Worst Budget Year Ever

[Iceberg]

And conservatives say that George Bush is doing a good job. Feh.

[Stormbringer]

And conservatives say that George Bush is doing a good job. Feh.

And the Democrats are willing to tell the seniors to fuck off? Perhaps tell our troops to forget their promised benefits? Or forgo their pork barrelling?

Or for that matter does Dean want to cut down on the massive entitlement programs? Nope, he wants to add ones that will be on a par with Social Security for pissing away money.

When you find a candidate that is actually in favor of cutting the waste and bloat in government let me know, I've always wanted to be part of a miracle.

[Alyeska]

This is because Bush has the brilliant strategy to cut taxes while increasing spending.

[RedImperator]

You're not going to hear me defend this. The Federal budget needs someone to take a chainsaw to it. And I'm not just talking about pork barrel projects, I'm talking entire Cabinet departments need to go. Oh, were I the President and I had a compliant Congress...

[Iceberg]

And conservatives say that George Bush is doing a good job. Feh.

And the Democrats are willing to tell the seniors to fuck off? Perhaps tell our troops to forget their promised benefits? Or forgo their pork barrelling?

Or for that matter does Dean want to cut down on the massive entitlement programs? Nope, he wants to add ones that will be on a par with Social Security for pissing away money.

When you find a candidate that is actually in favor of cutting the waste and bloat in government let me know, I've always wanted to be part of a miracle.

Wow, now this is the biggest example of a tu quoque fallacy I've ever seen. If the Republicans wanted the budget cut, it would be cut - that's the advantage of having the Presidency and both houses of Congress.

[Stormbringer]

And conservatives say that George Bush is doing a good job. Feh.

And the Democrats are willing to tell the seniors to fuck off? Perhaps tell our troops to forget their promised benefits? Or forgo their pork barrelling?

Or for that matter does Dean want to cut down on the massive entitlement programs? Nope, he wants to add ones that will be on a par with Social Security for pissing away money.

When you find a candidate that is actually in favor of cutting the waste and bloat in government let me know, I've always wanted to be part of a miracle.

Wow, now this is the biggest example of a tu quoque fallacy I've ever seen. If the Republicans wanted the budget cut, it would be cut - that's the advantage of having the Presidency and both houses of Congress.

How is it fallicious to note that both parties are perfectly willing to embrace reckless spending when it fits their agenda? I'm saying both parties fully intend to bend the American public over and dick us long and hard, the Democrats are no better than the Republicans and possibly worse. I don't want to hear the liberals crowing about how bad the deficet is when their leading candidate intends to create the biggest money sink since Social Security.

[Iceberg]

Yes, just like national health care has bankrupted every other country that's ever tried it, so clearly it's a boondoggle that should never be attempted.

Oh wait, that's wrong. Care to try again?

[LadyTevar]

It's not just the Country, it's bad on the State level as well. WV is seriously considering shutting down governmental offices for 1-3 weeks because they're running short on money.

[Stormbringer]

Yes, just like national health care has bankrupted every other country that's ever tried it, so clearly it's a boondoggle that should never be attempted.

Oh wait, that's wrong. Care to try again?

Because Medicare and Medicaid are models of efficiency and cost effectiveness.


Oh wait, they're money pit programs that suck up an unholy amount of the budget yet deliver piss poor service at inflated costs! That's exactly the kind of program we want to enact, except now we'll supersize it! Fucking hell that's brilliant!


(And it of course ignores the serious budget woes of those foreign countries' health plans)

[Iceberg]

Yes, just like national health care has bankrupted every other country that's ever tried it, so clearly it's a boondoggle that should never be attempted.

Oh wait, that's wrong. Care to try again?

Because Medicare and Medicaid are models of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Too bad for you Dean's plan is modeled on Vermont's plan (which he wrote and enacted), which itself is based on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which is the most efficient health care plan in the country, Medicare and Medicaid are inefficient and expensive because they add a layer of bureaucracy on top of existing providers, rather than providing an alternative to those providers. So given that we already know that the Dean plan works and is cost-efficient (because it's already effectively been tested for a decade)...

[Stormbringer]

Too bad for you Dean's plan is modeled on Vermont's plan (which he wrote and enacted), which itself is based on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which is the most efficient health care plan in the country, Medicare and Medicaid are inefficient and expensive because they add a layer of bureaucracy on top of existing providers, rather than providing an alternative to those providers. So given that we already know that the Dean plan works and is cost-efficient (because it's already effectively been tested for a decade)...

And how exactly will we keep that bureacracy away how? Nearly every program in the Federal government would work better and more efficiently if the Feds were hands off. Not to mention how do you automatically scale it up? How do you pay for it in the first place, so far I haven't heard any of that explained.

[SirNitram]

Too bad for you Dean's plan is modeled on Vermont's plan (which he wrote and enacted), which itself is based on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which is the most efficient health care plan in the country, Medicare and Medicaid are inefficient and expensive because they add a layer of bureaucracy on top of existing providers, rather than providing an alternative to those providers. So given that we already know that the Dean plan works and is cost-efficient (because it's already effectively been tested for a decade)...

And how exactly will we keep that bureacracy away how? Nearly every program in the Federal government would work better and more efficiently if the Feds were hands off. Not to mention how do you automatically scale it up? How do you pay for it in the first place, so far I haven't heard any of that explained.

And the conservative plan is what? Bitch and moan and pray a miracle occours? Christ, if one party can't get it working, the other should create a solution. Then again, that requires actual thought.

[weemadando]

Because Medicare and Medicaid are models of efficiency and cost effectiveness. :P


Oh wait, they're money pit programs that suck up an unholy amount of the budget yet deliver piss poor service at inflated costs! That's exactly the kind of program we want to enact, except now we'll supersize it! Fucking hell that's brilliant! :roll:


(And it of course ignores the serious budget woes of those foreign countries' health plans)

Then how come Australia has had a fully functional open access public healthcare program in existance for 20+ years without having the country go down the gurgler?

Only recently because of the insanely high amount of litigation and ensuing insurance hikes is bulk-billing starting to disappear, but public hospital cover etc is still well and truly here.

[Stormbringer]

And the conservative plan is what? Bitch and moan and pray a miracle occours? Christ, if one party can't get it working, the other should create a solution. Then again, that requires actual thought.

That of course presumes that there is a solution. But unfortunately there hasn't been a government social program yet that hasn't gone down the toliet due to mismanagement. Half the government would work better if it kept its hands off.

As it stands it's better for most everyone if the government didn't get any more involved in health care. Until we straighten out the messes with Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid we can't afford to try.

[SirNitram]

And the conservative plan is what? Bitch and moan and pray a miracle occours? Christ, if one party can't get it working, the other should create a solution. Then again, that requires actual thought.

That of course presumes that there is a solution. But unfortunately there hasn't been a government social program yet that hasn't gone down the toliet due to mismanagement. Half the government would work better if it kept its hands off.

Funny, I can name a number of governments with socialized healthcare that works. This paragraph is a load of shit.. Unless you refer simply to the American government. And if your government can't get it's shit together...

As it stands it's better for most everyone if the government didn't get any more involved in health care. Until we straighten out the messes with Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid we can't afford to try.

So we should just sit waiting until the whole edifice collapses, taking, from the estimates I've seen some people bandy around here, most of the economy with it. One more reason I have little to no respect for American conservatives: Instead of even attempting a solution to an incoming problem, they just pick at other's attempts and do jack shit.

[Stormbringer]

Then how come Australia has had a fully functional open access public healthcare program in existance for 20+ years without having the country go down the gurgler?

Two reasons:

1) Australia hasn't mismanaged it's program in fucking moronic manner that Congress, the paper pushers, lawyers, and the AARP have the American system.

2) You don't have the problems we do with the baby boomers.

Only recently because of the insanely high amount of litigation and ensuing insurance hikes is bulk-billing starting to disappear, but public hospital cover etc is still well and truly here.

If we could curb the truly staggering amounts of litigation here health care in general would be more affordable, private or governmentally provided.

[Stormbringer]

Funny, I can name a number of governments with socialized healthcare that works. This paragraph is a load of shit.. Unless you refer simply to the American government. And if your government can't get it's shit together...

With the Congress and President we've had, I'm not sure they can. Certainly no administration since FDR took the reins has attempted to curb the problems with the overwhelming bureacracy.

So we should just sit waiting until the whole edifice collapses, taking, from the estimates I've seen some people bandy around here, most of the economy with it.

Actually we ought to be doing something about it, that's the problem. NO ONE HAS. I'm personally in favor of simply cutting out all the government middlemen and telling the AARP to fuck off and making the programs based on the need of the patient/

One more reason I have little to no respect for American conservatives: Instead of even attempting a solution to an incoming problem, they just pick at other's attempts and do jack shit.

And how does piling more expensive programs help fixe the ones already on the verge of going belly up? The problem is there isn't solution that's any one is willing to actually follow.

We simply need to cut back the middlemen and cut back the eligibility to those that actually need it. Or as I prefer, simply scrap the programs entirely.

[SirNitram]

Funny, I can name a number of governments with socialized healthcare that works. This paragraph is a load of shit.. Unless you refer simply to the American government. And if your government can't get it's shit together...

With Congress, I'm not sure they can. Certainly no administration since FDR took the reins has attempted to curb the problems with the overwhelming bureacracy.

So instead of doing anything to either correct the immediate problem or correct the deeper problem, it's better to fuck around and wait for implosion?

So we should just sit waiting until the whole edifice collapses, taking, from the estimates I've seen some people bandy around here, most of the economy with it.

Actually we ought to be doing something about it, that's the problem. NO ONE HAS. I'm personally in favor of simply cutting out all the government middlemen and telling the AARP to fuck off and making the programs based on the need of the patient/

Good! I don't know if this would work, or if it would be in the best interests of the people in the long run, but it's better than sitting with thumbs up your asses. Go find a candidate that'll try it and back him.

One more reason I have little to no respect for American conservatives: Instead of even attempting a solution to an incoming problem, they just pick at other's attempts and do jack shit.

And how does piling more expensive programs help fixe the ones already on the verge of going belly up? The problem is there isn't solution that's any one is willing to actually follow.

We simply need to cut back the middlemen and cut back the eligibility to those that actually need it. Or as I prefer, simply scrap the programs entirely.

Do something about it. Don't just whine that a plan doesn't work and do nothing. Find a goddamn candidate with a workable plan, mail your own goddamn plan to candidates if you have to. Better than just sitting around, patting yourselves on the back for not letting the Evil Liberals do something about that sucking noise in the economy.

[muse]

Because Medicare and Medicaid are models of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Oh wait, they're money pit programs that suck up an unholy amount of the budget yet deliver piss poor service at inflated costs! That's exactly the kind of program we want to enact, except now we'll supersize it! Fucking hell that's brilliant!


(And it of course ignores the serious budget woes of those foreign countries' health plans)

Canada has full public health coverage, and I might also add that we've had a federal budget surplus for the last few years. That's right, a surplus, imagine that. Populationwise I believe Canada has a similar or greater percentage of baby boomers and senior citizens, I could be wrong though since I don't have my stats books around here.

[SirNitram]

I notice, after posting, you added 'Congress and president' instead of just Congress. Well, get a new one. Isn't that supposed to be the cornerstone of your government, the fact you can get new ones?

[Stormbringer]

So instead of doing anything to either correct the immediate problem or correct the deeper problem, it's better to fuck around and wait for implosion?

No, but that's what both sides are doing. And one at least chomping at the bit to add to the mess.

Good! I don't know if this would work, or if it would be in the best interests of the people in the long run, but it's better than sitting with thumbs up your asses. Go find a candidate that'll try it and back him.

In both the short and long runs it'll be better than what we have going now. None of the programs can survive more than twenty years at present and then it'll be far worse.

Do something about it. Don't just whine that a plan doesn't work and do nothing. Find a goddamn candidate with a workable plan, mail your own goddamn plan to candidates if you have to. Better than just sitting around, patting yourselves on the back for not letting the Evil Liberals do something about that sucking noise in the economy.

Actually, neither side is doing jack shit (thank you AARP!) because the elderly vote. Trust me, I've followed that aspect of the campaign platforms carefully, have since day one. Unfortunately no candidate in any kind of contention is actally willing to advocate the necessary reform.

[Iceberg]

I notice, after posting, you added 'Congress and president' instead of just Congress. Well, get a new one. Isn't that supposed to be the cornerstone of your government, the fact you can get new ones?

That would require taking the risk that them evil liberals could get in charge and start ruining things.

[Stormbringer]

I notice, after posting, you added 'Congress and president' instead of just Congress. Well, get a new one. Isn't that supposed to be the cornerstone of your government, the fact you can get new ones?

Yeah, but the major problem is that neither party has candidates willing to bite the bullet.

[Stormbringer]

I notice, after posting, you added 'Congress and president' instead of just Congress. Well, get a new one. Isn't that supposed to be the cornerstone of your government, the fact you can get new ones?

That would require taking the risk that them evil liberals could get in charge and start ruining things.

And when has a liberal advocated cutting the bureacratic waste and implementing means testing for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? I can't very well vote for a candidate that doesn't exist.

[SirNitram]

So instead of doing anything to either correct the immediate problem or correct the deeper problem, it's better to fuck around and wait for implosion?

No, but that's what both sides are doing. And one at least chomping at the bit to add to the mess.

Ah yes, proposing any solution is 'adding to the mess'.

Good! I don't know if this would work, or if it would be in the best interests of the people in the long run, but it's better than sitting with thumbs up your asses. Go find a candidate that'll try it and back him.

In both the short and long runs it'll be better than what we have going now. None of the programs can survive more than twenty years at present and then it'll be far worse.

Yea, we can't possibly try and fix the underlying problems. That'd be insane.

Do something about it. Don't just whine that a plan doesn't work and do nothing. Find a goddamn candidate with a workable plan, mail your own goddamn plan to candidates if you have to. Better than just sitting around, patting yourselves on the back for not letting the Evil Liberals do something about that sucking noise in the economy.

Actually, neither side is doing jack shit (thank you AARP!) because the elderly vote. Trust me, I've followed that aspect of the campaign platforms carefully, have since day one. Unfortunately no candidate in any kind of contention is actally willing to advocate the necessary reform.

I'm sorry. I can't really take seriously any political party who claims it's impossible to acheive what a government primarily populated by people from Quebec have gotten working.