There were hints yesterday about having to postpone a vote, but that might have been a feint to dissuade opponents from last-minute opposition efforts.
President Barack Obama is traveling to Capitol Hill on Saturday to try to close the sale on his signature health care overhaul, facing a make-or-break vote in the House certain to be seen as a test of his presidency.
Obama scheduled a late-morning visit with House Democrats convening a rare Saturday session on legislation to remake the U.S. health care system, extending coverage to tens of millions now uninsured and banning insurance company practices such as denial of coverage based on pre-existing medical problems.
Late Friday, House Democrats cleared an abortion-related impasse blocking a vote and officials expressed optimism they had finally lined up the support needed to pass Obama's signature issue.
Under the arrangement, Democratic Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were promised an opportunity to insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.
The leadership's hope is that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.
"We wish to maintain current law, which says no public funding for abortion," Stupak said. "We are not writing a new federal abortion policy."
No chance for the public to access the finalized bill online and read it. No chance for those being asked to vote it in to law to read it and analyze it and seek out comment and guidance from their constituents. Just a slammed-through vote, because Democrats can’t allow this ugly thing to hang out in public view any longer than necessary.
It’s said so often that it’s become cliche, but you can still make a difference with a phone call. Given the short notice, calling Washington DC directly is probably the best tact.
Here’s the number: (202)224-3121.
The un-American way of liberals on full display:
1) The Democrats feigned that they would delay the vote, to minimize Republican, Blue-dog, Independent and Democrat opposition, and now are forcing the vote today as planned.
2) Against what Obama himself promised (that proposed legislation would be posted online so that leaders and the people would have adequate time to read it, understand it and ask questions), the vote is being forced before anyone with questions can read the bill.
If they pass this bill, they will have to enforce it at bayonet-point. And will pay a very heavy price for it in 2010 and 2012.
It is a political coup against the will of the people, that relies on deceit and manipulation, and is illegitimate even if it succeeds. And it is a call to arms for patriotic Americans. We are being hijacked.
universal health care, a terrorist attack and george lopez and wanda dykes are each getting their own talk shows this month. I don't think things could get any worse.
Historic healthcare overhaul passes House The 220-215 vote marks the first such victory in decades of efforts to expand insurance coverage. The bill wins a lone GOP vote and loses many Democrats, pointing to challenges awaiting in the Senate. ...
HOUSE PASSES HEALTH CARE BILL The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
Quote:
(AP) In a victory for President Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later -- and Obama issued a statement saying, "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year."
"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.
In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.
Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.
At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.
A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed."
The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.
From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."
In his written statement, Obama praised the House's action and said, "now the United State Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will."
Shortly after the bill's passage, the president sent out an e-mail solicitation asking for donations to the Organizing for America, saying "the coming days will put our efforts to the ultimate test. Winning will require each of us to give everything we can, starting right now."
Nearly unanimous in their opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.
“This was a difficult decision; one that I have struggled with for months. But at the most basic level, my support for this bill is based on my strong belief that we literally cannot afford to leave this challenge unaddressed," Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., said.
United in opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.
"We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick,"' jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing "a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding" bill.
But with little doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer's town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting "death panels" to hasten the demise of senior citizens.
The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance.
To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.
The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear.
Democrats lined up a range of outside groups behind their legislation, none more important than the AARP, whose support promises political cover against the cuts to Medicare in next year's congressional elections.
The nation's drug companies generally support health care overhaul. And while the powerful insurance industry opposed the legislation, it did so quietly, and the result was that Republicans could not count on the type of advertising campaign that might have peeled away skittish Democrats in swing districts.
Over all, the bill envisioned the most sweeping set of changes to the health care system in more than a generation, and Democrats said it marked the culmination of a campaign that Harry Truman began when he sat in the White House 60 years ago.
Debate on the House floor had already begun when Obama strode into a closed-door meeting of the Democratic rank and file across the street from the Capitol to make a final personal appeal to them to pass his top domestic priority.
Later, in an appearance at the White House, he said he had told lawmakers, "to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America."
It appeared that a compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion had finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.
As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.
But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.
Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but pulled back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.
One, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., detailed numerous other benefits for women in the bill, including free medical preventive services and better prescription drug coverage under Medicare. "Women need health care reform," she concluded in remarks on the House floor.
A Republican alternative was rejected on a near party line vote of 258-176.
It relied heavily on loosening regulations on private insurers to reduce costs for those who currently have insurance, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. But congressional budget analysts said the plan would make no dent in the ranks of the uninsured, an assessment that highlighted the difference in priorities between the two political parties.
___
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Good luck getting this past the Senate. Although it scares me this sham was enabled to be pushed forward this far. Unread, unscrutinized, railroaded past honest debate. How could anyone support this kind of dishonest legislation?
This is not a bill that will improve anything. It's like the medical prescription plan under W. Bush and Ted Kennedy, that will just create another enormous entitlement that will further bankrupt our already-13-trillion-indebted nation. This is garbage legislation that Democrats will hold up to the uninformed to say "Look, we did something." When in truth, the nation would be far better off if they didn't.
Obama promised us public debate, and a chance for legislators and the public to read the bill before it was voted on. Instead we got deception and a private backroom deal by (Marxist) liberal elites.
This is just Democrats ramming through something the public doesn't want. And even with their overwhelming majority, it still barely passed. This is not will of the people. This is tyranny and deception.
From Free Speech in Era of Obama topic, 8-6-2009 :
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Obama in his own words : His goal is a single-payer system, that will drive private insurance out of business. Contrary to what Obama normally says, alleging a single payer system is not his goal.
When in truth (opposite what Obama tells the American people) his goal is to crush all private health insurance, that will be unable to compete with a vastly cheaper state-run single-payer healthcare system. And as planned by Obama, private insurance will gradually be run out of business over "10, 15, maybe 20 years".
Everything is going according to plan. Our comrades in Moscow will be pleased.
Quoting glenn beck makes you wrong. Actually, using any other persons words makes you wrong. Learn to think for yourself. Stop worshiping television personalities.
Quoting glenn beck makes you wrong. Actually, using any other persons words makes you wrong. Learn to think for yourself. Stop worshiping television personalities.
Rex, you're a dumbass. I don't even particularly like Glenn Beck. But I can't deny the validity of the audio and video quotes of Obama and his appointees that Beck cites. (see Obama quote above, to name one) You've yet to disprove one word I've said. And Beck's ever increasing viewership demonstrates that not just me, but tens of millions of others also find his insights valid.
I think for myself every time I listen to the excrement the liberal media gives every day, and reject it. Most recently the sympathetic portrayal of Hasan shooting up a Texas military base, portraying it as "post traumatic stress" despite that Hasan has never been to Iraq or Afghanistan, and the media's rationalizing Hasan's criticism of the Iraq and Afghan wars to somehow excuse his homicidal behavior. (Frankly Rex, I wonder how far away from a Texas Tower incident you are yourself. Your dysfunction and antisocial tendencies are well known here.)
I also think for myself every time you troll on me. Once again, your obsessive focus on whatever I post is pathological.
Speaking of freak-outs and tower-shootings, I'm pretty certain the Evil Communist Domination of America won't be born out of giving everyone adequate health care. If that's all the Right-Wing Extremists can dream up to scare people, you need to regroup and rethink your strategy. It makes you come off like one of those crazy homeless doomsayers that rail about the end of the world with big signs. In other words, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilley without the greed and money...
Speaking of freak-outs and tower-shootings, I'm pretty certain the Evil Communist Domination of America won't be born out of giving everyone adequate health care. If that's all the Right-Wing Extremists can dream up to scare people, you need to regroup and rethink your strategy. It makes you come off like one of those crazy homeless doomsayers that rail about the end of the world with big signs. In other words, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilley without the greed and money...
Except that you can't dispute the facts of what Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., are saying. The Office of Management and Budget confirms these numbers.
It's a pure and simple fact that the debt is now at 13 trillion, and expected to climb another 20 trillion over the next 10 years alone. WITHOUT a trillion-plus new spending on a government takeover of healthcare.
It's unsustainable. It's unquestionably the path to economic collapse. It's unquestionably leading to collapse of the dollar and hyperinflation.
And (as I presented above in Obama's own videotaped words) the plan is to introduce state-funded (i.e., single-payer) healthcare that is intended to make it impossible for private health insurance to compete, and replace private care with a 100% state-run system "over 10, 15, 20 years", where the state, not individuals, determines who gets care and who dies.
State-run health insurance alone won't make us become the Soviet Union, but there is a takeover of every major private institution of our economy that has occurred over the last year. It is not "crazy" or "right-wing-extremist" paranoid fantasy, it is a fact that these things are occurring. And once the private capitalist economy is wrecked, it can't be put back together. (Again: see the Glenn Beck tree of revolution youtube clip I posted above) None of this is paranoid or speculative, it is simply quoted, in the videotaped words of Obama and his ministers.
Yopu can't disprove what he's saying, so rather than address the facts presented, you slander Beck and the others, and myself, personally. Standard marxist-liberal tactics, from the 1960s forward.
Originally Posted By: Moscow Central Committee, 1943
Members and front organizations must continually embarass, discredit and degrade our critics.When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind.
And again, you've used dismissive slander to bypass critics of your ideology, and deflect criticism of the quantifiably destructive actions of Democrats.
Speaking of freak-outs and tower-shootings, I'm pretty certain the Evil Communist Domination of America won't be born out of giving everyone adequate health care. If that's all the Right-Wing Extremists can dream up to scare people, you need to regroup and rethink your strategy. It makes you come off like one of those crazy homeless doomsayers that rail about the end of the world with big signs. In other words, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilley without the greed and money...
You must be a fan of left wing extremists? do you just lump anyone opposed to the health care waste as right-wing extremist?
Do you actually know anything any of those men have said about the Health Care bill or are you just spouting the Obama line that all opposition is extremist? What makes me think so is you've lumped O'Reilly in with Hannity and Beck.
Beck and Hannity are far right(Beck more Far Right Loon), but O'Reilly as far as I can tell is libertarian. Does someone not wanting government in every facet of their lives make them extremist? Do you consider the founders of America extremist for not wanting the government to tell them how to conduct every facet of their business?
Exaggeration, far-Right propaganda, and misleading slander: The FOX News way. One message, different talking-heads. It's always been the same thing.
Crying because your party lost a purely political-points battle? That's business as usual. Crying about a Healthcare plan to the tune of suddenly warping reality into a communist panic-attack? That's extremism...
Exaggeration, far-Right propaganda, and misleading slander: The FOX News way. One message, different talking-heads. It's always been the same thing.
Crying because your party lost a purely political-points battle? That's business as usual. Crying about a Healthcare plan to the tune of suddenly warping reality into a communist panic-attack? That's extremism...
Answered with all the catch-phrases and talking points of the liberal-indoctrinated.
You gloat about a minor political victory in Congress, that will be reversed in the Senate. You ignore that all the Democrat negotiations are behind closed doors, and rushed through to hide their actions as long as possible from the American public. As the truth gets out, public support of Obama, Reid Pelosi and their Obamacare plan declines every week. Their only hope is to deceive the American public, and hustle something through quickly and unscrutinized, slandering their opposition every step of the way.
And again: you haven't answered any of the points I raised. What the Democrats are spending is unsusstainable. Those "crazy far-Right wingers" at the Office of Management and Budget still agree with my numbers. How long can Obama's health-care plan last, if Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already forseeably bankrupt?
We already see the dollar falling agaainst other currencies. We already see the Chinese and other nations shifting to gold and other assets, over U.S. treasury bills. We see the O.P.E.C nations pushing to get off the dollar as the oil currency, and shift to a "basket of currencies".
But that's all just "right wing paranoia", right Promod?
Exaggeration, far-Right propaganda, and misleading slander: The FOX News way. One message, different talking-heads. It's always been the same thing.
Crying because your party lost a purely political-points battle? That's business as usual. Crying about a Healthcare plan to the tune of suddenly warping reality into a communist panic-attack? That's extremism...
And by the way, how is Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and FOX News' simply playing the videotaped comments of Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Van Jones and other Democrats in their own words, slander ?
"Extremism" for you is anyone who opposes the Democrats' radical and deceitful power-grab, quoting Democrats in their own words reveal how their actions and ambitions are radical and deceitful.
From Free Speech in Era of Obama topic, 8-6-2009 :
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Obama in his own words : His goal is a single-payer system, that will drive private insurance out of business. Contrary to what Obama normally says, alleging a single payer system is not his goal.
When in truth (opposite what Obama tells the American people) his goal is to crush all private health insurance, that will be unable to compete with a vastly cheaper state-run single-payer healthcare system. And as planned by Obama, private insurance will gradually be run out of business over "10, 15, maybe 20 years".
Pro, ignore the pedo rants for a minute and answer one question. Are you at all worried about the government taking over health care, business and student loans, among other things? Does it worry you that the government has never run a business successfully?
Pro, ignore the pedo rants for a minute and answer one question. Are you at all worried about the government taking over health care, business and student loans, among other things? Does it worry you that the government has never run a business successfully?
Honestly? No. We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works...
Pro, ignore the pedo rants for a minute and answer one question. Are you at all worried about the government taking over health care, business and student loans, among other things? Does it worry you that the government has never run a business successfully?
Honestly? No. We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works...
That's probably what a lot of Jews said to each other, on the train to Auschwitz.
It can get a lot worse, and despite that the writing is on the wall and the result can be seen far in advance, you dismiss any presentation of history demonstrating that outcome(Weimar Germany, Japan in the 1990s, the U.S. in the 70s), you dismiss that evidence as "right-wing paranoia" and ""
You're the whiner here Promod, shouting baseless slogans. I'm just listing the facts.
Honestly? No. We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works...
That's probably what a lot of Jews said to each other, on the train to Auschwitz.
LMFAO!!!!!!
Yes. Yes, David. I am certain that Jews riding to Auschwitz said to one another, "We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works..."
Quote:
You're the whiner here Promod, shouting baseless slogans.
I'm not shouting anything. I'm just making fun of the extremist scare tactics that you throw out...
Quote:
I'm just listing the facts.
Yes, and those Jews are mighty thankful for your inspired perspective...
Exaggeration, far-Right propaganda, and misleading slander: The FOX News way. One message, different talking-heads. It's always been the same thing.
Crying because your party lost a purely political-points battle? That's business as usual. Crying about a Healthcare plan to the tune of suddenly warping reality into a communist panic-attack? That's extremism...
what are you blathering about? You haven't cited anything to link the guys you've linked except they work for the same company. Obama issued an political edict that Fox was bad and everyone their is bad, is that your only basis?
Pro, ignore the pedo rants for a minute and answer one question. Are you at all worried about the government taking over health care, business and student loans, among other things? Does it worry you that the government has never run a business successfully?
Honestly? No. We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works...
What is the poor health care condition that we have today? Do you realize we have the best health care in the world? Where do people go when they have nearly untreatable cancers or heart conditions? Do they go to China or Cuba or do they come to the United States? You can't just throw out catchphrases and try and seem intelligent.
Name one socialist/communist country that is admirable? Do you find Cuba, China, or the Soviet Union as good states?
Do you realize we have the best health care in the world?
well that's not good enough compared to the standard of ABSOLUTELY PERFECT EVERYTHING liberals want to compare things to.
see, I like pro, he's good people. but he has what I like to call 'roddenberry syndrome'. smart guy, can appreciate the value of a good idea, has plenty of good ideas of his own. fantastic ideas, in fact. ideas that form the framework of the perfect utopian society OF THE FUTURE!!1! where everyone has free health care and the best of everything, which is after all the ultimate goal of the future utopia portrayed in the trek. (which was created for hippies. damn dirty hippies.)
the problem is that people like that get so fixated on good ideas that it doesn't necessarily occur to them to run even a cursory cost-benefit analysis in their head on the impact such a sweeping change as universal health care (since godwin's law is already in play, I'm declaring that "public option" has replaced "final solution" as the king of euphemisms) might have on an already struggling economy. yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the country had access to health care. it's a lovely idea. it's just that making that idea into reality will seriously fuck up the economy and put one hell of a dent in the constitution. free universal health care might be the sign of an evolved society in the starry eyes of liberal legislators, sophomore diversity studies majors, and sci-fi authors, but they would probably change their tune pretty quick if they were the ones who had to pick up most of the tab for it.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus in the "as president I would..." thread
Abolish Welfare. Completely...
this was one of your main points in that thread, pro. on what principles do you base your opposition to welfare? your discussion in that thread led me to believe you are as opposed to the welfare state as most of us. my question is, how is socialized, taxpayer-funded healthcare of any sort ("optional" or otherwise) not another form of welfare? how is a state with public health care not a welfare state? I am just trying to figure out your reasoning here.
Phil, if it hasn't occurred to you yet, I'm not here to get into a debate with anyone, just as no one here is interested in said debate. This forum is for taking cheap shots at people, ideas, and political beliefs, as evidenced by the multitude of hilarious threads and posts about the "Evil Obama" and his "Evil Democratic Ilk". There is nothing worth my time here other than to just drop by, laugh at the exaggerated drama and doomsayer-gnashing of teeth, and then move on.
the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh ass-kicky Moderator Lawyers Guns & Money 15000+ posts 13 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession 4000+ posts 22 minutes 43 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: All Hail the New Soviet Era!! We shall force our EVIL HEALTHCARE upon you all! E-V-I-L!!
thedoctor argumentative Moderator Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts 33 minutes 13 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Glacier16 ass-kicky User 4000+ posts 37 minutes 23 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Captain Sammitch talkative User troublesome bastard 15000+ posts 22 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
who's creating 'exaggerated drama' here? who's ranting about 'evil obama'? (don't say wondy, that's a given.) was bsams really being that unreasonable in his response? was I really mounting any sort of personal attack on you? you're certainly welcome to contribute whatever you want to this thread, like any other thread. but our contributions aren't automatically inferior just because you disagree. you seem to invest a lot of care and attention in dropping by, laughing, and moving on.
also, don't poke fun at jeff glacier for browsing this thread. rob's blog is gone - he's clearly lost his sense of direction and will to live. which makes me sad. and should make you sad too.
Honestly? No. We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works...
That's probably what a lot of Jews said to each other, on the train to Auschwitz.
LMFAO!!!!!!
Yes. Yes, David. I am certain that Jews riding to Auschwitz said to one another, "We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works..."
You know exactly what I was saying. That Jews were optimistic if they just followed along, that things would get better. They obviously weren't discussing healthcare.
Originally Posted By: Promod
Originally Posted By: WB
You're the whiner here Promod, shouting baseless slogans.
I'm not shouting anything. I'm just making fun of the extremist scare tactics that you throw out...
Again: You falsely laabel what you don't agree with as "right-wing scare tactics". Despite (as clearly evidenced in the youtube quotes, and every day on Glenn Beck and elsewhere) that the Democrats have clearly labelled THEMSELVES as socialists, seeking a single-payer socialist system, and clearly said they INTEND to bankrupt and destroy private insurance, over "10, 15, maybe 20 years". I have proven what I say, proven from the mouth of Obama himself, among others quoted. You slander conservatives as "Right wing extremists" for simply exposing Obama's deception, that Obama's own words prove his denials otherwise to be a lie.
Originally Posted By: Promod
Originally Posted By: WB
I'm just listing the facts.
Yes, and those Jews are mighty thankful for your inspired perspective...
I already clarified what you already know I meant, before you even answered.
I have given facts, although I could have perhaps said it in gentler words.
I think you, among many other liberals, don't see yourselves as Marxists, don't see yourselves as acting against U.S. national interests and sovereignty, don't see yourselves as having a contempt for our Constitutional government, even as you hold an attitude of contempt for our government, history and national interests. And don't even realize the roots of your 1960's-forward liberalism is rooted in a marxist plan enacted from the 1920s to 1960s, to destroy the foundations of capitalism, through taking over the education system, news media, entertainment and arts of non-Communist Western nations, to indoctrinate them to a pro-communist way of thinking. Again: read "Catechism of a Revolution" and "Four Who Made A Revolution" in Buchanan's book Death of the West.
Marxist-based liberalism was created to destroy capitalist nations from within, holding capitalist systems to a biased sstandard they don't hold themselves to. Its only purpose is to cynically bombard all conservative institutions, undermine faith in the system, and make the public ready to accept a socialist marxist replacement system. And never was socialism and blatant anti-Americanism so evident as it is in the Obama administration. Obama's own books. Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Van Jones. The part former Weather Underground Terrorists have played in writing the legislation for Obama's Omnibus Bill and Heaathcare legislation. The attempts to slander and silence critics and opposition, the attempts to ram through the legislation unread. And on and on.
who's creating 'exaggerated drama' here? who's ranting about 'evil obama'? (don't say wondy, that's a given.)
Well, he DID start the thread...
Quote:
you seem to invest a lot of care and attention in dropping by, laughing, and moving on.
Do I? I thought I was just posting some words, laughing, and moving on. Am I not?
Quote:
also, don't poke fun at jeff glacier for browsing this thread. rob's blog is gone - he's clearly lost his sense of direction and will to live. which makes me sad. and should make you sad too.
never mind the other stuff - you should clearly be ashamed of yourself for picking on poor jeff glacier. as a mod of this forum you should strive to set a positive example, sir.
You're getting awfully worked up because I'm laughing at extremism. Chill out. The new Soviet Era will be kind to you, don't worry...
i just dont understand the hypocrisy of you laughing at extremism by carrying the catchprases of the left fringe. all i ever see you write is the keith olbermann babble, nothing of context.
the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh ass-kicky Moderator Lawyers Guns & Money 15000+ posts 13 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession 4000+ posts 22 minutes 43 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: All Hail the New Soviet Era!! We shall force our EVIL HEALTHCARE upon you all! E-V-I-L!!
thedoctor argumentative Moderator Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts 33 minutes 13 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Glacier16 ass-kicky User 4000+ posts 37 minutes 23 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Captain Sammitch talkative User troublesome bastard 15000+ posts 22 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh ass-kicky Moderator Lawyers Guns & Money 15000+ posts 13 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession 4000+ posts 22 minutes 43 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: All Hail the New Soviet Era!! We shall force our EVIL HEALTHCARE upon you all! E-V-I-L!!
thedoctor argumentative Moderator Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts 33 minutes 13 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Glacier16 ass-kicky User 4000+ posts 37 minutes 23 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Captain Sammitch talkative User troublesome bastard 15000+ posts 22 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Anonymous 4 minutes 49 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today Anonymous 4 minutes 49 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today Anonymous 4 minutes 55 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today Anonymous 4 minutes 57 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Anonymous 4 minutes 49 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today Anonymous 4 minutes 49 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today Anonymous 4 minutes 55 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today Anonymous 4 minutes 57 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
Senate Health Bill Clears Hurdle Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009
The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines Saturday night to take up sweeping healthcare overhaul legislation, a victory that belies the tough haul ahead to assuage lingering Democratic concerns that threaten final passage.
Four moderate Democrats - Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut - have made clear they will help Republicans thwart final passage if Majority Leader Reid does not change the opt-out public plan in his $848 billion bill. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, did not vote.
"I've already alerted the leader, and I'm promising my colleagues, that I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included," Lincoln said Saturday afternoon.
Lincoln, preceded by Landrieu by about two hours, was the last Democratic holdout to reveal she would vote for cloture on the motion to proceed, giving Reid the 60th vote he needed to move forward on the bill.
Senators will now scatter to their home states for Thanksgiving break and return Monday, Nov. 30, to begin debate on amendments. President Obama wants the Senate to pass the bill before Christmas. Saturday night's cloture vote, which doubled as a motion to proceed to the bill, allowed Reid to bring up his proposal as a substitute amendment.
Immediately after the vote, Reid suggested the version of a public option in his bill could be altered.
Asked in a post-vote press conference how he can line up 60 votes for his bill in the face of the moderates' opposition to its proposed national public option with a state opt-out, Reid appeared to open the door to a less-robust alternative being developed by Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., Landrieu and others.
Reid said the group, which also includes Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., hopes "to find a public option that is acceptable to all the Democrats." Asked if he had requested the alternative, Reid said, "No, it is my understanding that Senator Landrieu said today that she is working with Senator Schumer and Carper."
Carper's alternative would require a public option be established the same day exchanges created in the plan take effect, but only in states that do not meet a yet-to-be determined affordability standard for coverage. It would begin under HHS direction but eventually have a nonprofit, presidentially appointed board, Carper has said.
But such an option would face opposition from liberals who could defect, public option backers said. "Four members of the Senate aren't gonna tell the other 55 what to do on these issues," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. "I expect this bill to pass with a public option." Brown said he would not draw "lines in the sand" but said other liberals might. "We've compromised four times already," he said.
Sen. John (Jay) Rockefeller, D-W.Va., another backer of a public option, downplayed Reid's statement, saying, "Harry has always said that. And he has always meant it."
Landrieu insisted that any public option resemble a trigger approach championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Landrieu wants the version to be a "free-standing, premium-support, competitive community option," rather than the national, government-run plan in the bill.
Lincoln said private insurers can be held accountable without the public option.
"We can still force private insurance plans that participate in the exchanges to provide standard benefit packages that are easy to compare and more fairly priced," she said. "We will be bringing millions of new customers to the exchanges so insurers would be motivated to lower their prices and be competitive."
Lieberman previously said he would not support final passage of the bill if it includes a public option, and Nelson has expressed similar concerns.
Nelson also has said he has concerns the legislation permits federal funding of abortions. The Senate overhaul proposal does not allow federal funds to be used for abortion except in extreme cases and tasks HHS with deciding if and how the public option might cover abortions.
Senate Republicans presented a unified front in what aides described as a coordinated attack on Reid's bill in the past two days of floor debate and in media appearances, blasting the bill's size, cost and outcomes. In an effort directed by Senate Minority Leader McConnell and assisted by Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, leadership aides arranged for about 15 GOP senators to appear on their local television and radio stations, while all but seven GOP senators spoke on the floor Friday and today, GOP aides said.
"There has really been a team effort on making that happen," said a Republican leadership aide. "That doesn't always happen."
McConnell said a vote in favor of this bill "is a vote in favor of tax burden of the American people in the middle of double-digit unemployment" raising "health insurance premiums on people who were told they should expect their health insurance costs to go down" and of continuing "the out-of-control spending binge Congress has been on all year."
Reid said the vote was only a vote to debate the overhaul, not in support of anything.
"Let us negotiate. Let us deliberate. Let us debate," Reid said. "Our country needs this debate."
Republicans also lamented the party-line vote. The vote represents "the first time in half a century that a historic piece of legislation ... was enacted on party lines," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whose vote Democrats still hope to win. "That would be a sad commentary on the political process."
Snowe said it is one thing to debate these public option alternatives and "another thing whether or not they're prepared to incorporate bipartisan proposals."
The vote came before a packed gallery, with senators sitting quietly in their seats, even though the outcome was effectively determined. Breaking the somber mood during the vote, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., laughing, in a voice audible in the press gallery, joked "What's going to happen?" __________________ by Anna Edney and Dan Friedman
Even WITHOUT Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office (not some right wing blog) says that by 2019 --in just ten years-- the national debt will increase to 24 trillion dollars. (Currently just over 12 trillion) And that's without Obamacare that's projected to cost a trillion, and likely will cost at least 4 times that, using Medicare and Medicaid as clear past examples of underestimated projected cost.
Again: How is this sustainable? The Chinese are already looking to dump American treasury bill investments, and move to gold, real estate, and foreign oil investment. When they dump our treasury bills, hyperinflation will follow.
What this nation needs is not more spending, it's to stop the bleeding and cauterize the wound. And begin to pay down our debt.
Voters Continue to See Deficit Reduction as Top Priority
Friday, November 20, 2009
While official Washington has seen many twists and turns in the legislative process this year, voter priorities have remained unchanged.
Deficit reduction has remained number one for voters ever since President Obama listed his four top budget priorities in a speech to Congress in February. Forty-two percent (42%) say cutting the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term is most important, followed by 24% who say health care reform should be the top priority.
Fifteen percent (15%) say the emphasis should be on the development of new energy sources, while 13% say the same about education. Those figures have changed little from a month ago.
While voters have consistently seen deficit cutting as the most important, they also have seen it as the goal the president is least likely to achieve. Today, 62% hold that view.
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 17 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines Saturday night to take up sweeping healthcare overhaul legislation, a victory that belies the tough haul ahead to assuage lingering Democratic concerns that threaten final passage. ...
Your title isn't really honest WB. This was a vote for debate on the health care bill not a vote that passes the bill.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh ass-kicky Moderator Lawyers Guns & Money 15000+ posts 14 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Senate moves forward Obamacare, against will of the people Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 1 minute 13 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Senate moves forward Obamacare, against will of the people
Besides, you know the rules. We can't fact-check legislation that will affect generations of people. We have to limit that activity to important stuff, like biographies of former republican officials.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The public option part of either bill in congress is a tiny part of the actual bill and who would actually be covered by it. To generalize the whole bill as just that ignores most of the reform.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The public option part of either bill in congress is a tiny part of the actual bill and who would actually be covered by it. To generalize the whole bill as just that ignores most of the reform.
There's more to socialism than the public option. Forcing people to buy insurance. Forcing companies to buy insurance. Government deciding which treatments are coverable by everyone. You didn't know this? Let me guess you haven't read any of the details.
The public option part of either bill in congress is a tiny part of the actual bill
That's technically true. When you factor in other socialist measures like tax increases, payouts to unions, special pork for states with wavering politicians and other redistribution schemes, the text of the bill dealing directly with the government takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy is actually a small part of the language of the bill.
look iggy, i along with MEM are sick of people taking Obama's promises and twisting them into his intentions. just because he said that's his ultimate goal it shouldnt be taken out of context as his ultimate goal.
The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines Saturday night to take up sweeping healthcare overhaul legislation, a victory that belies the tough haul ahead to assuage lingering Democratic concerns that threaten final passage. ...
Your title isn't really honest WB. This was a vote for debate on the health care bill not a vote that passes the bill.
It's a moving forward of legislation that the American public overwhelmingly has no faith in and doesn't want (see my quoted Rasmussen polls above).
What's dishonest is Barack Obama saying he's doing this to lower cost of healthcare, when it will actually increase the cost of healthcare tremendously. What's dishonest is Obama saying this will provide more people with healthcare, when in fact it will just diminish (i.e., ration) medical service for everyone, especially the 85% of Americans who are already insurance.
All this will do is give the Democrats paper political victory, to say "we did something", despite that it will in fact be bad --or at best meaningless-- legislation, that will cost taxpayers trillions and vastly increase our national debt. And possibly be the final spending spree that will make our nation implode economically.
What's dishonest is Obama saying he's trying to build our economy, while in fact he is trying to wreck another one-sixth of it (the healthcare industry) by creating a public option that in Obama's own videotaped words are intended to wreck private care and replace it completely with a single-payer system (i.e. socialized medicine) over "10, 15, maybe 20 years".
What's dishonest is you pushing Obama's false talking points, despite that at this point you must be able to see what the truth is.
... What's dishonest is you pushing Obama's false talking points, despite that at this point you must be able to see what the truth is.
Where did I push false talking points?
Health care as it is now isn't sustainable. My workplace usually has it increased considerably every year by the insurance companies. They absorb most of the increase but it gets harder every year for them. You can pretend everything will be ok if it just keeps going on as is but I'm interested in having affordable health care for my family.
I would post something about you not loving yourself Rex but you probably do love yourself quite a bit. Does your poor mom get stuck cleaning up all that self love?
the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh ass-kicky Moderator Lawyers Guns & Money 15000+ posts 14 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Senate moves forward Obamacare, against will of the people Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 1 minute 13 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Senate moves forward Obamacare, against will of the people
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 17 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh ass-kicky Moderator Lawyers Guns & Money 15000+ posts 14 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Senate moves forward Obamacare, against will of the people Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 1 minute 13 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Senate moves forward Obamacare, against will of the people
Again, this is in opposition to an overwhelming majority of American voters, who oppose this plan with a 2-to-1 margin. And snuck through in the dark of night in a last-minute Christmas eve vote.
If it was the will of the people, I would disagree but at least say there was a popular demand for this healthcare spending. But the people overwhelmingly oppose this reform. And it will destroy our healthcare system, while further bankrupting the nation. Which Obama will probably compensate for by printing a few trillion more dollars. Weimar Republic, here we come.
Do you feel everything the congress does should be poll driven WB?
Why should the government listen to the people who elect them?
If that were the case then there should have been a public option in the bill.
You really have no reading comprehension skills at all. I ask you a question and you bring up something barely related to what I said. I can't imagine why you and your kind (tards, not fags) are so in love with obama. As long as he says something you love him, no matter how stupid it is.
I don't live in California so it really wasn't ever a big deal to me reguardless. Nor is legal gay marriage something that I expect to happen anytime soon. Eventually it will happen but I'm fine with the status quo. I just count myself fortunate to have found somebody special.
Do you feel everything the congress does should be poll driven WB?
Why should the government listen to the people who elect them?
If that were the case then there should have been a public option in the bill.
You really have no reading comprehension skills at all. I ask you a question and you bring up something barely related to what I said. I can't imagine why you and your kind (tards, not fags) are so in love with obama. As long as he says something you love him, no matter how stupid it is.
I asked Dave a question and you throw a big hissy fit.
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
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 29 minutes 22 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Democrats Force A Vote on Healthcare Today
1/2 hr, finding out RAW lied to him has destroyed his fragile psyche.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) reached out Thursday evening to South Carolina GOP Attorney General Henry McMaster, the leader of a group of 13 Republican state attorneys general who are threatening to file suit against the Senate health care bill, and urged him to forgo any legal action, POLITICO has learned.
According to a copy of a memo sent by McMaster’s chief of staff to other GOP state attorneys general detailing the call, Nelson asked McMaster to “call off the dogs,” a reference to recent threats by the state AGs to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Medicaid provision in the bill that benefits Nebraska at the expense of other states.
Under the terms of a deal Nelson cut with Senate leaders to secure his crucial vote for the health care package, Nebraska would be exempted from having to pay for the coverage of its new Medicaid enrollees—leaving the federal government to pick up the tab. The deal is expected to cost the federal government $100 million over the next 10 years.
Jake Thompson, a Nelson spokesman, declined comment when reached by POLITICO Friday.
The memo, written by McMaster Chief of Staff Trey Walker, explains that Nelson told McMaster that the Medicaid deal had not been his idea, and that the same Medicaid exemption would be extended to other states.
“Senator Nelson insisted that he had not asked for the Cornhusker Kickback to be placed in the U.S. Senate version of the health care bill to secure his vote. Senator Nelson told the attorney general that it was simply a ‘marker’ placed in the U.S. Senate version of the bill and assured the attorney general that it would be ‘fixed,’ says the memo.
The document goes on to say: “Senator Nelson said it would be ‘fixed’ by extending the Cornhusker Kickback (100% federal payment) on Medicaid to every state.”
Senate Democratic leaders have made no reference to a plan to expand the Nebraska deal to the remaining 49 states — a move that would be prohibitively expensive to the federal government and raise serious questions about whether health reform would lower the expected federal deficit, as President Barack Obama claims it would.
At the same time, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said after the Nebraska deal came to light that he envisions other states lining up to seek a similar deal down the road. Under the Nebraska provision, all added expenses from expanding Medicaid to cover the uninsured in Nebraska starting in 2017 would be borne by the federal government forever, not split with the state as they are now.
According to the memo, McMaster responded to Nelson by saying that the goal of the GOP attorneys general was to remove the Nebraska Medicaid provision from the bill and that “he saw no way that he—nor any of the state attorneys general—will support extension of the Cornhusker Kickback to every state nor be a part of a deal like that.”
A source familiar with the call said Nelson called McMaster Thursday evening after first contacting South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham to express his desire to speak with McMaster. Graham and fellow South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint asked McMaster late last month to investigate the Nebraska provision.
Nelson has been under tremendous political pressure since details of the deal emerged and on Tuesday, Rasmussen Reports released the results of an automated poll that showed troubling numbers for Nelson, who is not up for re-election until 2012.
One day later, Nelson aired a television ad explaining his vote.
“With all the distortions about health care reform, I want you to hear directly from me," the Democratic senator said in the ad.
The telephone survey of 500 Nebraskans, conducted Monday, suggested Republican Gov. Dave Heineman would defeat Nelson in a potential 2012 Senate race by a 61-30 margin.
The poll showed Nelson with a 55 percent unfavorable rating and 64 percent disapproval for Democratic health care reform legislation.
“With all the distortions about health care reform, I want you to hear directly from me,” the Democratic senator says in the ad.
The memo, written by McMaster Chief of Staff Trey Walker, explains that Nelson told McMaster that the Medicaid deal had not been his idea, and that the same Medicaid exemption would be extended to other states.
“Senator Nelson insisted that he had not asked for the Cornhusker Kickback to be placed in the U.S. Senate version of the health care bill to secure his vote. Senator Nelson told the attorney general that it was simply a ‘marker’ placed in the U.S. Senate version of the bill and assured the attorney general that it would be ‘fixed,’ says the memo.
The document goes on to say: “Senator Nelson said it would be ‘fixed’ by extending the Cornhusker Kickback (100% federal payment) on Medicaid to every state.”
Senate Democratic leaders have made no reference to a plan to expand the Nebraska deal to the remaining 49 states — a move that would be prohibitively expensive to the federal government and raise serious questions about whether health reform would lower the expected federal deficit, as President Barack Obama claims it would.
At the same time, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said after the Nebraska deal came to light that he envisions other states lining up to seek a similar deal down the road. Under the Nebraska provision, all added expenses from expanding Medicaid to cover the uninsured in Nebraska starting in 2017 would be borne by the federal government forever, not split with the state as they are now.
The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”
Medicare Loss
The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government’s health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
Mayo’s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program’s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
“We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed,” Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. “It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.”
Mayo will assess the financial effect of the decision in Glendale to drop Medicare patients “to see if it could have implications beyond Arizona,” he said.
Nationwide, doctors made about 20 percent less for treating Medicare patients than they did caring for privately insured patients in 2007, a payment gap that has remained stable during the last decade, according to a March report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a panel that advises Congress on Medicare issues. Congress last week postponed for two months a 21.5 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements for doctors.
National Participation
Medicare covered an estimated 45 million Americans at the end of 2008, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of the programs. While 92 percent of U.S. family doctors participate in Medicare, only 73 percent of those are accepting new patients under the program, said Heim of the national physicians’ group, citing surveys by the Leawood, Kansas-based organization.
Greater access to primary care is a goal of the broad overhaul supported by Obama that would provide health insurance to about 31 million more Americans. More family doctors are needed to help reduce medical costs by encouraging prevention and early treatment, Obama said in a June 15 speech to the American Medical Association meeting in Chicago.
Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman for health care, declined comment on Mayo’s decision to drop Medicare primary care patients at its Glendale clinic.
Medicare Costs
Mayo’s Medicare losses in Arizona may be worse than typical for doctors across the U.S., Heim said. Physician costs vary depending on business expenses such as office rent and payroll. “It is very common that we hear that Medicare is below costs or barely covering costs,” Heim said.
Mayo will continue to accept Medicare as payment for laboratory services and specialist care such as cardiology and neurology, Yardley said.
Robert Berenson, a fellow at the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said physicians’ claims of inadequate reimbursement are overstated. Rather, the program faces a lack of medical providers because not enough new doctors are becoming family doctors, internists and pediatricians who oversee patients’ primary care.
“Some primary care doctors don’t have to see Medicare patients because there is an unlimited demand for their services,” Berenson said. When patients with private insurance can be treated at 50 percent to 100 percent higher fees, “then Medicare does indeed look like a poor payer,” he said.
Annual Costs
A Medicare patient who chooses to stay at Mayo’s Glendale clinic will pay about $1,500 a year for an annual physical and three other doctor visits, according to an October letter from the facility. Each patient also will be assessed a $250 annual administrative fee, according to the letter. Medicare patients at the Glendale clinic won’t be allowed to switch to a primary care doctor at another Mayo facility.
A few hundred of the clinic’s Medicare patients have decided to pay cash to continue seeing their primary care doctors, Yardley said. Mayo is helping other patients find new physicians who will accept Medicare.
“We’ve had many patients call us and express their unhappiness,” he said. “It’s not been a pleasant experience.”
Mayo’s decision may herald similar moves by other Phoenix- area doctors who cite inadequate Medicare fees as a reason to curtail treatment of the elderly, said John Rivers, chief executive of the Phoenix-based Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.
“We’ve got doctors who are saying we are not going to deal with Medicare patients in the hospital” because they consider the fees too low, Rivers said. “Or they are saying we are not going to take new ones in our practice.”
The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”
Medicare Loss
The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government’s health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
Mayo’s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program’s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
“We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed,” Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. “It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.”
Mayo will assess the financial effect of the decision in Glendale to drop Medicare patients “to see if it could have implications beyond Arizona,” he said.
Nationwide, doctors made about 20 percent less for treating Medicare patients than they did caring for privately insured patients in 2007, a payment gap that has remained stable during the last decade, according to a March report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a panel that advises Congress on Medicare issues. Congress last week postponed for two months a 21.5 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements for doctors.
National Participation
Medicare covered an estimated 45 million Americans at the end of 2008, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of the programs. While 92 percent of U.S. family doctors participate in Medicare, only 73 percent of those are accepting new patients under the program, said Heim of the national physicians’ group, citing surveys by the Leawood, Kansas-based organization.
Greater access to primary care is a goal of the broad overhaul supported by Obama that would provide health insurance to about 31 million more Americans. More family doctors are needed to help reduce medical costs by encouraging prevention and early treatment, Obama said in a June 15 speech to the American Medical Association meeting in Chicago.
Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman for health care, declined comment on Mayo’s decision to drop Medicare primary care patients at its Glendale clinic.
Medicare Costs
Mayo’s Medicare losses in Arizona may be worse than typical for doctors across the U.S., Heim said. Physician costs vary depending on business expenses such as office rent and payroll. “It is very common that we hear that Medicare is below costs or barely covering costs,” Heim said.
Mayo will continue to accept Medicare as payment for laboratory services and specialist care such as cardiology and neurology, Yardley said.
Robert Berenson, a fellow at the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said physicians’ claims of inadequate reimbursement are overstated. Rather, the program faces a lack of medical providers because not enough new doctors are becoming family doctors, internists and pediatricians who oversee patients’ primary care.
“Some primary care doctors don’t have to see Medicare patients because there is an unlimited demand for their services,” Berenson said. When patients with private insurance can be treated at 50 percent to 100 percent higher fees, “then Medicare does indeed look like a poor payer,” he said.
Annual Costs
A Medicare patient who chooses to stay at Mayo’s Glendale clinic will pay about $1,500 a year for an annual physical and three other doctor visits, according to an October letter from the facility. Each patient also will be assessed a $250 annual administrative fee, according to the letter. Medicare patients at the Glendale clinic won’t be allowed to switch to a primary care doctor at another Mayo facility.
A few hundred of the clinic’s Medicare patients have decided to pay cash to continue seeing their primary care doctors, Yardley said. Mayo is helping other patients find new physicians who will accept Medicare.
“We’ve had many patients call us and express their unhappiness,” he said. “It’s not been a pleasant experience.”
Mayo’s decision may herald similar moves by other Phoenix- area doctors who cite inadequate Medicare fees as a reason to curtail treatment of the elderly, said John Rivers, chief executive of the Phoenix-based Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.
“We’ve got doctors who are saying we are not going to deal with Medicare patients in the hospital” because they consider the fees too low, Rivers said. “Or they are saying we are not going to take new ones in our practice.”
Irony !
The medical organization Obama held up as the model provider has rejected Obama-style government-controlled unsustainable debt, bureaucracy and unpaid bills.
Exaggeration, far-Right propaganda, and misleading slander: The FOX News way. One message, different talking-heads. It's always been the same thing.
Crying because your party lost a purely political-points battle? That's business as usual. Crying about a Healthcare plan to the tune of suddenly warping reality into a communist panic-attack? That's extremism...
Answered with all the catch-phrases and talking points of the liberal-indoctrinated.
You gloat about a minor political victory in Congress, that will be reversed in the Senate. You ignore that all the Democrat negotiations are behind closed doors, and rushed through to hide their actions as long as possible from the American public. As the truth gets out, public support of Obama, Reid Pelosi and their Obamacare plan declines every week. Their only hope is to deceive the American public, and hustle something through quickly and unscrutinized, slandering their opposition every step of the way.
And again: you haven't answered any of the points I raised. What the Democrats are spending is unsusstainable. Those "crazy far-Right wingers" at the Office of Management and Budget still agree with my numbers. How long can Obama's health-care plan last, if Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already forseeably bankrupt?
We already see the dollar falling agaainst other currencies. We already see the Chinese and other nations shifting to gold and other assets, over U.S. treasury bills. We see the O.P.E.C nations pushing to get off the dollar as the oil currency, and shift to a "basket of currencies".
But that's all just "right wing paranoia", right Promod?
(CNSNews.com) - China has dropped 97 percent of its holdings in U.S. Treasury bills, decreasing its ownership of the short-term U.S. government securities from a peak of $210.4 billion in May 2009 to $5.69 billion in March 2011, the most recent month reported by the U.S. Treasury.
Treasury bills are securities that mature in one year or less that are sold by the U.S. Treasury Department to fund the nation’s debt.
Mainland Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury bills are reported in column 9 of the Treasury report linked here.
Until October, the Chinese were generally making up for their decreasing holdings in Treasury bills by increasing their holdings of longer-term U.S. Treasury securities. Thus, until October, China’s overall holdings of U.S. debt continued to increase.
Since October, however, China has also started to divest from longer-term U.S. Treasury securities. Thus, as reported by the Treasury Department, China’s ownership of the U.S. national debt has decreased in each of the last five months on record, including November, December, January, February and March.
Prior to the fall of 2008, acccording to Treasury Department data, Chinese ownership of short-term Treasury bills was modest, standing at only $19.8 billion in August of that year. But when President George W. Bush signed legislation to authorize a $700-billion bailout of the U.S. financial industry in October 2008 and President Barack Obama signed a $787-billion economic stimulus law in February 2009, Chinese ownership of short-term U.S. Treasury bills skyrocketed.
By December 2008, China owned $165.2 billion in U.S. Treasury bills, according to the Treasury Department. By March 2009, Chinese Treasury bill holdings were at $191.1 billion. By May 2009, Chinese holdings of Treasury bills were peaking at $210.4 billion.
However, China’s overall appetite for U.S. debt increased over a longer span than did its appetite for short-term U.S. Treasury bills.
In August 2008, before the bank bailout and the stimulus law, overall Chinese holdings of U.S. debt stood at $573.7 billion. That number continued to escalate past May 2009-- when China started to reduce its holdings in short-term Treasury bills--and ultimately peaked at $1.1753 trillion last October.
As of March 2011, overall Chinese holdings of U.S. debt had decreased to 1.1449 trillion.
Most of the U.S. national debt is made up of publicly marketable securities sold by the Treasury Department and I.O.U.s called “intragovernmental” bonds that the Treasury has given to so-called government trust funds—such as the Social Security trust funds—when it has spent the trust funds’ money on other government expenses.
The publicly marketable segment of the national debt includes Treasury bills, which (as defined by the Treasury) mature in terms of one-year or less; Treasury notes, which mature in terms of 2 to 10 years; Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), which mature in terms of 5, 10 and 30 years; and Treasury bonds, which mature in terms of 30 years.
At the end of August 2008, before the financial bailout and the stimulus, the publicly marketable segment of the U.S. national debt was 4.88 trillion. Of that, $2.56 trillion was in the intermediate-term Treasury notes, $1.22 trillion was in short-term Treasury bills, $582.8 billion was in long-term Treasury bonds, and $521.3 billion was in TIPS.
At the end of March 2011, by which time the Chinese had dropped their Treasury bill holdings 97 percent from their peak, the publicly marketable segment of the U.S. national debt had almost doubled from August 2008, hitting $9.11 trillion. Of that $9.11 trillion, $5.8 trillion was in intermediate-term Treasury notes, $1.7 trillion was in short-term Treasury bills; $931.5 billion was in long-term Treasury bonds, and $640.7 billion was in TIPS.
Before the end of March 2012, the Treasury must redeem all of the $1.7 trillion in Treasury bills that were extant as of March 2011 and find new or old buyers who will continue to invest in U.S. debt. But, for now, the Chinese at least do not appear to be bullish customers of short-term U.S. debt.
Treasury bills carry lower interest rates than longer-term Treasury notes and bonds, but the longer term notes and bonds are exposed to a greater risk of losing their value to inflation. To the degree that the $1.7 trillion in short-term U.S. Treasury bills extant as of March must be converted into longer-term U.S. Treasury securities, the U.S. government will be forced to pay a higher annual interest rate on the national debt.
As of the close of business on Thursday, the total U.S. debt was $14.34 trillion, according to the Daily Treasury Statement. Of that, approximately $9.74 trillion was debt held by the public and approximately $4.61 trillion was “intragovernmental” debt.
"Intragovernmental debt" is a nice euphemistic phrase for the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars out of thin air to finance our national debt that other nations are no longer willing to finance. China is pulling out of U.S. debt financing. Japan, crippled by a massive earthquake, a tsunami and roughly 300 aftershock quakes, is no longer able to finance our debt.
And those are our two largest financers.
Quantitative Easing 3 (i.e. Weimar Germany hyperinflation), here we come.
Man... Pro had his head up his ass parroting liberal talking points 2 years ago, and he's doing the exact same thing now.
And my alleged "right-wing propaganda" and paranoia, far from being off-base, is exactly what the financial industry is reporting.
WB posting the same thing over in so many different topics isn't really something you would like everyone else to do would it?
Besides it just screams "broken by Pro"
Most of our recent debt is from unpaid for wars and the Bush tax cuts btw.
How incredibly delusional of you, M E M.
Defense is consistently less than 5% of U.S. GDP. And because of three current wars (the last of Obama's choosing)has risen to about 19% of the current budget, from what previous to these was less than 10% of budget.
Most of our debt is from entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, Social security, retirement benefits for federal and state employees that exceed the revenue raised for them, foreign aid, government subsidies for housing in Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and the pork the majority of Senators and Congressmen slice out for their districts.
Our debt comes from the fact our government, no matter how much is taxed, always spends far more than the revenue it raises.
I posted this particular article across multiple topics because of its importance. China is walking away from our debt, and will no longer finance it. Japan is crippled by internal crisis and is no longer able to finance us. Our two largest creditors, gone.
And the Democrats want to go on spending 1.5 trillion or so a year. How will that happen, except by printing money out of thin air in Weimar Republic fashion?
Which is exactly what Obama is doing. Whether by idiocy or anti-American design, Obama pressing the pedal to the floor as he drives us over the cliff.
The key word WB was "recent" debt. Remember it was only about 10 years ago we had a budget surplus. The wars and those tax cuts plus the stimulus really added to the debt. Republicans like to pretend it was just the stimulus but the other two were much bigger factors in our defecit. Both parties need to compromise but the radical swipe at medicare would hurt so many people.
The key word WB was "recent" debt. Remember it was only about 10 years ago we had a budget surplus. The wars and those tax cuts plus the stimulus really added to the debt. Republicans like to pretend it was just the stimulus but the other two were much bigger factors in our defecit. Both parties need to compromise but the radical swipe at medicare would hurt so many people.
That's a bypass of reality. After 9/11, the homeland security and other overseas war spending would have gone up whether it was W. Bush or Gore who was president, and that budget surplus would be gone either way.
And while there was a budget surplus, there was also already 6 trillion in debt.
"Intragovernmental debt" is a nice euphemistic phrase for the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars out of thin air to finance our national debt that other nations are no longer willing to finance. China is pulling out of U.S. debt financing. Japan, crippled by a massive earthquake, a tsunami and roughly 300 aftershock quakes, is no longer able to finance our debt.
And those are our two largest financers.
Quantitative Easing 3 (i.e. Weimar Germany hyperinflation), here we come.
One thing missing here: not only does the earthquake, tsunami, and aftershocks mean they won't be there to service or debt but, it also means that there is a high chance that they will flood the market with treasury bills to help them pay for reconstruction efforts. If they do that and China continues to get rid of its share of our debt then put a fork in the American dollar. It's done and there is nothing fed will be able to do about it.
The key word WB was "recent" debt. Remember it was only about 10 years ago we had a budget surplus. The wars and those tax cuts plus the stimulus really added to the debt. Republicans like to pretend it was just the stimulus but the other two were much bigger factors in our defecit. Both parties need to compromise but the radical swipe at medicare would hurt so many people.
That's a bypass of reality. After 9/11, the homeland security and other overseas war spending would have gone up whether it was W. Bush or Gore who was president, and that budget surplus would be gone either way.
And while there was a budget surplus, there was also already 6 trillion in debt.
While some of those costs would have gone up they would have been much lower minus the Iraq War prt 2 and the Bush tax cuts. Our recent inflated debt owes much to those. Like I said, the parties need to work out a compromise but I see zero chance of that happening anytime soon.
Honestly? No. We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works...
That's probably what a lot of Jews said to each other, on the train to Auschwitz.
LMFAO!!!!!!
Yes. Yes, David. I am certain that Jews riding to Auschwitz said to one another, "We've tried it the other way for long enough, and it's gotten us into the poor healthcare condition we've got today. It's time to try something different and see if that works..."
Quote:
You're the whiner here Promod, shouting baseless slogans.
I'm not shouting anything. I'm just making fun of the extremist scare tactics that you throw out...
Quote:
I'm just listing the facts.
Yes, and those Jews are mighty thankful for your inspired perspective...
I love this one. I originally pulled this thread because of a "Abin Sure" post. But, I saw the Jew-comparison Dave made and I had to post some because it's fucking FUNNY!
...uh...? I...I wasn't coming up with anything. Re-read what I said, David.
Originally Posted By: From Right Above Your Post, by Me...Prometheus
I originally pulled this thread because of a "Abin Sure" post. But, I saw the Jew-comparison Dave made and I had to post some because it's fucking FUNNY!
Do you get me now? It's like, I wasn't taking a shot at you...now. I was laughing AT you, in the past. I'd forgotten you compared the Holocaust to Obamacare. I think that's really fucking funny. Because it's so.......................you.
@ all the "scary" post titles people can come up with in this forum!
It does. Sadder than most things, these days... 
