• 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!

Obama's FY 2012 Budget

j-mac said:
Meanwhile Boo, you also said that you think that Medicare does a pretty good job covering what they do.



You call running up hundreds of Trillions in promised debt doing a good job?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, considering their liabilities, they do a pretty good job. If you want to see it make a profit, you go to a single payer. Everyone paying premiums, including those less likely to need care. And, remember that old chart, that showed the medicare dollar went futher and did more than your insurance dollar. ;)
 
Ockham said:
One thing I know for sure Boo... is you won't get this medicare mistake wrong again for a very long time. I've taught you through forced repetition that medicare covers everyone at age 65. I'm glad I could help you and that you feel you now understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Never made a mistake to begin with. But I'll keep worrying about you.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, considering their liabilities, they do a pretty good job.
Click to expand...

liabilities?

LOL!

If you want to see it make a profit
Click to expand...

no one wants medicare to make a profit, machiavelli

we just want it to make good on it's HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS of...

umm, what were they called again?

oh, yeah---LIABILITIES

LOL!
 
Boo Radley said:
Never made a mistake to begin with. But I'll keep worrying about you.
Click to expand...

Next time I'll try electronic flashcards... they may work better. I'll still be teaching you.
 
today:

Democrats in Congress are grappling with a question as they negotiate a spending deal: Who's in charge? The top two Democratic leaders in the House have twice split on whether to approve short-term government funding bills that cut billions from federal accounts. Senate Democrats haven’t put forward a long-term spending plan that can move through their chamber, and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol say they have no idea where the White House stands or who’s running the show.

The result is a rank and file that is confused about its direction and unhappy with the leadership — or lack of it — on when to go along with the Republican-controlled House on budget matters and when to stand and fight.

“The sum and substance of our strategy can’t be waiting for the other side to [mess] up,” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) told bloggers Wednesday. But for many Democrats, that’s exactly what their leaders’ short-term strategy amounts to. In a follow-up interview with POLITICO, the Brooklyn liberal said if there is a more elegant Democratic plan, “it’s such a Jedi mind-meld going on that it hasn’t filtered down to my level.”

“Where are we going to fight?” said Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.). “Where is the president going to lead? And are we going to follow?”

Pragmatists in the party leadership such as Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel of New York voted with Hoyer. Liberal leaders, including assistant leader Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut, went with Pelosi.

Adding to the frustration, Senate Democratic sources say the White House told senators at a private Democratic Policy Committee meeting last Thursday that polling shows the public isn’t engaged in the fight over finishing last year’s spending bills.
Click to expand...

Democrats wonder: What's our plan? - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

do you deny it?

roger simon's drug tested professional leftists and journolisters are certainly not alone

there is absolutely no leadership emanating from this white house---on spending, on the deficit, on the budget, on entitlements, on gas prices, in foreign policy...

are you gonna argue with weiner, differ from van hollen?

help yourself
 
he's LYING again

A new assessment of President Barack Obama's budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.

The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama's February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years -- an average of almost $1 trillion a year.

Obama's budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.

The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.
Click to expand...

CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion - Yahoo! Finance

his outyear projections rely on unrealistically rosey growth rates and unsustainably near-zero interst costs

do you deny it?
 
Conservative said:
All part of the Obama masterplan, to turn this country into a European socialist model that redistributes wealth and grows the size of govt. Anyone that supports this is on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...

Hope and change, baby!!!!!
 
washunut said:
I am willing to bet that this analysis is wrong.
Click to expand...


What? But I thought that no one, absolutely NO ONE could impugn the ultimate analysis of the vaunted, and totally correct all the time CBO!


j-mac
 
The Prof said:
he's LYING again

his outyear projections rely on unrealistically rosey growth rates and unsustainably near-zero interst costs
Click to expand...

It's not about the budget. It's about making people feel optimistic about the future.
Of course, nobody can really predict the future, but since the vast majority believe it, politicians, pundits, and economists must play their game to keep their hopes alive.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
It's not about the budget. It's about making people feel optimistic about the future.
Of course, nobody can really predict the future, but since the vast majority believe it, politicians, pundits, and economists must play their game to keep their hopes alive.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...


And that is the problem that must be changed. Too many people today rely on their message being targeted to the "feelings" of prospective voters. Meanwhile the truth that must be addressed gets kicked down the road, and the problem gets bigger.

j-mac
 
ricksfolly said:
It's not about the budget. It's about making people feel optimistic about the future.
Of course, nobody can really predict the future, but since the vast majority believe it, politicians, pundits, and economists must play their game to keep their hopes alive.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Are you serious??? The budget the president puts forth is NOT really a budget, but a feel good lie to the American public. Of all the silly things I have read on this forum this has to be in the upper levels of ( can't say without being called insulting by the moderators).

This president has no political courage. That is why he refuses to tell the truth on many issues. Or maybe he just thinks the american public ( or at least his supporters) are a bunch of non-thinking limmings that will rationalize everthing he says and does.
 
washunut said:
This president has no political courage. That is why he refuses to tell the truth on many issues. Or maybe he just thinks the american public ( or at least his supporters) are a bunch of non-thinking limmings that will rationalize everthing he says and does.
Click to expand...


You're right....Should he be more like these guy's?




j-mac
 
j-mac said:
You're right....Should he be more like these guy's?




j-mac
Click to expand...


The reality is what Reich said is basically correct. Can this country afford to spend millions to keep someone who can't get out of a hospital bed alive with extraordinary measures. If a family wants to spend everything they have to do it fine, that is their choice.
 
Conservative said:
All part of the Obama masterplan, to turn this country into a European socialist model that redistributes wealth and grows the size of govt.
Click to expand...

Actually, the only way for the world can survive is redistribute all the wealth, give each person an equal piece of the pie, develop worldwide government controlled businesses, distribute contracts by bids, require that every adult must work to get a place to live, food, and all other needs, discard all the law books, try violators with common sense, and keep it all going with computer programs.

Adapt or die

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Actually, the only way for the world can survive is redistribute all the wealth, give each person an equal piece of the pie, develop worldwide government controlled businesses, distribute contracts by bids, require that every adult must work to get a place to live, food, and all other needs, discard all the law books, try violators with common sense, and keep it all going with computer programs.

Adapt or die

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

The only way the world can survive is by becoming socialist? Please :roll:
 
what happened to barry's wtf, win-the-future campaign?

he forgot?

or was it just going nowhere?

2010's sotu was similary an exercise in amnesia---he floated a tax on banks, a funneling of 30B of recovered tarp into small business lending, a spending freeze, offshore exploration...

what happened to bowles and simpson, did he forget them too?

the senate hasn't

friday:

n a sign of how frustrated members of both parties are with President Obama’s disengagement from the budget debate on Capitol Hill, a supermajority of 64 senators, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., have signed a letter urging the president to “to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package.”
Click to expand...

64 Senators Declare Obama AWOL On Deficit, Entitlements

it's a sorry state where the effete filibusterers and chin strokers of the us senate, the world's most deliberative body, provide more leadership than their chickenhearted chief exec

can you deny it?
 
washunut said:
The reality is what Reich said is basically correct. Can this country afford to spend millions to keep someone who can't get out of a hospital bed alive with extraordinary measures. If a family wants to spend everything they have to do it fine, that is their choice.
Click to expand...


Wow! so cold, so heartless....kinda, just a little evil....."You're old, Just go die already."

The problem you don't understand, is that in a single payer, socialized world, you can't use your own money to get that treatment.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Wow! so cold, so heartless....kinda, just a little evil....."You're old, Just go die already."

The problem you don't understand, is that in a single payer, socialized world, you can't use your own money to get that treatment.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Expand your thoughts a little bit. Why not have a single payor system that gives a base level of health care and is funded by a payroll tax. Similar to Medicare. Then for people who want to add another level or more of insurance they get to buy their own supplemental policy.

As to the first part, not cold just realistic. You probably have heard of living wills. Where people write they do not want extraordinary efforts to keep them alive. I am not saying that people should not live as long as g-d gives them. No one to my knowledge lives forever.
 
j-mac said:
Wow! so cold, so heartless....kinda, just a little evil....."You're old, Just go die already."

The problem you don't understand, is that in a single payer, socialized world, you can't use your own money to get that treatment.


j-mac
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Of course you can use your own money to get that treatment.
 
washunut said:
Expand your thoughts a little bit. Why not have a single payor system that gives a base level of health care and is funded by a payroll tax. Similar to Medicare. Then for people who want to add another level or more of insurance they get to buy their own supplemental policy.

As to the first part, not cold just realistic. You probably have heard of living wills. Where people write they do not want extraordinary efforts to keep them alive. I am not saying that people should not live as long as g-d gives them. No one to my knowledge lives forever.
Click to expand...


Medicare has an unfunded liability somewhere in the 10s of Trillions.....Yeah great plan.


j-mac
 
iamitter said:
What are you talking about? Of course you can use your own money to get that treatment.
Click to expand...

Canadian patients who want to escape the delays in the public system are also barred from paying privately for healthcare services. In practical terms, Canadian patients are unable to buy quicker access or better care than the government health program provides. In this sense, Canadian patients on waiting lists are worse off than uninsured Americans, the latter of whom are at least legally allowed to use their own money or credit to buy healthcare.

The Trouble with Canadian Healthcare —
Click to expand...

What was that again?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
What was that again?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I can't get this to come up j. but maybe you can save me some time. Is this another American (non)Thinker misinformatin piece?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom