The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[T Bell]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is dong that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

I've said for a few years now that I think the Republican Party is where the Whig party was circa 1860. It's going to fracture and reform itself, and that's a good thing. The country needs a counterbalance, and right now the Republican Party is incapable of providing one beyond simply opposing whatever is being proposed by the Democrats. This is why I re-registered Independent several years ago.

 

[T Bell]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Adrian Peterson is on this.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Take your pick:

11 Mexico - 102,026,691

35 Canada - 31,330,255

58 Cameroon - 15,891,531

59 Netherlands - 15,878,304

60 Madagascar - 15,294,535

61 Chile - 15,155,495

 

[Schlzm]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Let's be honest with ourselves here Tim my man. Somewhere around 14,999,850 of those new taxpayers are going to be rolled right into social support programs, subsidies, and other handouts. They will add next to nothing to any attempt to limit spending or increase revenues.Schlzm

 

[T Bell]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Take your pick:

58 Cameroon - 15,891,531

59 Netherlands - 15,878,304

60 Madagascar - 15,294,535

61 Chile - 15,155,495

Netherlands. We'd legalize pot, greatly improve our soccer team, and we could stick our fingers in dykes.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Take your pick:

58 Cameroon - 15,891,531

59 Netherlands - 15,878,304

60 Madagascar - 15,294,535

61 Chile - 15,155,495

Netherlands. We'd legalize pot, greatly improve our soccer team, and we could stick our fingers in dykes.

I've been to Cameroon, they are a friendly and hearty folk.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

 

[drummer]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Which is a generation or two away. That's the idea.

 

[KCitons]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is dong that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

I've said for a few years now that I think the Republican Party is where the Whig party was circa 1860. It's going to fracture and reform itself, and that's a good thing. The country needs a counterbalance, and right now the Republican Party is incapable of providing one beyond simply opposing whatever is being proposed by the Democrats. This is why I re-registered Independent several years ago.

How do you think the split will be made?

Southern GOP will be the religious wing.

Midwest GOP will tea party.

West Coast/ California GOP Goldwater type conservatives.

 

[toshiba]

Would people oppose the idea of not providing any tax benefits to companies that have employees on food stamps or other public welfare that subsidizes their lousy pay?

 

[Schlzm]

Would people oppose the idea of not providing any tax benefits to companies that have employees on food stamps or other public welfare that subsidizes their lousy pay?

People are willing to oppose anything.Schlzm

 

[Scoresman]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is dong that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

I've said for a few years now that I think the Republican Party is where the Whig party was circa 1860. It's going to fracture and reform itself, and that's a good thing. The country needs a counterbalance, and right now the Republican Party is incapable of providing one beyond simply opposing whatever is being proposed by the Democrats. This is why I re-registered Independent several years ago.

How do you think the split will be made?

Southern GOP will be the religious wing.

Midwest GOP will tea party.

West Coast/ California GOP Goldwater type conservatives.

where will the racist and bigot splinters go?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Would people oppose the idea of not providing any tax benefits to companies that have employees on food stamps or other public welfare that subsidizes their lousy pay?

The GOP would - they would call it a tax hike. Then accuse the bill of taking away jobs and hurting those job creaters.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is dong that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

I've said for a few years now that I think the Republican Party is where the Whig party was circa 1860. It's going to fracture and reform itself, and that's a good thing. The country needs a counterbalance, and right now the Republican Party is incapable of providing one beyond simply opposing whatever is being proposed by the Democrats. This is why I re-registered Independent several years ago.

How do you think the split will be made?

Southern GOP will be the religious wing.

Midwest GOP will tea party.

West Coast/ California GOP Goldwater type conservatives.

where will the racist and bigot splinters go?

Not all just most would go to the Southern GOP (aka the American Taliban)

 

[Schlzm]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is dong that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

I've said for a few years now that I think the Republican Party is where the Whig party was circa 1860. It's going to fracture and reform itself, and that's a good thing. The country needs a counterbalance, and right now the Republican Party is incapable of providing one beyond simply opposing whatever is being proposed by the Democrats. This is why I re-registered Independent several years ago.

How do you think the split will be made?

Southern GOP will be the religious wing.

Midwest GOP will tea party.

West Coast/ California GOP Goldwater type conservatives.

where will the racist and bigot splinters go?

Southern Democrat.Schlzm

 

[Slapdash]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

Should be an automated reply to every KCitons post.

I like how you say I'm wrong. but provide no substance as to why?

You're pretty clueless, it would be a waste of time.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

 

[RCon]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Yeah, the poorest among us pay a bunch of taxes, right?

 

[ProBowler88]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Yeah, the poorest among us pay a bunch of taxes, right?

ignorance is bliss

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers and then selling them overseas for profit.

Fixed. Otherwise, I don't see how a larger citizenry can reduce the deficit unless we're playing word games -- like saying "taxes" while meaning taxes per person, and saying "spending" while meaning total spending.

 

[KCitons]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

Really? Cause I wonder what a potential creditor would think of me? Must be mind blowing to see someone without mounds of debt.

 

[Don Quixote]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers and then selling them overseas for profit.

Fixed. Otherwise, I don't see how a larger citizenry can reduce the deficit unless we're playing word games -- like saying "taxes" while meaning taxes per person, and saying "spending" while meaning total spending.

Tim's debate, but pointing out that the CBO agreed with Tim: link It estimated the Senate bill would reduce deficits by $175 billion over ten years, and $700 billion for the ten year period after that.

 

[KCitons]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

Should be an automated reply to every KCitons post.

I like how you say I'm wrong. but provide no substance as to why?

You're pretty clueless, it would be a waste of time.

Have a nice day Slapdash. When you grow up, maybe you will be able to hold a conversation.

Are all of your 12k posts pointless?

 

[TheIronSheik]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

I don't understand having debts if we just keep borrowing money. "Hey, China. Do you mind if we borrow some money so we can pay you what we owe you?"

 

[cstu]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Which is a generation or two away. That's the idea.

Not at the rate Adrian Peterson is going.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

Really? Cause I wonder what a potential creditor would think of me? Must be mind blowing to see someone without mounds of debt.

Personally debt and personal family budgets are not the equal, equivalent, correspondent, parallel, evenly matched, corresponding, uniform, identic, same or matched monetary systems to the national economic system of the United States. If that you start from the premise that they are even remotely close to being the same thing there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

I'm thankful. They all but assured the extremist running for Gov of Va won't get elected.

Don't count your chickens. Both of the candidates are fools, but beware of polarization begetting mobilization.

I'm from Maryland, which ain't no haven of political morality. We've had a former governor resign as sitting VPOTUS, had a governor serve a long term in prison, had a recent SOTH who is the child of a Baltimore mafioso that would make Stringer Bell go to church. The county I grew up in has had two country executives go to jail.

That said, the VA governor's race is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. "No! He's broken more laws than I have!".

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers and then selling them overseas for profit.

Fixed. Otherwise, I don't see how a larger citizenry can reduce the deficit unless we're playing word games -- like saying "taxes" while meaning taxes per person, and saying "spending" while meaning total spending.

Tim's debate, but pointing out that the CBO agreed with Tim: link It estimated the Senate bill would reduce deficits by $175 billion over ten years, and $700 billion for the ten year period after that.

That bill might indeed reduce the deficit. But it's using the trick I suggested: the bill might not cut total spending, but it does cut spending per person by growing the denominator faster than the numerator.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

Should be an automated reply to every KCitons post.

I like how you say I'm wrong. but provide no substance as to why?

You're pretty clueless, it would be a waste of time.

Have a nice day Slapdash. When you grow up, maybe you will be able to hold a conversation. Are all of your 12k posts pointless?

Nope. Haven't seen a post of yours where you seemed to have any clue.

 

[parasaurolophus]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

Really? Cause I wonder what a potential creditor would think of me? Must be mind blowing to see someone without mounds of debt.

Personally debt and personal family budgets are not the equal, equivalent, correspondent, parallel, evenly matched, corresponding, uniform, identic, same or matched monetary systems to the national economic system of the United States. If that you start from the premise that they are even remotely close to being the same thing there is nothing to talk about.

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

 

[Fennis]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

Are you being serious? Hard to tell with anyone in this thread. And if you are serious, are they still saying it will pay for itself? Or have they just said, "Our bad. This thing is gonna be expensive."

 

[Fennis]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

 

[Jayrod]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

No, it does precisely what its primary intention was....to obtain governmental control of the healthcare industry. Any talk of costs and benefits was merely sales tactics to get it passed.

 

[Fennis]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

No, it does precisely what its primary intention was....to obtain governmental control of the healthcare industry. Any talk of costs and benefits was merely sales tactics to get it passed.

if the goal was to take control of the healthcare industry they did a really really ####ty job of it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

Are you being serious? Hard to tell with anyone in this thread. And if you are serious, are they still saying it will pay for itself? Or have they just said, "Our bad. This thing is gonna be expensive."

If I tell people specifically when I am being serious and when I am not in this thread then it's like Costanza's world's colliding thing. It's better just to enjoy the ride I think.

But, really, this law sucks the massive suck of suck and did from the beginning and will only get worse, yet the only way to truly fix it will be to change the entire nature of the system to a single payer system which is what the left wanted anyway. It always makes me laugh when people get mad at Obama for not fighting for that part. Like he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He may be the Muslim Kenyan Anti-Christ who used to do coke and lied on his college apps, but he isn't stupid.

 

[TheIronSheik]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

 

[Fennis]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

Are you being serious? Hard to tell with anyone in this thread. And if you are serious, are they still saying it will pay for itself? Or have they just said, "Our bad. This thing is gonna be expensive."

If I tell people specifically when I am being serious and when I am not in this thread then it's like Costanza's world's colliding thing. It's better just to enjoy the ride I think.

But, really, this law sucks the massive suck of suck and did from the beginning and will only get worse, yet the only way to truly fix it will be to change the entire nature of the system to a single payer system which is what the left wanted anyway. It always makes me laugh when people get mad at Obama for not fighting for that part. Like he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He may be the Muslim Kenyan Anti-Christ who used to do coke and lied on his college apps, but he isn't stupid.

you think Obama's master plan was to set up a sucky system that will suck so bad that some time in the future the fix will be single payer?

 

[Slapdash]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

This seems like what the cost has always been. There are also revenues and savings to count against it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

Are you being serious? Hard to tell with anyone in this thread. And if you are serious, are they still saying it will pay for itself? Or have they just said, "Our bad. This thing is gonna be expensive."

If I tell people specifically when I am being serious and when I am not in this thread then it's like Costanza's world's colliding thing. It's better just to enjoy the ride I think.

But, really, this law sucks the massive suck of suck and did from the beginning and will only get worse, yet the only way to truly fix it will be to change the entire nature of the system to a single payer system which is what the left wanted anyway. It always makes me laugh when people get mad at Obama for not fighting for that part. Like he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He may be the Muslim Kenyan Anti-Christ who used to do coke and lied on his college apps, but he isn't stupid.

you think Obama's master plan was to set up a sucky system that will suck so bad that some time in the future the fix will be single payer?

No I think his plan was to create a system where the only end game will be a single payer system. It's the nature of the beast. I don't mean it as some kind of conspiracy, it's just the way government works. He couldn't get the complete system now - he never was - but he has created one more step to get there. At some point you are going to have so many people covered by or their care and costs controled by the government in the same fashion a single payer system would that eventually someone is going to go, hey why don't we do that and "cut waste, increase efficiencies and make sure everyone has access to the health care they need," or somesuch.

 

[timschochet]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

Are you being serious? Hard to tell with anyone in this thread. And if you are serious, are they still saying it will pay for itself? Or have they just said, "Our bad. This thing is gonna be expensive."

If I tell people specifically when I am being serious and when I am not in this thread then it's like Costanza's world's colliding thing. It's better just to enjoy the ride I think.But, really, this law sucks the massive suck of suck and did from the beginning and will only get worse, yet the only way to truly fix it will be to change the entire nature of the system to a single payer system which is what the left wanted anyway. It always makes me laugh when people get mad at Obama for not fighting for that part. Like he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He may be the Muslim Kenyan Anti-Christ who used to do coke and lied on his college apps, but he isn't stupid.

I think you will be proven wrong about this. In the years to come there will be a struggle to move us toward single payer, but I'll bet you Obama will speak out against it. This is his legacy achievement.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

 

[KCitons]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

Really? Cause I wonder what a potential creditor would think of me? Must be mind blowing to see someone without mounds of debt.

Personally debt and personal family budgets are not the equal, equivalent, correspondent, parallel, evenly matched, corresponding, uniform, identic, same or matched monetary systems to the national economic system of the United States. If that you start from the premise that they are even remotely close to being the same thing there is nothing to talk about.

They may not be the same. But you were speaking as if the United States must operate with debt?

 

[Spanky267]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

Dont worry. Apparently this new CR will save us $870 billion over the next 20 years so we've got most of that covered. Plus there will be "significant" medicare savings.

 

[timschochet]

The biggest problem with Obamacare is its too complicated. For government programs to last and stay popular, they have to be simple. A 3rd grader could explain the basics of Social Security and Medicare. I'm not sure a college professor could explain Obamacare very well.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

Really? Cause I wonder what a potential creditor would think of me? Must be mind blowing to see someone without mounds of debt.

Personally debt and personal family budgets are not the equal, equivalent, correspondent, parallel, evenly matched, corresponding, uniform, identic, same or matched monetary systems to the national economic system of the United States. If that you start from the premise that they are even remotely close to being the same thing there is nothing to talk about.

They may not be the same. But you were speaking as if the United States must operate with debt?