But only if you're a "progressive", like Obama and Hillary. The warnings I have given about the Leftists like our current candidates, and the danger they pose to America, were not the ravings of a "Right Wing Nut", as a few on here like to call me. I almost wish I WAS a "nut", that didn't KNOW what he was talking about. But the HEAD of the GAO, a CHIEF BEAN-COUNTER of the United States, has said "we are headed for a Financial Armegeddon, that by the year 2040, 32 years from now, when my daughter will be in early 40's, we will be SO far in debt to China, or whoever else lends us money, that we will ONLY be able to pay the INTEREST on our debt. No funds for roads, no post office, no NOTHING. the Debt will be SO high, over 50 TRILLION, that we will ONLY be able to afford the INTEREST PAYMENTS. Not the Principle. So what is the SOLUTION to this coming nightmare? Well, Barack Obama says "SPEND MORE!!" He plans over $210,000,000,000 (210 Billion) in new spending, 60 Billion for his new Obama Care. But he's giving us a bargain! 'Cause HILLARY, on the other hand, is going to bill the taxpayers ONE HUNDRED BILLION for her new HillaryCare. Right now, believe it or not, I have NO Health Insurance. But guess what- I don't WANT either Hillary's, or Obama's "free" healthcare, because I want to CONTINUE to be able to get the BEST healthcare in the world, for FREE if neccesary(just go to any emergency room, they CANNOT turn you away BY LAW), and I don't want to see my America being DESTROYED.
I have warned, and tried to explain, with FACTS AND LOGIC, why the Socialist/Collectivist trend in the Democrat Party, and even in some of the Republican Party, WILL destroy us, just as it did in the Soviet Union, and is doing in Cuba. But because I love my country and my child, and want to see a future America as good as its PAST, Liberals on THIS website become SO full of Naked HATRED, so ANGRY that the Facts are against them, and that they have NO ANSWER for my questions like: What Nation has EVER "taxed and spent itself into prosperity", or "taxed and spent itself out of debt"? So when I ask these types of questions, all the Left can DO is show their INTOLERANCE, their HATEMONGERING, which are all the things they call CONSERVATIVES. So as I always say, Liberals HATE facts. They get SO enraged, they LOSE what little logic they posess, and start calling names that the kneejerk websites like moveon.org, democratic underground, mediametters, etc., feed to them to like sheep. Names like "Nazi, Hatemonger, Intolerant, Fascist." These are the only ones they know, because that's what moveon, etc., feeds them.Which immediatedly says they lost. So as I always do, I am giving some FACTS. Here you go. Please read it thoroughly, before you start hammering your viscious insults and names at me. Thank You.
********************************************************
A presentation was given by the U.S. government's chief accountant, on "60 Minutes". No, the show's producers were not instantly fired for booking a bean counter; this CPA is prophesying fiscal Armageddon.
'We can't afford to keep the promises we've already made, much less to be piling on top of them,' Comptroller General David Walker warned of the Medicare expansion passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.
As head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Walker presented projections prepared by his agency indicating that by 2040 the federal government will be able to 'pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits' only.
The retirement of 78 million baby boomers means that the drug benefit will cost $8 trillion plus interest over the next 75 years, according to Walker, plus $20 trillion for the rest of Medicare.
Far from this being a scoop for CBS, it's actually nothing new for Walker to be diagnosing America with 'a fiscal cancer' as he calls it.
He has had his own traveling road show for some time, telling Rotary Clubs and other groups of the looming disaster. Those appearing at the side of the Clinton-appointed Walker — who is serving a 15-year term and thus has no fear of being fired — have included economists across the ideological spectrum.
Moreover, we were warned on good authority when Congress was considering the drug benefit of the foolishness of expanding what was already an entitlement monster.
'Republicans have abandoned the market-based reforms they tied to prescription drug coverage in the past,' cautioned economists Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute and Jagadeesh Gokhale, now with the Cato Institute, months before the expansion was enacted into law.
'These reforms,' they wrote, 'were intended to introduce competition and choice into Medicare to reverse the spiral of heavy-handed regulation, ineffective price controls and runaway spending that have made Medicare a monument of cumbersome, bureaucratic health care — and a fiscal time bomb.'
Absent the original White House proposal's strong cost-saving incentives for competition, the unfunded future federal obligations of the measure Republicans embraced could cost as much as $12 trillion, the two economists warned.
They were right. And, typical of government programs, the cost overruns started right away. At the time of passage, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a cost of $409 billion through 2013. By early 2005, that had been upped to $720 billion.
That dwarfs the $70 billion in Medicare savings over five years in the president's latest budget. The CBO now expects combined outlays for Medicare and Medicaid 'to more than double by 2017, increasing by 124%, while nominal GDP is projected to grow only half as much, by 63%.'
In a 2005 study, Antos and Gokhale projected an economic growth rate about in line with our past experience through 2040. They then assumed much slower growth in spending. What they found was shocking: The government's unfunded liability totaled a whopping $21.9 trillion.
The Medicare trustees in 2005 estimated the unfunded portion of the cost as $18.2 trillion — or, as former Reagan and Bush I Treasury Department veteran Bruce Bartlett calculated it, '1.9% of the gross domestic product forever.'
And those estimates came from a Republican Congress and White House. Consider that Sen. Edward Kennedy before passage of the drug benefit in 2003 promised that it would be only 'a down payment,' and that Democrats would 'come back again and again and again and fight to make sure that we have a good program.'
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, we were assured by official projections that by 1990 its hospital coverage would cost only $9 billion; it turned out to be $66 billion. Now we're well into the trillions.
We know how to cure this fiscal cancer: free-market reform. And we have a nearly half-century-old practical model in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It's time to find the guts to start operating on the patient.
I have warned, and tried to explain, with FACTS AND LOGIC, why the Socialist/Collectivist trend in the Democrat Party, and even in some of the Republican Party, WILL destroy us, just as it did in the Soviet Union, and is doing in Cuba. But because I love my country and my child, and want to see a future America as good as its PAST, Liberals on THIS website become SO full of Naked HATRED, so ANGRY that the Facts are against them, and that they have NO ANSWER for my questions like: What Nation has EVER "taxed and spent itself into prosperity", or "taxed and spent itself out of debt"? So when I ask these types of questions, all the Left can DO is show their INTOLERANCE, their HATEMONGERING, which are all the things they call CONSERVATIVES. So as I always say, Liberals HATE facts. They get SO enraged, they LOSE what little logic they posess, and start calling names that the kneejerk websites like moveon.org, democratic underground, mediametters, etc., feed to them to like sheep. Names like "Nazi, Hatemonger, Intolerant, Fascist." These are the only ones they know, because that's what moveon, etc., feeds them.Which immediatedly says they lost. So as I always do, I am giving some FACTS. Here you go. Please read it thoroughly, before you start hammering your viscious insults and names at me. Thank You.
********************************************************
A presentation was given by the U.S. government's chief accountant, on "60 Minutes". No, the show's producers were not instantly fired for booking a bean counter; this CPA is prophesying fiscal Armageddon.
'We can't afford to keep the promises we've already made, much less to be piling on top of them,' Comptroller General David Walker warned of the Medicare expansion passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.
As head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Walker presented projections prepared by his agency indicating that by 2040 the federal government will be able to 'pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits' only.
The retirement of 78 million baby boomers means that the drug benefit will cost $8 trillion plus interest over the next 75 years, according to Walker, plus $20 trillion for the rest of Medicare.
Far from this being a scoop for CBS, it's actually nothing new for Walker to be diagnosing America with 'a fiscal cancer' as he calls it.
He has had his own traveling road show for some time, telling Rotary Clubs and other groups of the looming disaster. Those appearing at the side of the Clinton-appointed Walker — who is serving a 15-year term and thus has no fear of being fired — have included economists across the ideological spectrum.
Moreover, we were warned on good authority when Congress was considering the drug benefit of the foolishness of expanding what was already an entitlement monster.
'Republicans have abandoned the market-based reforms they tied to prescription drug coverage in the past,' cautioned economists Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute and Jagadeesh Gokhale, now with the Cato Institute, months before the expansion was enacted into law.
'These reforms,' they wrote, 'were intended to introduce competition and choice into Medicare to reverse the spiral of heavy-handed regulation, ineffective price controls and runaway spending that have made Medicare a monument of cumbersome, bureaucratic health care — and a fiscal time bomb.'
Absent the original White House proposal's strong cost-saving incentives for competition, the unfunded future federal obligations of the measure Republicans embraced could cost as much as $12 trillion, the two economists warned.
They were right. And, typical of government programs, the cost overruns started right away. At the time of passage, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a cost of $409 billion through 2013. By early 2005, that had been upped to $720 billion.
That dwarfs the $70 billion in Medicare savings over five years in the president's latest budget. The CBO now expects combined outlays for Medicare and Medicaid 'to more than double by 2017, increasing by 124%, while nominal GDP is projected to grow only half as much, by 63%.'
In a 2005 study, Antos and Gokhale projected an economic growth rate about in line with our past experience through 2040. They then assumed much slower growth in spending. What they found was shocking: The government's unfunded liability totaled a whopping $21.9 trillion.
The Medicare trustees in 2005 estimated the unfunded portion of the cost as $18.2 trillion — or, as former Reagan and Bush I Treasury Department veteran Bruce Bartlett calculated it, '1.9% of the gross domestic product forever.'
And those estimates came from a Republican Congress and White House. Consider that Sen. Edward Kennedy before passage of the drug benefit in 2003 promised that it would be only 'a down payment,' and that Democrats would 'come back again and again and again and fight to make sure that we have a good program.'
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, we were assured by official projections that by 1990 its hospital coverage would cost only $9 billion; it turned out to be $66 billion. Now we're well into the trillions.
We know how to cure this fiscal cancer: free-market reform. And we have a nearly half-century-old practical model in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It's time to find the guts to start operating on the patient.