Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams, 1776
Speaking of counterfeit, the proposed "cuts" to Medicare are not reductions in services, but reductions in the per unit cost of services. These have already been agreed to by hospitals and medical device and drug manufacturers who stand to see substantial new profits from having 95% of people insured instead of 85%, and they are willing to split the difference with the government if it helps them get acccess to those 30-35 million new patients.
3 republicans out of 100s. So what. By and large the DEMOCRATS are the ones leading this spending binge. We need to throw them and their leadership out of office first.
You are getting a natural logarithmic curve of debt. No matter which side of the two-headed one party system the result will be the collapse of the dollar. Flush the toilet and get the red and blue lawyers out and elect real people and you will see a descending curve of debt and the US become #1 again.
3 republicans out of 100s. So what. By and large the DEMOCRATS are the ones leading this spending binge. We need to throw them and their leadership out of office first.
Right, cutting payments wont result in cuts of service. Find someone to buy that lie.
Not much of an answer. Apparently you just don't understand the principles involved. You must be quite puzzled when supermarkets run sales each week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Heck, why dont we cut payments to teachers, which of course wont result in cuts to education, or cuts to the police department, fire departments, heck, lets cut out ambulance funding 100% because the new equation = cuts in funding = increased services. Why per that argument, I'm all for cutting the stimulus funding, because now by your own admission, cutting dont equal real cuts... Lets cut Medicare, social security, food stamps, oooh hell, lets cut out welfare completely, because by your own account, cuts in funding wont = cuts in service. But of course this isnt what you said, you simply said that we would move payments from medicare, to those who dont pay anything, meaning they arent real cuts at all.. Democratic new math in action..
A lot of words when far fewer would have done. All you needed to say was that you had nothing of any actual signficance to say.
Apparently you just don't understand the principles involved.
Apparently I did, because your best retort was..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Not much of an answer.
Moving money from A to B, isnt a cut.. its moving money. Only Democrats can call increased spending or moving of spending, "cuts", and do it with a straight face to try to minimize people laughing at them.
Trust me, its not working!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
You must be quite puzzled when supermarkets run sales each week
If I went grocery shopping, you might have had a point. Think its been 7-8 years since I've been in a supermarket...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
A lot of words when far fewer would have done. All you needed to say was that you had nothing of any actual signficance to say.
All you needed to say was that you dont have a meaningful retort that moving spending from Medicare, to another program isnt a cut.
Clinton paid off the debts up to the end of his term and left a surplus. He was mostly worthless in other regards, but at least he wasn't a disaster to America like his successor.
Well, let's not get carried away. Clinton ran unified budget surpluses in the last four years of his budgets, and between 1998 and 2000, he was able to use those surpluses to pay down $363 billion worth of public debt. Another pay down of $237 billion was on tap in 2001. Still, the public debt at the end of FY2000 was $5,629 billion, and debt held by the public was $3,410 billion, so it wasn't as if debt had gone away. The ten-year projected budget surplus when Clinton left office was in excess of $5 trillion, and that would have been enough to retire all of the debt held by the public by FY2010, while still shoring up both Medicare and Social Security. That isn't what we did though. Instead, we got a bunch of Bushie's tax cuts for the rich which proceeded to put the kibosh on all those plans and then some.
oooh look, your back to lying again... Your current claim of 4 years of surpluses, only becomes laughable by your previous admission that there wasnt one for 4 years..
Lets do the math shall we?
1999
2000
Why you're smart enough to count up to 2 right? So why do you keep claiming 4 when your own admission it was 2 years? Even if what you claim was true, who ran Congress during these years? Why they were Republicans.. what a surprise..
Is there any limit to either the degree or frequency with which you are willing to make yourself look foolish? Clinton ran unified budget surpluses in FY1998-2001. That is a fact. You cannot rant it away. It is also a fact that in FY1999 and FY2000, he ran a surplus on the more limited on-budget basis as well. The fact that you don't understand these things does not make them untrue.
Have you ever noticed that you only use the word "oooh" when you're in serious, real big trouble? Well, it's happening again...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if what you claim was true, who ran Congress during these years? Why they were Republicans.. what a surprise..
