Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Raising the Debt Ceiling......(you won't BELIEVE who said it)

Who do you think said THIS?
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

Fascinating.
z

57 comments:

Ticker said...

One thing you can always count on in politics is blatant hypocrisy. Obama desperately needs the Senate to raise the debt ceiling to $13 trillion dollars to allow for his massive expansion of government and socialist agenda. It's just that simple!

FrogBurger said...

The level of debt is frightening and with the interest I think this is going to be almost impossible to fix if we don't do MAJOR cuts.

Raising the debt ceiling is the stupidest idea. I heard Dems say it would be a disaster if it wasn't increased b/c it would lead to our defaulting and therefore some serious issues.

They may be right but at this point it's a lose-lose situation. There's no win here. And that's the problem.

IT's going to take some serious courage from politicians to admit the consequences of years of financial mess.

It's also going to require us some serious personal effort, because after all, the consumer debt and the personal borrowing from real estate led to all this. Citizens do have a part of responsibility in this.

I'm not optimistic. But life isn't easy and cozy so we'll have to man up.

Z said...

Been watching a LOT more TV than usual and am about sick of the Left painting this economy as BUsh's problem when it was the Republican congress that straightened out CLinton's budget (and, gratefully, Clinton was smart enough to see they were right and his ego allowed their work to proceed) and it was the Dem congress that completely screwed up the Bush situation until TARP,when Bush decided to join the dopes.

SOMEONE on the Right has to liken the debt ceiling with Americans' personal financial situations..
"Would it help your world if you were in debt and they raised your credit and your payments became even BIGGER? then we did it again and again? How would you EVER dig out of it?" As it is, we have to remember the media rarely even publicizes what Republicans say..

also, as ugly and disdainful as Gibbs was, there is no reason to rejoice he's left the Press Sec job; he'll be out there with the permission to be even MORE ugly and spread MORE inaccuracies to the people... not a good situation.

I like the idea of poor Biden having to swear so many good Rightwingers into office.........kind of a divine retribution if only for an hour or so :-)

FrogBurger said...

Z, the whole "Bush's fault", "Clinton's fault", "Greenspan's fault", "Reagan's fault" is for children at this point.

We're in deep trouble and the economy is something complex that goes through ups and downs because of policies or decisions made 30+ years ago.

And citizens should also blame themselves as well. They over-consumed, got into debt, got houses they couldn't afford. Ultimately it's the people mistakes that led us to that, even though they were encouraged to do so. It's time to look ourselves in the mirror as well. (I won't do it as much since I got into 0 debt.)

Ducky's here said...

"Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

--- Dick "Skeletor" Cheney

FrogBurger said...

Ducky you keep quoting this. It's the 3rd or 4th time I see it.

Anything new?

Deficits don't matter if it's a highly productive investments with a return on assets or capital.

Which is not the case of our deficits or the stimulus, or welfare. (Unless you're Pelosi and thinks food stamps do stimulate high profit industries and therefore job creating ones.)

Get it or will you quote this again in 2 weeks so you have something to say?

Ducky's here said...

That's right frog, we keep investing in quality of life growth industries like military weaponry, prisons (along with the military our only growth industry) and health insurance premiums. You're right, it's a winning strategy.

FrogBurger said...

You're right, it's a winning strategy.

Did I imply this asshole?

Stop saying things I didn't say. Intellectual dishonesty is your trait, not mine.

FrogBurger said...

and health insurance premiums

Honestly, what kind of idiots are you again?

The idiot that generalizes and draws theories out of thin air?

The idiot who can't do anything about it because of low IQ?

The idiot that is so miserable in his life he has to be just mean and unpleasant to others?

The idiot that reads stuff without critical thinking?

For your knowledge, Ducky aka highschool boy
1. health insurance companies don't make huge profits
2. profit in healthcare is good. Without profit making, there's no investment and therefore no improvement in medical science
3. I think all of the idiot categories above apply.

cube said...

This is another example of the bumper sticker I'd like to see about democrats, but which applies to Obama as well:

Obama: He'll say anything for you.

Leticia said...

I am sure by now he is denying the speech and/or suffers from temporary amnesia and claims not to recall it.

Whatever the case may be, he is a pathetic excuse for a president.

tha malcontent said...

Congressman John Boehner is elected
Speaker of the House of Representatives, succeeding Nancy Pelosi

Let the good times roll!

Z said...

FB:

This is something the left never mentions and it's so highly important as America has been in the Top 3 of innovators in medicine FOREVER:

You wrote:
2. profit in healthcare is good. Without profit making, there's no investment and therefore no improvement in medical science

FB, your mistake is thinking ALL Americans WANT any big company to profit or that they welcome any advancements which prove again America's exceptionalism...which is waning by the second.

I have a very good feeling, however, having heard so many of the Freshman class in Congress the last few days..they GET IT, they're smart and they're going into action.
I saw CNN today ask a Republican "DOn't you think we need to let the past go and try to look at a future of new jobs, etc..instead of looking into what you think are improprieties in the Obama administration?"
OH, don't they JUST WISH.
The fabulous answer was "You nailed it, how can we get to new jobs when some of the things this administration's done has prevented it?"

FrogBurger said...

FB, your mistake is thinking ALL Americans WANT any big company to profit or that they welcome any advancements which prove again America's exceptionalism...which is waning by the second.

I suggest people like Ducky, who dont't want profit in the medical sector, don't go get cured or go to nice hospitals. If they have the courage of their principles they should go to those cheap doctor or clinics. I bet a guy like Ducky don't even want to do that.

I went to one before having my finger checked by a specialist. Thank goodness for the more expensive surgeon.

That's what profit does: it guarantees more quality. It's not an automatic consequence but it is a lot more likely.

People like Ducky just want to feel good about their stance against profit. It's incredibly dumb.

A guy like Ducky -- assuming he's paid a salary and not hourly when he really works -- who's posting comments on a gazillion blogs all day long is making a huge profit based what he's bringing to his employer/client.

I guess profit is great in that case.

I can't take those hypocrites.

Anonymous said...

Obama wishes that speech on the debt ceiling would disappear, just like his birth certificate, college, & other records did.

Silvrlady

Anonymous said...

Look friends....it's way too late.

The Dodd's, Franks, Reids, Pelosi's, Graysons, Waters, Boxer's, Browns and Gorelicks should have been taken out long ago. In Gorelicks case....right after the 911 reports of her treasonous treachery.
In Dodd's case....a warm urn might be an appropriate repository of this hooker's remains. Frank....how has he avoided a fatal disease after 40 years of whoring?

With just a sampling of these scum...Benedict Arnold would be asking for a new trial and have his conviction overturned by a black robed POS in the 9th District.

You want change? It comes at the business end of a rifle. As have all changes in the US since 1776.

As well as all the freedoms we and the media take for granted today. Thank a patriot, thank a soldier for placing his life on the line or giving his life...so that we can bullshit all day about free speech.

FrogBurger said...

It may happen anon. Hopefully not.

But Louis XVI turned the French people against him and lost his head because of the burden of the debt (created by the American revolution war lending and the lavish lifestyle) leading to higher taxes.

Without that, monarchy, despite the inequalities would have lasted a little longer.

Anonymous said...

"Without that, monarchy, despite the inequalities would have lasted a little longer."

Let me ask you FB...don't you think we have a de facto monarchy now? A Congress ( that has it's own laws separate from we..the peasants?} that's immune from SS...that's immune from Obamacare? That 100% of these bastards are immune from the laws they foist upon us?

That they don't give a rats ass that they have a 10% "approval rating".

90% of America hates these bastards....where is the revolution? If in any other country the ruling class held numbers like that..there'd be a revolution.

We're too....apathetic and comfy.

Ticker said...

Sorry Anon but Congress pays into SS just like the rest of us regardless of what the e-mails tell you. They have since 83- 84. The only ones who don't were in the Federal retirement system prior to that(CRS) and opted out of the new one(FERS). Wish I had even though it's less retirement money! I could have taken the SS money I paid in and invested it and had so much more than what SS pays today for me.

FrogBurger said...

I agree anon. Politicians are the new monarchs.

I think Western democracy suffers from this new monarchy everywhere. It's actually worse in statist country like France where the political elite running the country comes from one main school (ENA), the Pluto way.

And it get worse when the gov is centralized. I personally think the fed gov should be totally revised and should only be there for establishing currency, free trade across state lines, deal with the army, across state justice issues and foreign diplomacy. And that's it. Nothing else.

FrogBurger said...

We're too....apathetic and comfy.

The American temperament is respectful of the Rule of Law and peace. Unlike the French who started slashing throats left and right without thinking.

Give it time. I think if they keep pushing and this Congress messes up again, it's pretty much game over. Then a real crisis will begin. And it could obviously come with the debt leading us to bankrupt.

People rise up when "bread becomes too expensive." That is because of bread prices with a difficult economic climate the French revolution happened.

Anonymous said...

I hate to be repetitive, but it seems obvious to me that Obama has been "put" into office by the string-pullers behind the scenes -- the Oligarchs who REALLY control things.

Obama was "selected" by these shadowy moguls who mean to DECONSTRUCT the USA and all the WEST and DELIBERATELY reduce us to helpless PENURY. This can most easily be accomplished by implementing the CLOWARD/PIVEN strategy.

What ELSE do you think could possibly be going on given the insane nature of congressional antics and the all the grotesque gobbledygook we get from the White House?

The disasters that have befallen us have not happened by ACCIDENT.

The most disturbing part -- the part you may not want to see -- is that BUSH has been every bit as as much a part of this destructive agenda as any D'Rat.

Party Politics have become an out-and-out FARCE.

Do you REALLY think you can trust ANYONE who gets elected to congress? With very few exceptions they are ALL owned and operated by OUTSIDE interests. They are NOT working for US.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

Those few days in the past Obama showed up in the Senate for work sure are comedy gold mines, aren't they?

Craig said...

For your knowledge, Ducky aka highschool boy
1. health insurance companies don't make huge profits


They are doing OK

In the midst of a deep economic recession, America's health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage.

Remember, profit is what's left after everyone's been paid

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation

* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212


That doesn't include the 100's of millions they hold in stock options.

2. profit in healthcare is good. Without profit making, there's no investment and therefore no improvement in medical science

You're confusing profits in health care with profit from health ins. Can you name one medical innovation or improvement or one patient cured by a health ins co.? Do you even know what insurance is and how it works? Besides, most medical research is done by research hospitals and universities and is gov. subsidized.

Those involved in actual health care do an incredible job and deserve incredible compensation. Those who only handle the money and profit from denying people coverage, don't. Al I can say, Frog, is
The idiot that reads stuff without critical thinking?

Craig said...

(Unless you're Pelosi and thinks food stamps do stimulate high profit industries and therefore job creating ones.)

Pelosi is using analysis from Mark Zandi, McCain campaign economic adviser and chief economist for Moody's Analytical

Extending unemployment insurance and expanding food stamps are the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump. A $1 increase in UI benefits generates an estimated $1.64 in near-term GDP; increasing food stamp payments by $1 boosts GDP by $1.73 (see table). People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients.

Extending the Bush tax cuts? A boost to GDP of $0.29. Substantially less than $1.73.

FrogBurger said...

Craig you are totally delluded.

Think for yourself a little bit. Apparently you can't.

Food stamps and unemployment insurance don't allow people to buy much, And if they do it only allows to buy low-margin products or commodity products that don't generate jobs, b/c they are not related to innovation.

Then the administrative cost of managing food stamps and unemployment programs, even though it may be included in the GDP, actually is a weigh on the economy.
Gov spendings, most of the time, creates a negative ROI.

Otherwise we'd be all on food stamps and unemployment if it was good. France would have had growth since they day I was born beating the US. Haven't you thought about just that?


To educate yourself you can read Veronique de Rugy's articles on Reason magazine. Another French person who knows what socialism creates and mentions tons of stats. And talks about the real cost of it. Not some GDP increase that by themselves hide the truth.

Craig stick to Pan Gu Express. Because honestly you're a drone.

FrogBurger said...

You're confusing profits in health care with profit from health ins. Can you name one medical innovation or improvement or one patient cured by a health ins co.?

I'm not confusing. I was saying in general profit leads to a higher quality product.

Now your article shows what a dumbo you are. Increase in profit or $ numbers mean nothing for profit.

Come on. Are you that easy to debate? You have to look at profit margin percentage, especially after tax. Those are fairly low compared to other industry. I believe it's 2-4%. I didn't see in the article you pointed out either.

Study more, Craig if you want to prove your point.
Have a critical mind. Go back to school to study math and logic.

Or stick to Kung Fun Panda.

FrogBurger said...

I can say, Frog, is
The idiot that reads stuff without critical thinking?


I think i just proved my point by showing your inability to read statistics and understand them fully.

You read an ABC news feed and you run with it.

THAT is being an idiot.

Craig said...

Food stamps and unemployment insurance don't allow people to buy much, And if they do it only allows to buy low-margin products or commodity products that don't generate jobs, b/c they are not related to innovation.

Frog, Does context mean anything to you? The context is how, in a recession, can govt. get the biggest bang for their buck. Republicans, libertarians will say tax cuts and deregulation, conveniently forgetting that's what drove the economy into the ditch and has lead to a collapsing middle class.

Rational people will recognize the problem is a lack of demand in the marketplace, especially after 30 years of failed suppl side economics. So how do you get money moving into the economy the quickest. The analysis showed that getting money to the people who will spend it right away is the most effective.

No one, Pelosi, Zandi, or I, was talking about food stamps being the prime mover in an economy. A steady job with a livable wage is the best thing for the economy. Sadly, today's Repub. party is bought and paid for by multi-national corporations whose sole, and soul-less, obligation to labor is to get it as cheap as they possibly can for short term gain. Fortunately for them there are credulous rubes like you who buy their 'Laffer Curve' magic and supply side voodoo. Keep advocating against your own best interests, Frog and gang who couldn't think straight. It's just sad the country's going down with you.

Craig said...

I'm not confusing. I was saying in general profit leads to a higher quality product.

Higher profits in the health ins. industry do nothing for better patient care. Higher quality, more profit in private health ins. is being more efficient at not paying claims. Look up "medical loss ratio". It's the number Wall Street looks at to determine the value of investments in private health ins. co.s. It's the % of money paid in claims from money collected in premiums. The lower the better.

For profit ins. cos. have a responsibility to make profits for their shareholders. They do it at the expense of those they can deny coverage to. It's a sick and immoral system.

You're right, their profit margins are not huge, more like 4%-8%(I said they were doing "OK", bonehead), but they are a secure and steady investment because they can be manipulated easily. At least they could before health ins. reform. They are now required to go no lower than 80% MLR.

Craig said...

You read an ABC news feed and you run with it.

THAT is being an idiot.


Maybe Fox or WND or beamish's electrician blogger would be more credible sources to you but can you credibly refute the numbers? Or are you just going to pull more conditions from your ass that I have failed to meet.

beamish said...

Craig,

Why don't you skip the nonsense and answer why it's necessary for the federal government to usurp one-sixth of the national GDP to provide health insurance to a mere40 million Americans?

But since finding the necessity for it is hard to do and impossible to defend, how about tackling the idea that Obamacare's massive spending increases will somehow reduce the deficit in 10 years?

Obama thinks a tornado in Kansas killed 10,000 people and that there's 57 states in the United States, so his troubles with math are understandable. What's your excuse?

beamish said...

Why are health insurance providers like Blue Cross / Blue Shield raising their rates "to pay for rising medical costs and expenses associated with new federal insurance regulations?"

Z said...

I just saw this already:
"And for a coming vote seeking to repeal the health care overhaul, the first major initiative of the new Congress, lawmakers won't be allowed to propose changes to the legislation despite Republican promises to end such heavy-handed tactics from the days of Democratic control."
Exactly what I'd predicted in my comments above...seems like the media (the AP in this case) didn't watch the same proceedings I watched. Remember I said they'd make it look like THE REPEAL slams the door on ALL parts of the healthcare bill....!! One hour later, the AP's lying already. 'Proposed changes' to a bill that says REPEAL THIS BILL and which Republicans have CLEARLY SAID IN PUBLIC will be built again once people calm down, don't buy 2000 pages of crap nobody's read, and start rebuilding a bill. wow


Beamish, Obama also doesn't know the country's motto and can't read "creator" clearly written in the constitution. The media never even covered the letter members of Congress rightly addressed to Obama asking him to, when quoting from the Constitution, please get it right. I tried to lift it from various Conservative news sites which DO cover ALL the news, but it was unliftable, very odd indeed...all copying was impossible. astonishing

beamish said...

Back to the subject at hand, raising the debt ceiling:

It is not "fiscally conservative" to default on debt. It's an ugly situation, but it has to be done. The alternative is worse than not doing so.

However, the short-term rhetorical victory this gives Democrats - a raised debt ceiling is an extension of their license to keep spending more - can be neutralized by Republicans refusing to spend more, and cutting existing spending.

The new Republican-controlled House does have the option of allowing Democrats to spend the government into bankruptcy, but I don't think the post-mortem "I told you so's" will be worth not fighting for realistic fiscal restraint.

Z said...

Beamish, I got my letter (and 38.2% increase) from my company, along with "..We expect to face similar projected increases in the coming year." wait for it.

oh, it also includes "...rates reflect a combination of what we pay for health care and THE FACT THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING INCREASINGLY EXPENSIVE CARE." I guess those 'more people' have the same trust in government care that we do.

beamish said...

You're "lucky" Z. I've seen notices that Blue Shield in California is raising their rates upward of 57%. This is the net effect of the "affordable health care" law.

I'm one of the 40 million Americans that does not have (and, BTW, does not want) health insurance. It will be cheaper for me to obtain free health care in prison for not paying fines assessed for not buying health insurance under Obamacare. In the meantime, I'll stick will herbal and homeopathic medical remedies that have worked for over 10,000 years. Big Pharma gets no love from me.

That is, if I don't die in the shootout with the federal agents that get stuck with trying to enforce that crap.

Z said...

Beamish, when you're paying more than $200 more a month, I won't tell you you're 'lucky'.
I thank GOD we had it thought..especially when Mr. Z was so sick.

Craig said...

Why don't you skip the nonsense and answer why it's necessary for the federal government to usurp one-sixth of the national GDP to provide health insurance to a mere40 million Americans?

I'll start with your premise, that we spend 1/6th of GDP on health care. The rest of the industrialized world, OECD nations, spend about 1/10th of their GDP and get better outcomes. They have more Docs per capita, longer life spans, lower infant mortality rates and greater customer satisfaction. To name a few indicators.

In 1980, we spent about 8.8% of GDP. Ins. co.s hadn't figured out yet what a cash cow health ins. could be and most, maybe all, health care ins. was non-profit.

Your figure of 40M is out dated. It's now 50.7M. That does not include the under insured. A study from Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University in 2007 found that 60% of all bankruptcies were due to medical bills. 3/4 of those were people with health ins. Medical bankruptcy is unheard of in countries with universal care.

The govt. is not usurping health care in the U.S. This wasn't really health care reform, although there are mechanisms to save on HC costs, it's insurance reform. Private ins. cos. will still be in control, unfortunately.

beamish said...

I knew you couldn't, and wouldn't answer the question, Craig.

Z said...

oh, sure, Craig...as soon as people see whatever crap the Government plans cost, they're going to be flocking to the better companies who are private and know what they're doing..and we can "keep our old plan"...problem is, nobody will be buying it.
Picture a small businessman "Let's see....the gov't plan is $200 a month, BLue Sheild is better but that's $400 a month."
how long do YOU think Blue Shield will stay open?

It's silly to compare Europe with us....they've been like they are for YEARS...and, by the way, you can't believe the media and our schools' insistence that German healthcare is FREE!!! That's the stupidest, lyingest canard going but it gets the lefties in all hopped up with unrealistic hope! man

Craig said...

But since finding the necessity for it is hard to do and impossible to defend, how about tackling the idea that Obamacare's massive spending increases will somehow reduce the deficit in 10 years?

You can take that up with the experts at CBO who just yesterday released a preliminary scoring of the stupid 'repeal bill', HR 2. It would add 230B to the debt in 10 years. At the time the bill was passed, CBO scored it to save over $1T the second decade.

There are a number of cost saving provisions in HIR. $650B from Medicare by taking over admin. from private ins. cos. for Medicare Part B. That's how much juice they skimmed off the top. Medcare's admin. costs are under 5% compared to, up to, 34% for private ins.

Another is streamlining medical records and paper work. Another is getting freeloaders, like yourself, to contribute to their own ins. Should you get really sick or have an accident, those of us with ins. and the tax payers are already picking up the tab. Those without ins. are more likely or unable to get early diagnosis or preventative care and require more costly care for advanced medical problems once they do get care. Fortunately, we don't tell sick and injured people without ins. to get screwed. At least. not yet.

Craig said...

Why are health insurance providers like Blue Cross / Blue Shield raising their rates "to pay for rising medical costs and expenses associated with new federal insurance regulations?"

I'm shocked the ins. co.s would use any excuse in the world to raise premiums. Do you really think premiums wouldn't rise if no reform was passed? Premiums went up 180% from 2000 to 2009, before the bill passed.

They don't say what percentage is due to rising costs and what % is due to the bill. Health care costs are a serious problem and I certainly don't have the answers. I do know hard choices will need to be made and peoples expectations will need to reflect reality.

Craig said...

I knew you couldn't, and wouldn't answer the question, Craig.

beamish, my last 2 comments were posted this morning, at the same time as my January 7, 2011 1:34 AM post. They disappeared between then and now. I did answer and I hope it doesn't vanish again.

Z,

I know universal health care isn't free. Can you provide some examples of the media and our schools saying it is?

BTW, "Creator" does not appear in the Constitution. You meant the "Declaration of Independence".

beamish said...

You can take that up with the experts at CBO who just yesterday released a preliminary scoring of the stupid 'repeal bill', HR 2. It would add 230B to the debt in 10 years. At the time the bill was passed, CBO scored it to save over $1T the second decade.

Yes, that's the delirious drooling Democrat talking point. Democrats have gone from last year saying there are no tax revenue increases included in Obamacare to this year saying repealing Obamacare will cause deeper budget deficits. They're not concerned with the contradiction because they realize only people incapable of rational thought vote for Democrats.

The CBO only scores what they are given. If they're given misleading figures, they'll come up with a misleading report.

Some of the garbage used in ciphering the nonsensical, paradoxical Democrat plan to SPEND MORE ON OBAMACARE "YET CUT DEFICITS" (?) includes:

● Leaving out the roughly $115 billion in discretionary spending needed to implement the bill,

● Counting the $70 billion in premiums for long-term care insurance (CLASS Act), but ignoring the unsustainable CLASS Act spending that starts after the first 10 years,

● Using over $50 billion in higher Social Security taxes to offset health spending,

● Leaving out entirely the cost of paying Medicare doctors,

● Pretending that over $450 billion in payment cuts to Medicare providers will be possible without changing in any real way the operation of Medicare,

● And planning to collect a tax on cadillac health insurance that the unions have already gutted and will not tolerate.

In short, as always, Democrats are giving you bullshit and asking you to tout it as tasty chocolate pudding.

But, when the CBO is asked to not double count Social Security and plug in actual figures rather than smoke and mirrors, they find something entirely different.

And, shocking as this may sound to a Democrat, increasing federal spending with no means to pay for it does in fact create more deficits.

Another is getting freeloaders, like yourself, to contribute to their own ins.

I'm not a member of a union that is exempt from Obamacare's taxing of medical benefits as income. How am I a freeloader?

Should you get really sick or have an accident, those of us with ins. and the tax payers are already picking up the tab.

If that were the case, then there's no need for universal health care, right?

I realize your leftism and your loyalty to the Democratic Party is incompatible with critical thinking skills, intellectual honesty, and a capacity for logic and rationality, but surely you must agree that the Democrats would appear far less stupid if they'd shut the hell up rather than parade their imbecility.

beamish said...

I reiterate, Craig, you couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't answer the question.

Bullshit removed, you're left with Nancy Pelosi's smile and nothing else.

Craig said...

Douglas Holz-Eakin, Paul Ryan and Heritage can count on credulous boobs to dutifully and uncritically cut and paste any bull they can make up. So, point by point.

● Leaving out the roughly $115 billion in discretionary spending needed to implement the bill,

From page 11 of the original CBO report;

CBO expects that the cost to the Internal Revenue Service of
implementing the eligibility determination, documentation, and
verification processes for premium and cost sharing subsidies would
probably be between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years.

CBO expects that the costs to the Department of Health and Human
Services (especially the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services) and the Office of Personnel Management of implementing
the changes in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health
Insurance Program, as well as certain reforms to the private
insurance market, would probably be at least $5 billion to $10 billion
over 10 years.


They didn't leave it out. It will cost between $10B and $20B. I can't find any justification for the $115B claim. It's a lie, pulled from Holz-Eakin's ass.

Craig said...

● And planning to collect a tax on cadillac health insurance that the unions have already gutted and will not tolerate.

Unions got a temporary exemption based on the fact that contracts often extend over several years. The exemption would have allowed them to restructure their health plans when contracts expired. Unions take benefits in lieu of higher compensation.

Now for the dishonest part of "your" bullet point. The final bill gave the same temporary exemption to non-union "cadillac plan" holders, too. Everyone got the exemption.

Who's lapping up bullshit? If you can refute anything I've just told you, I'm always willing to be corrected. I mean credible refutation, not a link to some opinion blog.

If that were the case, then there's no need for universal health care, right?

My next sentence addresses that.

Those without ins. are more likely or unable to get early diagnosis or preventative care and require more costly care for advanced medical problems once they do get care.

Or they end up on public assistance or, (this is your wet dream)they die.

Craig said...

● Counting the $70 billion in premiums for long-term care insurance (CLASS Act), but ignoring the unsustainable CLASS Act spending that starts after the first 10 years,

CLASS is a voluntary insurance program. There is no basis for the "unsustainable spending" claim. The ins. program is administered by HHS and, like any ins. policy, benefits and premiums can be adjusted to keep it solvent. Spending has been estimated. It's hard to score since it is voluntary and contingent on how many people choose to participate. Again, no credible explanation for the claim of "unsustainable spending". Here is what CBO actually said.

● Using over $50 billion in higher Social Security taxes to offset health spending,

Um, Repubs just negotiated a 2% cut in payroll taxes. WTF?

● Leaving out entirely the cost of paying Medicare doctors,

This is just plain nuts. The "doc fix" is something that has to be passed every year because in 1997, the Republican Congress created a payment formula meant to govern Medicare called the Sustainable Growth Rate. The formula was wrong, Congress (Rep. & Dem.) have not been willing to enact a permanent fix, it'll be expensive, so they do it year to year in little bites. There would be a separate "doc fix" vote whether or not the bill passed. The CBO didn't include it in the scoring because IT WASN'T IN THE DAMN BILL.

Craig said...

Pretending that over $450 billion in payment cuts to Medicare providers will be possible without changing in any real way the operation of Medicare,

The majority comes out of Medicare Advantage and is the bloated administrative costs being charged by private ins. co.s. It was the Repubs who made sure their buddies in the ins. industry got some sugar from Medicare. Here's what the Medicare Trustee Report says about those horrible cuts;

The Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is projected to remain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than reported in 2009 thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, according to the Medicare Board of Trustees 2010 annual report, which was released today. In addition, the HI long-range actuarial deficit has been reduced to 0.66 percent of taxable payroll, or one-sixth of its projected amount before enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Although HI costs are estimated to continue to exceed trust fund income for the next few years, as they have since 2008, the savings under the new health reform act are expected to result in fund surpluses during 2014-22.

(These comments are getting out of order due vanishing posts, again)

beamish said...

Those without ins. are more likely or unable to get early diagnosis or preventative care and require more costly care for advanced medical problems once they do get care.

Or they end up on public assistance or, (this is your wet dream)they die.


And so, they either pay for care themselves, or if they can't pay for care, get public assistance to pay for it.

And so we need universal health care why?

Is current public assistance at the tax payer's expense denying coverage to people who can't afford health care insurance at the same time they're already providing public assistance at the tax payer's expense to people who can't afford health care?

Get back to me when you're familiar with your subject matter and decide which guess you want to stick with, idiot.

Craig said...

Get back to me when you're familiar with your subject matter and decide which guess you want to stick with, idiot.

You keep cutting and pasting demonstrable lies, genius.

I'm enjoying the battle of "wits" you're having with freethinke. The crazies are turning on each other.

beamish said...

You need to familiarize yourself with the subject at hand, Craig, so you're not caught in the loopy cognitive dissonance of explaining how there's temporary exemptions to tax increases in a bill that allegedly has no tax increases in it at all.

Rather than hurt yourself searching for the non-existent logic in Democrat Obamacare talking points, why don't you explain the degree of difference between your "crazee" leftism and that of Ron Paul's / FeebThinky's pro-al Qaeda leftism?

Craig said...

in a bill that allegedly has no tax increases in it at all.

Perhaps you can enlighten me. I don't remember anyone saying there wouldn't be tax increases. I know they wanted to make it 'revenue neutral', which is something quite different.

beamish said...

one example:

“In addition, as the President promised, this bill does not raise taxes on the middle class.” (Sen. Baucus, Floor Remarks, 12/9/09)

But it does.

Craig said...

beamish, Looks like you might have finally gotten one right. Of course the tax will kick in after he leaves office. A Public Option would fix this, I think.

Z, has asked me to go away so I will. It's been fun. See you in St. Louie.

Anonymous said...

Craig said:

I'm enjoying the battle of "wits" you're having with freethinke. The crazies are turning on each other.

What battle, Craig? I've made only one post on this thread that I can see.

I do wish we'd make it a point to stop calling each other names. It's so childish. It's okay to imply that someone is a lunatic or a moron, but it just isn't good etiquette to state it directly. Better to prove our assertions with facts or at least lend them greater credibility with sober analysis, don't you think?

~ FreeThinke