How insane would it sound for me to say "I am fully convinced that Democrats are here to drive America into bankrupcy and they don't care as long as they can buy another term in office"? Put another way, how does it feel to be the Sabanfan of the Left? :wave:
You explained nothing about why the graph is BS. You went of complaining about the usual and gave no evidence to suggest that the graph is wrong.
But the health care now managed by the insurance companies has grown many times faster than incomes already and is completely unsustainable. At least the Health Law gives the public some control of the system, through their representatives.
The states own them, but Interstate highways are paid for by 90% federal funding, including maintenance. Otherwise we would have federal highways that stop at state lines. Some states put more state money into them and thereby receive much more 9/1 federal match money. Texas for instance.
Do you really believe that a Federal Bureaucracy can control costs better than a private company? I know of nothing that would make me believe that. I remind you that our government’s debt growth is completely unsustainable. And to be honest, and I agree this is sad, but I feel I have more "control of the system" dealing with my current insurance company than I will dealing with the government's system even with my representative. Control of the system in either one is likely a myth. But I've had more luck getting help via my HR rep than via my Federal Rep. State representative works well, but fed not so much.
Relative to Obamacare there was a pretty major qualifier in the CBO Report which stated their projections were based on the implementation of all parts of the bill. That makes their projection almost worthless, because future presidents and congresses may not want to fund certain provisions and may unwind others. A major source of revenue in the bill is the new 1099 requirements. The IRS and leadership from both parties have already stated the requirements are too robust and should be unwound.
Mr. Wonder, is that you? I'll walk you through it, the way I used to do for my kid (when he was 3). You posted your little graph. Mobius pondered (correctly) whether it was fair that the two largest expenditures listed -- tax cuts and the war -- are still credited to Bush, when Obama has whiffed on obvious opportunities to change both. He questioned whether the creator of the graph has an agenda. HWR pointed out that the graph is labelled "Policy Changes." That's when I joined the discussion. I maintain that the evaluating government expenditure by who spent money first is bs. If you're in an elected office and you have a chance to change a policy, but don't do it, you assume ownership of the policy. That's why the graph is wrong. One of your responsibilities as an elected official is to fix it if its broken. You can't just ignore it and point your finger at the last guy. I'm not questioning the numbers on the graph. I'm supporting Mobius' statement that it was created by someone with a slanted agenda.
WOW, you talked to your kid about budgets, deficits, and graphs when he was 3? Smart kid!!!:rofl::rofl:
