Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
User

Government shuts down as Congress fails to prevent Funding Bill

Recommended Posts

And after all of that, the Democrats still think this is good for Americans. It's downright shameful and undemocratic.

It's not the Democrats that are acting unruly. The Republicans are the ones preventing the poor from getting access to healthcare. You asked before why Obamacare would still leave out millions out of insurance. It's not the program itself, it's the people (Read: Republicans) who keep preventing any expansions, on the grounds that it's "too much":

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

 

A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times.

Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.

Those excluded will be stranded without insurance, stuck between people with slightly higher incomes who will qualify for federal subsidies on the new health exchanges that went live this week, and those who are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in its current form, which has income ceilings as low as $11 a day in some states.

People shopping for insurance on the health exchanges are already discovering this bitter twist.

“How can somebody in poverty not be eligible for subsidies?” an unemployed health care worker in Virginia asked through tears. The woman, who identified herself only as Robin L. because she does not want potential employers to know she is down on her luck, thought she had run into a computer problem when she went online Tuesday and learned she would not qualify.

At 55, she has high blood pressure, and she had been waiting for the law to take effect so she could get coverage. Before she lost her job and her house and had to move in with her brother in Virginia, she lived in Maryland, a state that is expanding Medicaid. “Would I go back there?” she asked. “It might involve me living in my car. I don’t know. I might consider it.”

The 26 states 

that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the country’s population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states. Among those excluded are about 435,000 cashiers, 341,000 cooks and 253,000 nurses’ aides.

“The irony is that these states that are rejecting Medicaid expansion — many of them Southern — are the very places where the concentration of poverty and lack of health insurance are the most acute,” said Dr. H. Jack Geiger, a founder of the community health center model. “It is their populations that have the highest burden of illness and costs to the entire health care system.”

The disproportionate impact on poor blacks introduces the prickly issue of race into the already politically charged atmosphere around the health care law. Race was rarely, if ever, mentioned in the state-level debates about the Medicaid expansion. But the issue courses just below the surface, civil rights leaders say, pointing to the pattern of exclusion.

Every state in the Deep South, with the exception of Arkansas, 

has rejected the expansion. Opponents of the expansion say they are against it on exclusively economic grounds, and that the demographics of the South — with its large share of poor blacks — make it easy to say race is an issue when it is not.

In Mississippi, Republican leaders note that a large share of people in the state are on Medicaid already, and that, with an expansion, about a third of the state would have been insured through the program. Even supporters of the health law say that eventually covering 10 percent of that cost would have been onerous for a predominantly rural state with a modest tax base.

“Any additional cost in Medicaid is going to be too much,” said State Senator Chris McDaniel, a Republican, who opposes expansion.

The law was written to require all Americans to have health coverage. For lower and middle-income earners, there are subsidies on the new health exchanges to help them afford insurance. An expanded Medicaid program was intended to cover the poorest. In all, about 30 million uninsured Americans were to have become eligible for financial help.

But the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health care law last year, while upholding it, allowed states to choose whether to expand Medicaid. Those that opted not to leave about eight million uninsured people who live in poverty ($19,530 for a family of three) without any assistance at all.

Poor people excluded from the Medicaid expansion will not be subject to fines for lacking coverage. In all, about 14 million eligible Americans are uninsured and living in poverty, the Times analysis found.

The federal government 

provided the tally of how many states were not expanding Medicaid for the first time on Tuesday. It included states like New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee that might still decide to expand Medicaid before coverage takes effect in January. If those states go forward, the number would change, but the trends that emerged in the analysis would be similar.

Mississippi has the largest percentage of poor and uninsured people in the country — 13 percent. Willie Charles Carter, an unemployed 53-year-old whose most recent job was as a maintenance worker at a public school, has had problems with his leg since surgery last year.

His income is below Mississippi’s ceiling for Medicaid — which is about $3,000 a year — but he has no dependent children, so he does not qualify. And his income is too low to make him eligible for subsidies on the federal health exchange.

“You got to be almost dead before you can get Medicaid in Mississippi,” he said.

He does not know what he will do when the clinic where he goes for medical care, the

Good Samaritan Health Center in Greenville, closes next month because of lack of funding.

“I’m scared all the time,” he said. “I just walk around here with faith in God to take care of me.”

The states that did not expand Medicaid have less generous safety nets: For adults with children, the median income limit for Medicaid is just under half of the federal poverty level — or about $5,600 a year for an individual — while in states that are expanding, it is above the poverty line, or about $12,200, 

according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.There is little or no coverage of childless adults in the states not expanding, Kaiser said.

The New York Times analysis excluded immigrants in the country illegally and those foreign-born residents who would not be eligible for benefits under Medicaid expansion. It included people who are uninsured even though they qualify for Medicaid in its current form.

Blacks are disproportionately affected, largely because more of them are poor and living in Southern states. In all, 6 out of 10 blacks live in the states not expanding Medicaid. In Mississippi, 56 percent of all poor and uninsured adults are black, though they account for just 38 percent of the population.

Dr. Aaron Shirley, a physician who has worked for better health care for blacks in Mississippi, said that the history of segregation and violence against blacks still informs the way people see one another, particularly in the South, making some whites reluctant to support programs that they believe benefit blacks.

That is compounded by the country’s rapidly changing demographics, Dr. Geiger said, in which minorities will eventually become a majority, a pattern that has produced a profound cultural unease, particularly when it has collided with economic insecurity.

Dr. Shirley said: “If you look at the history of Mississippi, politicians have used race to oppose minimum wage, Head Start, all these social programs. It’s a tactic that appeals to people who would rather suffer themselves than see a black person benefit.”

Opponents of the expansion bristled at the suggestion that race had anything to do with their position. State Senator Giles Ward of Mississippi, a Republican, called the idea that race was a factor “preposterous,” and said that with the demographics of the South — large shares of poor people and, in particular, poor blacks — “you can argue pretty much any way you want.”

The decision not to expand Medicaid will also hit the working poor. Claretha Briscoe earns just under $11,000 a year making fried chicken and other fast food at a convenience store in Hollandale, Miss., too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to get subsidies on the new health exchange. She had a heart attack in 2002 that a local hospital treated as part of its charity care program.

“I skip months on my blood pressure pills,” said Ms. Briscoe, 48, who visited the Good Samaritan Health Center last week because she was having chest pains. “I buy them when I can afford them.”

About half of poor and uninsured Hispanics live in states that are expanding Medicaid. But Texas, which has a large Hispanic population, rejected the expansion. Gladys Arbila, a housekeeper in Houston who earns $17,000 a year and supports two children, is under the poverty line and therefore not eligible for new subsidies. But she makes too much to qualify for Medicaid under the state’s rules. She recently spent 36 hours waiting in the emergency room for a searing pain in her back.

“We came to this country, and we are legal and we work really hard,” said Ms. Arbila, 45, who immigrated to the United States 12 years ago, and whose son is a soldier in Afghanistan. “Why we don’t have the same opportunities as the others?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the Democrats that are acting unruly. The Republicans are the ones preventing the poor from getting access to healthcare. You asked before why Obamacare would still leave out millions out of insurance. It's not the program itself, it's the people (Read: Republicans) who keep preventing any expansions, on the grounds that it's "too much":

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

 

Oh please.  Who do you think is going to have to incur those additional Medicare costs?  The states.  And where does that money come from? Taxpayers! If a state can't afford to pay those additional costs, why should they risk bankrupting the state for something that the state can't afford?  That's just being fiscally responsible and the Obama administration knows this.  There is no way that you can try to ensure all of these people without someone having to pay more for it, even if they can't afford it, and that's the whole problem here.  You can't expect insurance rates not to go up if you're covering people with lots of illnesses because the insurance companies are taking on people with more risk, which means more risk and costs for the insurance companies.  Therefore it isn't the Republicans.  It's the program. 

 

That's the problem with this program.  You simply can't cover all of these people and then turn around and say that it's going to be "cheaper".  It's just not mathematically possible because if it was it would've happened years ago.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you have a problem with your taxes going to these poor and disease-ridden folk? May I remind you that their taxes pay for you and the services the state provide to you. Perhaps not the ones from the South, but in general, poor people taxes count, too. You can afford, and earn more, than these people do, and yet you whine and complain when some of your money goes to them. Those comfy express buses and Metro-North trains you ride everyday? Taxpayers money, and it's their money, too! And your point on those companies providing insurance to people at risk, that's what health coverage is for.

 

Your logic doesn't even add up. If we pay more in taxes, it's more money that the state can use for the programs. It's mathematically possible. That's why we pay more taxes.

Edited by GojiMet86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you have a problem with your taxes going to these poor and disease-ridden folk? May I remind you that their taxes pay for you and the services the state provide to you. Perhaps not the ones from the South, but in general, poor people taxes count, too. You can afford, and earn more, than these people do, and yet you whine and complain when some of your money goes to them. Those comfy express buses and Metro-North trains you ride everyday? Taxpayers money, and it's their money, too! And your point on those companies providing insurance to people at risk, that's what health coverage is for.

 

Your logic doesn't even add up. If we pay more in taxes, it's more money that the state can use for the programs. It's mathematically possible. That's why we pay more taxes.

It's not about me.  Most states currently can barely pay their bills even BEFORE Obamacare.  New York and California are two of them and they already have some of the highest if not the highest taxes in the country.  Add Obamacare to the mix and you tell me where some of these states are going to get the money from?  You have employers cutting healthcare benefits as Obamacare approaches saying that they simply can't afford it, so if anything, this program is doing the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do, which is covering fewer people not more AND creating a smaller tax base as companies cut back on hiring due to Obamacare.  You can look at the unemployment rate as the proof and how many people still are either out of work, stopped looking for work or are just working part-time instead of full-time.

 

I don't know what tax bracket you're in if you even work, but I highly doubt you get much taken out to even comprehend the true definition of paying taxes.  Those of higher income brackets should not be raped in the wallet when they already are paying through the nose, esp. single professionals like myself, as the tax bracket in NY is definitely slanted and favors families and married couples.  Cuomo knows this and that's why he's already pledging no more taxes because it's driving businesses and middle class New Yorkers out of this state and if there's no one to pay taxes here then these entitlement programs that you love won't be able to stick around with no one to pay for them and taxing the rich as de Blasio proposes isn't the answer either. Thankfully Cuomo (a Democrat with common sense) has vowed to veto them should any of these asinine proposals involve NY State.

 

Tax the rich, sure, but that won't help to create jobs... Just creates more hand out programs for the poor, which does nothing to get them out of poverty and certainly nothing to help the tax base.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't work, I'm studying. When I do get a job or a career, I won't be whining about paying taxes, regardless of how much I have to pay, because taxes are a necessity. Does me not working make my point any less valid?

If the Affordable Care Act won't get people out of poverty, which plan will? Having a flat tax, where you won't get wallet raped, but poor people will? I don't think that removing a huge percentage of poor people's budget will give them incentives and a base to get out of poverty. You voted for a man whose job experience was working at a company that put many other companies into debt (and got thousands of people laid off). Do you really think that the upper-middle class and the wealthy want to share their money with their employees? You think they actually want lower-class competition for the same resources? And just based on this assumption, what makes you think that private (for profit) health insurance companies will want to risk money on risky people? They won't, they don't do it now, and they will never do it unless they gain something out of it. That's why the state (and taxpayers) has to do it.

 

And stop it with the poor-people-will-get-handouts cliche. You make it out as if everyone that's lower than you lives off welfare and works low prestige odd jobs. Very few people actually do. Many lower class people believe in hard work, too.

 
Oh, and I almost forgot:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
 

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey 

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2003_2013_all

 

 

There are people out of work, but not as much as before. The overall rate is going down, not up, as you're hoping for. Really, are you hoping that the President's plan actually fails just to prove how right you are? Shame on you.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't work, I'm studying. When I do get a job or a career, I won't be whining about paying taxes, regardless of how much I have to pay, because taxes are a necessity. Does me not working make my point any less valid?

 

If the Affordable Care Act won't get people out of poverty, which plan will? Having a flat tax, where you won't get wallet raped, but poor people will? I don't think that removing a huge percentage of poor people's budget will give them incentives and a base to get out of poverty. You voted for a man whose job experience was working at a company that put many other companies into debt (and got thousands of people laid off). Do you really think that the upper-middle class and the wealthy want to share their money with their employees? You think they actually want lower-class competition for the same resources? And just based on this assumption, what makes you think that private (for profit) health insurance companies will want to risk money on risky people? They won't, they don't do it now, and they will never do it unless they gain something out of it. That's why the state (and taxpayers) has to do it.

 

And stop it with the poor-people-will-get-handouts cliche. You make it out as if everyone that's lower than you lives off welfare and works low prestige odd jobs. Very few people actually do. Many lower class people believe in hard work, too.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

 

 

There are people out of work, but not as much as before. The overall rate is going down, not up, as you're hoping for. Really, are you hoping that the President's plan actually fails just to prove how right you are? Shame on you.

Oh why am I not surprised?  It's very easy for you to sit back and say that you'll gladly pay more in taxes when you currently don't pay any but for someone like myself who is a single professional, New York City and New York State has no mercy because the thinking is I don't have a family to provide for so therefore I can afford to give more of my hard earned money away which I disagree with, while families and married couples get tax breaks even those in high income brackets.

 

Even if you were working, college students usually don't make that much any way so they usually get to keep what they earn come tax season.  Here in New York, once you hit a certain tax bracket, you're almost better off not working because those who do work and earn well are punished, which is egregious, as if we don't need our money.

 

It isn't the poor that's paying the taxes.  It's the true middle class that are and those are the people that really need the assistance that won't get it.  Then the upper middle class folks will get socked paying more taxes when we already pay enough, so in the end all this does is rob Peter to pay Paul.  The poor will remain poor and there will always be a class divide because we live in a capitalist society.  It's about survival of the fittest and those who are the most productive, creative and educated in this country will earn more.  It's as simple as that.  Those who are shiftless and unproductive should not enjoy the same amount of wealth as others without putting in the hard work.  It just doesn't work that way here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the poor that's paying the taxes.  It's the true middle class that are and those are the people that really need the assistance that won't get it.  Then the upper middle class folks will get socked paying more taxes when we already pay enough, so in the end all this does is rob Peter to pay Paul.  The poor will remain poor and there will always be a class divide because we live in a capitalist society.  It's about survival of the fittest and those who are the most productive, creative and educated in this country will earn more.  It's as simple as that.  Those who are shiftless and unproductive should not enjoy the same amount of wealth as others without putting in the hard work.  It just doesn't work that way here.

 

The sole problem here is an out of control rising rate of inflation and decrepit mismanagement of spending on the federal level. The rising costs of living is widening the gap between the rich and the poor as a result which GojiMet86 is trying to explain to you to no avail even WITH credible sources. When you apply the poverty cycle model into the equation you can see that the problem here is that the capitalist model is failing. Reforms must be made.

 

Apparently you should also consider Grand Concourse and CenSin's points: Much of the reason we are in the financial state we are in as a country is because of defense spending. If the US government were to focus on domestic issues instead of wasting much needed money into other countries oversees or unnecessary spending on arms we would not be having this problem. The trillions of dollars spent on wars oversees, that can come back to us citizens for the monetary problems we are discussing now.

 

I discussed this with you in three different threads for pages now. Give it a break already and show some open-mindedness please.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sole problem here is an out of control rising rate of inflation and decrepit mismanagement of spending on the federal level. The rising costs of living is widening the gap between the rich and the poor as a result which GojiMet86 is trying to explain to you to no avail even WITH credible sources. When you apply the poverty cycle model into the equation you can see that the problem here is that the capitalist model is failing. Reforms must be made.

 

Apparently you should also consider Grand Concourse and CenSin's points: Much of the reason we are in the financial state we are in as a country is because of defense spending. If the US government were to focus on domestic issues instead of wasting much needed money into other countries oversees or unnecessary spending on arms we would not be having this problem. The trillions of dollars spent on wars oversees, that can come back to us citizens for the monetary problems we are discussing now.

 

I discussed this with you in three different threads for pages now. Give it a break already and show some open-mindedness please.

Listen, I follow the markets daily, and I'm certainly not a stranger to inflation and the problems it's causing, nor the wars being fought overseas.  The capitalist model has been working for years in this country and our middle class was strongest when we had manufacturing here.  The real problem is a lack of jobs, inflation and too many jobs being outsourced.  I would argue that the monies spent on war has helped us remain safe since 9/11 and is a necessity in the safety of this country, as well as our interests overseas.  It comes with the territory of being the global leader, whether we like it or not. If I had it my way, we'd have less involvement in issues overseas and would be investing more in infrastructure to create American jobs using American labor and American materials as opposed to cheap imports, but with regards to the widening gap between the rich and poor, a lot of that is due to the lack of a manufacturing base here.  You can't expect to replace those jobs with low paying service jobs (i.e. fast food joint jobs, and the like). 

 

Also, those "facts" that you point to don't truly explain why the unemployment rate appears to be decreasing, some of which is due to people that have stopped looking and are no longer in the picture and those who were working full time but are now part time.  This is the time of year when hiring picks up as the holidays approach so I wouldn't get too optimistic about those figures.  The trend this year overall has showed slow growth.  Painful growth in fact and that's one reason the markets have been trending down of late, as investors worry that the economy isn't picking up quick enough.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, I follow the markets daily, and I'm certainly not a stranger to inflation and the problems it's causing, nor the wars being fought overseas.  The capitalist model has been working for years in this country and our middle class was strongest when we had manufacturing here.  The real problem is a lack of jobs, inflation and too many jobs being outsourced.  I would argue that the monies spent on war has helped us remain safe since 9/11 and is a necessity in the safety of this country, as well as our interests overseas.  It comes with the territory of being the global leader, whether we like it or not. If I had it my way, we'd have less involvement in issues overseas and would be investing more in infrastructure to create American jobs using American labor and American materials as opposed to cheap imports, but with regards to the widening gap between the rich and poor, a lot of that is due to the lack of a manufacturing base here.  You can't expect to replace those jobs with low paying service jobs (i.e. fast food joint jobs, and the like). 

 

Also, those "facts" that you point to don't truly explain why the unemployment rate appears to be decreasing, some of which is due to people that have stopped looking and are no longer in the picture and those who were working full time but are now part time.  This is the time of year when hiring picks up as the holidays approach so I wouldn't get too optimistic about those figures.  The trend this year overall has showed slow growth.  Painful growth in fact and that's one reason the markets have been trending down of late as investors worry that the economy isn't picking up quick enough.

 

That wasn't my point. My point is explaining to you why the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase. Which you brought up yourself in response to GojiMet's posts.

 

Of course the problems with a shrinking manufacturing sector in the US market is due to more jobs being outsourced therefore leaving us with a service oriented industry which is economically unproductive. So who's to blame? The homeless person pushing the shopping cart? The average poor working mother of three children working in the sweatshop? 

 

And why is it you still fail to realize that much of the problem has to do with mismanagement of defense spending? You yourself said you are no stranger to it, the trillions of dollars wasted on futile foreign policy agendas that has no effect on improving the quality of life for us citizens.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point. My point is explaining to you why the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase. Which you brought up yourself in response to GojiMet's posts.

 

Of course the problems with a shrinking manufacturing sector in the US market is due to more jobs being outsourced therefore leaving us with a service oriented industry which is economically unproductive. So who's to blame? The homeless person pushing the shopping cart? The average poor working mother of three children working in the sweatshop? 

 

And why is it you still fail to realize that much of the problem has to do with mismanagement of defense spending? You yourself said you are no stranger to it, the trillions of dollars wasted on futile foreign policy agendas that has no effect on improving the quality of life for us citizens.

Well don't look at me.  I recall Obama claiming that he was going to reduce defense spending when he came into office and he's now in his second term, so let's not put that one on the Republicans or shall we blame them for that as well? Maybe, just maybe some of the monies that are being spent are needed to defend our Western way of life against the extremists out there that continue to plot and try to destroy the American way of life.  Just a thought.  Could the monies be better managed? Of course.  You could argue that across the board, not just for defense spending though.  The other thing that amuses me is Obama has been talking about rebuilding our infrastructure for years now and in fact I recall stimulus money was supposed to be set aside for that and I haven't seen that many infrastructure projects since he's come into office.  More hot air out of his mouth than anything else. Spending needs to be cut across the board and entitlement programs if anything have increased under Obama, not the other way around.  Handout programs don't create jobs or a tax base.  They just cause more debt that we can't afford to pay for in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well don't look at me.  I recall Obama claiming that he was going to reduce defense spending when he came into office and he's now in his second term, so let's not put that one on the Republicans or shall we blame them for that as well? Maybe, just maybe some of the monies that are being spent are needed to defend our Western way of life against the extremists out there that continue to plot and try to destroy the American way of life.  Just a thought.  Could the monies be better managed? Of course.  You could argue that across the board, not just for defense spending though.  The other thing that amuses me is Obama has been talking about rebuilding our infrastructure for years now and in fact I recall stimulus money was supposed to be set aside for that and I haven't seen that many infrastructure projects since he's come into office.  More hot air out of his mouth than anything else. Spending needs to be cut across the board and entitlement programs if anything have increased under Obama, not the other way around.  Handout programs don't create jobs or a tax base.  They just cause more debt that we can't afford to pay for in the first place.

 

Most transportation projects have been blocked by Republicans, not Obama. It's almost always Republicans that try to stop public transportation projects. Blame your party for impeding progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most transportation projects have been blocked by Republicans, not Obama. It's almost always Republicans that try to stop public transportation projects. Blame your party for impeding progress.

Sorry, I don't have a party.  I'm a proud Independent  :D, who is tired of high taxes and government waste and entitlement programs (aka handouts).   

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well don't look at me.  I recall Obama claiming that he was going to reduce defense spending when he came into office and he's now in his second term, so let's not put that one on the Republicans or shall we blame them for that as well? Maybe, just maybe some of the monies that are being spent are needed to defend our Western way of life against the extremists out there that continue to plot and try to destroy the American way of life.  Just a thought.  Could the monies be better managed? Of course.  You could argue that across the board, not just for defense spending though.  The other thing that amuses me is Obama has been talking about rebuilding our infrastructure for years now and in fact I recall stimulus money was supposed to be set aside for that and I haven't seen that many infrastructure projects since he's come into office.  More hot air out of his mouth than anything else. Spending needs to be cut across the board and entitlement programs if anything have increased under Obama, not the other way around.  Handout programs don't create jobs or a tax base.  They just cause more debt that we can't afford to pay for in the first place.

 

Umm not to put your favorite war monger president on a pedestal but reforms has actually been implemented since George W Bush left office. The Budget Control Act of 2010 was established if you recall, which called for mandated cuts in defense spending equaling $485 billion dollars over the next 10 years by reducing the size of the Army and the Marines.

 

As of now the most wasteful of all military expenditures is with the US Air Force. $15 billion to $20 billion dollars can actually be retained in savings annually by reducing F35 fighter fleet for example to 1,000, which is far more than is seriously needed for any conceivable threat according to defense analysts. This large fleet of fighter jets and bombers is completely unnecessary to handle some terrorist militias in Afghanistan who does not even have a functional air force to begin with. BTW you are paying for these unnecessary expenses by means of federal taxes deducted from your paycheck. And you worry about these so called hand me down programs.......

 

 

Sorry, I don't have a party.  I'm a proud Independent  :D, who is tired of high taxes and government waste and entitlement programs (aka handouts).

 

See above comment and think again

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Umm not to put your favorite war monger president on a pedestal but reforms has actually been implemented since George W Bush left office. The Budget Control Act of 2010 was established if you recall, which called for mandated cuts in defense spending equaling $485 billion dollars over the next 10 years by reducing the size of the Army and the Marines.

 

As of now the most wasteful of all military expenditures is with the US Air Force. $15 billion to $20 billion dollars can actually be retained in savings annually by reducing F35 fighter fleet for example to 1,000, which is far more than is seriously needed for any conceivable threat. This large fleet of fighter jets and bombers is completely unnecessary to handle some terrorist militias in Afghanistan who does not even have a functional air force to begin with. BTW you are paying for these unnecessary expenses by means of federal taxes deducted from your paycheck. And you worry about these so called hand me down programs.......

I suppose that was also Bush who was just recently out there pitching the idea of us going to war in Syria.  LOL!  It's cute how Bush keeps being blamed for everything. He f*cked up enough particularly in the second term and he's moved on.  Obama has been in office for years now.  Let's stop talking about Bush and talk about who is currently in the White House causing the mess and helping to create/maintain these ridiculous, out of control and costly hand out programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that was also Bush who was just recently out there pitching the idea of us going to war in Syria.  LOL!  It's cute how Bush keeps being blamed for everything. He f*cked up enough particularly in the second term and he's moved on.  Obama has been in office for years now.  Let's stop talking about Bush and talk about who is currently in the White House causing the mess and helping to create/maintain these ridiculous, out of control and costly hand out programs.

Don't take the debate to heart, we are only having a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take the debate to heart, we are only having a discussion.

Oh I'm not at all. I'm just pointing out an observation that many have made.  I also find it interesting that there is so much patience and understanding for Obama.  Some people are truly blind in believing that the Democrats are truly for the people when they too have their agenda just as much as the Republicans.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I'm not at all. I'm just pointing out an observation that many have made.  I also find it interesting that there is so much patience and understanding for Obama.  Some people are truly blind in believing that the Democrats are truly for the people when they too have their agenda just as much as the Republicans.

I'm not blind to it, don't get me wrong, I tend to like to see things for what they are. I don't affiliate myself with either political party fyi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And after all of that, the Democrats still think this is good for Americans. It's downright shameful and undemocratic.  

The GOP is outright shameful and undemocratic,Get your facts right...

I suppose that was also Bush who was just recently out there pitching the idea of us going to war in Syria.  LOL!  It's cute how Bush keeps being blamed for everything. He f*cked up enough particularly in the second term and he's moved on.  Obama has been in office for years now.  Let's stop talking about Bush and talk about who is currently in the White House causing the mess and helping to create/maintain these ridiculous, out of control and costly hand out programs.

Lets talk about the GOP controlled house that will do anything and everything to prevent Obama from fixing Bush's mess...

Well don't look at me.  I recall Obama claiming that he was going to reduce defense spending when he came into office and he's now in his second term, so let's not put that one on the Republicans or shall we blame them for that as well? Maybe, just maybe some of the monies that are being spent are needed to defend our Western way of life against the extremists out there that continue to plot and try to destroy the American way of life.  Just a thought.  Could the monies be better managed? Of course.  You could argue that across the board, not just for defense spending though.  The other thing that amuses me is Obama has been talking about rebuilding our infrastructure for years now and in fact I recall stimulus money was supposed to be set aside for that and I haven't seen that many infrastructure projects since he's come into office.  More hot air out of his mouth than anything else. Spending needs to be cut across the board and entitlement programs if anything have increased under Obama, not the other way around.  Handout programs don't create jobs or a tax base.  They just cause more debt that we can't afford to pay for in the first place.

Its all about the GOP blocking him...

Next...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOP is outright shameful and undemocratic,Get your facts right...

 

Lets talk about the GOP controlled house that will do anything and everything to prevent Obama from fixing Bush's mess...

 

Its all about the GOP blocking him...

Next...

I know because Obama (the God) can do no wrong.   <_< We all know that Democrats aren't crooks.  *Sarcasm*

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know because Obama (the God) can do no wrong.   <_< We all know that Democrats aren't crooks.  *Sarcasm*

Still the record is:

Obama wants XYZ

Senate passes XYZ

House kills XYZ

Gee,I wonder who's to blame... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still the record is:

Obama wants XYZ

Senate passes XYZ

House kills XYZ

Gee,I wonder who's to blame... :huh:

That's why we have checks and balances otherwise the House and Senate would just be Obama's puppets.  Their job is to represent what their constituents want, not what Obama wants because their constituents voted for them to represent their interests, not Obama's interests.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How simple do you need the concept broken down for you Via Garibaldi 8 for you to get with the program?


 Let me know. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why we have checks and balances otherwise the House and Senate would just be Obama's puppets.  Their job is to represent what their constituents want, not what Obama wants because their constituents voted for them to represent their interests, not Obama's interests.

Obama and the Democratic Party are the ones who have common sense not the GOP whose job seems to be stop Common sense for 4 years...I mean how many Dems read from Dr Seuss FOR 21 HOURS?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care who's fault it is.  These a**holes need to get back in their seats and work or let people who actually want to help the country take over.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How simple do you need the concept broken down for you Via Garibaldi 8 for you to get with the program?

 

 Let me know. 

You don't need to break anything down for me because I'm not down with the Democrats or better yet with the nonsense Obama is trying to pull off.  This guy is treated as if he walks on water because he's a Democrat as if Democrats never do any wrong.  We've got Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Charles Rangel and tons of other Democrats that have been proven time and again as corrupt politicians so you don't need to break down the concept about how grand the Democrats are and how evil the Republicans are because they're equally pathetic.

 

Charles Rangel with his stealing of affordable housing for himself and yet he's re-elected by the people in his district because he's a Democrat, so he gets a pass... Unbelievable.

 

 

Obama and the Democratic Party are the ones who have common sense not the GOP whose job seems to be stop Common sense for 4 years...I mean how many Dems read from Dr Seuss FOR 21 HOURS?

Sure... You keep drinking that Democratic kool-aid like MVH... 

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.