Do you feel everything the congress does should be poll driven WB?
I almost wished they had used what the GOP had used to push all the tax cuts through when the normal voting rules didn't work for them.
I feel decisions by our elected officials should be driven by the will of the people.
PARTICULARLY when the policy in question is our being taxed into oblivion on wasteful spending, that will inevitably bring about the economic collapse of both our currency and our nation. If the Congress, Senate and President submitted to the will of the people, we would veer off this insane course, and save our nation.
Rex, don't use your dead grandfather as a cheap prop.
Basams, take your own advice.
WB, I think much of the spending in the last year was aimed at avoiding a depression. The dems will probably be much more fiscally conservative after this. Even with this health care reform they showed far more discipline then gop did when they tackled medicare. That was entirely a big give away with no attempt to pay for it. This one actually reduces the deficit.
Rex, don't use your dead grandfather as a cheap prop.
Basams, take your own advice.
WB, I think much of the spending in the last year was aimed at avoiding a depression. The dems will probably be much more fiscally conservative after this. Even with this health care reform they showed far more discipline then gop did when they tackled medicare. That was entirely a big give away with no attempt to pay for it. This one actually reduces the deficit.
Your ability to rationalize away and excuse everyhting the Democrats do borders on religious faith.
Actually I think that's your problem with the GOP. I'm not entirely happy with the health care bill but the CBO did find that it does reduce the deficit. That's a good thing and it's better than what your party did, spend and pay for nothing.
Actually I think that's your problem with the GOP. I'm not entirely happy with the health care bill but the CBO did find that it does reduce the deficit. That's a good thing and it's better than what your party did, spend and pay for nothing.
On the contrary, the CBO says that the federal debt will rise to 23 trillion *WITHOUT* the Obamacare trillions added on.
Obama's spending is the path toward economic stagnation, high interest rates, greater unemployment, hyperinflation, and collapse of the U.S. dollar.
The CBO clearly says (even in the absence of Obamacare passing) that the current curve of debt is "unsustainable", reaching 23 trillion in 10 years, even without additional spending. How much more "unsustainable" with a (minimum) trillion more added on? (and realistically using Medicare and Medicaid as spending barometers for the actual cost, probably another 10 trillion added to the debt over the coming decade.) The Chinese have already said we can't afford it, and are increasingly reluctant to finance our debt, and even more so if we pass Obamacare. What happens if they don't continue to purchase our bonds? Collapse of the dollar. Hyperinflation.
Also, if you add coverage to 30 million more people, with no new doctors, that suddenly makes doctors less accessible to the 85% who are already covered, and inevitably diminishes quality of care for 85% of Americans (i.e., results in de facto rationed-care). A well-thought out system would have been in less of a rush, would have prepared expansion in the number of doctors, to provide for 30 million more patients. If this bill passes, it's a paper victory that really accomplishes nothing, other than giving Obama and the Democrats a symbolic victory that in truth does nothing to improve care, and arguably dimimishes care for an overwhelming majority (85%) who already pay for insurance. Obamacare will be less effective and a greater waste of money than No Child Left Behind, and the Prescription Drug Plan. It is a political victory only, at enormous cost to taxpayers. And perhaps the final economic nail in America's coffin, that drives us into bankruptcy and chaos.
The good news for Senator Ben Nelson is that he doesn’t have to face Nebraska voters until 2012.
If Governor Dave Heineman challenges Nelson for the Senate job, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the Republican would get 61% of the vote while Nelson would get just 30%. Nelson was reelected to a second Senate term in 2006 with 64% of the vote.
Nelson's health care vote is clearly dragging his numbers down. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan. Overall, 64% oppose the health care legislation, including 53% who are Strongly Opposed. In Nebraska, opposition is even stronger than it is nationally.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters in the state believe that passage of the legislation will hurt the quality of care, and 62% say it will raise costs.
The House and Senate have passed different versions of the health care legislation and now will try to agree on a plan to pass early in 2010. Because every Democratic vote is required to pass the legislation in the Senate, Nelson’s vote is essential. If Nelson votes to block final passage of the health care plan, he would still trail Heineman but would be in a much more competitive situation.
... Obamacare will be less effective and a greater waste of money than No Child Left Behind, and the Prescription Drug Plan. ....
The CBO says it will reduce the deficit. The prescription drug plan the GOP passed was totally unpaid for like everything else they got passed. Their policies brought us to this.
your not really that stupid are you? can you quote what the CBO says would have to take place for it to reduce the deficit? ten bucks says you know but wont say it, because it makes the Dems out for who they truly are.
From what I read he wasn't actually switching sides. He likes a little pie on the side, I don't see the big deal either way though. I figured it would bug some of the RKMBers but I'm sorta surprised at you getting into it though. Why does it bother you?
... Obamacare will be less effective and a greater waste of money than No Child Left Behind, and the Prescription Drug Plan. ....
The CBO says it will reduce the deficit. The prescription drug plan the GOP passed was totally unpaid for like everything else they got passed. Their policies brought us to this.
Didn't the CBO also say we'd have surpluses back at the beginning of the 2000s? See how that panned out. Also, the CBO has also raised questions about the next ten years when all the upfront taxing runs out. Sure, it may reduce the deficit in its first few years, but then--like with all gov't entitlement programs--its cost is going to explode and will just be stuck with another money drain.
The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs....To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.
That's probably why he normally confines his citations to rawmediamatterstory
You just posted something from a blog called sayanything.
Guess they have not gotten around to editing out some of the comments to their blog...
Quote:
jacobvk 12/27/2009 09:28 PM
I read the memo again and realized that you made an egregious error in your reading of what the memo actually said that I had missed before.
"Specifically, CBO has been asked whether the reductions in projected Part A outlays and increases in projected HI revenues under the legislation can provide additional resources to pay future Medicare benefits while simultaneously providing resources to pay for new programs outside of Medicare. Our answer is basically no."
That paragraph in the beginning of the memo in question is the real key to understanding the conclusion:
"To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position."
Essentially the CBO was answering a specific question. They were asked whether the savings would lead to be able to pay for both future medicare spending and spending on nonmedicare projects, to which the CBO was replying that to say that the savings would lead to spending in both future medicare and nonmedicare projects would be to double count the savings.
Quote:
Pisces 12/27/2009 10:27 PM in reply to jacobvk
I went back and reread the documents posted as well. Your assessment is correct. It seems that the poster of this didn't read any of the documents and simply posted what the Chamber said it said.
It seems the writer of the post didn't do any reasonable research and just posted the conclusions of a third party.
It doesn't appear that there was double counting since the CBO already considered this issue in its scoring of the bills since others didn't and they are just explaining that fact in their report. So there was no double counting nor is there a scandal here.
"The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement of the government’s fiscal position."
"The combination of lower Part A costs and higher tax revenues results in a lower federal deficit based on budget accounting rules. However, trust fund accounting considers the same lower expenditures and additional revenues as extending the exhaustion date of the Part A trust fund. In practice, the improved Part A financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions under the PPACA) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions."
That's probably why he normally confines his citations to rawmediamatterstory
You just posted something from a blog called sayanything.
I posted a link to the actual CBO letter, quoted text from the letter, and also posted a video from CSPAN. There's not a word in my post, other than the title, which was taken from the blog (except insofar as the blog also quoted the CBO letter).
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.
"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision," they wrote.
In a rare Christmas Eve vote, Senate Democrats pushed sweeping health care legislation to the brink of Senate passage, crushing a year-end Republican filibuster against President Barack Obama's call to remake the nation's health care system. The 60-39 vote marked the third time in as many days Democrats posted a supermajority needed to advance the legislation.
The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.
Last week, McMaster said he was leading several other attorneys general in an inquiry into the constitutionality of the estimated $100 million deal he has dubbed the "Cornhusker Kickback."
Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina raised questions about the legislation, which they said was amended to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's support.
"Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation's legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation," the attorneys general wrote.
A conference committee begins meeting next year to work out a compromise between House and Senate versions of the bill. Experts expect those talks will likely last into February, and a spokeswoman for U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., did not immediately comment on the letter.
McMaster says if the bill goes through to final approval with the benefit to Nebraska, taxpayers in the other 49 states will have to pay for it.
Meanwhile, Nelson is taking his message on health care reform directly to his constituents. In a television ad beginning during Wednesday night's Nebraska-Arizona Holiday Bowl football game, the Democrat says he stuck by his principles throughout the debate and doesn't want Nebraskans to be confused on his position.
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 21 minutes 29 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
