Bought the Limbaugh Kool-Aid, have you?
McCain is far more conservative than you give him credit for, and a -load more than Obama.
McCain will NOT nationalize Healthcare. If you are for "smaller government" as you claim, this issue ALONE would preclude you doing anything other than vote AGAINST Obama. THAT piece of legislation will grow the govt. more than Medicaire and Medicaid combined - it will push govt. spending nearly to WWII levels!
That doesn't even touch the Supreme Court.
Get a ing clue, and stop listening to the idiots on talk radio.
The country has always spent big $$$$ on defense; right now it continues at relatively low (at least relative to post-isolationism) levels.
What has changed?
Social Programs. They have grown MORE than defense during the Bush years.
It's the war! It's the war! Bull .
Learn the facts; it's the en lements.
A link provided by another poster - do some studying; learn something.
Government Spending in the U.S.
Where was Johnny Mac when GWB was expanding Medicare a couple years back?
That's what concerns me the most. The GOP is good at putting up defenses against broad attempts at nationalizing 15% of our economy, but weak when it comes to stopping the incremental steps. , they're the ones pushing that through these days.
The drug lobby pushed for, and got, what it wanted with Medicare; no populist, grassroots push got that through. Big Pharma did. Paid off the Dems, paid off the Republicans, got what it wanted.
No such group exists to lobby for national healthcare; in fact most corps: Insurance, Pharma, Docs, etc...DON"T want it. Obama, however, looks to be a true believer in big govt. You vote for him; he's gonna push that.
McCain MUST understand the fine line he walks with his base; if he governs left in a first term; he won't even have a shot at runnig for a second; he'll get drummed out in the primaries. IF he gets in, he'll owe it to the Conservatives, not the liberals.
That said, that link that was posted to govt. expenditures shows in no uncerrtain terms that government spending, as a % of GNP has grown during Republican administrations (dramatically during Reagan). The only time it shrank? Clinton's time in office - and of course Truman after WWII. The big difference? Republican congress - with Gingrich (a true believer) at the helm, frankly.
Maybe that's the secret, actually. Let Obama have it, give the Dems control of everything for two years; count on the Republican Senators to keep things somewhat in check; then go for a switch in seats in '10, to get the REAL power back.
Im waiting till we get to the general election. From their I'll take a good hard look at each canidate and decide from there. I will say if Hillary gets the democratic nomination I will NOT vote for her.
I like McCain and Barack as the canidates. From there on it will be their job to win me over.
Sure, congressional conservative Republicans can go back to being fiscal conservatives with a Demo in the White House. If it's McCain with a Democratic controlled Congress then I think we see a reversion to the 80s, with McCain garnering support for increases in military expenditures by accepting whatever new domestic spending the Demos want to push through all the while no real reform of the en lement programs occurs. Does McCain have the stones to veto an increase in tax rates?
Let's think this through...payroll tax rate increases won't happen. Meaningful benefit cuts and/or restructuring (means testing) won't happen. If anything, benefits will be increased as seniors will no longer have their benefits reduced if they continue to work. What will happen? The maximum wage limits will increase for SS and Medicare. That will probably be a drop in the bucket, but it will forestall a need to cover en lement benefits with general federal tax collections a couple of years.
It's amusing, frankly. People bemoan the government's fiscal inep ude yet in the same breath want it to add new goodies for the masses. Maybe we can grow our way out of this. Maybe.
linkThe cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.
That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.
"We have a health care crisis. We don't have an en lement crisis," says David Certner, legislative policy director of the AARP, which represents seniors.
He says seniors shouldn't be blamed for the growing cost of government retirement programs.
The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government. States chipped in $27 billion more in 2007, mostly for nursing homes.
All three major senior programs � Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid � experienced dramatically escalating costs that outstripped inflation and the growth in the senior population.
Benefits per senior are soaring at a time when the senior population is not. The portion of the U.S. population ages 65 and older has been constant at 12% since 2000.
The senior boom, however, starts big time in 2011, when the first baby boomers � 79 million people born between 1946 and 1964 � turn 65 and qualify for Medicare health insurance. The oldest baby boomers turn 62 this year and qualify for Social Security at reduced benefits.
I'm voting Democrat no matter who's the candidate. But all Obama says it that he stands for "change". That's pretty vague. I would like to know exactly what his plans for change are.
I hear people, even Hillary saying that. If you go to his website it is all there.
My friend said the same. I tried to look, but the servers were down.
His site must be getting a ton of hits. But Cali already voted and I'm voting Dem no matter what, so I'll just wait to see who the nominee is.
My friend said the same. I tried to look, but the servers were down.
His site must be getting a ton of hits. But Cali already voted and I'm voting Dem no matter what, so I'll just wait to see who the nominee is.
With the baby-boomers retiring, and going from production to drain, gonna be tricky.
Let's hope.
You want to come live on me and DR's island?
I see more baby-boomers working into their later years than previous generations. Am I wrong?
I really am impressed that all of these committed Democrat voters never get involved in any of the fiscal or policy discussions.
Just go with your gut, that'll fix everything.
Sure, "more" will. "Enough" probably won't.
Either way, 70 year olds won't be all that productive, nor will they do the things necessary for us to "grow" our way out of this.
There really isn't that much to be impressed about in those discussions to be honest.
I find the greeters at Wal-Mart doing enough to stay busy and pay some taxes. But I know a few who are more than ready to retire with big fat retirement funds. But not all have that great of health insurance.
The rising cost of healthcare is something amazing to behold, from someone who makes his living in the industry, paying the bills from hospitals and doctors.The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.
That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.
"We have a health care crisis. We don't have an en lement crisis," says David Certner, legislative policy director of the AARP, which represents seniors.
He says seniors shouldn't be blamed for the growing cost of government retirement programs.
The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government. States chipped in $27 billion more in 2007, mostly for nursing homes.
All three major senior programs � Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid � experienced dramatically escalating costs that outstripped inflation and the growth in the senior population.
Benefits per senior are soaring at a time when the senior population is not. The portion of the U.S. population ages 65 and older has been constant at 12% since 2000.
The senior boom, however, starts big time in 2011, when the first baby boomers � 79 million people born between 1946 and 1964 � turn 65 and qualify for Medicare health insurance. The oldest baby boomers turn 62 this year and qualify for Social Security at reduced benefits.
To a large degree, the increases are coming from success. Our healthcare system is getting better and better at keeping unhealthy, and elderly people alive. We can re-plumb you circulatory system; remove tumors, throw chemical tails at 'ya; change damn near any organ in your body (multiple times). Problem is? That is EXPENSIVE - VERY EXPENSIVE!
Heart Disease used to be the #1 killer; now it's cancer - Cancer is $$$$$$ more than Heart Disease; kills slower, more treatment options, multiple specialists, etc. etc....and there are examples like that all over the place. Premature babies survival rate not that long ago, at 27 weeks gestation was iffy at best. Now? 24 weeks, and we can nurse them along - (what's 750,000,000 vs. the life of a baby?). Worth it, if you ask me - but those kinds of numbers aren't what is talked about in the media when they talk about the healthcare "crisis", are they?
, look at how much more we, as a nation, spend on IT than we did a quarter century ago. Does anyone call that a crisis? It's cost increase have outpaced healthcare, but nobody is talking about nationalizing it. I would argue the advances in healthcare have been as dramatic as the advances in PC's since the '70s. That advancement has a cost.
Um... They ALL have Medicare (if they are 65 or older).
If that's not "great" healthcare, why the are you an Obama supporter; he's gonna give you, me, and everyone else something similar.
NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GIVE UP YOUR PRIVATIZED HEALTHCARE. And I know they have medicare.
Yes, he is.
His plan FORCES private healthcare to offer the same set of benefits that his govt. plan will offer, without the tax subsidies.
If I have a big wad of cash and want a high deductible, low premium plan? Illegal.
And that's just as his plan begins. NO government program stays as it is originally designed. Go back and look at the original Social Security plan - they ALL grow, and change as the politicians grasp at ways to make a bad plan, poorly run, keep working. That will require, eventually, EVERY American to under it; so that the govt. can capture ALL the healthcare $$$$ to feed is ever more glutonous pig.
You do the math.
Well put.
In another thread, I tried to find numbers to back up US oil demands and where we buy it from...while looking for those numbers, I stumbled upon what our government spends its money on in totality (btw, I was dead wrong about the oil...its not as severe as people claim it be and I admitted as much in the thread).
But I never found those cool graphs.
Speaking only for myself, there isnt a candidate in the field that is going to address the problems I have with our government.
But I will not relinquish my vote this year, or any other, for that reason.
Im going to vote, I just dont know for whom yet. Like I said, the Dem primary needs to shake itself out first (Rep primary has been decided). If Obama wins, then he needs to start fleshing out his plans for office in much greater detail in contrast with McCain's.
Afterword, I will sift thru the various details of each candidates "promises", weigh the financial impact of both, and base my decision wholly on that fact.
Whott has Iraq. I have domestic fiscal policy. Anything that advances our debt, increases our taxes and has a financial projection that says our spending on the program will eventually outspend its revenue stream, I'll vote against.
Unfortunately, thats politics, here and abroad. Youre not going to agree with one candidate on everything. If you do, then youre a stark minority anyway and your candidate probably doesnt have a chance in or reality.
Me personally, my voting pattern has always been adversarial. That is, Im not necessarily voting FOR someone (ie McCain), I am voting against someone (ie Hillary if she gets the nod).
If Obama takes the nomination, this will be the first time in my life that I might not have to vote that way. I said might...if Obama is serious about HealthCare, I am damn interested in his method of paying for it. If its anything short of radical reform, Im back to square one...voting against someone (Obama) instead of for someone (McCain).
But that is a bridge I will cross when we get there.
But that doesn't mean you have to drop your current insurance plan. But I agree that the costs will grow. You need some strong heads to work on this and that in itself will costs millions.
I may also go with McCain if Hillary wins. I agree that no candidate is perfect and I disagree on issues with all of them. Only time will tell.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote