RunInRed 16,492 Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 I love how people believe only what they want to hear, and hear only what they want to believe. McCain is for the cuts because we should be able to run effective government at the current 36% tax rate that we have today. A roll back to 39% will only hurt the middle class, and not so much for the wealthy, who make up only 2% of the population, yet pay the highest % in the overall tax base. McCain will cut spending and increase revenues at the same 36% rate that's being paid right now. No need to go back to the old rate. Bush has went out of control on spending. McCain will reign that in! McCain is not for extreme measures such as waterboarding. I don't think you or I can qualify our positions against McCain based on his 7 years in North Vietnam. I think he's earned his beliefs on torture. McCain adopts the Colin Powell doctrine on how far we should go regarding torture. And this 100 years in Iraq shows how much you lock step with the Move On crowd. You only want to state partial facts. McCain made that statement in relation to our bases in Europe and Korea. And he stated "As long as Iraq wants us and our soldiers are not being killed"...... READ THE WHOLE RESPONSE PEOPLE! And if you can compare John Hagee to Mr. Aires and Mr. Wright, then you truley have on rose colored glasses. Mr. Hagee sought McCain to endorse, not the other way around. However, I do not agree with Hagee at all! He should keep his endorsements to himself. My biggest problem with JM besides the obvious issues differences is that he's the ultimate flip flopper. I had some pretty good respect for him back in the early 2000s but ever since he has run for the nomination, he has changed all of his maverick positions to try and appease the base. Just one example (although there are several) he was against Bush's tax policy not once, but three separate times and now all of a sudden that he's running for the Presidency he thinks they are a good idea. I mean come on, JM - you can't have it both ways. As for a Bush 3rd term, well, it would be. And with Bush's approval rating sub 30%, I think it's a probably a pretty good strategy for the Dems to marry the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,055 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 BTW I love how the dems are using this "Third Bush Term" against McCain. It proves just how blind they have been the last 8 years. ,,, Iraq War for 100 years or more Come on Al, even your idol Screaming Howie has admitted that was not the case and was not the intent of his statements. So quit spreading the lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,716 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 I love how people believe only what they want to hear, and hear only what they want to believe. McCain is for the cuts because we should be able to run effective government at the current 36% tax rate that we have today. A roll back to 39% will only hurt the middle class, and not so much for the wealthy, who make up only 2% of the population, yet pay the highest % in the overall tax base. McCain will cut spending and increase revenues at the same 36% rate that's being paid right now. No need to go back to the old rate. Bush has went out of control on spending. McCain will reign that in! McCain is not for extreme measures such as waterboarding. I don't think you or I can qualify our positions against McCain based on his 7 years in North Vietnam. I think he's earned his beliefs on torture. McCain adopts the Colin Powell doctrine on how far we should go regarding torture. And this 100 years in Iraq shows how much you lock step with the Move On crowd. You only want to state partial facts. McCain made that statement in relation to our bases in Europe and Korea. And he stated "As long as Iraq wants us and our soldiers are not being killed"...... READ THE WHOLE RESPONSE PEOPLE! And if you can compare John Hagee to Mr. Aires and Mr. Wright, then you truley have on rose colored glasses. Mr. Hagee sought McCain to endorse, not the other way around. However, I do not agree with Hagee at all! He should keep his endorsements to himself. My biggest problem with JM besides the obvious issues differences is that he's the ultimate flip flopper. I had some pretty good respect for him back in the early 2000s but ever since he has run for the nomination, he has changed all of his maverick positions to try and appease the base. Just one example (although there are several) he was against Bush's tax policy not once, but three separate times and now all of a sudden that he's running for the Presidency he thinks they are a good idea. I mean come on, JM - you can't have it both ways. As for a Bush 3rd term, well, it would be. And with Bush's approval rating sub 30%, I think it's a probably a pretty good strategy for the Dems to marry the two. Using Bush's approval rating is so stupid. The Democratic Controlled Congress is 10 points lower than Bush. That means Obama has no shot, right?????? Honestly......how would it be a "Third Term" for Bush???? McCain is against drilling in Anwar and the continental U.S., he understands the people do not like total Amnesty, so he took that information and added it to his imigration stance (Secure the borders fist and then offer temporary work visas while gathering the illegals who refuse), and his tax stance has more to do with what he see's as a liberal attack on working class America who happens to be in the middle of EVERY tax increase, not the wealthy hollywood or high roller business execs. Kerry is the ULTIMATE flip flopper, not McCain. Sen. Obama has flipped on his personal relationships with people over the last month, so figure that in and see where it leads. His best argument is that he's been an outsider with little experience in Washington. If Obama's resume were being looked at to see if he qualified v/s McCain, he'd be turned down. His BEST accolades is the fact that he has little to show. Another Jimmy Carter in the making. I can only hope he's more like JFK if elected. I pray that's the case. But then again, JFK knew how to be aggressive v/s the true enemies of that era. Obama wants to have pie and coffee with the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 I love how people believe only what they want to hear, and hear only what they want to believe. McCain is for the cuts because we should be able to run effective government at the current 36% tax rate that we have today. A roll back to 39% will only hurt the middle class, and not so much for the wealthy, who make up only 2% of the population, yet pay the highest % in the overall tax base. McCain will cut spending and increase revenues at the same 36% rate that's being paid right now. No need to go back to the old rate. Bush has went out of control on spending. McCain will reign that in! At what point did he become so enamored with the cuts? His previous opposition to them wasn't because we couldn't run effective gov't. at 36%, it was because he said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." His other reason, at least then, was because he thought it was wrong (and unprecedented) to cut taxes during a war. Why did he have a change of conscience and when did the US end the war? McCain is not for extreme measures such as waterboarding. I don't think you or I can qualify our positions against McCain based on his 7 years in North Vietnam. I think he's earned his beliefs on torture. McCain adopts the Colin Powell doctrine on how far we should go regarding torture. I would like to think he's not, either, but it seems, like so many other things, McCain has had a change of heart. If he's against waterboarding, why did he vote against a bill that would've banned it and other acts of torture? And, I'm not familiar with Powell's doctrine regarding torture. And this 100 years in Iraq shows how much you lock step with the Move On crowd. You only want to state partial facts. McCain made that statement in relation to our bases in Europe and Korea. And he stated "As long as Iraq wants us and our soldiers are not being killed"...... READ THE WHOLE RESPONSE PEOPLE! OK. The whole response: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day." That's clear as mud. And if you can compare John Hagee to Mr. Aires and Mr. Wright, then you truley have on rose colored glasses. Mr. Hagee sought McCain to endorse, not the other way around. However, I do not agree with Hagee at all! He should keep his endorsements to himself. I don't care who sought who. McCain clearly aligned himself with those whackjobs, the same ones that Bush has pandered to. I'm sorry, but, I'm Catholic and for McCain to pander to those who call my Church a "whore" really disappoints me especially when he had it right the first time when he said they were "agents of intolerance." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,350 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 More of the spaghetti theory from the left...keep throwing it against the wall and wait for one to stick. None of these issues even compare to achmed's affinity for those who hate and perform terrorists acts against our own country. McCain said he didn't like the tax cuts WITHOUT SPENDING CUTS. Like it has been explained to the dense already, cut spending, keep the cuts and we would be in a great state of economic bliss right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 More of the spaghetti theory from the left...keep throwing it against the wall and wait for one to stick. None of these issues even compare to achmed's affinity for those who hate and perform terrorists acts against our own country. McCain said he didn't like the tax cuts WITHOUT SPENDING CUTS. Like it has been explained to the dense already, cut spending, keep the cuts and we would be in a great state of economic bliss right now. Where is a link with "achmed's' ties to terrorist organizations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,350 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 More of the spaghetti theory from the left...keep throwing it against the wall and wait for one to stick. None of these issues even compare to achmed's affinity for those who hate and perform terrorists acts against our own country. McCain said he didn't like the tax cuts WITHOUT SPENDING CUTS. Like it has been explained to the dense already, cut spending, keep the cuts and we would be in a great state of economic bliss right now. Where is a link with "achmed's' ties to terrorist organizations You are like a sea gull...every time you fly by, worthless s*** flies out. The link would be all over this board the last few weeks. Look it up yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 More of the spaghetti theory from the left...keep throwing it against the wall and wait for one to stick. None of these issues even compare to achmed's affinity for those who hate and perform terrorists acts against our own country. McCain said he didn't like the tax cuts WITHOUT SPENDING CUTS. Like it has been explained to the dense already, cut spending, keep the cuts and we would be in a great state of economic bliss right now. OK, let's pretend that you're right. The operative word there is "would." Had those things happened we "would" be in a great state of economic bliss. They didn't. Instead, the cuts remained that gave the most benefit to the already rich, spending has increased and we've already spent over $500,000,000,000 in Iraq. Where do you find the fiscal, not to mention the moral, justification in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,716 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 More of the spaghetti theory from the left...keep throwing it against the wall and wait for one to stick. None of these issues even compare to achmed's affinity for those who hate and perform terrorists acts against our own country. McCain said he didn't like the tax cuts WITHOUT SPENDING CUTS. Like it has been explained to the dense already, cut spending, keep the cuts and we would be in a great state of economic bliss right now. OK, let's pretend that you're right. The operative word there is "would." Had those things happened we "would" be in a great state of economic bliss. They didn't. Instead, the cuts remained that gave the most benefit to the already rich, spending has increased and we've already spent over $500,000,000,000 in Iraq. Where do you find the fiscal, not to mention the moral, justification in that? I find it in John McCain. He's no Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 More of the spaghetti theory from the left...keep throwing it against the wall and wait for one to stick. None of these issues even compare to achmed's affinity for those who hate and perform terrorists acts against our own country. McCain said he didn't like the tax cuts WITHOUT SPENDING CUTS. Like it has been explained to the dense already, cut spending, keep the cuts and we would be in a great state of economic bliss right now. OK, let's pretend that you're right. The operative word there is "would." Had those things happened we "would" be in a great state of economic bliss. They didn't. Instead, the cuts remained that gave the most benefit to the already rich, spending has increased and we've already spent over $500,000,000,000 in Iraq. Where do you find the fiscal, not to mention the moral, justification in that? I find it in John McCain. He's no Bush. How can you find it in McCain when he wants to continue doing the same thing. I think you meant to say he's no different than Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,492 Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,350 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 More of the spaghetti theory from the left...keep throwing it against the wall and wait for one to stick. None of these issues even compare to achmed's affinity for those who hate and perform terrorists acts against our own country. McCain said he didn't like the tax cuts WITHOUT SPENDING CUTS. Like it has been explained to the dense already, cut spending, keep the cuts and we would be in a great state of economic bliss right now. OK, let's pretend that you're right. The operative word there is "would." Had those things happened we "would" be in a great state of economic bliss. They didn't. Instead, the cuts remained that gave the most benefit to the already rich, spending has increased and we've already spent over $500,000,000,000 in Iraq. Where do you find the fiscal, not to mention the moral, justification in that? I find it in John McCain. He's no Bush. How can you find it in McCain when he wants to continue doing the same thing. I think you meant to say he's no different than Bush. Are you DEAF? Or Blind? McCain said he supports the tax cuts WITH spending restraints. Which means he wants to reduce spending so that the tax cuts can remain. He is running on a platform of REDUCING spending so that the tax cuts stay in play. He wants to KEEP the tax cuts while REDUCING spending. He stands for spending restraints so we can keep the tax cuts. He voted against the tax cuts initially because they weren't coupled with spending restraints. Not sure which one of those you got, but I hope it's at least one. Bush and McCain are different. Bush created the tax cuts but did not reduce spending. That is a huge difference in philosophy and could have put us in great economical shape. McCain saw it then and sees it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,350 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. I already addressed the economy. There are only two options in Iraq at this point. Bend over and take it like achmed suggests. Or continue to stand up and finish the job, like McCain proposes. Only a chicken-s*** runs from his obligations. Which camp are you in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. how big of a federal budget do you want? we currently have a $2.9 trillion federal budget. When and if, we leave Iraq, that will free up a great deal of funds. So would a $2.9 trillion federal budget...heck, you know what, i'll go ahead and bump it to $3 trillion. Will a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough for Democrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. how big of a federal budget do you want? we currently have a $2.9 trillion federal budget. When and if, we leave Iraq, that will free up a great deal of funds. So would a $2.9 trillion federal budget...heck, you know what, i'll go ahead and bump it to $3 trillion. Will a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough for Democrats? Iraq war funds aren't in the Federal Budget. It's funded with supplementals. It was supposed to be funded with oil from Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. how big of a federal budget do you want? we currently have a $2.9 trillion federal budget. When and if, we leave Iraq, that will free up a great deal of funds. So would a $2.9 trillion federal budget...heck, you know what, i'll go ahead and bump it to $3 trillion. Will a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough for Democrats? Iraq war funds aren't in the Federal Budget. It's funded with supplementals. It was supposed to be funded with oil from Iraq. ok, thanks for clearing that up. so would a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. how big of a federal budget do you want? we currently have a $2.9 trillion federal budget. When and if, we leave Iraq, that will free up a great deal of funds. So would a $2.9 trillion federal budget...heck, you know what, i'll go ahead and bump it to $3 trillion. Will a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough for Democrats? Iraq war funds aren't in the Federal Budget. It's funded with supplementals. It was supposed to be funded with oil from Iraq. ok, thanks for clearing that up. so would a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough? Depends on what you're getting with that 3 trillion and when it gets paid for. As it stands now, my grandchildren will still be saddled with the debt you and I have accrued. But, that's OK as long as the wealthy get to keep their tax cut. Their grandkids will only pay 15% on the capital gains tax they're living on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. how big of a federal budget do you want? we currently have a $2.9 trillion federal budget. When and if, we leave Iraq, that will free up a great deal of funds. So would a $2.9 trillion federal budget...heck, you know what, i'll go ahead and bump it to $3 trillion. Will a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough for Democrats? Iraq war funds aren't in the Federal Budget. It's funded with supplementals. It was supposed to be funded with oil from Iraq. ok, thanks for clearing that up. so would a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough? Depends on what you're getting with that 3 trillion and when it gets paid for. As it stands now, my grandchildren will still be saddled with the debt you and I have accrued. But, that's OK as long as the wealthy get to keep their tax cut. Their grandkids will only pay 15% on the capital gains tax they're living on. the rollback of the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest americans will be used to pay for universal healthcare. the intentions for raising the cap on social security is to make it more solvent. what will be used to help payoff all of the debt or at least get the debt under control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 More of the spaghetti theory from the left...keep throwing it against the wall and wait for one to stick. None of these issues even compare to achmed's affinity for those who hate and perform terrorists acts against our own country. McCain said he didn't like the tax cuts WITHOUT SPENDING CUTS. Like it has been explained to the dense already, cut spending, keep the cuts and we would be in a great state of economic bliss right now. Where is a link with "achmed's' ties to terrorist organizations You are like a sea gull...every time you fly by, worthless s*** flies out. The link would be all over this board the last few weeks. Look it up yourself. Nope, need a link.Tied him to terrorist. I heard John McCain got caught in college, volunteering as a Boy Scout leader, with a dozen gerbals, some vasoline and pictures of Diana Ross. There should be a link somewhere. yours truly, Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. how big of a federal budget do you want? we currently have a $2.9 trillion federal budget. When and if, we leave Iraq, that will free up a great deal of funds. So would a $2.9 trillion federal budget...heck, you know what, i'll go ahead and bump it to $3 trillion. Will a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough for Democrats? Iraq war funds aren't in the Federal Budget. It's funded with supplementals. It was supposed to be funded with oil from Iraq. ok, thanks for clearing that up. so would a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough? Depends on what you're getting with that 3 trillion and when it gets paid for. As it stands now, my grandchildren will still be saddled with the debt you and I have accrued. But, that's OK as long as the wealthy get to keep their tax cut. Their grandkids will only pay 15% on the capital gains tax they're living on. the rollback of the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest americans will be used to pay for universal healthcare. the intentions for raising the cap on social security is to make it more solvent. what will be used to help payoff all of the debt or at least get the debt under control? I don't know. It'll be a tremendous challenge for whoever is elected. It's my firm belief that every single American who supported tax cut after tax cut after tax cut should be ashamed of the financial straits we will be in. Sad thing is, the ones who benefitted the most weren't bad off and will be the least affected. A lot of people will have to explain to their kids that the reason we have such a huge debt is so that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could pay less taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. how big of a federal budget do you want? we currently have a $2.9 trillion federal budget. When and if, we leave Iraq, that will free up a great deal of funds. So would a $2.9 trillion federal budget...heck, you know what, i'll go ahead and bump it to $3 trillion. Will a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough for Democrats? Iraq war funds aren't in the Federal Budget. It's funded with supplementals. It was supposed to be funded with oil from Iraq. ok, thanks for clearing that up. so would a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough? Depends on what you're getting with that 3 trillion and when it gets paid for. As it stands now, my grandchildren will still be saddled with the debt you and I have accrued. But, that's OK as long as the wealthy get to keep their tax cut. Their grandkids will only pay 15% on the capital gains tax they're living on. the rollback of the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest americans will be used to pay for universal healthcare. the intentions for raising the cap on social security is to make it more solvent. what will be used to help payoff all of the debt or at least get the debt under control? I don't know. It'll be a tremendous challenge for whoever is elected. It's my firm belief that every single American who supported tax cut after tax cut after tax cut should be ashamed of the financial straits we will be in. Sad thing is, the ones who benefitted the most weren't bad off and will be the least affected. A lot of people will have to explain to their kids that the reason we have such a huge debt is so that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could pay less taxes. would you be for scrapping the Perscription Drug Act and use those annual funds strictly to go towards debt? There is the possible increase in capital gains tax, but i'm not sure what the revenue from capital gains are used for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,716 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. how big of a federal budget do you want? we currently have a $2.9 trillion federal budget. When and if, we leave Iraq, that will free up a great deal of funds. So would a $2.9 trillion federal budget...heck, you know what, i'll go ahead and bump it to $3 trillion. Will a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough for Democrats? Iraq war funds aren't in the Federal Budget. It's funded with supplementals. It was supposed to be funded with oil from Iraq. ok, thanks for clearing that up. so would a $3 trillion federal budget be big enough? Depends on what you're getting with that 3 trillion and when it gets paid for. As it stands now, my grandchildren will still be saddled with the debt you and I have accrued. But, that's OK as long as the wealthy get to keep their tax cut. Their grandkids will only pay 15% on the capital gains tax they're living on. the rollback of the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest americans will be used to pay for universal healthcare. the intentions for raising the cap on social security is to make it more solvent. what will be used to help payoff all of the debt or at least get the debt under control? I don't know. It'll be a tremendous challenge for whoever is elected. It's my firm belief that every single American who supported tax cut after tax cut after tax cut should be ashamed of the financial straits we will be in. Sad thing is, the ones who benefitted the most weren't bad off and will be the least affected. A lot of people will have to explain to their kids that the reason we have such a huge debt is so that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could pay less taxes. I believe every American who supports tax cuts believes in the U.S. Constitution. I'm not in the business of paying for those who fail to take care of themselves. However, I have no problem helping those who cannot! The problem with that is socialism. The democrats want a socialistic government, which is not what the U.S. needs. I work for ME! I support MY FAMILY. I should not be having to support anyone elses more than I do now. As for the oil in Iraq.....if we cut and run like Obama "says" he wants to do, then you can forget seeing that come to pass. If you want to see a true "flip flopper", wait till Obama (If elected) tells the American people that we cannot leave Iraq like he previously thought. You can't win the hearts and minds of the world order by abandoning those who need you the most. Obama will NOT pull out like he says he will. The fallout would be unbearable. He will concede some things, but I would be shocked to see him pull out of Iraq within his first two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4468&type=0 Impact on the Federal BudgetCBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1 would increase direct spending by $119 billion over the 2004-2008 period and by $405 billion over the 2004-2013 period. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that spending subject to appropriation would increase by $5 billion over the 2004-2008 period and by $14 billion over the 2004-2013 period. Senate conferees requested that the costs of S. 1 be estimated without section 133, relating to requirements that pharmacy benefit managers disclose certain information. CBO estimates that implementing S. 1, with that modification, would increase direct spending by $114 billion over the 2004-2008 period and by $421 billion over the 2004-2013 period. S. 1 without that modification would increase direct spending by $461 billion over that period. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that spending subject to appropriation would increase by $2 billion over the 2004-2008 period and by $4 billion over the 2004-2013 period. The drug benefit and Hatch-Waxman revisions in H.R. 1 and S. 1 would reduce spending on health benefits for firms that provide health insurance. As a result, more of employees' and retirees' compensation would be in the form of taxable income. CBO estimates that the drug-benefit and Hatch-Waxman provisions in both S. 1 and H.R. 1 would increase federal revenues by $25 billion over the 2004-2013 period (the Hatch-Waxman provisions account for $0.2 billion of that total). The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the establishment of HSAs and HSSAs would decrease revenues by $174 billion over the 2004-2013 period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 On the two biggest issues we face: Iraq and the Economy, his policies are a mirror image of Bush's the last 8 years. So yes, a third term is an accurate portrayal. I already addressed the economy. There are only two options in Iraq at this point. Bend over and take it like achmed suggests. Or continue to stand up and finish the job, like McCain proposes. Only a chicken-s*** runs from his obligations. Which camp are you in? Kind of like those gazelle's in Africa running across the plains.They keep running until they all run off the cliff.Maybe on of them could raise their head up and say, "wait a minute guys, there may be a better way down" Jonathan Livingston Seagull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 when universal healthcare becomes a reality, we can scrap the Prescription Drug Act right? And use those annual funds to go towards debt right? Right now, this is the better alternative for paying off debt than the current way our debt is being paid off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.