Medicare Drug Benifit Cost Soars by a Third, Deficit over 1/2 Trillian Projected
- Thread starter tnitsuj
- Start date
I think you mean Bush is going to cripple the economy.
Because his proposal is hardly health care
Because his proposal is hardly health care
Don't worry about government growth. The small government republican party is in charge. We got nothing to worry about.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Of course it is. It is demographically impossible that it won't. By the time you and I are dead though, things will spring right back. Cheery isn't it?
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
It does not matter what they promise. The Reps control Congress, so the only sizeable programs to get passed will be Bush Approved?
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
I don't know, but it would be pretty hard for them to spend more than Dubya is spending, because the opposition would call them big government liberals, which is more catchy than calling Bush big government conservative.Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
But the congress will remain in GOP hands, especially with all the redistricting, so it's a moot point. If you want gridlock and working checks and balances, Bush has to be replaced with a democrat.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Oh, Oh Can I play?
The answer is both parties spend. The difference is that they do so on what their consitiuency believes to be most valuable. Dems on social programs, and Reps on military. They both tend to forget things like roads and other infrastructure, except when it is doled out as pork.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Sir Alex Fraser Tyler (1742-1813), The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic
The key difference is that millitary spending is a controlled percentage increase that is independent of popluation demographics, while SS & Medicare is not.Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Oh, Oh Can I play?
The answer is both parties spend. The difference is that they do so on what their consitiuency believes to be most valuable. Dems on social programs, and Reps on military. They both tend to forget things like roads and other infrastructure, except when it is doled out as pork.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: alchemize
The key difference is that millitary spending is a controlled percentage increase that is independent of popluation demographics, while SS & Medicare is not.Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Oh, Oh Can I play?
The answer is both parties spend. The difference is that they do so on what their consitiuency believes to be most valuable. Dems on social programs, and Reps on military. They both tend to forget things like roads and other infrastructure, except when it is doled out as pork.
Well, what has happened to spending since Bush took office?
No, each party can spend more than it has.
I should have said military and the like, because this war certainly is a military expense. The military as a whole certainly extends beyond a fixed payroll.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Well, as for the economy, I think the deficit and the loss of jobs in the last 3 years speaks for itself, no?
As for the medicare plan, it makes illegal importing drugs from Canada, the same drugs we get here but we have to pay FAR FAR more for. Also, it disallows the negotiation of lower drug prices by the Government, profiting you guessed it.
Who are we protecting again? Right.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,851
- 6,388
- 126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Despite evidence to the contrary, you continue to think of Dems as *the* big spenders. As such you seem to miss the Truth of the matter, that is: Monopoly of Power is the real problem. As Supertool stated, you need to be more strategic in your votes, place the Dems and Repubs into a power struggle situation where they are forced to compromise and can't go on an Idealistic based spending spree.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Despite evidence to the contrary, you continue to think of Dems as *the* big spenders. As such you seem to miss the Truth of the matter, that is: Monopoly of Power is the real problem. As Supertool stated, you need to be more strategic in your votes, place the Dems and Repubs into a power struggle situation where they are forced to compromise and can't go on an Idealistic based spending spree.
IF the dems are not big spenders, why have they only complained about the repubs not spending enough?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Good point. I'm curious how the Bush supporters justify this. What is the public benefit of forbidding negotiating lower drug prices? What is the public benefit of preventing people from buying cheaper drugs in Canada?
Better yet, why not adopt the same kind of best-price requirement used in so many other government procurement contracts? These clauses require vendors, drug companies in this case, to give the government the best price offered to anyone else. If Canada negotiates a better price, we automatically get it too.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,851
- 6,388
- 126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Despite evidence to the contrary, you continue to think of Dems as *the* big spenders. As such you seem to miss the Truth of the matter, that is: Monopoly of Power is the real problem. As Supertool stated, you need to be more strategic in your votes, place the Dems and Repubs into a power struggle situation where they are forced to compromise and can't go on an Idealistic based spending spree.
IF the dems are not big spenders, why have they only complained about the repubs not spending enough?
Disengenuous? I'm sure they are for more spending in certain areas, as are Republicans.
A single payer system starting to look appealing isn't it? When times are good everybody gets (at least) silver level care. When times are tight everybody feels the pinch. The Bush (sic) reform package will likely cost close to a trillion over a decade (including morbidity from fat, sedentary Boomers). Big Pharma and Insurers are guaranteed spots at the trough while the rolls of the under- and uninsured will most assuredly increase. Add in the costs of Medicare (po people with po health habits) and we are talking about mad money. Wake up people. It's a whole hell of a lot cheaper to keep people healthy.
End all subsidies for tobacco. End crop supports (grains, cattle, whole milk). Forget the tobacco buyout. Fix the school lunch program. Subsidize gym memberships. Subsidize fresh produce . . . naturally most of it will come from Central/South America . . . so maybe some of those people will go back home. Guarantee preventative/health maintenance for all people from cradle to grave.
The old argument was that single payer was too expensive . . . but thanks to Bushies . . . that one is out the window.
Since Bushies are so fond of quoting deficits as %GDP . . . how do you factor in all of the GDP that's going to waste in the Middle East and Central Asia?
End all subsidies for tobacco. End crop supports (grains, cattle, whole milk). Forget the tobacco buyout. Fix the school lunch program. Subsidize gym memberships. Subsidize fresh produce . . . naturally most of it will come from Central/South America . . . so maybe some of those people will go back home. Guarantee preventative/health maintenance for all people from cradle to grave.
The old argument was that single payer was too expensive . . . but thanks to Bushies . . . that one is out the window.
Since Bushies are so fond of quoting deficits as %GDP . . . how do you factor in all of the GDP that's going to waste in the Middle East and Central Asia?
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Despite evidence to the contrary, you continue to think of Dems as *the* big spenders. As such you seem to miss the Truth of the matter, that is: Monopoly of Power is the real problem. As Supertool stated, you need to be more strategic in your votes, place the Dems and Repubs into a power struggle situation where they are forced to compromise and can't go on an Idealistic based spending spree.
IF the dems are not big spenders, why have they only complained about the repubs not spending enough?
Disengenuous? I'm sure they are for more spending in certain areas, as are Republicans.
I dont think it is disengenious..I think i have heard the dems complain about the lacking of spending for their programs, when in fact most of them are up....
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,851
- 6,388
- 126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Despite evidence to the contrary, you continue to think of Dems as *the* big spenders. As such you seem to miss the Truth of the matter, that is: Monopoly of Power is the real problem. As Supertool stated, you need to be more strategic in your votes, place the Dems and Repubs into a power struggle situation where they are forced to compromise and can't go on an Idealistic based spending spree.
IF the dems are not big spenders, why have they only complained about the repubs not spending enough?
Disengenuous? I'm sure they are for more spending in certain areas, as are Republicans.
I dont think it is disengenious..I think i have heard the dems complain about the lacking of spending for their programs, when in fact most of them are up....
Like I said, the Dems have their issues, Repubs have their's as well. Yet an all Repub government has increased spending the most, kinda flies in the face of the "big spending Democrats" mantra.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: alchemize
Unless we are lucky enough to get someone like <insert Democratic Nominee here>, who promises to expand Medicare and protect Social Security. That'll fix things!
PS see
This thread for the 44 trillion article
Aren't you a little drama queen. We had a Democratic president and GOP congress not so long ago, and I don't remember out of control spending growth and 500B deficits. So your scare tactics don't worry me.
Are you coming on to me? Actually, you are correct, you said you prefered gridlock with one party controlling each. But you never answered my question, if we had Dems in congress and the whitehouse, they would spend less??
Despite evidence to the contrary, you continue to think of Dems as *the* big spenders. As such you seem to miss the Truth of the matter, that is: Monopoly of Power is the real problem. As Supertool stated, you need to be more strategic in your votes, place the Dems and Repubs into a power struggle situation where they are forced to compromise and can't go on an Idealistic based spending spree.
IF the dems are not big spenders, why have they only complained about the repubs not spending enough?
Disengenuous? I'm sure they are for more spending in certain areas, as are Republicans.
I dont think it is disengenious..I think i have heard the dems complain about the lacking of spending for their programs, when in fact most of them are up....
Like I said, the Dems have their issues, Repubs have their's as well. Yet an all Repub government has increased spending the most, kinda flies in the face of the "big spending Democrats" mantra.
Yes it does. But it is hardly surprising when about 1/2 the population does not pay taxes. Easy to vote for more spending, when you are not paying the bills.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter