re: America's best and worst presidents of the past 50 years

If we cut our defense by 33%, China's defense spending (especially when accounting for purchasing parity) would pass us within a decade or so at current rates.

quote:

---

When it comes to cutting waste, Republicans want to cut programs that benefit Democratic voters(welfare), and Democrats want to cut programs that benefit Republican voters(defense) and we end up at en passe. Truth is, neither side is really interested in cutting spending, or at least cut it to a point that it'd made a difference. If they were serious about it they'd both be willing to cut spending in programs that may cost them to lose re-election, and ultimately that is what is most important to them - keeping their seat.

---

Most accurate and honest thing you've ever posted.

Pic of my dog, kinda looks like Nixon.

quote:

---

If we cut our defense by 33%, China's defense spending (especially when accounting for purchasing parity) would pass us within a decade or so at current rates.

---

So maybe then the rest of the world (Europe) could pick up the slack and quit relying on us to be the world police.

quote:

---

If we cut our defense by 33%, China's defense spending (especially when accounting for purchasing parity) would pass us within a decade or so at current rates.


So maybe then the rest of the world (Europe) could pick up the slack and quit relying on us to be the world police.

---

Yup, then we can start loaning them money to prop up the MIC.

Another point re Obamacare to no one and everyone.

Less than half of the 7 million enrolled in Obamacare (of which, only 80-85% have actually paid a premium) had no insurance before enrolling in Obamacare. So, less than 3 Million people have insurance now who didn't last year.

In other words, there are less than 8% of the uninsured (assuming the 40M was accurate which was used to pass the bill, sometimes 50M) who now have insurance as a result of Obamacare. It is an utter and abominable failure.

It is not deficit neutral. It is going to cost a fortune. It will make Medicare part D look like a walk in the park.

It does not lower costs. It has driven up costs and will continue to. Year over year, I believe premiums are about $2500 higher per household on average.

It has not reduced the number of uninsured people in any significant way.

Failure. You can't spin it.

I'd love to see a cost/benefit breakdown of this. It sounds like just paying the bill for those 3mm people's insurance would have been much cheaper than paying the trillions this is expected to cost. Fuggin bureaucrats.

With the insurance companies involved we are basically subsidizing them.

quote:

---

Reagan was a great man

---

Corrupt and incompetent.

Also was completely out of it for his second term.

quote:

---

It wasn't designed to lower costs, but rather to slow the rate of cost increases. It remains to be seen if it will do that, and even I have my doubts. The increase rate has slowed, but that's more due to the recession.

---

I don't know much about this issue, but if it's increasing demand for health insurance while not affecting supply - it doesn't seem like that is a scenario that will result in decreased costs.