What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Your link says "healthcare" accounted for 17% of GDP. Obamacare does not take over all aspects of healthcare, now does it? Not even close. Even your own health coverage will be largely unchanged.

Therefore you're just plain lying in your claim that Obamacare is going to take over 1/6th of the economy. And by the way, next time be sure to specify that you're referring to GDP and not the broader "economy".

Now you are trying to play word games and disguise what anyone can clearly see (if they set aside their partisan goals), the between the mandate, Medicare and Medicaid, the goal is to destroy the private medical sector and institute single payer, Obama has even stated that:

My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we can set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
Barack Obama, March 2007, SEIU Health Care Forum

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He failed arithmetic.

No, I believe he got the highest marks in his Million Man Math class...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sequestration and bad decisions on weapons are almost enough for a perfect storm. The one remaining ingredient is the business environment for defense companies, which is getting worse by the minute.

We now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Companies can't sacrifice business viability and profits for the public good. And they have to plan for sequestration even if Leon Panetta can't. Which means that they are -- right now -- planning decreased production, investment, and hiring. And implementing those plans won't be delayed until Congress, the Pentagon, and Obama sort things out.

Major defense contractors spend billions on independent research and development when the defense market supports it by buying new technologies. Those IR&D expenditures shrink when the market doesn't support it, and our resulting technological advantage in war -- which won the Cold War and several hot wars since -- disappears. Government labs and research facilities just don't have the capability to produce this sort of research, as their track record proves.

Sequestration -- as Panetta said -- will indiscriminately cut weapon-system spending across every program. It will mean contracts will be breached by the government, programs will be further reduced or cancelled, factories will be closed, and thousands of jobs will be lost. What neither Congress nor the White House seems to remember -- and the past experience is deep and painful -- is that government contracts frequently cost more to terminate than to complete. Contractors are entitled, by contract and law, to termination costs. Lawyers delight in them because they often are awarded after years of litigation. But the government gets nothing for them. No ships, no aircraft, no rifles for the infantry. Just a bill to pay.

That bill will not just be dollars. It will also be paid in a general reduction in our ability to defend ourselves, our interests abroad, and our allies. Without planning for defense, using the matrix of future threats our forces are expected to deter or defeat as a baseline, no one can say how bad that reduction of our defenses will be.

At a recent Air Force Association symposium, the commander of Air Combat Command, Gen. Gilmary Hostage, said, "… at some point, I run out of things to cut. I can only give up so much capacity to gain capability before dwindling inventories make even the best quality less dominant." He added, "… to remain… capable, we cannot maintain the status quo and try to do more with less. That will just lead us down the path to a hollow force."

Just so. Obama's build-down, sequestration, a bad business environment, and a long string of awful decisions on weapon systems in the pipeline will accomplish what no enemy could: the transformation of our military into a paper tiger.

Thus the Perfect Pentagon Storm. Sequestration is coming in January, but the coming storm's massive power is already being felt throughout the defense community.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/16/pentagon-forecast-the-perfect

 

[RobDownSouth]

Now you are trying to play word games and disguise what everyone can clearly see, the between the mandate, Medicare and Medicaid, the goal is to destroy the private medical sector and institute single payer, Obama has even stated that:

Classic Logical Fallacy: Argument From Omniscience. "Everyone knows that..."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I should have said, what anyone can see if they put aside their partisan goals.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I should have said, what anyone can see if they put aside their partisan goals.

You'd still be mistaken, chief, but hey, it's Monday and you've got a whole weekend's worth of vitriol stored up, so let the good slimes roll!

 

[mercury14]

Now you are trying to play word games...

No, word games are things like your "1/6th of the economy" figure. Your game is to twist (lie) by saying that Obamacare is a government takeover of all healthcare spending. According to your lying crap, someone who gets health insurance from their employer like always somehow gets it taken over by Obamacare. These are the lies you're telling to make that buzzy 1/6th figure work.

What's the actual figure without your lies factored in? You're not even going to consider it, are you? You just WANT the 1/6th number to be true so bad, don't ya?

 

[eyer]

No, word games are things like your "1/6th of the economy" figure. Your game is to twist (lie) by saying that Obamacare is a government takeover of all healthcare spending. According to your lying crap, someone who gets health insurance from their employer like always somehow gets it taken over by Obamacare. These are the lies you're telling to make that buzzy 1/6th figure work.

What's the actual figure without your lies factored in? You're not even going to consider it, are you? You just WANT the 1/6th number to be true so bad, don't ya?

Speaking of which...

...the president doesn't have to submit a budget and historically it's not done.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=40494637&postcount=16

Could you go over again your whole deal about how yeah, the President does have to submit a budget, but the law says it only has to be 1/3 of federal expenditures, and Obama is such a swell guy he proposes a budget anyway that includes the other 2/3 he isn't required by law to submit?

That's pretty much what "you just WANT" "to be true so bad", right?

 

[mercury14]

Speaking of which...



Could you go over again your whole deal about how yeah, the President does have to submit a budget, but the law says it only has to be 1/3 of federal expenditures, and Obama is such a swell guy he proposes a budget anyway that includes the other 2/3 he isn't required by law to submit?

That's pretty much what "you just WANT" "to be true so bad", right?

Nope, never said that the law says the president only has to submit a budget for 1/3 of federal expenditures. On the contrary I said he has to submit a budget for all federal expenditures.

But kicker is that congressional mandatory spending has a mechanism to budget and spend itself and the president is not legally required to submit a budget for it. He can recommend changes to mandatory spending programs if he wishes, however there is no law saying he must do so. The same goes for tax policy.

This is all just fact.

Why do you pine for my attention so badly that you must cross-post this all over the board?

 

[eyer]

Nope, never said that the law says the president only has to submit a budget for 1/3 of federal expenditures. On the contrary I said he has to submit a budget for all federal expenditures.

But kicker is that congressional mandatory spending has a mechanism to budget and spend itself and the president is not legally required to submit a budget for it. He can recommend changes to mandatory spending programs if he wishes, however there is no law saying he must do so. The same goes for tax policy.

This is all just fact.

Why do you pine for my attention so badly that you must cross-post this all over the board?

Quoted...

 

[mercury14]

Quoted...

I got my information from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website.

Where are you getting your information that says this is wrong?

 

[richard_daily]

I should have said, what anyone can see if they put aside their partisan goals.

When have you ever put aside your partisan goals?

 

[busybody..]

My favorite Obama prediction, headline and photo

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Yglesias-Obama-Deficit-Slayer--1024x779.jpg


“Barack Obama Deficit-Slayer”, by Matthew Yglesias, June 22, 2009:


As the economy recovers, tax revenues will rise, social safety net outlays will fall, and stimulus measures will begin to tamp down. If we can assume further growth in 2011, the complete expiry of Recovery Act provisions, and the winding down of the Iraq War, that’ll be further deficit reduction. On the merits, people would still do well to be concerned about the deficit further out when, in the absence of structural reform of the health care sector, Medicare costs will bury us all. But in the short term, things are going to look worse than they really are in 2009 and then look better than they really are in 2010. And of course people vote in the even-numbered years.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

When have you ever put aside your partisan goals?

He never has.
He never will.

Matthew Yglesias, a fool for the ages.

Yeah, becoz anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "fool". Derp!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Matthew Yglesias, a fool for the ages.

Julio Iglesias, makes money better than you, makes pussies wetter than you.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_01/julioDM_468x682.jpg

 

[richard_daily]

Julio Iglesias, makes money better than you, makes pussies wetter than you.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_01/julioDM_468x682.jpg

veteman's only worried about cocks and assholes... pussy isn't something he's concerned about.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Beco]

that gimmick known as the " Buffett Rule" is failing to get passed tonight....

solid!

 

[busybody..]

Julio Iglesias, makes money better than you, makes pussies wetter than you.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_01/julioDM_468x682.jpg

Oh LOOK

The KNEE GROW is bolivating

Hello TIPPY!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Beco]

My my, the President's own Democrat Senate flushes his stealth capital gains tax.

Ya need capital for Capitalism.....O'bama forgets this fact

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]