• 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!

$840 Billion Medicare Cut

D_NATURED said:
That's a bull**** statement. Yes, I'd like to raise taxes and, no, it won't shut down our economic growth, which is largely borrowed any way. I wish you righties would stop bragging about how much you can borrow and steal.



Yes, we should reduce our overspending, but by spending less on the pentagon and more on investments into the future of Americans, like education and healthcare.



So they don't win, big deal. I already know that the conservative message appeals to average morons, as false as it is, more than the more nuanced liberal position. I agree that conservative xenophobia and religious paranoia is powerful **** and requires less brain power to consume. You are talking to a political nihilist so don't threaten me with the good guys losing, what else is new.



Substitute "Americans" for house dems and I'll agree.
Click to expand...

sigh...

You throw a lot of nonsense against the wall. I'll address just one of your pieces of...nonsense.

"Yes, we should reduce our overspending, but by spending less on the pentagon and more on investments into the future of Americans, like education and healthcare. "

Do you even hear what you are saying? "spend less"..."spend more"...and somehow that'll reduce deficit spending?
 
ludin said:
people should fact check before posting stuff like this.

Bernie Sanders attacks Donald Trump over proposed cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, disability fund | PolitiFact

Goldwein estimated the total cut at closer to $300 billion. And again, we note that actual dollars spent rise each year.

This goes back to basic math folks. Nothing is a cut if dollars spent is INCREASING.
for it to be a cut dollars spent must be decreasing below the previous year.

Again people want to try and define terms by using wrong defintions.
so nothing is getting cut folks and medicare will be ok. if anything medicare spending is increasing.

So lets explain what a cut actually is.

So if my budget last year was 800 billion and this year is it 820 billion but i didn't get my 850b that is not a 30 billion cut to anything.
if my budget is 800 billion and i only get 750b this year then that is an actual cut in my budget.

this is simple logic.
Click to expand...

Simple minded is more like it. You forget that more people are reaching Medicare age every year and that increase means more money is needed for everyone to have coverage. Cutting Medicare means there will not be enough money for the program to function as it should. That is the simple truth and Trump has been caught in yet another lie he told to defraud voters.
 
D_NATURED said:
I have to disagree. In sheer economic terms, we do better by putting the money in to the hands of many consumers rather than a few oligarchs. In political terms, the money generates better results for all Americans when more people are represented by it rather than when the super wealthy alone dictate the legislative direction of all of us through bribery. And, as an investment in the future of this nation, feeding, healing and educating our people does more for us than any new bomb or senseless tax cut ever could.

There is a certainly a lot of nonsense in politics but one side, in particular, is craven, elitist and cruel. Guess who I mean...
Click to expand...

Nancy Pelosi was of the same silly mind. She thought the best way for Obama to stimulate the economy was to pass out more food stamps. How do these people even hold jobs, much less get elected to Congress?
 
marke said:
Nancy Pelosi was of the same silly mind. She thought the best way for Obama to stimulate the economy was to pass out more food stamps. How do these people even hold jobs, much less get elected to Congress?
Click to expand...

A good idea would be retail stamps: you can only redeem them at brick and mortar stores, no online shopping. That might save some walmarts and give Bezos a cow. Win win.
 
calamity said:
A good idea would be retail stamps: you can only redeem them at brick and mortar stores, no online shopping. That might save some walmarts and give Bezos a cow. Win win.
Click to expand...

Every socialist thinks he has a better idea how to manipulate the business world through government involvement and mandates. Government involvement and mandates cause the problems that free markets must try to overcome to keep moving.
 
marke said:
Every socialist thinks he has a better idea how to manipulate the business world through government involvement and mandates. Government involvement and mandates cause the problems that free markets must try to overcome to keep moving.
Click to expand...


LOL! Nah. But it must be awfully fun to have to pretend that.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

You throw a lot of nonsense against the wall. I'll address just one of your pieces of...nonsense.

"Yes, we should reduce our overspending, but by spending less on the pentagon and more on investments into the future of Americans, like education and healthcare. "

Do you even hear what you are saying? "spend less"..."spend more"...and somehow that'll reduce deficit spending?
Click to expand...


No what he is saying is waste less invest more, you know actually look at the future...
 
GDViking said:
No what he is saying is waste less invest more, you know actually look at the future...
Click to expand...

Schiffty was harping on the trillions in deficit spending.

It doesn't matter what you are spending "for" (everyone wants to spend on what THEY think is important)...it's still deficit spending.

That's why I commented on Schiffty's dishonest remark about deficit spending.
 
marke said:
Nancy Pelosi was of the same silly mind. She thought the best way for Obama to stimulate the economy was to pass out more food stamps. How do these people even hold jobs, much less get elected to Congress?
Click to expand...

Actually food stamp do stimulate an economy.

They are after all an ag subsidy, by subsidizing farmers they buy new trucks, combines, manure spreaders, and on and on.

Thus stimulating manufacturing, along with grocery stores, farm Implement stores, hardware stores.

You know basically stimulating all parts of the economy.

So to answer your hidden question, yes Nancy Pelosi IS much smarter than you...
 
iguanaman said:
Simple minded is more like it. You forget that more people are reaching Medicare age every year and that increase means more money is needed for everyone to have coverage. Cutting Medicare means there will not be enough money for the program to function as it should. That is the simple truth and Trump has been caught in yet another lie he told to defraud voters.
Click to expand...

No it is simple logic. the fact that you don't understand what a budget cut means is not my issue.
no there is no lie. money spent is increasing not decreasing so therefore there is no cut.

the only people that are lying as usual are leftists and the OP.
 
ludin said:
No it is simple logic. the fact that you don't understand what a budget cut means is not my issue.
no there is no lie. money spent is increasing not decreasing so therefore there is no cut.

the only people that are lying as usual are leftists and the OP.
Click to expand...

Alternately you do not understand that part of budgeting is to budget for increased costs.

By not addressing those cost it absolutely is a budget cut...
 
GDViking said:
Alternately you do not understand that part of budgeting is to budget for increased costs.

By not addressing those cost it absolutely is a budget cut...
Click to expand...

not at all. is there budget more than what it was the year before? yes. so there is no cut to their budget.
if their budget is less than the year before then it is a cut.

From what i read there are no cuts to these programs. what they are doing is clamping down on waste and
fraudulent payments etc ...

While spending would still rise under Trump’s plan, it would not climb as much as it would under current law.

again you people don't know what a budget cut is.

a budget cut means that i had 800b last year and i only have 700b this year.
that is a budget cut.

a budget cut is not i had 800b this year and have 850b next year but didn't get 900b.

you people just crack me up.
 
ludin said:
not at all. is there budget more than what it was the year before? yes. so there is no cut to their budget.
if their budget is less than the year before then it is a cut.

From what i read there are no cuts to these programs. what they are doing is clamping down on waste and
fraudulent payments etc ...

While spending would still rise under Trump’s plan, it would not climb as much as it would under current law.

again you people don't know what a budget cut is.

a budget cut means that i had 800b last year and i only have 700b this year.
that is a budget cut.

a budget cut is not i had 800b this year and have 850b next year but didn't get 900b.

you people just crack me up.
Click to expand...

No it does not, does the current budget cover the same expenses as tbe last budget???

Does it cover expected Increases???

If not it is Indeed a budget cut...
 
ludin said:
not at all. is there budget more than what it was the year before? yes. so there is no cut to their budget.
if their budget is less than the year before then it is a cut.
Click to expand...

Only a simpleton would say something like that.

From what i read there are no cuts to these programs. what they are doing is clamping down on waste and
fraudulent payments etc ...
Click to expand...

Clamping down on waste.....lol.....no, that isn't all they are doing. For lack of a simpler way to explain to you how its gonna go down, lets just say that the very government run death panels that one Sarah Palin howled about during the 2008 campaign are finally gonna make it into existence. No, not every decision they make will be one of life and death....but you can be assured that they will be one of cost and benefit.

Imagine that.

While spending would still rise under Trump’s plan, it would not climb as much as it would under current law.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing.....there is no actual way anyone can predict that. That is what budgeting is supposed to cover. If you budget for the lowest of possible expenditures and then go above that, there isn't enough money to cover and you end up screwed.

again you people don't know what a budget cut is.
Click to expand...

Well that is a rich statement coming from the guy who apparently doesn't understand what a budget is to begin with. If you did, you would understand why this is actually a cut to the budget.

a budget cut means that i had 800b last year and i only have 700b this year.
that is a budget cut.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a budget cut. So far, so good....

a budget cut is not i had 800b this year and have 850b next year but didn't get 900b.
Click to expand...

That didn't last long.

Yes, the above is also a budget cut, if it was predicted that you were going to need to spend 900B dollars this year. That is the whole point....the budget is SUPPOSED to cover all of the expected expenses for the year. When you predict you are going to need 900B dollars and you only allocate 850B, then you are going to have to cut back on things you had intended on doing for that year.

That is the definition of budget cut.

you people just crack me up.
Click to expand...

Only because you don't get what you are talking about.
 
GDViking said:
No it does not, does the current budget cover the same expenses as tbe last budget???

Does it cover expected Increases???

If not it is Indeed a budget cut...
Click to expand...

Nope it is a budget increase. it isn't a cut if it is increasing.
words have definitions.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

You throw a lot of nonsense against the wall. I'll address just one of your pieces of...nonsense.

"Yes, we should reduce our overspending, but by spending less on the pentagon and more on investments into the future of Americans, like education and healthcare. "

Do you even hear what you are saying? "spend less"..."spend more"...and somehow that'll reduce deficit spending?
Click to expand...

*double sigh*

You are the one with the comprehension problem. I used the word "investment" with respect to social spending, meaning that ensuring that Americans have healthy food, quality healthcare that won't bankrupt them and good education will, ultimately, generate much savings whereas blowing **** up and greasing the already wealthy doesn't pay ANY social and economic dividends for our nation. The difference in how the right and the left "spend" money demonstrates the difference in their relative governing philosophies and their priorities. Spending money on making people's lives better, like the left does, reduces crime, reduces health spending and creates a more stable society. Giving borrowed money to the wealthiest few and taking apart the regulatory agencies that protect the people and their environment only puts us in a deeper hole, funds right wing political bribery and creates resentment towards the oligarchs in charge.

No, I stand by my statement. There is no comparison. Right wing plutocrats do a great disservice to the citizens of this nation by ALWAYS heaping more of the people's treasure upon the moneyed interests rather than addressing human concerns as their primary goal.
 
ludin said:
Nope it is a budget increase. it isn't a cut if it is increasing.
words have definitions.
Click to expand...

Yep....they do. Just not the ones you are using.

What you are arguing is a FUNDING increase or decrease. That isn't the same as a budget increase or decrease.

What is the difference you ask....let me explain.

If I try to allocate funds for what I am going to spend on next year, I have to try to assume what costs are going to be. That would then cover the maximum amount of money I could spend this year and still come out ahead. That is a BUDGET.

Having 12M dollars this year as opposed to having 10M last year is a FUNDING increase.

The problem occurs when the funding doesn't cover the budget.

So yes, the proposed is a BUDGET cut.
 
marke said:
Nancy Pelosi was of the same silly mind. She thought the best way for Obama to stimulate the economy was to pass out more food stamps. How do these people even hold jobs, much less get elected to Congress?
Click to expand...

Only the conservative mind can be dumb enough to think that feeding the hungry is what puts our nation in jeopardy. I normally wouldn't even respond to such pathological retardation but I realize that it's a widespread brand of idiocy on the right. The hatred of the poor literally drips from every conservative syllable.

It's the pentagon and trickle down economics, not the welfare system that is bankrupting this nation. Getting that constantly twisted is the mark, or should I say "marke", of the dangerously deluded.
 
D_NATURED said:
*double sigh*

You are the one with the comprehension problem. I used the word "investment" with respect to social spending, meaning that ensuring that Americans have healthy food, quality healthcare that won't bankrupt them and good education will, ultimately, generate much savings whereas blowing **** up and greasing the already wealthy doesn't pay ANY social and economic dividends for our nation. The difference in how the right and the left "spend" money demonstrates the difference in their relative governing philosophies and their priorities. Spending money on making people's lives better, like the left does, reduces crime, reduces health spending and creates a more stable society. Giving borrowed money to the wealthiest few and taking apart the regulatory agencies that protect the people and their environment only puts us in a deeper hole, funds right wing political bribery and creates resentment towards the oligarchs in charge.

No, I stand by my statement. There is no comparison. Right wing plutocrats do a great disservice to the citizens of this nation by ALWAYS heaping more of the people's treasure upon the moneyed interests rather than addressing human concerns as their primary goal.
Click to expand...

Oh...deficit "investment" is different from deficit "spending".

LOL!!
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Yep....they do. Just not the ones you are using.

What you are arguing is a FUNDING increase or decrease. That isn't the same as a budget increase or decrease.
Click to expand...

I know what budget increases and decreases are. it is the people in this thread that do not.
A budget cut means i don't have the money that i had the previous year to do what i need to do.

A budget cut means my budget doesn't go up 100b and i didn't get the 200b i asked for.

a budget cut means exactly that. my budget is 100b less than what i had the previous year.
that is a budget cut.

me getting 100b more is a 100b budget increase.

which is completely different than reducing budget costs.

these are all defined words that have meanings. people just want to remain ignorant
so they can just cry and scream.
 
marke said:
Every socialist thinks he has a better idea how to manipulate the business world through government involvement and mandates. Government involvement and mandates cause the problems that free markets must try to overcome to keep moving.
Click to expand...

Tell me how Santa Clause flies around the world in one night too. Damn, dude, you keep stepping right in to a big pile of dumb, every step you take. There is no such thing as a free market. Deal with it. Markets are created by demand but the consumers are protected by regulations, you know the whole reason for government to exist. You can no more have a free market than you can have a truly free religion. When the human sacrifices start, someone with authority needs to intervene. That "someone", in the case of exploitative, cheating and polluting corporations, is government.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Only a simpleton would say something like that.



Clamping down on waste.....lol.....no, that isn't all they are doing. For lack of a simpler way to explain to you how its gonna go down, lets just say that the very government run death panels that one Sarah Palin howled about during the 2008 campaign are finally gonna make it into existence. No, not every decision they make will be one of life and death....but you can be assured that they will be one of cost and benefit.

Imagine that.



Thats the thing.....there is no actual way anyone can predict that. That is what budgeting is supposed to cover. If you budget for the lowest of possible expenditures and then go above that, there isn't enough money to cover and you end up screwed.



Well that is a rich statement coming from the guy who apparently doesn't understand what a budget is to begin with. If you did, you would understand why this is actually a cut to the budget.



Yes, that is a budget cut. So far, so good....



That didn't last long.

Yes, the above is also a budget cut, if it was predicted that you were going to need to spend 900B dollars this year. That is the whole point....the budget is SUPPOSED to cover all of the expected expenses for the year. When you predict you are going to need 900B dollars and you only allocate 850B, then you are going to have to cut back on things you had intended on doing for that year.

That is the definition of budget cut.



Only because you don't get what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Well stated!

It is really too bad that you had to take his hand and take him through a walk of obvious reality...

I suspect he may be one of the many examples of the failure of private schools in the US.

They are under educated but leave with inflated egos and a belief they have a superior education...
 
Mycroft said:
Schiffty was harping on the trillions in deficit spending.

It doesn't matter what you are spending "for" (everyone wants to spend on what THEY think is important)...it's still deficit spending.

That's why I commented on Schiffty's dishonest remark about deficit spending.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. It's one thing to pour endless trillions into the black hole of republican greed, it's quite another to invest in the people. Educated people use fewer government services, earn more in their lifetimes and pay taxes on it, and live healthier lives. So, dollars spent on education are truly an investment in the future and money given to plutocrats on the right is WASTED.
 
What's amazing is Trump proposes to slash all of these social services yet still run massive deficits. Truly absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom