Hypocrites in Washington

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I agree. Just like the side that claims they want limited government, less spending, and balanced budgets some Americans still embrace the idea, some just sneer at the thought oversaw 8 years of increased spending, decreased taxes, and growing deficits. 1 out of 3 The whole limited government, for the people, etc is great, so you support this concept? great? but it isn't anymore of a reality with one party or the other; it is just different priorities. or you mock it because in your opinion it can never be reality?[COLOR="blue"][/COLOR]

these are the kinds of things that you'd say to a hostage...I know you want to leave but the door is locked and there is noone that can hear you no matter how loud you yell so just give up and accept what's going to happen to you....

sorry, I have more faith in this country and it's citizens and in the possibility that we can elect exceptional leaders that will nudge us back on the "whole limited government, for the people, etc " thingy..

Hope and Change.....

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

these are the kinds of things that you'd say to a hostage...I know you want to leave but the door is locked and there is noone that can hear you no matter how loud you yell so just give up and accept what's going to happen to you....

sorry, I have more faith in this country and it's citizens and in the possibility that we can elect exceptional leaders that will nudge us back on the "whole limited government, for the people, etc " thingy..

Hope and Change.....

mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by zimmy

mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who is middle class? According to this article $70k married jointly is middle class. Who is rich and who is poor? Seems like everyone has a different answer to this question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So we are reduced to a hopeless muddle of "plans" for how the federal government will run our lives. There is no escape. The planners and bureaucrats differ only in priorities. Ultimately, it must be class warfare. Marx was right.

Funny how raising the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200 will mean that federal government services will have to be cut. And because those services will be cut, the middle class will have to pay more for education, car repairs, e.coli outbreaks and all the other services the federal gvt. provides. States actually pay most of their education costs, and most of the cost of road repairs. We could not possibly prevent e.coli without the federal gvt. And "all the other services the federal government provides" would better not be named. The massive list of agencies, subsidies, and programs included in those services might make us wonder what is left for the rest of us to do and how it got that way. Of course, it would explain what the author means when he says "In other words Ryan's tax cut is a great deal--if you don't actually rely on the federal government for anything."
Some might even wonder why we rely on the federal government to do so much for us. We expect a few things, like the military, you know, like what the Constitution delegates to the government. But "all the other services the federal government provides"--yeah, better not print a list.

On the other hand, we are so used to it . . . why not? Maybe the government can do even more. Life is such a terrible burden for the middle class and poor . . . the government has done such a wonderful job for us . . . look how much longer we live, and how it takes care of our health, and creates jobs for us, and gives us money and food stamps when it doesn't create enough jobs for all of us . . . yeah! And if making the 2% pay more for our stuff, so what? Somebody has to pay for it. They don't need it. They send our jobs overseas. The more they get, the less we do. What's fair is fair. Politicians like Ryan and Romney are not for us. They are for the rich.

So, the author talks about Ryan's budget plan, but how does that compare to the current congressional budget. Oh, right, there is no budget. Apparently, the federal government doesn't need a budget. Silly of Ryan to concoct one. That is so twentieth century. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So we are reduced to a hopeless muddle of "plans" for how the federal government will run our lives. There is no escape. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.

Yup, throw your hands in the air and say" nothin we can do about it", might as well
just go along with it. Forget the fact that we are broke,they have the sheeple convinced
down the road all will be well and we will all live in Govt. Nirvana.
Move on, nothing to see here.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yup, throw your hands in the air and say" nothin we can do about it", might as well
just go along with it. Forget the fact that we are broke,they have the sheeple convinced
down the road all will be well and we will all live in Govt. Nirvana.
Move on, nothing to see here.

You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan? That is your idea of doing something about it? The doing something about it means raising taxes on everyone but those who have incomes over $200000, who would get dramatic cuts. People like Romney, Bill Gates, etc would pay about 1%. Great plan. Talk about sheeple, it is those who believe the garbage they are fed by clowns like Ryan

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan? That is your idea of doing something about it?

As I have said here many times before, to pull this country out of the fire it
will take sacrafice by EVERYONE. Not only tax increases but budget cuts.
How else are you going to pay down a $16 -17 Trillion dollar debt?
Obama is already gutting $716 billion out of Medicare to help pay for Obamacare.
So where does that leave Medicare?
What is Obama's plan for Medicare?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, the author talks about Ryan's budget plan, but how does that compare to the current congressional budget. Oh, right, there is no budget. Apparently, the federal government doesn't need a budget. Silly of Ryan to concoct one. That is so twentieth century. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.

Well, that's not really true. Congress certainly has passed budgetary compromise bills to keep things running. Yes, the process could be much more constructive...

The lack of a formal budget has nothing to do with progressivism, Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

One of which was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 99-0. What does that tell you, Spence? Remember, there are not 99 Republicans in the Senate.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

One of which was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 99-0. What does that tell you, Spence? Remember, there are not 99 Republicans in the Senate.

It tells me is wasn't a serious vote. Obama's budget was put up by Republicans trying to embarrass the president. The budget they proposed didn't even have any policy language in it...

It was a stunt.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama's budget was put up by Republicans trying to embarrass the president. It was a stunt.

-spence

if the budget was not embarassing...it wouldn't have been much of a stunt wasn't it a 3.6 Trillion dollar budget?

and

President Obama’s economists are nothing if not optimistic. In the fiscal year 2013 presidential budget request, they’ve once again forecast higher future growth than their private-sector peers – about a half-point of gross domestic product growth more, per year, than the 45 economists included in the Philadelphia Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters.

The Obama budget, released Monday, forecasts 2.7 percent real GDP growth this year and 3.0 percent next year. Growth increases to 3.6 percent in 2014 and 4.1 percent in 2015. The highest the Philadelphia Fed consensus projections peg growth at 2.3 percent this year and slowly rising to 3.1 percent in 2015

........................................
Jul. 27, 2012, 8:30 AM | 3,842 | 24

UPDATE:

The U.S. economy expanded by 1.5 percent during the second quarter, topping expecations( well, not Obama expectations) for a 1.4 percent gain, new data out of the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows.

Nonetheless, the government figures continued show that the nation's economy is on uneven footing and losing momentum.

During the first three months of the year, the country's gross domestic product expanded by a revised 2.0 percent, moderately faster than the pace seen today.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, that's not really true. Congress certainly has passed budgetary compromise bills to keep things running. Yes, the process could be much more constructive...

The lack of a formal budget has nothing to do with progressivism, Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

Well, yeah, the lack of a formal budget and the need for continuing resolutions have to do with differences on how federal money is spent, and, possibly, on not openly broadcasting how much is spent on what by publishing a budget. Since most of the money is spent on progressive reforms to the federal system, including the large array of executive and independent agencies, social security, medicare, etc. . . . the lack of a formal budget has quite a bit to do with progressivism. The massive size and continued growth of the central government is a direct result of progressivism, as well as is the trillions of dollars required to sustain it

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The massive size and continued growth of the central government is a direct result of progressivism, as well as is the trillions of dollars required to sustain it

which is exactly the point and the clear difference in this election....

the Obama Program(vector) is one of massive, permanent and expanding federal power, which happens to be the antithesis of the farcical , but great? .....intent of our founding....this much we know

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

mitt Romney of Romney care?

"ROMNEYCARE"

In November 2004, political leaders began advocating major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured.

At the same time, the ACT (Affordable Care Today) Coalition introduced a bill that expanded MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage and increased health coverage subsidy programs and required employers to either provide coverage or pay an assessment to the state. The coalition began gathering signatures to place their proposal on the ballot in November 2006 if the legislature did not enact comprehensive health care reform, resulting in the collection of over 75,000 signatures on the MassACT ballot proposal. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation also sponsored a study, "Roadmap to Coverage," to expand coverage to everyone in the Commonwealth.[17]

Attention focused on the House when then-Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, speaking at a Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation Roadmap To Coverage forum in October 2005, pledged to pass a bill through the House by the end of the session. At the forum, the Foundation issued a series of reports on reform options, all of which included an individual mandate. At the end of the month, the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing approved a reform proposal crafted by House Speaker DiMasi, Committee co-chair Patricia Walrath and other House members.[18]

Massachusetts also faced pressure from the federal government to make changes to the federal waiver that allows the state to operate an expanded Medicaid program. Under the existing waiver, the state was receiving $385 million in federal funds to reimburse hospitals for services provided to the uninsured. The free care pool had to be restructured so that individuals, rather than institutions, received the funding.[19]

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[20] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[21] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[22] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.


the lesson of "ROMNEYCARE"

In 2012, the Blue Cross Foundation of Massachusetts funded and released in April research that showed that the 2006 law and its subsequent amendments – simply in terms of measuring the state-budget effect on the uncompensated care pool and funding subsidized insurance (see Background section above) had cost approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2011 vs approximately $1 billion in fiscal year 2006. Some of this doubling in cost was funded by temporary grants and waivers from the United States federal government.

The Blue Cross funded research did not address the increased costs in premiums for employers and individuals or other market dynamics – such as increased providers' costs and increased co-pays/deductibles – necessary to meet minimum creditable coverage standards that were introduced in Massachusetts by other parts of the 2006 legislature and its resulting regulations. Separate research on Premiums and Expenditures released by the Massachusetts DHCFP in May 2012 found that fully adjusted premiums per member per month (PPMPM) for Massachusetts residents covered by comprehensive private insurance policies (approximately two thirds of the state population) increased approximately 9% in both 2009 and 2010 (latest data available) for subscribers in the "merged market," 7% in the midsized group market, and 5.4% in the large group market. These premium increase do not reflect actual resident experience particularly in the merged market because Massachusetts regulations allow age and other rating factors (e.g., even if premiums were held flat for 55 year olds living on Cape Cod in construction work from year to year, the 55 year old in 2009 would pay 10% more in 2010 for the same policy, possibly with lesser benefits).

Because of this combination of a larger than anticipated effect on the state budget (see 2012 Blue Cross research compared to Governor Romney's proposal to the Medicaid Commission in 2006) because of the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform and continued growth above inflation for private insurance (see DHCFP research), the legislature is considering strict provider price controls as of May 2012 with expected passage by July 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...-america-next/

"Under Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts has tried a couple of methods for limiting the government’s exposure to rising health-care costs. First, Patrick forced insurers to stop raising premiums, which led to a predictable train wreck, as insurers started hemorrhaging cash. When a state appeals board overturned Patrick’s decree, he shifted gears, and began going after the prices charged by hospitals and doctors. On Friday, the Massachusetts House unveiled new legislation toward that end. And progressive health-care observers around the country are taking notes."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The article projects that Ryan's plan would raise the average taxpayers bill by $2160 IF ALL THE DEDUCTIONS for the average taxpayer were eliminated, which the author says "admittedly, this is an extreme scenario."

Instead, he says, if that were not done to make the plan revenue neutral, cuts would have to be made from federal discretionary spending such as transportation (25%), assistance to poor (16%), education and social services (33%), and all the other government services except protected expenditures. This would not be a tax hike, but a "jump in the amount of money taxpayers would have to spend to educate their children, fix their cars, deal with e.coli outbreaks, and handle all of the other services that the federal government would no longer provide"(which is a strange jump from cutting services to no longer providing them). Most of these "services" are not granted in the Constitution for the central government to provide. Constitutionally, they are State, local, and individual responsibilites.

The author talks about how Ryan's plan projected to current level of medicare coverage would have cost the average person an extra $64 per month in premiums. Except that under Ryan's plan, there would be bidding for insurance coverage which he projects would lower cost of coverage compared to today's cost, so would actually save money, not raise premiums.

The article is typical static scoring that projects on the basis of the status quo. Costs remaining the same and the Federal Government maintaining the responsibility of "all those government services." It doesn't account for the shrinking costs for such "services" being provided by local treasuries rather than the big federal pockets, and the ensuing necessity to tighten cost controls (or loosen them in States like California which prefers to spend as wildly as the feds).

In effect, Ryan-like plans, which cut federal services, devolve power from central government to local government, which is the real, ultimate goal (vector).