Originally posted by Sleepyguyhere, here.
I was just watching Joe Lieberman on C-SPAN saying why he will not vote for cloture to proceed to the unpaid for $245 billion effort to bribe the medical community into supporting ObamaCare. His reason? The road to our current $12 trillion debt crisis has "been paved with good intentions", but not adding to that debt is a greater priority than hea ...[text shortened]... length and sounded a lot like Gregg. It was refreshing to hear from a liberal like Lieberman.
that's a few billion dollars less to worry about... for now...
Originally posted by eljefejesusBut did they look at potential savings? I'm not sure what kind of system is going to be proposed, but pretty much anything that's similar to a European system is going to save 500 billion annually at the very least.
it's additional coverage and additional benefits, the congressional budge office already looked at how much the proposals actually exceed their savings, and it's a lot!
Originally posted by SleepyguyIn today's national debt news, Reid is blaming the Republicans and the AMA for his ass kicking yesterday, just flat ignoring the fact that 12 D's and an Indy voted against increasing the debt too. Harry can't count apparently.
This was a cloture vote on $247 billion bill that was totally unpaid for, and being considered separately from health care reform. It failed miserably too, much to Harry Reid's surprise and dismay. 53 nays, including all Republicans, Lieberman, and Democrats Bayh, Byrd, Conrad, Dorgan, Feingold, Kohl, McCaskill, Nelson, Warner, Webb, Wicker, and W ...[text shortened]... an actual cost of ObamaCare. It's very good news for anyone worried about our national debt.
----------
Reid angrily blamed the loss on bad intelligence from the American Medical Association, which he said promised him 27 Republican votes (he got none), as well as Republican dirty tricks designed to impede Democrats' progress on meaningful reform.
He made no mention of the 13 Democrats who sided with Republicans with statements of concern over ballooning deficits and budget overruns, nor that the Medicare measure failed to get even a simple majority of senators.
"I want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand that Washington is being driven by a small number of people on that side of the aisle that are preventing us from doing things that help the American people," Reid said. "We're not trying to run over people with the 60 votes we have. We want to work with people. We want to get along."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/21/harry-reid-lashes-out-at-republicans-after-senate-sinks-medicare/
----------
Meanwhile, Politico is reporting a plan is afoot to slip an increase in the national debt ceiling by the American People.
----------
The Senate must soon increase the national debt limit to above $13 trillion — and Democrats are looking for political cover.
Knowing they will face unyielding GOP attacks for voting to increase the eye-popping debt, Democrats are considering attaching a debt increase provision to a must-pass bill, possibly the Defense Department spending bill, according to Democratic and Republican sources.
Adding it to the defense bill would allow Democrats to argue that they voted for the measure to help troops in harm’s way — and downplay that their vote also expanded the limit for how much money the country can borrow.
The strategy has not yet been finalized, aides and senators said. The House already approved a debt limit increase of $925 billion — above the $12.1 trillion ceiling Congress approved as part of the economic stimulus package last February — but Democrats may seek to increase the limit further so they don’t have to revisit the politically treacherous issue until after the 2010 midterm elections.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28586.html
------------
The debt ceiling was raised many times during the Bush admin too, of course, but it seems suicidal to keep this up. The dollar has been dropping like a stone, and I think it's going to be increasingly difficult for Obama/Geithner/Bernanke to convince the American public that more debt is the right answer to anything. With 12 Dems and one Liberal Independent agreeing with Judd Gregg on the matter, it seems the Senate might actually figure that out.
Originally posted by sh76Yes indeed. But in the mean time he's a man with nothing to lose, holed up behind a locked door with our money and a Utopian wet dream to go down fighting for. Harry is scary.
[/i]I hope dirty Harry enjoys his last year in the Senate... 2010!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nv/nevada_senate_tarkanian_vs_reid-1099.html
Goodbye Harry, we won't miss you.
4 edits
Originally posted by sh76He goes on and on about awful the deficit and debt picture is looking.
My adopted Senator (Thread 119481) tells it like it is.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/19/sen_gregg_us_on_path_to_banana_republic.html
Sure, he could stand to be a bit more charismatic; but I'm quite proud of my surrogate's take on the skyrocketing debt.
But I was hoping to hear something along the line of:
1. Medicare: here is my plan to reduce spending on this program by 10-15% over the next 10 yrs
2. Social Security: here is my plan to reduce spending on this program by 10-15% over the next 10 yrs
3. Medicaid: here is my plan....
4. National Defense & Homeland Security: here is my plan...
5. Food Stamps and other welfare programs: here is my plan...
6. Tax Cuts: I pledge not to support ANY tax cuts until the government is running surpluses and is reducing the total debt.
7. Spending: Until the budget is under control, I promise not to support any program that will increase money for my own state (district). And I want everyone else to make a similar pledge. Because it's easy to make promises regarding programs that don't involve my own state (district).
But I heard nothing of this sort. Not impressed.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat's not the point of a single interview.
He goes on and on about awful the deficit and debt picture is looking.
But I was hoping to hear something along the line of:
1. Medicare: here is my plan to reduce spending on this program by 10-15% over the next 10 yrs
2. Social Security: here is my plan to reduce spending on this program by 10-15% over the next 10 yrs
3. Medicaid: here is my ...[text shortened]... hat don't involve my own state (district).
But I heard nothing of this sort. Not impressed.
Besides, who says anything about no tax hikes and continuing to cut taxes? I'd support some tax hikes in some cases. Do you have any evidence Senator Gregg takes pork for his state?
But you need to START with the idea of: BALANCE THE BUDGET! If not right away, then as soon as is practical. You can't dismiss that idea just because he didn't give a laundry list of specifics in a 5 minute interview.
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I'm not focusing just on this interview. Although it would've been nice for him to have said something of substance.
That's not the point of a single interview.
Besides, who says anything about no tax hikes and continuing to cut taxes? I'd support some tax hikes in some cases. Do you have any evidence Senator Gregg takes pork for his state?
But you need to START with the idea of: BALANCE THE BUDGET! If not right away, then as soon as is practical. You can't dismiss that idea just because he didn't give a laundry list of specifics in a 5 minute interview.
It's just that it's really easy to say you're in favor of "balancing the budget" and being against "all that spending" and to cite all sorts of scary sounding numbers and saying that "we've got to do something about this".
Because I'm sure that all the GOP are going to be saying the same kind of things. When you're out of power, it's easy to become a balanced budget convert. But if Gregg (or anyone else in the party) is going to be a leader on this - if he's going to impress me - he needs to produce some plans that are going to be controversial.
As for the pork issue. If Gregg is not working to get some money for the folks in his state or district, he's a very rare bird indeed. In which case, why be so quiet about it? He should be taking every opportunity to emphasize the example he's setting for the rest. My point is that politicians will eagerly attack spending that involves other people's districts. I want to see these politicians start goring their own oxes for once.
And I didn't say anything about "no tax hikes". I was talking about making a pledge about "no tax CUTS" until the budget is fully under control. Since Gregg is a Republican, I'm assuming that his approach would mainly focus on lots of plans to cut spending, but if he wants to raise taxes as well to balance the budget, that would be fine too.