• 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!

House GOP Unveils Blueprint To Slash Medicaid, Medicare And Repeal Obamacare

Re: Full Extreme Ahead

lizzie said:
I realize it's a difficult concept to grasp, but we need to be fiscally solvent in order to insure that we can even survive. Since over half the budget goes for social welfare programs, in one form or another, it's logical to make some cuts there.
Click to expand...

Which both Clinton and Panetta informed Congressional Leaders and Obama about. That they could not ignore cuts to entitlements. Both telling them cuts to the DOD with the way things were. That it would even affect the Physical Security of the Country.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
It would be nice if the Democrats could just put their plan on the table next to the Republican plan so we could compare actual data...
Click to expand...

I like your thinking!!

Doubt it will happen but we can only hope!!!:lol:
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

ttwtt78640 said:
Elect more republicants to congress in 2014 and that nonsense will no longer happen. ;)
Click to expand...

If we want a Republican who will run a surplus, we're going to have to re-elect Nixon I think.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Deuce said:
If we want a Republican who will run a surplus, we're going to have to re-elect Nixon I think.
Click to expand...

You'd actually have to go back to Eisenhower for that last true surplus for any President...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Deuce said:
If we want a Republican who will run a surplus, we're going to have to re-elect Nixon I think.
Click to expand...

Or, like Clinton, supply the demorat president a republicant congress led by someone with balls. ;)
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

AlabamaPaul said:
You'd actually have to go back to Eisenhower for that last true surplus for any President...
Click to expand...

FdOuMhE.jpg


I wont settle for any less.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Funny thing is that the right answer is a little of column A and a little of column B.

Problem is that every ideologue thinks that it's all A or all B that's good - depending on your lean.

Troubling.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
How is that backwards. Does the Congress not control the spending?
Click to expand...
Congress neither borrows nor spends. They do determine how money can be spent in the form of legislation, but even that begins and ends with the President.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Taylor said:
Congress neither borrows nor spends. They do determine how money can be spent in the form of legislation, but even that begins and ends with the President.
Click to expand...

You just went way over the head of many posters...
 
66gardeners said:
Who does this fool think he is kidding? He is a lamestream impotent republican. Never had a real job his entire life. Was the recipient of Social Security Funds since his childhood. Has been sucking off th gov't, in one way or another, since that time. When will be stop being a maker and not a taker?
Click to expand...

Gee, with that description of the honorable gentleman, I'm surprised the Democrats haven't adopted him as their next Presidential nominee - you make him sound like a liberal wet dream come true.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Taylor said:
Congress neither borrows nor spends. They do determine how money can be spent in the form of legislation, but even that begins and ends with the President.
Click to expand...

A President tells Congress. I want X amount for this, and X amount for that. It's then completely up to Congress to fund all of it, part of it, or none of it. Just like taxes, only Congress can levy taxes. So if your taxes went up, Congress did it.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
A President tells Congress. I want X amount for this, and X amount for that. It's then completely up to Congress to fund all of it, part of it, or none of it. Just like taxes, only Congress can levy taxes. So if your taxes went up, Congress did it.
Click to expand...

Congress authorizes spending and borrowing. It doesn't directly spend or borrow. That occurs in the Executive branch...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

AlabamaPaul said:
Congress authorizes spending and borrowing. It doesn't directly spend or borrow. That occurs in the Executive branch...
Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying. Congress says you can spend X amount on X program. The X amount can not be spent on the Z program only on the X program.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
That's what I've been saying. Congress says you can spend X amount on X program. The X amount can not be spent on the Z program only on the X program.
Click to expand...

I gather from what you and AP are saying, congress sets the limits yet the executive actually determines whether or not they spend to those limits or not at all.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
That's what I've been saying. Congress says you can spend X amount on X program. The X amount can not be spent on the Z program only on the X program.
Click to expand...

I don't remember the exact number, but Congress authorizes about 11-13 general appropriations for cabinet level departments each FY (or we just run on continuing resolutions). Do some have earmarks? Yes, but most of the spending is done by the Executive branch. The Treasury Department borrows to fund that spending if necessary...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
I gather from what you and AP are saying, congress sets the limits yet the executive actually determines whether or not they spend to those limits or not at all.
Click to expand...

Good evening jcj. Long time, no see. Congress simply authorizes the spending in targeted areas, but they don't actually spend a dime. If a department doesn't spend it's allocation, it can lose appropriations the next FY under baseline budgeting. We have government contracts and are "strongly encouraged" to spend all that has been awarded...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

:roll: what a sidebar.

Anywho, as to the OP: Both Parties Recognize We Need To Reduce Expenditures in Medicare. Republicans simply want to reform the program as we do it to make it more flexible, responsive, and structured to match healthcare in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, that often means shifting some power back to the individual senior, and so Democrats prefer to simply cut reimbursement payments to providers. The two reasons I can think of this are A) they really do just assume that profits are automatic and endless; and that they can cut reimbursement rates without therefore cutting access or B) they know they are cutting access, and are using the need to reduce Medicare expenditures to precipitate a crisis which they hope to use to ram through single-payer.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
I gather from what you and AP are saying, congress sets the limits yet the executive actually determines whether or not they spend to those limits or not at all.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. A President can go to Congress and say " I want $100.00 for candy bars. Congress can give him all of it, part of it, or none of it. If they give him $100.00 and he only spends $75.00 the other $25.00 can not be spent on shoe laces, it has to back into the fund and be re-issued by Congress for shoe laces.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
A President tells Congress. I want X amount for this, and X amount for that. It's then completely up to Congress to fund all of it, part of it, or none of it.
Click to expand...
Not "completely" - Congress passes the bill, but the President decides whether or not to sign it into law. Even then, they're only making it legal to spend money - the branch that actually executes the law is appropriately titled the "Executive Branch" (i.e. the President and his delegates).
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

AlabamaPaul said:
I don't remember the exact number, but Congress authorizes about 11-13 general appropriations for cabinet level departments each FY (or we just run on continuing resolutions). Do some have earmarks? Yes, but most of the spending is done by the Executive branch. The Treasury Department borrows to fund that spending if necessary...
Click to expand...

The Executive branch may be the one that pulls the money out of the wallet but it's Congress that puts the money in the wallet.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

AlabamaPaul said:
Good evening jcj. Long time, no see. Congress simply authorizes the spending in targeted areas, but they don't actually spend a dime. If a department doesn't spend it's allocation, it can lose appropriations the next FY under baseline budgeting. We have government contracts and are "strongly encouraged" to spend all that has been awarded...
Click to expand...

Good evening to you too V1.1 - sorry to intrude on your discussion - no wonder spending continues to rise uncontrolled if federal agencies know they will lose budget next year if they don't fully spend this year's budget.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Taylor said:
Not "completely" - Congress passes the bill, but the President decides whether or not to sign it into law. Even then, they're only making it legal to spend money - the branch that actually executes the law is appropriately titled the "Executive Branch" (i.e. the President and his delegates).
Click to expand...

True, but it's Congress that puts the bill on the desk for the President to sign or not. A President can not just arbitrarily make a law.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
The Executive branch may be the one that pulls the money out of the wallet but it's Congress that puts the money in the wallet.
Click to expand...
No, Congress only makes it legal to put money into the wallet and to take money out.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
The Executive branch may be the one that pulls the money out of the wallet but it's Congress that puts the money in the wallet.
Click to expand...

No the Congress acts more like your loan officer. If you want to borrow X for a particular car, he authorizes a limit, specifically for that purpose. No loan is made or money spent until the transaction takes place by you...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
Good evening to you too V1.1 - sorry to intrude on your discussion - no wonder spending continues to rise uncontrolled if federal agencies know they will lose budget next year if they don't fully spend this year's budget.
Click to expand...


Sad but true. When I was in the Navy. We saved as much as we could during the budget year in case of an emergency, close to the end of the budget year we went out and spend every dime so we wouldn't lose any in the next budget year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom