Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Poverty and bankruptcy.

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

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.

Originally Posted by MikeH

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?

Originally Posted by MikeH

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_1...35-503983.html


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

Originally Posted by MikeH

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.

Originally Posted by billethkid

...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".

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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 !

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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 !

Originally Posted by Bucco

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.

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

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 ??

Originally Posted by Bucco

....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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...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/...side-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.

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?