted to stress the point that the initial TARP funds are not necessairly a lost cause, meaning we did not just throw $700b into a fire. It would be nice to find a source that could give insight into what the best projections of how much and when TARP funds will be returned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    What's a "shovel ready job" and what happens when they finish the task? how much of a trillion do you subtract here?
    The general definition for shovel ready is mostly applied to projects such as road construction and repair, usually because the states should have already done the assessments and planing, and is therefore ready for bids. Most of funds have a 90 day limit from when they are approved to when work must start. The Recovery Act itself is planned in phases to be carried out throughout this year and next. So once one project is finished, another can readily be started.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Ahh here it is.... So let me get this straight, Obama nationalizing health care will SAVE the government money?

    Are you serious?
    Completely serious. You need to look carefully at the graph, and specifically the costs we pay out to Medicare and Medicaid. First off, Medicare is a national health care plan, create for one simple reason. Private insurers do not want to cover people over 65. The first politician that seriously suggest ending Medicare will NEVER ....ever be elected for anything above head of the PTA. Medicare and Medicaid are a fact of life, don't ever think for a second that these programs will go away. Now getting back to that chart, when you see the costs of these two programs, this is roughly $600b a year. Part of the argument going forward in regards to health care reform is not just providing coverage to the uninsured, and under-insured, but to reduce the overall costs of health care in the U.S. Lower those costs, you lower the costs of course to both Medicare and Medicaid.

    This is from the OECD
    OECD Health Data 2009 "How Does the United States Compare" (PDF)
    Total health spending accounted for 16.0% of GDP in the United States in 2007, by far the highest share in the OECD. Following the United States were France, Switzerland and Germany, which allocated respectively 11.0%, 10.8% and 10.4% of their GDP to health. The OECD average was 8.9% in 2007.

    The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of 7,290 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), almost two-and-a-half times greater than the OECD average of 2,964 USD in 2007. Norway follows, with spending of 4,763 USD per capita, then Switzerland with spending of 4,417 USD per capita. Differences in health spending across countries may reflect differences in price, volume and quality of medical goods and services consumed.
    When you can not remove Medicaire, and you have those costs, there is only one solution left. Reform and overhaul of the system. I know conservatives despise the public option, but I am also assured that many of these same will not be complaining to much when they face unemployment, lower insurance rates, lower medical costs, improvement from under-insurance, and assurance that benefits can not be denied after payment.

    Something else I think is interesting to review:
    The Budget and Economic Outlook:
    Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017
    Look at that chart and you see the costs for Medicare only grows....at an increasing rate. This is unsustainable, yet politically it is unattainable to end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Right, when those tax cuts expire, which is a tantamount tax increase on those making less than 250k, a campaign promise.

    How much tax revenue do you really think this will create? I mean choking a starving economy with oppressive taxes always works.
    Hmmm... a two parter huh. Ok, first the Bush tax cuts. These that are to expire in 2011 will only affect those making over $250k. How much exactly this will raise in revenue I can not say. Sadly it seems the only thing anyone cares about is the specific rate, not the revenue loss or gain. The best I can find is incomplete:

    ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1836 [1]
    There is no specificity in regards to income above $250k

    As for "oppressive taxes", I always have to roll my eyes here, because in comparison we in the U.S. are spoiled with a low tax rate.

    Think your taxes are bad?
    Country Single Married
    United States 29.1% 11.9%
    Now compare with....
    France 50.1% 41.7%
    United Kingdom 33.5% 27.1%
    Netherlands 38.6% 29.1%
    Hey look at Mexico's, you know that country everyone is sneaking into...
    Mexico 18.2% 18.2%

    Compared with Mexico, you almost have to love your oppressive tax rates. I mean we all are trying to sneak over the border now aren't we? Sarcasm aside, I think you can see that lowering tax rates is not an automatic to increase in quality of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    So taking out all of what you posted, what would the deficit be?
    I really wish I could give a precise answer. But part of my message is it must be understood that this fiscal year is obviously an abnormality considering the extreme condition the economy was and is in. We are after all talking about a President that has only been in office for 6 months, so it is a little ridiculous to not factor in the previous administrations past 8 years of fiscal policies and the effect they had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    No it was not unanimous. not by a long shot. And given the stimulous, is an abitious health care plan really prudent?
    Sorry, I should have been specific. When writing this I was in my mind referencing an article I can not find at the moment. I will look for it later, but in summary it gave a conclusion that alluded to a near unanimous opinion on economists polled that a sizable stimulus was required. For now I have this archived reference:


    Conservative economists back stimulus plan

    The $825 billion stimulus proposal that Democrats unveiled last week may encounter stiff opposition from conservatives on Capitol Hill. But it isn’t meeting significant resistance from conservative economists.

    While economists might quibble with specifics, the vast majority agree that some kind of massive government spending plan is necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Let me ask you. Do you think Obama will balance the budget ever?
    You know I absolutely can not say, I know I paint a rosy picture of if this or that would work out peachy keen then it is a possibility of course. I am strongly of the opinion that we do need more fiscal restraint, especially in paying down the debt/lowering the annual interest rate. Currently we are close to $400b a year in interest payments alone. Think for a moment what $400b would buy. Sorry this is one hell of a long response, but I think the subject matter deserves proper discussion and debate.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    You are absolutely correct to point out that we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq. My point is that we should start seeing a decrease in the overall cost with regards to Iraq. My assumption is that as more responsibility is shifted to the Iraqi government, this will decrease our operating costs.

    Your assumption is wrong. If it was right yet it was negotiated, and planned by Bush. It has nothing to do propping the deficit by Obama.


    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    One thing to keep in mind is that after the September Afghanistan elections we are suppose to have a strategy review which will give us a better understanding of how long we should expect to be in Afghanistan.
    Increased spending in Afghanistan may nullify savings in Iraq. We have to surge in Afgan after so many strategy reviews there is a little doubt that September will change. Then, please have time to pull out numbers, but not your wishes.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Would you throw $68b out of your bed for eating cookies? Ok, I agree that $68 is a paltry sum at the moment. But I wanted to stress the point that the initial TARP funds are not necessairly a lost cause, meaning we did not just throw $700b into a fire. It would be nice to find a source that could give insight into what the best projections of how much and when TARP funds will be returned.
    The numbers show the opposite. I mean all number and $68b is not only an insignificant # if to compare to 1Tr. It is not even a positive number as you try to represent, not the result of the whole equation. That would borrowing from taxpayers at 0.068% interest rate, then landing at 1% interest rate and making .932% profit after subtracting $68B while the taxpayer has lost whatever is Chinese interest – let say – 2% -.068%=1.932% - which is in negative.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Completely serious. You need to look carefully at the graph, and specifically the costs we pay out to Medicare and Medicaid. First off, Medicare is a national health care plan, create for one simple reason. Private insurers do not want to cover people over 65. The first politician that seriously suggest ending Medicare will NEVER ....ever be elected for anything above head of the PTA. Medicare and Medicaid are a fact of life, don't ever think for a second that these programs will go away. Now getting back to that chart, when you see the costs of these two programs, this is roughly $600b a year. Part of the argument going forward in regards to health care reform is not just providing coverage to the uninsured, and under-insured, but to reduce the overall costs of health care in the U.S. Lower those costs, you lower the costs of course to both Medicare and Medicaid.

    This is from the OECD
    OECD Health Data 2009 "How Does the United States Compare" (PDF)

    I don’t see Zimbabwe on the chart. Completely serious.
    Seriously, are you imposing that democrats supporting unsustainability of Medicare should be in charge of Medicare because if they were not in charge unsustainability of Medicare they wouldn’t be elected? I can never believe when I hear such statemnts from democrats that I hear them saying such things.



    Private insurers, for your information, want to do money in the most efficient way, including hard lobbing, propaganda and loopholes in the law. They do want to lower the cost no matter what. This is an essential part of their job and experience. So you think that if they cannot do bureaucrats and democrats can? One only has to look at ALL or ALL essential components of healthcare and especially Medicare and Medicaid to see that this is lesser of economic problem rather than of a moral problem and dilemmas answers to which could be found in the Bible only and disputed from the POV of the Bible only. Democrats and especially the present administration are the last people to invoke the Bible. They cannot even pronounce the truth about the components of the problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    When you can not remove Medicaire, and you have those costs, there is only one solution left. Reform and overhaul of the system. I know conservatives despise the public option, but I am also assured that many of these same will not be complaining to much when they face unemployment, lower insurance rates, lower medical costs, improvement from under-insurance, and assurance that benefits can not be denied after payment.
    The public option as it has been proven by practice of a number of countries results in higher insurance rates,
    higher medical costs, and lesser quality of benefits. You get what you pay for and you will be mostly paying for bureaucratic government middle men whose goal will never be to cut cost but drive it up. Being insured in Canada and uninsured in the US try to get MRI done when it is critical for a diagnosis.

    You get what you pay.
    Last edited by justone; 07-15-09 at 01:27 PM.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Of course the resident Libruls are absent from the debate because the FACTS are obvious; they poo poo'd Bush's spending for eight years (as if Democrats ever didn't run deficits) and ranted and raved about spending the surplus and running up a deficit of $200 billion, and amount I might add that pales next to the deficits run up by Democrats since they took control of Congress on a platform of fiscal responsibility and pay-go.

    You just cannot fabricate the level of hypocrisy and denial it takes to be a Librul Democrat these days and if this does not make the issues CLEAR to the American voter and cause a massive change in power in 2010, then nothing will.

    The American voter was bombarded with media misinformation for the 8 years of Bush's Presidency in their effort to drag their candidate across the finish line. If not for a market meltdown, Obama may still be a Senator because up until then, McCain (whom I find repugnant but at least better than) was running neck and neck with him even with the media meltdown over Palin which continues today.

    Yes folks, it will be interesting to see the dizzying level of spin we will see during election time by the media and their minion Barrack Hussein Obama.

  5. #15
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Depends on which side of the aisle you want, we do have to charge for seating...current sale price is $1.75 trillion.

    Which is offensive not matter which side one is on.



    You are absolutely correct to point out that we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq. My point is that we should start seeing a decrease in the overall cost with regards to Iraq. My assumption is that as more responsibility is shifted to the Iraqi government, this will decrease our operating costs.

    One thing to keep in mind is that after the September Afghanistan elections we are suppose to have a strategy review which will give us a better understanding of how long we should expect to be in Afghanistan.



    Would you throw $68b out of your bed for eating cookies? Ok, I agree that $68 is a paltry sum at the moment. But I wanted to stress the point that the initial TARP funds are not necessairly a lost cause, meaning we did not just throw $700b into a fire. It would be nice to find a source that could give insight into what the best projections of how much and when TARP funds will be returned.

    Sure would be, I don't think it's coming.






    The general definition for shovel ready is mostly applied to projects such as road construction and repair, usually because the states should have already done the assessments and planing, and is therefore ready for bids. Most of funds have a 90 day limit from when they are approved to when work must start. The Recovery Act itself is planned in phases to be carried out throughout this year and next. So once one project is finished, another can readily be started.

    So what happens to these jobs once the roads are fixed?






    Completely serious. You need to look carefully at the graph, and specifically the costs we pay out to Medicare and Medicaid. First off, Medicare is a national health care plan, create for one simple reason. Private insurers do not want to cover people over 65. The first politician that seriously suggest ending Medicare will NEVER ....ever be elected for anything above head of the PTA. Medicare and Medicaid are a fact of life, don't ever think for a second that these programs will go away. Now getting back to that chart, when you see the costs of these two programs, this is roughly $600b a year. Part of the argument going forward in regards to health care reform is not just providing coverage to the uninsured, and under-insured, but to reduce the overall costs of health care in the U.S. Lower those costs, you lower the costs of course to both Medicare and Medicaid.
    So medicare and medicaid are going away under obama's plan? link?


    When you can not remove Medicaire, and you have those costs, there is only one solution left. Reform and overhaul of the system. I know conservatives despise the public option, but I am also assured that many of these same will not be complaining to much when they face unemployment, lower insurance rates, lower medical costs, improvement from under-insurance, and assurance that benefits can not be denied after payment.
    I do not see how the two points here correllate.



    Something else I think is interesting to review:
    The Budget and Economic Outlook:
    Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017
    Look at that chart and you see the costs for Medicare only grows....at an increasing rate. This is unsustainable, yet politically it is unattainable to end.

    Again, can you show me in obama's plan where medicade goes away?




    Hmmm... a two parter huh. Ok, first the Bush tax cuts. These that are to expire in 2011 will only affect those making over $250k. How much exactly this will raise in revenue I can not say. Sadly it seems the only thing anyone cares about is the specific rate, not the revenue loss or gain. The best I can find is incomplete:

    ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1836 [1]
    There is no specificity in regards to income above $250k

    As for "oppressive taxes", I always have to roll my eyes here, because in comparison we in the U.S. are spoiled with a low tax rate.

    Think your taxes are bad?
    Country Single Married
    United States 29.1% 11.9%
    Now compare with....
    France 50.1% 41.7%
    United Kingdom 33.5% 27.1%
    Netherlands 38.6% 29.1%
    Hey look at Mexico's, you know that country everyone is sneaking into...
    Mexico 18.2% 18.2%

    Compared with Mexico, you almost have to love your oppressive tax rates. I mean we all are trying to sneak over the border now aren't we? Sarcasm aside, I think you can see that lowering tax rates is not an automatic to increase in quality of life.
    Are you equating tax rates with quality of life? Are you suggesting mexico would end all its woes with a 40% tax rate?


    I really wish I could give a precise answer. But part of my message is it must be understood that this fiscal year is obviously an abnormality considering the extreme condition the economy was and is in. We are after all talking about a President that has only been in office for 6 months, so it is a little ridiculous to not factor in the previous administrations past 8 years of fiscal policies and the effect they had.

    I don't buy into the wizard of oz treatment Obama is getting. Pay no mind to his spending.... I just think all of it will bite us.



    Sorry, I should have been specific. When writing this I was in my mind referencing an article I can not find at the moment. I will look for it later, but in summary it gave a conclusion that alluded to a near unanimous opinion on economists polled that a sizable stimulus was required. For now I have this archived reference:


    Conservative economists back stimulus plan

    Conservative or republican?









    You know I absolutely can not say, I know I paint a rosy picture of if this or that would work out peachy keen then it is a possibility of course. I am strongly of the opinion that we do need more fiscal restraint, especially in paying down the debt/lowering the annual interest rate. Currently we are close to $400b a year in interest payments alone. Think for a moment what $400b would buy. Sorry this is one hell of a long response, but I think the subject matter deserves proper discussion and debate.


    I appreciate your response, and apologize for my brevety, we are in the middle of an install so I have only time for short responses. That said, you are correct that we are spending way to much, under bush, and now moreso under obama.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #16
    Educator sam_w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    09-24-09 @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    724

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Your assumption is wrong. If it was right yet it was negotiated, and planned by Bush. It has nothing to do propping the deficit by Obama.

    Increased spending in Afghanistan may nullify savings in Iraq. We have to surge in Afgan after so many strategy reviews there is a little doubt that September will change. Then, please have time to pull out numbers, but not your wishes.
    Current increase was to 17,000. Keep in mind we have now about 140,000 in 320 bases. How many will be phased out in the coming months I can not say. It is safe to say though that by the troop levels alone there will be a significant reduction in costs. Again what those exact numbers are I would like to see myself, I do believe that either the OMB or CBO must have produced some report by now. Irregardless, we have been budgeting an average of $100b+ per year since 2003. With an eventual pullout that should end.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The numbers show the opposite. I mean all number and $68b is not only an insignificant # if to compare to 1Tr. It is not even a positive number as you try to represent, not the result of the whole equation. That would borrowing from taxpayers at 0.068% interest rate, then landing at 1% interest rate and making .932% profit after subtracting $68B while the taxpayer has lost whatever is Chinese interest – let say – 2% -.068%=1.932% - which is in negative.
    Sorry if I what I wrote was not very clearly. You are correct to point out the fact that payment of interest would overweigh the current repayment schedule. What I wanted to express though was 2 points. There will be (shall I say should be) no more TARP payouts after this year. And while the repayment does not represent a positive as you have pointed out, it also is not a negative compared to zero repayment. In other words something is better than nothing, I would rather have repayment with loss in interest than no repayment.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I don’t see Zimbabwe on the chart. Completely serious.
    Seriously, are you imposing that democrats supporting unsustainability of Medicare should be in charge of Medicare because if they were not in charge unsustainability of Medicare they wouldn’t be elected? I can never believe when I hear such statemnts from democrats that I hear them saying such things.
    This is extremely important that it is understood by all, Medicare is not JUST a Democrat issue. Republicans have enough plenty an opportunity since 1965 to end it. You know why they do not? Because Republicans want the vote of the 65+ demographic just as much as anyone else. A party member in a safe district can be the goat who goes before the cameras and complains about Medicare, but let me assure you that Congress members that actually do vote to restrict/end Medicare will die a quick death at the polls. You know the AARP is a very well organized and strong interest group.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Private insurers, for your information, want to do money in the most efficient way, including hard lobbing, propaganda and loopholes in the law. They do want to lower the cost no matter what. This is an essential part of their job and experience. So you think that if they cannot do bureaucrats and democrats can? One only has to look at ALL or ALL essential components of healthcare and especially Medicare and Medicaid to see that this is lesser of economic problem rather than of a moral problem and dilemmas answers to which could be found in the Bible only and disputed from the POV of the Bible only. Democrats and especially the present administration are the last people to invoke the Bible. They cannot even pronounce the truth about the components of the problems.
    For this I honestly would have to ask how much time you have spent really looking at how insurance companies operate. Private insurance corporations are set up and run for one purpose; to provide a return to the investors/ownership. There is no altruistic mission statement for them to provide as expansive of coverage as they possibly can. It is the exact opposite, their profits are gained through denial of benefits, not providing them. The most popularly given cases are those that have insurance, have paid their monthly fees only to find they are denied coverage when facing serious or catastrophic injury. Your insurance loves you all well while you pay your fees, but god forbid you should get cancer, then they will seek whatever means possible to drop you.

    The idea, or shall I say scare tactic to be more precise, that a government bureaucrat will stand between you and your doctor is disingenuous, misleading, and inane. What you have now is a private bureaucrat already determining your coverage, except the major difference is this private bureaucrat is actively looking at ways to restrict and deny. THAT is how the private insurance works!

    Consider this. We have estimated 50 million uninsured, with another 25 million underinsured. That is 75 million, out of a country of 304 million. That is a problem you are already paying for.

    Underinsured Americans: Cost to you
    Americans already shouldering the cost of millions of people without health insurance should brace for a double-whammy: a surge in the number of the "underinsured," or consumers who have some but not enough coverage.

    The problem, according to health care industry experts, is that the government and those with employer-based plans will have to pick up the tab as more Americans are unable to pay their entire medical bill
    Keep in mind we do have some morals here, and one of those morals is that state and county hospitals do not turn away the sick regardless of insurance coverage. Remember, when an insured goes to a hospital, the government has to pick up the tab...meaning you and I already pay. Except currently we are paying more than if

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The public option as it has been proven by practice of a number of countries results in higher insurance rates,
    higher medical costs, and lesser quality of benefits. You get what you pay for and you will be mostly paying for bureaucratic government middle men whose goal will never be to cut cost but drive it up. Being insured in Canada and uninsured in the US try to get MRI done when it is critical for a diagnosis.

    You get what you pay.
    I just wrote a post on this in the Healthcare section found here.In summary this is 110% exact opposite of my own personal experience. While I live in France my impression was that I paid a lower rate. But regardless, look at the OECD's own survey that clearly shows the vast gap between the U.S. and other nations in our costs. Or consider the World Health Organization's comparison where we ranked 37th.We are behind Colombia, Morocco, Costa Rica, and Dominica. Not exactly a world class system.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    joke Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Current increase was to 17,000. Keep in mind we have now about 140,000 in 320 bases. How many will be phased out in the coming months I can not say. It is safe to say though that by the troop levels alone there will be a significant reduction in costs. Again what those exact numbers are I would like to see myself, I do believe that either the OMB or CBO must have produced some report by now. Irregardless, we have been budgeting an average of $100b+ per year since 2003. With an eventual pullout that should end.
    Assumption is wrong, # of troops does not equate to # $$$. Logistics to Afgan and in Afgan are a lot more expensive, not mentioning that so far you are having ## increasing only. You are in a state of denial of the state of reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Sorry if I what I wrote was not very clearly. You are correct to point out the fact that payment of interest would overweigh the current repayment schedule. What I wanted to express though was 2 points. There will be (shall I say should be) no more TARP payouts after this year. And while the repayment does not represent a positive as you have pointed out, it also is not a negative compared to zero repayment. In other words something is better than nothing, I would rather have repayment with loss in interest than no repayment.
    Assigning zero as you wish is the “fuzzy Washington math”. The thing which is not better than nothing is dismantling/selling failed institutions for their real value and providing the regulation which would address better than nothing situation. When you take money from investors and promise repayment of the money with an interest but instead bring back ‘’better than nothing’’, as Obam has done, you must go to jail.
    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    This is extremely important that it is understood by all, Medicare is not JUST a Democrat issue. Republicans have enough plenty an opportunity since 1965 to end it. You know why they do not? Because Republicans want the vote of the 65+ demographic just as much as anyone else. A party member in a safe district can be the goat who goes before the cameras and complains about Medicare, but let me assure you that Congress members that actually do vote to restrict/end Medicare will die a quick death at the polls. You know the AARP is a very well organized and strong interest group.
    I don’t even know what AARP is and I see no importance to know. Moreover I wouldn’t argue whom to blame. I can point that that the lie that Obama had only 6 months so we have to wait more does not fly with me. The truth is that it was Bush and the Democratic Congress who moved on the wrong road almost a year ago, - there has been more than enough time given. I am not affiliated to either of the parties , - they are all way too left for me. But also somewhere I posted an interview Time magazine vs. Putin in Russia. I am accepting his position, - what happened that happened, we need to figure out the best way out of the situation. So far – let me get back to the topic 1T deficit is the proof that you should go to jail for bringing better than nothing, Obama should be impeached and than go to jail. And you have not made a valid argument that is acceptable, the less it will cure economy.
    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    For this I honestly would have to ask how much time you have spent really looking at how insurance companies operate. Private insurance corporations are set up and run for one purpose; to provide a return to the investors/ownership. There is no altruistic mission statement for them to provide as expansive of coverage as they possibly can It is the exact opposite, their profits are gained through denial of benefits, not providing them.
    Honestly you are arguing a strawman. I did not say anything that argued you words, moreover I practically pointed to the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    The most popularly given cases are those that have insurance, have paid their monthly fees only to find they are denied coverage when facing serious or catastrophic injury. Your insurance loves you all well while you pay your fees, but god forbid you should get cancer, then they will seek whatever means possible to drop you.
    Who did give such popularity to these cases? Who is using them in disingenuous, misleading, and inane rhetoric and scare? If they conduct an unfair business there is law, if there is a loophole in the law there are legislators whose duty is to close loopholes and make sure businesses conduct fair business. Instead I have a strong impression that the legislators are in bed with some selected business including Insurance, and now they are pushing Insurance out of the bed, taking all of it. They should be impeached and go to jail.


    Doctors as well have to compete for my business. With the present state of Medicare I compete with the government for doctor’s business and I still pay the government for beating me.

    With Obama we have total criminalization of the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    What you have now is a private bureaucrat already determining your coverage, except the major difference is this private bureaucrat is actively looking at ways to restrict and deny. THAT is how the private insurance works!
    Oh, I can never believe when I hear such statements from democrats that I hear them saying such things. Did you say really say “private bureaucrat”? It is called making bogus definitions and changing all accepted definitions to fit your conclusions. I am a private bureaucrat, too. I shop around and read the contract. If the contract does not fit me I go to another private bureaucrat of another private firm. If the private bureaucrat britches the contract I sue and get even more money. Works like a charm. If private bureaucrats do not compete with each other for my business but get together and establish a monopoly I call Americans too impeach and put in jail Obama or Bush or legislators who allowed such a monopoly. Right now I am calling for impeachment of Obama who CHANGEs the system which has been working like a charm.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    The idea,

    It is you who operates with ideas. I do facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    or shall I say scare tactic to be more precise, that a government bureaucrat will stand between you and your doctor is disingenuous, misleading, and inane.
    See the above. I do not scare I point to experience of other countries, and to laws of nature and its Creator.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Consider this. We have estimated 50 million uninsured, with another 25 million underinsured. That is 75 million, out of a country of 304 million. That is a problem you are already paying for.

    Underinsured Americans: Cost to you
    This is exactly what I am saying - an uninsured gets an MRI immediately in the US and an insured by government bureaucrats dies waiting for MRI in Canada. Of course something can be done and should be done IMMEDIATELY and I am sure one can find solutions in the Bible quite easy, but dieing while waiting in Canadian way is not a solution.


    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Keep in mind we do have some morals here, and one of those morals is that state and county hospitals do not turn away the sick regardless of insurance coverage. Remember, when an insured goes to a hospital, the government has to pick up the tab...meaning you and I already pay. Except currently we are paying more than if
    Than if…what? I never said that you did not have your morals. What is immoral for me is often moral for you, though sometimes you follow my moral since this civilization was developed by believers in the Bible. Currently we are paying more than if those who can afford insurance or can work to afford insurance would be paying for service. In all other variants we would be paying more.


    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    I just wrote a post on this in the Healthcare section found here. (Why don't countries with public health care systems want them abolished?)In summary this is 110% exact opposite of my own personal experience. While I live in France my impression was that I paid a lower rate.
    I wouldn’t go to another post. The 1st glance says that if the hospital violated the law you can sue. Your mother in law should be required to get insurance before coming in, there are such international insurances, you would be required either to get the visitor’s insurance or sign that you will bear all costs before she comes in.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    But regardless, look at the OECD's own survey that clearly shows the vast gap between the U.S. and other nations in our costs. Or consider the World Health Organization's comparison where we ranked 37th.We are behind Colombia, Morocco, Costa Rica, and Dominica. Not exactly a world class system
    It would be nice if you aver cared to read exactly the report which ranks us 37th. It exactly says what makes us 37th. It is not what you ever addressed. It is not what anyone addressed even once in the Congress or media. WHO has the diagnoses. It is like you would have diagnoses requiring a gland surgery doctor would have it but hide it from and tell you that you need a kidney cut out (that would bring him more money). Would you call such a doctor a criminal or would not?

    So far – let me get back to the topic 1T deficit is the proof that you should go to jail for bringing better than nothing, Obama should be impeached and than go to jail. And you have not made a valid argument that it is acceptable, the less it will cure economy if we wait longer.

  8. #18
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Hey sam, did you also adjust for the coming inflation?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Congressional Budget Office
    Director’s Blog
    « Intergovernmental Mandates in Federal Legislation
    The Long-Term Budget Outlook



    The Long-Term Budget Outlook

    Today I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Budget Committee about CBO’s most recent analysis of the long-term budget outlook.

    Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run.
    .....
    The current recession and policy responses have little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt. Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.
    Director’s Blog Blog Archive The Long-Term Budget Outlook




    Last edited by Triad; 07-16-09 at 08:16 PM.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Of course the resident Libruls are absent from the debate because the FACTS are obvious; they poo poo'd Bush's spending for eight years (as if Democrats ever didn't run deficits) and ranted and raved about spending the surplus and running up a deficit of $200 billion, and amount I might add that pales next to the deficits run up by Democrats since they took control of Congress on a platform of fiscal responsibility and pay-go.
    As a liberal I have said time and time again I don't support what Obama is doing.

    Yet you conservatives seemed ok with Bush and Regan doing the SAME THING because you contiued to vote the ****ers in.

    You people paved the way for this to happen.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •