House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, lashed out at conservative advocacy groups that have encouraged GOP lawmakers to oppose a budget framework unveiled last night by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
Chuck Todd reports on the budget deal presented by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray.
"They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals," an animated Boehner told reporters at the Capitol. "This is ridiculous."Ryan and Murray, the top budget officials in their respective chambers, announced an agreement that would set baseline spending levels for the 2014 and 2015 fiscal years. The agreement calls for spending levels slightly above the cap established by the automatic spending cuts known as the "sequester" through a combination of reforms, cuts and new, non-tax revenue.
Political expediency. When the mid terms roll around, there won't be any recent memory of government shut downs or monthly threats to shoot the hostage. Outwardly, the whackadoodles will still scream. Behind the scenes though, I tend to believe that there are a lot of types who support Republicans who are being hurt by the sequester. It was time. Boehnor needed to wait for some cover, and he now has it.
ReplyDeleteMidterms will be nothing but ACA fallout for Dems, they might lose the Senate!
DeleteI can concede that's a possibility, but I still see a difference here in our outlooks TD. You are fervent everyday in your beliefs that Obama is fucking our country up so bad that it's only a matter of time before the country comes to its senses and sees it the way you do. I don't have any such illusion.
DeleteA week is a very long time. If things are moving and the perception is that the country is at least not on the wrong track, Democrats may hold the senate. However, historically, the party in the WH tends to lose seats in midterms, this is a trend that seemingly has little to nothing to do with the actual politics of the party gaining seats.
Possibly, TD, you might be wrong about the ACA, but only time will tell.
Obama IS fucking up the country, his ACA law is awash with criminal Democrat bullshit, like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" there are over 1000 private " for profit" Hospitals that are going to get fucked by the ACA, that is 20% of the countries hospitals. You know in your heart this law is unworkable within your industry, doctors will retire, or seek private practice, we already don't have enough doctors as it is. The IRS is the enforcement of the law, really, come on, each state already has the infrastructure in place to enforce the law at the state level. The young folks the ACA need to enter the paying pool will never come close to the Polyanna forecasts from these morons. Obama fucked up the recovery we needed from the crash in 2008, and 700 million was flushed down the toilet, that my kids are going to have to pay for.
DeleteYou Democrats have done this to our country, you folks own this abysmal economy, and now you own the destruction of our healthcare systems.
Yeah, that was pretty much an expected response, like I said, you seethe and vibrate with a contempt for Obama and Democrats. In short, you aren't objective and you don't possess an ability to see the world through anything but a milkstraw. Interesting that you note that for profit hospitals are going to get fucked. Essentially, TD, this is a part of the problem. What I see from inside the system is that there is an enormous shell game that goes on in an attempt to make a profit by shifting a legitimate cost onto someone else. Insurance companies routinely dump sick patients, deny payment for their claims or tell them that an insurance policy is no longer available. Doctors have been fed up with and unhappy with this system for a long time. But, now that the ACA is here, there is something new to blame for systemic problems that have existed for a long time.
DeleteWhat seems to be an issue with conservatives is that this law is start to take away the ability for insurance companies to sell catastrophic plans that really are shit to young people who really don't know how little they are getting for their money. It's undeniably true that some people are losing plans they wanted to keep and some people will have to pay more money to keep a doctor they currently have. The argument basically is that in order to prevent what is happening to perhaps 5% of already insured people, we should continue leaving 40 million uninsured and let them keep using the emergency room as their primary care. As if, somehow, this is a cheaper and more efficient way of doing things.
I've watched your comments over a few years Brandt go from moderate conservative to just seething rage. It would be interesting to hear what solutions, if any, you have to fix a system that is brutally inefficient and wasteful. But, I sense that all you have to offer is how that fucking Obama is ruining things. Your assertion that I know in my heart this is unworkable is curious as I don't know any such thing. It doesn't really address all the things that I think are important and it doesn't fully address the issue of cost.
I said on another thread that ALL insurance is a form of wealth redistribution. I try to drive defensively and cautiously, but I'm undeniably getting charged for the people here in Vegas who drive like absolute idiots. I try to stay healthy, I don't have kids, yet, my insurance costs at work are higher because my co workers keep popping out kids. To me, these extra costs are small franchise fees that I pay to get to live in a free country. The government is not fucking up my life, and it's not fucking up yours or the lives of your Twins.
Obama and the Democrats passed a bill with no idea what was in it, it's clear not one of them read the bill either, as for your assertions I dislike team Harry and Obama and Nancy because they created a monster, as Dr. Frankenstein did and unleashed the killer on the village. Jobs, killed, thousands downsized to meet the small business mandate that over 50 employees have to be covered by the business. You say you live in a free country, LoL! You live in a fantasy, don't have kids you're only responsible for you. Those of us in the real world that have kids have to live for them. I would never, ever expose my kids to the bullshit you regulators on the left have made a "law". This law helps the few that play the liberal bagpipes, noises so loud and screeching one must cover ones ears to avoid the eardrum exploding. You don't bother to read stuff that doesn't fit your narrow window of self love. You are in a bubble, isolated from a society, an aging single male, alone, and angry. I have a reason, I have an investment, I don't just have twins I have a son from a previous marriage, and I am a grandfather now for four months. I'm living and working for all of my family, you are living for yourself. I have to make sure these socialized laws don't just harm me but damage my kids.
DeleteYou are incorrect, I am happily married and my wife and I both live off of what I make. The assertions that Obama ruined the economy are bullshit. We have been de-industrializing for over 30 years TD. Even before 9/11, we are in a major economic slide that people weren't grasping. Since 2000, we have had plenty of tax cuts, plenty of deregulation and have seen the folly of NAFTA come home to roost. A bill, mind you, that was signed in to law by a Democrat. Somehow, despite the horror and destruction you describe, there is no shortage of profits at the corporate level. The economy doesn't suck for them, it just sucks for people who work for a living.
DeleteIt's a bit comical that you tell me I don't bother to read stuff that does fit my narrow window, I'm not the one spamming the site with cut and paste from zerohedge. I will admit one thing, I don't read diatribes. When I hear someone starting to blame the president for some macro phenomenon, I don't buy it. I didn't buy into the liberal fantasy that Bill Clinton saved the world, and I don't buy into the nonsense that Obama is single handidly destroying everything holy, sacred and then some. You should check your facts a little better.
One more easy question for you, please show me your list of anything the Federal Government has forced by law, to buy something, anything, thanks.
DeleteI dont' understand what you are asking for. If you are making a point that being forced to buy insurance is communism, well, I get that argument. When I was in my late teens and Illinois instituted a law that you must have auto insurance, I was bitterly annoyed because I didn't make much money and didn't want to pay for it. I was lucky I didn't have a serious accident and actually, I was kind of lucky the law was there because I was forced to buy insurance and when i had a small accident later, I was covered.
DeleteINsurance is about managing a risk pool. The more healthy people you have, the better chance you have of making a profit. No insurance plan can work without young, healthy people. Part of being young and healthy is to have an attitude that you should not have to pay for a God Damn thing youd don't want to while you enjoy all the benefits that others before you have paid for. This is also a Tea Party philosophy. As I said above, my insurance is higher because of other people's children and all insurance is higher because we have a lot of fat asses who won't take care of their health. We also have a for profit system that does nothing to improve outcomes. I'd like to see health care affordable for basic coverage such as check ups, yearly lab work and maybe two visits during the year if you are sick. Then, I'd like to see catsrophic coverage for illness that racks up a bill greater than 10K. Then, I'd like to let the insurance companies make their money on providing coverage for the gap between basic and catastrophic care.
Hi, Max.
DeleteThere is a little bit of differences in you comparison of forced HI with car insurance. The biggest is the subsidies, kind word for handouts, that the lower income group gets, isn't it? And, isn't there some flavor of a guarantee to the insurance companies that our central government will twiddle thngs a bit to make sure the insurers come out in the black?
I'll add that the corporate profits to which you referred earlier are somewhat due (especially for the biggies) to being multinational, I think.
Surviving being a non-traditional student? That's the term around here for older than twenty-somethings in college.
Jean
A bigger issue that all ignore is people spending more on healthcare insurance, paying more in taxes which are designed to pay for some in the PPACA, people paying the mandate tax removes the money for the economy, consumption of goods and services will go down.
DeleteThe results will be what? A return to a more robust economy or recession?
I vote for recession in 2014.
p.s. Forcing the consumer to buy a product they do not want is called government over reach, taxing a person for not buying their product is also government over reach.
Mommy government likes to think they know best however the one size fits all programs, may be great for a segment of the population yet hurt other segments. That's why state solutions always trumps a Federal Government solution as states can address their specific needs.
The philosophical opposition to ACA or single payer is one of those things that is black and white, open and shut. The founding fathers didn't stipulate for it, therefore it's wrong. I don't bother arguing that point. I get it.
DeleteWhat we have right now, is a highly inefficient system. I've gone through this before. Those who have insurance through work are subsidized by the rest of us who buy the goods. We pay higher prices for it. Those who don't have insurance use the ER, and the hospital shifts that cost back to the rest of us by charging $100 for an aspirin. Insurance companies run risk pools. They do nothing more. They don't improve the care delivered. They don't spend money on research to innovate and they do everything they can to protect profit. As an honest question, what do insurance companies do that is so crucial the system could not do without them. Your point about taxes Lou is not lost on me. What I don't think you are willing to acknowledge, however, is that in the current system, we play an enormous shell game of cost shifting purely to generate profit for middle men.
Our current system rewards sickness and dysfunction. The sicker a person is and the more procedures that are done, the more the hospital and doctors get paid. There is no reward for a general practitioner to actually keep someone healthy and related, if you have insurance through work (which is a subsidy the rest of us pay for) you have no penalty for not being healthy. In a true, free market system, which we do not have, everybody would be forced to pay an insurance rate that was based on their actuarial risk, just like they do in auto insurance. People who get cancer would be told, "Sorry, you get nothing". People who are overweight, or on blood pressure medicine or who, heaven forbid, have shitty genes, would be financially punished or denied coverage.
Like I said in an earlier post, why should I get penalized at work and have to pay higher insurance rates due to my co-workers cranking out babies? It's not fair to me, but that's how the game works. In short, our system does not work well, it wastes an enormous amount of money, and pays out far more than other countries do comparatively for the outcome each dollar gets. Unfortunately, the ACA does not fix this problem. I think we will get it right eventually, but we could not get on the path without something like the ACA.
School is good Jean. It was tough getting back in the groove, but I have survived the first semester. I now get a month break, and then it's right back into it with 16 weeks of pathophysiology and pharmacology. Not looking forward to that.
Nothing at all new here. We knew RINO Boehner would support raising our debt level. Nothing new at all. They all get reelected next Fall and that's all our ruling elite ever care about.
ReplyDeleteVotes will be counted, names written down. It's a long road rooting out the entrenched on both sides. In the mean time trillions more go into the pipeline to be strapped to the backs of future generations, and current generations on fixed incomes.
776-2003 no one is surprised, spend, spend, spend.
OK Max, time to let loose with more of your timeless tosh.
DeleteWilliam,
DeleteWhat would you have liked to see come out of the negotiations? And what would you have realistically expected?
Jean
Jean,
DeleteAs always it's about power, control. The R's think they have a winning hand with the PPACA debacle. Not about to upset that apple cart. In the next year when people have to pay for insurance that covers less and cost more, the R's are looking at a windfall of new supporters.
With the limited attention span of Americans they assume to much.
What people would have liked to see on either side was irrelevant and not a consideration.
Jean, the republicans ran on cutting spending. They control the purse with a house majority. I expect them to meet their promises and limit government.
DeleteI do agree with Lou that they see Obama in the healthcare morass and are playing the long field for a senate majority. But in the mean time more money is spent, more debt amassed, more worthless paper printed.
Realistic expectations you ask? I answered above, this is all old tired news.
Let the house debate begin then we will see if Boehner has a backbone or if he is still the squishy scarecrow we have all come to love. When his romper room bunch starts objecting he'll turn tail and run he always does.
ReplyDeleteSpeaker Boehner promised 72 hours to read legislation before it was voted on. Now he is breaking his word & voting on the budget this afternoon - less than 48 hours after posting it.
DeleteI imagine that since October Boehner has had a few tense meetings with the leaders of The Chamber Of Commerce wing of the GOP regarding shutdowns and default threats going forward ...
ReplyDeleteThat's my belief as well. I think this is nothing but a mid term slap down to the far right.
DeleteAs always it's about power, control. The R's think they have a winning hand with the PPACA debacle. Not about to upset that apple cart. In the next year when people have to pay for insurance that covers less and cost more, the R's are looking at a windfall of new supporters.
DeleteWhat a surprise for the R's when they realize to late that the anger has passed over the PPACA and they have alienated their base of conservatives.
Then people are left with which rotten apple is less rotten?
A backbone of gelatin I suppose. "Non-tax" revenues my ass. Fees a.k.a. taxes by another name. Shut the whole thing down for months. Wouldn't affect me in the least.
ReplyDelete"Shut the whole thing down for months. Wouldn't affect me in the least."
DeleteBingo! Therein lies the attitude of the tea party.
Mike,
DeleteHave you ever read the Constitution? Ninety percent of the bullshit passed since 1913 does not pass muster under the original concepts laid out in that document. The States may pass this crap, so why don't you ask your Senator Reid to run for Governor and fuck up your State as bad as the Progressives are fucking up the entire Country.
Regarding your tea party statement, yes I guess I have that attitude. I don't believe you have any children, but when my 10 y.o. daughter is my age, she will be forking over most of her paycheck to pay for the nonsense going on today. We went from 9.5 T to well over 17 T in total debt in less than five years. 9.5 T is way too much debt per capita and even worse per taxpayer, but 17 T that the dems have racked up is insane.
I guess your solution is more wealth re-distribution, more regulations, window dressing like supporting the LGBT community, and massive tax increases to solve all of our wows. That's what Reid, Pelosi, and the idiot at 1600 support. Tell me how that shit will grow the economy or pay down the debt?
Yes Brian, I have read it. At one point in life, when I was 20 odd years old and believe that I was invincible, infallible and that the world and everything else in life revolved around my contentment, I did indeed believe in a strict view of the constitution. I don't think that way anymore. The founding fathers, I believe, were wise enough to see that times would change. Good lord, these people owned slaves and Jefferson was boning them to boot. The original concepts were laid out to take power from the crown and hand it to white men. What came after was a further distribution of power that included women and black people.
DeleteYour daughter and TD's kids will be paying that debt because the people of our age and older are simply too fucking selfish to think about anybody but themselves. Did that 9.5 trillion come out of the pockets of the rich and go right to the poor slackers? Not remotely. A bit chunk of it went to fighting wars, making up the difference of tax cuts and paying for the failure of free markets to police themselves on wall street. Once the next Republican is elected POTUS, and they will be someday, that will be the day you can mark your calendar that this screaming about the debt will come to a halt.
Your last para...really. Can't you feed that shit to the fishes on some conservative web site and have a rational discussion here? I don't think you are stupid enough to really believe in that empty crap. As for Reid, I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher if I had a better choice. He brings home some pork, but he has been a weak senate leader. I actually almost voted for that whack job Sharron Angle just to let America and the idiots here see what it looks like to elect a true circus clown.
Once the next Republican is elected POTUS, and they will be someday, that will be the day you can mark your calendar that this screaming about the debt will come to a halt.
DeleteNewsflash, the debate ended and was traded for a possible win in the next election. The can that has been kicked down the rosd for the last 30 years is now 2 years down the road. The D's get the R's blessing to continue spending freely, the R's claim victory with a chance to recover seats in the Senate. Have no fear, they as always will never hold it together for 2 years and the D's will retain the WH.
Neither party is capable of producing a leader. Look at the contenders, a complete laughable joke on the American people. We should all be ashamed as this is the best we have to put forward as potential leaders?
This and your comment above nail it pretty well Lou. Boehnor has played his hand quite well. Congress is truly hated and despised, but it is doubtful that many of them have much danger of losing their seats. With this deal, Tea Party outrage has bee neutered. They can't jerk his chain and shut down the government and as a result, he's got clown protection their. Historically, the WH party always loses seats and now that there has been a partial nuking of the filibuster in the senate, I would expect that some work is going to get done. As a result, there really won't be anything shitty in that regard to hang on the necks of Republicans. I get the philosophical support that conservatives have for shutting everything down. It's not, however, shared by a majority of Americans.
DeleteSetting aside the religious fervor of the right that I have no sympathy for, my chief opposition to the Republican party is that they have absolutely zero to offer but a continuation of trickle down economics. Taxes were like 70% when Reagan came into office. They are now 39% and what do we have to show for that? In the meantime, we have sent our jobs away and slashed the pay of the remaining jobs so low that many people don't earn enough to pay taxes. The poor could pay more taxes if we were willing pay them more for what work the do perform. This, however, doesn't square with the thinking of Republican donors. They also have this one note drum that we must, overnight, embark on ruthless austerity to erase what has taken 30 plus years to build. Ten year plans are unacceptable.
This is not a defense of Democrats as they have also become beholden to money. Yes, we should be ashamed, but I'll echo a tired saw if used before here, we get the government we deserve.
Yes we get the government we deserve.
DeleteYears ago we went from voting what's best for the country to what's best for me. Until that changes we will continue this spiral.
The not so free trade agreements are a great tool for the politicians as we import cheap stuff, export raw materials. Exported the jobs so we can all have that much desired 50", $500.00 LED TV that we will throw away in 2 years as it's cheaper to buy a new one than repair. So much for the service economy. A proven tool for foreign policy to stabilize governments and populations like China. What middle class wants to go to war when they want MORE? Meanwhile back home we blamed the nasty corporation for shipping their jobs overseas and buy a new printer for 79 bucks and throw the old one away. Cause and effect seems to elude Americans today.
Austerity? Still waiting for that to happen. It is a great battle cry though. Sad part is spending isn't slowing, government will never become efficient and will continue to grow as there is zero political will to change. Really don't have to cut spending, just freeze spending for the next 5 or 10 years and gradually make government smaller more efficient. Who really needs over 100 food aid programs when 1 would do quite nicely?
Having said that, pick the kid of next week for a month off. She is really quite entertaining and she does make me laugh.
"Meanwhile back home we blamed the nasty corporation for shipping their jobs overseas and buy a new printer for 79 bucks and throw the old one away. Cause and effect seems to elude Americans today."
Deleteyep, also spot on. I won't shop at places like Walmart unless absolutely necessary and actually, I try not to be an endless consumer of cheap shit. I bought my hockey sticks from an American company in Minnesota, but it's really tough to find hockey gear made here. I don't mind buying from Canadia, but even a lot of the stuff from Bauer, CCM and what not is being made in places like Thailand. Personally, I would love to start seeing us put tariffs on imports and set that money aside to either pay for education in STEM areas or be used to outright pay down debt.
I have to respectfully disagree on austerity. Austerity is real for people living at or below the poverty line. For military contractors, not so much. Discretionary spending for 2014 is 30% of the budget. Of that 30%, 57% is military spending. Of the mandatory spending, which is 64% of the budget, 51% is social security and unemployment while 36% if health care. Is austerity being inflicted on those populations? There is a push to inflict it on the unemployed, because as Plagiarize Paul puts it, we harm them if we don't cut their benefits as soon as possible because they are undoubtedly living like kings on that fat check. But outside of them, it gets fuzzy.
I believe that a personal goal of newer spoiled conservatives like Paul Ryan and that super idiot Eric Cantor are to completely end social security. Basically, they simply don't want to pay for it and want to tell everyone who built the country for them that they should just kiss off because we can't both keep our low taxes, loopholes etc AND pay for these benefits. I readily concede we have a big problem, namely that people are living way past the age people used to when these programs were created and they are also racking up enormous health care bills. the vast majority of health care dollars are spent in the final few years of life for a person, and in my opinion, we are not spending those dollars wisely. Most Democrats these days have been willing to keep signing off on cuts to demographics who truly get hurt and see a decline in standard of living. At the least, none of them have the balls to shut down government to keep from cutting food stamps. I look at where the majority of the budget money goes and I think that's where we should be making big cuts. Social security has voting implications, but military spending has campaign and job implications in very concentrated areas of the country.
Ultimately, I'd like to see the nation invest in something besides besides destruction, but that's kind of a pipe dream. Enjoy time with the kid. I am just about to tun in my final paper and then it's one month off for me as well.
FInal paper. She's working on that even as we speak. Shae has 1 class finished and is done with that one. She has Chemistry on Monday and a long wait for her Calculus final on Friday. Said she was going to catch up on her sleep. LOL, she sleeps 10-12 hours a day. Personally I get 4-6 max.
DeleteI'd like to see the nation invest in something besides besides destruction, but that's kind of a pipe dream.
Yes a pipe dream, time for the world to pay their own way unless of course they would like to pay for our services. The military budget at 600 billion a year and still no one addresses waste, corruption in the procurement system. Why would anyone pay for goods when they are late? In business deliver late, pay a penalty. Government should be the same. The policy of use it or lose it with the budget needs to go away as it only encourages waste. We should reward groups that find ways to save money, works in business but of course government is different, LOL.
SS, over 800 billion needs to be reformed. Raising the retirement age from 62.5 needs to be raised to 66 and full retirement to 70. Today 60 is like 40, 20 years ago. My grandparents died in their 60's, parents are in their mid 80's and going strong. Started collecting SS at 65. Tell me they haven't over drawn their account. Most pension plans outside government do not have COLA adjustments, nice to give them but one day that reality will need to be addressed.
And you are correct as we age, we consume more healthcare extending our lives as long as possible. How do you tell Barack that his terminally ill grandmother she cannot have a hip replacement, what a waste.
Can Medicare be reformed, yes it can but once again, waste, fraud needs to be addressed. When you move the SS age for retirement you move the medicare date at the same time.
Both unpopular as we want our cake and eat it too. Now those changes would affect me but it is for the good of the country. Other things will also need to be addressed like the contribution limits etc all wildly unpopular.
In any case sorry to say both parties are responsible for this mess by adding to programs and allowing this to happen. I know you dislike R's and hate their solutions but at least they are not denying there is a problem. Addressing the problems with SS and Medicare and Medicaid should be done sooner than later as later will be far more painful.
I dislike the R's of today who have only one solution to everything, namely, get rid of it. I think they do deny problems to an extent in that they can see the money is problem, but are blissfully oblivious to what things would look like if we simply eliminated everything they are philosophically opposed to.
DeleteWithout programs like SS and Medicare, a lot of old people would be eating cans of dog food and as it is, many are taking half their medicines because they can't afford all of them. Listening to the Ryan's and Cantor's and Norquists of the world, what I hear is an attitude that they deserve the country that was built for them and they don't owe a damn thing to those that came before us. A lot of the ACA is Republican thinking from 30 odd years ago. What I hear in these guys of today is a brutal selfishness. The reality is that we can't carry everyone, and we should not be trying. Reforms like you suggest here are potential solutions. Ryan et al. simply want to end all social programs because the constitution and Ayn Rand didn't call for them.
Never took calc. I enjoyed Chemistry, but luckily didn't have to take organic chem.
A lot of the ACA is Republican thinking from 30 odd years ago.
DeleteThat is interesting. Having heard that from the left so many times I researched the topic. The claim comes from Stuart M Butler and a speech he made on 10/2/1989.
There is so little in the ACA that is a reflection from his speech that it's a beyond pathetic claim. He did discuss mandates but also other ideas conveniently not mentioned or adopted by the left. Yet the ACA is a product of the Conservatives from 30 years ago.
A big B.S. to that. If they would have adopted his ideas you could make the claim, 1 piece, that's bull shit in it's worst from.
An example, all healthcare provided by employers would be taxable.
Reforming medicaid another stellar idea ignored by the Democrats and expanded to the extreme.
Increases deductibles for medicare to make people more aware of the costs associated with a weekly visit to the doctor, ignored.
It discussed long term nursing costs, ignored.
All in all, not a bad speech with great ideas.
Read it yourself:
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf
As you know the PPACA was written behind closed doors led by Ezekiel Manuel. No input was requested or allowed by R's.
As to healthcare, not 1 thing in the PPACA addresses the root causes of the rising costs of healthcare yet the you along with the democratic morons in the WH and congress continue the march to insolvency. Think Medicare is sustainable into the future? Think SS is sustainable into the future? Has the morons in the democratic party addressed either issue? No lets keep pretending there is a pot of gold that we can draw from and pay SS into the future.
Nobody want to end SS, Medicare but they will change either soon to something that works for all into the future or it will change to something less than acceptable when the funds run out. Maybe the R's see that a little better than the D's who pretend there is no problem.
This is the problem today, liberals beating the R's up without a single discussion to fix the problem. The R's capitulate on the budget as we march forward with the spending for 2 more years. One day the spending will end and then the pain will begin. The poor who live pretty well by world standards will find out what poor is about when the food stops.
Blame it all on the R's. Ignore the fact the D's are doing nothing but spending as if there is no tomorrow. The ant and grasshopper story in our real world is about to begin.
Thought this was kind of an interesting read on Nixon also http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx I scanned the Butler thing cause I don't have time for a full read this morning, but I'm having a hard time finding a massive difference, in spirit with what he said and what was said before the ACA came. Excerpt from Butler
Delete"all citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care"
"the inflationary pressure in the health industry should be brought under control"
"direct and indirect government assistance should be concentrated on those who need it most"
"A reformed system should encourage greater innovation in the delivery of health care"
I can't think of a single Republican today who would look at this list and agree with any piece of it. Democrats wanted single payer, Republicans like Nixon and Romney wanted insurance companies to keep their monopolies, this is what we got with the ACA. Whether the ACA addresses these concerns properly is definitely debatable. In fairness, I do not listen to everything the Republicans have to say about this. Can you show me a decent link from a Republican today who agrees with Butler and who also presented a comprehensive plan?
On cost, I feel like the majority of discussions miss a brutally important point. We are keeping people alive in a manner that is very expensive. It's not all waste. It's not all fraud. It's real cost. 30% of medicare's budget every year goes to people in their last year of life. How do you reduce that cost unless you start to say that we need to stop being so aggressive? Squeezing a hospital to be "innovative" here doesn't make sense to me. Talking about this starts the stupid talk of "death panels". And what about people who, on religious grounds, believe that every last measure must be taken even if it means grandma lays in bed for the last year of her life with a feeding tube put into her stomach?
I'll try to stop talking about the pubs in the interest of keeping a good discussion going. I don't like ACA, but in our current toxic partisan environment, I don't believe any real solution would have been coming otherwise. Ultimately, I believe the private insurance market needs to go, or they need to be willing to live on administration cost and run a near break even operation. This is not a hatred of profit, rather, it's a belief that the profit generated from running a risk pool contributes nothing whatsoever to the efficiency of the health care system.
Back to Butler for one sec before heading to work, he called for universal coverage. If he somehow believed he could call for universal coverage and not see our plan start to resemble other countries, I think he was smoking some Acapulco Gold from back in the day.
Gotta you ever read the constitution most of the bullshit passed since day one doesn't pass muster.
ReplyDeleterick,
DeleteThat just might depend on your definition of muster.
Jean
What kind of sadistic person wants government involved with every part of their lives, Rick? If the government interfered less in the economy and taxed at lower levels, the economy would be more robust and poverty would adjust downward as more opportunities became available. The way it is now, you are better off utilizing all of the government goodies than going out and trying to make it on your own and becoming successful. I guess the left just prefers the leeches over self sufficient individuals.
DeleteIt was during an investigation into the record number of food stamp recipients that Fox News’ John Roberts met Jason Greenslate, a surfer and rocker who is living the self-described “rat life” in California.
DeleteThe 29-year-old signed up for SNAP and receives $200 dollars a month in taxpayer money for food. He put it simply, “I don’t got a paycheck coming in, so I qualify.”
All he has to do is provide his birth certificate and Social Security card and fill out a form once a year.
In 1996, if you were an able adult with no family, you would only qualify for food stamps for three months every three years. President Obama wiped away those restrictions when he signed the 2009 stimulus bill. In 2010, the president used his regulatory powers to extend the suspension of the welfare-to-work requirements.
Greenslate is trained to be a recording engineer, but he told Roberts he has no paycheck because holding down a steady job isn’t for him.
So, it was off to the gourmet section of the grocery store, as Greenslate purchased sushi and lobster with his EBT card. “All paid for by our wonderful tax dollars,” he said, telling Roberts that’s what he typically buys.
“This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” Greenslate said. “It’s free food; it’s awesome.”
DeleteIn 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00 an hour job. In 17 states the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00 an hour job.
In Hawaii, Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New York, and Rhode Island welfare pays more than a $12.00 an hour job--or two and a half times the minimum wage.
In nine states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary. And in the six most generous states it pays more than the entry-level salary for a computer programmer.
Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit. For the hard-core welfare recipient, the value of the full range of welfare benefits substantially exceeds the amount the recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result, recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, thus increasing long-term dependence.
@ Louman, 1st my friend it is good to see you here. Maybe just maybe you are making a great argument for increasing the minimum wage. If work is worth more the assistance then maybe we could get somewhere. Fast food workers are demonstrating for $15.00 a hour which we both know ain't gonna happen cannot happen and the jobs just aren't worth that. But maybe in the 10 dollar an hour range we get 1/2 of the people who live better on assistance compared to working to get up get out and get to work. If they won't on their own then we force it by re instating the welfare to work initiative developed by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.
DeleteGod it wasn't all that long ago that we got some good bi partisan stuff done was it. Look I don't like people living off the land any more then you do. But the solutions are also not easy along with many others we need to find in this country. But until we can work together, and get money out of politics we will remain stagnant
@Jean The extreme use of the Necessary and Proper clause has allowed a lot of shit to pass our Congress legally, a lot of programs to be instituted legally, a lot of regulations to be adopted legally, and a lot of government spending to be done legally. For example Thomas Jefferson used the Implied Powers theory to buy Louisiana in an otherwise unconstitutional purchase.
ReplyDelete@ Gotta I see although you imply that the government is involved in "every part" of our lives you only mention taxation and economics which I will assume are the two issues most important to you, and the real reason for supporting the conservative agenda. So what you really want are the same things the progressives want, the government to give you something, your tax money back and a free rein on how you run a business regardless of your honesty in doing so and the way you treat your employees etc. funny how we are so different but so much the same isn't it. But I bet you were all for things like DOMA which was government intrusion into American lives.
Without government involvement in business poverty will not "adjust downward". That my friend is how the government got involved in the first place, Business abusing employees with long hours and low wages. Right now we have record earnings and stagnant wages, wages that have been stagnant since the 80's so possibly the government isn't doing enough for the employee and too much for business.
@WM Yes William you are going to find abuses in any program government or private. It all goes back to mankind's penchant for greed. Get what we can the easiest way we can get it. That my friend is human nature. But further investigation will show that most people getting government assistance actually need it.
Now your argument will be to turn it over to private concerns but WM the needs are so great that private charities cannot handle it alone. Even your God says that to neglect the poor is evil. You want to claim a Christian nation so do the Christian thing and help and protect the poor. It is morally the right thing to do with or without religion involved. Now I agree that within the Great Recession government aid got out of hand. And as we recover it will again be reigned in. But a government has to do what it has to do to keep it's people fed no matter the cost, else we have anarchy in the streets, nothing brings it on faster then hungry people. We need to look at and solve the underlying problems of government dependence, that has never really been an issue as to the whys. Yes you have your surfer dude who is just liking the free ride, but I guarantee you that for every surfer dude there are 10 people who would rather not be dependent on the government for food, housing etc. But they don't know how to get out because it's all they have ever known or they lack the skills, education or opportunities to get out. Now you will say you make your own opportunities and so do I , but no everybody can or not everybody can clearly see the way forward as you and I can.
Subject: May the moderate/liberal wing of GOP rest in peace!
ReplyDelete------
by Mike Flynn17 Dec 2013
In the days immediately following the release of the budget deal negotiated
between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), House Speaker
John Boehner launched a preemptive attack on conservative and tea party grass
roots activists. Saying these groups had "lost all credibility" by attacking
a budget deal that hiked federal spending, Boehner was trying to marginalize
conservatives and blunt their influence in the debate. He needn't have
bothered. Conservatives were largely absent from the fight over the
Ryan-Murray budget. That says more about Republicans, however, than it does
about conservatives.
Although the Ryan-Murray budget deal busted through existing spending caps,
raised user fees and did nothing meaningful about the deficit or national
debt, there was very little organized conservative opposition to the deal. A
few groups, like Heritage Action and Freedomworks "key-voted" the deal,
meaning that a lawmaker's vote on the issue would impact their vote rating.
Other groups like Americans for Prosperity and Tea Party Patriots, sent
alerts to their members in opposition to the deal.
Other than that, it was like the famous Arthur Conan Doyle case where the dog
"didn't bark at midnight." There were no press-conferences or rallies. The
Capitol switchboard didn't buckle under the weight of thousands of calls of
outraged citizens, concerned that Congress was yet again going on a spending
binge.
Republican leaders like Paul Ryan may consider themselves lucky that the
conservative grass-roots didn't mobilize against the budget deal, but the
reasons behind this are troubling for the Republican party.
"I think there's a growing sense among the grassroots that no matter what
they do, the Republican leadership won't fight these liberal policies," Matt
Hoskins, Executive Director of the Senate Conservatives Fund told Breitbart
News. "They appear to be shifting their focus toward replacing these
Republicans with true conservatives in the 2014 primaries."
The Republican party owes its majority in the House to an historic
conservative turnout in 2010. Republican Presidential nominee owes his second
place finish in 2012 to an equally historic failure of conservatives to
turnout in critical battleground states.
While Republicans are poised for a very strong showing in the midterms next
year, attacking the party's base voters and potentially driving down turnout
is a recipe for the party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Beyond
the attacks on conservatives, the party's return to failed budget
negotiations also has the potential to curtail conservative turnout.
"Most folks viewed this for what it was," Dan Holler, communications director
of Heritage Action told Breitbart News about the Ryan budget deal, "a
closed-door deal struck by a Republican and Democrat that was never intended
to win support of conservatives."
"Conservatives outside of Washington feel cut out of the process," Holler
continued. "That feeling will carry over into 2014, but they also recognize
it is hard to change legislative outcomes if the Speaker is willing to
cast aside conservatives votes in favor of Democrat votes."
The Republican acceptance of the increased spending in the Ryan-Murray budget
deal is not an isolated incident. Business interest groups, like the US
Chamber of Commerce have promised to spend millions defeating conservatives
in primaries next year.
At a recent fundraiser, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell urged defense
Deletecontractors to fight conservatives in primaries to keep the federal spending
spigot open. "The main message he was pushing was: Get involved, mainly to
teach those who are primarying incumbents that it is not helpful to run
against incumbents who are champions for the industry," an attendee told the
Wall Street Journal.
One veteran lawmaker told Breitbart News that political fatigue was probably
a factor in the absence of conservative action on the budget deal. "We've had
a lot of fights this year," the lawmaker said. Another source on Capitol Hill
said the manner the deal was rushed through Congress and the fact that its
the holidays also likely played a part in muting conservative opposition.
There is likely some truth to this. If so, it is the best case scenario for
Republicans. More likely, as Holler and Hoskins explained, is that
conservatives have given up on current GOP Leadership. If so, Republicans up
and down the ballot could get a surprise in upcoming primaries. The Chamber
can write big checks, but it can't walk precincts or drive people to the
polls.
The Republican establishment won the battle over the Ryan-Murray budget. It
may, however, turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. The party would do well to
ask itself, "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and
forfeit his soul?"