Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama's world (sequestration)


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#31 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:36 PM

I tried to do drive-by posting Delhommey-style for a bit, but it just isn't my style:

By Presidency:
Annual federal spending under Obama increased by ~8% ($1.1 trillion dollars annually) in a span of a single presidential term.
Annual federal spending under GW increased by ~75% during his two terms.
Annual federal spending under Clinton increased by ~28% during his two terms.
Annual federal spending under Bush 1 increased by ~24% during his single term.
Annual federal spending under Reagan increased by ~111% during his two terms.

By House Control:
Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~157% between 1980 and 1995.
Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~80% between 1995 and 2007.
Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~32% between 2007 and 2011.
Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~5.5% between 2011 and 2013.

By Senate Control:
Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~70% between 1980 and 1987.
Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~51% between 1987 and 1995.
Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~23% between 1995 and 2001.
Annual federal spending under Neutral control increased by ~16% between 2001 and 2003.
Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~21% between 2003 and 2007.
Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~39% between 2007 and 2013.

When House and Senate controlled by a single party:
Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~51% between 1987 and 1995.
Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~23% between 1995 and 2001.
Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~21% between 2003 and 2007.
Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~32% between 2007 and 2011.

When a single party controls Congress and Presidency:
Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~7.5% between 1993 and 1995.
Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~21% between 2003 and 2007.
Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~32% between 2007 and 2011.

Annual federal spending as a percentage of GDP has ranged from 18% to 25% during said time.
Annual federal spending for Health Care has gone from 9% to 24%.
Annual federal spending for Defense has gone from 28% to 24%.
Annual federal spending for Pensions has gone from 22% to 23%.
Annual federal spending for Welfare has gone from 10% to 11%.
Annual federal spending for Education has gone from 6% to 4%.
Annual federal spending for Interest has gone from 9% to 7%.

Take those numbers and do with them what you will

#32 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:08 PM

Obamacare will not be deficit neutral.

http://www.scribd.co...-Protection-act

#33 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,928
  • Reputation: 8,866
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:38 PM

Obamacare will not be deficit neutral.

http://www.scribd.co...-Protection-act


You are right it isn't neutral. It reduces the deficit.

According to that very report, if the Affordable Health Care Act is implemented as is it will reduce the deficit significantly over the next 75 years as the CBO has projected.

If at a later date they remove or phase out the cost cutting measures that are already in place in the legislation it will balloon the deficit over 75 years.

So basically, leave it the fug alone and encourage Republican Governors to stop playing politics and expand medicaid coverage and permit the private insurance exchanges to happen and it will actually reduce the deficit, cut health care costs, and more people will be covered.

Just deal with the fact that a good (but not perfect) piece of legislation got passed by a President you don't like, and was originally introduced by a Senator most Republicans did like at the time (he won a Republican presidential primary after all) and the same Senator and Republican nominee for President that endorsed Obamacare.

Obamacare is a Republican idea. I am surprised that Republicans haven't embraced it. They should.

#34 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:48 PM

Obamacare will no more deficit neutral than Social Security is.

#35 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • Joined: 12-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,718
  • Reputation: 35
  • LocationStokeridge
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:53 PM

The thing that pisses me off most about this is that no party will be responsible. They will point to the other guy and blame them. They both want it. Just don't want the blame. Biger problem is their followers will believe them when they point to the other party.

#36 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,928
  • Reputation: 8,866
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:28 PM

The same day Governor Christie of NJ realizes that the Medicaid expansion and private insurance exchange is a good thing for the stat of NJ, NC lawmakers are sending a bill blocking it. If Governor McCrory signs it as he is expected to, he will be yet another Republican who has lost my vote for the foreseeable future. It is a shame too because I voted for him. You would think I would just learn my lesson and quit voting for Republicans all together.

It is my fault for thinking there are still conservatives that follow the example and leadership of Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Won't make that mistake again.

By passing it they have left 500,000 more people in NC with no insurance, forfeited 23,000 new jobs, and has refused 500 million dollars in new revenues.

Not to mention making insurance less affordable and decided to not bring health care costs down for the citizens.

But hey! At least they stuck it to Obama!! Amrite? Amrite?

http://www.wral.com/...-desk/12154530/

#37 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,928
  • Reputation: 8,866
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:43 PM

Obamacare will no more deficit neutral than Social Security is.


It won't be neutral, it will bring the deficit down.

#38 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,416
  • Reputation: 2,348
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:52 PM

Every time G5 makes a wish like that, an angel gets her abortion.

#39 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:01 PM

It won't be neutral, it will bring the deficit down.


GAO reports it adds 6T to deficit in future.

#40 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,075
  • Reputation: 1,997
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:09 PM

Big new federal program/going to reduce deficit.

Hard to write those two as one sentence


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users