newfie
Well-Known Member
They better because the Dems sure won't do anything to helpYa, just wait for a unified republican government and they’ll fix the ACA! Oh, wait.
Political gain over rides the needs of the populace.
They better because the Dems sure won't do anything to helpYa, just wait for a unified republican government and they’ll fix the ACA! Oh, wait.
Who new healthcare could be so complicated?Ya, just wait for a unified republican government and they’ll fix the ACA! Oh, wait.
Kinda like the Repubs with the last tax reform bill?They would need a time machine to go back and fix the problems with Obamacare. It was planned to fail and mess up things so bad single payer would look like a better option.
Now that some people are getting "free" or subsidized insurance (paid for by others) they won't want to go back to paying their own way.
The math never did add up which is why the Dems forced it through Congress while they could.
No.Kinda like the Repubs with the last tax reform bill?
You mean the one that pays for itself and won't add to the deficit?
It is working.You mean the one that pays for itself and won't add to the deficit?
Agreed. The budget deficit is increasing but the rich and corporations are paying less.It is working.
I'm talking about the percentage of the states total population that is receiving assistance. VT look . You like millions of other Americans spent their entire lives killing themselves making somebody else rich and now that the physicality of the job has taken it's toll you discover that you have absolutely nothing and will be dependent on the social programs that we evil communist/socialist pinko liberals passed into law. It's not socialism It's about bringing balance to the equation and the history books are full of examples of what happens when there's no balance.OK, looked it up. Texas has 4.3 million recipients. You failed to mention that California has just shy of 12 million. And New York, which has a substantially smaller population than Texas, has 6.5 million! You like to smear the conservative state but ignore the higher percentage of recipients in the big liberal states. This is typical distortion because you can't defend policy.
How is that possible with government revenue actually increasing after the tax cut? Oh yeah, they had to compromise with Democrats and spend more to get their military spending. Too many Republicans wanted less spending to get budget passed, so they had to turn to free spending Democrats. Have to put this out there over and over because Democrats want to put the deficit completely on Republicans and we know it's a bipartisan effort. Just as the huge increases in our debt under Obama was funded by a Republican majority for 6 years. Now the Democrats will again be in charge of the purse strings so let's see if they do any better.Agreed. The budget deficit is increasing but the rich and corporations are paying less.
"Repeal and replace. Repeal and replace" . There was "repeal" alright but there was no "replace" . Why? because there was never going to be a "replace"Ya, just wait for a unified republican government and they’ll fix the ACA! Oh, wait.
I'm talking about the percentage of the states total population that is receiving assistance. VT look . You like millions of other Americans spent their entire lives killing themselves making somebody else rich and now that the physicality of the job has taken it's toll you discover that you have absolutely nothing and will be dependent on the social programs that we evil communist/socialist pinko liberals passed into law. It's not socialism It's about bringing balance to the equation and the history books are full of examples of what happens when there's no balance.
VT, you keep hollering for spending cuts but you never say specifically where. BTW At the closing of the US governments 2017-18 fiscal year on 9-30 the ending deficit was 800 billion. One third higher than the previous year. And now that the economy is slumping with GDP growth projection 2.5% at best next year the 2018-19 deficit is expected to top one trillionHow is that possible with government revenue actually increasing after the tax cut? Oh yeah, they had to compromise with Democrats and spend more to get their military spending. Too many Republicans wanted less spending to get budget passed, so they had to turn to free spending Democrats. Have to put this out there over and over because Democrats want to put the deficit completely on Republicans and we know it's a bipartisan effort. Just as the huge increases in our debt under Obama was funded by a Republican majority for 6 years. Now the Democrats will again be in charge of the purse strings so let's see if they do any better.
But you specifically bring up Texas to ridicule when California and New York have higher percentages of their populations on Medicaid. I just checked those but no doubt other states have higher percentages too. By the way, I knew and know what I'd be getting under SS. It's not found money and it's always been part of my strategy for retirement. Yes, I'm paying a physical toll for physical work. I quit early enough so that it hopefully won't be as bad as if I worked until I'm 67. But it's a fact that should be drilled into kids heads from an early age...SS isn't enough for a decent retirement in the U.S.. If they want to retire someday they need to start saving every week of their working lives and increase that as their pay goes up over time. Everything else needs to be second in priority. I wish I had listened to that but blew way too much in my earlier years. And most won't do that and will find themselves in a bind eventually.I'm talking about the percentage of the states total population that is receiving assistance. VT look . You like millions of other Americans spent their entire lives killing themselves making somebody else rich and now that the physicality of the job has taken it's toll you discover that you have absolutely nothing and will be dependent on the social programs that we evil communist/socialist pinko liberals passed into law. It's not socialism It's about bringing balance to the equation and the history books are full of examples of what happens when there's no balance.
What's your point? Republicans controlled the money the last 6 years of Obama's administration and the deficit declined. But it went up in a compromise with Democrats this year. At least this year revenue increased in spite of Democrats claiming the tax cuts would reduce revenue. If the Democrats are concerned about the deficit then they are now in position to do something about it. They control the purse strings for at least the next two years.VT, you keep hollering for spending cuts but you never say specifically where. BTW At the closing of the US governments 2017-18 fiscal year on 9-30 the ending deficit was 800 billion. One third higher than the previous year. And now that the economy is slumping with GDP growth projection 2.5% at best next year the 2018-19 deficit is expected to top one trillion
Exactly WHERE do we start cutting? Of course your answer would be ......"cut everywhere else but don't cut in places where i would be negatively impacted" .What's your point? Republicans controlled the money the last 6 years of Obama's administration and the deficit declined. But it went up in a compromise with Democrats this year. At least this year revenue increased in spite of Democrats claiming the tax cuts would reduce revenue. If the Democrats are concerned about the deficit then they are now in position to do something about it. They control the purse strings for at least the next two years.
Well first off Social Security is a separate program that should be required to have a hands off policy instead of the government using those funds for other things. Agree? Second there are ridiculous things being funded that shouldn't be. A congressman puts together a book of these every year to demonstrate how badly our money is being spent. Third it's recognized that there's a huge amount of waste and fraud going on but nothing ever seems to be done about it. Probably because it allows many in government to dip their hands into the til. Fourth there should be limits in place that require the government to work within those limits. And finally people shouldn't look to the government to pay their way when they are young and able bodied. No excuse for not working these days. My brother, who's very liberal, said to me one time that if the only job available is McDonald's then they might as well stay home and collect benefits. No, they should work at McDonald's. If people want better for their kids than the menial jobs they have they will start pushing their kids to study. As long as they have a halfway decent life at government expense there's little incentive to do more.Exactly WHERE do we start cutting? Of course your answer would be ......"cut everywhere else but don't cut in places where i would be negatively impacted" .
Who new healthcare could be so complicated?
You lost this argument already let the dead dog rest in peaceI'm talking about the percentage of the states total population that is receiving assistance. VT look . You like millions of other Americans spent their entire lives killing themselves making somebody else rich and now that the physicality of the job has taken it's toll you discover that you have absolutely nothing and will be dependent on the social programs that we evil communist/socialist pinko liberals passed into law. It's not socialism It's about bringing balance to the equation and the history books are full of examples of what happens when there's no balance.