TOPICS:
FEB 10, 2005 02:05 AM
FEB 10, 2005 06:43 AM
HenryTMensch
New York, NY
December 2004
FEB 10, 2005 07:36 AM
Michael_DeSade said:
For all you people claiming fiscal conservatives were 'lied to' by Bush, I challenge you to find one quote where Bush claims to be a fiscal conservative, and one member on this site who claimed Bush was a fiscal conservative or that they were voting for him based on his economic policies.
It's not that "fiscal conservatives" were "lied to" by Bush... it's that his administration, for which he is ultimately responsible, plays fast and loose with the facts particularly w/r/t economic projections and other data. Bush and crew are extremely slippery when it comes to paying for what he wants to do and we've seen this repeatedly.
So the question is when will actual, bona fide fiscal conservatives in the Republican party start demanding some sanity from this administration and expressing a bit of well deserved outrage at the manipulative smoke and mirrors politics this administration deploys... ?
RACER_X
Philadelphia, PA
February 2003
FEB 10, 2005 07:44 AM
Fuck him and his voodoo economics....You can bet it will be over 800 million by next week.... 
HenryTMensch
New York, NY
December 2004
FEB 10, 2005 07:45 AM
bones_708 said:
Archi said:
Not that I like Bush or anything but why should we let facts or context get in the way of a good Bush bashing?
White House Press Briefing
There were some reports about a $1.2 trillion projection for prescription drug coverage over a time period of 2006 to 2015. That is simply not accurate. It does not take into account the $500 billion in savings that will be realized by the federal government. So it's off by, essentially, a half trillion dollars. It does not take into account that states contribute to the cost of the benefit, some $134 billion. It does not include beneficiary premiums that people pay, some $145 billion altogether. And it doesn't take into account that the federal government is saving almost $200 billion on Medicaid, because it will now pay for medicines for low-income seniors through the Medicare program. And so the cost from 2005 -- or 2006 to 2015 is $723 billion.
$723 billion? What happened to the original $400 billion?!
The facts are that the Congressional Budget Office still stands by that previous projection of $400 billion for the first 10 years of the program. There is now a projection for 2006 to 2015, when you have a fully phased in prescription drug coverage -- and that's the cost I was just referring to -- but the President made it very clear what he was referring to in his previous remarks. We made it very clear. And in terms of the prescription drug coverage for that time period, the projections remain virtually unchanged. If you go and look, the projection from the CMS actuaries for 2004 to 2013 for the prescription drug aspect was about $511 billion. The projection now is about $518 billion, so it's virtually unchanged.
It's a sad thing that Republican and Democratic politicians are cumbags who pander to seniors in order to stay in office at the expense of decency and on the backs of younger workers. But the pandering is bi-partisan and for a democrat to now point the finger at the whitehouse.... did no Democrats pander to their voters extolling the virtue of this new benefit?
This to me looks like it blew this story out of the water. A day later although this thead continues everyont ignored this post. If it's incorrect please say so. Right now is just sounds like a bunch of politics as usual.
EARTH TO TEXAS... you can't trust anything said by the White House press secretary in a white house briefing. So, no, this bit of propaganda did not blow this story out of the water.
And what he said was, $518B instead of $400B for the first 10 years. And then the next two years alone will cost $200B+. So there is no cause for concern at all. EVERYTHING IS VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED!!! 2+2=5! AND $400B = $720B!! 
This isn't partisan politics as usual, since the group that is most pissed off about this is the deficit hawk republicans who reluctantly voted for a $400B program that is now going to cost $720B over 10 years, and looks to cost about $100B PER YEAR once we get towards the end of that 10 year projection.
But I'm sure that Scott McClelan will feel good that he bamboozled you, so why not send him a telegram of support.
FEB 10, 2005 07:58 AM
HenryTMensch said:
bones_708 said:
Archi said:
Not that I like Bush or anything but why should we let facts or context get in the way of a good Bush bashing?
White House Press Briefing
There were some reports about a $1.2 trillion projection for prescription drug coverage over a time period of 2006 to 2015. That is simply not accurate. It does not take into account the $500 billion in savings that will be realized by the federal government. So it's off by, essentially, a half trillion dollars. It does not take into account that states contribute to the cost of the benefit, some $134 billion. It does not include beneficiary premiums that people pay, some $145 billion altogether. And it doesn't take into account that the federal government is saving almost $200 billion on Medicaid, because it will now pay for medicines for low-income seniors through the Medicare program. And so the cost from 2005 -- or 2006 to 2015 is $723 billion.
$723 billion? What happened to the original $400 billion?!
The facts are that the Congressional Budget Office still stands by that previous projection of $400 billion for the first 10 years of the program. There is now a projection for 2006 to 2015, when you have a fully phased in prescription drug coverage -- and that's the cost I was just referring to -- but the President made it very clear what he was referring to in his previous remarks. We made it very clear. And in terms of the prescription drug coverage for that time period, the projections remain virtually unchanged. If you go and look, the projection from the CMS actuaries for 2004 to 2013 for the prescription drug aspect was about $511 billion. The projection now is about $518 billion, so it's virtually unchanged.
It's a sad thing that Republican and Democratic politicians are cumbags who pander to seniors in order to stay in office at the expense of decency and on the backs of younger workers. But the pandering is bi-partisan and for a democrat to now point the finger at the whitehouse.... did no Democrats pander to their voters extolling the virtue of this new benefit?
This to me looks like it blew this story out of the water. A day later although this thead continues everyont ignored this post. If it's incorrect please say so. Right now is just sounds like a bunch of politics as usual.
EARTH TO TEXAS... you can't trust anything said by the White House press secretary in a white house briefing. So, no, this bit of propaganda did not blow this story out of the water.
And what he said was, $518B instead of $400B for the first 10 years. And then the next two years alone will cost $200B+. So there is no cause for concern at all. EVERYTHING IS VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED!!! 2+2=5! AND $400B = $720B!!
This isn't partisan politics as usual, since the group that is most pissed off about this is the deficit hawk republicans who reluctantly voted for a $400B program that is now going to cost $720B over 10 years, and looks to cost about $100B PER YEAR once we get towards the end of that 10 year projection.
But I'm sure that Scott McClelan will feel good that he bamboozled you, so why not send him a telegram of support.
Thats not what he said and I'm still waiting for something more than "they lie"
HenryTMensch
New York, NY
December 2004
FEB 10, 2005 08:23 AM
FEB 10, 2005 09:11 AM
FEB 10, 2005 09:43 AM
HellboundLiberal said:
my point is that the government is lying to you. they look out for the arms manufacturers, drug and insurance companies and they treat the rest of us like joe jerkoff.
can't forget the energy companies!
...oh, and i'd substitute "bush administration" with "government".
radd
Madison, WI
OLD SKOOL
FEB 10, 2005 01:11 AM