• 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

No, then there came Bush and when Obama was elected, racism reared its ugly head.

It must have come from you, because I haven't seen it. You don't have a single scrap of evidence.
 
I am glad someone else sees the light. The problem is the Democrats only blame the Republicans and the Republicans only blame the Democrats when both hands are dirty as all get out. I agree with you.

Pero, as long as they are arguing with each other, very little gets accomplished. Whatever happened to our great Statesmen? ....sigh
 
Pero, as long as they are arguing with each other, very little gets accomplished. Whatever happened to our great Statesmen? ....sigh

Today, neither party is worried about getting anything done or solving problems, they are just worrying about the next election and either retaining power or achieving power. But what these people fail to realize if once you get the power, you have to know how to use it. In other words, once you win an election, you have to govern. Winning elections without governing will lead this nation into oblivion.

As to statesmen, I do not know. There is an old adage; Politics is the art of the possible. Today neither party wants what is possible, both parties want their whole ball of wax and aren't will to give anything to obtain the possible. Both parties have chosen to get nothing and give nothing.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

There is a difference between wanting something and needing something. Just because you want something doesn't mean that you need it and any President should realize the difference and act accordingly. There is a huge difference between a child and the President of the United States.

I didn't say anything about need. I was just making a simple point on why Obama won't veto things it it's what he asked for to begin with. If he asked for 1 trillion dollars and Congress gave it to him, why would he veto it.
 
Paul Ryan rolled out his latest budget proposal, offering an ambitious blueprint that promises to balance the budget in a decade by repealing President Barack Obama's health care reforms and slashing Medicare, Medicaid and programs to help the poor.


Paul Ryan Budget: House GOP Unveils Blueprint To Slash Medicaid, Medicare And Repeal Obamacare

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?

A real plan to actually deal with the issues? I like it!
 
Yes, Bush was in office when the crash began, but it's foundation was laid back in the Clinton administration, when Clinton signed the Gramm-Bliley Act, which dismantled Glass-Steagal. Republicans came up with the bill, both Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly supported it, and Clinton signed it. It took two to tango in order to make the crash happen, and Democrats and Republicans were perfect dance partners.
Yep, well aware where it all started, though I must point out Clinton would have been over-ridden in Congress if he had vetoed it. Regardless, everyone in DC (even Clinton) wanted that and it was the worst thing they could have done. I railed against it the minute they passed it. :(


But my point was that much of Obama's extra spending (and the reason the spending looks so bad, as well) is because of The Crash.
 
Yep, well aware where it all started, though I must point out Clinton would have been over-ridden in Congress if he had vetoed it. Regardless, everyone in DC (even Clinton) wanted that and it was the worst thing they could have done. I railed against it the minute they passed it. :(


But my point was that much of Obama's extra spending (and the reason the spending looks so bad, as well) is because of The Crash.

Problem here is, even for those who have a Keynesian view of economics, this is a crash that we are not going to be able to spend our way out of without making it even worse in the long run.
 
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.
I am very much receptive to the idea of premium support as a method of reforming health care overall in this country, although it depends on how it is structured, but this is the most significant issue with which I disagree with Paul Ryan on his budget.

Much like yourself and other Republicans you constantly bring up the advantages, whether it is the savings or increased freedom to pick plans, that would occur if Medicare is changed to some form of premium support. Yet, whenever talks arise about reforming Medicare anyone currently on it is exempted. If it is such a great plan (I believe it can be), then why are Republicans ok with denying the elderly increased freedom and control over their own health care?

For me, personally, it becomes even more absurd when juxtaposed with Paul Ryan's past rhetoric and budgets. He constantly speaks as though a debt crisis is right around the corner, and yet he is unwilling to tackle what he believes to be the largest driver of debt for ten years. Add to that he had no problem including current seniors in previous versions of his budget while he was wallowing away in anonymity, but once he became Chairman of the Budget Committee all of a sudden he has a completely different take on whom his reforms should affect. He constantly likes to talk about how President Obama does not have the courage to make the tough choices to shrink the deficit, and yet with every budget he has produced since coming to power he has gone out of his way to protect his base from any of the pain that austerity would bring.

There was once a time when I thought Paul Ryan was serious about the budget and policy, but with each passing year it is clearer and clearer that he is not.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Exactly what is being unveiled here? The same old, tired, dead in the water, hullabaloo that got kicked to the curb countless times?

Oh, wow, whoopee, my God, my God, Paul, you're such a conservative, my dear lord, you're like a young Ronald Reagan. My stars and garters, how ever did you come up with it.....so fresh, so new....

:boom
 
Problem here is, even for those who have a Keynesian view of economics, this is a crash that we are not going to be able to spend our way out of without making it even worse in the long run.
I agree, the effects of the Crash will happen, The only question is, How far out we can spread the damage to lessen the impact? You can't stop the inertia of a bullet with a vest but you can spread the damage out to avoid serious injury or death, which is exactly what government is supposed to be doing - dampening the deleterious effects of capitalism on the population.


And just to be clear, that doesn't mean I'm anti-capitalist by far. Businesses do what they must do and that's as it should be, that's their role in society.
 
Last edited:
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

No, Congress only makes it legal to put money into the wallet and to take money out.

Actually Congress compels the money-taking-out. Presidents' used to have the discretion not to spend monies appropriated and allocated by Congress, but no more.
 
For those who are interested, the House budget plan can be found here: http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy14budget.pdf

More importantly, the actual legislative language can be found here: http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2014_budget_resolution.pdf

A few quick comments:

First, the document talks about long-term fiscal risks.

Second, it seeks to introduce a degree of means-testing to Medicare (something with which I agree). Mandatory spending reform will be needed to address the long-term fiscal imbalances and means-testing is one practical approach. More broadly, it conceptually seeks to delegate a larger share of responsibility for Medicare and Medicaid to the states (an approach that would have its own issues that runs beyond the scope of budget numbers).

Third, it offers some budget process reforms e.g., a point of order against new mandatory spending provisions, that could make it more difficult to expand mandatory spending benefits. In the context of the challenges facing those programs, that's not a bad idea.

Fourth, much critical detail is missing. For example, the plan discusses a broad concept of tax reform but doesn't provide the level of detail necessary to estimate post-reform tax revenue. Instead, the plan states, "This budget accommodates the forthcoming work by House Ways and Means Committee Chiarman Dave Camp of Michigan." As this work is "forthcoming," one does not know the details concerning exemptions, deductions, and other changes that would be needed to estimate post-reform revenue. Absent those details, one does know that income tax rates would be reduced, the alternative minimum tax would be repealed (this is a big source of revenue as per past CBO discussions), and the corporate tax rate would be reduced, all of which would reduce overall tax revenue absent the missing details. Could those changes even be accommodated without reducing overall tax revenue below what would be the case under current law?

Before one automatically assumes that this uncertainty is anything but the result of a lack of detail, the text of the legislative language acknowledges the uncertainty by providing blank amounts for tax revenue (see pages 3 and 4).

Finally, one does not have basic assumptions (GDP growth, interest rates, health cost inflation) on which to build the estimates once the details of the policy changes are developed. One can use CBO or IMF assumptions in those areas, but the report makes no mention of either source of assumptions.

All said, I don't believe there is enough information for the CBO to attempt a score. Without such a score, it is difficult to conclude whether the plan would achieve balance within a decade. The uncertainties from the currently missing details are enormous. From the conceptual approach, it is probably reasonable to assume that the planned expenditures would likely be less than those under current law. But tax revenue might also be less, perhaps substantially less, than under current law.

My guess is that we'll know more once the actual resolution is brought before the House for consideration.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Tell that to the thousands (millions?) of people who lost their retirement investments in 2008.

I said good financial advisors. Many people made money in the markets during the recession. In addition, many people have made significant gains since the market's lows. One thing you can count on with the markets is that they always trend upwards even if they have periodic drops along the way. But if you think the American government, going in the whole at a clip of $1 trillion plus a year is a better investment vehicle, more power to you.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Actually Congress compels the money-taking-out.
I was equating "take money out" with spending, but if the "wallet" is the US Treasury then yes, it gets allocated (but not necessarily spent). I believe that the amount of money that goes unspent over the course of a couple of years is in the $100 billion dollar range.

Presidents' used to have the discretion not to spend monies appropriated and allocated by Congress, but no more.
It's still the case that so long as the laws are "faithfully executed," an unused portion need not be spent - but this depends on how the legislation is enacted (e.g. it might say that any unused portion allocated for Project A be used for Project B). In "no-year accounts" the President has the authority to cancel (i.e. return to the treasury) any remaining funds, having determined their purpose already fulfilled.

What presidents used to be able to do and can no longer do is refuse to spend money on legislation they disagree with (or deem no longer necessary, etc.).
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Actually Congress compels the money-taking-out. Presidents' used to have the discretion not to spend monies appropriated and allocated by Congress, but no more.
I didn't know that had changed? I'm not asserting you're wrong but When did that happen??
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

I said good financial advisors. Many people made money in the markets during the recession. In addition, many people have made significant gains since the market's lows. One thing you can count on with the markets is that they always trend upwards even if they have periodic drops along the way. But if you think the American government, going in the whole at a clip of $1 trillion plus a year is a better investment vehicle, more power to you.
Some never come back while others come back at a much lower initial price.

The Fed contributes nothing to the SSA except the payroll taxes it collects in the name of the SSA. I wish they'd move the SSA back off book so people could see the real issues instead of constantly harping about SSA and Medicare, which have their own income stream. :roll:
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Post-Nixon, I think.
I learned the basics of how government works while Nixon was in office and haven't kept up on those nit-picky details. I don't remember reading about any Pres that didn't spend the money allotted for projects and programs, so it didn't seem to matter. Of crouse, back then there wasn't as much fighting and certainly not as much grand standing as their is now. Things seemed to get done even when there was disagreement.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

The real question should be why we need to spend half our budget on defense when no one is even threatening us. :roll:

Why should we take you seriously if you think we spend "half" our budget on defense? We don't even spend half of half the budget on defense.

We could eliminate the entire defense budget and would still run a $500BN deficit. Yes, it IS that bad.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Why should we take you seriously if you think we spend "half" our budget on defense? We don't even spend half of half the budget on defense.

We could eliminate the entire defense budget and would still run a $500BN deficit. Yes, it IS that bad.
Depends on how you do the math.
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Budget breakdown for 2012

Defense-related expenditure 2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[22][23] Calculation[24][25]
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Total --- $3795.547 billion

$`1.4 Trillion 37% of $3.8 Trillion. So...

My 50% guess was much closer than your less than 25% nonsense.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Depends on how you do the math.


2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


$`1.4 Trillion 37% of $3.8 Trillion. So...

My 50% guess was much closer than your less than 25% nonsense.

Your "guess"? At least you admit to just pulling crap out of thin air, as anyone who's seen your posts already knew you did.

Sure, if you want to include a whole lot of things which aren't defense spending and call them defense spending, you might get around 40%. But then, why stop there? By that "reasoning," why wouldn't welfare be defense spending, too, as it's arguably about national security? Hell, 100% of the budget is "defense" spending.

The military budget, according to your own source, is around $680 BN on the high end. Out of a budget of $3.75 TN, that's around 18%.
 
Back
Top Bottom