GOP: Cut the deficits we ran up, but FOR CRIPE'S SAKE NOT IN OUR DISTRICTS !!!

So, they were FOR deficits before they were against them. Now, they were FOR cutting deficits before they were AGAINST it. Typical.

All fiscal hawks turn into pork junkies when their own pet projects are on the chopping block.

NIMBY writ large.

Be Well.

Sen. George LeMieux dismissed it as too little, too late

Much better to do nothing.

What an asshole.

Obama Opposition Syndrome is really causing the GNOP to expose themselves as the loons they are.

This is the best strategy to expose the GNOPers for what they truly are... obstructionists. And you think he played them last Friday... that is just the beginning.

This is the best strategy to expose the GNOPers for what they truly are... obstructionists

I sure wish the democrats had been obstructionists when Bush was president. We not might be in the mess we are in now. But no, they just sat on their fat asses and let Bush run the country into the ground. Lazy, spineless fucks.

I sure wish the democrats had been obstructionists when Bush was president.

Yeah it is all the Democrats fault.

Yeah it is all the Democrats fault.

Well, why didn't they play the same obstructist cards the republicans are playing now? Too spineless? Too lazy? What? They had the same rules the republicans have now. Why didn't they take advantage of them and stop or at least slow down the republicans?

You mean like when the tax cuts were pushed through budget reconciliation process and the minority party is powerless to stop it?

You mean like when the tax cuts were pushed through budget reconciliation process and the minority party is powerless to stop it?

I mean any bad legislation the republicans passed. Why didn't the democrats play the obstructionists as the democrats now accuse the republicans are doing?

Okay, name a bill you think they should have opposed.

I mean any bad legislation the republicans passed. Why didn't the democrats play the obstructionists as the democrats now accuse the republicans are doing?

#11 | Posted by goatman

Probably because the central meme out there was that the Democrats were "against America" while the Republicans were there to "protect America" - kinda hard to vote against initiatives when the majority of this country blindly accepts that dichotomy. In the end, these people (both sides) want to keep their jobs.

Why didn't the democrats play the obstructionists as the democrats now accuse the republicans are doing?

#11 | Posted by goatman
* * * *

Because they were too busy elbowing each other out of the way to give speeches praising the Patriot Act, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, tax cuts (for everybody), warning the world about Iraqi WMD's, showing everyone back home how generous they were to seniors in the Prescription Drug Benefit, and trying to get their names on the education bills. Then leading up to the 2006 elections, they started to scream, "Pay as you go!"--then, forgot that they had.

Across-the-board 20% cuts. Every program. Discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Every federal salary and benefit to be cut. If the federal government were a business that was spending twice what it was taking in, emergency measures would be taken to save it.

Then leading up to the 2006 elections, they started to scream, "Pay as you go!"--then, forgot that they had.

Uh huh, and what was the reason pay go was not done from 2000-2006?

But of course nowadays it is all different, the GNOP are "deficit hawks" just not for their pork.

They are for spending cuts, but just against spending cuts that effect them.

How Republican of them.

end corporate welfare = solve financial problems.

end corporate person = solve government problems.

tax cuts (for everybody)

If that were the case, the Bush tax cuts wouldn't be sunsetting after this year. Instead Republicans decided to cut taxes, spend more, borrow more, and pass the tax mess to the next guy down the line. So much for responsibility.

Uh huh, and what was the reason pay go was not done from 2000-2006?
* * *

Because Republicans were spineless, big spending pussies. Then they were replaced by Democrats who are spineless, big-spending pussies.

RiR is correct, and so is this fiscal hawk, lets cut funding from the districts that oppose the majority. Not much different than the closing of Chrylser dealerships. Gaveto the Obama campaign, you survived.

Instead implement across the board cuts, it is equitable. This avoids the partisanship that will occur.

Here is a prediction, future proposed cuts will fall primarily on those districts that oppose the majority. But the cuts won't be significant enough to make a dent in the deficit, but the majority will claim otherwise, what did Obama say he found $20Billion?

RE:#16 726 in your own words no less...

Much better to do nothing.

Keep pointing fingers, it is not change, but it gives you hope...

So much for responsibility.

I always knew their "party of responsibility" was a sham.

Just look at how they position themselves now... that the reckless spending under Bush was the Democrats fault for not stopping them..... totally sidestepping the fact that had the Republics not acted recklessly in the first place the Democrats would not have had to stop them.

It is like blaming the fence becuase the farmer left the gate open and the horses got out.

what did Obama say he found $20Billion?

Would you have preferred he spent that extra $20 billion?

Across-the-board 20% cuts.

I agree.

Lets start with the military.

Then social security and medicare benefits.

But do it smartly.

I cannot tell you how many times I see someone with millions in the bank collecting social security and medicare, one person never worked a day in her life and was collecting $21,000 in ss benefits and just putting it in a seperate bank account she never touched.

Across-the-board 20% cuts

That won't be enough. You still have to raise taxes in the short term to fix this mess. However, taxes need to be raised accross the board, which includes cutting back on the EITC.

On a side note: in a round about way the Obama administration has greatly reduced the Government's EITC burden by requiring tax prepares to be certified. Many, and I mean way more than you think, of the small mom and pop tax preparer shops would assist many people in falsifying information to generate large EITC payments. I volunteer every year with the VITA program at my law school, and every year we have to keep track of the SS numbers used by people coming in, as many people in the same community will "share" social security numbers in hopes of bringing home a bigger credit. By essentially shutting down these mom and pop shops, Obama has effectively reduced the amount of tax fraud occurring in these communities. Of course, the administration isn't going to trumpet that fact because many of those abusing are his constituents.

"Then social security and medicare benefits."

Some people are now trying to exist on SS benefits, cutting their benefits would just be inhuman. Why can't we discuss the same fix Reagan used for SS?....Raise the amount of income subject to SS tax.

Some people are now trying to exist on SS benefits, cutting their benefits would just be inhuman.

Danni, if we want to save this country from financial ruin, everyone is going to have to take a hit.

can't we discuss the same fix Reagan used for SS

I think that will happen. I also think we are looking at a 70 year old threshhold.

I always knew their "party of responsibility" was a sham.

#21 | Posted by 726

Ofcourse it was...

Some people are now trying to exist on SS benefits, cutting their benefits would just be inhuman.

agreed.

Why can't we discuss the same fix Reagan used for SS?....Raise the amount of income subject to SS tax.

already being done every year. It gets adjusted up year after year after year.

I remember it was below $63K back around 1996....now it is over $106K.

And I'm sure this will continue.

"I remember it was below $63K back around 1996....now it is over $106K."

So they should raise it to 150K then.

Some people are now trying to exist on SS benefits, cutting their benefits would just be inhuman.

Danni, if we want to save this country from financial ruin, everyone is going to have to take a hit.

#25 | Posted by taxman

Just cutting right now would be ruinous---what they have to do is set out a measured long term program to slowly over time reduce the deficits--one program would be to contine to push out retirement age for collecting SS.

"Danni, if we want to save this country from financial ruin, everyone is going to have to take a hit."

I realize that but poor old people should not be where we cut, sorry but I think we should start with the rich folks who benefited the most under Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts.
Presently, everyone is freaking out about the deficit but they should realize we faced similar problems in 1992. Dire predictions of increasing deficits and debt were made but the economy started growing and those predictions were found to be wrong. If we could get teh economy growing again we could very well grow our way out of our present deficit problems, China is growing at 10% per year while we have 10% unemployment, I don't think it is rocket science to figure out the real fix we need....and it ain't cutting SS or Medicare. It isn't cutting at all....it's doing the things necessary to increase employment, wages and tax revenues.

Maybe it's just because I'm getting older but the level of hypocrisy and the cyclical nature of politics is just ridiculous. Both political parties have contributed to the mess that we are in and have proven time and time again, that they are unable to effectively lead our nation or deal with our problems, regardless of the popularity of the president or the size of the majority in congress.

"one program would be to contine to push out retirement age for collecting SS."

I think you better have jobs for those folks then, the way I see it we need to encourage people to retire to open up jobs for younger workers.
I think raising the income amount subject to SS tax would help seniors retire and at the same time help lower unemployment.

You could raise it to $1,000,000 and it won't matter. Social Security is a disaster, but Medicare is a catastrophe. Both will bankrupt us, and the Danni's of the world don't care, as long as the country goes broke someday after they keel over dead.

Move the retirement age to 70. Cut benefits across the board. Cut spending everywhere. Sell government assets.

I think you better have jobs for those folks then, the way I see it we need to encourage people to retire to open up jobs for younger workers.
* * * *

That's because you see older workers as a liability, instead of an asset. On the other hand, you believe that if someone like yourself leaves the workforce, you should be paid to do so.

No money. Sorry.

Fiscal hawks are mythical creatures like unicors and griffins.

the same is true for inflation haks at the Federal Reverse.

"Both will bankrupt us, and the Danni's of the world don't care"

That is utter nonsense. Medicare for all would actually significantly reduce the cost of health care and bring our costs more into line with most other industrialized nations.
Raising the income subject to SS tax would not bankrupt anyone but would make the system solvent.
We are heading into another round of REpublican spinning against SS to try and convince us to privatize the system....to make it solvent????....riiiight. Fortunately we didn't listen to that idiot Bush when he tried to sell it, now we need to ignore the remaining liars.

Medicare for all would reduce costs, sure, but you would have less hospitals, less doctors, more wait times and people dying while waiting for surgery. Great solution!

"That's because you see older workers as a liability, instead of an asset."

Some are an asset some are a liability.

"On the other hand, you believe that if someone like yourself leaves the workforce, you should be paid to do so."

When I'm sixty five I expect SS benefits and I don't give a crap if you approve or not. I will enjoy the funds more knowing that it makes you unhappy. I'll remember to use part of it every month to help Democratic politicians get elected.

"Medicare for all would reduce costs, sure, but you would have less hospitals, less doctors, more wait times and people dying while waiting for surgery. Great solution!"

Baloney, you pretend that everything is set in stone, that Medicare rates can't be adjusted, etc. just to make your argument against Medicare.

"Medicare for all would reduce costs, sure, but you would have less hospitals, less doctors, more wait times and people dying while waiting for surgery. Great solution!"

Baloney, you pretend that everything is set in stone, that Medicare rates can't be adjusted, etc. just to make your argument against Medicare.

Our country is so fucked up.

We have people married to the idea that a Health Insurance co. whose sole motive is profit is required in our health system.

People are fucking morons.

My middle class, white collar, average sized company is looking at a 65% increase in our rates for an average benefit package-

Justification-they lowballed to get our business, new mandates and trends. I call bullshit.

When 30% of your health dollars go to processing payments (which is what health insurance companies do) PLUS the additional costs to your provider with him processing claims. THAT IS FUCKED UP!

And FUCKING MORONS cant see the destruction this system is doing to us.

We need single payer universal healthcare.

This would ELIMINATE YOUR and YOUR EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTIONS to health benefits.

Yes this would be offset by an increase in taxes BUT without the fucking leaches at the health insurance companies and the fucking leach insurance brokers you wouldnt pay any more.

USE the WINDFALL of money to fund educating doctors to assure adequate health care access for all.

People are so fucking stupid to think this couldnt work.

It works many other places.

It works here with medicare, medicaid, the VA

EVEN IN FUCKING PRISONS.

Christ people are stupid. They get what they fucking deserve.

"Medicare for all would reduce costs, sure, but you would have less hospitals, less doctors, more wait times and people dying while waiting for surgery. Great solution!"

Bullshit.

Use the savings from the waste given to Health Insurance companies and the extra paid to the doctors dealing with insurance claims to pay the education of qualified doctors and building hospitals.

Great Solution.

Does anyone read douchesquirt's posts?

You do realize that Medicare for all would be a MONOPOLY? Aren't monopolies supposed to be bad?

Monopolies, especially govt monopolies, have low quality and hight cost. I mean, if you have a problem with your service, where else are you going to go?

Monopolies, especially govt monopolies, have low quality and hight cost. I mean, if you have a problem with your service, where else are you going to go?

#45 | Posted by member2586 at

compare Medicare admin costs to the rest of us

It doesn't make me unhappy. If the only thing you've been looking forward to about your job is your 65th birthday so you can hit the door, then you're the one who's unhappy.

We can cut benefits now, or we can slash them later. How typical that you've chosen door #2. After all, it's not you.

Only a total dumbass looks to Medicare to solve our problems. Hospitals and doctors are increasingly opting out of taking Medicare patients, and it's staggeringly expensive besides.

No money. Sorry. Hope you enjoyed it while is lasted. It always amused me how, when you adjust the Medicare and Social Security numbers for race and sexual orientation, minorities and gays are getting completely screwed. Remember them? The people you sometimes pretend to care about? But not as long as the check has your name on it.

In other words, we can this the easy way, or our Chinese creditors can force us to do it the hard way. Either way, we will have a smaller government.

I say let them spend as much as they want! The more they spend, the soonrer the Chinese creditors will put an end to this nonsense.

"Aren't monopolies supposed to be bad?"

Yes they are and because of anti-trust exemption the health insurance industry does operate as one.

"or our Chinese creditors can force us to do it the hard way."

They can't force us to do anything. They hold at most 2 trillion of our debt by some estimates and we have the power to print money any time we want to repay them with.

Ok, let's get rid of the anti-trust exemption then. I believe there is bipartisan support for that.

"Only a total dumbass looks to Medicare to solve our problems. Hospitals and doctors are increasingly opting out of taking Medicare patients, and it's staggeringly expensive besides."

Compared to private insurance it's a great bargain. There you go again pretending Medicare payments can be adjusted to compensate Doctors and Hospitals fairly.

"I believe there is bipartisan support for that."

Riiiight. Any attempt to do it will be met with a filibuster.

Sure it is. Because every day the taxpayer is making up the difference between the actual cost, and what the Medicare premiums are.

In other news, people living in subsidized housing think it's a great bargain too.

#51

Oh dear Lord!

1. That is inflationary. People like you would then complain about evil business people jacking up prices for a gallon of milk.

2. That would cause interest rates to go up as creditors would demand higher rates for our debt. Libs would then complain about interest rates being too high.

I doubt the Senate would filibuster doing away with the anti-trust exemption. In any case, many economic conservatives would come out against that move and the filibuster would be short-lived.

Unless of course the anti-trust exemption repleat was tied to something umpaletable, then yes, there would be a filibuster.

How about a review of everyone living on S.S.? There are 50 million people receiving social security benefits. Do what? Over 16% of our population receives SS?

Now dosen't this "pull back the covers"!!

I don't agree with cutting NASA funding personally. I think exploring space is the ONLY future mankind has.

You libs with you head up your ass, just look at what is happening in Greece.

Danni, if we want to save this country from financial ruin, everyone is going to have to take a hit.

#25 | Posted by taxman

Agreed. For the first time...and then second time...in US History, we went to war and cut taxes. Instead of asking what we can do for our country, the GOP asked what can our Chinese banking friends do for our upper class.

The GOP plan is simple: run deficits and the debt so high, social programs need to be demolished. Then they can simply oppose ever setting them up again.

Moreover, don't forget we are paying about $400 BILLION a year just for Bush's contribution to the national debt. We have another $400 Billion approximately for Reagan's contribution. If it weren't for two Republican presidents, there would be hardly any deficit.

especially govt monopolies

Yes because that medicares 3% administration cost is such much more excessive than private insurances 15%.

Why can't we discuss the same fix Reagan used for SS?....

Why so the government can take social security funds and give them to millionaires in tax cuts?

Regan took the wage base and rate and shot them up, then proceeded to run deficits, effectively taking the money that was supposed to be put away to make ss solvent and giving it away through tax cuts.

Pretty fucking sneaky if you ask me.

Gore was mocked for his lock box suggestion because jr wanted to transfer those FICA taxes to his upper income buddies.

or our Chinese creditors can force us to do it the hard way."

They can't force us to do anything. They hold at most 2 trillion of our debt by some estimates and we have the power to print money any time we want to repay them with.

#51 | Posted by danni at 201

NOT SURE ABOUT this as has already been proven or is in the process anyway
..
still looking for links but reports are that barry has told intelligence to back off of china and china has told the white house that they must not do anything in tawain or for the dali lama
ALSO another report out that china and japan even had something to do with fannie mae and freddie mac.

story from fox news
notice the "FAIR AND BALANCED" reporting with slam against bush as well..

When we found out that China was selling our children lead painted toys and poisoned dog food, did anyone wonder why George Bush didn't say anything? Imagine if an American or British company were selling our kids chewable, lead-based toys? We would have hammered them. Why didn't we say anything to China? For the same reason you usually don't stick your finger in your boss's chest: You don't bite the hand that feeds you!

China now rules the world. Worse, the White House has gone even further for China. The White House has directed U.S. spy agencies to lower the priority placed on intelligence collection on China, resulting in opposition from top agents who fear the move will badly hit efforts to obtain secrets about Beijing's military program and its cyber attacks on U.S. targets.

But don't worry. I'm told by contacts with the CIA, that we only experience cyber attacks from China daily.

When we can't say "stay away from our secrets" because we can't lose their money, we've become slaves to them. But beyond just being afraid to stand up to them; maybe this is some sort of payment to the Chinese.

By not tracking their spy activities we're actually just paying a higher interest rate on our loans or when we allow them to steal our "stealth technology," maybe that's a payment on the principle. I've said before, as soon as China demands a higher interest rate, it's over. And everyone said, no, no, that'll never happen. That's not in their best interest.

"By not tracking their spy activities we're actually just paying a higher interest rate on our loans or when we allow them to steal our "stealth technology," maybe that's a payment on the principle. I've said before, as soon as China demands a higher interest rate, it's over. And everyone said, no, no, that'll never happen. That's not in their best interest."

BEfore Ronnie Raygun we didn't operate our government by borrowing money, we taxed our people enough to pay the bills. Guess what, no interest payments were necessary and we had prosperity.
I can't read a rant about the big debt we owe China and not wonder how we would be if that snake oil salesman Reagan hadn't sold the nation a bill of goods about lowering taxes and spending more at the same time. Remember too, he replaced Jimmy Carter and with him he replaced his energy plan. Gotta wonder how we'd be now had we followed Carter's advice and ignored that idiot Reagan?

You do realize that Medicare for all would be a MONOPOLY? Aren't monopolies supposed to be bad?

Monopolies, especially govt monopolies, have low quality and hight cost. I mean, if you have a problem with your service, where else are you going to go?

#45 | Posted by member2586

""

Does anyone else see the problem with the same entity that provides a product or service being the same entity that writes, enforces and interprets the law as it relates? Seems to me, that kind of a system would breed massive corruption, and kill quality.

"Monopolies, especially govt monopolies, have low quality and hight cost."

That must be why people who have Medicare are happy with the services they receive.

"Does anyone else see the problem with the same entity that provides a product or service being the same entity that writes, enforces and interprets the law as it relates?"

Yes I do see a problem with that and that is why I want Medicare for all so that insurance company lobbyists can no longer write the laws governing health care.

That must be why people who have Medicare are happy with the services they receive.

1. the program is on a bankruptcy-trajectory that makes Social Security blush.

2. Medicare reimburses providers at a rate that is below cost simply because they can - this is unsustainable in the long-run.

What do either #1 or #2 have to do with the recipients of the services being happy?

Oh yeah, they don't.

You can thank Bushy for the bankruptcy trajectory too.

But then again his goal was to run so much red ink to do away with all social programs.

Mission Accomplishitfucked.

#74 | Posted by 726

So, Bush and the GOP enact a horribly irresponsible fiscal policy and the Dems take over and magnify it 4-fold and you DEFEND them for this shit????

Jesus.

Massive-disconnect going on here.

I agree with the headline: Cut spending (But not here). As in CUT

-Any spending on the U.N.
-Cash and supplies to Africa, Israel, and any other nation
-Spending on non-strategic military operations overseas
-spending on global warming initiatives
-spending on N.Korea, Iran, Samolia, etc. Just drop a bomb on the leaders the next time they pop out and quit trying to occupy land that we don't want in the first pllace. Sooner or later they will get the message and it will be a whole lot cheaper on us.

I also think that if we do decide to spend non-dometically, that we should truly start looking at those expenditures as investments for the good of the nation. Not one parties particular ideology.

"1. the program is on a bankruptcy-trajectory that makes Social Security blush.

2. Medicare reimburses providers at a rate that is below cost simply because they can - this is unsustainable in the long-run."

Put everyone in Medicare and it's solvent forever.
RAise the amoung paid to providers and problem solved.

Ideologues want to believe Medicare is unfixable because they are ideologically opposed to it not because it really can't be fixed.

"So, Bush and the GOP enact a horribly irresponsible fiscal policy and the Dems take over and magnify it 4-fold and you DEFEND them for this shit????"

Jeff is apparently unaware of the near collapse of the banking industry, the bursting housing bubble and dangerously rising unemployment. Apparently he thinks Obama should have taken office and ignored the biggest economic crisis since the Great REpublican Depression of 1929. Thank God Obama is smarter than Jeff.

Jeff is apparently unaware of the near collapse of the banking industry, the bursting housing bubble and dangerously rising unemployment.

So is Obama...he is doing Healthcare, the college bowl system, and....oh, nothing.

#9 | Posted by goatman

The GOP passed the largest deficit creating measures through 'reconciliation' - Medicare Part D, 2 tax cuts for the wealthy, and reduced corporate taxes. Nothing Dems could do to stop any of it. The GOP had the 51 votes in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the WH.

Dems didn't get us in a $2,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) debacle in Iraq. The WH's own were responsible for lack of planning for anything but a rosy scenario. They also sent their appointees to Congress who testified it would last 5 months (tops) and cost $50 Billion (even though their own internal estimates were higher with the rosiest scenarios).

There's about $5 trillion right there all tolled.

Thank God Obama is smarter than Jeff.

#78 | Posted by danni

Why? Because Jeff doesn't make a habit out of bouncing checks?

Wisgod, don't give up your day job.

Dems didn't get us in a $2,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) debacle in Iraq.

Actually, 111 of them did.

#83 | Posted by goatman

After being told it would be a short conflict at a cost of no more than $50 Billion and 5 months, yes. . They certainly didn't have any control over how and when that war would be executed, nor did they expect us to still be there longer than WWII took to fight. That isn't what anyone was told (see links above).

$2,000,000,000,000 vs

Well, why didn't they play the same obstructist cards the republicans are playing now? Too spineless? Too lazy?

GOATMAN

The GOP used 'reconciliation'. End of story.

After being told it would be a short conflict at a cost of no more than $50 Billion and 5 months, yes.

IOW, they were duped by a stupid chimp. I hope the next election replaced those dumber-than-a-monkey congressmen with someone who actually does their homework and asks more questions before such a weighty vote.

Judging by the health care debacle, probably not though. Americans are too complacent.

IOW, they were duped by a stupid chimp.

When one WH official after another testifies to one set of talking points, especially over terrorism in the near 9/11 era, we expect they'll tell the truth. They didn't.

How Cheney, who said we didn't invade Iraq in 1992 with 500,000 troops because it would become a 'quagmire' could change his tune so fast and not go to the mat for more than 150,000 in 2003 is beyond reason. Especially with Shinseki publicly stating a minimum of 500,000 would be needed for security post-invasion. Sage advice that got him retired.

This link is full of claims and the actual facts on the Iraq War - many of them known by the WH at the time.

The White House played the fear card and, anyone who dared question why we were going to war had their patriotism questioned and/or their families attacked.

When one WH official after another testifies to one set of talking points, especially over terrorism in the near 9/11 era, we expect they'll tell the truth. They didn't.

If I was a congressman, I sure wouldn't believe an administration whose #2 guy you described as:

How Cheney, who said we didn't invade Iraq in 1992 with 500,000 troops because it would become a 'quagmire' could change his tune so fast

Would you expect the truth from such a person? No? Then why did the congressmen who voted for the war? That sure would've raised some red flags with me and make me question whether they were telling the truth or not. As I said, they were duped by a chimp and are therefore dumber than monkeys

IMO, We had probable cause to go after Bin Laden and Hussein. The problem was that the battle plans were flawed from the beginning. The whole concept of occupying land that we didn't really want in the first place was stupid. IMO, we should have used a much more clandestined approach and concentrated on destroying the leadership. First in Afghanistan for allowing Bin Laden to plan and then carry out his 9/11 plans. And secondly, Hussien for his non-compliance with the deal that he agreed to if we would let him live and stay in power after the first gulf war. Oh and also for being stupid enough to brag about his WMDs and think that know one would eventually have to call him out on it.

As you're well aware of, the WH sent a parade of officials who toed the party line of a cheap, quick war. As for Cheney, he should have spoken up at Cabinet meetings (the 1993 Dick Cheney), but instead became the loudest voice for invading Iraq and, one would think, on behalf of the WH that "there can be no doubt", etc.

The WH was in lock step. One man did not a conspiracy of untruths make.

So, that's $2,000,000,000,000 of our debt ... I listed the other reasons above.

So they should raise it to 150K then.

that is an extra $6,000/YR between me and my employer.

and you are crying like a bitch about health insurance premiums.

you don't give a shit about the money because you don't understand it Danni. plain and simple.

class envy is all I see from you. nothing more.

Ideologues want to believe Medicare is unfixable because they are ideologically opposed to it not because it really can't be fixed.

Ideologues want to believe private health insurance is unfixable because they are ideologically opposed to it not because it can't be fixed.

Jesus Christ this shit just writes itself.

"Ideologues want to believe private health insurance is unfixable because they are ideologically opposed to it not because it can't be fixed."

Well, the insurance companies have had a generation where health costs have wildly outpaced inflation. And in the last decade, health workers' pay has stagnated, while insurance companies profits soar, and medical costs for the average worker advanced at 4 times the inflation rate. I'd say they had their chance, and they made a fuck-all out of it.

Danforth,

Just because the health insurance companies, along with the full cooperation of State and Federal Govt, have profited and taken advantage of the marketplace aggressively, and yes...behaved in an ethical manner at times, doesn't mean they aren't capable of being refomed.

We have had to "reform" many industries over the years.....it rarely done consentually. It had to be forced. Car companies and other manufacturing have had to react to global competition. They didn't like it but they have to deal with it.

I believe the current healthcare bill isn't going to "force" very much on the part of health insurance companies...I want they to do the same thing you want them to do (I think) and that is to operate in a more competitive environment including competing with a good public option.

We have had robber barons and other unscrupulous leaders of industry in our past, we have benefited from govt intervention to "reform" these industries, not kick them to curb completely....which is seemingly what Danni wants at least ( and you too I guess).

"Just because the health insurance companies, along with the full cooperation of State and Federal Govt, have profited and taken advantage of the marketplace aggressively, and yes...behaved in an ethical manner at times, doesn't mean they aren't capable of being refomed."

I've served on health committees for nearly two decades. Insurers aren't capable of being reformed; they've used every excuse -- even 9/11 -- to screw over the public.

"I believe the current healthcare bill isn't going to "force" very much on the part of health insurance companies."

There is no current healthcare bill. It's going down in defeat, despite the fact it looks more and more like it could've been written by the Rs, because Rs are more interested in thwarting Obama than fixing anything.

"(and you too I guess)."

If the choice is thriving profits for health insurers, or health for Americans, I'll take the latter.

I've served on health committees for nearly two decades. Insurers aren't capable of being reformed; they've used every excuse -- even 9/11 -- to screw over the public.

oh bullshit. you don't know that. And understand that there are plenty of us out there who haven't had these experiences you apparently have had.

Oh, just so you know.. I meant "unethical" manner in my #96

And don't waste time blaming repubs for the failure of this bill. Yes, they are obstructing for their own reasons but it doesn't matter.

It WILL matter when the dems write a bill that makes sense and the repubs try to get in the way of that.

"And don't waste time blaming repubs for the failure of this bill."

Are you kidding? Brown proudly campaigned on the issue he'd be the 41st Senator, and kill the health bill.

"Yes, they are obstructing for their own reasons but it doesn't matter."

Sure it matters. The thing has no Dem hallmarks, like a public option, or Medicare for all. The "reasons" are to hurt the President. If they were serious about a fix, they'd be making real proposals, not suggesting competition across state lines, provided the insurance company in the issuing state gets to write the policy. You're in the business...isn't that like suggesting water on a grease fire?

"oh bullshit. you don't know that."

Sure I do. I was convinced after 9/11, when the insurers couldn't get enough guarantees from the markets to pay their annuity contracts, so they shafted the public with double-digit increases.

"And understand that there are plenty of us out there who haven't had these experiences you apparently have had."

Then they wouldn't know what I know, would they?

Maybe they think you are full of shit danforth. I don't. I know what is going on. I have been knee deep in claims, premiuns etc for sometime.

And you seem to think it is special that interest rates will impact premiums. It isn't. ALL insurance is impacted in the same manner one way or the other by that.
And the bill sucked. Save your outrage for the repubs when they get in the way of actual progress

Let me see if I get this straight danforth....you believe that the private heath insurance industry is beyond reform but this bill did nothing except involve the....wait for it....that's right.....THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY and you are mad at repubs for killing it.

Is that right?

Great Idea!

Decrease your share of spending and give it to me.

I like it.

especially govt monopolies

Yes because that medicares 3% administration cost is such much more excessive than private insurances 15%.

#64 | Posted by 2008 at 2010-02-03 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is such a tiresome talking point, because it is a lie.

CMS consumes 3 percent of its budget paying the salaries and benefits of lazy turds on the federal payroll.

The actual, day-to-day 'administration' of Medicare -- processing bills and making payments -- is done by ..... guess who??????

Cigna, Aetna, BlueCross, WellPoint, HealthChoice, etc. The big evil insurance companies are contracted for administration, state-by-state.

If it takes 15 percent for their private insurance, then they are also charging Medicare the same 15 percent.

end the drug war. make all drugs available.

the prohibition alone costs billions+ per year.

we don't need to cut, just stop being ridiculously stupid.

Like Obama said, wasteful spending is something that only happens outside YOUR district =)

The president has to accept responsibility for stubbornly pressing an ideological agenda that was out of sync with the public's priorities and then not effectively advocating for his own proposals.

For a solid year, Democrats held a rare super-majority in Congress. Had Obama been a better politician and a more forceful leader, he could have passed his entire wish list. He squandered his advantage, and now he wants to place the blame elsewhere.

He's good at that. After unveiling his budget earlier this week, Obama crisscrossed the country, lecturing Americans on the virtues of frugality. "We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences," the president said, adding that the government has to make hard choices and set priorities.

That's a good message. Except that this is entirely Obama's budget. He's the one who failed to set priorities, who didn't make hard choices. The nearly $1.3 trillion deficit built into this budget is historic in its fiscal recklessness, and it belongs to him.

He ought to be wagging his finger in the mirror.

Cutting back the space program is a foolish budgetary choice.

Consider Kennedy and his call to go to the moon within a decade. The resultant scientific, engineering and even food science advances were unprecedented.

Obama could have could have cut in a lot of places that just suck dollars without benefit. And even done "a Kennedy" by setting a goal that would have had similar benefits:

"NASA has had successes and failures over the past decades. But now it is time for NASA to lose the bloat and get down to the business of exploration. And the eventual opening of that exploration to non-governmental entities.

I want to see us return to the moon and beyond. I want NASA to become the NASA of the 60s. I'm opening up space exploration as a partnership between business, academic, research and the government. I'm directing NASA to come up with a plan, vetted by our partners, that will breathe enthusiasm and life back into the excitement our country felt as we landed on the moon.

And NASA, in its best moments, sparks the imagination of us as a people, making dreams of great achievements realities. The secondary and tertiary developments provide us as a nation a stronger economy and a more educated people, with dreams of the future rather than the nightmares of a failing nation."

All Obama's done is depressed another sector of our nation's economy which attracts some of the brightest people in our country.

The true purpose of government is to defend our country and our way of life.

So working to get out of space would be a good thing. But then, so would getting out of a whole BUNCH things, like education, bank bailouts, "health reform", etc., that far exceed that mandate

"Fortunately we didn't listen to that idiot Bush when he tried to sell it, now we need to ignore the remaining liars."
#37 | Posted by danni

There is one liar you listen to, believe...even praise:

report this morning

MOODYS is once again telling washington..
you are about to go from AAA to AA....

move over japan.

Fortunately we didn't listen to that idiot Bush when he tried to sell it, now we need to ignore the remaining liars.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-03 10:28

read a little history of medicare and SS and you will find that the liars were the dems who told us how little it would cost by 'saving' those costs and in the case of SS presidents have STOLEN money from that source starting with LBJ.

I sure wish the democrats had been obstructionists when Bush was president. We not might be in the mess we are in now. But no, they just sat on their fat asses and let Bush run the country into the ground. Lazy, spineless fucks.

#7 | Posted by goatman at 2010-02-03 07:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wow....you've taken such a big step in your recovery.

Admitting the problem is half the battle. I'm so proud of you for finally admitting that the republicans ran this country into the ground. Let the healing begin!

Bravo, Mr Goat! BRAVO INDEED!!!

I'm so proud of you for finally admitting that the republicans ran this country into the ground.

???

I never said that. However, I have never denied they were a part of the problem.