Why republicans are unfit to govern in just 1 chart

[Conservative]

You condemn the polarization of politics and yet contribute to the polarization of politics.

Obamacare used a lot of republican ideology. Any denial of that is evidence of some combination of willful ignorance, gullibility and naivety.

President Bush 2's policies directly impacted the mortgage bubble. You admitted that earlier, that both presidents contributed, and now you backtrack and say Vern had never "proven" anything.

Or is it only a problem when the other side is polarized? Here i thought you might genuinely care about the corruption of politicians in general, when really you were faking that you were on the high road in a vain attempt to erode Vern's credibility...

Why do i keep expecting honesty from conservatives here ?

Look, I know you mean well but quite frankly you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. You keep promoting the distorted rhetoric about healthcare and ignore that the Republicans supported a State initiated program NOT a federal bureaucracy and that is what Romney implemented in MA. You don't seem to understand the role of the state and local governments

As has been stated over and over again which Vern and now apparently you don't want to acknowledge there were a lot of players in the game that caused the financial crisis and NOT JUST BUSH. Vern ignores that reality and now apparently so do you. Vern has never addressed the issue and blames only Bush. He has proven nothing in his posts other than his partisanship.

It doesn't appear you understand the term honesty. How many Republicans voted for ACA? How could there be a bubble without sub prime interest rates established under Clinton? Where does the CRA come into play in your world? Who signed Glass Steagall? What were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's position on Freddie and Fannie? Who held a gun to the head of borrowers who signed contracts they couldn't afford? See, a lot of blame to go around but with Vern it is all about Bush

 

[Conservative]

#1 Your ideology precedes your political label.

#2 His policy is more responsible than any other policy within the government. I hold the bankers primarily responsible, they're the professional lenders. But if we look at where politicians played a role, no one played more of a role than President Bush 2.

#3 That has nothing to do with the ACA being utopian or forced down Americans throats. The ACA is heavily conservative in ideology and widely successful. It serves as a testament to democrats' willingness to compromise for the sake of the American people and republicans' inability to retain their credibility by describing it accurately or giving the democrats any credit.

Again, Healthcare is a personal responsibility and the costs are borne by the taxpayers of the STATE, not the Federal Govt. This is a state program and all liberals did was create another Federal entitlement program giving politicians more money to waste. There was no compromise on the part of Pelosi and Reid nor Obama how continues to operate as a college professor and not a leader

 

[Rentoc]

#1 Your ideology precedes your political label.

#2 His policy is more responsible than any other policy within the government. I hold the bankers primarily responsible, they're the professional lenders. But if we look at where politicians played a role, no one played more of a role than President Bush 2.

#3 That has nothing to do with the ACA being utopian or forced down Americans throats. The ACA is heavily conservative in ideology and widely successful. It serves as a testament to democrats' willingness to compromise for the sake of the American people and republicans' inability to retain their credibility by describing it accurately or giving the democrats any credit.

#1 You have no idea what my ideology is.

#2 That is your opinion, I would not be surprised by that opinion based on your stated lean. Most (if not all) Liberals detest GWB, I have still not figured out why. I think you are mislead by the FCIC when you talk about the role that President Bush and his administration played in the Housing Bubble. You need to look back further in history perhaps all the way to 1977 and the CRA under yet another Progressive administration.

#3 Democrats willingness to compromise? Really? They couldn't even compromise with each other for most of the process. They had to bribe some of their own party to ensure a cloture vote in the Senate (on a bill that originally had nothing to do with health care by the way). Then they had to fight with the House Dems in order to get reconciliation that wouldn't require another vote in the Senate because of Scott Brown. Compromise! smh Try again on that one.

 

[Absentglare]

Look, I know you mean well but quite frankly you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. You keep promoting the distorted rhetoric about healthcare and ignore that the Republicans supported a State initiated program NOT a federal bureaucracy and that is what Romney implemented in MA. You don't seem to understand the role of the state and local governments

As has been stated over and over again which Vern and now apparently you don't want to acknowledge there were a lot of players in the game that caused the financial crisis and NOT JUST BUSH. Vern ignores that reality and now apparently so do you. Vern has never addressed the issue and blames only Bush. He has proven nothing in his posts other than his partisanship.

It doesn't appear you understand the term honesty. How many Republicans voted for ACA? How could there be a bubble without sub prime interest rates established under Clinton? Where does the CRA come into play in your world? Who signed Glass Steagall? What were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's position on Freddie and Fannie? Who held a gun to the head of borrowers who signed contracts they couldn't afford? See, a lot of blame to go around but with Vern it is all about Bush

The federal system was necessary for states that are incapable of running their own exchanges such as Rhode Island or Hawaii. Every state is free to manage its own exchange within federal guidelines.

Yes, there were a lot of players. I blame the lenders for failing to lend money responsibly. I don't primarily blame President Bush 2, but it's pretty obvious to see his policy changes were an absolutely terrible idea. Hindsight is 20/20, i'm not suggesting that he should have known then (which i claim of the Iraq debacle), but we are still responsible for our unintentional mistakes.

Zero republicans voted for the ACA, as i stated, this could simply be evidence of their conformity to their political agenda rather than a commitment to serve the American public with integrity.

Yes, President Clinton's deregulation helped set the stage for the bubble. I still believe it was limited in responsibility for undermining the standards in assessment of credit risk.

The individuals who took loans they couldn't afford are only responsible for losing their own homes. The banks are responsible for their failure to lend money. The policies are responsible for undermining the regulation that would have limited the downward spiral of foreclosures.

I can't speak to Vern's personal opinion, but for me, the idea that President Bush 2 is solely responsible is completely false. However, it seems obvious that, as a matter of policy, President Bush 2 let this crisis occur under his watch- he even pushed it further toward deregulation, making it worse. Trying to blame President Clinton for President Bush 2's policy failure is an act of partisanship.

 

[Absentglare]

#1 You have no idea what my ideology is.

#2 That is your opinion, I would not be surprised by that opinion based on your stated lean. Most (if not all) Liberals detest GWB, I have still not figured out why. I think you are mislead by the FCIC when you talk about the role that President Bush and his administration played in the Housing Bubble. You need to look back further in history perhaps all the way to 1977 and the CRA under yet another Progressive administration.

#3 Democrats willingness to compromise? Really? They couldn't even compromise with each other for most of the process. They had to bribe some of their own party to ensure a cloture vote in the Senate (on a bill that originally had nothing to do with health care by the way). Then they had to fight with the House Dems in order to get reconciliation that wouldn't require another vote in the Senate because of Scott Brown. Compromise! smh Try again on that one.

#1 You don't know what i know about what you know any more or less than i know about what you know. State your case. Saying "You're wrong because you're wrong," is faulty, circular logic. Articulate your case, if it exists.

#2 I don't know why you blame a policy change from thirty years earlier. That seems like a conclusion-seeking stretch of massive proportion. Even if you're right (which i doubt), i still hold every politician in charge along the way for ignoring the signs and continuing down the wrong path. Going back to my though experiment, the last policy maker to continue down the path in the wrong direction is necessarily responsible for the mistakes of their own policy. That fits President Bush 2 perfectly, and i have absolutely nothing personally against the man. I think he was a generally good person. That doesn't mean he always made the right decisions, and i'm unclear why you think your fondness for him shirks him of responsibility for his obvious error.

#3 The idea of a competitive marketplace was championed by multiple people in the Heritage think-tank. It was championed in '93 by republican politicians. It was used by Romney in Massachusetts. It uses competition in an open market for cost control. That's all quintessentially conservative ideology no matter how wildly you try to contort to seek alternative conclusions.

 

[Conservative]

The federal system was necessary for states that are incapable of running their own exchanges such as Rhode Island or Hawaii. Every state is free to manage its own exchange within federal guidelines.

Yes, there were a lot of players. I blame the lenders for failing to lend money responsibly. I don't primarily blame President Bush 2, but it's pretty obvious to see his policy changes were an absolutely terrible idea. Hindsight is 20/20, i'm not suggesting that he should have known then (which i claim of the Iraq debacle), but we are still responsible for our unintentional mistakes.

Zero republicans voted for the ACA, as i stated, this could simply be evidence of their conformity to their political agenda rather than a commitment to serve the American public with integrity.

Yes, President Clinton's deregulation helped set the stage for the bubble. I still believe it was limited in responsibility for undermining the standards in assessment of credit risk.

The individuals who took loans they couldn't afford are only responsible for losing their own homes. The banks are responsible for their failure to lend money. The policies are responsible for undermining the regulation that would have limited the downward spiral of foreclosures.

I can't speak to Vern's personal opinion, but for me, the idea that President Bush 2 is solely responsible is completely false. However, it seems obvious that, as a matter of policy, President Bush 2 let this crisis occur under his watch- he even pushed it further toward deregulation, making it worse. Trying to blame President Clinton for President Bush 2's policy failure is an act of partisanship.

This is a federal mandate with federal control. Where exactly do the taxes go for people who choose NOT to purchase ACA? That isn't state initiated programs which the GOP supports. MA implemented Romneycare based upon the desires of the people of MA. All you are doing is supporting another Federal Entitlement Program

Sorry, but you are buying the leftwing narrative because that is what you want to believe. Seems you expect the Federal Govt. to protect you from poor choices even you make. The crisis began long before Bush took office but yes it occurred under his watch. Any idea how Barney Frank and Chris Dodd or even the Democrat Congress allowed that to happen?

 

[calamity]

maybe the worst chart ever. what is it even based on?

Not giving Obama everything he wanted?

 

[Conservative]

#1 You don't know what i know about what you know any more or less than i know about what you know. State your case. Saying "You're wrong because you're wrong," is faulty, circular logic. Articulate your case, if it exists.

#2 I don't know why you blame a policy change from thirty years earlier. That seems like a conclusion-seeking stretch of massive proportion. Even if you're right (which i doubt), i still hold every politician in charge along the way for ignoring the signs and continuing down the wrong path. Going back to my though experiment, the last policy maker to continue down the path in the wrong direction is necessarily responsible for the mistakes of their own policy. That fits President Bush 2 perfectly, and i have absolutely nothing personally against the man. I think he was a generally good person. That doesn't mean he always made the right decisions, and i'm unclear why you think your fondness for him shirks him of responsibility for his obvious error.

#3 The idea of a competitive marketplace was championed by multiple people in the Heritage think-tank. It was championed in '93 by republican politicians. It was used by Romney in Massachusetts. It uses competition in an open market for cost control. That's all quintessentially conservative ideology no matter how wildly you try to contort to seek alternative conclusions.

Very simple Question, explain the difference between Romneycare and ACA? For some reason you believe that the Federal Govt. is the answer to competitive pricing, elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. Where do you get that kind of historical data to support that belief?

 

[calamity]

View attachment 67190494

this pretty much sums it up

The recovery did well though. So, maybe the "obstructionism" wasn't so bad after all. Beats being $24T in debt, which we probably would be today if the R did not turn into the party of "no!"

 

[Conservative]

The recovery did well though. So, maybe the "obstructionism" wasn't so bad after all. Beats being $24T in debt, which we probably would be today if the R did not turn into the party of "no!"

You mean this recovery?

Forbes Welcome

 

[calamity]

You mean this recovery?

Forbes Welcome

A pre-2012-election hit piece. Yeah. that's going to convince people.

 

[Vern]

I know about your thread on the "Congressional Mortgage Bubble". You have "proven" nothing there at all.

Oh look, rentoc is trying to deflect from the fact I've proven that "bush mortgage Bubble" and 'great bush recession" are not fallacies. rentoc, this statement alone allows me to call them the "bush mortgage Bubble" and 'great bush recession".

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

Me proving Bush was responsible is just a bonus. If you want to post your empty factless rhetoric of "Congressional Mortgage Bubble" (yet he whines about fallacies) then attempt to be honest and say "republican Congressional Mortgage Bubble". so now we've established that "bush mortgage Bubble" and 'great bush recession" are not fallacies, what should we discuss next. Oh that's right, you were whining about fallacies to deflect from the republicans' disgusting un American scorched earth policy of obstructing everything the president wanted to help the economy.

I have not admitted anything about Republicans or Democrats. The fact is this, US Politics has devolved into something the founders would find utterly disgusting.

mmmmm, sorry rentoc "dems did it too" is you trying to justify republicans doing it. (I'm still chucking how the mean ole dems forced Bush I to raise taxes). And you even contradict yourself.

For you to claim that the Republicans are the only party that plays this silly game is well, silly.

You are literally saying "republicans aren't the only ones". But rentoc, I'm not talking about "silly games". I'm talking about republican’s disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstruction. Watch how I make a point and back it up instead of assuring you I’m right. Grand standing about raising the debt ceiling is a “silly game”. No doubt both sides did that. Threatening to default on the debt and having to fend off the teaparty conservatives who really wanted to default on the debt is not a silly game. Its a disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstruction and both sides did not do that. Only republicans. And con, republicans shut down the ExIm bank. You just cant spin shutting down a profitable bank that helped small businesses export their products as anything but a disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstruction. Simply more proof that republicans are unfit to govern.

 

[Fenton]

I know about your thread on the "Congressional Mortgage Bubble". You have "proven" nothing there at all.

I have not admitted anything about Republicans or Democrats. The fact is this, US Politics has devolved into something the founders would find utterly disgusting. There is no middle any more when it come to Politicians and we the electorate are suffering for it. BOTH parties have obstructed and tried to destroy the "other side" when that "other side" is in control of something they covet. When the Dems had total control they rammed a massive utopian health care entitlement down the throats of the United States without even really understanding what they were passing. I would say if the tables had been reversed, the Republicans would have done something as stupid.

For you to claim that the Republicans are the only party that plays this silly game is well, silly.

Hey Rentoc, of you want to shut down Trolls that say Bush caused a mortgage bubble and that it all started after 2004 just post a Homeownership chart from 1974 to 2008.

 

[Vern]

I've worked up a chart of my own to show the true numbers:

I think it's evident of evidence.

See how it's more official in appearance? That means I know what I'm talking about, here. Cannot deny the truth of the shading and the multi color they hue tempered shapes with that nice bevel. Those are stats done right.

:lamo

You didn't label your axels.

 

[Vern]

Hey Rentoc, of you want to shut down Trolls that say Bush caused a mortgage bubble and that it all started after 2004 just post a Homeownership chart from 1974 to 2008.

actually fenton, I was just shutting down his "fallacy" narrative. sure he posted "wah wah you've proven nothing" but I ignored it. He's just looking to deflect me shutting down his "fallacy" narrative. er uh fenton, speaking of shutting down posters, I noticed you didn't reply to me at your latest Bush Mortgage bubble thread. I asked you to explain how what you've posted explains why the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004 and how anything you've posted explains why Bush's regulators didn't do their job. Its not the first time you've cut and run from me asking to explain your "narrative".

 

[Conservative]

A pre-2012-election hit piece. Yeah. that's going to convince people.

The recession ended in June 2009 so 2012 would be a look back at that recession and the recovery. It is also almost 3 years AFTER the stimulus was passed and implemented. Looks rather fair to me in evaluating the recovery

 

[GunFora]

View attachment 67190494

this pretty much sums it up

That's AWESOME!!! I just love cartoons!

 

[Vern]

Yes, there were a lot of players. I blame the lenders for failing to lend money responsibly. I don't primarily blame President Bush 2, but it's pretty obvious to see his policy changes were an absolutely terrible idea. Hindsight is 20/20, i'm not suggesting that he should have known then (which i claim of the Iraq debacle), but we are still responsible for our unintentional mistakes.

Actually you're being too kind. Hindsight was simply not necessary when Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending. Liiterally all 50 states banking supervisors and AGs along with other organizations pleaded with Bush to rescind it. They literally said "that the proposed rule would concentrate regulatory power in the hands of a single individual, the Comptroller, with virtually no direct congressional oversight until problems or scandals emerge."

see, they nailed it. some ideas, like ignoring the experience states had with predatory lending, just defy all logic and commonsense. a few months later, a mortgage based on predatory lending started that destroyed our economy. here's a blurb to prove my point.

STATES UNITE TO FIGHT SWEEPING OCC PREEMPTION

Washington, D.C. -- In a rare locking of arms, state groups representing governors, state attorneys general, state legislatures and state bank supervisors are working to stop the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) from preempting state laws for national banks and their subsidiaries.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) along with a number of prominent organizations, including the National Governors Association (NGA), the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the North America Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), have voiced their opposition to the OCC's proposed rule that would effectively preempt all state laws that apply to the activities of national banks and their state-licensed subsidiaries. The groups are asking OCC to withdraw the controversial proposal.

States Unite to Fight Sweeping OCC Preemption

"and their subsidiaries" only made it more toxic. The rule even applied to banks with state charters if they were affiliated with a national bank. mmmmm, why did Bush preempt all state laws against predatory lending. Oh yea

In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers.
http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/economics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf

boy did he remove "disincentives".

 

[Conservative]

Actually you're being too kind. Hindsight was simply not necessary when Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending. Liiterally all 50 states banking supervisors and AGs along with other organizations pleaded with Bush to rescind it. They literally said "that the proposed rule would concentrate regulatory power in the hands of a single individual, the Comptroller, with virtually no direct congressional oversight until problems or scandals emerge."

see, they nailed it. some ideas, like ignoring the experience states had with predatory lending, just defy all logic and commonsense. a few months later, a mortgage based on predatory lending started that destroyed our economy. here's a blurb to prove my point.

STATES UNITE TO FIGHT SWEEPING OCC PREEMPTION

Washington, D.C. -- In a rare locking of arms, state groups representing governors, state attorneys general, state legislatures and state bank supervisors are working to stop the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) from preempting state laws for national banks and their subsidiaries.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) along with a number of prominent organizations, including the National Governors Association (NGA), the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the North America Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), have voiced their opposition to the OCC's proposed rule that would effectively preempt all state laws that apply to the activities of national banks and their state-licensed subsidiaries. The groups are asking OCC to withdraw the controversial proposal.

States Unite to Fight Sweeping OCC Preemption

"and their subsidiaries" only made it more toxic. The rule even applied to banks with state charters if they were affiliated with a national bank. mmmmm, why did Bush preempt all state laws against predatory lending. Oh yea

In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers.
http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/economics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf

boy did he remove "disincentives".

Right, Vern, predatory lending obviously held a gun to the head of people forcing them to take out loans that they couldn't afford. Personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world. I thought liberals like you cared about putting people into homes even those who couldn't afford them?

 

[Vern]

The recovery did well though. So, maybe the "obstructionism" wasn't so bad after all. Beats being $24T in debt, which we probably would be today if the R did not turn into the party of "no!"

But the "obstructionism" was simply over the top in a purely partisan attempt to sabotage the recovery. thanks to their scorched earth policy, we got an actual shutdown and "default on the debt" scare that hurt our credit rating. that added to the deficit. And without it we would have gotten a jobs bill where the increase in spending would have been covered by letting the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled for the top 2%.

"Combining the direct spending and revenue effects of S. 1549, CBO estimates that
enacting the bill would increase the budget deficit by $288 billion in 2012 and decrease
deficits by $3 billion over the 2012-2021 period."

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/costestimate/s15491.pdf

So not only would we have gotten a better recovery, we would probably have less debt than we have now. But a better recovery was what they were trying to prevent. they put politics ahead of the people.

 

[Vern]

The recovery did well though. So, maybe the "obstructionism" wasn't so bad after all. Beats being $24T in debt, which we probably would be today if the R did not turn into the party of "no!"

and I forgot to mention, look how the Trump and Bush are now pushing for tax cuts. I'm not seeing any outrage from the right that we got the first 4-5 years of the Obama administration. I guess he's reduced the deficit enough that republicans feel comfortable going back to their budget busting ways.

 

[Conservative]

and I forgot to mention, look how the Trump and Bush are now pushing for tax cuts. I'm not seeing any outrage from the right that we got the first 4-5 years of the Obama administration. I guess he's reduced the deficit enough that republicans feel comfortable going back to their budget busting ways.

LOL, this coming from a guy who believes govt. spending which grew GDP ended the recession and now also believes people keeping more of what they earn is an expense to the govt. Reducing the deficit yet adding over 7.6 trillion to the debt is another liberal success, isn't it Vern?

 

[Absentglare]

This is a federal mandate with federal control. Where exactly do the taxes go for people who choose NOT to purchase ACA? That isn't state initiated programs which the GOP supports. MA implemented Romneycare based upon the desires of the people of MA. All you are doing is supporting another Federal Entitlement Program

Sorry, but you are buying the leftwing narrative because that is what you want to believe. Seems you expect the Federal Govt. to protect you from poor choices even you make. The crisis began long before Bush took office but yes it occurred under his watch. Any idea how Barney Frank and Chris Dodd or even the Democrat Congress allowed that to happen?

Why are you worried about the taxes paid by people who do not have health insurance ? Probably the same place where all federal taxes go, the federal government.

Entitlement is an interesting word. Like 'socialism' it has been perverted by conservatives for political purpose. Entitlements describe things like social security, you are legitimately entitled to the benefit because you paid into the system all your life. Conservatives have perverted this to mean any form of government assistance with emphasis that it is never truly earned. This betrays the very meaning of 'entitlement' similar to the way that one definition of 'literally' actually means 'figuratively' except that this fallacy wasn't committed by teenage valleygirls boasting to their BFFs, it was done by politicians seeking to deliberately mislead their voter-base with manufactured outrage.

Do you see how i didn't simply accuse you of political bias, i actually explained the bias, itself ?

I don't make poor personal choices and i don't expect the feds to fix my problems. What i want them to do is keep the health care industry honest, a task that they've failed miserably at doing since we spend as much (as a % of GDP) on public health care (medicare, medicaid, VA) as other countries spend on total health care costs. That's right. If we had a health care system like the OECD average, we could pay for everyone's health care, in its entirety, without spending so much as an extra penny.

 

[Conservative]

Why are you worried about the taxes paid by people who do not have health insurance ? Probably the same place where all federal taxes go, the federal government.

Entitlement is an interesting word. Like 'socialism' it has been perverted by conservatives for political purpose. Entitlements describe things like social security, you are legitimately entitled to the benefit because you paid into the system all your life. Conservatives have perverted this to mean any form of government assistance with emphasis that it is never truly earned. This betrays the very meaning of 'entitlement' similar to the way that one definition of 'literally' actually means 'figuratively' except that this fallacy wasn't committed by teenage valleygirls boasting to their BFFs, it was done by politicians seeking to deliberately mislead their voter-base with manufactured outrage.

Do you see how i didn't simply accuse you of political bias, i actually explained the bias, itself ?

I don't make poor personal choices and i don't expect the feds to fix my problems. What i want them to do is keep the health care industry honest, a task that they've failed miserably at doing since we spend as much (as a % of GDP) on public health care (medicare, medicaid, VA) as other countries spend on total health care costs. That's right. If we had a health care system like the OECD average, we could pay for everyone's health care, in its entirety, without spending so much as an extra penny.

I asked you a question and you ignored it because you don't understand healthcare costs which are BOURNE by the States not the Federal Taxpayers so tell me why the Federal Govt. collects and keeps the taxes?

It does appear that you don't understand history nor do you understand we have an 18.2 TRILLION dollar debt costing the taxpayers at least 250 BILLION a year in debt service. Looks like a big govt. liberal to me so why not just eliminate the states?

You continue to buy what you are told not understanding healthcare costs at all. Why is this so hard for you to understand, the states and local communities absorb healthcare costs and that has nothing to do with GDP. How do you know the numbers you are being provided are accurate and actually have anything to do with the national GDP?

Medicare should never be part of any equation as it is a self funded program paid for by payroll taxes yet for some reason you continue to promote the unified budget. VA expenses aren't the issue you and others claim either as I gave you the Treasury link to the budget but apparently you ignored it.

 

[Ancient Herald]

They will reciprocate and i loathe that they let republicans pull them down to the same level.

Liberals are no different and have no substance or any credibility to their partisan hackery.

So why should I believe you or accept your word in any capacity?

You guys are just whining because you want to be able to have all the stuff they have.