- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I highly doubt someone like Herman Cain would do that...
And democrats have had their goods and bads with financial responsibility... and Obama is not one of the good ones.
With all of the stupid chest-thumping, grandstanding, blaming, and partisan hack accusations, I doubt either party will actually do anything but throw a grain of sand on the beach.
wait a minute. Republicans are the only ones proposing structural reforms.... but Democrats are the ones that are more serious about long term solvency?
i mean, I voted "neither", but that's utter crap. Democrats have no desire whatsoever to do anything but increase spending dramatically in the next few years.
Well...the Democrats are more supportive of reforming our tax code (although I will grant that there is some bipartisan support, albeit with too many caveats from the Republican side). They're also the only ones with serious ideas on health care reform; the Affordable Care Act was a good start, but I think it alone will be insufficient for reining in costs. Neither party seems serious about cutting defense spending, although doing so is more of a liberal idea than a conservative idea. Social security is the only one of the four where I would probably give the edge to the Republicans.
Most of the spending increases in the past few years have been either 1) recession-related and therefore short-term, 2) standard discretionary spending bumps that have always occurred and which don't pose a fiscal threat, and 3) start-up costs for the Affordable Care Act, which the CBO says will reduce the deficit in the long-term.
The Democrats have been far from profligate spenders under the circumstances. Obama in particular has been much more fiscally responsible than the congressional Republican leadership, and certainly moreso than Bush ever was.
1. Republicans are the only ones to have voted on either Tax Reform or structural reform of the entitlements. See: House 2012 Budget.
2. Republicans have done good work in the states doing the same. See: Indiana's HSA's for public workers and Medicaid recipients
3. The ACA only "reduces the deficit" if you think you can spend the same $500 Billion twice, that unemployment is currently at 7.5%, growth is currently at 4%, and the Congress will not pass the doc fix bill. CBO said as long as you collect 10 years of taxes and only pay out 6 years of benefits, and you do the above mentioned things, you can get it to not raise the deficit.
4. No, the "short term" increases in discretionary spending (which rose quickly under Bush and rose much much faster under Obama) have merely established a "new baseline." nowhere in his budgets has Obama called for reducing the size of the federal government back down to 19-20% of GDP
5. Democrats have indeed been the more profligate spenders - compare the budgets that came out after they took the House to those before hand.
Many of the Republicans who are on board with tax reform are only supportive with the caveat that such reform not be allowed to generate one dollar in additional revenue...thus defeating the whole purpose of it, as it relates to the deficit.
I don't disagree; there have been lots of good Republican-backed health care plans in the states (the ACA was modeled on one). But the NATIONAL party has failed to embrace any good cost control mechanisms
Unfortunately, most of their proposed solutions involve reining in costs by cutting benefits, kicking people off the programs, or allowing insurers to continue discriminating on the basis of preexisting conditions. Right now the best cost-control mechanism we have for health care is the ACA
which was opposed by every single Republican in Congress, with the cost control measures generating the staunchest opposition of all.
I responded to this in the other thread...none of these points are correct.
Recession-related spending naturally causes the deficit to explode; the tax base shrinks, unemployment and social security payments grow, various one-shot measures like stimulus bills and TARP are enacted, etc. None of these things continue on their own.
Were the economic conditions the same in both situations? I'm less interested in the deficit over the period of a few years during a recession
than I am in the long-term structural deficit facing the country.
Moreover, let's look at the bigger picture.
this is wildly incorrect. what they argue is that we will not raise effective tax rates by a single dollar. the effects of tax reform, however, will be amazingly pro-growth. Currently we waste $431 Billion a year in tax compliance - tax code simplification shifts much of this funding back into production and growth. Faster growth makes for rising revenues, at the same time that it produces jobs, increased salaries, and generally pulls people off of the government safety net. So Effective Tax Rate Neutral Tax Reform actually attacks the deficit from both sides; by increasing revenues and reducing costs.
there you are (again) wildly incorrect. the House 2012 (which again, all but 4 Republicans in the House voted for) produced precisely such a plan. You seem to have "good" confused with "increasing the power of government".
Medicare’s chief actuary: Paul Ryan’s plan could control health-care costs better than ObamaCare
And that is correct. Introducing a market element to the healthcare market has had salutary effects not only elsewhere in healthcare, but in Medicare. That's critical - because of their size, Medicaid and Medicare drive costs in the healthcare market. For example; while the cost per person in the "private market" rose rapidly, and the cost per enrollee in Medicare did the same, the effects on Prescription Drug Coverage (which was covered by Part D, which instituted patient choice) averaged a rise of only 1.2%!.
which is precisely what we should expect. because that Republican Model you mention that the ACA is built on? well, it's failing. Health care costs there are the highest in the country, they are facing a critical shortage of doctors,and have had waiting times averaging 44 days for a primary physician imposed.
Emergency room visits have spiked as people who are desperate for medical attention but can't get it seek out the one venue left to them for somewhat quick care.
why do you continue to ignore that the ACA is built upon fairy-tale numbers that no sane man believes will come to pass. there is no Magic Money Fairy that allows you to spend the same money twice.
as for the pre-existing conditions; many of us are fine setting up high-risk pools for those that need it already; but banning an insurer from altering costs due to a preexisting condition merely destroys it's ability to operate as insurance.
the incentive for the individual becomes to avoid the costs of health insurance until an injury or disease has already struck. prices quickly spiral out of control.
as for cutting benefits - Republicans plan put off the necessary reductions in medicare expenditures as long as possible. They gave people time to plan. Obamacare begins to cut Medicare in 2014 - current seniors are not exempt.
which is excellent, given that government-imposed rationing is precisely the kind of cost controls we want to avoid.
i have never seen you "address" them and they are indeed correct.
recession does not necessitate that the deficit explode at all. as America tightens it's belt, government can tighten it's belt as well.
Democrats took over the Congress in 2006. we were not in a recession.
then you of all people should be worried about the long term structural deficits increase under Obama. EVERY SINGLE DEFICIT called for in his budget was larger than Bush's largest deficit.
cute. it's almost as if you didn't know that spending comes (as per the Constitution) from the House of Representatives.
and so the truth is a bit more mixed:
I really don't trust either side :shrug:
I gotta say though, the Gang of Six plan seems to be our best bet right now. Seems pretty fair and substantial to me. It's not gonna be ready by August 2 though.
Nor will it ever win enough support among House Republicans, who are in no mood to compromise on anything.
Yeah, hard to say what those guys are gonna do by August 2. Cut Cap and Balance seems to me to be their pet project at this point, but that isn't gonna pass the Senate.
I think they'll end up going with McConnell's "back up plan." Or they'll push the nation into default. One of the two.
It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that the Republican Party - which is ostensibly committed to smaller government and a balanced budget - would pass up the $3 trillion in spending cuts which Obama offered them in favor of a much less comprehensive plan that doesn't shrink the size of government or the size of the deficit nearly as much...yet that seems to be exactly what they're going to do. Unfortunately, Grover Norquist and various other tax ideologues seem to have completely taken over the GOP and left no room for compromise on anything related to taxes.
Ever wonder why August 2 is the deadline for coming to an agreement on th debt ceiling?
Well, wonder no more. Never fear, Rush is here with the real reason.
I LOL'd at this hahahaha lmao
Who do you trust to actually do it? And, if so, why?
I think they'll end up going with McConnell's "back up plan." Or they'll push the nation into default. One of the two.
I think they'll end up going with McConnell's "back up plan." Or they'll push the nation into default. One of the two.
It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that the Republican Party - which is ostensibly committed to smaller government and a balanced budget - would pass up the $3 trillion in spending cuts which Obama offered them
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?