“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.See if you can follow the logic: Medicare is going to bankrupt the country; therefore, let's spread the plan to the entire population. Yeah, that'll fix it. (Link via Contentions)
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
Banner ad
Friday, July 17, 2009
A novel approach to bankruptcy
Joe Biden gave some West Virginia senior citizens his version of how to fix the looming bankruptcy we are now facing from Medicare spending. Speaking to an AARP gathering in Virginia, he put his own special Biden spin on how the administration approaches those costs.
Labels:
Joe Biden
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Funny -- I don't recall Biden and Obama blaming Bush for not spending enough to keep the economy afloat.
This happened in Virgina, not West Virginia.
Separate states since 1863.
I am convinced now, that Obama selected Biden as VP, not for his knowledge of foreign policy, but for a bodyguard function. Who would want anything to happen to Obama knowing, if it did, we would get Biden.
Rick
"See if you can follow the logic: Medicare is going to bankrupt the country; therefore, let's spread the plan to the entire population."
This continues the right winger tradition of deliberately misrepresenting a progressive plan, in order to loudly declaim the product of the regressive imagination.
Here's the logic: no one (alas) is offering "to spread Medicare to the entire population". I wish they were. There is no reason why American healthcare should not be insured on a national basis, the way every other Western country does in whole or in part.
However, healthcare costs in general in the US are ballooning out of control. To fix healthcare in America, we have to fix two problems - one, that millions of Americans have no coverage (often because they have no jobs, for which we have Bush/GOP/Iraq war to blame), and two, coverage is becoming more costly.
Biddle,
Explain how our presence in Iraq has caused the loss of jobs in America.
If Bush and the GOP are responsible for all of the country's economic ills in 2009, would you please explain the function of the Democrat majority in both the House and Senate since 2006?
I personally don't expect the government to create jobs for Americans, I just want them to get out of the way of people that do.
The Medicare comparison comes up because it is the prime example of a current government health care program that will soon become insolvent. It would do you some good to look at that program so that you might realize that if Medicare is not sustainable a larger and more costly program is also unsustainable.
As for the rising cost of health care, please name a service that has become cheaper by adding additional government regulations and bureaucracy to the overhead. Better yet, please tell me how California, New York, and New Jersey, with their "progressive" tax structures, respective health care programs, and in the case of CA, a "cap and trade" program of it's own, have managed to fall into complete financial disarray.
Finally, you said:
"Here's the logic:"
And then you just left us hanging.
tfhr-In California the answer is simple. We Republicans had control of the Legislature, both houses, for 21 months out of the last 48 years. We should be proud that we wrecked the economy in less than two years but dismayed that the effects took over 15 to be apparent. We are currently working on raising the ocean levels 16 ft and turning the air a nice shade of gray.
Don't you like Californians?
tfhr, you shouldn't ask Bill B. questions that require him to go outside his socialist talking points and slogans. It's just unfair to him. He has no clue how or why jobs are lost or gained. He certainly has no capacity to explain why he believes the war in Iraq caused a loss of jobs. He just knows that he's supposed to say that it did.
As for the rising cost of health care, please name a service that has become cheaper by adding additional government regulations and bureaucracy to the overhead.
1. The post office is much better than private enterprise at guaranteeing reliable delivery to every single address in America. Private enterprise cherry picks to avoid the most expensive or out of the way delivery addresses.
2. Public education for all children is far, far better than the ragtag collection of religious schools that preceded it.
3. The government run US military is far better than the rabble of private mercenaries that sometimes behaved in spectacularly lawless fashion in Iraq.
There are many other examples of where government regulation has improved services to the public. We would have avoided the Bush financial meltdown if the GOP policy had included better financial oversight of markets.
To someone blinded by hatred and ideology, this will be hard to accept.
master.of.biddle,
How come you get stuck with being Biddle's sock puppet? It seems so unfair.
1. The USPS loses money. However it is mandated in the Constitution that the government is responsible for providing postal service therefore we all must continue to pay more and more into the USPS to cover the cost of an enterprise that cannot break even.
Did you know the postal service was once a cabinet department? Here is a link for kids - most of which apparently know more about the Post Office than you do.
http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/u/un/united_states_postal_service.html
Do read the part where it tells kids that "Competition from private operations such as United Parcel Service and FedEx has caused USPS to adjust its business strategy and to modernize its products and services".
2. What in the hell were you actually trying to say when you typed this:
"Public education for all children is far, far better than the ragtag collection of religious schools that preceded it".
Can you please source that gem of wisdom for us? I don't know what your problem is with parents having the choice of sending their children to the school that suits them best but if you want to see how well public schools are doing for children in Washington, DC, please stop by and ask for a tour. (PS, Sidwell Friends, the Quaker school where the Obama's children go and Chelsea Clinton graduated, won't be on that tour)
3. It warms my heart that you have such a wonderful opinion of our Armed Services, and rightfully so. But I wonder if you realize that the heavy use of contractors stems from the decision to reduce the size of the Armed Forces back in the 1990s.
Do you remember the "Peace Dividend"? That was an almost Orwellian code phrase for neglect, fraud, waste and abuse by politicians determined to siphon off much needed funds from the defense budget.
Do you remember Al Gore's attempt to "downsize" government? He did it on the backs of the Armed Forces. I remember watching the 700,000 strong Army that I joined in 1989 drop to 450,000 during the Clinton administration. I also remember seeing KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton at the time, get the contract from the Clinton Administration to perform nearly all of the construction support for SFOR, KFOR, and NATO in the Balkans from 1995 onward and they are still there in that Balkans quagmire supporting our troops on the ground today. Love 'em or hate 'em, contractors are the cost of Al Gore's "downsize" campaign and the "Peace Dividend".
PS - the Constitution also holds Congress responsible for raising and providing for our military.
Bonus opportunity: Can you find in the Constitution where it says that the government is responsible for providing you with health care? How about food, clothing or shelter? You can't survive without those things yet the framers of the Constitution seemed to overlook them just like they left out health care. Hmmmmm.
4. You said, "There are many other examples of where government regulation has improved services to the public".
While this is about much more than "regulation" you have not provided one example yet but you did point out that the government failed in the task of providing oversight on the financial markets. Was each and everyone of those "overseers" an evil Republican? Do you think? (Both of those were rhetorical questions and can be considered individually or together)
master.of.disastrous.blog.entries, either change your name to "speedbag" or stop being Biddle's beard.
Post a Comment