Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KirtFalcon

Clockwork: White House, Democrats Demonize and Distort Ryan Budget

Recommended Posts

The massive deficit spending didn't start overnight, and it's not going to stop all at one time either. That's reality. You are kidding yourself if you think anyone is going to wave a magic wand and stop all the deficit spending. Like I said, Paul Ryan's plan is far and away the best start anyone has come up with. Any deficit\debt plan has to be a spending reduction plan. Raising taxes to try and match the spending is like giving crack to a heroine addict. They would only use any increased revenues to continue the spending spree and try and maintain the out of control deficit spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see my other post on the spending trajectory and the debt problem? There isn't enough "more revenue" to resolve the deficit\debt problem. Whether they want to or not, both parties will have to dramatically cut spending or our country will go bankrupt and our economy will totally collapse. It's not going to be a choice any longer before too many more years. Politicians on both sides, including Obama and the rest of the liberals refuse to face the facts and continue to kick the can down the road ... we are running out of road soon!

 

I agree with you. But the problem is that neither party is willing to make the big cuts. Even with Paul Ryan plan, we are still in debt. Now his plan is better than the dems, but its still does not solve the problem.

 

In the late 90's, Clinton and the Republicans came up with a plan that had us with a budget surplus. It didn't take yrs to do that. And unfortunately to do that, it took both cuts and increase in revenue. Now we can raise taxes on rich, or cut corporate loopholes. Either way, its going to take both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, your comment of "you guys" seems a little odd to me...

 

And Romneycare versus Obamacare is totally different. State versus federal - one's an orange, the other is an apple. Citizens of Massachusetts could change that. Guess they chose not to.

Its the same exact thing. Romney has said on many occasions that Romney care is a model the ENTIRE COUNTRY should use. That is exactly what Obama care is. It doesn't matter whether its state or federal. The fact is that he issued an individual mandate for insurance. The entire argument against Obama care is that its illegal because of the mandate. So why would you support a person that supports this. It doesn't matter at what level he supports its at. Illegal is Illegal. No matter at what level. You guys are against Roe v. Wade at all levels. Because you feel its murder. So even if it was overturned in Texas, you would still feel it was wrong if it was legal in Kansas. That's like saying I only robbed a state office building, not a federal office building. So its different. NO..... Because its still robbery. Whether its state or fed. Its not apples and oranges. Its a tangerine vs an orange.

 

The uninsured make a choice to be uninsured. I thought you were leaning libertarian? The feds shouldn't worry about the uninsured period. If I could buy my health insurance over in say Georgia where it's cheaper, then why can't I do that... but we can't... which is one reason why insurance is sky high. (not the only obviously)

1.I am not anything, but an independent. Im not boxed in to any political ideology. I agree with many ideas from various point of views.

 

2.I disagree that the uninsured make a choice to be uninsured. Its not that simple. There are many who work jobs that don't offer insurance. Some jobs don't offer insurance until after a 60-180 day probation is up. What if you get sick in that time frame. What if you are a kid, and you can't work and your parents don't put insurance on the family. Is that your choice? The world is not always black and white. Its various shades of gray.

 

3.The feds do have to worry about uninsured. Because its the fed that pays for the uninsured. When someone thats uninsured goes to the hospital, Its the fed (tax payers) who pick up the tab. Who do you think fund these free clinics and state hospitals? The fed. Healthcare is one of the largest expense in the federal budget. So to say the feds shouldn't worry is incorrect. The uninsured drive up healthcare cost for everyone. This is a national problem.

 

4.The theory that you should go across state lines for insurance to drive down the cost is very flawed. Let me give you a list of the Top health insurance companies as of 2011: http://health.usnews.com/health-plans/national-insurance-companies

Texas: #1 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, #2 United Health Care, #3 Pacificare, #4 Aetna, #5 Humana

Louisiana:#1 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, #2, Humana, #3 United Health Care

Oklahoma:#1 Blue Cross Blue Shield,#2 Communitycare,#3 Pacificare, #4 United Healthcare,#5 Aetna

New Mexico:#3 Blue Cross Blue Shield, #7 United Healthcare

Georgia:#1 Blue Cross Blue Shield,#4 United Healthcare

 

What you find is that the same exact insurance companies that operate in Texas, are the same companies that operate in the other states. Its going to basically be HCSC group (Blue Cross Blue Shield), United Healthcare, Humana, Aetna, Wellpoint and a few others that cover a very small proportion of the population. The prices are going to be the same or very close even when you cross the state lines, because its the same poeple that will be competing with themselves. Its not going to be different. Blue Cross Oklahoma is going to give you the same price as Blue Cross Texas because they are the same group. So this myth about going across state lines is flawed. Its just like gas prices. Yes it may vary a dime or so per state, but basically what you pay for gas in Texas, is what you pay for gas in Arkansas, because gas comes from the same Oil companies. And No matter the oil company, gas is still the same price. What you pay for gas at Shell, is basically the same price you pay for gas at Chevron, BP,and Exxon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the Occupy Wall Street protesters work a full-time job, pay taxes, and respect public property, I won't identify with them, any more than I can identify with the top 1% of wage earners (who pay the majority of the taxes in this country already). Also, since around 50% of Americans don't even pay income taxes, the "49% versus the 1%" would be more accurate a slogan for the occupy wall street movement.

 

 

my argument had nothing to do with the Wall street protesters. It was about who get the tax hike. Since no party is willing to make major cuts, its going to be a combo of cuts and taxes to fix the debt. No politician in america will raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k a yr. So who gets it. Its going to be the rich. That was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. But the problem is that neither party is willing to make the big cuts. Even with Paul Ryan plan, we are still in debt. Now his plan is better than the dems, but its still does not solve the problem.

 

In the late 90's, Clinton and the Republicans came up with a plan that had us with a budget surplus. It didn't take yrs to do that. And unfortunately to do that, it took both cuts and increase in revenue. Now we can raise taxes on rich, or cut corporate loopholes. Either way, its going to take both.

Holy cow! I can't believe this, but I agree with JT......again. :o What's this world coming to. Just kidding!

 

Yes, in order to curb the monumental beaurocracy that is Washington, and their unrestrained spending, there will definitely have to be some unpopular cuts and increased revenue. The problem is I don't think ANY of the elected officials have the intestinal fortitude to do it. Paul Ryan's plan is a step in the right direction, but it'll fall by the wayside because of the opposition. Somebody needs to moderate between the aisles, and BOTH parties will have to agree on spending cuts and increased taxes to balance the budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have enough votes, all you need is a 5-4 vote with the Supreme Court.

Don't be too sure about that. Kennedy is not very reliable.

Obama Care is not going to be free, when are people like you going to get that out of their head ? Unless you are below the poverty line it you won't even get a discount. Even if you are under the poverty line, under many circumstances that's all you will get is a discount, only the extremely poor will get it for FREE.

When did I say Obama care was free. I never said that. Go look at my post that you replied too. This is what I said:

"Once people start getting something from the gov for free (or what appears to be free)"

Notice in parenthesis, is said: (or what appears to be free). That is what I said. I know Obamacare isn't free.

All I know is the budget needs to be reduced, and the only one's trying to do so are the Republicans. These entitlement programs are draining our economy and is the reason that our credit rating dropped. The way I see it, big Government needs to reduce itself. The sad thing is many of our politicians don't think about the future of America, they only care about votes. What's the easiest way to buy votes, and it's with other people's money. Many rights that America think that they are entitled to are not in the Constitution, and in my opinion many of them are unconstitutional. Healthcare, retirement, free/reduced housing, food stamps, unemployment benefits, transportation are not rights.

No they are not rights, but take away foodstamps, housing, and other entitlements and see what will happen. Trust me, it want be pretty. Rioting, increase in crime, more homeless, etc. In a perfect world, we would all work and support ourself. But in reality, there are lazy people who get checks for nothing. You stop that check from coming, and 2 things will happen. They will either become homeless and starve to death or they will become criminals to survive.

 

I'm just glad I won't be around when the U.S. does implode on itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not enough seats up for grabs in the upcoming election to accomplish that. It would taken until 2014 to do that, when Obamacare goes into full swing.

 

 

exactly, and when the uninsured become insured, they are not going to let that go away without a fight. So Unless you appeal Obamacare now, you are doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my argument had nothing to do with the Wall street protesters. It was about who get the tax hike. Since no party is willing to make major cuts, its going to be a combo of cuts and taxes to fix the debt. No politician in america will raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k a yr. So who gets it. Its going to be the rich. That was my point.

You said in the post that I responded to:

 

"Now who should get the tax hikes. The 99% or the rich? I know which one the 99% is going to pick."

 

The 99% is the mantra of the occupy wall street protesters. That's why I commented the way I did. I wish I was as sure about you that the government won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The massive deficit spending didn't start overnight, and it's not going to stop all at one time either. That's reality. You are kidding yourself if you think anyone is going to wave a magic wand and stop all the deficit spending. Like I said, Paul Ryan's plan is far and away the best start anyone has come up with. Any deficit\debt plan has to be a spending reduction plan. Raising taxes to try and match the spending is like giving crack to a heroine addict. They would only use any increased revenues to continue the spending spree and try and maintain the out of control deficit spending.

 

 

Its the best plan out, but its not the best plan generally speaking. Again, in the late 90's we had a budget surplus. Ryan plan has no budget surplus, so its flawed. Why not just adopted what we did in the 90's to fix the problem.

 

We should, but the problem is that the Republicans (for good reasons) don't want any tax increases. But tax increase and cuts got us the budget surplus. Trust me, I hate taxes on anyone, but neither party is going to agree to enough cuts, so its going to have to be both tax increase and cuts to get a budget surplus. So who gets the tax increase? I say get rid of corporate loopholes, and take the tax rate back to the Clinton Yrs for those who make over 1 million a yr. Its the only solution.

 

And for those who say the rich pay most of the taxes, yes its true, but they also have most of the wealth too. The US has ALWAYS had a system in which you make more, you pay more.

 

Holy cow! I can't believe this, but I agree with JT......again. :o What's this world coming to. Just kidding!

 

Yes, in order to curb the monumental beaurocracy that is Washington, and their unrestrained spending, there will definitely have to be some unpopular cuts and increased revenue. The problem is I don't think ANY of the elected officials have the intestinal fortitude to do it. Paul Ryan's plan is a step in the right direction, but it'll fall by the wayside because of the opposition. Somebody needs to moderate between the aisles, and BOTH parties will have to agree on spending cuts and increased taxes to balance the budget.

 

 

lol. Im not as liberal as some think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is where you and I disagree... the Feds should NOT pay for the uninsured...let me restate that.

 

Other taxpayers SHOULD NOT pay for the uninsured taxpayers.

 

 

Parents, YOU ALREADY PAY FOR UNINSURED PEOPLE. You pay for it two ways.

 

1.Uninsured people drive up the costs of insured. Your rates,co-pays, and other medical costs

2.Our tax dollars go to fund "free" clinics, and "free" hospitals.

 

We already foot the bill for these people. So in order to reduce the cost of the uninsured, you need to get them insured. The republicans came up with this idea in the early 90's. Its actually a brilliant idea. The flaw to the idea is the mandate. BUT..... we already have a mandate for car insurance. If you choose to drive, you must be insured. This is why car insurance stay at a low rate, because (mostly) everyone that drives, purchase car insurance. This is the same model Romneycare uses for health insurance.

 

By the way, Im not saying I agree with Republican/Romney/Obamacare, Im just stating that in theory in makes alot of sense to drive down health care cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said in the post that I responded to:

 

"Now who should get the tax hikes. The 99% or the rich? I know which one the 99% is going to pick."

 

The 99% is the mantra of the occupy wall street protesters. That's why I commented the way I did. I wish I was as sure about you that the government won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.

 

 

I said it that way, because the "rich" are 1% of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the best plan out, but its not the best plan generally speaking. Again, in the late 90's we had a budget surplus. Ryan plan has no budget surplus, so its flawed. Why not just adopted what we did in the 90's to fix the problem.

 

We should, but the problem is that the Republicans (for good reasons) don't want any tax increases. But tax increase and cuts got us the budget surplus. Trust me, I hate taxes on anyone, but neither party is going to agree to enough cuts, so its going to have to be both tax increase and cuts to get a budget surplus. So who gets the tax increase? I say get rid of corporate loopholes, and take the tax rate back to the Clinton Yrs for those who make over 1 million a yr. Its the only solution.

 

And for those who say the rich pay most of the taxes, yes its true, but they also have most of the wealth too. The US has ALWAYS had a system in which you make more, you pay more.

 

 

lol. Im not as liberal as some think.

 

Ryan's plan is flawed because it has no surplus? LOL We are so far from a surplus, that's laughable. No, it doesn't have a surplus, but it gets spending back down to a managable level, it's a great start. As far as the "mythical" Clinton surplus goes, many economists agree it was mostly smoke and mirrors based on the dot.com bubble that burst, it was never a tangible surplus. We need to simplify the tax code and like you said eliminate most of the subsidies and loopholes.

 

Here's the bottom line ... spending is going to have to be cut dramatically or else our entire economy will collapse in a few short decades. It doesn't matter whether the right or the left agree to reduce spending or not ... bankruptcy will mean we can't pay the bills and the spending will then grind to a halt. They can either fix it now, or the longer they kick the can, the harder it's going to hit when their hands are forced. The tax issue is nothing more than a distraction and political wedge issue for the liberals to exploit, financial collapse is looming unless they dramatically reform budgeting\spending ... regardless of what they do with the tax issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×