Did anyone think of this when writing

[Guest]

the health bill ?

"President Barack Obama faces a fight over the health-care overhaul from states that sued today because the legislation’s expansion of Medicaid imposes a fiscal strain on their cash-strapped budgets.

Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 14 states that filed suit after the president signed the bill over the constitutionality of the burden imposed by the legislation. The health-care overhaul will make as many as 15 million more Americans eligible for Medicaid nationwide starting in 2014 and will cost the states billions to administer."

"Besides the added Medicaid costs, the states are also challenging the right of the federal government to impose a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whose state filed a separate lawsuit today challenging the law, called the health legislation an “unconstitutional overreach” of the federal government’s authority. "


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajwSWE6H1kHM


To all of those who feel that those of us who oppose this bill are selfish, non christian, non caring people who want people to suffer....THAT is basically the consensus I get from those who posted in celebration.....THIS is ONE of the reasons it was opposed, and always remember it was done in the dark of backrooms !

[Guest]

"the health legislation an “unconstitutional overreach” of the federal government’s authority. "

Of course it was and so have many of their deeds since they took power. The Constitution means nothing to them.

[Guest]

Bucco, I know. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to teenagers and young adults with views based on Idealism. They want it all and they want it now without paying for it. They rely on the federal government to fix what they think is wrong and what they don't like. And sometimes, they'll go to any extreme to get their way. They want everything to be perfect and believe it will be if they just want it badly enough. I'm sorry. Life just doesn't work that way. You have to work hard and then, yes, sadly, sometimes bad things happen to good hard-working people. Sometimes you have to rely on others for help and you may have to work to find help. But it is available. But you can't force someone to help you. I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way for very long. It will destroy the foundation of this nation that established free and independent states.

My mantra is going to be: Sorry all you Robin Hood fans. Forced charity, taking from someone else to give to another, isn't charity and it isn't righteous.

[Guest]

the health bill ?

"President Barack Obama faces a fight over the health-care overhaul from states that sued today because the legislation’s expansion of Medicaid imposes a fiscal strain on their cash-strapped budgets.

Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 14 states that filed suit after the president signed the bill over the constitutionality of the burden imposed by the legislation. The health-care overhaul will make as many as 15 million more Americans eligible for Medicaid nationwide starting in 2014 and will cost the states billions to administer."

"Besides the added Medicaid costs, the states are also challenging the right of the federal government to impose a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whose state filed a separate lawsuit today challenging the law, called the health legislation an “unconstitutional overreach” of the federal government’s authority. "


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajwSWE6H1kHM


To all of those who feel that those of us who oppose this bill are selfish, non christian, non caring people who want people to suffer....THAT is basically the consensus I get from those who posted in celebration.....THIS is ONE of the reasons it was opposed, and always remember it was done in the dark of backrooms !

I'm disappointed you haven't responded to the reasons I gave for why the process was "cleaner" than any previous landmark legislative effort. I'm not calling you any names, I'm asking you to respond to the issues.

And I'd like your response to today's hot one: the states challenge to the law written around the contention the federal government cannot require citizens to purchase health insurance. If you re-read the statements you cited above, it is the only SPECIFIC objection to the new law. (The nebulous references to future state budget problems are just that - nebulous.)

Here's a simple quiz:

Do you agree this new law is unnecessary because people are already protected, they can receive the health care they need in any hospital emergency room?

Do you agree one of the nation's greatest problems is the millions who don't contribute; either by their refusal to work, or how they take advantage of government programs?

Most of the TOTV posters who are unhappy with the new law totally agree with and continually cite these two points in attacking the new law.

The question then is, Who pays for the millions of uninsured emergency room visits and those who won't contribute? Answer: The insured.

You are so sure health care premiums will skyrocket and you will lose what you have. You are so sure the new law will bankrupt our nation. It is far more likely the financial participation of millions more citizens will finally stabilize health care costs. There is absolute proof of what has happened in recent years to health care costs in this nation, compared to all other developed nations. We must reverse this trend. The states cannot or will not do it.
Additionally, you and I and all the politicized special interests were not around yet when states adopted the rather common sense idea that everyone who drives a vehicle should be insured. Mandatory auto insurance is not a perfect analogy to health care, but imagine where we would be without it.

[Guest]

I'm disappointed you haven't responded to the reasons I gave for why the process was "cleaner" than any previous landmark legislative effort. I'm not calling you any names, I'm asking you to respond to the issues.

And I'd like your response to today's hot one: the states challenge to the law written around the contention the federal government cannot require citizens to purchase health insurance. If you re-read the statements you cited above, it is the only SPECIFIC objection to the new law. (The nebulous references to future state budget problems are just that - nebulous.)

Here's a simple quiz:

Do you agree this new law is unnecessary because people are already protected, they can receive the health care they need in any hospital emergency room?

Do you agree one of the nation's greatest problems is the millions who don't contribute; either by their refusal to work, or how they take advantage of government programs?

Most of the TOTV posters who are unhappy with the new law totally agree with and continually cite these two points in attacking the new law.

The question then is, Who pays for the millions of uninsured emergency room visits and those who won't contribute? Answer: The insured.

You are so sure health care premiums will skyrocket and you will lose what you have. You are so sure the new law will bankrupt our nation. It is far more likely the financial participation of millions more citizens will finally stabilize health care costs. There is absolute proof of what has happened in recent years to health care costs in this nation, compared to all other developed nations. We must reverse this trend. The states cannot or will not do it.
Additionally, you and I and all the politicized special interests were not around yet when states adopted the rather common sense idea that everyone who drives a vehicle should be insured. Mandatory auto insurance is not a perfect analogy to health care, but imagine where we would be without it.

To your arguement concerning emergency room visits...

"The president and members of Congress claim that the uninsured must be held accountable for their care by imposing a substanial tax because they fail to take out coverage, despite only accounting for 2.7% of total health spending. However, a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in October 2008, says the uninsured are not responsible for crowded emergency rooms (emphasis mine):

The JAMA study also found that patients with public insurance, such as Medicaid and Medicare, are more likely to crowd into emergency rooms for minor complaints than are the uninsured. Only about 17 percent of E.R. visits in the United States in the last year studied were by uninsured patients, about the same as their share of the population.

That isn’t the only way people with subsidized insurance add more burdens to the system than people with no insurance at all. A 2007 study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine looked at charges and payments for 43,128 emergency department visits between 1996 and 2004. “What surprised us was that uninsured patients actually pay a higher proportion of their emergency department charges than Medicaid does,” reported co-author Reneé Hsia, a specialist in emergency medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. “In fact, 35 percent of charges for uninsured visits were paid in 2004, compared with 33 percent for Medicaid visits.”

So why are emergency rooms so crowded? The JAMA study blames a rising population, a falling number of emergency departments, and understaffing that prevents stabilized patients from being admitted to other parts of the hospital.

The authors of the study realized this defied what was believed to be fact:

Unsupported assumptions include the beliefs that uninsured patients are the main cause of emergency department overcrowding, that uninsured patients have less acute conditions than insured patients, and that uninsured patients use the ER mostly for convenience.

“We have a crisis in the emergency department and we have a crisis with the uninsured, but it is crucial that we do not assume that the latter is causing the former,” [Dr. Manya F.] Newton emphasized.

“If we attempt to solve emergency overcrowding by creating policies based on inaccurate assumptions, common knowledge, or what ‘everybody knows,’ we will waste limited resources, fail to address the root causes of the problem, and potentially increase the barriers to care faced by 47 million uninsured Americans,” Newton concluded.

This won’t put the rhetoric to rest, but it is a important piece of information that needs to be put out in the debate.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/dont-blame-the-uninsured-for-emergency-room-visits

"The uninsured, it’s said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That’s expensive and ineffective. Once they’re insured, they’ll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it’s untrue. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was “more convenient” to go to the emergency room or they couldn’t “get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed.” … Medicare’s introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn’t find gains.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/uninsured-er-fallacy.html

Now, as to your comments concerning the " (The nebulous references to future state budget problems are just that - nebulous.)"

I invite you to read the CBO report always touted and the NEBULOUS references to SAVINGS in the future, and the NEBULOUS tax increases that need to take place in the future, dependent on many unknown or unrealized factors !

[Guest]

The truth of the matter is that within this bill is the beginning of a shift power to the executive branch of government, a direct violation of our Constitution in checks and balances. What harm can that bring, you ask? Oh, not much just one step into the grave of socialism or even fascism. Secondly this bill will severely limit the amount of care we seniors are going to be able to receive and there will be administrators who mete out our health care with a spoon.

[Guest]

If Medicare is to be reduced by $500 billion that simply means paying less to providers. That simply means the providers will have to adjust in some manner...that would be either less access, less care, reduced care, etc.

Adding 32,000,000 uninsured to the existing medical system's capabilty (or not) to serve today. Just how will that be possible without restricting access...more patients = longer waits = shorter appointment times. Just imagine here in our bubble, TV, if starting Monday morning there were 10,000 new patients looking for some sort of medical provision.

Can someone, anyone explain if they are going to increase the number of people allowed benefits under Medicaid, which is paid for state by state...not the federal government....a system today that is on the brink of insolvency with it's current benefactors only....where is that money to come from?

You remember those bad guys called the insurers? The other ones in the pharmacy businesses? They get 32,000,000 new customers. I don't think they are too concerned about the increased coverages they will have to provide.

I don't care what your party or what your belief.....one cannot continue to increase spending without increasing revenues to support the spending. It is just that simple. Unfortunately far too many do not understand the simple concept of balancing a checkbook. You CANNOT spend more without getting more money. Yes some part of the spending can be on credit, but that too will max out. A simple concept NONE of the smiling dunces in Washington understand or care about.

The only certainty in the new bill is that you WILL be paying more, much more than you think, in the future just to keep the level of coverage you have today.

I need to be shown how this bill will be funded. To date that HAS NOT been addressed.

btk

[Guest]

By One Thin Dime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un505mz35dY&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

Massive tax increases are coming... to all of us.

Another lie told by Obama.

[Guest]

Here's a simple quiz:


The question then is, Who pays for the millions of uninsured emergency room visits and those who won't contribute? Answer: The insured.

Additionally, you and I and all the politicized special interests were not around yet when states adopted the rather common sense idea that everyone who drives a vehicle should be insured. Mandatory auto insurance is not a perfect analogy to health care, but imagine where we would be without it.

Owning and operating a motor vehicle is a statutory privilege extended quite legally by the state. Not every man woman and child owns a car therefore they do not need mandatory insurance. While you acknowledge it is not a perfect analogy.....you fall short of admitting that it is totally irrelevant as a comparison to national health insurance.

There are a litany of issues concerning Obamacare that have been vigorously debated in this forum. The one issue that no supporter of Obamacare seems to want to debate is the now $500,000,000,000 plus reduction (raid) on Medicare to balance the numbers. Those funds are apparently going to Medicaid to help offset costs. How is that good for those now covered by Medicare? It is absolutely a Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme that in the private sector would result in the indictment and prosecution of the perpetrators.

Those who are on Medicare paid into it, supported it and kept it solvent throughout a good part of their working lives. Now they face draconian cuts in service and medical care. Where is all that liberal empathy for those losing what they had an expectation to enjoy in their golden years?

Repairing the problems with Medicare did not require a new trillion dollar entiltement plan.

[Guest]

Owning and operating a motor vehicle is a statutory privilege extended quite legally by the state. Not every man woman and child owns a car therefore they do not need mandatory insurance. While you acknowledge it is not a perfect analogy.....you fall short of admitting that it is totally irrelevant as a comparison to national health insurance.

There are a litany of issues concerning Obamacare that have been vigorously debated in this forum. The one issue that no supporter of Obamacare seems to want to debate is the now $5,000,000,000 plus deduction (raid) on Medicare to balance the numbers. Those funds are apparently going to Medicaid to help offset costs. How is that good for those now covered by Medicare? It is absolutely a Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme that in the private sector would result in the indictment and prosecution of the perpetrators.

Those who are on Medicare paid into it, supported it and kept it solvent throughout a good part of their working lives. Now they face draconian cuts in service and medical care. Where is all that liberal empathy for those losing what they had an expectation to enjoy in their golden years?

Repairing the problems with Medicare did not require a new trillion dollar entiltement plan.

I am not a mathematician, but do you mean 500 billion?
500,000,000,000

[Guest]

$500 billion plus...and it looks like it's going to be a big plus.

[Guest]

$500 billion plus...and it looks like it's going to be a big plus.

That's what I figured. You had a typo. Amazing how the Dems throw around all these zero's. LOL

[Guest]

Donna, thanks for the pickup on the typo. I corrected it in the OP. What comes after a trillion?

[Guest]

Poverty and bankruptcy.

[Guest]

Poverty and bankruptcy.

LOL Good one BK. But I have to stop laughing now because this bill makes me cry.

[Guest]

It would sure be nice if both sides would recall, or read, some history about the passage of the Social Security Law and the Medicare Law. Most of the arguments against both laws are the same as the arguments against the health insurance reform bill. Both laws were challenged as to their constitunality, for the same reasons which are being used today. People also cried then that "the sky is falling", and their freedom was being lost. Oh yes, don't forget part "D" of Medicare which contained NO provisions to pay for it.

The US was one of the last industrialized countries in the world to impliment a social insurance system and we are one of the very few which doesn't have universal health care for all citizens. We spend more per capita for health care than most countries and according to the World Health Organization (if you don't know what that is, look it up), we receive far from the best care in the world. We have convinced ourselves that we are the best in everything, and pay the highest taxes. Truth is other countries have left us in the dust in many areas, and we pay lower taxes than most countries.

This health care reform bill is imperfect. It is a start to correcting many of the problems we have in our health care system. The sky will not fall! We will still have more individual freedom than in any other country in the world.

It is time to move on. There are other BIG problems to address.

[Guest]

It would sure be nice if both sides would recall, or read, some history about the passage of the Social Security Law and the Medicare Law. Most of the arguments against both laws are the same as the arguments against the health insurance reform bill. Both laws were challenged as to their constitunality, for the same reasons which are being used today. People also cried then that "the sky is falling", and their freedom was being lost. Oh yes, don't forget part "D" of Medicare which contained NO provisions to pay for it.

The US was one of the last industrialized countries in the world to impliment a social insurance system and we are one of the very few which doesn't have universal health care for all citizens. We spend more per capita for health care than most countries and according to the World Health Organization (if you don't know what that is, look it up), we receive far from the best care in the world. We have convinced ourselves that we are the best in everything, and pay the highest taxes. Truth is other countries have left us in the dust in many areas, and we pay lower taxes than most countries.

This health care reform bill is imperfect. It is a start to correcting many of the problems we have in our health care system. The sky will not fall! We will still have more individual freedom than in any other country in the world.

It is time to move on. There are other BIG problems to address.

Yea, and look what they did to Social Security. They turned it into everything that it wasn't supposed to be. You put into it for 50 years and what do you get in return? The democrats took the money and used it for LBJ's Vietnam war. And after they got a taste of that they took a bunch more and used it for their War on Poverty. How did that work out? There is a place that has 2.5 trillion IOU's that is owed to SS.
How on earth is the USA going to pay that back? Now the Dems want to take over 20% of our economy? With their track record? Are you nuts?
Sorry, if there was no Vietnam, War on poverty, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, Supplemental Social Security and all the other things that put us in the poor house, we could maybe afford some kind of health care.
What don't you understand about bankruptcy?

[Guest]

It would sure be nice if both sides would recall, or read, some history about the passage of the Social Security Law and the Medicare Law. Most of the arguments against both laws are the same as the arguments against the health insurance reform bill. Both laws were challenged as to their constitunality, for the same reasons which are being used today. People also cried then that "the sky is falling", and their freedom was being lost. Oh yes, don't forget part "D" of Medicare which contained NO provisions to pay for it.

The US was one of the last industrialized countries in the world to impliment a social insurance system and we are one of the very few which doesn't have universal health care for all citizens. We spend more per capita for health care than most countries and according to the World Health Organization (if you don't know what that is, look it up), we receive far from the best care in the world. We have convinced ourselves that we are the best in everything, and pay the highest taxes. Truth is other countries have left us in the dust in many areas, and we pay lower taxes than most countries.

This health care reform bill is imperfect. It is a start to correcting many of the problems we have in our health care system. The sky will not fall! We will still have more individual freedom than in any other country in the world.

It is time to move on. There are other BIG problems to address.


" For the first time, payouts made under the U.S. Social Security system will exceed the federal government's revenues, according to a Thursday report in the New York Times.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20001135-503983.html


Not sure about you, but I consider this a BIG problem. Ovbiously you do not....that is from TODAYS news !

[Guest]

It would sure be nice if both sides would recall, or read, some history about the passage of the Social Security Law and the Medicare Law. Most of the arguments against both laws are the same as the arguments against the health insurance reform bill. Both laws were challenged as to their constitutionality, for the same reasons which are being used today. People also cried then that "the sky is falling", and their freedom was being lost. Oh yes, don't forget part "D" of Medicare which contained NO provisions to pay for it.

The US was one of the last industrialized countries in the world to implement a social insurance system and we are one of the very few which doesn't have universal health care for all citizens. We spend more per ca pita for health care than most countries and according to the World Health Organization (if you don't know what that is, look it up), we receive far from the best care in the world. We have convinced ourselves that we are the best in everything, and pay the highest taxes. Truth is other countries have left us in the dust in many areas, and we pay lower taxes than most countries.

This health care reform bill is imperfect. It is a start to correcting many of the problems we have in our health care system. The sky will not fall! We will still have more individual freedom than in any other country in the world.

It is time to move on. There are other BIG problems to address.

This is absolutely the worst moment in history to add 30 million entitlements to the "spread the wealth and health" roles. Many are convinced that the big liberal push now is not with commendable intentions in mind. It is a dangerous ideological assault on our way of life. It is intended to bankrupt the economy so that all that's left is absolute government control and the ability to redefine America as a Marxist tyranny of power. The point is, Congress passed ObamaCare against the public will to facilitate a corrupt leftist ideology. Many liberal Americans of good will have been snookered.

[Guest]

...I don't care what your party or what your belief.....one cannot continue to increase spending without increasing revenues to support the spending. It is just that simple. Unfortunately far too many do not understand the simple concept of balancing a checkbook. You CANNOT spend more without getting more money. Yes some part of the spending can be on credit, but that too will max out. A simple concept NONE of the smiling dunces in Washington understand or care about....

I've repeatedly suggested that people spend a few minutes with the federal budget in an attempt to identify where they might cut spending in sufficient amounts to create a balanced budget. If they do, they'll find that it can't be done! Even if we adopt some Draconian and very painful cuts to federal spending, there will still have to be substantial tax increases. Look at the budget, do the arithmetic, and you'll see what I mean.

Google "federal budget" and you'll get all kinds of links. Read several and you'll be better informed about what our elected officials can and can't do, but more importantly you'll have a better sense of the urgency of them starting to do something now!

Just a little example of what can be cut and what the results might be. About 37% of the 2011 federal budget is classified as "discretionary". The balance are costs that are relatively fixed. Just as an example, if ALL government spending in all departments for any purpose were simply eliminated, zero'd out, the savings wouldn't be enough to fund the defense budget! The other "non-discretionary" budget items, all greater than the cost of the defense department, include Social Security, Medicare and interest on the national debt.

It's very easy to conclude two very obvious truths from this analysis...
Some non-discretionary (fixed) spending is going to have to be "unfixed". The costs of Social Security and Medicare for an aging population are simply unsustainable. Those payments will have to be cut substantially. The only question is "how".
Even after slashing discretionary spending as well as "unfixing" some of the non-discretionary spending, the budget will still be far from balanced. The only alternative then will be to raise taxes. They will have to be raised substantially to create a balanced budget.

Look at the budget, folks. See if you agree with my conclusions. Sadly, I'm sure you will. It's simple arithmetic, or as Billie says "balancing the checkbook".

[Guest]

I've repeatedly suggested that people spend a few minutes with the federal budget in an attempt to identify where they might cut spending in sufficient amounts to create a balanced budget. If they do, they'll find that it can't be done! Even if we adopt some Draconian and very painful cuts to federal spending, there will still have to be substantial tax increases. Look at the budget, do the arithmetic, and you'll see what I mean.

Google "federal budget" and you'll get all kinds of links. Read several and you'll be better informed about what our elected officials can and can't do, but more importantly you'll have a better sense of the urgency of them starting to do something now!

Just a little example of what can be cut and what the results might be. About 37% of the 2011 federal budget is classified as "discretionary". The balance are costs that are relatively fixed. Just as an example, if ALL government spending in all departments for any purpose were simply eliminated, zero'd out, the savings wouldn't be enough to fund the defense budget! The other "non-discretionary" budget items, all greater than the cost of the defense department, include Social Security, Medicare and interest on the national debt.

It's very easy to conclude two very obvious truths from this analysis...
Some non-discretionary (fixed) spending is going to have to be "unfixed". The costs of Social Security and Medicare for an aging population are simply unsustainable. Those payments will have to be cut substantially. The only question is "how".
Even after slashing discretionary spending as well as "unfixing" some of the non-discretionary spending, the budget will still be far from balanced. The only alternative then will be to raise taxes. They will have to be raised substantially to create a balanced budget.

Look at the budget, folks. See if you agree with my conclusions. Sadly, I'm sure you will. It's simple arithmetic, or as Billie says "balancing the checkbook".


VK, you are much better at this than I, however may I ask one stupid question. Assuming you are correct, and there is no reason to doubt that....why do people support INCREASING the spending over what we have now.

This healtb bill for example is full of if's and maybe's, even according to the CBO, yet instead of trying to address costs of health which would have generated support, they decided not to do that. And we dont even TRY to pay for it for many years !

With all you say, what about the continued ramp up of spending that is NEW !

[Guest]

If someone asked me to name one thing I don't like about the bill - or more specifically, the #1 thing I don't like - it's this:

For the first time in the history of this country. You can be an independant citizen, living your own life, providing for yourself - and be arrested simply for "existing".

That's what the 'mandate' to buy insurance means to me. It doesn't affect me because I have it through my employer - but just because it's not MY ox being gored doesn't mean I like it.

If I chose to dump everything and move to Alaska, buy a tract and live off the land and never see anyone again - that's my choice. But now, by my interpretation, I can be arrested if I don't buy health insurance.

[Guest]

If someone asked me to name one thing I don't like about the bill - or more specifically, the #1 thing I don't like - it's this:

For the first time in the history of this country. You can be an independant citizen, living your own life, providing for yourself - and be arrested simply for "existing".

That's what the 'mandate' to buy insurance means to me. It doesn't affect me because I have it through my employer - but just because it's not MY ox being gored doesn't mean I like it.

If I chose to dump everything and move to Alaska, buy a tract and live off the land and never see anyone again - that's my choice. But now, by my interpretation, I can be arrested if I don't buy health insurance.


AND if you recall, our President ridiculed candidate Clinton because her proposal said exactly this. He said you cant force folks to buy insurance.

Of course, this is just another lie by this man that everyone gives him a pass on and never mentions !

[Guest]

AND if you recall, our President ridiculed candidate Clinton because her proposal said exactly this. He said you cant force folks to buy insurance.

Of course, this is just another lie by this man that everyone gives him a pass on and never mentions !

This is for you Mr. Bucco.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKmc9aBELM

[Guest]

When was the last time this President had a general press conference where he can be asked things and be followed up on and when will be his next ??

[Guest]

....may I ask one stupid question....why do people support INCREASING the spending over what we have now.

This health bill for example is full of if's and maybe's, even according to the CBO, yet instead of trying to address costs of health which would have generated support, they decided not to do that. And we dont even TRY to pay for it for many years !...

Not a stupid question at all, Bucco. The answer is fairly obvious, I think. The administrations we've seen in recent decades all operated similarly, albeit with different goals. But all added to the result of deficit spending and more national debt. Each justified their actions in different ways. The actions they took which were not fiscally sound were done for purely political reasons. Each administration acted to appeal to its political base. Each administration acted in ways that they thought would lead to their re-election and extension of their political power.

If we start to look at Bill Clinton, he had less of an effect fiscally than his successors mainly because he was unsuccessful in achieving his political objectives. He sought sweeping healthcare reform which would have been hugely expensive, but failed. He governed at a time when the economy was performing quite well and he was unsuccessful in doing anythig to screw it up. The results were pretty good.

George Bush followed. I may be criticized for this oversimplification, but Dick Cheney made sure his administration was salted with extremely conservative political neocons. They came with strong beliefs that the U.S. could influence the world, but principally the Middle East where all the oil that we needed came from, by trying to plant democracies in the region. The presence of Saddam Hussein coincided nicely with the events of 9/11 and the key neocons convinced President Bush that the invasion of Iraq would quickly lead to the democratization of that country, and the hope that democracy would spread to other countries in the region. They were perfectly willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (as well as the lives of thousands of young Americans) to accomplish that objective. At this point we all know that the expenditures now approach $2 trillion and the outcome is still uncertain. On a parallel course, the Bush administration also used the oft-criticized "reconciliation" rules to pass the largest tax decrease in the history of the federal income tax. Both the war and the tax cuts were very popular politically, but resulted in a multi-year run of deficit budgets and a rapid escalation of the national debt.

Then came Barack Obama. He was elected on a platform of change. While he governs pragmatically, no doubt he has many liberal objectives...costly liberal objectives. He came into office facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and has largely reversed its course thru the expenditure of large amounts of money--TARP, stimulus and the like. That may prove to be the most unavoidable spending of his administration. He continued the expensive war effort but also continued to drive towards healthcare reform, something he campaigned on and which he sincerely believes in. But the clumsy and politically charged creation of the recently-enacted healthcare legislation may result in it being one of the more expensive entitlement programs in history. But again, it was done to satisfy political objectives and the liberal political base.

Mine is a gross simplification of what I think has happened over the last three presidential administrations. For similar reasons--political and to a degree ideological--all of the last three Presidents drove the country in different directions but always with the same result--deficit spending year after year and a ballooning of the national debt.

I believe we are now close to a point when "the piper must be paid" relative to our run of fiscal irresponsibility. Regardless of what the political objectives of a future President might be, the need to resolve our fiscal imbalance will take precedence over any political ideology or objectives. I believe that resolution will take the form of painful cuts in government spending and large increases in the taxes paid by Americans.

So there you are--my overview of how we got to where we are and why, all in only a few paragraphs.

But back to your question...why do people support INCREASING the spending over what we have now? I'm not at all sure that they do. I am of the firm belief that the vast majority of Americans don't have a clue about the fiscal crisis we face or have thought very much about the political decisions that got us here. I hate to say it, but I think the political and economic knowledge of a large majority of Americans is formed by the soundbites, political entertainment shows on TV and the ads placed and paid for by special interests. Sooner or later...sooner I think...a political leader will emerge in this country who will have to explain the very serious situation we face to the electorate. More importantly, he (or she, I suppose) will have to explain the life-changing decisions that will be necessary to reverse the course that several decades of political leadership placed us in.

[Guest]

Not a stupid question at all, Bucco. The answer is fairly obvious, I think. The administrations we've seen in recent decades all operated similarly, albeit in different ways. But all added to the result of deficit spending and more national debt. Each justified their actions in different ways. The actions they took which were not fiscally sound were done for purely political reasons. Each administration acted to appeal to its political base.

If we start to look at Bill Clinton, he had less of an effect fiscally than his successors mainly because he was unsuccessful in achieving his political objectives. He sought sweeping healthcare reform which would have been hugely expensive, but failed. He governed at a time when the economy was performing quite well and he was unsuccessful in doing anythig to screw it up. The results were pretty good.

George Bush followed. I may be criticized for this oversimplification, but Dick Cheney made sure his administration was salted with extremely conservative political neocons. They came with strong beliefs that the U.S. could influence the world, but principally the Middle East where all the oil that we needed came from, by trying to plant democracies in the region. The presence of Saddam Hussein coincided nicely with the events of 9/11 and the key neocons convinced President Bush that the invasion of Iraq would quickly lead to the democratization of that country, and the hope that democracy would spread to other countries in the region. They were perfectly willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (as well as the lives of thousands of young Americans) to accomplish that objective. At this point we all know that the expenditures now approach $2 trillion and the outcome is still uncertain. On a parallel course, the Bush administration also used the oft-criticized "reconciliation" rules to pass the largest tax decrease in the history of the federal income tax. Both the war and the tax cuts were very popular politically, but resulted in a multi-year run of deficit budgets and a rapid escalation of the national debt.

Then came Barack Obama. He was elected on a platform of change. While he governs pragmatically, no doubt he has many liberal objectives...costly liberal objectives. He came into office facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and has largely reversed its course thru the expenditure of large amounts of money--TARP, stimulus and the like. That may prove to be the most unavoidable spending of his administration. He continued the expensive war effort but also continued to drive towards healthcare reform, something he campaigned on and which he sincerely believes in. But the clumsy and politically charged creation of the legislation may result in it being one of the more expensive entitlement programs in history. But again, something done to satisfy political objectives and his liberal political base.

Mine is a gross simplification of what I think has happened over the last three presidential administrations. For similar reasons--political and to a degree ideological--all of the last three Presidents drove the country in different directions but always with the same result--deficit spending year after year and a ballooning of the national debt.

I believe we are now close to a point when "the piper must be paid" relative to our run of fiscal irresponsibility. Regardless of what the political objectives of a future President might be, the need to resolve our fiscal imbalance will take precedence over any political ideology or objectives. I believe that resolution will take the form of painful cuts in government spending and large increases in the taxes paid by Americans.

So there you are--my overview of how we got to where we are and why, all in only a few paragraphs.


Thanks VK...while I often dont agree with you and your perspecive your posts do give me pause and perspective and that we all need.

My only comment, and you wont be surprised at this...is that you give our current President much too much accolade.

My opinion, most of the money spent to "reverse" our economic dowturn was pork...I beleive that about 70% of the so called stimulus bill was and could easily be classified as long awaited social programs and had nothing to do with helping the economy.

Secondly, I believe the bailout of GM was a bail out of the UNIONS.

I honestly wont argue with much more except your nice words make this health care bill seem sort of non toxic, and the need to have it passed without consideration for the countries well being will be felt for years and years and years. This adminstration is not done yet by a long shot. They showed their true colors in excluding the unions from the so called cadillac tax and I think there is much more to come in that area.

[Guest]

...My only comment, and you wont be surprised at this...is that you give our current President much too much accolade...
I sure didn't intend to issue accolades to this President, particularly regarding domestic spending matters. I do think there's some good things he's accomplished, particularly in foreign relations. And I actually agree that every American should have access to healthcare insurance. But "accolades"...not from me.

I agree with you that the recently-passed bill is a Rube Goldberg combination of language written by special interest lobbyists as well as input demanded by widely disparate political ideologues. A lot of what was removed in the political negotiation and lobbying process were the things that actually would reduce costs. President Obama was willing to compromise on most of the cost-cutting just to get 32 million people covered, something President's dating all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt have been unsuccessful in doing. The expectation I presume is that future Congresses will introduce amendments that really will cut costs--a big gamble with our money!

But on the issue of actions taken by the government to reverse the financial crisis, here is an excellent article from a current issue of The Atlantic. It's a long article and extremely well-written by an author (bio summarized below) who obviously had significant "inside" access. Here's the link...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/inside-man/7992/

The article provides information about both Tim Geithner as well as the thought process behind the plans to address the financial crisis. It concludes that the plan, Geithner's plan, will prove to have worked more quickly and at far less cost to the economy than anyone might have imagined--or will agree to at the current time. In fact, the author says, even though history may prove the effectiveness of the plan, it may cost both Geithner as well as President Obama their jobs. It gave me a much better understanding of what was done and why, and I thought I had a pretty good idea about those things before I read the article. I recommend it highly to both you and other posters here who are seeking more expansive information on this important time in our history. Also, make sure to watch the little YouTube video imbedded in the article. It's an interview with the author of the piece and gives even more information.
-------------------------------------
Joshua Green is a senior editor of The Atlantic who has covered politics since joining the magazine in 2003. He has also written for The New Yorker, Esquire, Rolling Stone, and other publications. Previously, he was an editor at The Washington Monthly. Recently he was named one of Columbia Journalism Review's ten young writers on the rise.

[Guest]

Anything Tom Geithner does or says? He is a Tax cheat who wants to use Socialist and Progressive Approaches to solve our Economic problems. When asked why he didn't pay his taxes, he said "I don't know why I didn't pay them".

Cheating liars using socialist tactics usually try to become dictators.

Is that where we are headed?

[Guest]

Anything Tom Geithner does or says? He is a Tax cheat who wants to use Socialist and Progressive Approaches to solve our Economic problems. When asked why he didn't pay his taxes, he said "I don't know why I didn't pay them".

Cheating liars using socialist tactics usually try to become dictators.

Is that where we are headed?

Thoughtful post. Did you read the article?

[Guest]

The truth of the matter is that within this bill is the beginning of a shift power to the executive branch of government, a direct violation of our Constitution in checks and balances. What harm can that bring, you ask? Oh, not much just one step into the grave of socialism or even fascism. Secondly this bill will severely limit the amount of care we seniors are going to be able to receive and there will be administrators who mete out our health care with a spoon.

I don't know how seniors can support this thing. Are they not going to cut the patients on Medicare like 25% ?

[Guest]

I don't know how seniors can support this thing. Are they not going to cut the patients on Medicare like 25% ?

Death Panels may not be as far fetched as the liberal progressives wants you to believe?

[Guest]

Thoughtful post. Did you read the article?

I read the article. Tho I usually do not read many articles written by guys who write only for Liberal mags like The New Yorker And The Atlantic.

I prefer reading both sides of the issues.

[Guest]

A good Therapist will not accept insurance payments for alcohol or drugs addiction as if someone else is paying the addict is usually not really committed to recover. If someone really wants to recover they should have to pay even if it means working just to raise the money for therapy or rehab.
I think you can see the relationship of this to what is going on. If someone is getting something for "nothing" then why would they want to earn? There is a case to be said that Social Security is built on paying. I know the arguements that it is running out of money, etc. but that does not detract from the point that people paid to receive.
Welfare has destroyed the need to work..Heck, a lot of people go for lots of kids since they get more money for doing nothing. As in the case of insurance for additions..if someone else is paying for your needs then you have little want to work..
If you want to know how this works just look at the projects in the cities. How many have they closed because the residents have worked, earned and moved out? NONE..How many have watched the drug merchants move in, cause addictions and the addict apply for FREE treatment because medicaid or insurance is paying..remember medicade is your paying for them to get high. The Project is the model of socialism. It is the height of socialism.
I will not go further but hopefully this has caused some to thing more about the free health care, fee clinics, fee rehabs, free detox, free education, free
transportation, free food, free cars and even free phones if you can't pay.
NONE OF THIS IS FREE..YOU ARE PAYING AND IT IS NOT GETTING BETTER. TO BELIEVE IN A WELFARE STATE IS PRE DETERMINING FAILURE. :bowdown:

[Guest]

...I usually do not read many articles written by guys who write only for Liberal mags like The New Yorker And The Atlantic.

It's tough to find any single publication that covers any political issue with true balance. Most people think The Economist does, but that one can be criticized for being published in the U.K. and not the U.S. By the way, the author of the article in The Atlantic also writes for The Economist occasionally.

Your criticism of The Atlantic and the New Yorker as "liberal mags" is added to similar criticism that has been received when I've referenced articles from TIME, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. Other posters here have referred to those publications, along with The New York Times, of course, as "liberal rags".

It raises a question in my mind...if true conservatives feel they can learn nothing from reading the aforementioned publications, what do they read to get the conservative view? I'd like to find out, so I can begin to read those publications as well, in order to get a more balanced view of things.

Anyone who has eschewed articles because they come from a liberal publication, let us all know the publications we can read to get a view from the conservative perspective. Just post 'em right here.

[Guest]

1) The Weekly Standard
2) National Review
3) Taki's Magazine
4) The American Conservative
5) The New American
6) Front Page
7) The Christian Science Monitor
8) Human Events


I am sure that there is more, but this is a good start for your reading pleasure.

[Guest]

VK, did you happen to see the piece in the New Yorker about Geithner?


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/15/100315fa_fact_cassidy

Or the article in Vogue?

http://www.vogue.com/feature/2010_March_Timothy_Geithner/

Looks like "the fencing master" is on guard.

[Guest]

[B]1)...this is a good start for your reading pleasure.

Thanks, Donna. Believe it or not, I actually read articles from several of those publications. I really like Taki's Magazine and particularly Patrick Buchanan, a regular contributor. In fact, in his column there on February 26, Buchanan wrote, "Federal revenues are running at 16 percent of gross domestic product, spending at 27 percent. Wednesday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that a Greece-like situation, where creditors refuse to buy U.S. debt unless we raise interest rates to cover the rising risks of a U.S. default, cannot be ruled out."

Then Buchanan said, "...in 2012, the party of Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul will have to tell the country how it proposes to end these wars without losing them, how to bring manufacturing back, and how to cut spending by $1 trillion a year, if taxes are off the table.", suggesting that if the GOP wins in 2010 and 2012 they'll face just a difficult a situation as Obama has now, with no real evidence at the moment of what changes they'll bring to the situation.

Wow! Where have I read that before? Here on TOTV Political? Hmmm, I think I may have written it myself!

The Weekly Standard's editor, Bill Kristol, is probably a lot further right than Newsweek's Jon Meachum is left, but that's not the point I was making. The important thing is that people take the time to read the opinions from both sides of the political spectrum. Otherwise, I guess I don't know how one could form anything close to an informed opinion.

And to BKCunningham...wow! If The New Yorker is a liberal magazine and Tim Geithner could be expected to be favored there, all I can ask is "what happened?"

[Guest]

I hate to say it, but I think the political and economic knowledge of a large majority of Americans is formed by the soundbites, political entertainment shows on TV and the ads placed and paid for by special interests.

I have finally been drawn in to the Political Discussion.

VK, you have posted an excellent response. The portion I have repeated above should be repeated over and over. We buy our cars, laundry soap, insurance, toothpaste, etc., etc. based on the most convincing ads. Now, as you so aptly mention, we are electing our governing bodies the same way with the added help of sound bites and talking heads. We are being grossly mislead by both sides.

[Guest]

I have finally been drawn in to the Political Discussion.

VK, you have posted an excellent response. The portion I have repeated above should be repeated over and over. We buy our cars, laundry soap, insurance, toothpaste, etc., etc. based on the most convincing ads. Now, as you so aptly mention, we are electing our governing bodies the same way with the added help of sound bites and talking heads. We are being grossly mislead by both sides.

This may be true but it is unfair when 80 to 90 % of the press is Liberal biased.