Q&A: Question about Obama’s blueprint?

Question by Dr. Bean: Question about Obama’s blueprint?
Concerning the national debt, Obama’s blueprint says:
“Restore Fiscal Discipline in Congress
Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by
spending cuts or new revenue elsewhere.”

So, how much does he think universal healthcare costs? How much will his tax increases account for? And what programs will he cut?

I know he wants less governmental jobs to be ‘no-bid’ contracts…sounds pretty vague…can’t get a number on how much money that might save.
I also no he ‘wants to cut pork barrell spending.’ However, keep in mind this is only about $ 20 billion per year.
We need at least a few hundred BILLION to break even. Add another few hundred BILLION for universal healthcare at least. WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM?
…and no, I am not a McCain supporter. I am asking a question about what I feel is the greatest threat america faces: the deficit, the debt, and the dollar.

Best answer:

Answer by DAR
You know where the money comes from. Look in the mirror.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Seniors Adventuring in the Outdoors
Video Rating: 0 / 5

check out these healthcare providers senior products

Bookmark and Share
Tags : , , ,

6 thoughts on “Q&A: Question about Obama’s blueprint?”

  1. What are you still doing here? I don’t know if you haven’t been reading the papers, but Ron Paul lost. Your services are no longer required, Bean the Doctor.

  2. Obama wants to expand govt to the tune of 6 trillion. I don´t think he will cut enough or cut the wrong programs, like our military, and the debt will continue to soar. Bill Clinton ran on cutting the deficit, and that’s why he won. Obama doesn´t get it, you cannot expand govt and make the dollar or economy stronger.

  3. His blueprint is a joke.

    1. Universal health care costs have spun out of control everywhere it has been implemented, and there is NO WAY we can keep up with those costs.
    2. Tax increases have ALWAYS DECREASED federal revenues because they cost jobs and decrease spending.
    3. He is NOT for less government. His programs would expand it greatly.
    4. He does NOT want to cut pork barrel spending. He has barely given that lip service, and he is very guilty of it himself.
    5. There is NO WAY he can spend his way out of a deficit.

    McCain is the only candidate who has pledged to veto any bill with pork barrel spending, has plans to reign in and decrease wasteful spending, and that is the ONLY way to cut the deficit.

    Obama would be a financial disaster for this country, a military disaster for this country, and a racist pig in the White House is a disgusting thought.

  4. You are making some assumptions that aren’t valid (in a number of areas–but let’s stick to health care).

    First of all, you are assuming “universal health care” means the government pays for everything–which is NOT what it means, That’s what the rigt wing claims–and they are lying–there’s no other way to put it.

    First,what Obama has proposed is that we reconfigure health care policy so that it relies primarily on the private sector, but guarantees access to basic health care for everyone. That’s a far less expensive proposal than you are incorrectly claiming it is.

    Second (and Idon’t know how extensive this is in the current thinking–hopefully it will be a centerpiece) part of this re-ordering of priorities would emphasixze preventative care and health education in low income areas. That is ALWAYS less expensive for reasons that are obvious to anyone except the “neoconservatives”–but let me spell it out: health problems are higher inn incidence in low-income groups. Largely because they don’t get things treated when it can be dune easily–and at modest cost–because they either don’t know what to do or don’t have the money. So a problem that could be taken care of at a clinic at a cost of $ 50 ends up costing the taxpayers $ 1500 in an emergency room–that then can’tdo the work they are supposed to do–which runs up costs even more.

    Etc., etc., etc.

    Third, there is a fantastic amount of waste in the current government systems (especially Medicare. That is due directly to the policies put in by the Republican neoconservatives. Here are the two biggest problems–which together account for about 50% of Medicare spending.

    >The GOP “privatized” Medicare–which sounds good until you look at what they actually did. There are a number f insurance companies who have what amounts to “no-bid” contracts–they don’t have to bid or compete for customers (Medicare clients–who ARE paying premiums–are given no choice about which company handles their account. The se companies do one thing–they take Medicare claims, run data that is already entered on computer s and run it through some software–and then collect the money from the government and send out payments (keeping about 30% for themselves.

    >The GOP has blocked reform ofMedicare rules that would allow Medicare to pay for “independant living” costs for senior and disabled citizens. They will only pay if a person is incarcerated in a nursing home, except in rare cases. As a result, an estimated 4-5 million senior Americans who could be enjoying greater independence and quality of life are rotting away in nursing homes. The cost of Independent living support for these people would average around $ 20-30,000 per year–instead of over $ 60,000 (and , as I said , they would have a better quality of life). Multiply it out and you will see that that comes to a minimum of $ 120 BILLION per year. For nothing except to increase the profits of HMO’s and other nursing home “providers.” Who are among the heaviest contributors to the GOP–and who lobby against any rule changes. Just as n added point, the former GOP Senate Majority leader (Frist) has his money in an HMO.

    My point–you seem to be trying to ask a real question, if somewhat emotionally. Hopefully this will give you some answers. I don’t know if Obama and the Deomcrats can get this mess cleaned up–but at least some of them are willing to try.

    As for taxes–they will increase. That’s obvious. The right-wing doesn’t like it? Well, they should have thought of that before they ran up $ 4 Trillion in depbt and massive deficits. Bills have to be piad, sooner or later.

    One more pint–a considerable amount of savings can come fom cutting some of the ridiculous subsidies (now totaling over $ 95 billion a year) to corporations–Exxon, for God’s sake, is being handed over $ 1 billion a year of taxpayer’s money in subsidies. Courtesy of GWB, which will surprise no one.

Leave a Reply