Marketwatch: Obama spending binge never happened

[Winehole23]

Does not reflect borrowing or Fed activities, but I was surprised by this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------




Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.


Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.


The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.


When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41753)
[/URL]
http://articles.marketwatch.com/images/pixel.gif
Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.
If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.


After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.
In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).


By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!

[url]http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor/2 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41753)

[Winehole23]

http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2012/05/21/Photos/ME/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uuid=3666ead6-a384-11e1-827e-002128049ad6

[DarrinS]

this shit again?

[Winehole23]

do you detect some inaccuracy, Darrin?

[Winehole23]

do share, if you have.

[MannyIsGod]

this shit again?

:lol

You coming up with this attitude is hilarious. Whats wrong with the analysis?

[coyotes_geek]

Looks like W had everything pretty much where Obama wanted it.

[EVAY]

WOW!!
If these numbers are correct, (and I have no reason to doubt them), then why isn't the Democratic Party beating the drums about it?

Do you think they don't know? Can't figure out how to communicate it? Maybe they are afraid that if they bring it up the Republicans will counter that the numbers to date don't include the ACA expenditures.

But still..

Doesn't it strike you, looking at that graph of spending increases going bck to Reagan), that the drumbeat of Republicans "Dems only know how to spend" is as much a mantra without substance as is "We're going to get attacked again if you elect a Democrat because they are soft on ____ism (Communism, Islamism, Al Quaedaism) etc. etc. etc.

But if the Dems can't convince the voters that the numbers are accurate, then they really aren't very good at their jobs, are they?

[MannyIsGod]

WOW!!
If these numbers are correct, (and I haven reason to doubt them), then why isn't the Democratic Party beating the drums about it?

Do you think they don't know? Can't figure out how to communicate it? Maybe they are afraid that if they bring it up the Republicans will counter that the numbers to date don't include the ACA expenditures.

But still..

Doesn't it strike you, looking at that graph of spending increases going bck to Reagan), that the drumbeat of Republicans "Dems only know how to spend" is as much a mantra without substance as is "We're going to get attacked again if you elect a Democrat because they are soft on ____ism (Communism, Islamism, Al Quasedaism) etc. etc. etc.

But if the Dems can't convince the voters that the numbers are accurate, then they really aren't very good at their jobs, are they?

Its a losing proposition to try to make this argument, IMO. Look at that graph and then look at the democrats on it. Bush passed huge expansions in government spending and yet the GOP is always looked upon as the fiscally conservative party.

Its pretty much a waste of resources to try to make the public do a 180 on what they think is the case.

[boutons_deux]

Darrin believes all the LIES the Repug and right-wing hate media tell him.

In larger context, the Obama economy the Repugs are blaming him far is a

REPUG DREAM ECONOMY:

lower govt spending

low tax income from (esp 1%) Human- and esp Corporate-Americans.

GDP growing (slowly) with all those deservedly unemployed, lazy, criminal people suffering the way God wants them to suffer.

The corps are wallowing in $2T+ in cash.

Elect Repugs to take over the Other Two Branches, and their DREAM will become even more real. :lol

[DarrinS]

Didn't our resident twoofer post this same bogus analysis a few months ago?

Nbadan
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5907605#post5907605


Since Winehole is our resident archive dweller and bumper, I'm surprised he overlooked this.



Nbadan, boutons, and winehole -- the three amigos

[Winehole23]

so, what's wrong with the spending analysis? besides that posters you dislike have referenced it.

[Winehole23]

(who btw yields to no one in the area of scorn heaped on boutons and Nbadan)

[DarrinS]

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

[Winehole23]

that says basically the same thing, Darrin. spending levels are high, but are growing at a low level.

I appreciate your support.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, surprise, surprise. Darrin didn't read his thread although he does get a gold star for use of the search function

[EVAY]

Its a losing proposition to try to make this argument, IMO. Look at that graph and then look at the democrats on it. Bush passed huge expansions in government spending and yet the GOP is always looked upon as the fiscally conservative party.

Its pretty much a waste of resources to try to make the public do a 180 on what they think is the case.

Well, my point was that in looking at that graph, government spending growth
was slower under all the Democrats than the Republicans...why would they concede that argument?

I know you are saying that Americans minds are made up about this and nothing will change it, but why wouldn't they try?

Independents like me who are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian really get impressed by things like this. I just think that they need some help with communicating things to people...the Republicans appear to be much better at things like that the Dems.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, my point was that in looking at that graph, government spending growth
was slower under all the Democrats than the Republicans...why would they concede that argument?

I know you are saying that Americans minds are made up about this and nothing will change it, but why wouldn't they try?

Independents like me who are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian really get impressed by things like this. I just think that they need some help with communicating things to people...the Republicans appear to be much better at things like that the Dems.

Becasue trying takes a lot of time and money. Once that time and money is spent, you can't get it back. There's a huge amount of thought that goes into where to spend campaign finances and much like any other form of advertising they've got it down to a science that gets amazing results.

[ElNono]

lol "We haven't run the numbers yet"

[SnakeBoy]

that says basically the same thing, Darrin. spending levels are high, but are growing at a low level.


Uh...if Bush was on a spending binge (which he was) and Obama has moderately increased that spending level then...

[Winehole23]

Well, surprise, surprise. Darrin didn't read his thread although he does get a gold star for use of the search functionDarrin yields to no one in the area of singeing his own beard.

[Winehole23]

Uh...if Bush was on a spending binge (which he was) and Obama has moderately increased that spending level then...true

[Winehole23]

Obama (and the US Congress) slowed the train down a little in the area of spending. the blown up deficit is mainly due to revenue shortfall.

[Winehole23]

for which Obama deserves plenty blame too

[TeyshaBlue]

Other aspects of the study strike me:
Bush authored the auto bailout, yet that lies solely at the feet of Obama.
Same for the bank bailout.
Same for the 5.8% Social Security bump.

[Winehole23]

(Bush/Obama tax cuts)

[TeyshaBlue]

Negative and positive attributes of the above are predictably plastic.:lol

[Winehole23]

yep

[SnakeBoy]

Other aspects of the study strike me:
Bush authored the auto bailout, yet that lies solely at the feet of Obama.
Same for the bank bailout.
Same for the 5.8% Social Security bump.

What else should happen when Obama takes ownership of Bush's policies. It's funny to me to hear democrats still refer to the Bush tax cuts when really they should be called the Obama tax cuts now.

[Winehole23]

I absolutely agree with that, SnakeBoy.

[TeyshaBlue]

I absolutely agree with that, SnakeBoy.

The VWRC would like to have a word with both of you boys.

[Winehole23]

posting this thread probably DQs me

[Winehole23]

Titans of the ST right leave Darrin to twist in the wind . . .

[Winehole23]

. . .very typical

[Wild Cobra]

Titans of the ST right leave Darrin to twist in the wind . . .
Why bother with the stupid obvious stuff you post? Do you know what the asterisk means on your 2nd posting?

[Winehole23]

so, you got nothing

[Winehole23]

also, the thread appears to be asterisk free. were you dropping the asterisk?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What happened to darrins in this thread?

Lol

[Winehole23]

probably thinks he won

[Nbadan]

In his first term, Obama, like Clinton, has been a pro-business centrist...that's why he consistently disappoints progressives and liberals who champion ideas such as single-payer, wall street reform and regulation, close the business tax loopholes, close Guantanamo, the middle class tax cut, more stimulus...

Under Obama, the economy has grown by ~4 millions private sector jobs while the public sector has contracted, both at the state and FED level....the Bush tax cuts. which costs trillions more to date only created ~1 million private sector jobs when Dubya left office...

[mercos]

I agree, Nbadan, and yet the conservative media would have you believe he is the most liberal president we ever had. If you slapped an R by his name, Obama would hailed as the second coming of Ronald Reagan by those on the right.

[Nbadan]

If you slapped an R by his name, Obama would hailed as the second coming of Ronald Reagan by those on the right.

Trouble is, the GOP has drifted so far to the right I don't think Reagan would have been conservative enough...remember he ran up the debt as a percentage of GDP...compare that to the 2012 version, Paul Ryan, who favors austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich..

[Winehole23]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/539373_470412556310397_1303904642_n.jpg

[Jacob1983]

How much money has Obama wasted bombing the shit out of people in the Middle Eastern with drone attacks? Oh snap! Don't mention to that to a liberal or an Obama supporter because it will Bush's fault.

[Winehole23]

who are you talking about? apart from a few forum zanies, you'll hardly find anyone more anti-Obama than me. Not only have I criticized him from the get go, I criticized him beforehand. Obama showed his ass on the telecom immunization shortly before the election.

Obama is an establishmentarian par excellence, and I don't mean that in a good way.

[Winehole23]

people seem to forget I criticized the ACA start to finish, and still do.

[Winehole23]

on civil liberties Obama's record is shit

[Winehole23]

even worse than his horrible predecessor in certain ways

[Winehole23]

though GWB did really pioneer the style of political brazenness that Obama is perfecting now

[Winehole23]

the Dems are hopelessly addled and neurotic, the GOP, by dint of emulating crazy for a long time, is starting to resemble it. perhaps that will be an advantage at the polls in November.

[Jacob1983]

I wasn't calling out anyone on here about it. I was mainly speaking about it in general. Obama supporters and lovers are probably more delusional than Bush supporters and lovers. Trust me, I was a Bush supporter and I bought into the propaganda but I eventually woke the fuck up and started to see the lies.

Obama supporters think Obama is perfect and any failures and wrong doings during his presidency are not his fault. They are Bush's fault. So when Obama orders a drone attack that kills 100 Middle Eastern kids and cripples/paralyzes another 20 Middle Easterners, it's Bush's fault.

[Winehole23]

for the GOP. I mean

[Winehole23]

Obama supporters think Obama is perfect and any failures and wrong doings during his presidency are not his fault.apart from three or four forum zanies, you'd be hard pressed to identify anyone on this board with that attitude.

The Obama cult theme is very 2008, Just sayin . . .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wasn't calling out anyone on here about it. I was mainly speaking about it in general. Obama supporters and lovers are probably more delusional than Bush supporters and lovers. Trust me, I was a Bush supporter and I bought into the propaganda but I eventually woke the fuck up and started to see the lies.

Obama supporters think Obama is perfect and any failures and wrong doings during his presidency are not his fault. They are Bush's fault. So when Obama orders a drone attack that kills 100 Middle Eastern kids and cripples/paralyzes another 20 Middle Easterners, it's Bush's fault.

the only people that are delusional are those that think that things will change either way the election goes. the establishment has nothing to do with the electorate and the establishment controls both parties.

[Winehole23]

these mythical Obama worshippers you speak of hardly ever post here. boutons and Nbadan are practically the only ones.

[boutons_deux]

these mythical Obama worshippers you speak of hardly ever post here. boutons and Nbadan are practically the only ones.

You FUCKING Lie

I support Obama and Dems not by praising them but by attacking the Repugs and right wingers here. the Dems aren't good, but they are easily better than the Repugs.

[Winehole23]

clearly, Obama's your guy

[boutons_deux]

You Lie

Obama, in 2008 and 2012, is the guy to keep the Repugs out of the Exec.

After 2001 - 2008, who has any Repug evidence that indicates that Gecko and the Repugs in 2012 will improve USA?

[TeyshaBlue]

Lol simpleton

[boutons_deux]

Lol simpleton

TB :lol

always bringing the devastating goods, GFY

[spursncowboys]

http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2012/05/21/Photos/ME/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uuid=3666ead6-a384-11e1-827e-002128049ad6


3 years without a budget is obama's fault or isnt?

Real easy to cut spending on defense and still have military in war. Congrats. Glad all the beaurocrats get guaranteed pay increases.

[scott]

3 years without a budget is obama's fault or isnt?



It's the Senate's fault, tbh. That includes D's and R's.

[Wild Cobra]

It's the Senate's fault, tbh. That includes D's and R's.
No.

It's the voters fault for making the politicians fear for the next election if the do something that makes sense.

We have too many stupid voters.

[scott]

We have too many stupid voters.

You eloquently make this point every time you post.

[Yonivore]

It's the Senate's fault, tbh. That includes D's and R's.
Right now, the Senate seems to be comprised of one person; Harry Reid.

[mercos]

A record number of filibusters by your party suggests otherwise, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

A record number of filibusters by your party suggests otherwise, Yoni.
How many budgets have Republicans filibustered?

I haven't heard Democrats whining about filibusters in quite a while. When was the last one?

[CosmicCowboy]

You can't filibuster if bills never get to the floor.

[ElNono]

You eloquently make this point every time you post.

:lol

[Jacob1983]

Trust me, I know koolaid Obama supporters. I work with some of them and I have some neighbors that are still drinking the koolaid. I just wish I could get one of them to admit that their guy is just like Bush. That's all.

A lot of Obama haters think he's the fuckin anti-Christ or he is going to take their guns and Bibles away from them. If it's not that, then he is a socialist or a communist or an African or an atheist. I don't give a fuck about that stupid untrue shit. I think Obama sucks because he sucks and he is basically a clone of Bush. Obama is Bush's clone and Romney is Obama's clone. Wake the fuck up people.

Obama ain't taking away your guns, Bibles, or churches or freedom. He's too busy using drones to kill babies in the Middle East and overseeing America's nation buidling over there too. However, no one gives a shit or even notices.

[Winehole23]

the liberal nest of snakes at Forbes chimes in:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

[Winehole23]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/steve_clemons/assets_c/2012/10/Total%20Increase%20in%20debt%20to%20GDP%20overall-thumb-300x246-103309.jpg (http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/steve_clemons/assets_c/2012/10/Total%20Increase%20in%20debt%20to%20GDP%20overall-103309.php)

[Winehole23]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/steve_clemons/assets_c/2012/10/Debt%20to%20GDP%20per%20annum-thumb-300x233-103312.jpg (http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/steve_clemons/assets_c/2012/10/Debt%20to%20GDP%20per%20annum-103312.php)

[Winehole23]

Obama sticks out on debt creation for sure, but what's the pattern here?

[Wild Cobra]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/steve_clemons/assets_c/2012/10/Total%20Increase%20in%20debt%20to%20GDP%20overall-thumb-300x246-103309.jpg (http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/steve_clemons/assets_c/2012/10/Total%20Increase%20in%20debt%20to%20GDP%20overall-103309.php)
Please explain something to me.

If the debt went down under President Clinton, why did it go up?

[boutons_deux]

Please explain something to me.

If the debt went down under President Clinton, why did it go up?

Clinton reduced the national debt as percentage of GDP

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png

[Wild Cobra]

Clinton reduced the national debt as percentage of GDP

OK, I can accept that. I forgot about that method. Must be the long day I had.

[Agloco]

Soooo.....is normalizing to GDP a better indicator of our debt burden? Id be inclined to say yes.

[CosmicCowboy]

Debt to GDP is 102.4%

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/10/Q3%20Debt%20to%20GDP%202012.jpg

[boutons_deux]

the growth in federal debt is almost completely due to VRWC/Repug policies of "borrow and spend" going back to St Ronnie

[RandomGuy]

Please explain something to me.

If the debt went down under President Clinton, why did it go up?

(facepalm)

[RandomGuy]

this shit [that I really can't explain away] again?

Meh. Sorry, reality can be a tad inconvenient at times for people who live in bubbles.

[TeyshaBlue]

Soooo.....is normalizing to GDP a better indicator of our debt burden? Id be inclined to say yes.

I dunno. Tying a variable to another variable and expressing that relationship as our debt burden? Maybe. Expressing that relationship as our debt, no.

[DarrinS]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png

[boutons_deux]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png

Typical right-wing LIE: "Democrat-controlled" Congress = increase in national debt.

no mention of:

REPUG Medicare Part D,

REPUG Medicare Advantage,

2 REPUG bogus, botched wars,

REPUG tax cuts for the 1% and corporations.

Here's the HONEST reasons for the debt:


http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//5-10-11bud-f1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

[TeyshaBlue]

lol honest. This cbpp hit piece has been destroyed in print so many times that they've produced a new one. It looks just a little bit different. Of course, your confirmation bias feed didn't bring it to you attention. Maybe you can find it on moonbat.org

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol

If Barry is a spending fool, where do you think the huge increase in debt comes from?

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol

If Barry is a spending fool, where do you think the huge increase in debt comes from?

lol simpleton. I simply posted to mock your idiotic "analysis", I didnt support the premise that Obama is a spend freak. That's a result of your inability to think critically. Work on that, son.

lol deflection.

[boutons_deux]

lol simpleton. I simply posted to mock your idiotic "analysis", I didnt support the premise that Obama is a spend freak. That's a result of your inability to think critically. Work on that, son.

lol deflection.

TB :lol

Come on, dickless, give your best shot at YOUR facts, links, etc.

YOUR PEOPLE are LYING that the 23 million unemployed, the ballooning deficit and debt, Benghazi, etc, etc are exclusively, personally Barry's fault. YOU and YOUR PEOPLE have nothing but LIES and SLANDER. Gecko personally has the ethics and integrity of drug addict whore.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ my people. You don't have a clue who "my people" are outside of what skitters around in your your simplistic, jingoistic sensorium.

lol deflection.

[boutons_deux]

lol @ my people. You don't have a clue who "my people" are outside of what skitters around in your your simplistic, jingoistic sensorium.

lol deflection.

TB :lol

your standard non answer. come on dickless, woman up and show us your causes for the debt and deficit. :lol

[ElNono]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png

debt ceiling != debt. It's not like government AND debt didn't grow while the ceiling didn't.

[Winehole23]

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/why-we-have-debt

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol

your standard non answer. come on dickless, woman up and show us your causes for the debt and deficit. :lol

Start with WH's link. Get a grownup to read it to you, simpleton.

[boutons_deux]

McSweeney makes almost no mention of the $Ts in Repug tax cuts and in Repug military expenditures as contributors to debt and deficit. not serious a serious dude.

Medicare is a problem because the for-profit industry puts profits way above health care delivery.

As always, the shittiest possible product for highest possible price. The problem is not fixable due to the power of the health care industry to purchase politicians super cheap.

Medicare for all, aka hard-core public insurance option, and govt-salaried health care providers and facilities (VA for all) is the only answer. health care as a non-profit public utility in competition with the for-profit health-care gougers.

Here's Krugman trashing the Gecko/Ryan plan to destroy Medicaid

Medicaid on the Ballot


"For those who get coverage through the program, Medicaid is a much-needed form of financial aid. It is also, quite literally, a lifesaver. Mr. Romney has said that a lack of health insurance doesn't kill people in America; oh yes, it does, and states that expand Medicaid coverage show striking drops in mortality.

So Medicaid does a vast amount of good. But at what cost? There's a widespread perception, gleefully fed by right-wing politicians and propagandists, that Medicaid has "runaway" costs. But the truth is just the opposite. While costs grew rapidly in 2009-10, as a depressed economy made more Americans eligible for the program, the longer-term reality is that Medicaid is significantly better at controlling costs than the rest of our health care system.

How much better? According to the best available estimates, the average cost of health care for adult Medicaid recipients is about 20 percent less than it would be if they had private insurance. The gap for children is even larger.
And the gap has been widening over time: Medicaid costs have consistently risen a bit less rapidly than Medicare costs, and much less rapidly than premiums on private insurance.

How does Medicaid achieve these lower costs? Partly by having much lower administrative costs than private insurers. It's always worth remembering that when it comes to health care, it's the private sector, not government programs, that suffers from stifling, costly bureaucracy.

Also, Medicaid is much more effective at bargaining with the medical-industrial complex.

Consider, for example, drug prices. Last year a government study compared the prices that Medicaid paid for brand-name drugs with those paid by Medicare Part D - also a government program, but one run through private insurance companies, and explicitly forbidden from using its power in the market to bargain for lower prices. The conclusion: Medicaid pays almost a third less on average. That's a lot of money.

Is Medicaid perfect? Of course not. Most notably, the hard bargain it drives with health providers means that quite a few doctors are reluctant to see Medicaid patients. Yet given the problems facing American health care - sharply rising costs and declining private-sector coverage - Medicaid has to be regarded as a highly successful program. It provides good if not great coverage to tens of millions of people who would otherwise be left out in the cold, and as I said, it does much right to keep costs down. "

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=989761&f=28&sub=Columnist

[TeyshaBlue]

lol krugman. lol deflection

McSweeney identified elements that the cbpp literally chose not to include in their enlightened analysis. The cbpp analysis is shit. Enjoy the delicious sauce.

[Agloco]

I dunno. Tying a variable to another variable and expressing that relationship as our debt burden? Maybe. Expressing that relationship as our debt, no.

Agreed. I wasn't making the comment within the context of this thread. I was kinda thinking on the keyboard. :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

.

[boutons_deux]

lol krugman. lol deflection

McSweeney identified elements that the cbpp literally chose not to include in their enlightened analysis. The cbpp analysis is shit. Enjoy the delicious sauce.

TB :lol

the deficit didn't TRIPLE under dubya and the Repugs due to growth in Medicare. McSweeney's a right-wing fool, a shill for cutting the safety net.

CBPP shows all the Repug policy decisions, including the economic crash from VRWC policies of deregulated finance and UNREGULATED deriviatives, exploded the deficit, NOT Medicare (except the additional UNFUNDED REGIUG Medicare expansions like Medicare Advantage (12% more expensive than govt Medicare) and Medicare Part D).

Goddam, you're dumb as shit.

[TeyshaBlue]

Since you can't be bothered to examine the underlying data, it's not surprising that you latch on to a piece of moonbat analysis like this. As a simple exercise, look at the total spending 4 Medicaid Medicare and discretionary spending. What's the relationship 2 the cherry picked data from moonbat.org? I'm sure you can't answer this question because if you did you would understand what a piece of garbage that moonbat analysis is. since you've shown a complete and profound inability to think critically, nobody take you serious on this BBS. posting this hit piece and doubling down on it without even a cursory examination of the data, much less the revised chart , shows us exactly what you are. A sad, no content shill for the moonbats at the extreme left fringe.
Now post a smiley and go back to the oblivious comfort of your confirmation bias RSS feed.
Fucking coward.

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol

trash talking use of RSS :lol

ignoring totally the drop in govt revenues, at all levels, due to Repug policy decisions to pimp for cutting for-profit-driven increases in Medicare/Medicaid :lol

you're fucking shill for the sociopathic 1%

[Winehole23]

you're fucking shill for the sociopathic 1%your counsel of continual despair and disparagement of all resistance as futile makes you their biggest shill, I'd say.

[TeyshaBlue]

you're fucking shill for the sociopathic 1%

Prove it, coward.

[clambake]

Prove it, coward.

don't do it, bou! look at his avatar. this dude is fucking everywhere!

[boutons_deux]

taxpayer dollars REDISTRIBUTED to for-profit corps and their investors.

OPINION: Who wins with Medicare Advantage?Because of Uncle Sam’s generosity, insurers allocate much of their marketing budgets to attract seniors. That strategy has paid off. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans increased from 5.3 million in 2004 to a 13.1 million this year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s about 27 percent of the total number of Medicare-eligible Americans.

The first two insurers to report earnings this month — Unitedhealth and Aetna—had combined profits during the third quarter (July, August and September) of more than $3.1 billion, up from $2.6 billion in the same months last year. This despite the fact that the companies reported a decline of more than 210,000 people in their commercial risk-based health plans for individuals and small businesses. That loss was more than made up by the nearly 450,000 people they added to their Medicare Advantage rolls.
This is not a new trend. Insurers for years have been jacking up the premiums of the health plans they offer to individuals and small businesses far more than many of them can afford, which explains why many of them have dropped coverage, swelling the ranks of the uninsured. While they’ve been purging customers under the age of 65, they’ve been competing vigorously for the seniors they want to enroll.

And why wouldn’t they? According to a recent analysis by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), which advocates for a single payer system, the federal government has overpaid private insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program and its predecessors more than $282 billion over the past 27 years.



http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/29/11644/opinion-who-wins-medicare-advantage

The for-profit health care system is bleeding, over-charging, gouging Americans out of $Ts. And Gecko/Ryan turn Medicare over to the for-profit corps.

[Winehole23]

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Federal-Outlays-Per-Capita-580_1.jpg (http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Federal-Outlays-Per-Capita-1000.jpg)

[Winehole23]

Government debt is projected to reach 90 percent of the US gross domestic product by 2022, if not sooner. Economists have identified that level of debt as counterproductive, yet this sad state of affairs is the result of an increasing and bipartisan propensity to spend. During the past 30 years a worrying trend has emerged: high levels of spending under Republican administrations have become institutionalized in Democratic ones.http://mercatus.org/publication/high-levels-government-spending-become-status-quo