Hypocrites in Washington

[zimmy]

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

Your beginning postulates "I am not sure," and "supposed to" are key to the rest of your argument in which you display confidence in various projections. Projections are not facts. They are often innacurate. And different agencies give different projections on plans. Obviously, Ryan and his supporters project outcomes differently. And deficit reductions are important but long term debt reduction by both Obama and Ryan "plans" may raise deficits in the short run to control rising debt in the long run. A problem with all the debt reduction plans is that they are all long term. Few, if any current politicians will be in office when the plans are scheduled to pay off. The "farse" is that those plans will not be changed, ammended, neutered, or discarded over the next twenty years by new administrations. As long as we maintain our expanding course of government of, by, and for government, instead of reversing, gradually, toward government of, by, and for the people, there are not only no garantees that any government "plan" will constantly reduce debt, it is more likely that debt will increase, and only fiscal disaster will force a change.

Yes, the Ryan plan is tweaking around the edges of progressive big government, and it is as likely to suffer degradations of future administrations, but it has a built in "trajectory" or "vector" or a "heading in the right direction" of returning a portion of responsibility and choice to the people. And though it may be unlikely that that direction can be maintained against the allure of the nanny state, if it could, and gradually infiltrate the rest of our big government structure, then true constitutional government, rather than bureaucratic administrative government, could be restored.

That it seems unlikely, does not make it a farse. That you and so manhy others consider it a farse, and even so many more have become dependent on government, makes it unlikely.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

amazing that you can roll out so much hyperbole and then refer to anything as a "farce"

you would have been great fun during the Revolution, I suppose you would have deemed that whole "by the people, for the people"...thingy..."to be a farse" then as well...

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-to...rticle/2503013



"The first impact of ObamaCare on the economy is its ever rising price tag. The revised cost estimates for the first full 10 years of ObamaCare is now $2.6 trillion***, almost three times the $900B President Obama had promised it would cost. This soaring cost, however, is only what government will be spending, not the additional costs of compliance borne by the private sector.

The second economic impact of ObamaCare is all the taxes that will need to be raised to pay for this rising cost. There's a list of these new taxes at The Daily Ticker, along with an informative 4 ½-minute video interview of Henry Blodget explaining them (which actually has a bit of humor in it). But it's not only businesses and the investor class that will pay ObamaCare's new taxes; the middle class will also get hit.

The third impact on the economy from ObamaCare is regulation. Bureaucrats have already written 13,000 pages of new regulations, and they're just getting started. This has business in a state of paralysis: what are these unelected, unaccountable regulators going to dump on me next? There's also the issue of whether the regulators know what they're doing.

At Reason, Peter Suderman writes:

As part of a multipart study of the law's regulations, Christopher Conover, a health policy researcher at Duke University's Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, and Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, looked at eight of ObamaCare's major regulations and found that "that the regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) for these regulations were seriously incomplete, often omitting significant benefits, costs, or regulatory alternatives." ... The authors also conclude that the analyses were also "more likely to understate the magnitude of costs than to overstate them. All eight regulations appear to have understated the costs. In some cases, costs are understated by billions of dollars. The net effect of this pattern is to further contribute to the bias favoring regulation." Regulators who've decided to pursue certain rules have probably already decided that those rules are a good idea, and end up using the required analyses mostly to justify what they're already planning to do."


****I don't know if this is more or less accurate than any of the other numbers out there but based on the "vector"...it will be accurate at some point at least briefly

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

you would have been great fun during the Revolution, I suppose you would have deemed that whole "by the people, for the people"...thingy..."to be a farse" then as well...

Reading comp. an issue Scott? I didn't say it is "for the people" that is a farce, it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

And for buchie: you don't postulate on anything, because everything you say out is put out as fact, even when it is bs. I guess that is better

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Reading comp. an issue Scott? I didn't say it is "for the people" that is a farce, it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

The founders did not envision a federal income tax--neither on the middle class nor the super rich. They did not envision a divided nation, made even more so by divisive taxes. Their vision of "We the People" was one People made up of free individuals pursuing their personal happiness, not a class structure which had to be regulated by a central government. That is my OPINION. I don't claim it to be a fact. And it is my opinion, based on evidence and facts which I have presented before in this forum, that progressivism is responsible for those taxes, their massive slice of the nations wealth which allowed the massive growth of the central government.

And for buchie: you don't postulate on anything, because everything you say out is put out as fact, even when it is bs. I guess that is better

Where have I said that I don't? Where have I said that YOU shouldn't? Pointing out your postulation in relation to the rest of your post is not a scolding that you postulate. All of my posts, except when I quote or link to other opinions or facts, ARE OPINIONS. I assume that is obvious, and it doesn't require me to say "in my opinion" before every sentence I write.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.:

So I guess the sheeple are now the ones that don't fall lock step in with almost every major news network?

The ones who when asked why they are voting for "hope and change" have no good answer. Not saying you are one of them. You may have very valid reasons for voting D. If you want to call every American who votes Romney Ryan sheeple it may be time to look at why people vote Obama Biden as well?

I will vote Romney Ryan and it is simple for me. I work harder than I ever have for far less money than ever before. I am going to be looking at a tax increase in January due to legislation I didn't want. I fear if this administration is given a term without needing to campaign to keep their jobs we will be seeing far more legislation we don't want

I and my business will not survive another four years of the current regime. I kill myself daily to provide for my family I have gone months with out pay to make sure employees get taken care of before me. I pay my bills I have paid my dues. And I get to see people live and die through entitlement our current leadership included. I am middle class and my quality of living is rapidly decreasing. I don't live lavishly. I haven't taken a vacation for three years my customers are happy with me there just is not enough work for everyone. It is what it is. I just know if this regime gets another 4 years it will get worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates.

The kind of sacrifices we need to mend this country have to come from everyone.

You need a strong leader that can lay out the true facts of where we are,what the consquences are, what we need to do, and then unite all our people to be willing to do their share of sacrificing.

It can't be on the backs of one group, it has to be shared by everyone.
This class warfare stuff will never work, except to divide the country and
bring in votes for the party that promotes it.
It's estimated that the increase in taxing the 1% will bring in 80-90 billion,
which would do very little to pay down the trillions we have in debt.

It will take a concerted effort on every citizen's part and a dynamic leader
that can unite the people for the sake of America. While Obama promoted himself
in his campaighn to be such a leader, he has failed.

[Fly Rod]

I pay enough in taxes.....should not have to suffer for miss guided politicians that sit at their desk bouncing a pencil contriving to take my hard earned money.....making policies that exclude them

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

I pay enough in taxes.....should not have to suffer for miss guided politicians that sit at their desk bouncing a pencil contriving to take my hard earned money.....making policies that exclude them

Agree,but you think it's bad now, wait till the Bush Tax Cuts expire and all of us who pay taxes will pay around 50% of our income between Fed, State, County, Local Sales, etc.
We will be working for the Govt from Jan-July before we see our own dime.
That's why all Govt programs need to be cut to help stop the bleeding,none excluded.

These guys use many of these programs to pay back contributors and to buy votes for their own agenda and are scared to death to do what's really needed.

We need a President that will get out there explain his plan every week if need be, motivate and inspire us to get out of this quick sand. Holding a news conference every 2 months and appearing on Entretainment Tonight to talk about himself,his hobbies etc. is a dis-service to the country.
We all know he's a nice guy,but let's hear how he's really going to bring the Govt back to fiscal responsibility.