Obamacare Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg

PEB

Sunflower in support of Ukraine
@Steel
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
30,382
Reaction score
19,264
You can bet Obamacare is easy thing that Trump can hit but he is going after tons of subsidies in areas like Medicare, Medicaid, social security and others. They need to come-up with billions in cuts as they seek to hit the 15 percent corporate tax number and the massive tax breaks they are seeking. Obamacare part only represents 9 billion a year VS the 250 billion in cuts per year they are seeking to 2.5 trillion over 10 years.

The bloodletting is going to be deep for many federal plans but don't worry it's going to create tons of jobs and trickle down to you!
 
Who cares Obamacare will be repealed at Trump's first day in office.
 
Who cares Obamacare will be repealed at Trump's first day in office.

You forgot the replace part? It seems President Trump forgot that part too.
 
At some point, entitlement spending is going to have to be decreased. We can't eternally spend more on every program and hope that it will remain somehow sustainable.
 
For this President, this is what accomplishment looks like.
Complete chaos with a few orders rescinded for pathetic show.

"Accomplishments? I've undone some of what the last guy did! Nobody's accomplished more! "
 
At some point, entitlement spending is going to have to be decreased. We can't eternally spend more on every program and hope that it will remain somehow sustainable.


Yes but we also heard that President Trump seeking vastly more nuclear bombs and vast increase in Military spending as we move more deeply in Syria an potentially North Korea. That sure does not sound like the same guy who ran for office.
 
For this President, this is what accomplishment looks like.
Complete chaos with a few orders rescinded for pathetic show.

"Accomplishments? I've undone some of what the last guy did! Nobody's accomplished more! "



That moment Rand sees what he has unleashed.



 
Last edited:
At some point, entitlement spending is going to have to be decreased. We can't eternally spend more on every program and hope that it will remain somehow sustainable.

I agree with you 100%. The issue I have is that we're making cuts in areas that directly benefit tax payers, while increasing spending in other areas like the military. There is no reason to have a military 10 times the size of everyone else while cutting meals on wheels.
 
Yes but we also heard that President Trump seeking vastly more nuclear bombs and vast increase in Military spending as we move more deeply in Syria an potentially North Korea. That sure does not sound like the same guy who ran for office.
... but it does.
At this point there's basically no subject he hasn't taken every side of.
 
I love trickle down. CEO's have always been known for their generosity.
 
At some point, entitlement spending is going to have to be decreased. We can't eternally spend more on every program and hope that it will remain somehow sustainable.
Why? The federal government is monetarily sovereign. The only limit to its spending is inflation. We could eliminate FICA today and still fund Social Security for decades.

The unsustainability argument is a false one pushed by those ignorant of this fact or those who want the gap between the rich and poor to stay broad and wide.
 
I agree with you 100%. The issue I have is that we're making cuts in areas that directly benefit tax payers, while increasing spending in other areas like the military. There is no reason to have a military 10 times the size of everyone else while cutting meals on wheels.

I expect that kind of idiocy from Farmer, but surprised you'd buy it. Entitlement spending is projected to rise a little because of the aging of the population, but the current trajectory is indefinitely sustainable. And cutting entitlement spending to enable tax cuts for the rich doesn't actually do anything to make spending more sustainable anyway.
 
Whaaaat? You're telling me trickle down economics doesn't work? How dareally you!

Never get enough of this meme.


reaganomics-ronald-reagan-trickle-down-economics-demotivational+-poster-meme.jpg
 
I expect that kind of idiocy from Farmer, but surprised you'd buy it. Entitlement spending is projected to rise a little because of the aging of the population, but the current trajectory is indefinitely sustainable. And cutting entitlement spending to enable tax cuts for the rich doesn't actually do anything to make spending more sustainable anyway.
Jvoknab.gif
 
At some point, entitlement spending is going to have to be decreased. We can't eternally spend more on every program and hope that it will remain somehow sustainable.

What about cutting the defense budget? I think defense spending accounts for something over 50% of total spending.
 
I expect that kind of idiocy from Farmer, but surprised you'd buy it. Entitlement spending is projected to rise a little because of the aging of the population, but the current trajectory is indefinitely sustainable. And cutting entitlement spending to enable tax cuts for the rich doesn't actually do anything to make spending more sustainable anyway.

I should have clarified. I agreed to his assertion that cuts were neesed, not necessarily to entitlement programs like social security, medicare, etc. that directly benefit the tax payer, but to many other areas of government spending that can be trimmed up.
 
What about cutting the defense budget? I think defense spending accounts for something over 50% of total spending.

Don't worry they will dig out a chart made by a Koch backed group that shows that Military Spending is less then 30 percent of the total. :)
 
At some point, entitlement spending is going to have to be decreased. We can't eternally spend more on every program and hope that it will remain somehow sustainable.

Sure, assuming that we're not increasing our costs elsewhere, like the military, or cutting our revenue, like with tax cuts for the upper end of the income/wealth/corporate groups.

If you cut entitlement spending while cutting revenue and upping spending elsewhere, you're not moving towards sustainability. You're maintaining the same financial trajectory but shifting the cost burden.

It's an interesting parallel to feudal societies where the lifestyles and needs of the nobility were essentially financed by reducing the economic rewards of the peasants.
 
I should have clarified. I agreed to his assertion that cuts were neesed, not necessarily to entitlement programs like social security, medicare, etc. that directly benefit the tax payer, but to many other areas of government spending that can be trimmed up.

I wouldn't even say that any cuts are *needed*. Debt is a non-issue at the current time and for the foreseeable future. If people *prefer* a high-tax/low-service/low-debt model to a low-service/low-tax model or a Sanders-style high-service/high-tax model, that's one thing, but the case should be made on its merits rather than on the basis of an imaginary debt problem.

BTW, I personally have no real preference, except I think the first one is bad. I tend to look at it on more of a case-by-case basis.
 
Back
Top