Originally posted by The Daily Beast
After a yearlong struggle, health-care reform is finally here. The House has approved the health-care reconciliation bill tonight with a vote of 220-207. Instead of the bill heading straight to President Obama's desk, Republicans noted parliamentary problems that required the House to vote again on technical issues. Earlier today, the Senate passed the bill 56-43, and it makes amendments to the historic bill which became law on Tuesday. The bill will crack down on insurance industry abuses and is expected to reduce federal deficits by nearly $143 billion over a decade.
WIN.
Well, they passed it and their approval ratings might edge up a little bit.
$143 billion over a decade is a drop in the p*ss bucket compared to the US government's skyrocketing federal deficit. If you look next decade at the federal government's budget chart, this purported "save" (green) on money will be lost in the sea of "spend" (red) on actuality.
Originally posted by Moscow
Well, they passed it and their approval ratings might edge up a little bit.$143 billion over a decade is a drop in the p*ss bucket compared to the US government's skyrocketing federal deficit. If you look next decade at the federal government's budget chart, this purported "save" (green) on money will be lost in the sea of "spend" (red) on actuality.
I don't expect it to save money, at all. In fact, I think the numbers are wrong and it will end up like any other program that pretends to save money: it will create more long term debt.
However, if we had a bunch of programs that saved us money long term: $100 billion here, $200 billion there, we would eventually end back up in the black.
I say we start with the DEA. 😐 Legalize weed, shrooms, and other "less harmful" drugs. Put a hefty federal excise taxes on them. Then cut and slash other programs...like SS. 😐
The end.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Depends on how much this person makes.But, your example is sh*t, KR. It doesn't even do good to expess what you mean.
Better example:
You are 13,000 dollers in debt.
And you are increasing your debt by 1900 dollars a year.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htmYour revenue is 4600 a year.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/And then you decide to make a purchase that will cost you $200 a year, by it's 10th year...but saves you 138 dollars in, net, in those 10 years?
http://gothamist.com/2010/03/18/report_health_care_bill_costs_940_b.phpI'd rather go with the direct numbers..
You make a purchase that will cost 940 dollars it's first year:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/18/cbo-health-care-bill-costs-940b-lowers-deficit-130b/So, not only are you increasing your short term spending, you're also STILL waaaaaaaay over spending.
In other words, we are in major debt, are increasing our debt, and only pipe dreams tell us we will decrease debt. We all know that we won't save jack after 10 years and it will just increase our debt. But, I hope I'm wrong. 😄
Ok? You said exactly what I did, except you decided to get real specific and waste your time turning this into a scientific experiment.
The point still stands: When you are in debt, you shouldn't do something that will throw you even farther into debt.
Originally posted by KidRock
Ok? You said exactly what I did, except you decided to get real specific and waste your time turning this into a scientific experiment.
How is this a scientific experiment? Your numbers didn't even come close to being in a proper ratio with the real numbers.
Your numbers implied that Obama is going to be spending 12 trillion more dollars. Not even close to being accurate.
My numbers were in the proper ratio...almost exact, to be specific. (lulz)
Your example was shit and I hated it. 😠 It HAS to be RIGHT, damnit!
However, I obviously agreed with your point. 313
Originally posted by KidRock
The point still stands: When you are in debt, you shouldn't do something that will throw you even farther into debt.
According to the numbers, it will take us out of debt a little. 😆
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't expect it to save money, at all. In fact, I think the numbers are wrong and it will end up like any other program that pretends to save money: it will create more long term debt.However, if we had a bunch of programs that saved us money long term: $100 billion here, $200 billion there, we would eventually end back up in the black.
I say we start with the DEA. 😐 Legalize weed, shrooms, and other "less harmful" drugs. Put a hefty federal excise taxes on them. Then cut and slash other programs...like SS. 😐
The end.
Eventually would be a long time. Legalizing and taxing weed and prostitution alongside gutting the Defense Dept would make a considerable stab at reaching partially the goal I would think.
We would still need some more creative and gutsy minds to take care of the rest
Originally posted by Moscow
Eventually would be a long time. Legalizing and taxing weed and prostitution alongside gutting the Defense Dept would make a considerable stab at reaching partially the goal I would think.We would still need some more creative and gutsy minds to take care of the rest
Yes. One of the other groups I want to dismantle or cut down to a small stump is the FDA.
Also, I want to get rid of The Fed.
I'd definitely be assisnated by multiple groups from Corporate contract assasins, Mafia (Russian, Italian, Irish, etc.), government highered, down to the little guy that lost a job due to my actions. The only peole that wouldn't come after me would be the right-wing extremists, white supremicists, some old school conservative repbulicans, ibertarains, etc.
So...like..I'd piss off everyone except the people that I really don't like...except the libertarians.
Getting rid of the Fed would be a wonderful idea. I'm not a typical Jacksonian nut, but the Federal Reserve is one instance of money power that has gone too far over the edge.
It's always interesting to be on a Mafia hit list-- you could learn a new language that way.
Finally, pissing off a crapload of people is always b*tching fun