Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

$1,163,090,000,000: Federal Spending Sets Record Through December


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

People complaining about spending who agree with adding $4-6 trillion a year to the federal budget.   This makes me :lol:  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Highmark said:

People complaining about spending who agree with adding $4-6 trillion a year to the federal budget.   This makes me :lol:  

Who that has posted in this thread agrees with adding 4-6 Trillion in spending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
42 minutes ago, SSFB said:

Who that has posted in this thread agrees with adding 4-6 Trillion in spending?

Anyone who agree's with UHC.  Ben for sure....pretty sure Ginger and Spin.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Anyone who agree's with UHC.  Ben for sure....pretty sure Ginger and Spin.

not that I'm defending the dems ludicrous spending promises but you'd have to be pretty naïve to think that if elected there would not be significant reductions elsewhere, notably in military spending, to accommodate such new social programs.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 minutes ago, frenchy said:

not that I'm defending the dems ludicrous spending promises but you'd have to be pretty naïve to think that if elected there would not be significant reductions elsewhere, notably in military spending, to accommodate such new social programs.

Problem is, there are too many propping that spending up. All will talk about it, but the chance of it actually happening is slim to none.

 

rep frenchy sponsers a bill to cut military spending. Pentagon drops program on project being built in frnchys district. Frenchy backs off. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Anyone who's employer pays.

 

My employer pays nothing but my hourly package. My premium costs here amount to close to $10 per hour of my package. 

You're a fucking moron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
12 minutes ago, frenchy said:

not that I'm defending the dems ludicrous spending promises but you'd have to be pretty naïve to think that if elected there would not be significant reductions elsewhere, notably in military spending, to accommodate such new social programs.

How?   You would have to have the votes.   No way UHC gets passed unless you have the majority in the house and a significant majority in the house.   That's the problem.   They both scratch each others backs to get what they want.   UNC would be a major uphill battle in congress plus you would have to have someone in the WH willing to sign it.   Not sure even Biden or Mayor Pete support that full on program. 

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Anyone who agree's with UHC.  Ben for sure....pretty sure Ginger and Spin.

Old people who are the biggest expense are already covered by the government and there is  already enough money in the system we just need to move it around.  It's not going to add net additional spending IMO it should allow for lower costs in the long run.  Add what our employers/employees are already paying together along with what is already paid through medicare and it's all there to support some form of UHC.

IMO UHC does not need to cover minor medical expenses,  put in a reasonable deductible and then cover beyond that.  Let people set up HSA's to cover those costs pretax.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
6 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

Old people who are the biggest expense are already covered by the government and there is  already enough money in the system we just need to move it around.  It's not going to add net additional spending IMO it should allow for lower costs in the long run.  Add what our employers/employees are already paying together along with what is already paid through medicare and it's all there to support some form of UHC.

IMO UHC does not need to cover minor medical expenses,  put in a reasonable deductible and then cover beyond that.  Let people set up HSA's to cover those costs pretax.  

 

The two main programs on the table are between $4-6 trillion a year add over the next decade.   Both are claiming as much as a million jobs lost on the change.   There is simply no way to accurately estimate the cost of the govt taking over HC.  Both have huge assumptions of where savings will come.   Sanders program includes things such as no copay, complete prescription drug coverage, nursing home care, dental care, mental health care.   Most of which are not currently covered.   Basically he's covering a ton more with no copay and claims he will save 50% over current HC costs.   Its a farce.  

The bold is simply laughable without telling every single person who works in HC they are taking a cut.   Its also laughable to think timing of care won't dramatically increase.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...