It's the economy, Stupid!

[Yonivore]

What part you don't understand? Government will issue vouchers for a set amount, and if it pays for govt medicare good, if it doesn't seniors pony up the difference. It's a voucher program. There's no option NOT to receive a voucher.

55 and older untouched. This already beats the Obama plan.

And, if you read it closely, it's only if government Medicare costs more than a private vendor that seniors, wanting to stay on Medicare, have to pony up the difference.

[Yonivore]

Or a reduction of receipts without a similar reduction in spending. It doesn't have to be 'out of control'.

But, the tax cuts have always resulted in increased receipts.

All that said, both teams love themselves bigger and bigger government.

That said, tax cuts aren't to blame.

[ElNono]

55 and older untouched. This already beats the Obama plan.

lol goalpost move

And 'untouched' means with the same cuts as ACA. Same while ing up the younger generations. I'm not '55 and older', so I really don't give a if that stays the same or not.

[Yonivore]

lol goalpost move

No, I added a paragraph. No goalpost was moved. Seniors can stay on the current plan without any increase cost so long as the current plan is less expensive than a private plan.

And 'untouched' means with the same cuts as ACA.

A repeal of Obamacare will put the $716 billion back.

Same while ing up the younger generations. I'm not '55 and older', so I really don't give a if that stays the same or not.

I'm just below 55, and I would prefer the voucher plan. , it beats the Obama plan of just driving it into the ground with nothing being available when I'm ready to retire.

[ElNono]

But, the tax cuts have always resulted in increased receipts.

Certain tax hikes, like Clinton's, have too. So it isn't a property of just 'cuts'.

The question is: have the cuts spurred the growth necessary to outpace the rates pre-cut? And the answer to that in every instance is NO.

That said, tax cuts aren't to blame.

Tax cuts financed strictly by debt are simply irresponsible and another form of welfare.

[Yonivore]

Certain tax hikes, like Clinton's, have too. So it isn't a property of just 'cuts'.

Not at the same rate.

The question is: have the cuts spurred the growth necessary to outpace the rates pre-cut? And the answer to that in every instance is NO.

Well, if government spends it all, that'll things up.

Tax cuts financed strictly by debt are simply irresponsible and another form of welfare.

Tax cuts resulting in an increase in revenue pay for themselves, it's the spending that's being paid for by debt.

[ElNono]

No, I added a paragraph. No goalpost was moved. Seniors can stay on the current plan without any increase cost so long as the current plan is less expensive than a private plan.

So the increased healthcare costs is shifted to seniors. It's a terrible plan and it doesn't address cost at all. Barry's ACA is crap, but it's 100x better than that .

A repeal of Obamacare will put the $716 billion back.

But under Ryan's plan those $716 billion go away again.

I'm just below 55, and I would prefer the voucher plan.

I don't. At all. I don't think ACA is the solution either, but it can be tweaked.
Anything that could mean I have to keep forking off money past 65+ is a no go.

[ElNono]

Not at the same rate.

No, as I've shown, cuts didn't prop the economy as expected and thus reduced the growth rate. The country was actually growing faster with the old, higher tax rates.

Well, if government spends it all, that'll things up.

Well, that's what both (D) and (R) do...

Tax cuts resulting in an increase in revenue pay for themselves, it's the spending that's being paid for by debt.

As explained, the only "pay for themselves" if the revenue increase outpaces the the revenue growth pre-cuts. In the case of the Bush cuts, that was not the case.

[CGD]

i hear ya. just when they were ready to trickle down........

lol