Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
What are you specifically referring to? The increased cost of picking up more people into the plan under the ACA? That's financed elsewhere in the plan. The CBO did score the ACA a "zero increased cost" bill (meaning it's costs are paid for by savings within the plan)
Yes.
I agree. But that payrolls savings a temporary fix that does keep a bit of cash in our and our employers pockets during a recession, which is needed.
Again, long-term vs short-term debt in a recession. The stimulus was, in retrospect, only about half of what was needed. We need to get our spending down, but our income has to go back up, too.
I was massively disappointed to see every GOP presidential candidate would refuse even a 10-1 spending cuts vs tax increase offer. That's economic suicide for this country (as Standard and Poor's clearly said in their downgrade). I cannot vote for any one of them, including Perry, due to that.
It was a start with the "big deal" $4 trillion Boehner-Obama deal, but the Tea Party nixed it.
Obama will give back some defense money in the "Cat Food Commission Two" for exchange of expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy (leaving tax cuts in place for what used to be the middle class and the poverty classes) Which is really no "exhange" at all, in my book, as the tax cuts will expire in entirety on their own if we just ignore them.
Do you support the idea of the infrastructure bank? It think that's great idea (google it)
|
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...t=43315&page=2
that's a start. cbo says that while medicare does decrease, medicaid increases by 127 billion
more than medicare decreases. 500 billion vs 627 billion. the fed is trying to trumpet medicare savings, while hoping no one notices the increases the states would face in return.