- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It must have come from you, because I haven't seen it. You don't have a single scrap of evidence.
No, then there came Bush and when Obama was elected, racism reared its ugly head.
I am glad someone else sees the light. The problem is the Democrats only blame the Republicans and the Republicans only blame the Democrats when both hands are dirty as all get out. I agree with you.
Pero, as long as they are arguing with each other, very little gets accomplished. Whatever happened to our great Statesmen? ....sigh
There is a difference between wanting something and needing something. Just because you want something doesn't mean that you need it and any President should realize the difference and act accordingly. There is a huge difference between a child and the President of the United States.
Paul Ryan rolled out his latest budget proposal, offering an ambitious blueprint that promises to balance the budget in a decade by repealing President Barack Obama's health care reforms and slashing Medicare, Medicaid and programs to help the poor.
Paul Ryan Budget: House GOP Unveils Blueprint To Slash Medicaid, Medicare And Repeal Obamacare
Who does this fool think he is kidding? He is a lamestream impotent republican. Never had a real job his entire life. Was the recipient of Social Security Funds since his childhood. Has been sucking off th gov't, in one way or another, since that time. When will be stop being a maker and not a taker?
Yep, well aware where it all started, though I must point out Clinton would have been over-ridden in Congress if he had vetoed it. Regardless, everyone in DC (even Clinton) wanted that and it was the worst thing they could have done. I railed against it the minute they passed it.Yes, Bush was in office when the crash began, but it's foundation was laid back in the Clinton administration, when Clinton signed the Gramm-Bliley Act, which dismantled Glass-Steagal. Republicans came up with the bill, both Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly supported it, and Clinton signed it. It took two to tango in order to make the crash happen, and Democrats and Republicans were perfect dance partners.
Yep, well aware where it all started, though I must point out Clinton would have been over-ridden in Congress if he had vetoed it. Regardless, everyone in DC (even Clinton) wanted that and it was the worst thing they could have done. I railed against it the minute they passed it.
But my point was that much of Obama's extra spending (and the reason the spending looks so bad, as well) is because of The Crash.
I am very much receptive to the idea of premium support as a method of reforming health care overall in this country, although it depends on how it is structured, but this is the most significant issue with which I disagree with Paul Ryan on his budget.:roll: what a sidebar.
Anywho, as to the OP: Both Parties Recognize We Need To Reduce Expenditures in Medicare. Republicans simply want to reform the program as we do it to make it more flexible, responsive, and structured to match healthcare in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, that often means shifting some power back to the individual senior, and so Democrats prefer to simply cut reimbursement payments to providers. The two reasons I can think of this are A) they really do just assume that profits are automatic and endless; and that they can cut reimbursement rates without therefore cutting access or B) they know they are cutting access, and are using the need to reduce Medicare expenditures to precipitate a crisis which they hope to use to ram through single-payer.
I agree, the effects of the Crash will happen, The only question is, How far out we can spread the damage to lessen the impact? You can't stop the inertia of a bullet with a vest but you can spread the damage out to avoid serious injury or death, which is exactly what government is supposed to be doing - dampening the deleterious effects of capitalism on the population.Problem here is, even for those who have a Keynesian view of economics, this is a crash that we are not going to be able to spend our way out of without making it even worse in the long run.
No, Congress only makes it legal to put money into the wallet and to take money out.
Tell that to the thousands (millions?) of people who lost their retirement investments in 2008.
I was equating "take money out" with spending, but if the "wallet" is the US Treasury then yes, it gets allocated (but not necessarily spent). I believe that the amount of money that goes unspent over the course of a couple of years is in the $100 billion dollar range.Actually Congress compels the money-taking-out.
It's still the case that so long as the laws are "faithfully executed," an unused portion need not be spent - but this depends on how the legislation is enacted (e.g. it might say that any unused portion allocated for Project A be used for Project B). In "no-year accounts" the President has the authority to cancel (i.e. return to the treasury) any remaining funds, having determined their purpose already fulfilled.Presidents' used to have the discretion not to spend monies appropriated and allocated by Congress, but no more.
I didn't know that had changed? I'm not asserting you're wrong but When did that happen??Actually Congress compels the money-taking-out. Presidents' used to have the discretion not to spend monies appropriated and allocated by Congress, but no more.
Some never come back while others come back at a much lower initial price.I said good financial advisors. Many people made money in the markets during the recession. In addition, many people have made significant gains since the market's lows. One thing you can count on with the markets is that they always trend upwards even if they have periodic drops along the way. But if you think the American government, going in the whole at a clip of $1 trillion plus a year is a better investment vehicle, more power to you.
I didn't know that had changed? I'm not asserting you're wrong but When did that happen??
I learned the basics of how government works while Nixon was in office and haven't kept up on those nit-picky details. I don't remember reading about any Pres that didn't spend the money allotted for projects and programs, so it didn't seem to matter. Of crouse, back then there wasn't as much fighting and certainly not as much grand standing as their is now. Things seemed to get done even when there was disagreement.Post-Nixon, I think.
The real question should be why we need to spend half our budget on defense when no one is even threatening us. :roll:
Depends on how you do the math.Why should we take you seriously if you think we spend "half" our budget on defense? We don't even spend half of half the budget on defense.
We could eliminate the entire defense budget and would still run a $500BN deficit. Yes, it IS that bad.
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Budget breakdown for 2012
Defense-related expenditure 2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[22][23] Calculation[24][25]
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion
Total --- $3795.547 billion
Depends on how you do the math.
2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
$`1.4 Trillion 37% of $3.8 Trillion. So...
My 50% guess was much closer than your less than 25% nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?