Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Dems offer largest deficit-reduction bill since '93 (248 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How can it be '5 trillion' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99, sherijr, Eclectablog

    in new debt when the entire cost of the bill is under 1 trillion? Which right wing loon site are you quoting from now?

    •  Actually.. it's 9 Trillion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet

      and that's not the cost of healthcare.. it's the debt Obama's budgets will amount to by 2019.

      CBO’s Baseline and Estimate of the President’s Budget

      CBO has also analyzed the policy proposals outlined in the President’s preliminary budget request.2 Under those policies, the deficit would total $1.8 trillion (13.1 percent of GDP) in 2009 and $1.4 trillion (9.6 percent of GDP) in 2010. The cumulative deficit over the 2010–2019 pro­jection period would equal $9.3 trillion and would aver­age 5.3 percent of GDP. Debt held by the public would rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent of GDP in 2019.

      So big fucking deal.. this new healthcare bill on top of that reduces that 9 Trillion by a measly 100 Billion.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:52:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK- so at least you admit you were wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sebastianguy99

        This bill CUTS the deficit. If you want to bitch about the deficit then you should be for this bill.

        If this was an ideal world we'd just cut the stupid war spending and slash the military spending in half. That would save $1 trillion every year. But obviously we're not living in that world yet.

        •  Sorry, I can think of hundreds of ways (0+ / 0-)

          to cut the deficit a lot more than this bill does.

          Do nothing else besides get rid of Medicare Advantage and you have cut the deficit $600 Billion.

          Eliminate all fraud in Medicare.. another $600 billion.

          Reduce subsidies from 400% to 250-300%.  How many tens of billions would that "save".

          The problem is, we're not saving a fucking thing.  We are merely spending beyond our means somewhat less.

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:16:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Done and done (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sebastianguy99

            The HCR IS cutting Medicare advantage to bring it back to parity w/ fee-for-service. The HCR is trying to eliminate fraud in Medicare. It's not like you can turn on a light switch and 'eliminate fraud'. They are doing about 6 or more things to tackle that fraud thing, and in addition banning physician owned hospitals in the future.

            As to reducing subsidies? are you nuts? 400% FPL is only $88k for a family of 4. If anything they should INCREASE the subsidies to include 500% FPL. The subsidies

            Good god- you need to study the bill before you say something like "we are not saving a fucking dime."

            •  *sigh* not to mention those savings evaporate (0+ / 0-)

              as they are based on taxes and penalties that will never be collected.  It's all bullshit.

              "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

              by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:37:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? You talking about excise tax? (0+ / 0-)

                Of course it will never be collected. It's DESIGNED to be never ever collected. The whole point is to decrease the amount of money hiding out tax freeas insurance premium. If the corporation is not spending that money on your premium, they're either increasing your pay or increasing their profits. Either way Uncle Sam will take in more tax money. Comprende now?

                •  Ahahahahaha you are indeed daft.. (0+ / 0-)

                  No.  Uncle Sam gets much less in revenues.

                  Companies simply pay the absolute minimum to keep them legal.  The costs either go to the employee or as the lesser penalties.  The marginal ones as far as # of employees go will either lay off enough employees to fall under the minimums, or end up hiring contractors.

                  Your simplistic view of the world is just what the Dems are counting on.. you can easily be sold.

                  "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

                  by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:35:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are just moving all over the map (0+ / 0-)

                    So now you're harping on the employer mandate. Most of the states ALREADY have an employer mandate for large employers, and have had it for years. Somehow it hasn't led to any of your sophomoric Ayn Rand predictions.

                    Any more right wing talking points? Let's get it all out here so I can shoot them all down at once.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site