Do not Raise The Debt Ceiling
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=240654
We need to cut trillions not billions and unless we do we should not raise the debt ceiling! Obama is spending 4 trillion dollars a year even though historically revenues don't exceed more than 20% of GDP which for now is less than 3 trillion. That means we need to cut 1.5 to 2 trillion from the current budget. That wont happen without making changes to medicare and social security and Obama and the democrats will never do it because the only way anyone votes for this socialist slime is if thestuff free stuff!If they don't raise the ceiling government has to stop and all civil servants (teachers, firemen, soldiers etc) be laid off. I don't like it either but I don't see a real alternative in the short term.
"(teachers, firemen, soldiers etc)"
That statement is not true. Those are not even civil servants.....at least not Federal Civil Servants.But how about traffic controllers, or social security employees, or the IRS. These are essential. Military is federal although it is way overpriced.
You want your family member to be delayed in getting social security?
I am starting a thread you guys need to read about. There is actually too much money at the top class. It is destroying our economy.Military spending is poorly understood. 20% of the budget goes to the Military. Thats 28% of tax revenues. However there is "NON DOD" spending lumped in there. That brings the total to 28 to 38% of revenues and 42 to 57% of actual spending. What is it? Some is Classified....who knows.
My point is that 28% should not be touched. The rest should be determined and cut where needed.In this country, there are people who have amassed billions of dollars..Why would a president recklessly spend so much money? I wonder how much truth is being told to Americans? There used to be a middle class in this country. Now there is only the rich and the poor....Seems to me its the rich, people that need to be taxed more.. Oil companies don't even have to pay taxes? Why is that?
That is a lie, they pay taxes, Stop listening to BS and research for yourself! God people are gullible.
I'm glad to hear that the gas companies pay taxes.. I stand corrected.That's the problem with propaganda, and they can tell us anything..and people accept it.. Our government can spend a trillion dollars to assassinate someone, and thats perfectly accepted in our country...
"spend a trillion dollars to assassinate someone"?? Seal Team Six is getting WAY better paychecks than I thought!
And, for the record, no company pays taxes. Consumers pay taxes, included in the price they pay for a company's goods or services.
For every gallon of gas you purchase, no matter the price per gallon, the Evil Oil Companies (who keep us in moving transportation, cooked food, warm houses and such) make about .08 cents in profit. Depending on what state you live in, the government takes between .46 & .63 cents in taxes per gallon.
If I decide I don't want to buy gas, thereby robbing Big Oil of their .08 cents, the oil companies have no power to make me. If, however, I don't want to pay taxes...
Therefor, my problem is with the people who INSIST I'm not paying my fair share, and keep inventing ways to take more and more of what I'VE earned, to feather their own nests and buy votes with.
CJ, they are considerd Civil Service Workers, Police, Fire, Rescue
Military is not in that catagory, they are Armed Services.They are NOT Federal in any case. That means a Fed shut down would NOT mean fireman stay home.
That simply is NOT true! The government would simply have to cut spending because they can't BORROW any more money. They would still have revenues and they could use that revenue to pay bond holders. Government would not "stop" for God's sake they're stilling taking in 2 trillion dollars!!
Between the time they hit the ceiling and the time they balance the budget and the time that balance is in effect, some bills will not get paid.
That simply is true.
The latest budget crisis showed that the bills they will default on first include the salaries of service personnel.Psych - I think you are understating the extent of the problem. Read posts further down.
"Between the time they hit the ceiling and the time they balance the budget and the time that balance is in effect, some bills will not get paid.
That simply is true."
Absolutely agree. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that statement."The latest budget crisis showed that the bills they will default on first include the salaries of service personnel."
This is in question. There are those in Congress who believe that since Defense spending is Constitutionally mandated, Service Personnel Pay should NOT be effected. This is a slippery slope. Who doesn't get paid? Not paying foriegn debtors could have serious reprecussions. World economic collapse leading to world war being the worst case scenario. This issue should NOT be politicised. It should be addressed and addressed quickly. Right now both sides are playing a dangerous game of "Chicken".There's plenty of money to pay our debts and the parts of government that ARE constitutionally mandated. The real danger here is Americans finding out most of what government does isn't necessary and we can live without it.
I would tend to agree with you on that. It's the "who's next" that I'm not sure about. Although I like the idea of suspending pay for all Federally elected officials.....It's their mess to clean up.
No. If they do not raise the debt ceiling the federal government has to operate on a daily budget not exceeding the incoming revenue. No teachers, police or firefighters will be directly affected unless their positions are 100% funded by federal dollars.
Raising the debt limit will probably result in more threats to sell of our debt by China and Japan. Disciplining the federal government to live within its means would do far more good than harm.
Cut the military. The Repubs don't want that Lady. And do you know that the rich are putting so much money into hedge funds that speculation is running wild and you are paying too much for Starbucks, gasoline, food at the store, and everything? Did that dawn on you or do you not have a clue?
Did you know that the housing bubble in Japan and the US were caused by the very same things, too much money for the rich, low interest rates, risky loans?I didn't know the futures pit had bidders for Starbucks! Lol
I think everyone knows that food and energy costs more and their homes are worth less and they're getting nothing on their savings. I font think its fair to blame this all on speculators after all the fed has been printing money like there's no tomorrow!Wait, BG. Only Republicans want to keep the military? ROFLMAO!!!
From 2006, the Dems held the majorities in both the House and the Senate. Writing the bills and budgets which our Speechifier in Chief (poor little fella) had to inherit... from his own party. Odd they never mention that last part when they whine about it, huh?
2006 is also (very coincidentally, I'm sure) when America's economic woes really started building. 2007 saw $4.00 gas, and unemployment over 7% for the first time since Bush took office. But that's not even the point. In 2008, B. Hussein Soweto took office, and it was Democrat Nirvana!
No more Nasty Wepubwican arguments to stop Barney Frank from extolling the virtues and financial soundness of Fanny and Freddy. Democrats wrote intelligent, easy to understand budgets which were passed almost magically, with huge support from the whole nation.
America's prosperity and respect grew exponentially, unemployment reached record lows. Gitmo closed down, the ocean's levels began to lower, wars all over the world were ended, a ##ckin' PEACE PRIZE was awarded and all of the evils which a group like Seal Team Six might visit upon the world, were ended by executive order.
Well... I could be wrong about some of that, but I'm sure there was a Peace Prize!
I believe that we should not cheat an old people. They already paid SS and Medicare. Those old folks cannot go to work any more. The politician should go to jail, since they voted to take SS money for there programs. Regarding Medicare adjustment must be done. The Doctors are not paid and we lost many of them. We do not have to buy expensive scooters and car lifters and home care bathroom gadgets, naming few.
We have to cut salaries and benefit to members of congress and president. We have to bring home our soldiers. We have to stop foreign aids and tell them there are no money left. An exception would be Israel. Pull out from UN. Stop bail out of factories, now belongs to government.
Stop control and dictate how to treat patient. I am medical person and I can tell the stories. Then stop taxing business and deregulate. This is the solution since factories never come back if the same way will continue to do business. Stop socialism in our country. Stop revolution overseas. Soviets did the same and crashed.Where were you, LOL, when the GOP raised the debt ceiling multiple times during the Bush administration?
Ah yes, all the misery and woe of 2005. Gas was $2.00 a gallon, unemployment was just over 4% and Republicans had the majorities in the House and Senate. My personal and business taxes were cut and Federal coffers took in more real money than they ever had in the history of the country.
Back then of course, we didn't know the Dems were going to retake the House & Senate, and utterly destroy the economy and everything else we'd accomplished.
It was stupid of Bush to inch up the debt ceiling based on 2004 and 2005's record tax takes. What is even MORE stupid, is to compare that to the spending President Gutsy authorized in his first year in office. B. Hussein Soweto managed to spend more real money than all the administrations which came before him, combined. No mean feat, I can assure you.
You were saying?Clinton handed Bush a surplus. Bush signed an unfunded Medicare drug program which was a gift to the drug industry; signed a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans; lied us into a foolhardy, unnesessary invasion of Iraq, neglected Bin Laden in Afghanistan; failed to regulate the mortgage banking industry; and ran the country and the world into the deepest financial since the Great Depression. Most of the current deficit is due to two wars, a bloated military budget and diminished recession tax receipts. Medical care cost increases due to the parasitic insurance and drug industries also contribute to the deficit issue which the GOP is using to strip collective bargaining rights for government employees and teachers and ravage state budgets across the country. They have used social conservative issues to dupe ignorant evangelical Christians into voting against their own economic interests. But the realization is spreading that killing Medicare and turning Social Security over to the Wall Street banksters would be a huge mistake, and the GOP is currently running scared without a viable candidate to run against Barack Obama next year.
Hi Ralph.
So you think Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are not viable candidates to put up against Obama?
Well what about the "dream team" of Trump/Palin?
Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh pleas....
Romney would be a viable candidate if he could get past the social conservatives Tea Baggers in the primaries. But he wouldn't stand a chance against Obama, IMHO.
This could take a minute, because I'm going to have to plod through each of Ralph's leftist talking-points, one at a time.
But first to Mom; I want a Palin/ ANY FEMALE Tea Party candidate ticket, if only to watch the left-wing media complex implode in an orgy of misogynist, anti-child, hate-filled rhetoric. Maybe Condi Rice as the Veep, so we could have blatant ugly racism tossed in between sound bites as a pallet cleanser.
"Clinton handed Bush a surplus." No my friend, he did not. Clinton handed Bush an accounting trick which only the least informed could believe, and the path to 9/11. The trick would take too long to explain here, so I'll just ask you to show me where and when the US Government took in more money than it was obliged to spend, during the Clinton Administration. Good luck.
"Bush signed an unfunded Medicare drug program which was a gift to the drug industry..." I'm torn on this one. Either you WANT Seniors to pay more for their prescription drugs (Democrats fought tooth and nail for that Drug program) or you think drug companies are evil for having the audacity to make better drugs, and try to make a profit with them. Either way, that doesn't make you sound like a very charitable guy.
"...signed a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans;" Do you WORK at staying this uninformed? The bottom 50% of income earners in America pay ZERO income taxes. The bottom 30% actually gets more money BACK than they put in. By virtue of the increased private sector productivity those lowered taxes created, the US Treasury enjoyed record breaking tax takes. If the Not Rich are already paying ZERO income tax, how much bigger a break should we give them?
"...lied us into a foolhardy, unnesessary invasion of Iraq, neglected Bin Laden in Afghanistan;" Now, I'm actually getting a little angry. And you're swimming further out into the complete and utter propaganda deeeeep end. If Bush actually lied, then the intelligence agencies of several other developed nations ALSO lied. All that time we spent talking about building up to maybe possibly getting around to thinking about invading Iraq, we were already in Afghanistan. Boots on the ground.
Saddam and fam, were so very NOT contained. And if you still think it was a bad idea, I suggest you go speak with any Iraqi woman who finally got to Vote, Read or even speak her mind, AFTER we invaded. We're still destroying ordinance from the hundreds of weapons caches we found throughout Iraq, and will be for a few more years.
Need I mention the Rape-Rooms, Torture Chambers and mass grave-sites Saddam left behind? Please keep your rhetoric to things you actually know about.
"...failed to regulate the mortgage banking industry; and ran the country and the world into the deepest financial since the Great Depression." Mr. Deeds? Do you EVER look in the poke, before you buy a pig? Every year, for 7 years straight, President G Dubya went before the Housing Committee and the Finance Committee, and implored them to stop Fanny and Freddy, before they bankrupted the nation.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would hear none of it, SWEARING that those two superbly helmed Government Run Companies were as fiscally fit as the day was long. Why, G Dubya didn't want the poor, or minorities, to ever enjoy the American Dream of home-ownership! That was why he kept spouting doomsday prophesies! Because he hates the poor, and minorities. And women.
Ralph, I'd finish destroying the rest of your post, the balance of which is filled with equally empty leftist schlock, but I get the feeling I'll be touching an all of these subjects as the months roll on. So stay tuned, my friend. We'll expose you to enough facts over the coming months to correct even the most myopic leftist view.The current financial hole we are in is attributable to Bush--his supply side voodoo tax cut, his unfunded Medicare drug program which precluded Medicare from negotiating drug prices with Big Pharma, his totally stupid invasion of Iraq and his administration's failure to curb the housing bubble and depredations by Wall Street banksters.
Cheney's neocon henchmen set up an "intelligence" group that bypassed the CIA in order to provide an excuse to invade Iraq. The mainstream media, including the NYTimes went along with the scam. The truth was that it wasn't in America's interest to invade Iraq even if the little piss ant country had had WMD. Saddam Hussein had no means of delivering weapons against the US and he was smart enough to know that he would be obliterated if he attacked the US, Israel or our other allies in the Middle East. Perhaps the most bald-faced lie floated by Cheney was his claim that Iraq had something to do with Al Qaida's 9-11 attacks. We have lived with Russian, Chinese and other countries' nuclear weapons for 50 years or so. Iraq's alleged WMD were not a valid justification for the invasion, even if the weapons had actually existed. Moblie germ warfare labs? How ludicrous can you get? General Powell made a complete fool of himself before the world with that one.
Clinton handed Bush a surplus--check the numbers. Most of the increase in the debt occurred during the Bush administration. Clinton, with the help of the Republicans in Congress balanced the budget for the first time in many years.Wow. It's like talking to a teenager. Ask for a fact to back up their blather, and they offer up additional blather.
OK Ralph. I believe you. Afghanistan was in a far better position to harm America than silly ol' Iraq and they're wacky/fun Dick-Tater.
And, all the people in this CSPAN you tube video have their D and R on backwards:
http://youtu.be/_MGT_cSi7Rs
Because smart guys like you just KNOW it was those Waskally Wepubwicans failing to regulate which caused the Housing Crisis, not the dear and dreamy Democrats.
I'm presenting you with the real culprits, speaking in their own words. Democrats fighting tooth and nail to defend Fanny and Freddy from evil Republicans, who were bent on curbing the destruction. NOT the other way around, as you've been lead to believe.
You've been lied to time and again by people who want you dumb and numb, Ralph. Prove to me that you're not some doe eyed teen, posting his grandpa's picture to look more impressive. Examine actual data and listen to the culprits speak. Make an informed Adult decision, not a child-like emotional uninformed rant.I'm not inclined to respond to wild assertions and gratuitous insults. Bye, bye.
This one's the worst yet.
What is it, a contest?Gosh, I'm sorry Ralph. While reading your vitriol filled fact-free posts about how Bush was the cause of our current economic predicament (about which I have provided incontrovertible proof he was, most certainly, not), it never occurred to me that you were the fragile, sensitive type.
That being said, I still feel free to correct your misinformation, whenever I come across it. Might I suggest checking facts somewhere other than the HufPo comments section?striped, your wasting your time! you are far better talking to a wall. These people know talking points and never back anything up with facts. Wait till you try with Lovemychris! that will be fun. she will spin all these crazy conspiracy theories and can not comprehend actual facts. It will be fun reading it but will drive you to drink! Then you have John the socialist (At least he is honest) he will respond to a post that has 7 proven facts and pick one thing he thinks he can spin and avoid the actual question, Very comical and entertaining. Enjoy
But generally only proven to you, outside your imagination, decidedly unproven,in fact not even considered.
So, you didn't watch the CSPAN video, John? Or do you want to contend that Sheela Jackson Lee and Barney Frank are pawns of the Bush administration, when they demand Fanny and Freddy are Just Fine?
I'm new here, but I live in a VERY liberal big town, and I've had these discussions aplenty. They usually end with a "Well, you're right on this ONE POINT Crunchy. But I'm sure I'll prove you wrong on this other. Eventually."
How many times can a political theory prove to be propounded by liars, before the work-a-day adherents figure out its ALL horse manure??
Thanks for the Heads-Up, Danny. It's always important to know where the lines are. And please; call me Crunchy.I wasn't actually commenting on anything but Danny's personal attack.
Technically I should have said 'recipients of federally influenced money'. But as I understand it hitting the debt ceiling would freeze incomes in those areas.
I think it is true that many municipal governments are experiencing the same crunch as the federal government. California and New York appear to be in big trouble. Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois seem to be as well. Alabama was showing signs of fiscal problems prior to the rash of Tornadoes.....
And a lot of things states do are partly federally funded.
We need, desperately, to start insisting on balanced budgets. But I don't know if you can do that overnight without disruption,There are grants that are given yes. Those could have an effect. Disruption? I guess you have to choose between the lesser of two evils here. Budget crisis' don't get better on their own. Disruption can't be avoided at this point. It's a matter of how much and when.
The big difference is states do not have a currency press.
Notice how all of those states you mention are all Democratic run states? Doesn't that say something?
Psych is right.
But it is more than just government stopping. Assume you spend more than you bring in, and all your credit cards and home equity loans froze. You have no access to money. What would you do this week to solve the problem?
For our country that means the value of the dollar will fall drastically since the US Treasury cannot pay its debts - the Treasury would default on all payments owed ie treasury bonds, bills, and the like which are heavily owned by other countries.
We would see a financial crisis that would be 20X bigger than the 2008 near meltdown.
The entire world would go into depression.Lady Love, If we don't raise the ceiling and Obamacare, medicare, infrastructure repair, financial reform, and all the things democrats support will be defunded. The republican-tea party may than be successful and making Obama a one term president, and Newt and Allen Keyes can lead the fall of America. Lol.
Do you believe that raising the debt ceiling will avoid a crisis completely or simply delay it?
C.W. Do you think that America needs another crisis Now??? Delay any crisis now and prepare to solve in the near future. This country and It's people don't need more stress now. This problem has been going on for many years and it will take years to stop and reverse the problem. If the stop is sudden it will turn a problem into a crisis. Think about it.
We already have a financial crisis. I've Given it lots of thought. Look at it this way. You have a funding shortage with your personal budget. You make 100K a year and are spending 150K a year. What are you going to do? Who is going to continue loaning you money? What do you think is going to happen to your credit rating? Do you think in that position you would easily be able to get a loan? If so would the intrest go up or down? Think about it, because that's exactly where we are. You simply can not spend your way out of a financial crisis. You can defer debt, but it's a risky proposition. It gets more risky the longer you defer.....We have been heading down this road since the late 70's.
I tend to believe that the spending cuts have to be made first. Then we look to add revenue.C. J. In today's political climate a corporation and a person are considered one in the same. Now you want me to look at my economics and finances as if I was the United States Of America. There is no comparison, It's Ill-logical. What's really sad and scarey is there are republican-tea party members who think like you and Lady Love, Ill-logical.
There in lies the problem. It realy is just simple math. There is nothing else. Economic principles are the same for all. So, since the government can simply print more money, it should.
You couldn't address the issues, you simply made things personal and negative. I simply asked a question. A question you either couldn't or wouldn't answer.Ill-logic thought is simple ignorance of facts. I couldn't logically address the issue from my personal perspective. I'm not being personal or negative, realistic only. For every action there is a reaction. I question the reaction the right expects from not raising the ceiling.
Where did I suggest that we absolutely NOT raise the debt ceiling? I simply stated that we should CUT first. That borrowing is only a stop gap solution, not a permenant one.
I'll plead guilty to that. Don't raise the debt ceiling! The republicans caved on tax cuts and on the CRs they shouldn't cave on the debt ceiling!
You brought zero facts forward. You simply labled my arguments as "ILL LOGICAL". It's distraction through abstraction. It's not a valid argument.
C. J. This discussion isn't fact based but opinion filled. You're right, you never were absolute in your opinion. I was addressing Lady Love's opinion and you answered for her. Ms. Love has since answered me and I again ask her what sense does it make to not raise the ceiling this time for the first in history? Will that action help the American people or stress them more?
"Ill-logic thought is simple ignorance of facts."
Your words, not mine.Of course there will be some pain but there will also be benefits. Our credit rating will be secure the dollar will strengthen and we'll balance our budget and prevent tax increases that will ultimately lead to prosperity!
C. J. Wright, The word ignorant can apply To anybody about anything or subject. I'm ignorant about everything, except things I know about. The pros and cons about the debt ceiling and it's affects by Lady Love, you, and I is an exercise in Ill-logical thought, because we don't know JACK! about the issues. Please don't take it personal. I made it up (Ill-logical) the word, ain't that ignorant of me.
Simply delay it, since there is not enough time to cut expenses. Theoretically, to give time to start cutting expenses. Problem is once the ceiling is raised, congress will ignore the problem again. Obama just wants to leave the problems for the next president - he doesn't have the stomach or character to attack the issue.
Peter has hit it on the head. It's not about layoffs. It is about the viability of the U.S. and its credit standing in the world. We would go into default.
Ladylove is characteristically poorly informed. The beat goes on.
Anyone who suggests not raising the debt ceiling is clearly ignorant to the ramifications. Peter Owen touches on this.
Secondly, the nonsense about cutting spending, we'd make a serious dent in our deficit if we stopped giving tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society.
But why do that? Let's keep asking the poor and middle class to shoulder the burden.
Hell, the top 1% only controls roughly 40% of the nations wealth, let's continue to give to their charity fund.http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep … and-100-wo
Taxing everyone making more than 100k at 100% still wouldn't be enough to pay even this year's deficit! Its not a tax problem it's a spending problem!Billions of dollars over the next 10 years would be saved by simply letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Of course, one party made it their mission to ensure they were extended. Let's not discuss bringing the tax rate back to where it should be.
Did General Electric pay any taxes on their billions of dollars of profit? Do you think they're alone?
So, yes, eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy, closing the loopholes they jump through that enable them to pay less than 20% of their after write-off income, and stop providing social entitlements for Corporate America, and you have no deficit problem.
Of course, the most uninformed segment of our society is okay with these social programs because they're the overseas job creators.I guess you just refuse to do the math. Trillions need to be cut and medicare and social security have to be taken off auto pilot.
And you refuse to understand that, while cutting spending it needed....what is not needed is the cutting of civil services that are essential to the operation and protection of many millions people. Many civil services are more required than the spending the government spends on military.
The government already spends 50% of it's budget on military and about 16% for education. Cutting civil services is only going to make more problems, not less. Cutting from the military budget would make sense. Not to mention, cutting some of the other junk agencies, like Homeland Security has no reason to exist. The FBI and NSA can handle things for domestic and the CIA can deal with what it does.
There are simply TOO many people working for the government and not enough small businesses. Two problems that could be solved, by cutting agencies not needed and increased education resources.I don't refuse to understand anything! I never said that there's no room for cuts in defense or anywhere else for that matter.
No, but your suggestion such as Medicare and Social Security cuts, speaks volumes about you and what you stand for, and what you understand or think.
Those programs in their current form are unsustainable. The money for those programs is mandatory, colas mandatory, the liabilities for those programs are completely unfunded.
Of course, you must be referring to the social program and welfare entitlements that General Electric, Exxon Mobile, and the likes take advantage of and abuse to the tune of billions of dollars each and every year.
So, yes, to use your words - "the liabilities for those programs are completely unfunded".
Whoops. I'm wrong. They are funded off the backs of the hardworking American people. Yes, the 75 year-old-greeter at Walmart.Don't complain to me about the tax code im all for eliminating it and the IRS and replacing it with a national sales tax but congress wont do that because that's where they derive their power. Now if we can get term limits implemented maybe well get citizen leaders that will do what's right for our country until then our best bet is to elect tea party conservatives.
Unfunded? The government gets constant funding for them, from every person. How it's used or utilized is the problem. It doesn't help the fact that America is BROKE. It has been for a very, very, very, long time.
The DEBT already accumulated over the last few generations has built a mountain. The income government has coming in, isn't used properly. It never has been.
The Funding citizens give to government for Medicare and Social Security, should be exclusively for those programs, but are not always that way. The government has given loans against Social Security to other countries. That money hasn't been paid back. A lot of money given to other countries on loan, hasn't been paid back either. It makes no sense to give money away to other countries, especially if said governments are riddled with corruption. It's wasteful spending.Besides the fact that government stole the money from this programs the are still allowed to grow automatically even though people are living longer and less are contributing per retiree. They weren't designed for that and we simply can not afford them.
Lady, you really are not realising what you are asking at all
Medicare facts
Medicare A ( Free-no charge for it), but deductable is 1132.00 for year 2011
Hospital Costs, day 1-60 = 1132 deductable you pay first
day 61-90 you pay additional 288.00 dollars a day
day 91-150 you pay 588.00 a day
that info is straight off the Medicare.Gov site
Part B you pay 110.40 per month for year 2011 and it will go up for 2012, and the deductable for that is 250.00
Part D Perscription Drug Plans, there are 29 companies that offer it for Medicare recipents, the Gov. does not off a plan but requires you to get one of the plans from these private companies.
The premium's are from 52.50 highest to 19.80 lowest, deductable is 350.00 and many have restrictions on the Drugs they allow or pay for!
Your Doctors says you need it, they say sorry we dont pay for it!
co pays can be 5.00-up to 95.00 and max year perscription cost allowed = 1852.00 max down to 918.00 a year max allowed, depending on the plan you buy
The Seniors "Have" to buy a suplement plan from an Insurance company to go along with all of that and it costs; "Quote today from Blue Cross Blue Shield was 130.50 a mont additional to above to carry the suplement to defray all the costs medicare plans will not cover.
If you are coverd by a plan at work, at age 65 you "have" to enroll in both A and B reguardless, and you" have" to notify your company that you did and give them a copy of your card. When that happens your company Insurance moves down to become the second payer, and Medicare becomes the Primary payer after you pay all deductables out of pocket.
That means that at age 65 you face, 1132.oo deductable on your part a, 350. deductable on your drugs and 250 on your pa t b coverage up front, that is paid first before any Medicare or secondary payer will pay any portion of a medical bill
also when you hit your max per year allowable on drugs you have to pay out of pocket until you hit the max life time limit, which is set at around 3800.00 for most of the 29 companies. so the do-nut hole they speak of is from 1800 to 3800 dollare if you are in that hole, it is all your cost. no one pays.
Retieries do not have it made, they are not riding a Gravy Train and have to pay through the nose. The coverages are not that Great on Medicare.
AND-it is broke because Congress and the Senate have borrowed 218 billion dollars from it, to fund special interest projects through the years. as well as some foregin aid package suplements
So do we Cut it? hell no, we re-fund it and make it soluable, yes and keep Politicans hands off of it, no mater how much Interest it makes or how good or tempting it looks, that way "all" of us get a chance at having social security. Now and in the future. There is Money to do that. In Truth, if they can bail out wall street thieves, support illegal wars, and lend aid everywhere, they can most certinly fix this.
Learn something ok,
running a deficite against world dollar markets affects big Republican Business and Banking, and they pass the Loss to American workers, they lower coverages on health plans and cut penshions to make up for it. Cut work forces, go overseas, dump the bill on the rest of us as Tax write off.
Medicare is expensive for a retire to maintain. Look at the Figures above from the Social Security Web site on Medicare. This is not about FOX talking points it affects real people who can not afford it. and have a right to live and enjoy life. We all have that right.
Cag is and has been trying to make you see (Teach) something here.
The Business and Banks never take the hit. Learn something about all of this, instead of screaming doom and gloom. The very idiots you back are cutting your throat as you get Older, and you will hit, definitly hit, this problem, everyone will, we all age....think.....think..... and think again , will ya please.
do not be a puppet for the G.O.P or the Dems. wake up and fire them all.
they are killing us, all of us. Wake up and learn, please.
This Goverment is "NOT" paying as much as they claim towards a persons medical Bills, and their pay tables drop off to 0 real fast, and They let the Suplemental Insurance Co's take the hit for some of it, and a very big chunk is the Retiree's own to pay. go to that web site, and do some simple math!
and the Boomer generation is not growing, it is dying off. it is a sustainable program if it is funded correctly and not stolen blind from greed and Political Power brokers not knowing what to do to solve other problems but throw money at it, by stealing from Citizens or taking their rights away.
My Grand-dad used to tell me, if you'd close your alarming mouth, your eyes mught have enough room to see some of the facts, stop shooting yourself in the foot.
and I am sorry to be so direct here, you realy are a good person, I mean that. You pasionate to cause, yes, but a good person- but I am tired of all this fear talk and non factual garbage.
We need good candidates and facts and we are not getting either, while we are making this mess deeper and more slimy every day. It needs to stop. This country needs some strong reality and Truth.So seniors have to pay something for their OWN care and that's wrong because? ??
The system us broke its unsustainable medicare aline is 1/3 of the budget and growing and your answer is to just take the money from business?
You don't get it there isn't ENOUGH money!
The federal government could seize 100% of the income for the top 2% and still not eliminate the budget deficit and that could only be done once. To seize all the income of any proportion of the population gives them a clear message that they are slaves to the state. The end result would be flight to more rational countries. If someone who has had their entire income seized remains it would be at a radically reduced income in an effort to keep something.
Perhaps we should just declare everyone American who works is the slave of one who does not - that should make the parasite class happy.
There simply isn't enough income to satisfy the ridiculous spending the political class does.I love this silly argument.
The fact that the additional revenue brought in by raising taxes on the wealthy would not solve the problem by itself does not mean it doesn't contribute to the solution. Budget cuts combined with an increase in revenue through taxation is the only way out of this morass, and to try to protect the wealthy during this crisis is irrational and immoral.
This is class warfare, and the wealthy are WINNING! They have convinced some of the base that it is patriotic to protect people that simply aren't experiencing the suffering that is endemic in the country right now.
Genius.Sort of like the lib argument that drilling for oil in our own country wont lower energy prices right? It wont even contribute to lowering prices and even if it did it wouldn't do so right away.
Like I keep telling you but you don't seem to get it even if you taxed everyone making more than 100k at 100% you wouldn't have enough to pay off this years deficit alone.
Will taxing the rich bring in more revenue? Sure but it wouldn't account for more than a dew days worth of spending.
The reality is the American people for the most part do not realize how extroidinarily serious the debt problem is or the extent of which we have to cut to avoid disaster and by disaster I don't mean an inconvenient rise in taxes or a few government layoffs... I mean a total collapse of government a massive economic meltdown! Its really really really serious! This isn't something you can just tweak and keep going the way we're going... Paul wants his money NOW!!!So why suddenly this year?
Why not last year, or five years ago?
Why was $15 trillion OK but $20 trillion demands total shut down and total, immediate elimination of the debt?Shoulda been done a long time ago! Bush went crazy with spending and the republicans went along with it and sacrificed their principles in doing so. They paid a price for it though and were kicked out of power. The problem is the democrats were worse and Obama worse still!
I don't know what figures you're looking at but Obama has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 8!
During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008. Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion to $14.2 trillion by February 2011.
Put another way the national debt rose by near enough 100% during Bush and by around 40% under Obama!So Obama is only (nearly)half as bad as Bush.......and it's only taken him two years to accomplish that!
Not the point. The point is that LL claimed that Obama had run up more debt in two years than Bush had in eight.
I'm not giving Obama a slap on the back, I'm pointing out that LL is wrong.Understand. My point....Obama doesn't deserve a slap on the back regarding the eoconmy....
Hey John, I know this is off topic but I didn't want to start a thread for this. Have you read about your beloved UK? How come your very quiet about it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 … 41009.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ … YN20110326
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/26 … dget-cuts/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_anti- … _in_London
This is what happens with socialism! the money dries up and mayhem!
The next stuff you can read and explain why only in the UK did protest from MUSLIMS who are for Usama Bin Laden(worshipers)
now I'm not talking middle eastern countries which most of them didn't protest, maybe a few. I guess I was wrong when I stated there were a lot of Muslims in the UK?? Strange I do not have a eye problem that I know of, You can also go to you-tube and listen to them call for the death of Obama and America! yeah great bunch of people!
Protests at US Embassy in London over Osama bin Laden's Death
May 6, 2011 ... In response to the US killing of Osama bin Laden supporters of the late al Qaeda leader gathered in front of the US Embassy in London.
www.msasecurity.net/.../Protests-at-US- … en-s-Death - Cached
Osama Bin Laden death: UK Muslims stage mock funeral outside US ...
May 7, 2011 ... Devotion: Muslim women pray during a protest against the killing of Osama bin Laden outside the US embassy in London, England ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Osama-Bin-Laden … bassy.html
Protests against Osama's Killing in LONDON "Islam will dominate ...
12 posts - 10 authors
Protests against Osama's Killing in LONDON "Islam will dominate the World" Religion ... So why report on any protest because 99.9% of protests are always a ...
forum.bodybuilding.com › ... › Misc. › Religion / Politics - Cached
London: Violent Muslim Mob Protesting Osama's Death Clash With ...
May 6, 2011 ... Over the past decade, the media reported that London had become a .... 2 Responses to 'London: Violent Muslim Mob Protesting Osama's Death ...
ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/.../london-muslims-protesting-osamas-death-violently-clash-with-police-try-to-storm-u-s-embassy/ - Cached
Protest in London Against Osama Killing by US Navy SEAL ...
May 7, 2011 ... Protest in London Against Osama Killing by US Navy SEAL According to Source around two hundred peoples demonstrate against US Special Forces ...
www.columnpk.com/protest-in-london-agai … navy-seal/ - Cached
Dont Cop It - London Islamic's Protest Osama Bin Laden's Death ...
May 7, 2011 ... Over the past decade, the meida reported that London had become a ... films a protest against the killing of Osama bin Laden outside the US ...
www.dontcopit.com/?p=2346 - Cached
Radical cleric Anjem Choudary plans Osama bin Laden protest in ...
May 5, 2011 ... A radical cleric is planning to spark fury by protesting against the killing of Osama bin Laden outside the US Embassy in London.
www.metro.co.uk/.../862447-radical-cler … -in-londonWhat socialism? There is nothing socialist about an extreme right government trying to turn us into a clone of the US.
It is a common ploy of the right wing in this country that on taking power they punish the electorate for having had the audacity to put the left wing in power in the first place. Of course, the mass of the electorate having short memories believe it when they are told that it is all the left's fault. They tend to ignore facts like the recovery under the left has been turned around it is now heading back to depression.
Except this time the electorate aren't so easily fooled, people who've worked for 50 years and saved for their pension aren't going to give it up without a fight.
Unlike you lot who just whinge and whine about your government we get out on the streets and let them know we won't be robbed.
I can easily explain the Muslim protests. We actually have and practice freedom of speech for all, not just the chosen few like you do. Who was it said "I abhor everything that you say but I will defend onto death your right to say it"?You clearly leave out all the useless spending on entitlements that has caused the money problem! The left has had control in your country and the right in your country is our left! so even they think it can not sustain the burden without changes! John this ALWAYS happen when you have a socialist government.
as for the Muslims with the beautiful signs, I did not say they didn't have a right to free speech? Where did you get that? You said that they are peace loving people in the UK...did you not? I'm sure I can find that post if you like? Check out Youtube videos, you can hear them saying death to Obama and America. This is not freedom of speech this is a threat! you would only spin it as such.What entitlements? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Huge expense accounts for MPs?
We haven't had anything resembling a socialist government in this country since 1979.
But then what's the point, you've visited this country once or twice so obviously know far more about it than somebody who has lived here 60+ years.
Just as there are indigenous British or American people that you would rather not meet on a dark night, so there are some Muslims. Just as the majority of indigenous Brits and American are basically peace loving, so are the majority of Muslims.All the cuts John are for Entitlements, Did you not read? The money is drying up and the well is almost empty! So know you want to take more from the people who do too much already? Is it the riches problem that everything is free for the lazy people? Your Left party has run the country for a while and this always happens. See the last time George Soro's took your country big time and caused your credit rating to fall and your left party took over right after! that fool is trying to do the same thing here but a lot of people are on to him! It sounds wonderful John but it doesn't work forever! And I get my info from people who live in the UK. I told you I do a lot of dealings in the UK.
What's with this word "entitlement"? If you crash your car and claim off your insurance you could call it an entitlement, but I doubt you would.
So why cast slurs at other people who claim on their insurance?
What do you mean everything is free for the lazy? How do you differentiate between the lazy and the unemployed?
Do you do a lot of dealings in the UK with real people, people who are unemployed through no choice of their own, or do you only do business with members of the right who rob the ordinary man in the street?you don't have jobs because it isn't profitable to business in your country! hence where there aren't many jobs! if you are going to take a majority of the profits why should they open up companies? see where this is going. on your insurance analogy, you are leaving out all the real entitlements and just speak of what people put in, And also they can collect for only 10 years of participation! that means they did not put in even 20% in most cases of what they will receive. Why do you feel redistribution is good? let me ask you, should they take GPA points away from students who have 4.0 to give to students who have 2.4? they don't really need a 4.0 do they? big deal that they studied hard and earned that GPA, they could get by with a 3.5 and give .5 to another student. That would be fair wouldn't it? lets see what you spin from that one!
UK unemployment at a 17 year high (thanks Mr Cameron) of 8%.
Remind me, what is the US unemployment figure?It is 10% and we have a much higher GDP than the UK by far! and as long as the left keeps making it hard on business it will get worse! You keep alluding the fact that business create jobs not government! government creates debt! As far as my question about redistribution I take it you don't have an answer.
So you're blaming our so called socialist system for our high unemployment of 8%, what do you blame your even higher 10% on then?
Note, it is a right wing government who is trashing the country, not a left wing one.
I don't keep alluding to the fact that business creates jobs! Both business and government can create jobs.
As for your question about GPA points, totally irrelevant and not worth answering. You can't score people like exam results.The damage was done by the left! your broke also! the smart people are trying to fix what was broken by the left! Again Government doesn't create profitable jobs! they increase the debt! only private business create jobs where the debt goes down. I said we have about 10% and WE have a much larger GDP than the UK, Many times more. Spending got us in this mess! in 2006 until 2011 the left had the house and senate! then in 2009 they had the white house also! bush with the help of the left added so much debt to the deficit and Obama has added more and on track to pass bush handily!
as for you not answering my question, It is relevant! it is very similar to what you socialist want! the students work hard and study and not party as much and take their life serious and why should they have to give up some GPA points? Someone works hard puts in a lot of time and energy succeeds and has to give away. same thing. you know it is wrong! you do not have a legitimate explanation so you try and pass it off as always.There are an awful lot of people who would disagree with your assessment of Cameron as smart, hell, the economy has gone into a nose dive under his care.
There is no comparison between exam results and taking care of people, if you think like that then I am very sad for you.Why? If they do not do good they probably will not get a better job. They failed and with the extra points they pass. That means they get a pass. you like passes don't you? If you enable people to depend on the government they never rise! proven time and time again. No incentive to better themselves. I see it here, People feel why should I go back to work since they extended the unemployment insurance to 2 years? I can sit home and collect instead of working 40 hours a week for another 15% more than I receive. It is funny how when the 20th month comes along they find a job. just like most did when it was 26 weeks and most found jobs from the 20th week to the 25th week. Isn't that strange? And other hard working people should pay for this? Please I feel Bad for you!
You have a very poor opinion of your fellow man don't you?
Or are you just reflecting your own personality on them, saying that if you were protected from the worst of unemployment you'd sit at home on your back side all day watching soaps?I would not! But many do. Explain why like I stated many get jobs just before the unemployment ends? That isn't strange? Please John I believe in helping people that truly need it, But not enabling people and keeping them down! that is what happens with socialism/Marxism. It never worked and never will. It will always collapse. Could never sustain itself. I speak the truth I do not sugar coat things. You know many people are F'D up and I do not want to give them anything free, let them work for it
OK, let's take a look at it shall we?
You give somebody the option of working for next to nothing or the option of staying at home for next to nothing, which would you pick?
Don't keep repeating your sh!t about socialism, we aren't a socialist country and we don't have a socialist government, remember, I already told you, the last time we had anything like a socialist government was in 1979.
You don't speak the truth, you speak prejudice! Let them work for it, what are you proposing in a system that demands unemployment to keep wages down, chain gangs, the workhouse?
Open your eyes Danny, the unemployed aren't the enemy, the ones who want to keep them unemployed are.
Let me tell you about the early 80s in the UK, men who'd worked all their lives, only t be thrown out of work by the tory government, told they were scroungers, found more work, lost it again, found more work, lost it again. Got to the stage when they could no longer face their families and tell them they were out of work again and laid their heads on the railway tacks or went into the loft of their house and came down quickly with a rope round their necks.
Don't you dare tell me that every one of those friends was a scrounger.My eyes are open John, You keep equating the UK with the USA...Wrong! If you can survive on what that job pays then YOU should work instead of sitting home like a lazy MF'er. You definitely have a different mindset than I do, I do not want anything from anyone! I want to earn what is mine! I do not want to be depending on anyone! You are a quasi socialist country in my book! And mark my words you will never improve in the ranks of best countries for innovation and technology! It is different here in the states and I do not want to be anything like the UK! The administration is trying to do it but it will never happen! He said hundreds of times he wants to redistribute the wealth. Not happening. Your country knows all the social programs and tax codes and not being business friendly is destroying your country slowly but surely! Many of the rich people leave your country. The UK has been slowly going down the drain, You can not tell me in the last 15 years it hasn't changed a lot. India, china are moving up fast! They are hungry people and going to bring their countries up the ladder while the UK and the US(well I still Have Hope for us!) goes down! You have no clue about the United States, Tell me why every State that the Democrats run is in Bankruptcy or dam near close to it? The Unions are swallowing up so much money and giving it to the democrats for favors which hurt the state! My home taxes are 14,000.00 a year on the house I live in! I own a few others and the lowest is 7,200.00 just house taxes! if you go to republican states like Florida people pay as low as 1,000.00 and like alabama and Mississippi it could be as low as 500.00. Gas taxes in new york are 1.05 a gallon! cigarettes cost 4.00 avg price in Carolina in new york they are 12.00 a pack because of tax! and they still don't have enough money! how is this possible? they are thieves! Please do not tell me about the United states or how the money system works! From Fractional reserve to how they create it! I have study socialism/Marxism, Capitalism, communism and hands down the best is capitalism! The political system here is so f'd up right now and hopefully we get some real people who are not out for themselves and get the job done before we become like the UK.
We far out strip the US for innovation and technology!
Like I said, you obviously know far more about the UK than I do, further discussion is pointless.You far out weigh the US for innovation and Technology? Please show proof of that! Can not wait to see this!
Are you F'InG kidding? That is through History! Lets take the last 30-40 years! not from 1600 or 1800 added! Yes the UK use to be more innovative but recently! What a joke! good try
Change the goal posts then, you made no mention of the last 30 or 40 years.
What has your country done in the last 30 or 40 years?Change the Goal post? John we are talking how the policies of left wing thinking is stopping growth! Your country doesn't have automobiles in our country? we have GM. We have many pharmaceutical technology. Apple, Microsoft etc... how you going to compare the UK to the USA? There is no incentive in your country for companies! Maybe one day you will get it! I doubt it because your stuck on your socialist ways.
Like I stated before should they take GPA points away from students and give to others who do not have a good GPA? It should be far...no? I do not want to hear it isn't the same because it is. The students who earned and studied hard and didn't party as much did well! should they give some of their GPA points to the ones who did worse to make it even? It is the same with Business, they earned it and you want their money! Same principle! Your mentality of reality doesn't work! never has and never will! I asked many times to show me proof of it working? I'm still waiting.Well tell that to the world leading UK industries Danny.
But I do note that you cop out of providing examples of US innovation in the last 40 years.
We don't have (many) automobiles in your country because an extreme right wing government sold all our automobile industry, mostly to you.
Please show evidence for your claim that left wing policies are stopping growth.
Just as long as you consider people are the equivalent of exam grades then we have no common ground for debate.John aren't the students people too? seriously how is that different? see if they get a better grade they may get a better job and be successful. What difference does it make if you get a 4.0 instead of 3.5? that doesn't even cost anything. It is all relevant John it effects peoples lives! Those grades can make another PERSON advance and do well. why is this not good? a 3.5 will still get them the same job and actually help someone who will fail! It wouldn't even cost any money! Your helping society. Isn't that would you do when you redistribute wealth? Your helping society...no
Danny, if you honestly cannot see the difference then I'm truly sorry for you but I'm not prepared to waste my time on trying to explain something so obvious to somebody who so obviously doesn't want to see it.
I take it you have no real answer. I didn't think so. It is all relevant John. Students are People also and this GPA redistribution could help with the quality of their lives! same as redistributing the wealth of people who have more. It is the same premise. It will help the failing student get a degree and the 4.0 student who worked so hard gets to help another out by possibly making his/her life better! So what he loses High deans list? Big deal he stayed up late and dedicated him/herself to getting that grade it is for the better good. I know you have no real answer. I will get I will not even justify why it isn't even the same, blah, blah, blah... Lets hear it big guy
OK!
Horses are handicapped by weight during a race so why shouldn't we handicap people by weight as they go through life?
Silly idea isn't it, just like your idea that man shouldn't help his fellow man because it wouldn't work in an exam situation!Just so you know not all races are handicapped by weight! All the big races they carry the same weight. And your telling me I can not equate GPA to Wealth distribution but you can equate horse racing to human life? The weight is because of betting! Pretty sad analogy if you ask me!
Giving away GPA could get a person a better career because they would have failed without the extra points. hence making it more fair as you say! Maybe they had a better computer then the failing student? maybe he had a full scholarship and didn't have to work while going to school? Maybe the failing student partied to much, but hey we should make it fair...No lets give from the top students some of their points so the others pass. same as in what you believe. it will benefit them john! why not?Of course it is John! You have no solid answer! Good try with the Horse racing analogy! did the Kentucky derby run with a handicap? NO it didn't. Your funny, It is OK for you to equate horses to humans but not students to humans? OK! I just showed you why they are relatively the same but you gave no real solid answer but horses? Am I'm funny? Should we do the same with the wild animals? Should we give lions extra weight so they can't catch the zebra's? what that be good for you John?
I wasn't equating horses to humans, I was demonstrating the stupidity of you comparing apples with oranges.
John how is that apples to oranges????? Please explain! They both do the same thing! they help another person! your analogy doesn't do this! the rich give their hard earned money to help the needy, the smart students give GPA to help the needy students better their lives! Seems relatively the same John. they both help the human race be equal!
Oh Danny, it's not about equality. It's about being civilised.
well wouldn't helping the failing students be civilized john? It could get them better careers with a degree...no?
No it wouldn't Danny, it would devalue degrees and make them worth lees, whereas not having streets lined with beggars betters us all.
but the failing people would have a chance to get a better job with a degree and then we have less street beggars. same effect.
No it wouldn't be the same effect, employers would quickly realise that degrees were worthless and we'd end up with higher unemployment.
And if they rich had to give away more money they would have to stop hiring or even fire some to make up for lost money. Same effect.
You repeatedly make this claim of people getting jobs at the last minute before their unemployment expires.
Do you have a shred of evidence for this? Anything? A shred perhaps?
Post it, or stop your insanity.
You are an unglued troll.
Put up or shut up. Where is the evidence for people suddenly becoming employed at the end of their benefits?Danny has little or no evidence for anything he posts. He seems to think that if he imagines something then it is so.
Here smart one! here is the Website for the data to answer all your questions! You don't think they keep records for how long people collect? And the stats work in any country! read it and weep oh Mr. I think I know it all!
http://www.oecd.org/document/0,3746,en_ … _1,00.htmlhere is another, you claim to be bright. look it up!
http://www.bls.gov/cps/duration.htmLike the brucebeat said, not a shred of evidence. Not even in a link you claim supports your hypothesis.
You can not read? Look up the stats! do I have to copy and paste for you? It is right there, do some work for a change. I gave 2 sites that clearly show and if you were logical you would look up before the increase and see the same pattern, just before the benefits end miraculously many find jobs!
Nope, no evidence at all that people suddenly find work at nearly two years of unemployment.
Do you need glasses? It shows a large majority find jobs just before benefits end whether it is 26 weeks or 52 weeks, We do not have stats yet on 99 weeks because it just started! good try! the data is all in the website!
Well you'd better show me then because for the life of me I can't see it.
Funny--I heard something interesting about that today on Diane Reim's show...
You know the guy who they killed and said was Bin-Laden? Well-apparently they got this big cache of materials from his compound.And apparently, they found tapes and such of this so-called Bin Laden making threats to kill Obama, kill certain others in gvt...but he said to leave Biden alone.
Well that got me thinking....as Biden is a Zionist. He threatens to kill Obama, but says leave Biden alone?
This fits in with my theory that al-queda really is al-CIAda--like many researchers have said: Zionists in America and Israel working together to implement their world order.
So--when Obama got this Bin-Laden---he did get al-queda, but it is al-CIAda he got, and it is the real enemy. Obama knows, and is going after them.
These are enemies of America---Zionists posing as Muslims--and part of their MO is hatred of Arabs--blame it all on the Arabs.
Just as they did with the Jews in WW II. Same group behind both.
***
So-- what do you think of my theory?I will refrain from what I think about your conspiracy theories. all I will say is WOW!
Funny thing is the Arabs were busy slaughtering Jews for Hitler during WWII. There were two Persian divisions in the SS. The grand mufti of Jerusalem provided troops for Hitler also.
And the Vatican provided escape routes.
And Stalin's head group of henchmen were Bolshevik Jews. 30 Million died there....so--your point?
I am speaking of the HERE and NOW.2011 America.
WHY do you suppose he would have suggested to kill Obama, but leave Biden alone?
This is YOUR supposed enemy of enemies, remember.Liberals are my primary enemy. Without liberal silliness there would be far fewer problems in the world at large.
The white house and military just released the reason why Biden was excluded! they said the vice presidency is not of importance! Also I doubt he even knew he was a Zionist! I guess your conspiracy theory is out the window again!
What? He proudly proclaims it in front of AIPAC all the time!
As I'm sure he will soon, when Bibiguns makes a trip to his gvt....the US Congress.
And how could a VP be of no importance?
To a group wanting to destroy the US gvt?
He's 2nd in command!
And if they got Obama---why who would be in charge?
Boy, are you gullible
OK so now, your going against your own messiah and say he is lying? OMG Chris you really have lost it! so now Obama is in on it. OK
Neither you nor I have any idea of anything that goes on..the web is so deep.
That's why I go on feeling and gut intuition.
I said already: to me, al-queda is al-CIAda.
Rogue criminal elements have long ago taken over certain aspects of our gvt.
You must handle them with kid gloves.
A psy-ops on a psy-op, if you will
An accurate if incomplete idea. If spending under Obama continues at the same rate for his four years he will out spend Bush. President Bush and the Republicans deserved no credit for their profligate spending and suffered the loss of Congress in the 2006 election and the White House in the 2008 election as a consequence.
Since 2006, when congress changed hands, the Democrats in the House of Representatives, where all spending originates, have out spent the Republican Congress under Bush. The American system requires complicity between Congress and the President to spend other people's money as if it was water.
Bush and Obama both have been big spenders. The resistance of House Republicans, so far, means the first decline in the growth of spending in over ten years.
Obama put the war costs ON budget. Bush never did.....
You think that might add something? Uh---yeah!
His stimulus is spending on US! For America. Some Idiotas have the gall to turn it down!--but have no qualms asking us all to pay more so Little Glenny Beck can have 59 mil instead of 57.
Howard Dean said 60% of the deficit is the dumb Bush-era tax cuts, which were shoved down our throats under the threat of not funding Unemployment.
....For people who lost their jobs because these same rich people who got the tax cuts took their jobs to another country!
We don't have a spending problem--we have a revenue problem.
These idiotas took money out of the general fund, to allocate to reaally rich people, who have more money than god--and the working middle class people must make up for that loss!
And it's been going on for 30 years. Trickle-up welfare!
Ridiculous to argue otherwise.
Russshhhhhh Limbaugh and Bill Clinton do not need more money.
Stop putting us in hock so they can have it!
Drilling in this country will be a peehole in the snow. You know why? The oil that is drilled will be sold on the open market. We won't own it, the oil companies will, and we will simply have to bid on the tiny amount that is added to the total available oil supply. It isn't like the U.S. will be drilling the oil and keeping it and relieving the stress on the american public. It will be sold on the market by oil companies.
I agree with you that the situation is extremely serious. That's why the revenue increase is important. Once again, the argument that 100% taxation on the rich won't solve the problem is a total cunnard, a smoke screen to protect the wealthy from sacrificing in any way toward the goal of fiscal sanity. It is a piece in the puzzle, not the completed picture. That is the second time I've made that point. Why you choose to ignore it I can't imagine.
Just kidding. I can imagine.
So how about defense spending?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percenta … e_military
Total spending on the military can be assessed as over 50% of our national budget when many of the hidden costs are added into the mix. Where do you suggest we cut that?
We spend more on defense than the rest of the civilized world combined."Drilling in this country will be a peehole in the snow. You know why? The oil that is drilled will be sold on the open market. We won't own it, the oil companies will, and we will simply have to bid on the tiny amount that is added to the total available oil supply. It isn't like the U.S. will be drilling the oil and keeping it and relieving the stress on the american public."
Some what of a distortion. The Government owns most of the oil that the oil companies drill for. The oil companies LEASE the oil fields from the Government.
Really, increased revenue merely means more irresponsible spending by the government. When has the government ever controlled itself? The danger of government is its inability not to seek ever greater power, ever greater reach. This is the fundamental argument behind the Constitution - to limit the scope and reach of the federal government.
What is class warfare? Class is a construct perpetuated by those who benefit from it. The liberals and elitists love the idea of class as if somehow, by nature, humans are locked into a level at birth.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/class
Let's start with a definition of "class", which is provided for you here. Nowhere does it state that classes can't be jumped, that one is permanently assigned to one class or another. It is a group with certain homogenous characteristics, traits they share.
With that strawman burned to the ground, we can acknowledge that the idea of class benefits both sides. I remember Bush saying, publicly no less, "I don't understand poor people." He was never more honest than at that moment. Class benefited him because he allowed himself a self image of superiority, which was a warm and fuzzy place to walk through life from.
As for increased revenue, you have changed your argument from it wouldn't solve the problem to the government wouldn't know what to do with it. Should we simply stop collecting taxes, then, since the use of it is clearly always going to be irresponsible?
c.j.wright,
Once we lease the rights to drill to an oil company, we do NOT own that oil, the oil company does. All we get are the proceeds of the lease. The oil gets sold on the open market to the benefit of the oil company, not the USA. The reason people like me think drilling here is rather pointless is there is not enough to increase the global supply substantially enough to effect gas prices. It's not a matter of what percentage of our oil needs we can drill for here, as the oil doesn't go to us. It is a matter of how much can the overall supply be effected so the supply and demand can be effected. Do you get the difference?It is the same argument, raising the debt ceiling would merely result in more money for the government to use irresponsibly while further eroding the value of that money. We have inflation in food and fuel, already, from out of control spending and "quantitative easing" - another term for debt monetizing (a practice beloved among third world economies).
The government has no money at all, ever. It has to take money or borrow money. Creating money by fiat, as the Fed has done, is a loan against future value - inflation. The Federal government issues debt to borrow money. The use of fiat money to pay for Federal Debt is akin to paying one credit card with another with one essential and disastrous exception. The Federal Government cannot go bankrupt but it can bankrupt all of us, rich and poor alike.
If there is a class that is destroying America it is not the "rich" it is the "political class". It is those who believe that more and ever broader government at the expensive of the individual is the perfect answer.
Be careful when you step on this slope. Before long if you don't live in a government provided apartment, wear government provided cloths and eat government provided food you will be the one who is rich. The only protection against tyranny is to keep government muzzled and chained.So if you increase the price to lease the land and you actually lease the land. More revenue is generated. Plus more people are working. None of this will ever make any sense to you. You are convinced that the US has an increadibly small amount of oil. I'm not.
Start with congressional pay, perks, pensions, healthcare, and go from there. They are the only ones ever exempt from such massive cuts. The rest of America's special interest groups suffer.
Balancing the budget is going to take cuts. But it doesn't seem fair that people who paid into a system don't get what they were promised. So many of these pension schemes suffer from politicians having dipped into them.
Absolutely. I say at this point and time DOD, SS, Medicare and Medicaid should be hands off. The rest needs to be cut to the bone!
Im afraid you simply can't balance the budget without adressing those programs. Sorry but the young people are going to have to work longer before they can retire and somebody is going to get the short end but that's life! Its that or its nothing no benefits no retirement no freedom and no country. Take your pick.
We have to do something substantial NOW. Take those off the table and let the chips fall where they may.
Very easy for someone whose pension and easy retirement will be funded on the debt-enslaved backs of those innocent young people to say.
Well I certainly don't like the prospect of having to work longer to pay for the sins of my elders but what's the alternative?
Ditto! I think I'm voting for whichever presidential candidate will push for this!
The candidates can push for it but congress will never do it especially the democrats who use the code to a greater degree to generate political support of their base.
As I read your posts here, I fear I may be developing a serious crush. Well spoken, well written, well read and dead right about ohhh so many things. Yup. Thassa Crunchy kinda gal! An absolute pleasure to know your kind are out there.
This scares me. Why? Because it will be outrageously expensive to impliment. Further we will likely end up with a VAT on top of income tax.
- Stevennix2001posted 13 years ago
0Although I haven't read all the posts on this forum, I thought i'd throw in my two cents anyways. I think the problem with our government is that we tend to over spend on too many things that we don't necessarily need, and we get back so little for our money. Personally, I disagree highly with everyone here that says we should cut military spending, as that's a necessary evil at the moment. Sure, you can argue all you want, on how we don't need to spend that kind of money on the military, but I think 9/11 showed us that there will always be a need for it. Unfortunately, we don't live in a peaceful society yet, and we need an army to defend us if the evil ever arises. To take a quote from "True Romance": I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
However, I do think we need to eliminate little things like some of the traditional government programs that we do. Like did you folks know that every year around thanksgiving, our president makes a big public announcement about setting a turkey free from being eaten that year, and throws a parade in it's honor? Did you know that? Eliminating something as stupid as that would help our government immensely as that's just plain stupid.
Another thing we can do to save money is eliminate health benefits and programs to aid illegal immigrants. Seriously, why do we need it, as it'll only encourage more illegal immigration rather than deter it. That's why I think we'd be better off eliminating benefits to illegal immigrants, as they should try to become citizens first before they should receive any government help. Another thing we can do is force politicians to spend their own money running political campaigns or make it to where their campaigns come from any donations made rather than using our hard earned tax dollars on those elections. Besides, if they want the job in office, then why should we help them outside of voting?
Anyways, i would say more, but i have to go. my lunch break is fixing to end, and I don't want to be late. anyways, i'll be sure to add a lot more suggestions, as i have much more to say on this too. "Do NOT Raise The Debt Ceiling!!!"
We are basically fxyzed. It will happen in our lifetime, but not in mine.I want this thread to go away. Alas, I do not have Ed.
Bottom line is that medical is corrupt.
I have no idea as to fix that.How about cutting the fraud, eliminating those who do not need it, Cut the prices the doctors charge. It would be a good start
In order to cut the doctor prices you have to stop all the lawsuits from attorneys which make the malpractice insurance go down! But your right we have more waste from government then anything else!
Do you know the difference between a lawyer and a snake?
NothingCompanies pay unemplyment and workers comp insurance. They are a cost of doing business. Doctoers have Malpractice Ins. It is figured into the cost of a office visit. So how is that working. You go to the doctor and they charge you $75 for the offive visit. After seeing you for 5 minutes, he determines you need a shot. He charges you another $100. It breaks down to $50 for the Med that he pays $5 for, and $50 labor. $50 on top of the $75 office visit he already hit you for that covers his expenses including malpractice insurance. But noone says anything. Lets say I come to your home and charge $ 75 per hour. in 5 minutes I determine you need a new thermostat. It takes 5 minutes to change. I give you the bill I charged you $75 for the first hour I was there 20 minutes. I charged $50 for the thermostat and charged $50 to put it on the wall. You would have a fit I charged an extra $50 for labor that fell in the time frame of the $75 charge.
So why do we and the insurance companies allow that to happen? If they challenge that, the price paid to Doctors would drop.
Insurance is the problem, not the attorneys. Yes there are SOME frivilous lawsuits, but WE ALL get screwed by insurance. That, however opens us up to a more philosophical question: Should "health" be an insurable commodity? Not life, but health.
Take out the profit element, put patients before shareholders.
I do not have a problem with Docs making a profit like companies do. I oject to them gouging us like oil companies do
Again if there was no profit in it, why would these people spend their money and try to come up with things that will better life? again no incentive! These same people would be lawyers or bankers and we would not see progress! you have a small mind John. You can not see how By making it possible for people to gain everyone gains! but the prices can be lower if the attorneys would stop the frivolous lawsuits and malpractice insurance goes down!
How does it benefit me if I pay the hospital fees, the surgery fees, and the shareholders dividends?
As far as I'm aware shareholders do not need to have any medical knowledge, aren't consulted about medical matters and don't even clean the hospitals.It benefits you as you get to live longer! you would be dead without it or have a miserable life! that is the benefit! would money even matter if you were dead? You actually shouldn't complain, we subsidize many countries as they benefit from our technology and it cost cheaper for you.
It benefits me to pay the shareholders because then I get to live longer!
Who are the shareholders, Mafia hit men?How does it beniefit me if they charge so much I cannot recieve that woderful Tech? Trust me I know about this first hand
Danny,
I agree if insurance goes down the price Docs charge will go down, but not very much. THe biggest problem is their double dipping by charging multiple simes for the same time period. IF the office visit covers say 1/2 hour the doctor should not charge extra time for the procedures he does. Not to mention the double billing of services and charging for services not rendered.There was a little anecdote on a British forum recently.
A guy who was to have an eye operation had looked it up on the internet and whilst talking about it to his surgeon said he realised that the corneal replacement would involve two operations.
The surgeon laughed and told him he'd obviously researched it on an American site.
In the US they did the procedure as two separate operations so they could charge double for it.
In the UK it was all done in one operation to reduce costs and risks to the patient.
Danny- Stop believing the campaign tag lines. They simply are not true. My wife is a doctor, and i am an attorney, my malpractice premium is actually higher than hers. The problem is insurance.
If you read I said it was malpractice insurance. They charge doctors so much they need to charge more to pay this ridiculous policy. But you can not deny that without technology we would not have all these wonderful advances.
Also if they let you compete across state lines that would bring down costs also.
a bit hard to swallow. And could never be proven either way.
I also would not raise the debt ceiling! that would keep these clowns from spending even more money! They still have 2 trillion coming in, make that work! It is more than enough!
This is all hollow bs. Why was there no UPROAR about the 5 debt limit increases during the Gush years? Not even the 2 separate increases in 2002. You guys are grasping at air... alot of hot air. Please stop you are looking despareate now. Face it, the people that you believe in, (the rebups, the tea party, ron paul) are all full of donkey dust, and have been playing a smoke an mirrors hame one you. Largely based on your lack of memory and ineptitude for understanding history.
So go ahead and VOTE NO on the debt limit increases. I'm fine, because, I did very well by inventing in gold after Bush won re-election on one issue (Gay Marriage) and saw the beginings of our country going to hell in a hand basket.4 times under Clinton (total increase of $2,480 bln), 7 times under Bush (total increase of $4,785 bln), and three times under Obama already (for a total of over $3,000 bln) -- in just 2 years:
Date Debt Ceiling Change in Debt Ceiling
(billions of dollars)
April 6, 1993 4,370 +225
August 10, 1993 4,900 +530
March 29, 1996 5,500 +600
August 5, 1997 5,950 +450
June 11, 2002 6,400 [104] +450
May 27, 2003 7,384 [105] +984
November 16, 2004 8,184 [104] +800
March 20, 2006 8,965 [106] +781
September 29, 2007 9,815 [107] +850
June 5, 2008 10,615 [108] +800
October 3, 2008 11,315 [109] +700
February 17, 2009 12,104 [110] +789
December 24, 2009 12,394 [111] +290
February 12, 2010 14,294 [112] +1,900
I guess I'm not getting thru.
Again, let's say your own personal debt level can't be raised as of next week. Assume you spend more than you bring in, and all your credit cards and home equity loans froze. You have no access to money. You can't ask friends or parents (ie other countries. Where would you get money to eat.
All your debts would eventually be called and you would have to default since you don't have the money to pay the debts. Your credit rating would drop to the floor. You would eventually have to declare bankruptcy."So know you want to take more from the people who do too much already?"
Paris Hilton does too much already?Well I think it's just fascinating that the top two threads you people are still commenting on were both started by LaLo.
In the short term, I think we need to do what is needed to keep our civil servants working.
However, I agree that we need to get our spending under control, stop going to war (get out as soon as reasonably possible).
Then fund R&D in alternative energies, encourage business and public to invest and get away from oil. It's only going to cost more as it becomes more scarce and difficult to obtain.
As a whole, this country needs to be more self-sufficient, just like it would benefit the families and individuals to do more locally/on their own."B. Hussein Soweto"
You're going to force me to resort to Shickelgruber Nazi Bush,
And "Most Dangerous Game, Go F Yourself" Cheney.I have no idea what you are all fighting about - the US has reached its debt ceiling and is not in any position to raise it any more. China is reducing its US debt by a couple of trillion and nobody else seems inclined to step in, if any other country was even able step in at those amounts and levels. And anyway why would anybody lend more to a country that has been in economic decline for over 20 years ?
It is probably the end of the line for the artificially high dollar and the start of spiralling inflation - which will be a good thing overall as it will result in the drastic reduction of violence all over the world.I tend to agree. The US will not default directly, but rather default by inflation. Long term this will be good as it allows the cycle to complete naturally. It will be painfull though.
Related Discussions
- 76
GOP's Dangerous Debt Ceiling Charade
by Susan Reid 13 years ago
From that bastion of lamestream liberalism, TIME. Mr. Klein puts it so darned well I couldn't resist posting the whole article. It's not very long. Enjoy!Oh, and as we all know, there WAS no vote today (Thursday). ViewpointRepublicans’ Debt Ceiling Charade Is Downright DangerousBy Joe Klein...
- 47
Debt Debate, Why not Balance the Budget?
by American View 12 years ago
OK I give up. Armageddon is coming. President makes threats, talks down to Americans, Dems plan has fake cuts and they refuse to look at Repubs offers, Repubs balking at Dems offers saying no raising the taxes. No wonder Bachmann has a migraine. Forget politics, forget which plan you think is...
- 77
To Republican Controlled House: Stop with the Stupid!
by Credence2 20 months ago
I stumbled upon a recent article the excerpt of it is below:The former chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) has a blistering response to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's, R-Ga., recent remarks about debt.According to HuffPost, Michael Steele was not pleased with Greene's adamant pushback...
- 132
Debt? Whose to blame? What to do, What to do?
by Tim Mitchell 6 months ago
From Riches to Rags: Causes of Fiscal Deterioration Since 2001 by Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Jan 10, 2024) says;https://www.crfb.org/papers/riches-rags … ation-2001 [Who in the hell are those people. There about page is at the next link.]https://www.crfb.org/staff-members“In...
- 23
Good argument against debt ceiling raise
by James Smith 10 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 63786.htmlI heard a good argument against the raising the debt ceiling a few years back. This senator argued leadership means that ''the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children...
- 49
Who's the biggest problem in the Debt Ceiling Crisis?
by Thomas Byers 11 years ago
No we didn't fall off the cliff but the Debt Ceiling Crisis is still looming out there and will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I'll bet you this is waking up many politicians including the President in the middle of the night. What do you think?Who do you blame for the Debt Ceiling...