Further, if the democrats do move on this and actually do have some evidence of this by 2010, the legs of the republicans are cut out from them. The congressional and senate dems would be wise to follow suit.

 

 

Evidence of what? Tax cuts do not expire until 2011. And there is no way any spending will be cut.

By far the biggest key is finding a way to cut the rate of growth of health care expenditures. Health care costs of every variety are growing so much faster than the rate of inflation that it's just going to destroy everything barring a major, successful overhaul.

 

 

And since gov't is good at controlling costs, they are the ones who should manage healthcare.

And since gov't is good at controlling costs, they are the ones who should manage healthcare.

Exactly.

 

They'll cut costs by telling us what we can be seen for...

 

Wow, GOP gets some credit for that? I'm shocked.

 

I have always said that there are two things Bill Clinton did well. One was deficit, two was the welfare reform he got passed.

Over recent years, I have really come to appreciate how good a news source NPR and public television can be. Biased, yes. But not blindly so, and they are more honest and complete, even if slanted.

 

Evidence of what? Tax cuts do not expire until 2011. And there is no way any spending will be cut.

 

good job at paying attention to the the thread, you always provide great insight.

By the way, I'm hurt, NSS. I've posted some good s*** about health care and pharma a couple of different places and you haven't bitten at all.

 

 

By the way, I'm hurt, NSS. I've posted some good s*** about health care and pharma a couple of different places and you haven't bitten at all.

Just haven't gotten to it yet.

 

Just haven't gotten to it yet.

Seriously, my health care * post and the pharma income statement are some really interesting stuff to debate. I was just messing... you have a real job, I don't.

It's total BS

 

He'll cut 2 trillion and add 15 trillion. the midless followers will approve.

 

"but, he cut 2 trillion!"

 

 

It's total BS

 

He'll cut 2 trillion and add 15 trillion. the midless followers will approve.

 

"but, he cut 2 trillion!"

Well, let's see... if you're options are:

 

--Add a s***load of deficit spending (GOP and Bush)

 

or

 

--Add a s***load of deficit spending and cut some fat (Dems and Obama)

 

I'll take option B.

Well, let's see... if you're options are:

 

--Add a s***load of deficit spending (GOP and Bush)

 

or

 

--Add a s***load of deficit spending and cut some fat (Dems and Obama)

 

I'll take option B.

 

I love the reasoning. "Support us, we are probably a little better than G W Bush"

 

truth is, Obama is on path to absolutely destroying all deficit spending records. G W Bush looks like a fiscal conservative compared to Obama and that is a scary thing.

truth is, Obama is on path to absolutely destroying all deficit spending records. G W Bush looks like a fiscal conservative compared to Obama and that is a scary thing.

You know why he looks like that? Because he's being slightly more honest with his bookkeeping.

You know why he looks like that? Because he's being slightly more honest with his bookkeeping.

 

actually, Obama has been very misleading. The 'open' government claims are actually hilarious. He hides spending, lies about the true costs of programs, doesn't post legislation early online as he promised, ect.

 

he has run, by far, the most reckless administration in US history so far

Edited February 26, 200917 yr by mr_genius

he has run, by far, the most reckless administration in US history so far

 

i decided to remove it, as to not enrage the Obama followers. unfortunately it's accurate.. since you quoted it i will reinstate within my post.

i decided to remove it, as to not enrage the Obama followers. unfortunately it's accurate.. since you quoted it i will reinstate within my post.

subjectivity does not equal fact

subjectivity does not equal fact

 

i suppose that's true. just like G W Bush is "the best president ever". i would strongly disagree, yet his supporters would say my analysis is subjective and incorrect.

i suppose that's true. just like G W Bush is "the best president ever". i would strongly disagree, yet his supporters would say my analysis is subjective and incorrect.

I will certainly grant you he's been a failure so far on the "Posting legislation online for public review" issue.

actually, Obama has been very misleading. The 'open' government claims are actually hilarious. He hides spending, lies about the true costs of programs, doesn't post legislation early online as he promised, ect.

 

he has run, by far, the most reckless administration in US history so far

Holy hyperbole, Batman!

 

Even the most fervent of Bush-bashers on this site didn't say anything that strident. That is patently absurd.

 

If you spend a trillion or two "early" in 2009 as a stimulus, doesn't it make sense you could at least cut that much?

Here's a classic example of how our system works.

 

In the student loan game, there is no reason why the Government can't lend directly to students. They have the funds to do so and the means to do so. However, a Congressional requirement forces the student loan program to be run through private companies. This is done entirely to benefit the private banks that get the loans, and it costs the Federal Government roughly $4 billion a year over what it would cost if the government just ran the darn program itself. Basically, it's a $4 billion a year banking subsidy.

 

Obama's budget wants to eliminate this subsidy.

 

The deficit hawk Republicans, of course, are livid. Because deficits don't count when you give the money to corporations.

Here's a classic example of how our system works.

 

In the student loan game, there is no reason why the Government can't lend directly to students. They have the funds to do so and the means to do so. However, a Congressional requirement forces the student loan program to be run through private companies. This is done entirely to benefit the private banks that get the loans, and it costs the Federal Government roughly $4 billion a year over what it would cost if the government just ran the darn program itself. Basically, it's a $4 billion a year banking subsidy.

 

Obama's budget wants to eliminate this subsidy.

 

The deficit hawk Republicans, of course, are livid. Because deficits don't count when you give the money to corporations.

Student loans for the longest time were direct from the government. What they are trying to say is this is the cost of the programs for the lenders to "privatize" it.

 

Let's stop all subsidies. Farm, banks, the whole nine yards, if it's so "wasteful". Oh wait, because then a whole buch of constituents would get pissed off because there's no more handouts. As long as the "handout" is for what you support, it's ok.

 

Let's stop all subsidies. Farm, banks, the whole nine yards, if it's so "wasteful". Oh wait, because then a whole buch of constituents would get pissed off because there's no more handouts. As long as the "handout" is for what you support, it's ok.

In a lot of cases, I'm game for that. In some cases, I'm not. Our farm subsidy system is an absolute debacle of the highest order. It makes us all less healthy and wastes $100's of billions and is an environmental killer.

 

On the other hand...I'm strongly in favor of subsidies for alternative energy. The concept of subsidies/the government deliberately distorting the market for public benefit is not something I have a problem with. My issue is what we wind up subsidizing. But even with alternative energy, there's major problems...like 90% of the alternative energy subsidies going to corn ethanol production (before the stimulus package of course, that may well change the numbers).

In a lot of cases, I'm game for that. In some cases, I'm not. Our farm subsidy system is an absolute debacle of the highest order. It makes us all less healthy and wastes $100's of billions and is an environmental killer.

 

On the other hand...I'm strongly in favor of subsidies for alternative energy. The concept of subsidies/the government deliberately distorting the market for public benefit is not something I have a problem with. My issue is what we wind up subsidizing.

I should have said that I don't necessarily agree with the $4B being sent to the banks for this. They should have to compete just like every other market... and not be handed money. The only reason that they were handed this money was because no one wanted to lend, remember, and so the only way they would is if the government backed it.

 

Saw your edit: I so much agree on corn/ethanol. What a colossal waste.

he has run, by far, the most reckless administration in US history so far

Even more reckless than Zachary Taylor?! Impossible!