Can this possibly be a deal breaker for reluctant Hispanic voters? My wife who is an illegal enabler says, her people are tired of being played by Obama. He has buried the construction trades. Even Comcast is complaining, Obama's economy is causing the number of households to shrink. Brian Roberts, their CEO, can't predict if, and when, housing will turn around. There is no grass to cut in winter. How are we supposed to feed our ever growing families? Mitt is Mexican. His tough stance on immigration, maybe he's just playing to the ultra Conservatives. Can El Mitto be the answer to more jobs. Si, El Mitto es me Presidente in 2012.
This will help with our debt problems!
Massachusetts hospitals are poised to receive a $3.5 billion windfall in federal funding over the next 10 years thanks to a little-known provision Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) inserted into the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, also known as “Obamacare.”
The increased funding—$367 million a year in the form of Medicare reimbursement payments, according to the Federal Register—would not only come at the expense of hospitals in the 49 other states, but would also directly benefit an organization that has given generously to Kerry’s campaign.
The obscure policy change was formally approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in July 2011. It was prompted by a small, 15-bed hospital located on the upscale island of Nantucket, a popular vacation spot for wealthy New Englanders where Kerry and his wife own a $9 million waterfront home.
Read more: http://freebeacon.com/the-kerry-kickback/
>>>like your phantom surplus data of the Clinton years
Yes. The surplus that was suddenly chic in conservative circles when Newt claimed he caused it. Now that Newt has faded into to oblivion, the surplus will fade in the minds of conservatives as well.
They'll return Reagan-chic fiscal philosophy--the Laffer curve. The way to balance the budget is to lower taxes and increase spending. All the while pretending that it is not government deficit spending that drives growth, but letting the private sector free. And blaming Democrats who actually try to balance the budget for the resulting deficits.
Maybe Newt will make another comeback, and the reality of the surplus with him. Or maybe another conservative will, like Bush II did, use the surplus as an excuse to lower taxes again, and plunge back into debt.
Regardless, I'm sure the surplus will appear and disappear on this board based on whether hacks in the conservative media can use it to their short-term advantage or not, to sway the gullible sheep of this land.
Razzle, once again, I did not say that the deficit was gone and there was a surplus year after year during the Clinton administration. I stated that the deficit kept going down year after year until it was gone.
Well which was it; 'I did not say that the deficit was gone and there was a surplus year after year during the Clinton administration.'
But then; 'I stated that the deficit kept going down year after year until it was gone.'
When was it gone and when did we know it was gone?
For the record, I didn't say Clinton was the first or the last to play this financial charade.
You seem to be happy with the process because those before Clinton and those who followed Clinton did it too.
It is people like you who are driving us to bankruptcy.
There is a bigger picture here, but you are so busy pumping Clinton you are blinded by what is going on.
t.bfine, the fact is that they have been borrowing money from Social Security for many, many years. In fact remember that it was during the Reagan administration that the Social Security payroll tax was increased quite a bit. At the same time Reagan cut the tax for the rich and he increased spending and so even though he was using that Social Security tax income, the public debt still increased quite a bit. In addition, during the Clinton administration, they were not able to borrow as much from the Social Security tax money because a lot of people had retired and the amount of money Social Security was receiving was not very much more than the amount that Social Security had to pay out. During the Reagan administration the Social Security tax income was a lot more than what they had to pay out. The point is that even under those circumstances the public debt was going up a lot more during the Reagan administration.
Clinton did a great job of reducing the deficit and was very close to having an outright surplus looking at it from either way as total debt and public debt were both on the verge of being a surplus. But the dot.com bust of 2001/2002 reduced revenue under Bush and then the cost of the wars and the tax breaks hit and we were once again setting new records for spending while revenues decreased. Anyway, let's just hope the two sides can finally come together and make some progress on America's problems. Both sides only look like they are interested in being re-elected and could care less about doing what is right for the country.
Exactly EASY. Your post indicates you clearly understand the feds keep two sets of books. In doing so it can reduce the public debt by borrowing from Social Security thus increasing total debt.
I don't see that as something to flap wings about, as you do. That may explain why most folks don't buy your Clinton argument.