232653 Bullies, 4003 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 611 to 620 of 743
Page 62 of 75 FirstFirst ... 12525859606162 6364656672 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. OwlMatt is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    890

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 10:30am


     Style: aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Yet daily the 'walls keep tumbling down all around the act know as ObamaCare'
    What are these "walls" and how are they "tumbling down"?
  2. hungryjoe is offline
    hungryjoe's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,410

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 10:47am

    supporting member
     Style: judo hiatus

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by bobyclumsyninja View Post
    So what is the reality of all this spending?
    Attachment 15497
    Hmmmm. Shockingly, the numbers don't agree with the frothing right's current assertions.

    Who would have thought cutting taxes and increasing spending would affect the books eh? That came out of nowhere, didn't it?

    Shoot, we doubled the military budget, and now it's twice the size! Whodathunk that **** would happen?

    Government isn't supposed to make a profit, but it is money-in/money-out. Modern American Conservatism has failed ordinary basic math.
    Hmmmm, shockingly, you don't cite your sources and are, in my view, cherry picking statistics to support your view.

    Frothing right? There you go again. Don't let your blind ideology get in the way of considering there are valid arguments on both sides.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/an-o...e-hardly-chart


    About The Author
    Wd9jognlykqeipf1brzr
    Sahil Kapur

    Sahil Kapur is TPM's senior congressional reporter and Supreme Court correspondent. His articles have been published in the Huffington Post, The Guardian and The New Republic. Email him at sahil@talkingpointsmemo.com and follow him on Twitter at @sahilkapur.

    Kapur took his numbers from Nutting's report-

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...2?pagenumber=1

    The other side argues

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/...ting-spending/

    Spending has skyrocketed under President Obama, but of late some are claiming that the opposite is true. Case in point: MarketWatch columnist Rex Nutting wrote, �Obama spending binge never happened,� and Politifact rated this statement �mostly true.�

    But Mitt Romney this week said that �Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelrated at a pace without precedent in recent history.� So who has it right? Mitt Romney.

    What Politifact must have missed is a very important data point: President Obama signed most of the spending attributed to President George W. Bush�s last year in office, which was assigned wrongly to Bush in Nutting�s piece. (Heritage�s Emily Goff and Alison Fraser set the record straight on The Foundry.)

    Nutting argues that President G.W. Bush�s second term spending bills from Fiscal Year 2006-2009 averaged 8.1% and President Obama�s annualized growth averaged 1.4%. The reason why Nutting included FY 2009 is because it was �the last of George W. Bush�s presidency � federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.� This assumption is incorrect and dishonest. This flaw in Nutting�s analysis is the reason why the Obama numbers are wrong and Nutting�s whole piece is based on flawed data.

    Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending. Under normal circumstances Nutting would be correct. If Congress were a functioning body that passed appropriations bills on time, then this analysis would be correct. The fact of the matter is that in recent history Congress has not done appropriations bills on time and in FY 2009, President Obama signed these spending bills into law that President Bush would have under different circumstances.

    Usually, the president in office prior to a new president would have helped craft and sign into law government spending bills applied to the first 9 months of spending the next year and a president�s new term. A fiscal year starts on October 1 of the year prior to the calendar year to September 30th of the calendar year. In other words the fiscal year starts three months early.

    In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama�s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

    Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-8), that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled �2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.� From CQ, �the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion � $410 billion of it for discretionary programs � and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.� If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting�s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending.

    President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.

    The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that �in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.� And they did.

    If you trust CQ�s reporting, and I do, then this is damning. Democrats in Congress purposely held off on pushing bloated appropriations bills because they knew President Bush would not sign the bill and Republicans in the Senate would block consideration of it. You have to remember that the Senate went from 51-49 Democrat control under President Bush�s last year to 59-41 in the early days of President Obama. On April 28, 2009, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties from Republican to Democrat to give the Democrats a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The House had a similar conversion from a 233-202 Democrat majority to 257-178 Democrat majority. Democrats were banking on a big enough majorities in the Senate and House that they could pass the bloated spending bill and they got it.

    Bush issued a veto threat on the bloated spending bills pending in Congress in late 2008. CQ estimated that the final spending bill �provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills� which is �about $19 billion more than Bush sought.� I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending. The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that �Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.�

    Now one can argue that even $31 billion is a drop in the bucket when one considers that spending went from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Much of the spike in increased spending is on the mandatory spending side, and much of it can be attributed to President Obama. Look at OMB Tables on FY 2008 spending versus FY 2009 spending and you can see why the numbers spiked between those two years.

    Overall spending, mandatory and discretionary spending went from $2.98 trillion in FY 2008 to $3.52 trillion in FY 2009. There were two of the big spikes in spending from FY�08 to �09. One was in Federal Payments for Individuals not including Social Security and Medicare from $758 billion in FY�08 to 918 billion in FY�09. President Obama�s Stimulus spending bill included an increase in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits that should not be attributable to President Bush. Also, the category of �Other Federal� spending spiked from $261 billion to $540 billion. This includes TARP spending that was recovered on the back end by President Obama further distorting the Nutting analysis.

    So how can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto? Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting�s analysis. Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.

    This is unethical and fuzzy math. The Truth-O-Meter may want to consider these facts when further analyzing the complications and distortions in analysis used by Nutting to argue that Obama is more fiscally responsible than his predecessors.
  3. bobyclumsyninja is offline
    bobyclumsyninja's Avatar

    :)

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bahstun
    Posts
    7,061

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 1:01pm

    supporting member
     Style: Ex-Tiger KF, ex-SanDa

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I can't be the only one who's kinda old.

    I remember well that the projected surplus, was taken as already-in-hand by Bush II's administration.

    A giant revenue cut for the gov. coffers, based on a projection, combined with 2 wars, and a massive increase in military spending was less than prudent.

    No one's talking about chopping the defense budget by half. Won't dare address it.

    The Empire can't sustain it's own bloated army. Not a good sign, historically.
  4. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    5,581

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 1:23pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    entitlements on the left
    Anyone that complains about entitlements is an idiot who doesn't understand what the word means when used in an acounting sense.
  5. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    5,581

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 1:33pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Well since you know everything and your ability to discuss anything of import lands back to personal attacks,
    lol nope try again, I didn't attack you personally I said that I don't believe your credibility. Since you introduced it as evidence I am refuting that evidence do try and keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Your Sucksess is most likely at the end of a paycheck every two weeks, with some municipality stamped on it somewhere, but who fucking cares.
    lol and their you go again showing your lack of understanding of civics. Lets say I did contract with a city. That would have 0 to do with a federal plan or the federal government.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Fact is, whether or not you believe or disbelieve of what I do, you cannot find anything positive about the ACA, that creates a dire need to keep it.
    Many positives have already been talked about in this thread. Many of which are very popular such as the preexisting conditions aspects the life time spending aspects, the keeping children on till 26 aspects. Expanding the number of people who will have access to insurance. As well as the federal government providing states with money to expand their own medicare programs to cover the gaps.
    Also has been mentioned in my own state CA insurance premiums for nearly everyone is already down.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    juice of socialism from the cup of lies the admin has set before you.
    Once again requiring people to buy private insurance is about as far from socialism as one can get.
  6. -TANK- is online now

    Lightweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Posts
    148

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 1:40pm

    supporting member
     Style: Judo, Wrestling, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    What are these "walls" and how are they "tumbling down"?
    The ball licking Unions for one thing, do you not recall Hoffa "cement shoes" Jr., crying about no bro-deals? Come on man...stop with the slurp...slurp...
  7. -TANK- is online now

    Lightweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Posts
    148

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 2:02pm

    supporting member
     Style: Judo, Wrestling, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    lol nope try again, I didn't attack you personally I said that I don't believe your credibility. Since you introduced it as evidence I am refuting that evidence do try and keep up.
    Oh, my bad, could swear you called me a liar...

    lol and their you go again showing your lack of understanding of civics. Lets say I did contract with a city. That would have 0 to do with a federal plan or the federal government.
    So you are not a custodian for the city of Deeetroit? Oh, ok

    Many positives have already been talked about in this thread. Many of which are very popular such as the preexisting conditions aspects the life time spending aspects, the keeping children on till 26 aspects. Expanding the number of people who will have access to insurance. As well as the federal government providing states with money to expand their own medicare programs to cover the gaps.
    Also has been mentioned in my own state CA insurance premiums for nearly everyone is already down.
    Unlike your **** ran city/county/state, here we had already dealt with this crap. There are also things like Creditable Coverage Certificates, that prove you DO NOT have Pre-existing conditions, and being allowed to keep kids on parents policies is fine, except that wasn't a problem unless the kid was in school, AND every reputable insurance company had provisions for children up until age 22 IF ENROLLED in school. Otherwise those kids need to go to work and buy their own or risk it. Such socialist BS!!!

    Who pays for the FEDS giving money to the STATES, talk about CIVIC's...Damn dude you really believe what you write?- Thats funny.

    You mention California? SO is that LA? My kid lives there...he loves it...Free everything hahahaha...Ok I will wait to argue, as it has its OWN system and if rates are down for someone its seems to be DUE To Subsidy, not real street rates. I read almost 100k applications so far, but it isnt emperical, so for NOW, I will defer to YOU until the report comes out. They dont know if those are individuals/families or what. Big difference if a family of four, signed up each time thats only 23,500 so far. I will also admit, CA is doing better with access issues, BUT I AM NOT TALKING CA. If you are. you win on that front FOR NOW.

    Once again requiring people to buy private insurance is about as far from socialism as one can get.
    Unlike your **** ran city/county/state, here we had already dealt with this crap. There are also things like Creditable Coverage Certificates, that prove you DO NOT have Pre-existing conditions, and being allowed to keep kids on parents policies is fine, except that wasn't a problem unless the kid was in school, AND every reputable insurance company had provisions for children up until age 22 IF ENROLLED in school. Otherwise those kids need to go to work and buy their own or risk it. This is such socialist BS!!!

    And who pays for the FEDS giving money to the STATES, talk about CIVIC's...Damn dude you really believe what you write?- Thats funny.

    Once again requiring people to buy private insurance is about as far from socialism as one can get.
    What about limiting a company to how much profit they can make. You cannot be a capitalist, you have to be socialist liberal border line Marxist ball sucking Obamanite, with a medical marijuana card user for headaches or sore fingers, who at first sign of trouble will be headed to the mountains of Colorado...am I far off? Just having some fun now, at your expense young Jedi! LOL.
    Last edited by -TANK-; 10/20/2013 2:15pm at .
  8. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    5,581

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 3:27pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Oh, my bad, could swear you called me a liar...
    I did because your lying about working in health care. So when you presented your professional opinion as evidence its completely void. Since you know you don't work in healthcare.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    So you are not a custodian for the city of Deeetroit? Oh, ok
    Nope. Virtually all of my business is with Large companies. For example my next project coming up is a whole bunch of data migration for Verizon. Aside from my on going projects for Wincor-Nixdorf, General Atomics, General Dynamics.


    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Unlike your **** ran city/county/state
    LOL you mean my State that has one of the largest economies in the world, Contributes more to Federal Tax dollars than it takes in and has a higher standard of living than the **** hole you live in?

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Such socialist BS!!!
    Apparently you are using a word whose meaning you obviously don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Who pays for the FEDS giving money to the STATES, talk about CIVIC's...Damn dude you really believe what you write?- Thats funny.
    Already had this discussion earlier, the answer to that is Mostly Blue states, they tend to have better economies that allow their populace to pay more into federal income taxes than the state takes back. Unlike your **** hole which is the worse offender of all the 50 states.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    You mention California? SO is that LA?
    Nope I live in Ramona which is a part of San Diego county.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    My kid lives there...he loves it...Free everything
    See there you go lying again.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    Ok I will wait to argue, as it has its OWN system and if rates are down for someone its seems to be DUE To Subsidy, not real street rates.
    Your an idiot. Its the same system every state is rolling out its an insurance exchange. The private insurance rates are down out out here. The rates are pre subsidy as the subsidy is not paid to the insurance companies but to the individuals that qualify for them. Once again you keep trying to argue about something you know nothing about? How can you be so indignant over something you know nothing about?

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    CA is doing better with access issues, BUT I AM NOT TALKING CA. If you are. you win on that front FOR NOW.
    CA has the same ACA as the rest of the country. Yes we decided to operate are own exchange do to the size of our state. Other states were free to do this as well. Its still the same program though. You don't seem to get it. Its all private health insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    What about limiting a company to how much profit they can make.
    Corporate regulation is not socialism. There are times where its needed. Take for example your power company. Its rates are regulated. Your automobile insurance rates are regulated. Guess what the health care rates are going to be regulated. Regulation is needed when you no longer have a 100% free market solution and sometimes even when you do.
    When a service is mandated it makes good sense to prevent price gouging.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    You cannot be a capitalist,
    I am willing to bet you over the course of my lifetime I have made more money in dividends and capital investments than you have.

    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    with a medical marijuana card
    Lol I don't even drink dude.

    Face it I am not nearly as liberal as you think I am. I am very liberal socially as in I don't give a **** what consenting adults want to do among themselves or to themselves until it crosses over into public space and causes problems for the public (IE driving while under the influence), When it comes to monetary policy I am extremely data driven. I am pro capitalist but I know you have to keep an eye on companies. The government is responsible to keep companies from negatively impacting the public, be it by polluting, collusion, or anything else we as a public have deemed unacceptable. I am all for companies being able to make a profit in a responsible manner. Profits, new wealth creation, and innovation are things corporations are good at.

    I am far from some bleeding heart hippie.
  9. hungryjoe is offline
    hungryjoe's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,410

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 4:16pm

    supporting member
     Style: judo hiatus

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by bobyclumsyninja View Post
    I can't be the only one who's kinda old.

    I remember well that the projected surplus, was taken as already-in-hand by Bush II's administration.

    A giant revenue cut for the gov. coffers, based on a projection, combined with 2 wars, and a massive increase in military spending was less than prudent.

    No one's talking about chopping the defense budget by half. Won't dare address it.

    The Empire can't sustain it's own bloated army. Not a good sign, historically.
    Holy ****. Agreement on an issue.

    Republicans spent like Democrats when they had both houses of congress and the presidency. Fuckers had a chance to make real changes in spending, immigration, and entitlements (yes goodlun, I know what this term 'entitlement' covers') among others. The war in Iraq was bullshit, making many a lot of money at great expense, the heaviest being the lives and limbs of those on both side.

    I'll dare address a cut in defense spending. We don't need bases scattered worldwide to the extent we have now. It's time we stopped attempting to be the world's police.

    LOL at you thinking you're "kinda old"
  10. OwlMatt is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    890

    Posted On:
    10/20/2013 5:44pm


     Style: aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    The ball licking Unions for one thing, do you not recall Hoffa "cement shoes" Jr., crying about no bro-deals? Come on man...stop with the slurp...slurp...
    Asking you to explain your weak metaphors is "slurp... slurp..."?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.