wild beast wrote:well, looks like you shiteaters got what you wanted: total government control.
lols, i can hear lox-chaz right now saying "I don't like big government" yet out the other side of his ass, he's voting for it.
instead of encouraging smart environmentally sound technologies be created to continue industry here, you just TAX and FINE and do what shiteaters do (fix everything with taxes) until businesses leave. i mean why aren't we manufacturing in this country? why do we buy everything from China? and all our oil from the middle east? SHITEATERS.
thank you so much shiteaters. you are like so smart!!
When historians recount the momentous events of recent weeks, they will note a curious coincidence. On March 15, Moody's Investors Service — the bond rating agency — published a paper warning that the exploding U.S. government debt could cause a downgrade of Treasury bonds. Just six days later, the House of Representatives passed President Obama's health-care legislation costing $900 billion or so over a decade and worsening an already-bleak budget outlook.
Should the United States someday suffer a budget crisis, it will be hard not to conclude that Obama and his allies sowed the seeds, because they ignored conspicuous warnings. A further irony will not escape historians. For two years, Obama and members of Congress have angrily blamed the shortsightedness and selfishness of bankers and rating agencies for causing the recent financial crisis. The president and his supporters, historians will note, were equally shortsighted and self-centered — though their quest was for political glory, not financial gain.
Let's be clear. A "budget crisis" is not some minor accounting exercise. It's a wrenching political, social and economic upheaval. Large deficits and rising debt — the accumulation of past deficits — spook investors, leading to higher interest rates on government loans. The higher rates expand the budget deficit and further unnerve investors. To reverse this calamitous cycle, the government has to cut spending deeply or raise taxes sharply. Lower spending and higher taxes in turn depress the economy and lead to higher unemployment. Not pretty.
Two weeks before the House vote, the Congressional Budget Office released its estimate of Obama's budget, including its health-care program. From 2011 to 2020, the cumulative deficit is almost $10 trillion. Adding 2009 and 2010, the total rises to $12.7 trillion. In 2020, the projected annual deficit is $1.25 trillion, equal to 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That assumes economic recovery, with unemployment at 5 percent. Spending is almost 30 percent higher than taxes. Total debt held by the public rises from 40 percent of GDP in 2008 to 90 percent in 2020, close to its post-World War II peak.
To criticisms, Obama supporters make two arguments. First, the CBO says the plan reduces the deficit by $143 billion over a decade. Second, the legislation contains measures (an expert panel to curb Medicare spending, emphasis on "comparative effectiveness research") to control health spending. These rejoinders are self-serving and unconvincing.
Suppose the CBO estimate is correct. So? The $143 billion saving is about 1 percent of the projected $12.7 trillion deficit from 2009 to 2020. If the administration has $1 trillion or so of spending cuts and tax increases over a decade, all these monies should first cover existing deficits — not finance new spending. Obama's behavior resembles a highly indebted family's taking an expensive round-the-world trip because it claims to have found ways to pay for it. It's self-indulgent and reckless.
But the CBO estimate is misleading, because it must embody the law's many unrealistic assumptions and gimmicks. Benefits are phased in "so that the first 10 years of [higher] revenue would be used to pay for only six years of spending" increases, a former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, wrote in the New York Times on March 20. Holtz-Eakin also noted the $70 billion of premiums for a new program of long-term care that reduce present deficits but will be paid out in benefits later. Then there's the "doc fix" — higher Medicare reimbursements under separate legislation that would cost about $200 billion over a decade.
Lox wrote:Shiteaters II: Judgement Day was the best, because the evangelicals fought the Loxcocksuckers and lost because their retreat to the rapture strategy was based on flawed information in the Mayan calendar.
drater wrote:If you didn't work for the government, your posts (at least the part I can understand between the shitstorm of shitty insults that comprise the bulk of your content) would reek less of hypocrisy. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.
If you really gave a fuck about this country, you'd be trying to create more onshore manufacturing jobs rather than whining incessantly about it on the internet, while comfortably wasting taxpayer dollars to do so.
wild beast wrote:i blame a bad flux capacitor..
bostonlurk0r wrote:
Also, come on, guys, stop interpreting words and numbers literally. ...
From 2011 to 2020, the cumulative deficit is almost $10 trillion. Adding 2009 and 2010, the total rises to $12.7 trillion. In 2020, the projected annual deficit is $1.25 trillion, equal to 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That assumes economic recovery, with unemployment at 5 percent. Spending is almost 30 percent higher than taxes. Total debt held by the public rises from 40 percent of GDP in 2008 to 90 percent in 2020, close to its post-World War II peak.
To criticisms, Obama supporters make two arguments. First, the CBO says the plan reduces the deficit by $143 billion over a decade. Second, the legislation contains measures (an expert panel to curb Medicare spending, emphasis on "comparative effectiveness research") to control health spending. These rejoinders are self-serving and unconvincing.
Suppose the CBO estimate is correct. So? The $143 billion saving is about 1 percent of the projected $12.7 trillion deficit from 2009 to 2020. If the administration has $1 trillion or so of spending cuts and tax increases over a decade, all these monies should first cover existing deficits — not finance new spending. Obama's behavior resembles a highly indebted family's taking an expensive round-the-world trip because it claims to have found ways to pay for it. It's self-indulgent and reckless.
wild beast wrote:
what?
go rape google or whatever it is you do that you are so good at.
wild beast wrote:^^ lols ^^
dude, you are TOTALLY representing the brain dead ignorant eatshitercrat. the only "pattern" i see is that you don't know shit from shinola. wow.. you said some really stupid shit. and that you are worthless shiteater who needs to be on welfare 'cuz he can't get out of bouncing from Blockbuster to bussing tables for a "living". you suckle from the government's teet.
the "pattern" in America is to run like screaming whining baby to the government for help instead of taking your lives into your own hands, taking responsibility for YOUR actions and your state here on Earth and NOT blaming someone else.
look at this shiteater hweight.. OMG!! TEH SLAVERIES!! blame blame blame.. then go whining to the government because you are too inept and too ignorant to TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF. you are babies. you need help from the government. which is taxes. which is my money. stupid.
and yeah.. EXACTLY my point about environmental controls in a country that has the resource and technology base to create them. instead? instead we buy from CHINA. stupid. we should be manufacturing here in the U.S... oh that's right, eashitercrats don't like that. they like making jobs out *poof* MAGIC.. which is basically just more taxes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36087653/ns ... alth_care/
Youth may pay a lot more for health premiums
Costs expected to rise 17 percent once insurance is required
sweet.. someone had be on the ground floor of YET ANOTHER Eatshitercrat pyramid scheme / Ponzi scam.
kidjan.. what, besides what "Al Gore" told you do you know about America's petroleum reserves? apparently not a fucking thing. the North Slope, Montana, Texas, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, California.. fucking silly with it.
you smoke some grass and suck some cock and eat some shit then show up here like you are educated in these matters. lols. keep up the hyperbole and ignorant "1/2 truths" (oxymoron).
but a shiteater like you shits all over itself at thought of having their "view shed" or a "shit mite" invaded on.
wild beast wrote:how we gonna get out of that? by buying all our goods from other countries then taxing "clown" and "lawn" services? what the fuck? whose head is up their ass?
DUDE YOU TOTALLY OWNED HIS poop WITH THAT ONE there is NO WAY he can respond nowhweight wrote:And if weren't for public works, there's no way your part of CA would be inhabitable, especially for the vast numbers that live there. Most of SoCal doesn't have enough natural resources--water--to survive without dams, etc.
Are you hooked into public utilities? Do you use public roads. Pfft. Hypocrite.
pmahnn wrote:DUDE YOU TOTALLY OWNED HIS poop WITH THAT ONE there is NO WAY he can respond nowhweight wrote:And if weren't for public works, there's no way your part of CA would be inhabitable, especially for the vast numbers that live there. Most of SoCal doesn't have enough natural resources--water--to survive without dams, etc.
Are you hooked into public utilities? Do you use public roads. Pfft. Hypocrite.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests