+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/20/2018 09:35 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  2.587 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
12/25/2009 11:50 PM ID: 82201 Permalink   

Democrats Point to GOP Hypocrisy in Health Debate


Six years ago, the then Republican-controlled Congress beat Democratic opposition and passed a prescription drug benefit to Medicare that will add $500 billion at minimum to the federal deficit by 2013. Democrats are irked by their inconsistency.

Democrats use data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to back up their claim that the Democratic health care reform bill will pay for itself. But Republicans continue to oppose the HCR bill, even those who supported Medicare expansion.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says that six years ago, the government made it a "standard practice" not pay for new programs. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, says the economy was in better shape in 2003, and now Americans are anxious.

    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Just a bit more  
... from the source:

Some conservatives have no patience for such explanations.

“As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt,” said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled “Republican Deficit Hypocrisy.”

Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was “a pure giveaway” that cost more than this year´s Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, “the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit.”
  by: Ben_Reilly     12/25/2009 11:50 PM     
  More manipulation by the Dems  
Let´s look at this from a layman´s perspective...

Let’s suppose that you’ve recently got married. A year or two later, you find out that you’re expecting a little one. With a new child on the way, that little 2-seater Mazda Miata you’re been driving since college isn’t going to be practical as a family car. Combined, the both of you have credit-card debt, a house payment, two outstanding car payments, and a few other hefty misc expenses. You´re not debt-free by any means, but you´re not facing bankruptcy either. Given that the both of you have decent jobs and a steady income, out of practicality you decide that it’s time for a new car.

A new and more expensive car will yield a greater cost and monthly payment, but given the circumstances and your current financial condition, you feel that such a purchase is justified. Your spouse keeps the Honda Accord that was purchases before the two of you got married, and you trade in your impractical two-seater for a practical family car. The cost: $25,000.

Six years later…

You’ve been laid off. Your spouse is making less money. You’re barely making your bills. To top it off, your spouse is incessantly complaining that the Accord is no longer good enough. Your spouse’s solution to the problem pulls into your driveway with a $165,000 price-tag on it.

Question: Should you feel like a hypocrite because you got a new car and your spouse didn’t? Even though your spouse bought a new car that was 660% more expensive than the one you bought? Also, take into consideration that your financial situation was considerably better then, than it is now.

“The potential costs of the health care bills under consideration on Capitol Hill continue to rise as mandates, regulations, and subsidies boost the total cost to taxpayers.
Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office of the health care bill added up to $1.1 trillion over 10 years, but the version ultimately passed by the House of Representatives is now projected to total more than $1.7 trillion in costs.
Gregory Schneider, a policy analyst at the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, a Kansas-based think tank, believes the total price tag could run even higher.
“The sticker price could be as much as $3.3 trillion,” said Schneider. “The accounting gimmicks in the bill are such that the great bulk of the costs come later.” “

$3.3 trillion is 660% more than $500 billion.

According to the article, this bill was passed 6 years ago. The projected cost covers a ten-year span (to 2013). Six years ago, we weren’t in a recession. Now that we’re in one, the spend-hardy Democrats want to propose a bill that will ultimately cost us 660% more… and they want to point to a bill from 6 years ago to justify this?
  by: CArnold     12/28/2009 09:08 AM     
>>Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says that six years ago, the government made it a "standard practice" not pay for new programs

I´m trying to get my head around that statement. Maybe the economy was in better shape because it was earlier in the Bush administration.

It´s obvious the Republicans are no longer good for the economy.
  by: Jim8   12/29/2009 05:54 PM     
  What the hell difference does it make  
that the economy was in better shape when the Republican Congress foisted their scheme on America?

Perhaps, if the Republicans had not been so free with our effing money when the economy was good, we might not be in the god damn toilet today? How utterly ridiculous it is to justify wasteful spending just because the economy was doing better then. Guess what asshats, it was deficit spending then and it´s deficit spending now.

BOTH majority parties are to blame for the train wreck that is our monetary system and our economy and the problem will not go away until these idiots are removed from control and someone with some fiduciary responsibility gains control.

  by: bbeljefe     12/30/2009 03:13 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: