Red States Spend $2 Billion MORE, Just To Spite ACA

[realibrad]

You're right, going from $2T to 4T is bad, $4T to $8T is terrible, but somehow $11T to $18T is "better"? :\

"There are three degrees of comparison, it is said, in lying. There are lies, there are outrageous lies, and there are statistics."- Robert Giffen

All are bad. The point is that the increase at the end is mainly do to things that were pushed for by Republicans. Much of what you saw as an increase was things that Obama had no control over. That would include things like unemployment and other safety nets. Combine those with TARP, and you get far more then what the Obama package was.

You do know that the bank bailout was done before Obama right?

 

[BAMAVOO]

Why the drop might not be so exciting

Experts told us that while Obama's math may be correct, it's missing some important caveats.

First, it's important to note that the deficit swelled in 2009 (hence the steady drop). In 2008, the deficit was $458 billion, or 3.1 percent of GDP. Those deficits are smaller than the ones the country is facing today. The 2009 fiscal year represented a huge jump in the deficit, partly because of the massive stimulus program to jumpstart the cratering economy.

"This is not to say that that large deficit was his fault, but if one used the 2008 deficit as a frame of reference, the comparison would be quite different," said Alan Auerbach, University of California Berkeley professor of economics and law.

Also, some economists we consulted pointed out that the 2009 fiscal year was Obama’s first year in office, and so not necessarily a good starting point since he had little control over the spending in that year.

And there's another issue. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen said the more important question is if Obama has put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. "And the answer is no," Rosen said, because entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, have not had substantial reform

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

 

[Roflmouth]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/red-states-spent-2-billion-2015-screw-poor



Here is the actual Kaiser survey: http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief...81751614|bfcadb1d-4da3-4f71-af82-ce1dfa73d7db - since Mother Jones causes some of you to lose control over your bowels.

Anyway, I thought Conservatives WANT to save money - yet, here they are shoveling $$$ out the window, for spiteful reasons.

It just pisses you off that lots of people are resisting your Messiah's pathetic attempts at federal government overreach, huh?

 

[dank69]

Just what this forum needs, another belligerent psycho.

 

[theeedude]

They are saving us, Federal tax payers from other states, our income tax money. I for one salute those red states who would sacrifice their own citizens' health and state tax money for the federal budget.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why the drop might not be so exciting

Experts told us that while Obama's math may be correct, it's missing some important caveats.

First, it's important to note that the deficit swelled in 2009 (hence the steady drop). In 2008, the deficit was $458 billion, or 3.1 percent of GDP. Those deficits are smaller than the ones the country is facing today. The 2009 fiscal year represented a huge jump in the deficit, partly because of the massive stimulus program to jumpstart the cratering economy.

"This is not to say that that large deficit was his fault, but if one used the 2008 deficit as a frame of reference, the comparison would be quite different," said Alan Auerbach, University of California Berkeley professor of economics and law.

Also, some economists we consulted pointed out that the 2009 fiscal year was Obama’s first year in office, and so not necessarily a good starting point since he had little control over the spending in that year.

And there's another issue. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen said the more important question is if Obama has put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. "And the answer is no," Rosen said, because entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, have not had substantial reform

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

If the deficit in 2008 was $458B, why did the national debt increase by $1T?

The answer is that the most excellent military adventures in Iraq & Afghanistan were financed off-budget through special appropriations.

 

[theeedude]

Your people may be more diseased and your states more poor, but you showed that Obama!

 

[Jhhnn]

There are many policies that the left has pushed for that are harmful to the bottom too.

Like what?

 

[Jhhnn]

There are many policies that the left has pushed for that are harmful to the bottom too. I think your response shows exactly what I explained as well. You on the Left say that the top does not need help so taking away from them is fine to help the bottom. How is that not a culture bias?

Again, I would say the Left has their heart in the right place, vs the left that justify their actions that make themselves better off, but neither side is absent from trying to culturally divide people based on wealth.

That's really straining to make some vague point about culture bias & divisiveness. The ongoing accumulation of wealth & income at the tippy top is what's divisive. For the richest among us, the marginal utility of money is approaching zero. More money going there just means less for everybody else. It's a form of hoarding.

 

[Newell Steamer]

It just pisses you off that lots of people are resisting your Messiah's pathetic attempts at federal government overreach, huh?

The only one pissed is impotent raging buffoons like you.

It's not my fault, nor people without healthcare, that caused you to be an outcast. Stop blaming your lack of power and control on things you have no hope of affecting and influencing - because, frankly, you were born a reject.

 

[realibrad]

That's really straining to make some vague point about culture bias & divisiveness. The ongoing accumulation of wealth & income at the tippy top is what's divisive. For the richest among us, the marginal utility of money is approaching zero. More money going there just means less for everybody else. It's a form of hoarding.

You say it as if its inherent. Just because the money is going to the top, does not mean that there is less money for the bottom. You are right about diminishing returns on more money, but that is not a factor. All that matters is if they gained that money through willful trade. If someone gets to be as rich as Bill gates because people wanted the product, then great. I will grant you that many have an advantage that was baked into the system to benefit the top, but just because someone is getting rich does not mean it is a the expense of others.

The beautiful thing about open trade is that its a win win. If I have something that is worth less to me than $100 and you value that thing above $100 you would buy it. So long as as I can produce that thing for less than the cost of the value to you, then its a win win for everyone in society. That is how you grow the economic pie. Hording is not the issue. The issue is that we are breaking market signals.

You seem to be making the argument that society would be better off if that money at the top were going around through the economy, and that is logical. If the aforementioned was how the wealth was gained, then its hording is not the reason the poor is poor. We dont live in that world, and there is much to be done, but not enough to change the majority of the poor's lives.

 

[JSt0rm]

If the deficit in 2008 was $458B, why did the national debt increase by $1T?

The answer is that the most excellent military adventures in Iraq & Afghanistan were financed off-budget through special appropriations.

I remember obama put them back in the budget because he wanted people to see the true costs of the war. Bush and cronies were happy feeding war profiteers off the main books.

 

[shira]

Just what this forum needs, another belligerent psycho.

And he refuses to give us his banned-troll history, so we can't learn anything about how the troll mind develops and how to get sick minds the help they need.

 

[JSt0rm]

crazy people googling crazy things will find threads in this crazy sub forum. Thats why this forum needs to be hidden from google like the L&R forums.

 

[brianmanahan]

crazy people googling crazy things will find threads in this crazy sub forum. Thats why this forum needs to be hidden from google like the L&R forums.

i agree

pretty much everyone who posts here regularly is a raging moron

 

[bozack]

All are bad. The point is that the increase at the end is mainly do to things that were pushed for by Republicans. Much of what you saw as an increase was things that Obama had no control over. That would include things like unemployment and other safety nets. Combine those with TARP, and you get far more then what the Obama package was.

You do know that the bank bailout was done before Obama right?

Talk about a cop out, if he was in office he owns it, period.

And as others have said, the money isn't "free" ultimately we all pay for it in one way or another, these programs need to be reformed and throwing more money at the problem won't fix it.

 

[BoberFett]

So the red states are pulling themselves up by the bootstraps instead of socializing the costs while privatizing the profits? Good for them. Blue states should applaud this.

 

[Jhhnn]

You say it as if its inherent. Just because the money is going to the top, does not mean that there is less money for the bottom. You are right about diminishing returns on more money, but that is not a factor. All that matters is if they gained that money through willful trade. If someone gets to be as rich as Bill gates because people wanted the product, then great. I will grant you that many have an advantage that was baked into the system to benefit the top, but just because someone is getting rich does not mean it is a the expense of others.

The beautiful thing about open trade is that its a win win. If I have something that is worth less to me than $100 and you value that thing above $100 you would buy it. So long as as I can produce that thing for less than the cost of the value to you, then its a win win for everyone in society. That is how you grow the economic pie. Hording is not the issue. The issue is that we are breaking market signals.

You seem to be making the argument that society would be better off if that money at the top were going around through the economy, and that is logical. If the aforementioned was how the wealth was gained, then its hording is not the reason the poor is poor. We dont live in that world, and there is much to be done, but not enough to change the majority of the poor's lives.

Sounds peachy, except you didn't mention reality rather than Libertopian justifications for greed.

Modern life carries certain necessities or it's not modern life. Food. Clothing. Shelter. Transportation. Communication. Energy. Education. Medicine. It's not really voluntary participation at all. It all costs money.

When we look a it that way, the rationale for endless accumulation at the top falls apart because it has become rentier capitalism.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/the-age-of-rentiercapitalism.html

Merely one article of many, a good one.

The work for a living model that served us well in the past started to break down when capitalism didn't require as much labor, particularly American labor.

 

[Nebor]

They are saving us, Federal tax payers from other states, our income tax money. I for one salute those red states who would sacrifice their own citizens' health and state tax money for the federal budget.

This. When will people realize that Republican voters are selfless in nature. They purposely vote against taxing the ultra rich because they don't vote out of self-interest. Same thing in this case, where they're selflessly forgoing medical care for the benefit of the rest of the country.

 

[Svnla]

While you guys from both sides are bickering, the debt clock is running at full speed ahead, staggering rate = http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[zinfamous]

Talk about a cop out, if he was in office he owns it, period.

And as others have said, the money isn't "free" ultimately we all pay for it in one way or another, these programs need to be reformed and throwing more money at the problem won't fix it.

OK, fine.

So then Obama owns the steadily growing employment.
He owns the growing economy.
He owns cheaper healthcare.
He owns getting our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan where they will no longer be slaughtered for no reason (never-mind that he simply went along with Bush's timetable--he owns it!)

You blame him for all the ills of the previous admin, because the results occur now; why not give him credit for the positives that are actually occurring, right now?

 

[realibrad]

Talk about a cop out, if he was in office he owns it, period.

And as others have said, the money isn't "free" ultimately we all pay for it in one way or another, these programs need to be reformed and throwing more money at the problem won't fix it.

You are a moron if that is your stance. Much of the deficit spending that went on was triggered before Obama, and Obama had no legal standing to stop it. TARP which almost a half trillion had nothing to do with Obama. Much of the unemployment at the start Obama could not touch either. Its like a person taking over restaurant and the next day getting hit with food violations. Sure, that person is going to have to be the one to fix it, but only an idiot would say that person was the cause of it.

Let me be clear, I did not like the stimulus package. I don't like the amount of QE that the FED does. I am not a Keynesian. Facts are facts though and only a person with their head up their ass would make the argument you seem to be starting.

 

[realibrad]

Sounds peachy, except you didn't mention reality rather than Libertopian justifications for greed.

Modern life carries certain necessities or it's not modern life. Food. Clothing. Shelter. Transportation. Communication. Energy. Education. Medicine. It's not really voluntary participation at all. It all costs money.

When we look a it that way, the rationale for endless accumulation at the top falls apart because it has become rentier capitalism.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/the-age-of-rentiercapitalism.html

Merely one article of many, a good one.

The work for a living model that served us well in the past started to break down when capitalism didn't require as much labor, particularly American labor.

Your bias is clouding your view of what I am saying. When did I say greed was good? This whole time I have been saying how I prefer the left because their intent is for good, but their policies don't give the outcomes they want. Greed is not good. Capitalism takes a bad trait, and channels it for good. Socialism and Communism does not do that. I prefer Capitalism not because I like rich and poor, but for the very fact it helps the bottom more than anything else out there. So, until we reach a time when resources are not constrained, Capitalism FTW son.

Modern life carries certain necessities or it's not modern life. Food. Clothing. Shelter. Transportation. Communication. Energy. Education. Medicine. It's not really voluntary participation at all. It all costs money.

Yep. The government gets more than enough to cover all of those and then a little more. What I don't like is how the government regulates those markets which give benefits to the top. Take food for example. Did you know that we give corn subsidies to US farmers? I bet you do. Did you know that we also give corn subsidies to other countries because they complained that the corn subsidies we give to our farmers makes it an unfair market? I bet not. How can the US justify corn subsidies to our farmers, and other farmers? Our farmers make more money, their farmers make more money, and the people pay for it.

 

[wetech]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/red-states-spent-2-billion-2015-screw-poor



Here is the actual Kaiser survey: http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief...81751614|bfcadb1d-4da3-4f71-af82-ce1dfa73d7db - since Mother Jones causes some of you to lose control over your bowels.

Anyway, I thought Conservatives WANT to save money - yet, here they are shoveling $$$ out the window, for spiteful reasons.

The study mentions that the discrepancy in cost can mainly be attributed to the enhanced federal share for the newly eligible participants as well as the natural annual fluctuation in federal funding due to the formula used. It also says the spread will narrow after 2015.

The problem is that the enhanced rate (currently 100%) phases down to 90% by 2020. Given the increased enrollment of 10-15%, states are getting a temporary bump in funding in exchange for a 1-1.5% increase in cost in perpetuity. Doesn't sound like as great a deal as the OP and author made it out to be.

 

[MagickMan]

All are bad. The point is that the increase at the end is mainly do to things that were pushed for by Republicans. Much of what you saw as an increase was things that Obama had no control over. That would include things like unemployment and other safety nets. Combine those with TARP, and you get far more then what the Obama package was.

You do know that the bank bailout was done before Obama right?

Which he signed, and renewed, and then blamed on someone else. There wasn't a gun to his head, other presidents have refused to do such things (Nixon and Clinton). By the time Chairman Obama leaves office he will have signed off on increases to the national debt from $11T to >$22T and quibbling over semantics will mean fuck-all.