Did you notice what I said? I said Romney was able to DECREASE healthcare costs in MA especially referring to PREMIUMS which was the point of his reforms - they were always very high which Romney was able to reverse with his reforms. You are simply looking at gross numbers trying to refute a claim that I never made. Also the chart I posted shows reversal in costs that happened in 2010, your data is for 2009.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An Obama Spending Spree? Hardly
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Did you notice what I said? I said Romney was able to DECREASE healthcare costs in MA especially referring to PREMIUMS which was the point of his reforms - they were always very high which Romney was able to reverse with his reforms. You are simply looking at gross numbers trying to refute a claim that I never made. Also the chart I posted shows reversal in costs that happened in 2010, your data is for 2009.
Quote from Max E. Pad:
Unreal isnt it? I really hope that i run into one of these people in a business transaction one day, so i can sell them some magic beans....
It takes a special kind of lunacy to think you can insure 50 million people without raising the deficit, at the same time the cost of healthcare goes down as a result..... I guess the basic laws of supply and demand do not apply to the government since they are so goddamn efficient when it comes to spending OUR money....
You are being extremely disingenuous. I destroyed your argument that Obamacare increased deficits when I pointed out that the CBO didn't even talk about deficits but only COSTS along with the budget OFFSETS which REDUCED deficits. And the concept behind the law is to get everyone in the healthcare pool and to get healty people paying which is how you decrease costs - it worked in every developed country in the world as it will here.
Here are couple of libertarian blogs backing up the original article, they tend to be far more reasonable and honest than Conservative blogs.
http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/
http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/
Indeed, you did say that the costs were able to decrease, then you showed fancy little chart of hypothetical mass. healthcare numbers for 2007 and beyond which also showed they were supposed to decrease....
Then i showed you the ACTUAL HEALTHCARE SPENDING PER CAPITA for 2009 which showed that Mass. has the second highest per capita healthcare spending in the nation.....
Turns out your fairy tale hypothetical charts where healtcare costs were supposed to go down didnt really come to fruition now did they?
Then i showed you the ACTUAL HEALTHCARE SPENDING PER CAPITA for 2009 which showed that Mass. has the second highest per capita healthcare spending in the nation.....
Turns out your fairy tale hypothetical charts where healtcare costs were supposed to go down didnt really come to fruition now did they?
Quote from epiktetos:
Did you notice what I said? I said Romney was able to DECREASE healthcare costs9.
From the Cato Link:
(though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bushâs last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an âomnibusâ spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).
Add to that the TARP argument, and it seems to perfectly confirm exactly what i said.........
(though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bushâs last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an âomnibusâ spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).
Add to that the TARP argument, and it seems to perfectly confirm exactly what i said.........
Quote from epiktetos:
Here are couple of libertarian blogs backing up the original article, they tend to be far more reasonable and honest than Conservative blogs.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/
Quote from Max E. Pad:
Indeed, you did say that the costs were able to decrease, then you showed fancy little chart of hypothetical mass. healthcare numbers for 2007 and beyond which also showed they were supposed to decrease....
Then i showed you the ACTUAL HEALTHCARE SPENDING PER CAPITA for 2009 which showed that Mass. has the second highest per capita healthcare spending in the nation.....
Turns out your fairy tale hypothetical charts where healtcare costs were supposed to go down didnt really come to fruition now did they?
Problem with your argument is that I showed COST DECREASES In 2010 while you are harping about NUMBERS FROM 2009. If you cannot follow an argument, don't pretend that you are refuting it.
Quote from Max E. Pad:
From the Cato Link:
(though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bushâs last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an âomnibusâ spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).
Add to that the TARP argument, and it seems to perfectly confirm exactly what i said.........
Yes, a SMALL SHARE like 31 billion dollar increase due to the Omnibus bill and the 140 billion increase due to the stimulus tax cuts going into effect. Also your TARP argument was already destroyed, it showed a decrease in outlays, it wasn't repaid even partially much much later.
Quote from epiktetos:
Yes, a SMALL SHARE like 31 billion dollar increase due to the Omnibus bill and the 140 billion increase due to the stimulus tax cuts going into effect. Also your TARP argument was already destroyed, it showed a decrease in outlays, it wasn't repaid even partially much much later.
You seem lost.... it doesnt fucking matter whether or not TARP was repaid, (other than the fact it would make Obama look even worse) What matters is that it was a 1 time payment.....
If 250 billion had to go out the door in 2009 for TARP then that would mean that Obamas budget in 2010 should have automatically been 250 billion lower, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A 1 TIME EXPENDITURE. Do you understand that? If 250 billion dollars goes out 1 year, then the next year that same 250 billion doesnt need to go out the door what is Obamas excuse for holding those levels?
Plus Obama has now went all over the country claiming he is personally responsible for GM being alive, it is one of his biggest claims to fame, so tell me something, is it not fair to attribute the 100 billion in TARP funds that went to the Auto industry to Obama, given the fact he is taking credit for it?
Or should we put that bill on Bush's tab, but still give Obama credit for it? You cant have your cake an eat it too, either Obama bailed out the auto industry or Bush did, but whoever you think should get credit for it, also has to take the responsibility for the spending, unless you are completely disingenous.
Like i said Obama is responsible for 350-400 billion in the 2009 budget, that is fair, and it means he increased spending by 10% and held that level, not the ridiculous 1.4% claimed in the article.
Oh and btw Obama chose to extend the "Bush tax cuts" so those are now the "Obama tax cuts" it is completely disingenous to attribute that to Bush at this point when the Bush Taxcuts already expired, Its funny cause Obama is such a coward he would not let those tax cuts go even though he spends all his time railing away on them, If those tax cuts were so bad, and they do nothing to help the economy, why did he choose to renew them? He also signed in the Payroll Tax cuts, all combined thats another 300 billion yearly fee that Obama has now added to the deficit. When you add that up with the other 400 billion we have already found, thats 700 billion dollars of the deficit that Obama is responsible for.
I suspect this is the reason why Obama chose to renew the Bush Tax cuts.
Obama's former chief economist Christina Romer and her husband David Romer, in a 2010 academic paper, wrote that "exogenous" tax increases, like letting the "Bush tax cuts" expire after the recession is over, are "highly contractionary."
"Our estimates suggest that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP reduces output over the next three years by 3 percent," the Romers wrote. "The effect is highly significant."
Funny for all the demagoguing from the left about how the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy, Obama's chief Economist has quite the opposite opinion, and Obama trusted her enough that he went ahead and also went with that tax policy. Probably the only smart thing either Obama or Bush did were those tax cuts. If those 2 incompetent buffoons hadnt went on a spending orgy right after words we would probably be in decent shape right now.
I suspect this is the reason why Obama chose to renew the Bush Tax cuts.
Obama's former chief economist Christina Romer and her husband David Romer, in a 2010 academic paper, wrote that "exogenous" tax increases, like letting the "Bush tax cuts" expire after the recession is over, are "highly contractionary."
"Our estimates suggest that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP reduces output over the next three years by 3 percent," the Romers wrote. "The effect is highly significant."
Funny for all the demagoguing from the left about how the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy, Obama's chief Economist has quite the opposite opinion, and Obama trusted her enough that he went ahead and also went with that tax policy. Probably the only smart thing either Obama or Bush did were those tax cuts. If those 2 incompetent buffoons hadnt went on a spending orgy right after words we would probably be in decent shape right now.
You seem lost.... it doesnt fucking matter whether or not TARP was repaid, (other than the fact it would make Obama look even worse) What matters is that it was a 1 time payment.....
First, you said that it was repaid, it wasn't me who brought up the issue, I was simply correcting you.
If 250 billion had to go out the door in 2009 for TARP then that would mean that Obamas budget in 2010 should have automatically been 250 billion lower, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A 1 TIME EXPENDITURE. Do you understand that? If 250 billion dollars goes out 1 year, then the next year that same 250 billion doesnt need to go out the door what is Obamas excuse for holding those levels?
Actually, looking at CBO figures, the outlays were 150 billion dollars. And if you look at the increase in outlays for mandatory programs like Medicare and Medicaid, it would be pretty clear that it wasn't TARP that was responsbile for holding those levels.
Plus Obama has now went all over the country claiming he is personally responsible for GM being alive, it is one of his biggest claims to fame, so tell me something, is it not fair to attribute the 100 billion in TARP funds that went to the Auto industry to Obama, given the fact he is taking credit for it?
Sure but the net cost is 20 billion and not 100 billion.
Or should we put that bill on Bush's tab, but still give Obama credit for it? You cant have your cake an eat it too, either Obama bailed out the auto industry or Bush did, but whoever you think should get credit for it, also has to take the responsibility for the spending, unless you are completely disingenous.
Actually Bush authorized 700 billion dollars, Obama (under Dodd Frank) reduced it to 475 billion dollars and the 20 billion cost due to the GM bailout was added to Obama deficits in FY 2010 onwards and not Bush.
Like i said Obama is responsible for 350-400 billion in the 2009 budget, that is fair, and it means he increased spending by 10% and held that level, not the ridiculous 1.4% claimed in the article.
So let's exclude the 2009 budget and look at the baseline from FY 2008 without all these temporary factors and see if Obama increased the spending or not.
Data here - http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2002_2012USr_13s1li111lcn_F0f
Spending went from $2.01T in FY 2002 to $2.98T in FY 2008 for a total increase of 48.26% in 7 budgets, which yields an average annual increase of 6.78% ([2.98 / 2.01]^1/6) for the six budgets after his first.
Now let's take GW's FY 2008 and extend it out into the future at his average rate. We get:
FY 2009: $3.18T
FY 2010: $3.40T
FY 2011: $3.63T
FY 2012: $3.87T
Now let's see what actually happened.
FY 2009: $3.52T (GW + Obama)
FY 2010: $3.46T
FY 2011: $3.60T
FY 2012: $3.80T (projected)
So, the federal government is spending less than it would have if no Great Recession had occurred and Obama has simply continued growing the government at a rate SLOWER than GW did proving that the article is indeed correct.