You are correct -- can't make this stuff up. As you know, the American people were told that oil revenues would pay for the cost of the Iraq war after the U.S. initial investment of $20 Billion. None of that was true. In fact, instead of $20 Billion, the Iraq war has cost more than $1 TRILLION to U.S. taxpayers. If you include the human costs [future healthcare for the men & women who served and injured], the cost balloon to more than $4 Trillion. As for government contracting in Iraq, the GAO came out with a report citing more than $60 BILLION in contracting fraud in the final years of the previous Administration.
Medicare Part D was sold to the American people at a cost of $300 Billion. Today, it is more than 3 times that cost, well over $1 Trillion. Do you really want to have that debate? I know you are only living in the moment, but you don't need to look back that far to see the lack of consistency of argument when discussing this issue.
The Tea Party rose up as a response to the phony brand of big spending "compassionate conservatism" that Bush and his team brought us (contrary to moonbat consensus that it was racists reacting to a black guy in the WH). Also in contrast to your personal moonbattery Medicare Part D did not force anyone to join it or sign up. Medicare Part D did not result in millions of people getting kicked off their insurance, nor did it raise the cost of health insurance massively. Medicare part D unlike Obamacare wasn't knowingly and falsely sold as something that would be revenue neutral and would reduce healthcare premiums. While Obama knowingly lied about the Obamacare program's cost Bush did no such thing that we know of on Medicare Part D. And while I'm confident you are wrong on the cost of MPD it is irrelevant to this subject matter as I just pointed out.
I don't read right wing propaganda like the weekly standard. That publication is no different that Fixed News. Since you are quoting CBO, why don't you also say that CBO projects ACA will reduce the deficit?
How is the expansion of Medicare Part D not comparable to providing HC to the uninsured? So let me get this straight, it was ok to expand covergae for seniors and not pay for it, but not ok to expand insurance for the uninsured? Oh, ok, I understand now.
LOL @ the CBO predicting ACA will reduce the deficit. Link please. Only a dedicated progressive kool aid drinker could possibly utter such a nonsensical pile of drivel. You are saying that increasing medicaid income maximums by 25% and adding to the medicaid rolls will save money? That is a laugh. You do recall that the original Obamacare was scored based on the inclusion of long term care insurance where by people paid in for 20-30 years before seeing any money back. Those revenues count in the CBO report as offsets to current expenses. Are you aware that they purposefully included that type of insurance to essentially fool the CBO in to putting out that report knowing full well that the program was not feasible and was quickly cancelled once the law passed? You are aware that they scored Obamacare (the CBO only looks out 10 years) based on starting in 2010 and including the collections for long term insurance even though it didn't actually start until 2014. I forgot to mention that fact that Obama used another parlor trick to fake the numbers when they took 800Billion from Medicaid and applied it to Obamacare as well as when they included a massive medical device tax that both sides are now looking to elliminate simply because it is stupid to tax heart stents and medical supplies in a bill that claimed to have an aim of reducing the cost of insurance.
Last edited by chiefst2000; 10-29-2013 at 12:58 PM.