CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt [W:21]

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

There's popularity and then there are the facts - zero countries in the world subscribe to MMT. Zero doesn't even equal a minority. Zero is zero.

Is it like a subscription service? A magazine? I don't even remember anyone claiming it was REALLY popular.

This is...like...."Mean Girls"....or something.

Weird.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Is it like a subscription service? A magazine? I don't even remember anyone claiming it was REALLY popular.

This is...like...."Mean Girls"....or something.

Weird.

You're coming around. At least I've got you admitting that it is a minority cult following, not mainstream, not popular, and not practiced by any country in the world, not even one. Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for that?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

There's popularity and then there are the facts - zero countries in the world subscribe to MMT. Zero doesn't even equal a minority. Zero is zero.

It doesn't matter what you think is popular or not. What matters are facts, and an understanding of those facts continually escapes you.

Money creation is as MMT describes. Reserve banking is as MMT describes. Private banking is as MMT describes. Interest rates are controlled as MMT describes. Bond issuance is as MMT describes. The mechanics in general are exactly as MMT describes, and you will not find an economist worth his salt that will deny that.

What the government does with the system is their own business. Since the '70's, we have had a mix of monetarism, supply-side idiocy, and Keynesianism, all mixed with a generous helping of politics.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to post this reply, because you don't know what any of the above means. But there you go. I guess I'm an eternal optimist, and I like to believe that even dead brains can show signs of life with enough education.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

At least I've got you admitting that it is a minority cult following.......

 

[David_N]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

What makes you think that? Any moron who actually wants to "balance the budget" needs to be laughed out of office.

Who said the administration has entered the "F IT" phase? Obama?

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

That would not have been prudent given the conditions he inherited.

>>In 10 years, this budget would raise taxes by 2.2 trillion per year, spending by 2.6 trillion per year, and add another 6.9 trillion to the national debt.

Try reading more carefully — a lot more carefully. Revenues are projected to expand by $280 billion annually, while outlays would increase by $40 billion annually. That's $2.4 trillion less in deficits. The figures yer using are for the entire ten year period, and yer still way off on them as well.

The deficit as a percentage of GDP, the relevant measure and one you fail to mention, would average three percent less annually than under the current baseline. To avoid yer $6.9 trillion figure, we would need to have a balanced budget this year and every year for ten years. Where were the balanced budgets under Republican/conservative presidents? GOP executives create the debt, and Democrats pay it off. That was true with Clinton and now with Obummer.

>>The numbers are becoming staggering.

It sure looks like they have you confused.

>>Luckily its dead on arrival as was every budget he submitted.

Perhaps next year we'll have a Democrat in the WH and Democrats in charge of both Houses of Congress. If that happens, I'd say Republicans will have earned the right to watch the budget process from the sidelines.

There is not factual proof whatsoever that massive spending ends economic downturns any faster.

And considering the miserable example of the huge spending during the Great Depression - which after a decade of almost continuous huge deficits - the unemployment rate was still more then 5 times worse then before the crash and the DOW barely reached 50% of it's pre-crash level. And the fact that the 1920/21 Depression ended in 3 1/2 years with budget surpluses; the idea that one must spend one's way out of a recession is not backed up by history AT ALL.

And this time, the results are different (due to different stimuli) but almost as useless. The equity markets have skyrocketed - which helps almost no one but the rich; the unemployment rate has dropped but the quality of jobs as dropped along with it as millions of middle class jobs have vanished; the home ownership rate has fallen hard; and worst of all, the food stamp usage is WAY higher now then when Obama took office over 7 years ago.
If there is one statistic above all else that shows a complete failure as a Democratic POTUS - it's a massive increase in food stamp usage during his/her tenure.

All Obama has done is make the poor FAR more numerous (food stamp numbers), shrunk the middle class, done wonders for the rich, skyrocketed the national debt and kicked the whole macroeconomic mess down the road.

Both he and GWB (for slightly different reasons) have failed at running the economy utterly and completely.


And please save your INCREDIBLY biased reply waxing poetic about the wonders of the God Obama...I have heard it all before and I do not waste my time reading replies of people who are closed minded on the subject in question...no offense.
Whereas I have zero political loyalties.
Good day.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

It doesn't matter what you think is popular or not. What matters are facts, and an understanding of those facts continually escapes you.

Money creation is as MMT describes. Reserve banking is as MMT describes. Private banking is as MMT describes. Interest rates are controlled as MMT describes. Bond issuance is as MMT describes. The mechanics in general are exactly as MMT describes, and you will not find an economist worth his salt that will deny that.

What the government does with the system is their own business. Since the '70's, we have had a mix of monetarism, supply-side idiocy, and Keynesianism, all mixed with a generous helping of politics.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to post this reply, because you don't know what any of the above means. But there you go. I guess I'm an eternal optimist, and I like to believe that even dead brains can show signs of life with enough education.

What matters is the fact that MMT is not accepted as legitimate by any country in the world. Not one. There's a reason for that and that continually escapes you. That's the fact. The banking system does not work as MMT describes. That's your wishful liberal thinking. Roche, a former MMT'r and financial guru with much more knowledge than everyone on DP added together quite eloquently points out how MMT gets the banking system wrong and how MMT is flawed. Please at least note the chart on page 3 and the explanations underneath for those aspects on the chart. I'm not sure why I'm reposting this either because you apparently don't know what any of it means, even when it is right there for you in black and white.

http://z822j1x8tde3wuovlgo7ue15.wpe...nt/uploads/2015/06/Modern-Monetary-Theory.pdf

 

[mmi]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

He said his approach "rhymed with 'bucket'".

But I don't think he was referring to budget negotiations. His focus was on things like his executive actions on immigration reform and environmental regulations and his moves to normalize relations with Cuba — issues the Republican-controlled Congress has been refusing to deal with. That line was delivered at last year's White House Correspondents Dinner, where he also said:

"Racism. We are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say 'nigger' in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not."​

Personally, I welcome the honest and frank expression of heartfelt sentiments.

explain why the government should strive to balance its budget or run a surplus, and/or pay down its debt.

My feeling is that this comes down more to psychology than macroeconomic theory. It seems to me that many consumers and businesses are frightened of public debt, as they equate it with personal and commercial debt, failing to account for the difference you and others have pointed to so many times in this community. As long as that continues, it can be argued that there's a need to carefully limit government debt, perhaps even more than is optimal, in order to avoid negative reactions that can retard economic growth.

There is not factual proof whatsoever that massive spending ends economic downturns any faster.

You believe that because you can't get the facts straight.

>>the huge spending during the Great Depression - which after a decade of almost continuous huge deficits - the unemployment rate was still more then 5 times worse then before the crash

The deficit as a percentage of GDP in 1932 jumped to four percent, a massive increase, as GDP and federal revenues continued to collapse, down 40% and 53% respectively from 1930. Hoover's "it'll fix itself" approach was not working.

By 1937, with the application of a Keynesian stimulus, deficit/GDP was down to 2.5%. During those years, GDP grew by 36% while unemployment fell by nearly 40%, from 23.3% to 14.3%.

Yer ignoring the fact that FDR decided to go with austerity in 1937, as federal spending was cut by seven percent. This caused GDP growth to flatten and so gubmint receipts to drop, expanding the deficit and pushing unemployment back up to 19%.

>>the 1920/21 Depression ended in 3 1/2 years with budget surpluses

"3 1/2 years"? That would have been rather hellish. That severe downturn lasted eighteen months, and that $736 billion surplus in 1922, about one percent of GDP, created by a 31% reduction in federal spending, was one factor that pushed the economy back into recession two years later in May 1923.

>>the idea that one must spend one's way out of a recession is not backed up by history AT ALL.

Sure it is — you just need to get the history right.

>>food stamp usage is WAY higher now then when Obama took office over 7 years ago.

Yeah, that GOP SSE Great Recession sure did damage the economy.

>>If there is one statistic above all else that shows a complete failure as a Democratic POTUS - it's a massive increase in food stamp usage during his/her tenure.

The big increase was under Bush43, nearly doubling from 17.3 million in 2001 to 33.5 million in 2009. By 2011, as the effects of the GOP SSE Great Recession played through the economy, it rose to 44.7 million, up another 32%. It continued rising marginally and has now returned back down to the 2011 level.

>>All Obama has done is make the poor FAR more numerous (food stamp numbers), shrunk the middle class, done wonders for the rich, skyrocketed the national debt and kicked the whole macroeconomic mess down the road.

Fourteen million more full-time, private-sector jobs added, real personal disposable income up nine percent over the past three years, deficit as a percentage of GDP down 75%, twenty million more Americans with health insurance.

>>please save your INCREDIBLY biased reply waxing poetic about the wonders of the God Obama

No "Ballad of Barack Obama," just the facts. ma'am.

>>I have heard it all before and I do not waste my time reading replies of people who are closed minded on the subject in question

Ah, the irony. You close yer mind to the facts … and claim others are close-minded.

>>no offense.

None taken. I don't mind you ignoring me, or pretending to, or whatever it is you do. You lose all the arguments, and I figure that's good enough.

 

[Fenton]

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51383

So this final budget means the Obama has not once proposed a balanced budget in 8 years. Only more taxes, more spending. In 10 years, this budget would raise taxes by 2.2 trillion per year, spending by 2.6 trillion per year, and add another 6.9 trillion to the national debt. The numbers are becoming staggering. In 10 years, the govt would take 44 trillion in taxes, and spend 52 trillion, 80% of which would be on healthcare, social security, welfare, food stamps, and other social projects. Social spending alone rises to almost 16% of every dollar earned.

He proposes taxes on:

oil - about 20%
the wealthy
foreign income - 19%
investment-an additional 4% on cap gains, and increase in the death tax, gift tax, self employment

He would increase mandatory spending by a trillion, and decrease discretionary spending by 300bn (that pays for defense, justice, roads, science etc).

Luckily its dead on arrival as was every budget he submitted.

So much for Obama being responsible for cutting the deficit

 

[mmi]

So much for Obama being responsible for cutting the deficit

Why's that?

 

[Mr Person]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Neither party is being serious with budgets.

Obama demands all that, meanwhile, the GOP insists on including provisions repealing Obamacare. Nobody wants to take responsibility for a budget.

 

[cpwill]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

But I don't think he was referring to budget negotiations. His focus was on things like his executive actions on immigration reform and environmental regulations and his moves to normalize relations with Cuba — issues the Republican-controlled Congress has been refusing to deal with

No, issues where he hadn't gotten his way. There's a rather significant distinction between "I'm not getting my way" and "Others are refusing to do their job". It's contained in the fact that others' job is not - actually - to make sure that you always get your way.

But I suppose this is the theory wherein the President submitting a budget isn't an action by the Executive Branch?

:shrug: the man is in "Bucket" phase. He said so himself. We can expect more idiocy from now until next January, when President Clinton will begin a whole new round of different kinds of idiocy. More competent, but also more corrupt.

 

[mmi]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

No, issues where he hadn't gotten his way. There's a rather significant distinction between "I'm not getting my way" and "Others are refusing to do their job". It's contained in the fact that others' job is not - actually - to make sure that you always get your way.

Always get his way? You somehow believe that Obummer is the obstinate actor here, that the inability or unwillingness of the Republican leadership to stand up to the teabuggers is simply irrelevant. Yeah, OK.

>>But I suppose this is the theory wherein the President submitting a budget isn't an action by the Executive Branch?

I don't understand.

>>the man is in "Bucket" phase. He said so himself.

At the correspondents dinner, in a comedy routine. C'mon, man.

>>President Clinton will begin a whole new round of different kinds of idiocy. More competent, but also more corrupt.

She's an insider, I agree. But corrupt? That's just yer partisan slant.

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Always get his way? You somehow believe that Obummer is the obstinate actor here, that the inability or unwillingness of the Republican leadership to stand up to the teabuggers is simply irrelevant. Yeah, OK.

>>But I suppose this is the theory wherein the President submitting a budget isn't an action by the Executive Branch?

I don't understand.

>>the man is in "Bucket" phase. He said so himself.

At the correspondents dinner, in a comedy routine. C'mon, man.

>>President Clinton will begin a whole new round of different kinds of idiocy. More competent, but also more corrupt.

She's an insider, I agree. But corrupt? That's just yer partisan slant.

Well, I am not partisan (I despise both parties) and I agree with him.

I have said many times that I thought Obama did an overall lousy job as POTUS (with exceptions). But I have also said I think he is basically a good guy and I would love to have a beer with him.

Barack Obama's 19 minutes of nothing with Jerry Seinfeld

Hilary Clinton strikes me as an intelligent, corrupt, self-centred individual who is borderline obsessed with becoming POTUS and has been for decades (which is why she put up with so much crap from her husband). She has flip flopped on SO many things and you can be pretty sure about one thing with political flip floppers - they have few morales and they just want power.

Say what you want about Sanders, but would anyone in their right mind say that the man does not have morales and will not stand for what he believes in? Can anyone in their right mind say remotely the same about Hilary?

I have long thought the Benghazi thing (in terms of blaming her) and the email stuff were overblown. But I have also long thought that this is an empty woman who seems to stand for nothing but her lust for power.

I hate the Donald for POTUS - but at least he stands for things (mostly wrong things). Hilary has picked up from her husband the art of being covered in Teflon. Nothing sticks to her and she does not stand for much either...she plays it safe for votes. But at least he was likeable (sort of). I look/listen to her and just think 'blah'.

And finally, considering the absolutely staggering amount of monetary donations she has gotten from Wall Street, how can an unbiased person possibly believe that she is not firmly positioned in their back pockets?


I believe a Hilary Clinton White House will be corrupt, good at making good-sounding speeches (that mean little), will do whatever Wall Street says, 'run' the economy like a sailboat in a hurricane (go whichever way the wind blows - frantically), will make Obama's foreign policy look like sheer brilliance and get involved in several controversies - but NONE of them will stick to her.

Having said all of that, I actually think she will do less harm to America then either Sanders (too socialistic), Trump (xenophobic egomaniac) or Cruz (please...).

But when all is said and done, she will leave Americans just that much more jaded about politics. At least Obama had principles. This bitch just has greed, imo.

 

[jonny5]

So much for Obama being responsible for cutting the deficit

Its pretty clear that the reason the deficit went down is because Republicans obstructed him on spending increases, and the people are paying more taxes. Not just the rich, but everyone. The people are paying over a trillion more in taxes than even before the recession. In a few more years, the govt will be taking a larger share of the economy than any time in history. And 80% of it will go to wealth redistribution.

 

[jonny5]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Neither party is being serious with budgets.

Obama demands all that, meanwhile, the GOP insists on including provisions repealing Obamacare. Nobody wants to take responsibility for a budget.

Whats unserious about repealing obamacare? The people dont support it, its expensive, intrusive, and unnecessary. A majority of the peoples representatives regularly vote to repeal it. Only one person, who its named after, blocks it, and hes about to be gone. Unfortunately its much easier to ADD new laws, than it is to remove them. It should be the other way around.

 

[upsideguy]

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51383

So this final budget means the Obama has not once proposed a balanced budget in 8 years. Only more taxes, more spending. In 10 years, this budget would raise taxes by 2.2 trillion per year, spending by 2.6 trillion per year, and add another 6.9 trillion to the national debt. The numbers are becoming staggering. In 10 years, the govt would take 44 trillion in taxes, and spend 52 trillion, 80% of which would be on healthcare, social security, welfare, food stamps, and other social projects. Social spending alone rises to almost 16% of every dollar earned.

He proposes taxes on:

oil - about 20%
the wealthy
foreign income - 19%
investment-an additional 4% on cap gains, and increase in the death tax, gift tax, self employment

He would increase mandatory spending by a trillion, and decrease discretionary spending by 300bn (that pays for defense, justice, roads, science etc).

Luckily its dead on arrival as was every budget he submitted.

A balanced budget? Are you serious? There isn't a single person that believes you can propose a balanced budget. Paul Ryan's plan would take 10 years, as do most serious plans.

Paul Ryan Unveils GOP Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years - WSJ

Moveover, the level of pain involved is not something anyone has the guts for. There is almost no one in Washington interested in the balanced budget; too much pain.... they get far more mileage by blaming the other guy. It can not be done with deep cuts in government services, entitlement reform AND tax increases. Until the parties are willing to compromise and put all elements on the table, then they are aren't serious about balancing the budget.

A Balanced Federal Budget? Not without Pain-Kiplinger

Not to mention, the idea of even balancing the budget may not be such a good idea.

Forbes Welcome
Why the federal budget can't be managed like a household budget | Money | The Guardian
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-balancing-the-federal-budget-be-a-top-policy-priority

So tell us, how do you do it?

https://www.cpr.org/news/story/washington-cant-balance-federal-budget-can-you

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Whats unserious about repealing obamacare? The people dont support it, its expensive, intrusive, and unnecessary. A majority of the peoples representatives regularly vote to repeal it. Only one person, who its named after, blocks it, and hes about to be gone. Unfortunately its much easier to ADD new laws, than it is to remove them. It should be the other way around.

First of all, Obamacare can't just be repealed. It is too entrenched to just repeal it. Second, while there are many, many complaints about Obamacare, most people actually do support it - with needed changes. The people's representatives are only listening to the people they want to listen to. While much of the country is painted red, the majority of voters are painted blue.

 

[mmi]

Its pretty clear that the reason the deficit went down is because Republicans obstructed him on spending increases

Well, as I've said a number of times in this community, that's not clear to me.

Federal outlays over the past seven years under the Negro are up by only 4.8%. Since 2011, the Congress has authorized one percent less in spending than the president has requested, while responsible management by the administration has reduced actual expenditures by an additional five percent.​

>>In a few more years, the govt will be taking a larger share of the economy than any time in history.

Last year, federal revenues as a percentage of GDP were 18.2%. Under the president's recently proposed budget, that would increase over the next ten years, varying at between 19 and 19.5% (source). That doesn't seem like much of an increase to me.

And what will we get for forking over that extra one percent or so of our incomes? Smart investments in America's future, targeting education, research, and infrastructure, designed to lend support to a strong labor market and steady economic growth.

If you look back over the last fifty years, the only time the Feds were spending around nineteen percent of GDP was 1998-2000, when the unemployment rate continued its decline under Clinton, falling from 4.7% to 3.9%, and real GDP was increasing at around 4.5%. That's the target identified by proponents of SSE policies. Personally, I wish we'd stayed the course in 2000, taxing, spending, and regulating in prudent ways that produce positive outcomes, instead of buying into a fantasy that leads to dangerous instability.



>>80% of it will go to wealth redistribution.

Where's ya get that figure? In any event, yes, a lot of the taxes the gubmint collects are redistributed — from people who are working to people who are retired, through Social Security and Medicare. The money spent on "welfare" is around five or ten percent of federal outlays, depending on how it's defined.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Whats unserious about repealing obamacare? The people dont support it, its expensive, intrusive, and unnecessary. A majority of the peoples representatives regularly vote to repeal it. Only one person, who its named after, blocks it, and hes about to be gone. Unfortunately its much easier to ADD new laws, than it is to remove them. It should be the other way around.

A bill repealing Obamacare is not going to get through congress, and if miraculously did, Obama would veto it.

It's also going a little far for you to speak on behalf of "the people." There are tons who support it, and more who support at least some of the ideas even if they don't like the execution.

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

IMO, if Obamacare stays as is, it will eventually be killed.

One day the Reps will control both houses and the White House - though that day could be MANY years away.

And when they do, they WILL kill Obamacare.

The question is what will they replace it with? Something? Nothing?

The Dems were foolish to try to force something through that they knew would be killed the minute the Reps gain power. Politics is about compromise, not bull headedness.

The original excuse for Obamacare was to cover all the Americans who had no medical coverage...which was noble and fine. But then the Dems got carried away and turned it into some bloated whale of a thing. They desperately want a Canadian-style system so they tried to ram the next best thing down America's throat.

So now instead of having a relatively small system that would simply (and rightly) cover the tens of millions who had no coverage (something the Reps could not fight politically without looking like heartless jerks); they instead now have given the Reps the ammo they need to kill this thing completely the second they can.

And when the Reps eventually do, everyone will be right back where they started and America gained nothing.

Nope...the Dems got WAY too greedy on Obamacare.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I have put forth the argument many times. (Not for "astronomical" debt, but for a reasonable amount of government deficit spending.)

The American economy loses demand when we run a trade deficit, and when we net save dollars. If that loss is not made up for, the economy will contract. The two (reasonable) ways to make up for that demand leakage are businesses borrowing to invest (which they normally do in good times) and government deficit spending.

Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins.

Now it's your turn to explain why the government should strive to balance its budget or run a surplus, and/or pay down its debt.

Seriously?

You present that as an explanation? It's barely legible.

If you have presented the case in the past then simply copy it.

Whenever I get that response when seeking citation I know the claim is bull****. I don't think you know the first thing about economics ..."the American economy loses demand when we run a trade deficit..." Makes no sense.

What do trade deficits have to do with the nation's debt?

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I have put forth the argument many times. (Not for "astronomical" debt, but for a reasonable amount of government deficit spending.)

The American economy loses demand when we run a trade deficit, and when we net save dollars. If that loss is not made up for, the economy will contract. The two (reasonable) ways to make up for that demand leakage are businesses borrowing to invest (which they normally do in good times) and government deficit spending.

Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins.

The 1920/21 Depression. It was over in 3 1/2 years.

But during that time, the government ran surpluses (actually paying down the national debt by roughly 10%).

But, according to your theory, that isn't possible ('the downward spiral begins').

Apparently it is.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm


The notion that running a balanced budget necessarily hurts the economy has been proven totally wrong time and time and time again throughout history.


Okay, I have made my point. Now please make yours.

Where is your FACTUAL, statistical proof (not evidence, proof) that 'Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins.'.
Not a bunch of prof's with huge egos or failed economists who fancy themselves authors who give theories. Unbiased, factual, statistical proof from unbiased sources only please.

Now it's your turn to explain why the government should strive to balance its budget or run a surplus, and/or pay down its debt.

And why should the government pay down it's debt?

1) because it agreed to do just that when it took out the loans...that eventually it would pay down the debt. It's called honoring your commitments.
2) It lowers the interest rate the nation pays on it's debts.
3) it lowers the debt service costs and thus saves the taxpayers potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. Right now the Japanese spend almost 1/2 of every dollar collected in taxes JUST on debt servicing. And it is getting worse every year. What happens when every, single tax dollar collected goes towards debt servicing? A nightmare - even worse then it is now.
4) it allows more debt to be available to a country when/if it ever needs large emergency funds.
5) it breeds confidence in the economy and encourages more foreign investment in the nation. Would you rather build a new factory in a country with an out-of-control national debt that has stated they have no intention of ever paying it back OR in a country with no/a manageable debt that costs the taxpayers zero/tiny amounts to service yearly?
6) it shows responsibility and fiscal discipline which again breeds great confidence in the country's future. Any moron can not pay his debts back. The skill is to pay them back.The latter is admired. The former is not.

And I could go on and on.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

IMO, if Obamacare stays as is, it will eventually be killed.

One day the Reps will control both houses and the White House - though that day could be MANY years away.

And when they do, they WILL kill Obamacare.

The question is what will they replace it with? Something? Nothing?

The Dems were foolish to try to force something through that they knew would be killed the minute the Reps gain power. Politics is about compromise, not bull headedness.

The original excuse for Obamacare was to cover all the Americans who had no medical coverage...which was noble and fine. But then the Dems got carried away and turned it into some bloated whale of a thing. They desperately want a Canadian-style system so they tried to ram the next best thing down America's throat.

So now instead of having a relatively small system that would simply (and rightly) cover the tens of millions who had no coverage (something the Reps could not fight politically without looking like heartless jerks); they instead now have given the Reps the ammo they need to kill this thing completely the second they can.

And when the Reps eventually do, everyone will be right back where they started and America gained nothing.

Nope...the Dems got WAY too greedy on Obamacare.

Obamacare will never go completely away. It will get some changes, even if Democrats control everything. The real problem with Obamacare, other than lip service, is that it does absolutely NOTHING meaningful to control medical costs, except for paying providers less, which is stupid because their costs are always going up. We need something that controls the provider's costs and insurance company's costs, and then that will save John and Jane Doe and the US government costs. Until we wake up to that fact, medical costs will continue to go up astronomically.

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Obamacare will never go completely away. It will get some changes, even if Democrats control everything. The real problem with Obamacare, other than lip service, is that it does absolutely NOTHING meaningful to control medical costs, except for paying providers less, which is stupid because their costs are always going up. We need something that controls the provider's costs and insurance company's costs, and then that will save John and Jane Doe and the US government costs. Until we wake up to that fact, medical costs will continue to go up astronomically.

Never is a looooong time.

I am not sure I would ever be comfortable saying ANY piece of legislation will NEVER be repealed.