• 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!

GOP Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package

hazlnut said:
Well, not yet. Bill in now law.
Click to expand...

Noticed when challenged and offered facts and links to support those facts that you ignore them and run. Not surprising other than I wonder what it is about the liberal ideology that keeps people like you "hooked" on the rhetoric and ignorance of the results.

Waiting for you and other liberals here to condemn the Obama financial support for GE and explain how GE Got TARP funds from Obama. TARP was for the banks that dealt with the housing industry yet GE Got billions for what? Where is that liberal outrage over those evil Corporations and their CEO's?
 
Redress said:
What does that have to do with my point in any way shape of form?
Click to expand...

Everything to do with your claim that first the Prescription Drug program was unfunded and second that it cost more than proposed. You really need to pay closer attention to what you post. No program with a budget amount can be unfunded and the fact that it came in under budget shows a savings, not a cost increase.

Did you not say this? How can a bill be unfunded with a budget amount assigned to the line item?

Actually so did republicans. Or did we forget about Bush and the prescription (unfunded) bill?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Everything to do with your claim that first the Prescription Drug program was unfunded and second that it cost more than proposed. You really need to pay closer attention to what you post. No program with a budget amount can be unfunded and the fact that it came in under budget shows a savings, not a cost increase.

Did you not say this? How can a bill be unfunded with a budget amount assigned to the line item?
Click to expand...

I did not say it cost more than proposed. Go back and actually read what it was in response to. Randomly piping in with unrelated nonsequitors does not disprove anything.
 
Redress said:
I did not say it cost more than proposed. Go back and actually read what it was in response to. Randomly piping in with unrelated nonsequitors does not disprove anything.
Click to expand...

You really are argumentative, you said it was unfunded and as I pointed out any item with a budgeted amount cannot be unfunded. Why do you have such a problem admitting when wrong?
 
hazlnut said:
You are aware that's because the seniors were paying more for prescriptions? -- The same drugs they aren't allowed to buy cheaper from Canada?

I guess you weren't.
Click to expand...

and I guess you haven't got a ****ing clue what you're talking about either...
Big reasons for the savings:

•Generic drugs. The use of generic drugs has grown sharply, especially among seniors. Norvasc, for high blood pressure, and Fosamax, for osteoporosis, are among expensive drugs now available in generic form. Generics account for 64% of Medicare prescriptions compared with 61% in the private sector, Medicare says.

•Fewer enrollees. The program has 2 million fewer participants than originally forecast. Some seniors decided to keep existing drug coverage, Medicare says. Also, fewer poor people enrolled than expected.

•Doughnut hole. Seniors have cut costs to avoid falling into the "doughnut hole" — a coverage gap in which drug expenses between $2,510 and $4,050 a year are not insured.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
You really are argumentative, you said it was unfunded and as I pointed out any item with a budgeted amount cannot be unfunded. Why do you have such a problem admitting when wrong?
Click to expand...

Change the word unfunded to unpaid for. This was a side point to the point I was making, which you still have not addressed.
 
Redress said:
Change the word unfunded to unpaid for. This was a side point to the point I was making, which you still have not addressed.
Click to expand...

We have an entire budget that is unpaid for thus the deficits and the debt. What makes this any different? You said unfunded and since it has a budget line item that cannot be the case. Keep digging that hole deeper when all it takes is for you to admit you were wrong. Further less was spent that budgeted showing that the program is cutting expense. That is a good thing
 
Conservative said:
We have an entire budget that is unpaid for thus the deficits and the debt. What makes this any different? You said unfunded and since it has a budget line item that cannot be the case. Keep digging that hole deeper when all it takes is for you to admit you were wrong. Further less was spent that budgeted showing that the program is cutting expense. That is a good thing
Click to expand...

You still have entirely failed to address my point.
 
Redress said:
You still have entirely failed to address my point.
Click to expand...

You have totally diverted from your point which was calling the Prescription Drug program unfunded. That is what you do all the time while never admitting when wrong
 
hazlnut said:
GOP Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package



It doesn't appear (so far) they have the balls to look at Medicare and other entitlements.

Here's where they talk about appeasing their base:



Ah, yes, the pledge...So, regardless if it has any real or meaningful effect, they did what they said and now they're off the hook? Got it.:doh

And, um, speaking of job-killing...



Here's a better idea, why not cut the offices that are overstaffed and overpaid, and expand the offices that are understaffed and therefore inefficient--like banking and industry regulators.
Click to expand...

You don't like this???? What a partisan you are. This is tremendous news. I thank you for posting it, since I somehow missed it. We should all be jumpin' up and down.
 
Conservative said:
You have totally diverted from your point which was calling the Prescription Drug program unfunded. That is what you do all the time while never admitting when wrong
Click to expand...

That was not the point, and you still have failed to address the point.
 
Redress said:
That was not the point, and you still have failed to address the point.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't the point why did you post it in the first place. It was in your post and that is what I responded to.
 
Conservative said:
If it wasn't the point why did you post it in the first place. It was in your post and that is what I responded to.
Click to expand...

That was not all you responded to, in fact, this part of the discussion involved one word of the post. You are focusing on one word and ignore the entire rest of the post.
 
Redress said:
That was not all you responded to, in fact, this part of the discussion involved one word of the post. You are focusing on one word and ignore the entire rest of the post.
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing what most of us knew. That one word is key to the entire thread and was supported by others. That one word, unfunded, was WRONG!
 
Conservative said:
Thanks for showing what most of us knew. That one word is key to the entire thread and was supported by others. That one word, unfunded, was WRONG!
Click to expand...

No, actually it was not. It was not even the point I was making. You once again focused on a tiny minute item to try and divert from the point.
 
Redress said:
No, actually it was not. It was not even the point I was making. You once again focused on a tiny minute item to try and divert from the point.
Click to expand...

Tiny and minute, unfunded Prescription Drug Program? thanks, will remember that the next time you attack a word that I put into a post. The difference between you and me is I can admit when I am wrong. Why did you put that into your post?
 
Conservative said:
Tiny and minute, unfunded Prescription Drug Program? thanks, will remember that the next time you attack a word that I put into a post. The difference between you and me is I can admit when I am wrong. Why did you put that into your post?
Click to expand...

I admitted I used the wrong word, and should have said not paid for(that is a republican talking point after all). You however, when faced with a post you could not counter, focused on one tiny thing and not the actual point of the post.
 
Redress said:
I admitted I used the wrong word, and should have said not paid for(that is a republican talking point after all). You however, when faced with a post you could not counter, focused on one tiny thing and not the actual point of the post.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out there are a lot of items in the budget that aren't paid for but have line items. If all items were paid for there would be a balanced budget or a surplus. With the Prescription Drug Program there was a line item under Medicare and a cost that was less than that line item thus a savings over what was proposed. That is good news, not the bad news that has been stated here, not by you but by others. Bush said that the Prescription Drug program would reduce costs and at least in 2008 it not only wasn't unfunded but it reduced costs.
 
Redress said:
Actually so did republicans. Or did we forget about Bush and the prescription (unfunded) bill? The republicans in this case get credit for at least making an attempt, but it's still not the right time to cut spending(when unemployment under 6 %, then it's time to do this), and it's still just cutting programs based on what they do not like, instead of making the broad, across the board cuts(including defense) that is needed.
Click to expand...
Of course, the GOP's prescription drug bill was far less expansive than what Dems wanted. It's funny to me that Dems bash the GOP over this, given that this seems like the kind of thing Dems would normally support. That law is a classic example of how trying to bargain with Dems will only end up burning the GOP in the end and why "bipartisanship" is over-rated.
 
Conservative said:
As I pointed out there are a lot of items in the budget that aren't paid for but have line items. If all items were paid for there would be a balanced budget or a surplus. With the Prescription Drug Program there was a line item under Medicare and a cost that was less than that line item thus a savings over what was proposed. That is good news, not the bad news that has been stated here, not by you but by others. Bush said that the Prescription Drug program would reduce costs and at least in 2008 it not only wasn't unfunded but it reduced costs.
Click to expand...

I did not say it was bad news, and you still have entirely failed to address my point as usual. Please try and respond to what I say, and what I am saying, and not what you imagine you wish I had said.
 
Redress said:
I did not say it was bad news, and you still have entirely failed to address my point as usual. Please try and respond to what I say, and what I am saying, and not what you imagine you wish I had said.
Click to expand...

I did respond exactly to what you said, the Bush Prescription Drug program was NOT unfunded.
 
X Factor said:
Of course, the GOP's prescription drug bill was far less expansive than what Dems wanted. It's funny to me that Dems bash the GOP over this, given that this seems like the kind of thing Dems would normally support. That law is a classic example of how trying to bargain with Dems will only end up burning the GOP in the end and why "bipartisanship" is over-rated.
Click to expand...

The bill was passed in 2003. Who controlled the house and senate and the presidency? This is typical republican strategy part 3, blame everything you do on democrats.

Thank you at least for actually addressing the point I made however.
 
Redress said:
The bill was passed in 2003. Who controlled the house and senate and the presidency? This is typical republican strategy part 3, blame everything you do on democrats.

Thank you at least for actually addressing the point I made however.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did pass in 2003 and went into effect in 2006. In 2008 it had a 6 billion dollar savings from what was budgeted. What did the Democrats have to do with the legislation? did the Democrats propose more or less spending than the Bush bill authorized?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom