Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Sun, Mar 25, 12 at 13:22

snip -

The plan, unveiled on March 20th by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is similar to the one he put forward last year. It aims to cut spending by more than $5 trillion over the next decade relative to the budget the president proposed last month. That would bring the deficit to below 2% of GDP by 2015, and the budget into balance by around 2040.

The proposal would also dramatically cut taxes for businesses and individuals - a move it claims could be paid for by eliminating exemptions and deductions. It also rehashes Mr Ryan's scheme to stop the government paying directly for health care for the elderly via Medicare, and instead hand out vouchers that could be used to buy private insurance. But to ease suspicions that this is simply a ruse to foist rising costs on blameless grannies, Mr Ryan now says that the vouchers could be used to remain in a version of the current Medicare programme; this, however, may cost people money if competition from private providers succeeds in undercutting Medicare.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculates that the proposed spending cuts are even more swingeing this time round. Only Social Security (the public pension scheme) would remain on its present trajectory. The projected growth in Medicare would be crimped, while outlays on Medicaid, the government health-care scheme for the poor, would be halved as a share of GDP by 2050. Everything else (such as foreign aid, assistance to veterans and federal funding for schools and roads) would be cut by over two-thirds.

snip -

This plan is pretty much what all the Republican presidential candidates back -

- So, vast tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses
- privatize Medicare
- half medicaid, give it to the bankrupt states
- cut everything else by 2/3rds

I'll let someone else find the plans for expanding the military

Uh, folks, they will do this if they get the presidency and win the senate and house.

Here is a link that might be useful: leading off the discussion


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
much longer article here

excrpt:

Reaction from the White House was immediate and sharp.

"The House budget once again fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement. "It would shower the wealthiest few Americans with an average tax cut of at least $150,000, while preserving taxpayer giveaways to oil companies and breaks for Wall Street hedge fund managers. What's worse is that all of these tax breaks would be paid for by undermining Medicare."

On Medicare - a key flashpoint in a debate over Ryan's budget a year ago - Ryan once again proposes to cap spending on future retirees, offering them a set amount with which to purchase private health insurance on newly created federal insurance exchanges.

In reaction to Democratic criticism that the plan "ends Medicare," Ryan has tweaked that proposal: He now aims to preserve traditional Medicare as an option, though seniors could be required to pay significantly more for Medicare coverage if the program proved to be more expensive than the private plans. - snip

I want to reiterate a point I've continually tried to make, and something we see repeatedly here on the forum. The tactic here is to put the spotlight on Obama, beat Obama at all costs, Obama, Obama Obama, and, not look at what the other guys are proposing.

So lets look at what the other guys are proposing.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Thank you, David.

It also rehashes Mr Ryan's scheme to stop the government paying directly for health care for the elderly via Medicare, and instead hand out vouchers that could be used to buy private insurance.

I can't believe that the GOP is still pushing this loser. My die-hard Republican mother is furious with the GOP's proposals to change Medicare.

So, vast tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses
- privatize Medicare
- half medicaid, give it to the bankrupt states
- cut everything else by 2/3rds

I'll let someone else find the plans for expanding the military

Uh, folks, they will do this if they get the presidency and win the senate and house.

If it's Romney in the White House, you can also count on increased military funding for our upcoming war on Iran.

I'm reliving the GOP fury with Bill Clinton upped by the toxic addition of Barack Obama's race. This campaign is going to be even uglier than the attack script that McCain's team handed to Sarah Palin in 2008.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Let's remember also that Obama's own commission said most of these same things and he disregarded them. And he chose that commission.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

no, see, the point here isn't to deflect, its to talk about the Republican plan.

if you want to talk about the Simpson Bowles plan, then why not start a thread about that? It is, actually quite a bit different than the wholes-sale over-haul that the Republicans propose, and which the house voted for unanimously .


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

here's a link to the plan.

Note that they want to do away completely with capital gains tax and taxes on dividends, as well as the estate tax.

Thus people in the highest income - those whose income derives from capital gains and dividends, (not earned income) brackets would pay no federal income tax at all, and be able to pass down the billions to their heirs, never taxed.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
Robin Hood in reverse

'The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document - one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse - on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history). It also would stand a core principle of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission's report on its head - that policymakers should reduce the deficit in a way that does not increase poverty or widen inequality.

Specifically, the Ryan budget would impose extraordinary cuts in programs that serve as a lifeline for our nation's poorest and most vulnerable citizens, and over time would cause tens of millions of Americans to lose their health insurance or become underinsured. It would also impose severe cuts in non-defense discretionary programs - much deeper than the across-the-board cuts ('sequestration') that are scheduled to take place starting in January - thereby putting core government functions at still greater risk. Indeed, a new Congressional Budget Office analysis that Chairman Ryan himself requested shows that, after several decades, the Ryan budget would shrink the federal government so dramatically that most of what it does outside of Social Security, health care, and defense would essentially disappear.

snip-

Yet alongside these extraordinary budget cuts, with their dismantling of key parts of the safety net, the budget features stunning new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. These tax cuts would come on top of the average tax cut of more than $125,000 a year that the Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that people who make over $1 million a year will receive if - as the Ryan budget also proposes -policymakers make all of President Bush's tax cuts permanent.

In fact, TPC reported yesterday that the four major new tax cuts in the Ryan plan -cutting the top income rate to 25 percent and creating a lower tax bracket of 10 percent, cutting the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent and exempting from taxation the profits that U.S. corporations earn overseas, repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, and repealing the tax increases in health reform - would cost $4.6 trillion in lost federal revenue over the next ten years (not counting the overseas corporate profits exemption). All four revenue-losing measures would disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans.

Moreover, this $4.6 trillion revenue loss would come on top of about another $5 trillion revenue loss over the coming decade, TPC reported, from Chairman Ryan's proposal to make permanent all of the Bush tax cuts along with other tax cuts that are scheduled to expire, such as an estate-tax giveaway from late 2010 that benefits the estates of only the wealthiest one-quarter of one percent of people who die.

Chairman Ryan claims that these new tax cuts would be financed by scaling back tax credits, deductions, and other preferences, known collectively as 'tax expenditures.' But while his plan specifies the new tax cuts that he seeks, it contains not a single specific proposal to narrow any particular tax break. Furthermore, the plan appears to place the low capital-gains tax rate off limits. If policymakers do not raise that tax rate when they cut the top income tax rate to 25 percent, they will find it virtually impossible to enact Chairman Ryan's proposed tax changes without, as a consequence, providing massive new tax cuts for the richest Americans.

Here is a link that might be useful: yes, they really do want to do this


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

I keep asking the question: what is wrong with some people? but the answers couldn't be plainer or clearer.

Some people, and they know who they are, whether government officials, corporations, or private citizens, simply don't care about anyone but themselves. Morals might be considered subjective, but they're not THAT subjective, and one would think everyone had at least a tiny speck of empathy somewhere inside, but it appears this is not the case.

Not only is empathy missing, but so are any ethics, any sign that integrity exists, and these people think the rest of us are stupid.

It's so nice of them to take such good care of themselves, and leave the rest of the nation out in the cold. Thanks, republicans... we owe you one... and someday, you'll get it.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

We shouldn't be surprised by this. The republicans have been working toward this end for years. What is hard for me to grasp though is how many low to low middle income people have been duped into supporting these republicans.
Hook them in and keep them distracted with social issues, all the while siphoning off for the top 1%


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

I was talking with a friend of mine today. We were both honest in saying that we just could not understand the mindset of Americans anymore that they can understand ours.

In Canada the notion of a collective social obligation, the notion of fair and just society, is just part of our fabric. To varying degrees of course. I Don't mean to imply that we are of one voice. We most certainly are not.

However, even the most conservative support universal healthcare and support of our elderly through social assistance programs. I may be wrong, my fellow Canadians can correct me........ But I cannot imagine a government here proposing what I see being proposed in the U S.....it would be a suicide mission.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

In Canada the notion of a collective social obligation, the notion of fair and just society, is just part of our fabric.

There are those of us who support this in the U.S. -- but we don't have the megaphone that the well-funded social darwinists have. We're literally being shouted down.

Then there's the lure that 'disaster capitalism' exerts on our elites. The Republicans drastically cut revenues, and simultaneously ramp up expenditures - they never see a war that they don't favor - only to become deficit hawks (conveniently forgetting the previous 'deficits don't matter' mantra) screaming for social spending to be cut to the bone. Lean to the right, lean to the right; privatize, privatize; fight, fight, fight.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Actually chase republicans do believe in the notion of a fair and just society. Believe in social assistance programs as well. What we don't believe in is saddling our children and grandchildren with such a massive debt that we become Greece. I find that democrats say the same thing up and until someone says we have to find a better way. But their better way is never about reining in a bloated government, it's about, taking money from that guy, that corporation, that entity, who has earned too much, and spending even more. If the new CBO projections are correct, there is no way we can afford this version of Universal health care, and I continue to say, we need universal health care just as soon as we figure out a way to pay for it that doesn't add trillions to the national debt.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Well mrs you best take another look at the Ryan proposals.....fair and just it ain't


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Well, mrskjun, if you're worried about handing off an enormous debt to the next generation, take a good look at the Ryan plan. It's even worse.

The solution, of course, is somewhere around Simpson-Bowles, but that requires tax increases as well as spending cuts - including the military - not just doubling down on the Bush tax cuts and expanding the military.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

"In Canada the notion of a collective social obligation, the notion of fair and just society, is just part of our fabric."

Same here, only Americans are also forced to take on an obligation that belongs to another country. Your country has rules about who gets to participate in your society. Your politicians are loyal Canadians. They aren't using their positions to import an underclass that you must then support.

We have politicians throughout our government who don't even like the American people very much. Instead of serving the interests of US citizens, the way your government serves Canadians like yourself, our government has politicians dedicated to transferring resources AWAY from us. Our resources are transferred from us to benefit the millions of people living in our country illegally, without permission nor gratitude.

If Canada treated you the way our government treats us, chase, taxing you to support millions of people who are the responsibility of another nation, I don't think you would like it.


 o
well, then there is this.....

You can't make this stuff up.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

You can't make this stuff up.

And that's the rhetoric that guarantees Latinos will avoid the GOP as if it were bubonic plague.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

No, you can't, David... and yet, there it is... in black and white. It's like reading a horror story, or watching a train wreck in progress.

Chase, there are a lot of U.S. citizens that would love to have some of the systems Canada has in place for its citizens, health care being near the top of the list. And I think as time passes, and more people end up on the losing end of what's left... well, you can't keep grinding down the cogs on a wheel without it just not working at some point... and when the machine finally breaks, and there's no way to fix it... who knows what the results will be.

Maybe the next generation won't carry quite the same contempt for its fellow human beings, and maybe they won't hold such self-interest, and maybe they'll actually care about the planet they live on... because it sure does seem like an awful big handful of this generation doesn't give a crap about its own species and whether it lives or dies, so wrapped up in egotism and repression they are.

Fair and just have nothing to do with the proffered republican budget.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Cuts in the military is the way to go.

But their better way is never about reining in a bloated government

The military is bloated. Cut defense spending.

Champion that for a change.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

What is hard for me to grasp though is how many low to low middle income people have been duped into supporting these republicans.

I tried to say this on a different thread recently, although not as succinctly as chloe. I just cannot understand this. I certainly understand why the top 1% votes Republican. They are voting for their best interest (keeping more $$ in their pocket). But, the rest, and that has to be the majority of people voting for Republicans, are voting against their best interest.

The only conclusion I can come to is they are not paying attention. The democrats have to make sure they somehow get this point across.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Canadians aren't the only ones who can't understand the mindset of Americans, Chase.

Thanks David. Great topic. Perfect topic.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

What is hard for me to grasp though is how many low to low middle income people have been duped into supporting these republicans.

They support the social programs (anti abortion, anti contraception). Rich republicans don't believe in the social stuff they are promoting, but they keep it in the platform to attract the low to middle income folks.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

And don't forget they keep saying those "shrink government" slogans to keep certain people following along. What people don't realize that that they mean "shrink government regulations to increase our profits while we offshore jobs to make even more profits and the rest of you still keep paying for OUR bureaucratic jobs".


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

"I think I need a shower. Talking Points sends us to a badly written article in The Hill about the CBO's latest budget estimates. If you read the article very, very carefully, you might be able to figure out that the CBO only shows Obama increasing deficits relative to a very unrealistic baseline, which among other things assumes that all the Bush tax cuts expire; relative to CBO's "alternative" scenario, which represents a continuation of current policy, Obama actually cuts deficits substantially. But a casual read and the headline would leave you with the impression of Obama the wild spender.

And hence my need for a shower. Just read the comments, and weep for America.

But here's the thing: it's not just bad reporting spreading this disinformation. Let me come back to John Taylor's appalling op-ed from a year ago, alleging a huge expansion of government that anyone who knows anything about the federal budget knows just didn;t happen it was all a lower denominator because of the slump, plus unemployment insurance and food stamps. Then, when challenged, rather than acknowledging the error, he tried to use spending projections for a decade from now to claim that there really was a spending binge, forgetting about the baby boomers.

What the CBO report actually says is that it expects deficits to be a bit smaller than Obama projects. Oh, and about spending: here's the OMB projection of spending with and without Social Security and Medicare both driven by demography and interest costs:"

There was apost couple weeks back not one so called forum fiscal conservative had either the gumption or talking points fed to them to respond to Paul Krugman's assertions that the fiscal conservatives are truly phonies.
So this is a total cut and pate of his reading of the CBO's missive & it misses according to him

some of yah dinna read the linkies might just mak yah go blinkies tha numbers mover round with nary a sound an all the press stinkie! HOOT MAN!

ah gee and that CBO thing whut were that yah know gonna be double the price almost as good as the 200 million dollar a day trip to Indyar.

Sorting through the deceptive attacks on health care reform gets old, even for me. But on Wednesday the Republicans and their allies made a claim so obviously misleading that they, and the media outlets parroting them, must have known they spreading false information.

The basis for the claim is the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections for the Affordable Care Act, which critics (and I!) like to call Obamacare. When Congress first passed the law, in the spring of 2010, CBO made official estimates of how much the law would cost, how many people would get insurance as a result, and so on. It updated that estimate one year later and has, now, updated it one more time.

The CBO distributed its report in the morning and, by 11 a.m., Republican offices on Capitol Hill were spitting out press releases about it. According to the Republicans, CBO had discovered that Obamacare was going to cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years. “The CBO’s revised cost estimate indicates that this massive government intrusion into America’s health care system will be far more costly than was originally claimed,” Tom Price, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said. Within a few hours, both Fox News and the Washington Times were carrying online stories making the same claim. According to the Fox News account, CBO was “showing that the bill is substantially more expensive��"twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.”

If CBO had truly determined that health care reform’s cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

To figure out the cost of health care reform, CBO looks at each of the law’s component parts and, for accounting purposes, groups them into different categories. It calls one category “gross cost of coverage expansions”��"that’s the amount of money the federal government will spend to help people get insurance, mostly by offering Medicaid to more people or giving people subsidies they can use to help offset the cost of private insurance. Last year, CBO estimated that the gross cost of coverage expansion from 2012 through 2021 would be $1.445 trillion. Now CBO thinks the gross cost will be $1.496 trillion. The number shifted, in part, because the CBO has changed its projections for economic growth. (MSNBC’s Tom Curry has a nice explanation of this.) But, in the context of such a large a budget projection, that’s barely any difference at all.

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion��"the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It’s only slightly more money than the previous year’s outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don’t start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

Still, doesn’t that just validate what the law’s critics have always said, that the administration was playing games to hide the program’s true impact on the deficit? Hardly. Remember, this is just the raw cost of expanding insurance coverage we’re talking about here��"in other words, the money the federal government is sending out the door. The new law also calls for new revenue, in the form of taxes and penalties. It also reduces spending, mostly through Medicare, to help offset the cost of the coverage expansion. When the Affordable Care Act became law, CBO estimated that the net result of all these changes, taken together, would be to reduce the deficit. Now, with this revised estimate, CBO has decided the law will reduce the deficit by even more money.

Yes, you read that right: The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.

I want to be clear about something. The Affordable Care Act has flaws: Among other things, it reaches fewer people and provides less financial protection than I would prefer. The revised CBO report actually suggests this problem will get mildly worse, since it also expects slightly fewer people to end up with insurance. That’s one reason why the law will cost less; it’s helping fewer people. Another reason is that more employers pay penalties for not offering insurance and more people pay penalties pay penalties for not obtaining it. That’s obviously not great, either.

The report also had one finding that give us at least a little pause: CBO now projects the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance will drop by 4 million people, on net. It’s still a small effect, representing less than 2 percent of the total population with employer-sponsored coverage. That’s well within the margin of error of these models. It’s also difficult to tell why CBO thinks this will happen��"whether it’s fewer employers offering insurance, fewer employees accepting coverage, or workers moving into firms that are less likely to provide benefits. Any of those would be consistent with lower economic growth, as CBO now expects. Still, the issue merits attention. (If I can get a more detailed explanation of why CBO thinks this will happen, I’ll update this item.)

But these aren’t the nuanced claims Republicans and their allies are making. Nor are their complaints consistent with this general point of view. On the contrary, if they had their way, health care reform would reach even fewer people and provide less protection.

Meanwhile, the bottom line about Obamacare really hasn’t changed. Notwithstanding these latest adjustments, CBO still thinks it will mean about 30 million additional people get insurance, that insurance will become more secure for those who have it, that the law will more than pay for itself in the first ten years, and that, over the long run, the law will reduce the deficit.

But why admit those things when you can dissemble about them and when outlets like Fox and the Washington Times will let you get away with it?


OH GeE JOE IT"S SO FRIKIN lawng I post in in memory of CAIT and must admit she was right when no one reads the links bring the links to them. There has been plenary evoidance that there may be a jump to the metaphoric alphabeticL gun before reading the lUnks or even somma the pervious posts!

Spelling intentional void where inhibited by medication!


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

The Ryan budget is an unprecedented cut in programs for seniors, children, the poor, and middle class ALL to fund a big tax cut for the wealthy and to increase spending for the military. Other than cuts to Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, etc. it is not specific about any other cuts needed to even match the loss in revenue given away in tax cuts. It actually creates BIGGER deficits than Obama's budget. It is doubling down on the Bush era policies that brought the country to ruin.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Let me slap in a cartoon to liven this up a bit......

Photobucket


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 26, 12 at 10:00

So the republican plan balances the budget by the year 2040.....works for me, I'll be dead.
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see the final number of that 2040 debt total, what $40-50 TRILLION? Are the debt concerned Tea partiers happy with that? I hope that the corporations receiving those new tax cuts and who will be in complete control the nation by then are watching out for our best interests in 2040....or I should say Your best interests.
Grover Norquist will die a very happy man, he will have accomplished his mission of drowning the government and our nation along with it....all for the love of money.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Did a poor man or woman ever give you a job?

That question is only for people that look for one.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Did tax cuts for the rich ever create jobs? That question is for people that don't benefit directly from taxcut giveaways.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican BS

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 26, 12 at 10:18

Those tax cut monies are safely stored away in off shore accounts just itching to create jobs....off shore, just ask Mitt....while you're at it ask him why he doesn't trust our on shore banks with his job creating monies?


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Did a poor man or woman ever give you a job?

Yes, the poor do create jobs. They consume and have need for the same necessities as anyone else. Someone is supplying goods and services in poor communities... and receiving compensation for those goods and services.

And there is the predatory lending industry that preys on the poor. Turns out that those lenders have a lot of pull with Congress - must be mighty profitable.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Excellent points, nancy. The poor DO create jobs in a way.

That tired conservative talking point ("did a poor man give you a job") is due for retirement!


 o
Ooooh, we can all retire!

Don't worry, a lot of people are retiring early--they can't find a job if they want one, if they don't--they don't need it because taxpayers will take care of them, and the ones that could work and produce more jobs and income won't bother since so many are intent on raising their taxes.

We'll have a nation of retired people along with the phrase!

Congratulations, libs!


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Yep, my company's workman's comp.insurance has just been raised by 70%, thus increasing my incentive to hire more people...a bit of sarcasm there for demi.

Oh, and the rate for liability insurance went up 40% with reduced coverage not of my choosing.

So I've had to raise my rates charged to customers which will soon lead to reduced business for my gardening service. And I'm supposed to blame liberals for these trends? The insurance industry must be a hotbed of liberalism!


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Not a single 'conservative' wishes to discuss the Republican plan.

It really is amazing. They'll vote for this, even though, apparently, not a single one supports it.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Jill, it simply boggles the mind... how anyone on the lower part of the totem pole, and that would include a lot of conservatives, could cast a vote that completely negates their own best interests... but it seems they're either asleep at the wheel, drowning in the koolaid, or more interested in ensuring that their own "family values" are forced on the entire population, never mind the issues that are truly important.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

Yes, Jodik, it does. jerzeegirl has a good point. They are voting because of the social issues, and I bet they are not paying any attention to the budget talks.

Here's something I will never understand -- the right wing claim that people will stop working because they would have to pay more taxes. I mean, you can't really be serious, can you? Did they stop working before the Bush tax cuts? NO, of course not. It's the most ridiculous claim they make. And the fact that some people buy it is so troubling.

labrea - GREAT POST! Thank you! Now, I'm going to assume that certain people didn't read it, 'cause you know it's a lot of words! So, maybe if I just cut and paste this part, they'll read it:

When the Affordable Care Act became law, CBO estimated that the net result of all these changes, taken together, would be to reduce the deficit. Now, with this revised estimate, CBO has decided the law will reduce the deficit by even more money.

Yes, you read that right: The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.


 o
RE: Lets talk about the Republican budget proposal

The Republican party which existed up to when Bush Sr. was President was a party which offered a needed counter balance to the democratic party IF it had just held the administration for 8 years. And Vice Versa. Both parties had something of value to offer this country. It was not in the best interest of all of this country if either office was held by one party for more than 8 years.

Today - no. That conservative party of Bush Sr's does not exist and was dying then. During the 80's when the GOP trolling for the fundamentalist vote began, the party began to sicken. Thus, we have a serious Presidential candidate named Santorum which has taken far more states than my disbelieving husband can accept.

No matter who wins the Primary, the winner is a good example of what the conservative party and it's voters have become. Santorum is a PERFECT example of it's sickness. The support he would get from conservatives who are against most of what he has to say is another terrible example of what has gone so very wrong with the party. Getting rid of Obama will not get rid of it's problems. Obama has nothing to do with what is wrong with half of this country or the conservative party.

Someday Obama will no longer be in office and yet the Conservative party and it's voters will still exist.

And will prove that no matter where ya go, there ya are!

Until the party and it's voting supporters can finally own the damage they did when supporting Bush Jr and then finally admit that no, they don't have answers and yes, it's become obvious that they must change core beliefs in order to serve their people best, I can never see myself voting for a conservative again. If they can correct themselves and again become a party of value, I can certainly see myself voting conservative again, as I did until Bush Jr.'s second term. I consider myself an Independent in the truest sense of the word.

But as of now they simply do way too much damage and then point the finger elsewhere. We don't need any more of that sort of thing going on in this country. We have problems that need addressing in a unified manner.

Until the actual conservative voters can grasp and embrace all of this, the party itself will continue to do far, far more damage than good. The old way of doing thing things don't work, the last 35 years proves that.

This budget plan just proves that conservatives are unable to come up with an approach which is new, fresh and workable. I suspect that conservative voters will be unable to grasp or accept that fact.

The old way of thinking doesn't work. The conservative stand on social issues often times is a stand which denies American citizens their rights as fellow Americans, and conservative voters will embrace the denial as the real American way - and patriotic to boot.

That old dictatorial approach must stop, and a new, fresh approach of encouragiong the actual freedom of individuals to be allowed to persue, IN PEACE, their life, liberty and happiness as is the right of every American citizen.

As far as the state of our country - the conservative way of doing things got us into this mess and the liberal way of thinking is slowly getting us out of it. Just in time for elections. Which doesn't bode well for the conservative voters but very sadly, by NO means does that assure a logical win for liberal voters.

This country is experiencing a kind of teenage like meltdown and threre is no telling how conservative voters will react or vote despite the upswing in the economy and the ending of one war etc. etc. - and no telling if those against any conservative landing the Presidency will get out and vote this time around.

But I can hope and I will vote, and so will my conservative husband. For the same person.

A little bit of common sense voting from my home! Maybe it will spread for never would I have thought the day would come when my husband would insist upon voting for a Democratic president due to abject disgust with the conservative party and it's people.

He considers his vote a correction, not a vote of support. That's ok by me, that he sees and accepts the problems with the conservatives is plenty good enough for me.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here