Sequester

[Ishmael]

That's $85 billion less private sector demand. How can that not be bad for the economy?

Also Medicare was not put off limits. The seqeuster cut provider and pharmaceutical reimbursements by 2%. Most private insurers base their reimbursement rates off of the Medicare rate so they'll be cutting back too (and increasing their profit). Medical practices that run on small margins are going to struggle with this.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/02/smallbusiness/medicare-doctors-spending-cuts/index.html




How do you figure? It looks to me like the opposite is true: baseline cuts that don't address the problem of increases still increasing just the same.

Ever heard of "baseline budgeting" sparky?

Ishmael

 

[mercury14]

Now might be a great time for the President to live up to his 2008 promise to go through the budget line-by-line and weed out the waste...



He could easily cover the cost of the sequester.



He is that smart!

One man's waste is another man's cherished, job-creating smart policy that's critical to the future of America. I'd be up for cutting out federal dollars to Oklahoma though.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ever heard of "baseline budgeting" sparky?

Ishmael

He is really toeing the party line...





That is money not borrowed and interest not paid, but that cannot be good for us; every born-again Neo-Keynesian that railed against the Bush spending knows that spending is the way to jump-start the economy. Look at all the wonderful growth of part-time jobs since the last stimulus!

 

[mercury14]

Ever heard of "baseline budgeting" sparky?

Ishmael

The largest budgetary challenges lie in increases in Medicare and SS spending. The sequester makes funding cuts but it doesn't address the fact that these programs are increasing exponentially in cost. Even the 2% Medicare reimbursement cut doesn't do much to address the program's rapidly increasing cost moving forward. So the opposite of what you said is true.

 

[mercury14]

He is really toeing the party line...

Really? Am I using my big toe or my pinky toe?

That is money not borrowed and interest not paid, but that cannot be good for us; every born-again Neo-Keynesian that railed against the Bush spending knows that spending is the way to jump-start the economy. Look at all the wonderful growth of part-time jobs since the last stimulus!

I linked you to BLS data showing a decline in the number of people working part time for economic reasons since the recovery began. You just chose to ignore it.

 

[Ishmael]

The largest budgetary challenges lie in increases in Medicare and SS spending. The sequester makes funding cuts but it doesn't address the fact that these programs are increasing exponentially in cost. Even the 2% Medicare reimbursement cut doesn't do much to address the program's rapidly increasing cost moving forward. So the opposite of what you said is true.

ObamaCare fixed all that, right?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

ObamaCare fixed all that, right?

Ishmael

lmao...

 

[mercury14]

ObamaCare fixed all that, right?

Ishmael

No, Obamacare didn't fix social security and Medicare cost. Do you see me claiming that it did?

Obamacare did fix Medicare Advantage costs though. That program was long overdue for an adjustment and the GOP wasn't about to do it.

lmao...

Beatin' up straw men sure is a hoot!


http://memecrunch.com/meme/7QD1/internet-arguments-strawman/image.png

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

“….the Roman government appeared everyday less formidable to its enemies, more odious and oppressive to its subjects. The taxes were multiplied with the public distress; economy was neglected in proportion as it became necessary…. If all the barbarian conquerors had been annihilated in the same hour, their total destruction would not have restored the empire of the West: and if Rome still survived, she survived the loss of freedom, of virtue, and of honour.” — Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

 

[Ishmael]

No, Obamacare didn't fix social security and Medicare cost. Do you see me claiming that it did?

Obamacare did fix Medicare Advantage costs though. That program was long overdue for an adjustment and the GOP wasn't about to do it.



Beatin' up straw men sure is a hoot!


http://memecrunch.com/meme/7QD1/internet-arguments-strawman/image.png

I haven't mentioned SS at all, talk about the strawman.

ObamaCare takes $716 billion out of medicare over the next 10 years. 69.8% of that reduction is in reduction of reimbursements to hospitals and care providers. The remainder come out of the 'Advantage' program reimbursements.

Let me suggest to you that those "cuts" your seeing have NOTHING to do with sequestration and everything to do with ObamaCare.

Further, you haven't bothered to address the 'baseline budgeting' issue. All the sequester does is change the rate of government expenditures from increasing 7% to a mere 4 point something increase. It appears that our government just can't survive without awarding itself a 7% annual increase. Run that little factoid through a compound interest calculator and see where you end up in 20 years.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They become apt to take because they wish to spend and cannot do this easily; for their possessions soon run short. Thus they are forced to provide means from some other source. At the same time, because they care nothing for honor, they take recklessly and from any source.
Aristotle

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
Cornelius Tacitus
__________________
"Ceterum autem censeo, Liberalismum esse delendum"
A_J, the Stupid

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama awarded Four Pinocchios...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...407535c-82a9-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html

 

[mercury14]

I haven't mentioned SS at all, talk about the strawman.

Go back and re-read the thread. I said the biggest future increases in spending were in SS and Medicare and you responded by saying "Obamacare fixes that, right? Now you're saying you never responded to my comment about SS spending.

ObamaCare takes $716 billion out of medicare over the next 10 years. 69.8% of that reduction is in reduction of reimbursements to hospitals and care providers. The remainder come out of the 'Advantage' program reimbursements.

It's $716 billion in reduced payments due to policy changes saving money. It does not reduce provider reimbursement rates or Medicare beneficiary eligibility or coverage though . What it did is change Medicare spending projections from X to Y. (Yes a few types of home health payments and payments for a few kinds of hospital care were throttled down but those were relatively minor).

Let me suggest to you that those "cuts" your seeing have NOTHING to do with sequestration and everything to do with ObamaCare.

The 2% cut? Not sure what you're implying here.

Further, you haven't bothered to address the 'baseline budgeting' issue. All the sequester does is change the rate of government expenditures from increasing 7% to a mere 4 point something increase. It appears that our government just can't survive without awarding itself a 7% annual increase. Run that little factoid through a compound interest calculator and see where you end up in 20 years.

Ishmael

You're talking about non-military discretionary spending only though, right? I think I hear what you're saying but it's mathematically far less of a big deal than the cost of health care and SS and so I'm less concerned with it.

 

[Ishmael]

Go back and re-read the thread. I said the biggest future increases in spending were in SS and Medicare and you responded by saying "Obamacare fixes that, right? Now you're saying you never responded to my comment about SS spending.



It's $716 billion in reduced payments due to policy changes saving money. It does not reduce provider reimbursement rates or Medicare beneficiary eligibility or coverage though . What it did is change Medicare spending projections from X to Y. (Yes a few types of home health payments and payments for a few kinds of hospital care were throttled down but those were relatively minor).



The 2% cut? Not sure what you're implying here.



You're talking about non-military discretionary spending only though, right? I think I hear what you're saying but it's mathematically far less of a big deal than the cost of health care and SS and so I'm less concerned with it.

I never mentioned SS, asshole. You did.

You are full of shit.

I am talking about the entire US budget expenditures. Period.

 

[mercury14]

The largest budgetary challenges lie in increases in Medicare and SS spending. The sequester makes funding cuts but it doesn't address the fact that these programs are increasing exponentially in cost.

ObamaCare fixed all that, right?

Ishmael

I never mentioned SS, asshole. You did.

You mentioned it by commenting in jest that Obamacare fixed it. Maybe you meant to only comment on Medicare spending but that's not what you typed.

Anyway, I don't think you're talking about the entire US government expenditure being capped because automatic spending (which is where the vast majority of the problem lies) is not capped.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I read your reply and knew exactly what you were talking about and it had nothing to do with SS, which, btw, is why Jenn14 is on ignore.

He does not respond to what is written, but to the running dialog in his head furnished by the DNC, liberal news and all the really cool people who hang out with his hero, Barack Hussein Obama, the man focused on destroying the party of Lincoln.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Heather Ginsberg at TownHall asks:

"With the sequester officially in place, and the world still perfectly intact, there is still a possibility that many federal workers could still be furloughed. Remember how Obama kept threatening that all these people would lose their jobs, airplanes wouldn’t fly, and illegal immigrants would be crossing the border without a problem?

"Do you also remember how all the reporters were going crazy last week about how the President went golfing with Tiger Woods? Well as everything Obama does, it cost quite a bit in taxpayer dollars. Over $1 million to be more accurate. Many are furious that the President has the nerve to ask lawmakers to make these concessions, where he is not willing to do the same. How can he make these fear inducing claims that many people will lose their jobs, when he is out golfing with a famous womanizer, spending enough money that could have saved 341 jobs from the furlough?"

 

[mercury14]

I read your reply and knew exactly what you were talking about and it had nothing to do with SS, which, btw, is why Jenn14 is on ignore.

He does not respond to what is written, but to the running dialog in his head furnished by the DNC, liberal news and all the really cool people who hang out with his hero, Barack Hussein Obama, the man focused on destroying the party of Lincoln.

Fine, let's ignore the fact that I responded to the bit about SS spending. He's still wrong about Medicare spending, Obamacare doesn't fix it's growth problem and I never suggested it did. You can have it either way and neither you nor Ish made any kind of valid point.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Welcome to Thunder Dome.

Well, at least sequestration was supposed to bring about a post-apocalyptic world until President Obama realized Republicans weren’t going to capitulate to his will (again) and raise taxes (again) to replace the sequester he birthed in 2011.

There was a distinct change in tone from the White House this week on what sequestration would mean. In little more than a week we went from roving bands of teacherless children wandering darkened streets filled with uninspected rancid meat, illegal aliens and pre-convicted felons released because of lack of funds setting fires there aren’t enough firefighters to extinguish to not a “cliff” but a possible gradual “tumble downward.” That’s on the order of the difference between ordering a ham sandwich and getting a foot massage.

What caused this change? Two things. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward’s spam filter seemingly malfunctioned, blocking White House talking points and forcing him to tell the truth about the sequester’s origin, and Republican leadership took pills to address their low testosterone.

Derek Hunter
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2013/03/03/welcome-to-the-armageddon-n1524474

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Where in the World will the Obamas jet off to next?



Spring Break is right around the corner and we cannot deprive the girls of their accustomed lifestyles (of the rich and famous).


We are going to have to ask everybody to sacrifice. And if we’re asking community colleges to sacrifice, if we’re asking people who are going to see potentially fewer services in their neighborhoods to make a little sacrifice, then we can ask millionaires and billionaires to make a little sacrifice.
President Barack Obama

I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don't worry about you. I mean, I worry the way parents worry, but they’re on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful.”
President Barack Obama, November 2011

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What is that word that Jenn14 is so fucking fond of...



... it's on the tip of my brain...



... if I concentrate...



lifeline?


http://up.xhamster.com/000/023/977/027_1000.jpg
HYPOCRITE!

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1371421_o.gif

 

[RobDownSouth]

You mentioned it by commenting in jest that Obamacare fixed it. Maybe you meant to only comment on Medicare spending but that's not what you typed.

Anyway, I don't think you're talking about the entire US government expenditure being capped because automatic spending (which is where the vast majority of the problem lies) is not capped.

Ish and the gang are often purposely vague.

Gives them "plausible deniability" and allows them to avoid taking personal responsibility for their falsehoods when called out on them.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The scare tactics the White House tried to employ proved as successful as their attempts to employ Americans.

The wheels came off this strategy when it became clear these “cuts” were going to happen. They’d oversold and Armageddon would under-deliver.

The panicked selling of the Mad Max world reached such extreme levels that Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., predicted 170 million jobs, roughly 30 million more jobs than exist in the country, would be lost. Shaving what amounts to a rounding error off the rate of increase in yearly government spending was so bad not only would we lose every job we have, sequestration would create 30 million more jobs just to lose them too. Snake oil salesmen were blushing in their graves.

Waters made a gaffe, but the absurdity of it didn’t dwarf the absurdity of the President’s claims; it fit in like a Legos snap together – like it belonged there.

Source above

http://spectator.org/assets/db/13584679246077.jpg
Tremble in FEAR!



WMDs!!!!!!!!!



lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!

 

[miles]

Obama awarded Four Pinocchios...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...407535c-82a9-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html

So what. All politicians lie.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So what. All politicians lie.

Which is why we had to invent the double standard!

A_J's corollary #9, “When a Republican does it, it is a high crime and misdemeanor, when a Democrat does it, then it is, *shrug*, they ALL do it...”


http://dedetillmanblogs.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/colombian-hooker-dania-secret-service-scandal-photo-4.jpg?w=570
Baybee, My Cash Money!