• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FY2019 Budget Review

Mycroft said:
Fact based...not fact resistant. What I resist is spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole and lies.

And yes...the Dems and Reps are equally bad when it comes to deficit spending. (the "hole")
Click to expand...

Oh Mycroft, I wish you could understand how truly hilarious your post. Look how you’re trying to narrow the scope of your deficit “concerns” to “deficit spending”. That is exactly what fact resistant spin looks like. Let me help you to stop digging the hole that you are in. If trump spent the exact same amount as President Obama when he cut taxes, his “deficit spending” went up because he cut revenues. But this is the best part, he’s spending more than President Obama so his “deficit spending” is shooting up even faster.

Mycroft, you’re simply looking for a magic phrase or sentence fragment to spin away the fact that republicans are worse for the deficit. There is no magic phrase or spin to make it okay that the deficit always shoots up under republicans. Republicans always make the “deficit hole” bigger and you keep making the “reality” hole you’re in bigger. Stop digging.
 
Vern said:
Oh Con, I am concerned about the deficit. I just don't obsess over it the conservatives used to. Yea, used to. Remember how you guys foamed at the mouth about deficits, blamed President Obama for the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits he inherited and lied about how much he added. Oh look, you're still lying about the amount. No shock there. As far as your obedient deflection goes, I never heard one conservative express concern about the debt during the 8 or 9 Benghazi investigations. Oh and Con, before you post "nuh uh" to your falsehood about how much was added to the debt under President Obama, make sure you use the official treasury tables you're so fond of. Here, let me post it for you
Click to expand...

Oh, Vern, Vern, Vern, I am so concerned about your education background as you appear to be a perfect reason why we need education vouchers. You don't inherit deficits you create them. Obama didn't inherit a Bush budget he inherited a Democratic Congress and no budget so why don't you tell us using the attached Treasury link what the deficit was during the Obama Term.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

I know this is hard for you to understand but Treasury is the bank account of the U.S. and regardless of what you think it is the only data that matters.

I am concerned about you and hope I can help you overcome your anti Republican derangement syndrome. Check out the link and the data and get back to us with what you find out.
 
Conservative said:
Oh, Vern, Vern, Vern, I am so concerned about your education background as you appear to be a perfect reason why we need education vouchers. You don't inherit deficits you create them. Obama didn't inherit a Bush budget he inherited a Democratic Congress and no budget so why don't you tell us using the attached Treasury link what the deficit was during the Obama Term.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

I know this is hard for you to understand but Treasury is the bank account of the U.S. and regardless of what you think it is the only data that matters.

I am concerned about you and hope I can help you overcome your anti Republican derangement syndrome. Check out the link and the data and get back to us with what you find out.
Click to expand...
oh Con, I posted an official treasury link that you actually posted. Yea, you actually posted it. so I find it odd that tell me its the "only data that matters", post a false number then ask me "how much". Yea, I'm worried about you.
 
Vern said:
oh Con, I posted an official treasury link that you actually posted. Yea, you actually posted it. so I find it odd that tell me its the "only data that matters", post a false number then ask me "how much". Yea, I'm worried about you.
Click to expand...

really? how are things in that fantasy land you live. The official data is in the link I gave you, I have seen no such link from you which isn't surprising. I am indeed worried about your mental state.
 
Greenbeard said:
Cumulative Medicare spending over this decade (2010-19) will end up about $900 billion below the pre-ACA baseline. Per capita costs in the program are actually dropping at this point.

If you look at all national health expenditures--all health care costs--we're on track to be a cumulative $2.6 trillion below the pre-ACA baseline. And that's with an additional 20 million people insured.

Health care cost growth did slow down. Substantially.
Click to expand...

Except medicare doubled. And then they also doubled other healthcare spending. All they did was move the spending somewhere else, to subsidies.
 
MTAtech said:
Looks like revenue is down for 2018.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Looks like its about the same to me. And only getting worse.

Total Receipts: Up by 3 Percent in the First Two Months of Fiscal Year 2019
Receipts totaled $458 billion during the first two months of fiscal year 2019, CBO estimates—$14 billion
more than during the same period last year. The changes between last year and this year were as follows:
Click to expand...

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-12/54861-MBR.pdf
 
jonny5 said:
I would eliminate them all together for those under a certain age and phase it out entirely.
Click to expand...

Do you think Humana or BCBS could profitably insure a 70 year old without any subsidies?
 
MTAtech said:
Every month in 2018 was lower than 2017, except January, April 2018 (because individuals pay their 2017 taxes under the old rates) and October 2018. All other months are lower.

Below is Federal Receipt compared to the same month a year earlier.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Your first image was seasonally adjusted, this one is not seasonally adjusted. Why the switch in measures?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Do you think Humana or BCBS could profitably insure a 70 year old without any subsidies?
Click to expand...

Not my concern. Healthcare is responsibility of the person pursuing it, and whoever they choose to associate with on it. I did not choose to associate with anyone on their healthcare. Only on defense of life and freedom.
 
MTAtech said:
Every month in 2018 was lower than 2017, except January, April 2018 (because individuals pay their 2017 taxes under the old rates) and October 2018. All other months are lower.

Below is Federal Receipt compared to the same month a year earlier.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

So, about the same in the end. Which is bad. Taxes should be much lower.
 
jonny5 said:
Not my concern. Healthcare is responsibility of the person pursuing it, and whoever they choose to associate with on it. I did not choose to associate with anyone on their healthcare. Only on defense of life and freedom.
Click to expand...

So basically you are conceding that tens of millions of seniors would not be able to purchase health insurance if we did away with Medicare. That in a nutshell is exactly why libertarians don't run any government, anywhere on earth.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Your first image was seasonally adjusted, this one is not seasonally adjusted. Why the switch in measures?
Click to expand...
It's the only one that I could find that was monthly.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So basically you are conceding that tens of millions of seniors would not be able to purchase health insurance if we did away with Medicare. That in a nutshell is exactly why libertarians don't run any government, anywhere on earth.
Click to expand...

And yet, this country ran on such principles (limited govt) for almost 200 years. Whether seniors can or cant purchase healthcare is irrelevant to the federal budget. Its not authorized spending, so I would cut it. Pass an amendment authorizing healthcare spending, and then we can debate it.
 
jonny5 said:
And yet, this country ran on such principles (limited govt) for almost 200 years. Whether seniors can or cant purchase healthcare is irrelevant to the federal budget. Its not authorized spending, so I would cut it. Pass an amendment authorizing healthcare spending, and then we can debate it.
Click to expand...

See Helvering v. Davis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis
 
Conservative said:
really? how are things in that fantasy land you live. The official data is in the link I gave you, I have seen no such link from you which isn't surprising. I am indeed worried about your mental state.
Click to expand...

Oh con, we've had this discussion before. You posted the false "9.3 trillion" before and I've corrected you.

Vern said:
Wow, your babble seems more disorientated than normal. anyhoo, bush doubled the national debt and President Obama didn't. And fyi, President Obama only added 8.4 trillion not the 9.3 trillion you falsely state. go look at your treasury tables again. Sure 8.4 trillion is a lot but remember he inherited the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits (yea, they have a name) and the worst economy since the depression. And remember, bush inherited a surplus and doubled the national debt. that took effort.
Click to expand...

the scary thing is that you didn't use the official treasury tables you are always going on about. Im worried about you.
 
Mycroft said:
Fact based...not fact resistant. What I resist is spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole and lies.

And yes...the Dems and Reps are equally bad when it comes to deficit spending. (the "hole")
Click to expand...

er uh MC, I don't mean to be a bother but you seem to be cutting and running from the facts I've posted in this thread to cling to spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole and lies. Normally it wouldn't be a big deal because all conservatives cling to spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole and lies. But you just said you do the opposite.
 
Vern said:
Oh con, we've had this discussion before. You posted the false "9.3 trillion" before and I've corrected you.



the scary thing is that you didn't use the official treasury tables you are always going on about. Im worried about you.
Click to expand...
Why don't you post the treasury table and link like I have? While you are at it post the approved Bush 2009 budget? Any idea how a President spends money with no approved budget? Based upon your posts you really should worry about yourself

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
jonny5 said:
Except medicare doubled. And then they also doubled other healthcare spending. All they did was move the spending somewhere else, to subsidies.
Click to expand...

Medicare did not double. From 2010-2019 its spending will have grown about 55% (its enrollment growth alone over that period is nearly 30%). All health spending economy-wide overall will have grown about 45%.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Civics 101: Neither you nor I determine what is and and is not constitutional. The ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional is the federal courts and they have been clear on this.
Click to expand...

So youre saying a court knows what the writers of the constitution meant better than the actual person who wrote it and who then wrote an argument which says exactly the opposite of what the courts say? That seems logical to you?
 
Greenbeard said:
Medicare did not double. From 2010-2019 its spending will have grown about 55% (its enrollment growth alone over that period is nearly 30%). All health spending economy-wide overall will have grown about 45%.
Click to expand...

Its doubled since 2005. All healthcare spending has risen by about 75% in the last decade.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

And its only getting worse.

• Noninterest spending is projected to rise from 19 percent of GDP in 2018
to 23 percent in 2048, mainly because of increases in spending for Social
Security and the major health care programs (primarily Medicare). Much of
the spending growth for Social Security and Medicare results from the aging
of the population. Growth in spending for Medicare and the other major
health care programs is also driven by rising health care costs per person.
Click to expand...

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-06/53919-2018ltbo.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom