Tea Party Check in

[Tully Mars 63]

Several problems with this post. First, most fiscal conservatives HATED Bush's spending. Second, the deficit was actually dropping pretty steadily after its high around $~400 billion, until Reid, Pelosi, and the Dems got voted in. Take a look at the deficit numbers since the Dems have been in charge of the budget. Of course with Obama in charge, they more than doubled the deficit in 1 year.

Also, your chart is a joke. Its complete BS, done by an obvious Obama supporter. Even most liberals don't agree with that chart

First the chart is in fact accurate. Second where were all these fiscal cons voicing their discontent when Bush was in office? I remember a couple who stood up and said this is nuts and they were quickly branded RINOs and we never heard from them again. Third I can't find anything showing the deficit "dropping pretty steadily" do you have a source or are you that source? Finally Bush spent on two wars but never added them to the budget. He's the first world leader in history to go to war and cut taxes at the same time. Obama walked into office and added them into the budget and the right screamed "see he's increased the debt by __________." Bullshit.

Bottom line is I'm no Obama fan but the ideas of the tea baggers will not solve our problems at this point. If they'd spoke up back when Reagan was running under deficit spending their ideas might have made sense.

[Snowball]

that chart above is pure B.S.
Obamacare will cost TRILLIONS, not the shown 152 Billion. WHAT A JOKE !

[RubberKettle]

No one knows what Obama Care will cost.

New problems, costs, double counting and errors are consistently being unearthed.

[Tully Mars 63]

The CBO disagrees with you-

The Congress has recently approved major health care legislation in the form of two pieces of legislation: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148); and, following that, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), which made a number of changes to provisions of PPACA along with significant changes to the federal postsecondary education programs.
On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions. Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations (those are discussed on pages 10-11 of the cost estimate).
CBO and JCT estimate that by 2019, the two pieces of legislation combined will reduce the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured by about 32 million, leaving about 23 million nonelderly residents uninsured. Those findings are presented in Table 4, along with the budgetary effects of the various provisions related to health insurance coverage. Table 5 shows the budgetary impact of the health care provisions that are not related to health insurance coverage (primarily involving the Medicare program). The impact of revenue provisions is reported separately by JCT.
CBO also analyzed the effects on health insurance premiums of an earlier version of the legislation. A November analysis examines the expected impact on average premiums for health insurance in different markets. Although CBO and JCT have not updated those estimates, the effects of the enacted legislation are expected to be quite similar.

But why let facts get in the way of what you're trying to prove? That would just be silly.

[rsnnh12]

First the chart is in fact accurate. Second where were all these fiscal cons voicing their discontent when Bush was in office? I remember a couple who stood up and said this is nuts and they were quickly branded RINOs and we never heard from them again. Third I can't find anything showing the deficit "dropping pretty steadily" do you have a source or are you that source? Finally Bush spent on two wars but never added them to the budget. He's the first world leader in history to go to war and cut taxes at the same time. Obama walked into office and added them into the budget and the right screamed "see he's increased the debt by __________." Bullshit.

Bottom line is I'm no Obama fan but the ideas of the tea baggers will not solve our problems at this point. If they'd spoke up back when Reagan was running under deficit spending their ideas might have made sense.

No, the chart isn't accurate. Its propaganda. I'll get some links for you.



Here is the yearly deficit. Notice how it begins to drop, up until the Dems take control of the budget. Also, Obama's budgets call for our lowest yearly deficit over the next decade to be $600 billion. That's more than the highest year under Bush and the Republicans. All of this info is available on the White House website if you don't believe me. All the charts there are in PDFs, which is why I didn't link them.

[rsnnh12]

The CBO disagrees with you-



But why let facts get in the way of what you're trying to prove? That would just be silly.

So the goal of Obamacare is to leave 23 million uninsured?

[Tully Mars 63]

The goal of the health care reform act was to decrease the number of uninsured. After much debating they managed to reduce the number by 32 million to 23 million, so they more then cut in half the number of uninsured. Really if they could have removed special interests and insurance lobbyist they could have shit out a better bill. But that's what DC has become... only capable of shiting out the best bill they can get the votes for which is a lot like picking out the best looking turd in the septic tank.

As for you chart- yeah when you add in all the costs of your spending, things like two wars, stuff will get red real quick. Go wiki and search "POTUS deficit spending by year" and see when it really started turning red. Clinton was the most recent POTUS to have a positive turn and be in the green. Many on the left like to credit him solely, which of course is bullshit. The economy was booming due to the .com bubble and the GOP held his feet to the fire until he agreed on things like workfare to replace most people on welfare. Prior to the tea baggers coming on scene I would have thought the best thing for the country would be to have a GOP controlled congress and a DEM POTUS. But now I fear we're just screwed.

[rsnnh12]

The goal of the health care reform act was to decrease the number of uninsured. After much debating they managed to reduce the number by 32 million to 23 million, so they more then cut in half the number of uninsured. Really if they could have removed special interests and insurance lobbyist they could have shit out a better bill. But that's what DC has become... only capable of shiting out the best bill they can get the votes for which is a lot like picking out the best looking turd in the septic tank.

As for you chart- yeah when you add in all the costs of your spending, things like two wars, stuff will get red real quick. Go wiki and search "POTUS deficit spending by year" and see when it really started turning red. Clinton was the most recent POTUS to have a positive turn and be in the green. Many on the left like to credit him solely, which of course is bullshit. The economy was booming due to the .com bubble and the GOP held his feet to the fire until he agreed on things like workfare to replace most people on welfare. Prior to the tea baggers coming on scene I would have thought the best thing for the country would be to have a GOP controlled congress and a DEM POTUS. But now I fear we're just screwed.

9/32 is more than half?


The war spending was accounted for under Bush... I believe 08 was the year they decided to push out some of the spending to later years.

I agree though, most politicians suck and we're pretty much screwed.

[Tully Mars 63]

It was 55 mil. the HCRA REDUCED it by 32 mil to 23 mil. 23 mil is less then 1/2 of 55mil, right?

And you might want to read this-

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/161/end-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

Obama ended using "supplemental budgets" to fund the wars in Dec. 2010.

At least we agree were screwed. I just hoping my savings will keep the price of rice and beans within my reach until things get better.

[Tully Mars 63]

This from "Wired" also points out the spending slight of hand used to pay for the wars-

In his address last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon.
As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.
Obama’s message? Not anymore.
"That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."
This is the first real move toward belt-tightening at the Pentagon; we’ll see if the new Defense Department budget reflects it, and Obama’s pledge to stop "paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use."

Meanwhile, the president is weighing the options for a withdrawal from Iraq. In his speech, Obama said he would "soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."
What that means is that combat troops could likely be out of Iraq by the end of next summer. The Washington Post quotes anonymous officials as saying Obama will announce a withdrawal plan later this week that would have U.S. forces out by August 2010. A substantial force may stay on, however, to train and advise the Iraq military and conduct limited counterterrorism missions. As the New York Times notes, one of Obama’s national security advisers said during the campaign that that the force could number between 30,000 to 55,000 troops.
Meanwhile, the fighting in Iraq is not over. In the volatile city of Mosul, gunmen in police uniforms opened fire on U.S. soldiers, killing a U.S. soldier and an interpreter.

[rsnnh12]

It was 55 mil. the HCRA REDUCED it by 32 mil to 23 mil. 23 mil is less then 1/2 of 55mil, right?

And you might want to read this-


Obama ended using "supplemental budgets" to fund the wars in Dec. 2010.

At least we agree were screwed. I just hoping my savings will keep the price of rice and beans within my reach until things get better.

The number was actually 46 million, with 10 million of those being non-US citizens. In addition, 14 million people who don't have insurance make more than $50,000 a year... they just don't want insurance. Why force people to get it?



As far as supplemental budget's go, most of the war spending was accounted for in budgets. Bush added $300 billion in supplemental war funds in his 6 years with a Republican house, including for the initial invasion. The overall spending under Bush wasn't as extreme as its made out to be (especially compared to Reid/Pelosi/Obama), but he certainly did spend way too much.

[Tully Mars 63]

The number was actually 46 million, with 10 million of those being non-US citizens. In addition, 14 million people who don't have insurance make more than $50,000 a year... they just don't want insurance. Why force people to get it?



As far as supplemental budget's go, most of the war spending was accounted for in budgets. Bush added $300 billion in supplemental war funds in his 6 years with a Republican house, including for the initial invasion. The overall spending under Bush wasn't as extreme as its made out to be (especially compared to Reid/Pelosi/Obama), but he certainly did spend way too much.

Ok let's go with your numbers. According to you it was 46 mil. and the HCRA reduced it to 23 mil. Is that by 1/2 or as you stated earlier 9/32?

As for you link it discusses the "Health Choices Act" which didn't pass, likely due to it's massive unfunded spending. What did pass was the HCRA and I posted what the CBO has reported concerning it's costs.

As for Bush V. Obama spending you're flat out wrong on the war cost and we could debate all day about the other spending. I think Obama (with the rest of us) was handed a great big shit sandwich the day he walked into the oval office. I also think he's done a crappy job of handling that shit.

[rsnnh12]

Ok let's go with your numbers. According to you it was 46 mil. and the HCRA reduced it to 23 mil. Is that by 1/2 or as you stated earlier 9/32?

As for you link it discusses the "Health Choices Act" which didn't pass, likely due to it's massive unfunded spending. What did pass was the HCRA and I posted what the CBO has reported concerning it's costs.

As for Bush V. Obama spending you're flat out wrong on the war cost and we could debate all day about the other spending. I think Obama (with the rest of us) was handed a great big shit sandwich the day he walked into the oval office. I also think he's done a crappy job of handling that shit.

I got all my numbers about supplemental war spending from a liberal website, so I doubt they would leave things off. Unless I missed something, Bush had roughly $300 billion through 2006.



I posted that other link for the numbers they had on uninsured, because the numbers came from the government. If 46 million are uninsured, 10 million are non-citizens, and 14 (at least) can afford it but don't want it, the real number of uninsured is closer to 22 million (at most), right? How does Obamacare address those people, other than forcing most people to have insurance, even if they don't want it?

[Tully Mars 63]

I got all my numbers about supplemental war spending from a liberal website, so I
I posted that other link for the numbers they had on uninsured, because the numbers came from the government. If 46 million are uninsured, 10 million are non-citizens, and 14 (at least) can afford it but don't want it, the real number of uninsured is closer to 22 million (at most), right? How does Obamacare address those people, other than forcing most people to have insurance, even if they don't want it?

The site you source reports-

Cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom: $748.2 billion
Projected total cost of veterans’ health care and disability: $422 billion to $717 billion.

I'm not sure what the cost of Afghan is or why you stop in 2006. They were, until Obama, mostly supplemental spending bills and thus off budget.

I'm not sure about your insurance number at this point I need more time to research and frankly I want to go float around my pool for a while. But according to you the HCRA increased the number of uninsured by 1 million then? or was it 45 million and now is 23? Either way where'd you get your 9/32 figure? Also how do you know people who make over 50k don't want insurance? I know my brother and his family make way more then that and he's not in a situation where he can afford private health insurance due to one of his kids having a life long genetic illness. They won't insure his family at any cost. I can assure you he wants insurance.

[rsnnh12]

The site you source reports-

I'm not sure what the cost of Afghan is or why you stop in 2006. They were, until Obama, mostly supplemental spending bills and thus off budget.

I'm not sure about your insurance number at this point I need more time to research and frankly I want to go float around my pool for a while. But according to you the HCRA increased the number of uninsured by 1 million then? or was it 45 million and now is 23? Either way where'd you get your 9/32 figure? Also how do you know people who make over 50k don't want insurance? I know my brother and his family make way more then that and he's not in a situation where he can afford private health insurance due to one of his kids having a life long genetic illness. They won't insure his family at any cost. I can assure you he wants insurance.

As far as I know, everything was budgeted, minus the $300 billion I mentioned earlier. Have a link saying otherwise? I very well could be wrong, so I would love to read anything that proves me wrong.

My 9/32 was based on it dropping from 32 to 23, which was flawed. I know our current system is far fsrom perfect, but nationalized health care is not the way to go. It would destroy our country. I fully support a revamping of the system, but we can't let the government control it. They straight up suck at spending money and being efficient.

I'm sorry about your brother and his child... I hope everything works out for them. If you don't mind me asking, what does the child have? I wont be offended if you choose not to answer, I know some of this stuff is sensitive

[Tully Mars 63]

I'm too tried and too sunburned to look at this further regarding the off budget war spending. I'll look in the morning if I can't find a credible source I'll concede. By credible I mean I'm not going to post something from Moveon.org and expect you to accept it. Just as you should expect me to accept numbers or graphs from sources like right leaning blogs.

I'm not sure you're right about a nation health care system. I think the VA has been working on redoing itself in the past decade I think if we modeled after that it could work. Something has to work better then what we have. I still don't know how you got to 9/32 but WTF I'm tried, will look at it again tomorrow.

As for my brother's kid I don't think discussing the details is my place. If it were my kid, sure. My kids currently serving in the military as is her husband. One thing I will say regarding my brothers kid and this likely applies to a lot of kids around the country... it's completely f***ed up to be under 10 years of age and have blown through a 2 million lifetime cap on medical benefits.

[andywend]

By credible I mean I'm not going to post something from Moveon.org and expect you to accept it.

Moveon.org is NOT a credible organization.

EVERY SINGLE chart/graph/analysis of anything that goes on in Washington provided by Moveon.org will say that the democrats are right and the republicans are wrong.

They are far more biased towards the left then Fox News or Rush Limbaugh are to the right.

Liberal organizations like Moveon.org are a big part of the problem.

Your chart showing Obama is only responsible for $1 TRILLION of government expenditures is laughable. What makes it even more ridiculous is that $1 TRILLION figure includes all future government expenditures up through 2017. When you post charts like that, you lose whatever little credibility you might have had in the first place.

The entire socialist Eurozone is falling apart at the seams due to their socialist governments. Socialism doesn't work and even when liberals see what is going on in Europe right before their very eyes, all they can chant about is how bad the Tea Party and former President Bush is.

[eidolon]

As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 38% of Americans identified as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents.

I hope by 2020 independents will be around 80% and Dem/Rep will be like 10% each.

[Tully Mars 63]

Moveon.org is NOT a credible organization.

EVERY SINGLE chart/graph/analysis of anything that goes on in Washington provided by Moveon.org will say that the democrats are right and the republicans are wrong.

They are far more biased towards the left then Fox News or Rush Limbaugh are to the right.

Liberal organizations like Moveon.org are a big part of the problem.

Your chart showing Obama is only responsible for $1 TRILLION of government expenditures is laughable. What makes it even more ridiculous is that $1 TRILLION figure includes all future government expenditures up through 2017. When you post charts like that, you lose whatever little credibility you might have had in the first place.

The entire socialist Eurozone is falling apart at the seams due to their socialist governments. Socialism doesn't work and even when liberals see what is going on in Europe right before their very eyes, all they can chant about is how bad the Tea Party and former President Bush is.

You can read right?

When I state

By credible I mean I'm not going to post something from Moveon.org and expect you to accept it.

I'm STATING I do not think they are credible.

As for the rest of you post...

The chart I posted is from the NYT and is based on CBO numbers. It was first published in July. You can read charts, right? The charts show policy changes and the effect on the deficit. Not total spending.

Finally you realize some of the most socialistic countries in Europe are weathering this economic crisis better the most. Hell even Canada, with it national health care is doing way better then we are.

[Tully Mars 63]

As far as I know, everything was budgeted, minus the $300 billion I mentioned earlier. Have a link saying otherwise? I very well could be wrong, so I would love to read anything that proves me wrong.

My 9/32 was based on it dropping from 32 to 23, which was flawed. I know our current system is far fsrom perfect, but nationalized health care is not the way to go. It would destroy our country. I fully support a revamping of the system, but we can't let the government control it. They straight up suck at spending money and being efficient.

I'm sorry about your brother and his child... I hope everything works out for them. If you don't mind me asking, what does the child have? I wont be offended if you choose not to answer, I know some of this stuff is sensitive

Try reading through this link, it's from Reason.com but contains a graph based on CBO numbers-

http://reason.com/archives/2008/04/07/the-trillion-dollar-war

I can't get the graph to load here, why? No idea but it clearly shows more the 300 billion.

Here's an article on Bush's supplemental for just FY 2008-9




As for the number of uninsured US citizens here's something from USA Today-



It states there' over 50 million uninsured. Hopefully that number will come down as employment goes up and the various parts of the HCRA take affect. It would certainly be nice to see it way below the projected number of 23 million. It's hard to imagine living in one of the worlds wealthiest nations and having something like 1/6 of the population uninsured.

[Tully Mars 63]

Hey, where'd everyone go?

[scratbandit]

You definitely need a third party that is for sure.

[Tully Mars 63]

The two parties have such a strangle hold on the money, which like it or not is how you get elected to national office, I don't see that happening anytime soon. The last serious 3rd party was Perot. He actually had some valid points and enough money to buy 1/2 hr. blocks of TV time to present those points. But he choose some half senile ex-admiral as his running mate who stated "why am I here?" during a national TV debate and during Ross' TV presentations he came off as a non blinking robot who sounded like a nut bag.

[Wrigley]

If it became President I would move to Canada

[SBR_John]

Great thread. Killed an hour getting updated and learned a lot.

[NYSportsGuy210]

This Tea Party nonesense needs to move to Afghanistan.

[Tully Mars 63]

If it became President I would move to Canada

That's an interesting read. I like how she rails against the government but was saddened the interviewer didn't ask her where her pay check came from... or how much medicare funding her husbands "mental health" clinic received... or the amount of farm subsidies she and her family accepted.. or the amount of stimulus funds she requested, in writing, for her district.

[Wrigley]

That's an interesting read. I like how she rails against the government but was saddened the interviewer didn't ask her where her pay check came from... or how much medicare funding her husbands "mental health" clinic received... or the amount of farm subsidies she and her family accepted.. or the amount of stimulus funds she requested, in writing, for her district.

Yesterday she pissed off many of her supporters in Iowa , she was a half hour late and gave a 2 minute speech out of her 15 minute time limit and did not take questions.

Mad Bachmann supporters video

[Tully Mars 63]

Wonder what happened. Usually any politician jumps at the chance to spout talking points until they either take away or turn off the mike. Even more puzzled as she was heading into friendly territory. Maybe she had a migraine or some family emergency? I'm betting based on the press this has gotten we'll get an explanation shortly. Will I believe that explanation? Meh, 50/50 chance but that would be true with any politician.

[JosephPavs]

Rick Perry the Next President?

[Tully Mars 63]

Could be the nominee. Pawlenty's gone, Mitt and Huntsman will have problems with the Christian right. Little chance the party elite will support Paul, Bachmann or Palin. Perry has a decent shot but I wouldn't rule Cain out at this point either. It's so early in the process almost always who's in the lead now ends up dropping out by first major round of primaries.

[Tully Mars 63]

And the mainstream right begins to chip away at Perry-


I would have thought he'd be their man.

[robmpink]

So you are the company fluff boy at the fracking sites in Pennsylvania?

[JosephPavs]

So you are the company fluff boy at the fracking sites in Pennsylvania?

No sure don't sorry

[marcojuiceman]

Rick Perry the Next President?

Is that the same republican party that is trying to cut out benefits for Union workers in the north