'we dont have a spending problem'

[dogtowner]

thats a pretty scary statement from a president especially to a congresscritter.

we all know that congress loves spending other people's money to buy votes but one would hope that when having the world's economic minds telling you otherwise (including every last person past or present in his administration even including himself) that a chief executive would lead in a more responsible direction.

In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”

 

[Cruella]

thats a pretty scary statement from a president especially to a congresscritter.

we all know that congress loves spending other people's money to buy votes but one would hope that when having the world's economic minds telling you otherwise (including every last person past or present in his administration even including himself) that a chief executive would lead in a more responsible direction.

Obama has absolutely no intention of being responsible or cut spending. (Unless it's the military) Even if you could get both houses to pass a bill that cuts spending or even get a balanced budget, there is no way Obama would sign it.

The House is either going to have to shut down the government or raise taxes and keep extending the debt limit.

 

[dogtowner]

Obama has absolutely no intention of being responsible or cut spending. (Unless it's the military) Even if you could get both houses to pass a bill that cuts spending or even get a balanced budget, there is no way Obama would sign it.

The House is either going to have to shut down the government or raise taxes and keep extending the debt limit.

painful as it is, cold turkey may be the only way out of this mess. reason and fact face an uphill battle of biblical proportions.

 

[Cruella]

painful as it is, cold turkey may be the only way out of this mess. reason and fact face an uphill battle of biblical proportions.

Shutting down the government would come at a huge cost to Republicans. If truth be told, it's probably part of the left's plan. Too bad Republican's haven't been smart enough to figure out just how badly they are being played. But even if they have figured it out, who would listen? Maybe it's time for the grass-roots to jump back in and be unrelenting.

 

[Gipper]

I don't think Big Ears is alone in believing spending is not a problem. Many on the left, including some posters on this forum, do not think we have a spending problem. Now....how is this possible...when we have a national debt over $16 TRILLION and running TRILLION dollar plus deficits annually?

How could anyone with a functioning brain think this way? I suspect this is another example of how brainwashed or uninformed many on the left are.

It is apparent that many politicians, both Ds and Rs, are not concerned about the spending as they continue to deficit spend. Traitors all of them.

 

[Lagboltz]

thats a pretty scary statement from a president especially to a congresscritter.

we all know that congress loves spending other people's money to buy votes but one would hope that when having the world's economic minds telling you otherwise (including every last person past or present in his administration even including himself) that a chief executive would lead in a more responsible direction.

You can certainly look at it as a spending problem. Indeed it is. What is the solution? Stop spending as much. That is as far as the analysis of this problem goes for most conservative pundits, and this thread.

If you look at graphs on historical and predicted spending it is rising much much faster in Medicare/Medicaid than anything else. So in that sense it is both a spending problem and a health care problem. Paul Ryan has a graph on page 50 at the site,
http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
While Soc Sec, discretionary spending, and other programs are dropping or will level off, Medicare is "on an "unsustainable path."

So in that sense, Obama had a point, and the quote “We don’t have a spending problem,” is taken out of context and should be followed with Obama's qualifier, "we have a health care problem."

Ryan recognizes that you can't completely take away government medical programs and has a couple of paragraphs titled "Rationing Medicare", but does not go into much detail.

Realistically you should start talking about how to cut medical spending. For me, Medicare has been a godsend. You can only take away my Medicare over my dead body, which I suppose is literally true. And it will be literally true with Medicaid for all the others living near and below poverty level.

 

[dogtowner]

Well it id certainly true that medical costs are rising in spite of obamcare (/scarasm) that ignores why they are hemorraging money at least in part. Medicaid is way up due in no small part to swelling numbers of members. There has been a coresponding spike in people going on disability.

Add in the revenue lost from the millions in the jobforce and you have a mess.

Cause and effect mstters here.

 

[Lagboltz]

Well it id certainly true that medical costs are rising in spite of obamcare (/scarasm) that ignores why they are hemorraging money at least in part. Medicaid is way up due in no small part to swelling numbers of members. There has been a coresponding spike in people going on disability.

Add in the revenue lost from the millions in the jobforce and you have a mess.

Cause and effect mstters here.

Yes that is the problem - the aging society, including me. Older or disabled people are contributing less taxes, and are requiring more health care. That's a double whammy. So, what do you do about it. Death panels? It's a real dilemma.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes that is the problem - the aging society, including me. Older or disabled people are contributing less taxes, and are requiring more health care. That's a double whammy. So, what do you do about it. Death panels? It's a real dilemma.

put people to work as opposed to the rampant fraud behind the massive influx of didabled for starters.
even obama acknowledges the fraud though he may not appreciate the degree.

 

[Lagboltz]

put people to work as opposed to the rampant fraud behind the massive influx of didabled for starters.
even obama acknowledges the fraud though he may not appreciate the degree.

"massive influx" - are there any numbers on that? Limiting malpractice awards or maybe forced arbitration will lower physician costs.

My personal experience: A small invisible trace of blood in urine lead to my doctor cajoling me to see a specialist. After a CAT scan, ultrasound, and poking a periscope thingy into my you know what, he concluded that it was the blood thinner I was taking that may have caused the trace. But, he said there is scar tissue in my tubes and he must ream it out. I objected and said I had no problem. He said, (and I'm not kidding) that if he put him and me side by side I would see that he could pee much faster than me. I told him in so many words that I wasn't interested in winning a pissing contest, I was satisfied to just get to the finishing line. He was pissed and so was I, so to speak.

I didn't mean to go into that much detail on my anecdotal experience, but things like this happened twice before. Expensive procedures just because specialists want to drum up business? or because they want to cover their butts from malpractice and leave no stone unturned? both? If this sort of thing was controlled would it backfire and remove needed health care from those who really need it? It seems that some sort of triage is needed, but that scares the poor folks.

 

[dogtowner]

"massive influx" - are there any numbers on that? Limiting malpractice awards or maybe forced arbitration will lower physician costs.

My personal experience: A small invisible trace of blood in urine lead to my doctor cajoling me to see a specialist. After a CAT scan, ultrasound, and poking a periscope thingy into my you know what, he concluded that it was the blood thinner I was taking that may have caused the trace. But, he said there is scar tissue in my tubes and he must ream it out. I objected and said I had no problem. He said, (and I'm not kidding) that if he put him and me side by side I would see that he could pee much faster than me. I told him in so many words that I wasn't interested in winning a pissing contest, I was satisfied to just get to the finishing line. He was pissed and so was I, so to speak.

I didn't mean to go into that much detail on my anecdotal experience, but things like this happened twice before. Expensive procedures just because specialists want to drum up business? or because they want to cover their butts from malpractice and leave no stone unturned? both? If this sort of thing was controlled would it backfire and remove needed health care from those who really need it? It seems that some sort of triage is needed, but that scares the poor folks.

obama also admitted that defensive medicine was a massive money pit but refused to address it. you cam agrue the why but mainly it was opportunitu lost. issues behind medical costes are many and complex.

but most budgetary issues benefit greatly from people working.

 

[Gipper]

Yes that is the problem - the aging society, including me. Older or disabled people are contributing less taxes, and are requiring more health care. That's a double whammy. So, what do you do about it. Death panels? It's a real dilemma.

Yet you stated above that social security is not one of the drivers of the raising debt. Where did you get this information because it conflicts with the facts. The demographics of the USA showing an increasingly aging population. The huge baby boom generation (DOB 1946-1964) is heading into retirement. That is about 80 million Americans retiring over the next few years and many are without significant assets. As such, they will demand their benefits and only vote for the candidate or party willing to give them what they want, just as the misnamed Greatest Generation has done. Gimme....gimme....gimme....the Age of Entitlement is upon us all thanks to liberalism.

BO is a dunce. He has done nothing but explode spending and debt since taking the WH, and to what affect? Trying to find an excuse for his foolishness, is foolish. Funny how he and leftists condemned Bush for his spending, which was outrageous and most progressive of him, but apparently it is okay if a socialist D does it. HYPOCRISY!!!

You may not have heard from the ONE lib newspaper you read or Jon Stewart, but the total debt burden of the US government is something around $100 trillion. And yet, we have people excusing the actions of our leaders, who are responsible for the mess we are in.

Is Our Debt Burden Really $100 Trillion?

The U.S. national debt comes out to about $16 trillion today. That's something. But it's nothing compared to the extra $87 trillion in unfunded liabilities to Social Security, Medicare, and federal pensions. Here's how that works. If you add up all of the U.S. government's promises to pay retirement and health care benefits for the next 75 years and subtract the projected tax revenue dedicated to those programs over the next 75 years, there is a gap. A $87 trillion gap -- in addition to a $16 billion hole.
"Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs?" Chris Box and Bill Archer ask in the Wall Street Journal. The authors blame the U.S. government for using shoddy accounting and for misleading the American public on their finances. In fact, the most misleading thing about that $87 trillion is the way the figure is often used in the media.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/is-our-debt-burden-really-100-trillion/265644/

 

[Lagboltz]

Yet you stated above that social security is not one of the drivers of the raising debt. Where did you get this information because it conflicts with the facts. The demographics of the USA showing an increasingly aging population. The huge baby boom generation (DOB 1946-1964) is heading into retirement. That is about 80 million Americans retiring over the next few years and many are without significant assets.

Where did I get the information? I thought post #6 above was quite clear. Open the link and go to page 50 for Paul Ryan's graph. For your purposes I can't think of a better source than that. Here is the link again.
http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
Ryan shows the Soc Sec as a percent of GDP is 5% now and rises to a max of 6% in 2031 when the boomers are in full swing, then starts dropping again as the boomers die off. Compare that to the Health Care Spending, which goes from 5% GDP now to 12.5% in 2051.

 

[Gipper]

Where did I get the information? I thought post #6 above was quite clear. Open the link and go to page 50 for Paul Ryan's graph. For your purposes I can't think of a better source than that. Here is the link again.
http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
Ryan shows the Soc Sec as a percent of GDP is 5% now and rises to a max of 6% in 2031 when the boomers are in full swing, then starts dropping again as the boomers die off. Compare that to the Health Care Spending, which goes from 5% GDP now to 12.5% in 2051.

I would advise you not to listen to politicians, but then at your advanced age not to know that, it likely is too late.

Even the liberal rag the NY Times (the communications/propaganda arm of the D Party) knows SS is in big trouble. How could you have missed it?.... rhetorical question considering your limited and bias news sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/social-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html?_r=0

And there are lots more on the subject if you know how to use......Google.....
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/c...-warns-of-social-security-insolvency-by-2033/

You probably also don't know that Ryan's plan is a JOKE. It does not reach balance for 27 years....http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/14/dont-believe-the-hype-about-paul-ryan ......and look what your Dear Leader and your beloved Dems said about his ridiculously ineffective plan???? They demonized it as too austere all in the hopes of winning votes...which they did....

So do not expect the politicians to fix this problem when the POTUS, Ds (really commies), Rs (really progressives) have no intention of fixing it. Greece here we come.....

 

[Lagboltz]

I would advise you not to listen to politicians, but then at your advanced age not to know that, it likely is too late.

Even the liberal rag the NY Times (the communications/propaganda arm of the D Party) knows SS is in big trouble. How could you have missed it?.... rhetorical question considering your limited and bias news sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/social-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html?_r=0

And there are lots more on the subject if you know how to use......Google.....
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/c...-warns-of-social-security-insolvency-by-2033/

You probably also don't know that Ryan's plan is a JOKE. It does not reach balance for 27 years....http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/14/dont-believe-the-hype-about-paul-ryan ......and look what your Dear Leader and your beloved Dems said about his ridiculously ineffective plan???? They demonized it as too austere all in the hopes of winning votes...which they did....

So do not expect the politicians to fix this problem when the POTUS, Ds (really commies), Rs (really progressives) have no intention of fixing it. Greece here we come.....

I don't like Ryan's plan either but I was under the mistaken idea that most conservatives liked it because he was nominated for VP. My second perhaps mistaken understanding was that the graphs were not Ryan's plan but were his projection of how the current course of the D's would go if Ryan's plan was not adopted. The reason I thought that was because what kind of plan would have health care skyrocketing like that. That doesn't sound like a plan at all.

As far as Soc Sec, the gov has a separate tax for that which was originally a trust fund, but LBJ started raiding that, and putting IOU's in the supposed trust fund. When pundits say SS is running out of money, they forget the the feds owe it about $4 trillion. SS is not the problem, the feds raiding it and substituting IOUs is the problem.