Reply With Quote
Over the cliff we go.............
O's plan adds 1.4 trillion over 10 years and cuts 590 billion over 10 years.
Net gain: 199 billion a year
R's plan: adds 800 billion over 10 years and cuts (at most) 1.2 trillion over 10 years.
Net gain: 200 billion a year
Meanwhile the deficit continues to increase a trillion dollars a year.
Both plans just piss on a forest fire of geometrically expanding debt.
We need to do "all of the above" PLUS a lot more or you young compassionate liberals really WILL be ed and un able.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 12-12-2012 at 08:58 AM.
Over the cliff we go.............
The primary driver of our long term debt is healtcare costs. That is the root of the problem. How do you suggest we address healthcare costs?
death panels, concentration camps, gas chambers.
So the conservities have come up with a new idea since O stole the mandate?
Extreme life extension measures should not be a "right" paid for by the Federal Government.
I was kidding, but a lot of the medicare costs are for end of life extreme life extension measures. I don't think this is the responsibility of the federal government. I think if you can afford it, then fine, but if you can't then suck it up and die gracefully.
Let the baby boomers who are fat chain smokers die, tbh.
It's time to start ratcheting up the retirement age for SS&M. Needs to be at least 70.
Repug/VRWC/Conservative policies got US into the debt "problem", reversing them will get US out.
You ing idiot. Both sides are equally culpable.
You ing Liar
Make no sense tbh for Medicare, since as CC pointed out, the main expense is in end of life treatment (where the patient dies anyways).
Spend as much as you want OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET trying to live a couple more dreadful, ty months.
But not with insurance funds, private or public.
Docs have a huge, unquestionable moral hazard. They take a huge percentage of $100Ks of useless EOL treatment, so there' no stopping them from doing it.
whoever thinks these talks will yield a balanced budget or something of the sort is kidding himself... at least having a conversation that includes having cuts is a step in the right direction.
Repugs want the Dems, exclusively, to detail the spending cuts.
If passed, the Repugs will blame the Dems for companies and people hurt by the spending cuts.
The emphasis on spending cuts is the VRWC propaganda machines hiding the facts the its THEIR tax cuts, their tax expenditures and corporate giveaways, corporate predations, and bull MIC/war expenses that created, sustains, and increases the deficit. starve the beast with tax cuts for the 1%, then screw the 99%.
It only makes sense to require the democrats to detail what cuts they will accept. If that doesn't happen, the Democrats will fight what ever cuts the Republican controlled house makes.
Repugs are pushing for the cuts to the 99%, the Repugs should list in detail what cuts they want.
Same bull with the Ryan's twice-House-passed budget. Pure fantasy, no details. and $5T more in deficit over 10 years, as far as anybody can tell with little info contained on Ryan's budget.
The Repugs are flat-out lying about their concern for the deficit. They really don't GAF.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-15-2012 at 07:35 PM.
6 Republican Economic Myths Obama and Dems Must Stop Repeating
1. Spending Cuts Spur Growth
2. Only Private-Sector Job Growth Matters
3. Public Employees Are a Problem
4. Education and Training Restore Family-Supporting Wages to Dislocated Workers
5. The “Skills Gap”
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...ing?paging=off
How an Astounding New Right-Wing Lie About the Economy Is Born
The Myth
There's a new economic myth that's now being amplified by the conservative media. It demonizes vital public services and suggests that the poor are doing just fine thanks to the largesse of the country's “makers.”
Several conservative outlets had the story before Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard , but his piece is the one that's been cited by hundreds of conservative blogs , right-wing radio talkers and Fox News . Halper, citing “the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee,“ framed the story like this: “Welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.”
For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion.
A Big Math Problem
The first problem with this claim is mathematical rather than ideological. The story is that we spend $168 per day for each family in poverty. But the eligibility cut-offs for most of the 80 or so programs identified by Senate Republicans are higher than the poverty line; in many cases, significantly higher.
Given that there are around 600 different eligibility requirements for these programs, most determined by the states, it's difficult to calculate an average without a staff. But in Colorado, which I chose because it tends to be ideologically middle-of-the-road, the average eligibility cut-off for the 10 means-tested federal benefits listed here is $18,075, or 62 percent above the federal poverty line.
The myth can be expressed mathematically like this: Total Spending On “Welfare”/Families in poverty = $168 per day. But these services benefit many more people than those struggling under the poverty line – one may as well divide those costs by the total number of rabbits or blue cars in the U.S.
The reality, expressed mathematically, is: Total Spending On “Welfare”/Those who receive benefits = $24.77 per day. That's a lot less than $168.
Intentionally Misleading
In his classic book, Why Americans Hate Welfare, sociologist Martin Gilens found that significant majorities of Americans told pollsters that they wanted to increase public spending to fight poverty at the same time that majorities said they were opposed to welfare. Gilens concluded that this disconnect was driven by a widespread belief that “most welfare recipients don't really need it,” and by racial animus – “perceptions that welfare recipients are undeserving and blacks are lazy.”
A Lie Is Born
A great deal of conservative economic views are shaped by myths. Think about the fact-free narrative that slashing tax rates for the wealthy will result in more revenues coming into the government's coffers, the common claim that half of the country pays no taxes, or the idea that increasing domestic oil production can lower global oil prices enough to bring down the price of a gallon of gas here at home.
The end result is that a lot of Americans are woefully misinformed about what we spend on anti-poverty programs, and what those programs look like. Traditional welfare – now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families – costs the federal government just $16.5 billion, a fraction of what's now claimed by the Right. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, even when one uses a very expansive definition of “welfare,” only “13 percent of the federal budget in 2011, or $466 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.”
So we have another gap between what is “true” in the conservative media bubble and the objective facts. In the real world, we spend about $25 per day on the needy. But, according to Fox News, the figure is $168.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-...orn?paging=off
If Fox or Repugss or VRWC stink tanks' lips are moving, they're lying
looks like Boehner is caving on taxes according to politico
Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,5571782.storyPresident Barack Obama is not ready to accept a new offer from the Republican leader of the U.S. the House of Representatives to raise taxes on top earners in exchange for major cuts in en lement programs, a source said late Saturday.
The shape and details of Boehner's offer were uncertain Saturday night, as was the exact reason the president was prepared to reject it.
The source said Obama sees the offer made on Friday by U.S. House Speaker John Boehner as a sign of progress, but simply believes it is not enough and there is much more to be worked out before Obama can reciprocate.
Tax rates and en lements are the two most difficult issues in the so-far unproductive negotiations to avert the "fiscal cliff" of steep tax hikes and spending cuts set for the new year unless Congress and the president reach a deal to avoid them.
my guess obama is gonna tell boehnor i can deliver what you want but it has to be 500,000 not a million.
This is how it happened last time. Boehner agreed to tax increases and then Obama moved the goal posts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
