cawacko
Well-known member
You still can't touch the Trustees report which was done by people in Obama's administration.
Words of wisdom from Dwight D. Eisenhower
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
You still can't touch the Trustees report which was done by people in Obama's administration.
Bfgrn
New member
I addressed that. And you are wrong on the CBO's report: The Extended Baseline Scenario includes cost savings in the AHA along with ending the Bush tax cuts. The Alternative Scenario is what would happen if the AHA is repealed and the Bush tax cuts extended.
cawacko
Well-known member
No I'm not wrong because the Trustees report already includes the health care act. Even with the health care act Medicare comes up trillions short. And ending the Bush tax cuts doesn't come close to addressing Meidcare's economic future.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Hey captain cut and paste....
As we already stated and YOUR quotes prove... they don't want to END it. They don't want to ABOLISH it. They want to change how it is run in order to SAVE it. Got it.... pea brain?
Bfgrn
New member
Ohhhh...so the most costly and least efficient 'for profit' medical system in the world is going to be applied to the most cost effective programs in this country...
Voodoo...
The Ryan Budget's Radical Priorities
Provides Largest Tax Cuts in History for Wealthy, Raises Middle Class Taxes, Ends Guaranteed Medicare, Privatizes Social Security, Erodes Health Care
I. Summary
The Roadmap for America’s Future, which Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) — the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee — released in late January, calls for radical policy changes that would result in a massive transfer of resources from the broad majority of Americans to the nation’s wealthiest individuals.[1]
The Roadmap would give the most affluent households a new round of very large, costly tax cuts by reducing income tax rates on high-income households; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. At the same time, the Ryan plan would raise taxes for most middle-income families, privatize a substantial portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid, and terminate the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would erode over time and thus would purchase health insurance that would cover fewer health care services as the years went by.
The tax cuts for those at the very top would be of historic proportions. A new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (TPC) finds:
The Ryan plan would cut in half the taxes of the richest 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes exceeding $633,000 (in 2009 dollars) in 2014.
The higher one goes up the income scale, the more massive the tax cuts would be. Households with incomes of more than $1 million would receive an average annual tax cut of $502,000.
The richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans — those whose incomes exceed $2.9 million a year — would receive an average tax cut of $1.7 million a year. These tax cuts would be on top of those that high-income households would get from making the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of 2010, permanent.
To offset some of the cost of these massive tax cuts, the Ryan plan would place a new consumption tax on most goods and services, a measure that would increase taxes on most low- and middle-income families. TPC finds that:
About three-quarters of Americans — those with incomes between $20,000 and $200,000 — would face tax increases. For example, households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 would face an average tax increase of $900. (These estimated changes in taxes are relative to the taxes that would be paid under a continuation of current policy — i.e., what tax liabilities would be if the President and Congress make permanent the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and relief from the alternative minimum tax.)
The plan would shift tax burdens so substantially from the wealthy to the middle class that people with incomes over $1 million would face much lower effective tax rates than middle-income families would. That is, they would pay much smaller percentages of their income in federal taxes.
Because of the Ryan plan’s enormous tax cuts for the affluent, even the very large benefit cuts that the plan would make in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — and the plan’s middle-class tax increases — would not put the federal budget on a sustainable course for decades. The federal debt would soar to about 175 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. In contrast, most fiscal policy analysts recommend that the debt-to-GDP ratio be stabilized within the next ten years, and at a far lower level.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Republicans have learned to be dishonest about their intentions regarding Social Security and Medicare.
In 1936, Alf Landon ran on a platform of repealing Social Security and won only two states.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater said the program should be made voluntary, got hammered by Republicans and Democrats alike for the remark, and then spent the rest of the campaign running away from it -- before he, too, was crushed.
Ronald Reagan took a different approach. In the 1980 debates, he said that Social Security was out of actuarial balance and that he would appoint a task force to fix it.
But the main point on which he insisted was that he supported the program and wouldn't cut benefits for retirees. Members of Congress who went further than that lost seats in the 1980s.
Ever since, Republicans who have sought to reform Social Security have adopted Reagan's attitude.
In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush repeatedly praised the program and at no point allowed any negative words about it to escape his lips -- while also saying that it needed reform.
Although Bush was unable to secure the changes he sought, such as starting personal accounts...
http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=129765648
In 1936, Alf Landon ran on a platform of repealing Social Security and won only two states.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater said the program should be made voluntary, got hammered by Republicans and Democrats alike for the remark, and then spent the rest of the campaign running away from it -- before he, too, was crushed.
Ronald Reagan took a different approach. In the 1980 debates, he said that Social Security was out of actuarial balance and that he would appoint a task force to fix it.
But the main point on which he insisted was that he supported the program and wouldn't cut benefits for retirees. Members of Congress who went further than that lost seats in the 1980s.
Ever since, Republicans who have sought to reform Social Security have adopted Reagan's attitude.
In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush repeatedly praised the program and at no point allowed any negative words about it to escape his lips -- while also saying that it needed reform.
Although Bush was unable to secure the changes he sought, such as starting personal accounts...
http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=129765648
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i got one right, he definitely changed the topic, though i haven't seen him declare himself the winner yet.....
Bfgrn
New member
i got one right, he definitely changed the topic, though i haven't seen him declare himself the winner yet.....
Hey you narcissistic little turd, this is NOT about YOU, this is about the American people. Please tell me what will happen to grandma who is living on a fixed income when she has to come up with 68% of her medical costs? Will she be 'just fine' Yurt?
It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
anyone with 4th grade reading comprehension skills could understand the topic wasn't about me, rather, YOU and your failure to support your OP. the topic was YOU changing the topic, but not yet declaring yourself the winner. look up sentence topic under google and then reread my sentence.
i want to note that you did not at all address your OP in your response. you completely moved the goal post to grandma's fixed income. your thread is not about that. you have run away from you OP because you know it is false. if you want to talk about grandma and medicare, why not start a new thread? why are so eager to avoid discussion about the OP and deflect inquiries about it?
Bfgrn
New member
QUOTE by Yurt
1. cutting is not equal to eliminating. thus your link fails to back up the OP on even one issue.
So if I am responsible for taking care of your grandma, and I cut off her arms and legs, I would not be eliminating her existence. No harm done, right Yurt?
You have the mind of a child and the ethics and morals that reflect being raised by wolves.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is possibly the worst analogy i've ever seen. in order to not distract you, i'll play along with this ridiculous analogy.
your analogy is not accurate, as cutting off all her limbs were not eliminate her existence, she could still survive and in fact, people have. notwithstanding that your analogy is grossly over exaggerated, in order to save your life, would you be willing to lose two limbs? in order to save grandma, would you rather kill her, or have her lose her limbs, assuming your "taking care of grandma" theory.
Bfgrn
New member
Grossly over exaggerated Yurt???
OK, then PLEASE tell me what will happen to grandma who is living on a fixed income when she has to come up with 68% of her medical costs? Will she be 'just fine' Yurt?
It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The righties seem to forget that shortly after Social Security became law, their candidate ran on a promise to repeal it.
He lost, so ever since they've used terms like "reform" "change" "improve" or "privatize".
He lost, so ever since they've used terms like "reform" "change" "improve" or "privatize".