Medicare Part D Expansion

[Lunar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_deficit

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WTF HATCH:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU CHANGED THE RULES TO MAKE IT STANDARD PRACTICE, HOW IS THAT EXCUSABLE!?



WTF VOINOVICH:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WHEN THE ECONOMY IS GOOD SHAPE, YOU SHOULD NEVER DEFICIT-SPEND!  that's a horrible excuse!  ARE YOU STUPID?


wtf Snowe

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Dredging" up history from 2003 is precisely how we show that the Republican leadership from a few years ago cannot be trusted to be fiscally responsible should these exact same leaders come back to power in 2010 or 2012.  It's informing the electorate.  Are we not supposed to talk about these issues because they are "history?"

[Torie]

Ya, the sudden GOP love affair with medicare in all its aspects is almost entirely disingenuous.

[Lunar]

Ya, the sudden GOP love affair with medicare in all its aspects is almost entirely disingenuous.

Although that is also a class act of hypocrisy, probably an even better example in fact, this is more about fiscal conservatism.  To me, the Democrats seem to be more fiscally responsible with their post-stimulus policymaking than this particular Republican leadership has ever appeared, at least Harry Reid believes that spending projects should be paid for with revenue increases or spending cuts.  

I'm just baffled at the excuse that "times were better back then" or "that was standard practice at the time" when Republicans were the ones who got rid of the the previous rule requiring spending to be accounted for. 

[Joe Republic]

So what you're saying is... the Republicans spend public money like white trash lottery winners when they're in power, but vehemently oppose spending any public money when they're not?  I, for one, am SHOCKED, sir.

[Lunar]

So what you're saying is... the Republicans spend public money like white trash lottery winners when they're in power, but vehemently oppose spending any public money when they're not?  I, for one, am SHOCKED, sir.

Well we knew they were big spenders for a while, but I think this thread is a little more esoteric than such broad claims. 

[Torie]

Ya, the sudden GOP love affair with medicare in all its aspects is almost entirely disingenuous.

Although that is also a class act of hypocrisy, probably an even better example in fact, this is more about fiscal conservatism.  To me, the Democrats seem to be more fiscally responsible with their post-stimulus policymaking than this particular Republican leadership has ever appeared, at least Harry Reid believes that spending projects should be paid for with revenue increases or spending cuts.  

I'm just baffled at the excuse that "times were better back then" or "that was standard practice at the time" when Republicans were the ones who got rid of the the previous rule requiring spending to be accounted for.  

Well, as Milton Friedman said, the amount spent is more important in the end than the revenues to pay for it. The Dems do like to spend more, overall, although the GOP does have its spending pets.

[Lunar]

Well, healthcare is projected to be deficit neutral over the long run while the Republican's Medicare expansion was projected to cost half a trillion over the long run. 

The other big deficit projects in 2009 are the economic stimulus package, which was made under rational economic arguments, even if you disagree with them, and the second half of TARP.

Shrug.  I really like the Pay-As-You-Go rules that this Republican leadership, the same ones that will come to power should Republican regain control in the near future, disbanded.    

And I find the arguments by the above Senators to be especially hollow. 

[Torie]

Well, healthcare is projected to be deficit neutral over the long run while the Republican's Medicare expansion was projected to cost half a trillion over the long run. 

The other big deficit projects in 2009 are the economic stimulus package, which was made under rational economic arguments, even if you disagree with them, and the second half of TARP.

Shrug.  I really like the Pay-As-You-Go rules that this Republican leadership, the same ones that will come to power should Republican regain control in the near future, disbanded.    

And I find the arguments by the above Senators to be especially hollow. 

Healthcare even with the projected ersatz medicare savings, ceased to be deficit neutral after the CBO admitted a 300 billion double counting error. But that is beside the point. Of course health care will cost more covering more folks, who can't otherwise pay for it. We had better get used to it, and hope we get tough rationing rules to substantially offset it.

[Lunar]

Alright, I forgot about that CBO error.  Fair enough.  I'm anything but the world's biggest cheerleader for this particular piece of legislation. 

[Sam Spade]

The healthcare bill is almost certainly not revenue neutral and would be in the trillions of dollars absent the accounting games.

That being said, they are being a bunch of hypocrites.

Of course, I was never a hypocrite over any of this because I was opposed to the expansion from the start. 

[Lunar]

Alright, alright, maybe the Democrats aren't 100% responsible. 

a) I'll take 50% accountable where accounting tricks are used rather than flippant deficit-spending programs during periods of economic growth.  I think requiring new programs to be offset by revenue increases or [rarely, unfortunately] spending cuts is a pretty darn good idea, and it reflects extremely poorly on the current Republican leadership that they did away with this process when they were in power a few years ago.

b) At least they don't have sudden epiphanies that occur whenever they are out of power.  

[Lunar]

RE: Voinovich, it should also be added that Medicare Part D was a long-run spending expense, so arguments based around temporary positive economic conditions make even less sense as the program was blindly budgeted into the future without even an attempt to pay for it.  At least the Democrats make a half-hearted try to pay for things. 

[Ronnie]

Ya, the sudden GOP love affair with medicare in all its aspects is almost entirely disingenuous.

I agree with this.  I think it's a ploy to get the senior vote in 2010.

I would like the GOP a lot more if their politicians weren't so corrupt and insincere.  Not that the Democrats are any better.

[Lunar]

Ya, the sudden GOP love affair with medicare in all its aspects is almost entirely disingenuous.

I agree with this.  I think it's a ploy to get the senior vote in 2010.

I would like the GOP a lot more if their politicians weren't so corrupt and insincere.  Not that the Democrats are any better.

What percentage of GOP Senators would you consider corrupt/insincere, and what percentage of Democratic Senators?  Same?  Less?

[Lunar]

Ya, the sudden GOP love affair with medicare in all its aspects is almost entirely disingenuous.

I agree with this.  I think it's a ploy to get the senior vote in 2010.

I would like the GOP a lot more if their politicians weren't so corrupt and insincere.  Not that the Democrats are any better.

What percentage of GOP Senators would you consider corrupt/insincere, and what percentage of Democratic Senators?  Same?  Less?

You know what?  That was a stupid question and I regret asking it.  First, you'll probably say it's about the same or compare it to union interests, and secondly, it's almost impossible to measure.  The only truly undoubtedly principled legislators are the Coburns and Bunnings and Sanders who have no business whatsoever in being near the reigns of power in America.

Perhaps a better question would be this:  What do you feel the Democrats' biggest insincerity is in the Senate leadership?  And how does that compare to the massive charade of the GOP of caring about deficits?  I can think of a number of items of hypocrisy, but none of them amount to something as strong as the profound piss-in-your-face approach to the GOP leadership recently regarding deficit-spending.  They changed the Clinton and Obama-era rules to let them spend without paying for it!  And now they are carrying teabags in their pockets!  I challenge you find a bigger moment of hypocrisy on the Democratic aisle in the last couple years.   I have no idea about the answer and I'm ready to admit I'm wrong, but I am very curious what your response will be and I hope you oblige me.