If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   A government report says ObamaCare will add $6.2 trillion to deficits. Here are five reasons it's sure to add much more than that   (news.investors.com) divider line 124
    More: Fail, obamacare, federal deficits, insurance exchange, health spending, deficits  
•       •       •

1856 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Feb 2013 at 12:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-27 01:36:21 PM
www.kurzweilai.net
 
2013-02-27 01:39:52 PM

chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)


What chiett meeting a bleeding heart Democrat who believes what he wrote might look like.

www.poynter.org
 
2013-02-27 01:42:28 PM
Obamacare will make millions for rich healthcare companies and executives and since they don't have to pay taxes because socialism it leads to large deficits.
 
2013-02-27 01:44:14 PM
Does the PPACA mean that people will stop being so fat?  No?

Does the PPACA mean that people will stop getting $3,600 MRIs every time they stub their toe?  No?

Unless we find a way to SPEND LESS on healthcare, nothing is solved, no matter how much the PPACA shuffles the costs around.
 
2013-02-27 01:46:07 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-27 01:48:21 PM
didn't click, was it basically this?

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-02-27 01:48:53 PM

RexTalionis: 6.2 trillion over the course of 75 years, or in other terms, a tiny fraction of what Bush's Medicare Part D costs.


It's over 75 years? So it will cost us $80B per year? That's...not that much.
 
2013-02-27 01:49:40 PM
6 trillion is the low-ball estimate.  "Not a single dime" is technically accurate....
 
2013-02-27 01:50:43 PM

LarryDan43: Obamacare will make millions for rich healthcare companies and executives and since they don't have to pay taxes because socialism it leads to large deficits.


not with that 80/20 rule in place.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/reports/mlr-rebates06212012a.html
 
2013-02-27 01:52:05 PM

jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.


True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.
 
2013-02-27 01:52:40 PM

chiett: .
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.


What work is "truly" doing in that sentence?
 
2013-02-27 01:54:40 PM
justtray:
 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)


One thing people don't mention when they argue for a company dropping health insurance is that I believe (no citation) that it's illegal to offer insurance to some employees and not others.  In other words, you can't offer it to senior executives and not the lower level employees.  I would think it would be harder to attract upper level talent if you don't offer health insurance.

I'm sure there'd be ways around it like offering (even higher) bonuses to higher level employees, but I got to believe that it's more trouble than it's worth to go through all that crap just to remove a benefit you're already offering at the expense of your employees.
 
2013-02-27 01:55:53 PM

DamnYankees: chiett: .
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.

What work is "truly" doing in that sentence?


You know, excluding all those lazy Democrat voting 'takers'.
 
2013-02-27 01:55:54 PM

chiett: jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.

True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


8/10 you had me believing you right up to the last line. Had you left it off it would have been perfect example of poe's law.
 
2013-02-27 01:56:07 PM

chiett: jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.

True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


Awww, looks like I hurt someone's feelings. If you don't want anyone to bust your chops don't make obviously dishonest statements in your posts, it isn't difficult.
 
2013-02-27 01:57:16 PM

chiett: I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-27 01:57:54 PM

maweimer9: justtray:
 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)

One thing people don't mention when they argue for a company dropping health insurance is that I believe (no citation) that it's illegal to offer insurance to some employees and not others.  In other words, you can't offer it to senior executives and not the lower level employees.  I would think it would be harder to attract upper level talent if you don't offer health insurance.

I'm sure there'd be ways around it like offering (even higher) bonuses to higher level employees, but I got to believe that it's more trouble than it's worth to go through all that crap just to remove a benefit you're already offering at the expense of your employees.


They just offer better coverage to the higher level employees.

/used to work for a health care insurer
 
2013-02-27 02:00:03 PM

chiett: I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


Don't you make her call twice!
 
2013-02-27 02:07:57 PM
I believe when chiett gets called out for his bullshiat he moves the goal posts by falling back to vague statements that are pretty much universally agreed upon.

chiett: I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.


Of course, everyone does.

I believe I should give back to my country.

Of course, aside from some fringe groups everyone agrees with this, the debate is about how much and how.

I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.

Of course, aside from some outlying exceptions most agree with this, the debate is about what is "fair".

I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.

Of course, everyone does, but there is a vague word in there.

After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.

Who said you did?

and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

Of course, there is waste in any large organization and government is no different. I can't think of many people who would disagree with this statement.

I believe you have nothing useful to add to the conversation.
 
2013-02-27 02:16:13 PM

maweimer9: justtray:
 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)

One thing people don't mention when they argue for a company dropping health insurance is that I believe (no citation) that it's illegal to offer insurance to some employees and not others.  In other words, you can't offer it to senior executives and not the lower level employees.  I would think it would be harder to attract upper level talent if you don't offer health insurance.

I'm sure there'd be ways around it like offering (even higher) bonuses to higher level employees, but I got to believe that it's more trouble than it's worth to go through all that crap just to remove a benefit you're already offering at the expense of your employees.


If it causes a few companies to remove health benefits to a few senior executives that is hardly a big concern - they can afford it, and have the negotiating power at the company to solve it themselves one way or another, so that is hardly a meaningful criticism of the program.
 
2013-02-27 02:23:13 PM

ansuz07: MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.

Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.



You be surprised. The conversion isn't as far off as you think, and is better than converting 90% of other positions.
 
2013-02-27 02:25:02 PM
Meh, that's not what the report says at all, but when have neo-cons every given a flying fark about reality?
 
2013-02-27 02:26:20 PM

chiett: jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.

True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.


If this is what you believe in, you are way off backing the GOP.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.

We understand it, but not for the reasons you meant. Enjoy your cheetos.
 
2013-02-27 02:27:50 PM

RexTalionis: 6.2 trillion over the course of 75 years, or in other terms, a tiny fraction of what Bush's Medicare Part D costs.


6.2 Trillion over 75 years if you assume that all the fraud and overpayments will get restored to medicare, absolutely no cost-forwarding savings happen (poor people will still vector pneumonia and the like to 10 other people instead of seeking more immediate care or preventative care), and totally unsustainable inflation rates continue in the health insurance and healthcare industries, and nobody tries to do anything about it. Basically, if we only count the parts we hate, and we assume we can undo any of the cost savings measures, it looks pretty bad.
 
2013-02-27 02:29:34 PM
Just for shats and giggles i tossed "6.3 trillion dollars divided by 350 million people divided by 75 years " into WRA and got 240 dollars per person per year, about 20 dollars per month (BTW, if you don't know the Zen of Wolfram Alpha, learn it). Granulating further, that's 65 CENTS per day. That seems entirely reasonable to me.
 
2013-02-27 02:33:24 PM
*facepalm*

75 yrs
 
2013-02-27 02:34:27 PM
US MILITARY SPENDING IS ADDING QUINTILLIONS OF DOLLARS* TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT WE HAVE TO CUT ALL MILITARY SPENDING IMMEDIATELY

*Over the next millennium
 
2013-02-27 02:35:44 PM

theknuckler_33: They just offer better coverage to the higher level employees.

/used to work for a health care insurer


Let me see if I can update this Clinton-era health insurance joke:

As Obamacare kicks in, Michelle Obama is getting a tour around a large hospital. At one point the group walks into a patient room and the patient there is receiving a handjob from the nurse. Michelle explodes: "I can't believe I'm seeing this! No wonder our health costs are out of control! This is the most unprofessional, inappropriate thing I've ever seen!" The doctor leading the tour says "Please, Mrs. Obama, calm down. This patient suffers from a condition called 'hyperspermatosis.' His body simply manufactures too much sperm and if the pressure isn't relieved occasionally, he could literally explode." Michelle Obama is mollified and they continue their tour. After a while they walk into another patient room and this time the nurse is giving the patient a blowjob. "I knew there was something fishy going on here!" screams Michelle. "I can't believe these kinds of activities go on in our hospitals!" Again the doctor tries to mollify her. "Please calm down, Mrs. Obama," he says. "This patient also suffers from hyperspermatosis... he just has a better insurance plan."
 
2013-02-27 02:37:04 PM

saintstryfe: Just for shats and giggles i tossed "6.3 trillion dollars divided by 350 million people divided by 75 years " into WRA and got 240 dollars per person per year, about 20 dollars per month (BTW, if you don't know the Zen of Wolfram Alpha, learn it). Granulating further, that's 65 CENTS per day. That seems entirely reasonable to me.


cdn.prosebeforehos.com
"That's less than the price of a cup of coffee!"
 
2013-02-27 02:38:30 PM

clambam: theknuckler_33: They just offer better coverage to the higher level employees.

/used to work for a health care insurer

Let me see if I can update this Clinton-era health insurance joke:

As Obamacare kicks in, Michelle Obama is getting a tour around a large hospital. At one point the group walks into a patient room and the patient there is receiving a handjob from the nurse. Michelle explodes: "I can't believe I'm seeing this! No wonder our health costs are out of control! This is the most unprofessional, inappropriate thing I've ever seen!" The doctor leading the tour says "Please, Mrs. Obama, calm down. This patient suffers from a condition called 'hyperspermatosis.' His body simply manufactures too much sperm and if the pressure isn't relieved occasionally, he could literally explode." Michelle Obama is mollified and they continue their tour. After a while they walk into another patient room and this time the nurse is giving the patient a blowjob. "I knew there was something fishy going on here!" screams Michelle. "I can't believe these kinds of activities go on in our hospitals!" Again the doctor tries to mollify her. "Please calm down, Mrs. Obama," he says. "This patient also suffers from hyperspermatosis... he just has a better insurance plan."


www.socialyodev.com
 
2013-02-27 02:39:53 PM

PanicMan: In 75 years I'll be either dead or too senile to care.


I'll be 125, still getting my government prescribed Viagra and hookers. For health reasons!
 
2013-02-27 02:41:00 PM
I presume that's assuming tax revenues stay constant while medical spending increases at historic rates for the next 500 years?
 
2013-02-27 02:50:22 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-02-27 02:52:18 PM

machodonkeywrestler: ansuz07: MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.

Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.


You be surprised. The conversion isn't as far off as you think, and is better than converting 90% of other positions.


While I don't have data to back this up, I have to believe that the conversion is a little more difficult.  We can't just convert all of our soldiers into doctors/nurses a.  The training alone will take years (4+ additional years of education to become a licences health care professional) and will only be practical to a very small subset of the armed forces (the ability to retain that much medical knowledge is a rare trait).

Now, even if that conversion can be made at a high enough rate to be practical, you still have the cost of retrofiring factories to manufacture medical equipment. The skills and tools needed to build a Patriot missile are different that those required to build an MRI machine.  Assuming that we can ramp up manufacturing of the component parts and train the workers fast enough to build these new machines (a big assumption) we are still talking hundreds of billions of dollars to retrofit factories.

While I do believe that some of this conversion is possible, it will not be one-for-one (probably pretty far from it).  Regardless of how close it is, the only point I was making is that saying "We spend $XXX on the military.  Why can't we just spend that on healthcare," is a flawed assumption.  Healthcare is rationed because we have a constrained supply (which makes it expensive), not because we are lacking the will to pay for it.

If you want to fix the issue, you have to fix the supply problem.  Reallocating funds alone won't come close to solving the problem.
 
2013-02-27 02:55:50 PM
 
2013-02-27 02:58:39 PM

rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.


I love how democrats tell us cutting $82.6 billion a year for sequester is cataclysmic, but adding $82.6 billion a year to deficits for Obamacare wouldn't even be counted as a rounding error.
 
2013-02-27 03:03:25 PM

SlothB77: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

I love how democrats tell us cutting $82.6 billion a year for sequester is cataclysmic, but adding $82.6 billion a year to deficits for Obamacare wouldn't even be counted as a rounding error.


DId you cross a couple wires or something?
 
2013-02-27 03:07:36 PM

SlothB77: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

I love how democrats tell us cutting $82.6 billion a year for sequester is cataclysmic, but adding $82.6 billion a year to deficits for Obamacare wouldn't even be counted as a rounding error.


Do you even read what you type anymore?
 
2013-02-27 03:08:41 PM

Somacandra: FTFA: When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

Federal budget projections are ten years at a time. This doesn't even make sense. The war against Alpha Ceti 1 led by Emperor Springsteen II in 2035 will dwarf that cost alone.

/oops, I've said too much already


So we're talking about 82 billion a year. That's 151 Planned Parenthood. Outrageous!
 
2013-02-27 03:13:45 PM

ansuz07: machodonkeywrestler: ansuz07: MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.

Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.


You be surprised. The conversion isn't as far off as you think, and is better than converting 90% of other positions.

While I don't have data to back this up, I have to believe that the conversion is a little more difficult.  We can't just convert all of our soldiers into doctors/nurses a.  The training alone will take years (4+ additional years of education to become a licences health care professional) and will only be practical to a very small subset of the armed forces (the ability to retain that much medical knowledge is a rare trait).

Now, even if that conversion can be made at a high enough rate to be practical, you still have the cost of retrofiring factories to manufacture medical equipment. The skills and tools needed to build a Patriot missile are different that those required to build an MRI machine.  Assuming that we can ramp up manufacturing of the component parts and train the workers fast enough to build these new machines (a big assumption) we are still talking hundreds of billions of dollars to retrofit factories.

While I do believe that some of this conversion is possible, it will not be one-for-one (probably pretty far from it).  Regardless of how close it is, the ...


You don't change a large percentage them into doctors, you fill EMT and other programs, such as nursing, which usually require a year or less of training. Support staff for Dr. can free up an great amount of the Dr's time.

The skills and tools needed to build a Patriot missile are different that those required to build an MRI machine.

Not as different as you might think. Life Sciences is full of retired Army engineers fixing instruments.

The bottom line is it is a Will problem and not a Supply problem. The changeover isn't 1:1, but it is a lot closer than most fields.
 
2013-02-27 03:19:52 PM

PanicMan: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

And that's assuming nothing at all changes for 75 years.


Well, I'm sure the Vulcans landing in 2056 will force us to recalculate.

blog.nola.com
 
2013-02-27 03:22:53 PM
machodonkeywrestler:

Not as different as you might think. Life Sciences is full of retired Army engineers fixing instruments.

The bottom line is it is a Will problem and not a Supply problem. The changeover isn't 1:1, but it is a lot closer than most fields.


I have no reason to doubt you that this does happen for some.  Still, what percentage of the total armed forces is capable of making that change?  Being a medical practitioner is far different from being an engineer - very different skill-sets and knowledge requirements.  Per the WSJ, we will face a shortage of 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230450690457518033152842 4 238.html).  Given that we have about 400,000 active military (http://us-military-branches.findthedata.org), do we really believe that 37.5% of the active military can become doctors or nurses?

It really is a supply problem.  One can't simply will oneself into being a doctor.  You need the aptitude and the training.  There is only so much of that to go around.
 
2013-02-27 03:25:58 PM

eggrolls: PanicMan: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

And that's assuming nothing at all changes for 75 years.

Well, I'm sure the Vulcans landing in 2056 will force us to recalculate.

[blog.nola.com image 453x240]


You magnificent bastard.
 
2013-02-27 03:31:02 PM

ansuz07: machodonkeywrestler:

Not as different as you might think. Life Sciences is full of retired Army engineers fixing instruments.

The bottom line is it is a Will problem and not a Supply problem. The changeover isn't 1:1, but it is a lot closer than most fields.

I have no reason to doubt you that this does happen for some.  Still, what percentage of the total armed forces is capable of making that change?  Being a medical practitioner is far different from being an engineer - very different skill-sets and knowledge requirements.  Per the WSJ, we will face a shortage of 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230450690457518033152842 4 238.html).  Given that we have about 400,000 active military (http://us-military-branches.findthedata.org), do we really believe that 37.5% of the active military can become doctors or nurses?

It really is a supply problem.  One can't simply will oneself into being a doctor.  You need the aptitude and the training.  There is only so much of that to go around.


My point is that you don't need that many doctors. That # could be reduced by at least 1/3-1/2 by reassigning duties currently assigned to a doctor to other medical professionals. You do not need to be a doctor to fulfill a lot of functions that are currently done by doctors. The rise of the CVS pharmacy/Minute Clinic has shown that many of these functions can be turned over to nurse practitioners and PA's. It's not like being a doctor takes a highly scientific mind, anyway. Most doctors are not doing any type of scientific research during their career. It is a trade school, after all.
 
2013-02-27 04:12:20 PM
By the way, has anyone mentioned that the $6.2 trillion in deficits only are projected by the GAO if Congress decided to strip every budget-saving provision from the Healthcare Reform Law?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/02/26/conservative-media-echo-m i sleading-gop-claim-on/192809
 
2013-02-27 04:19:21 PM
So some stupid right-wing money-obsessed blog thinks that Obamacare is going to jack up the deficits.  Big surprise there.

I really gotta wonder how much money might have been saved if the private sector would have stepped up and offered affordable health care to the public.

This is why we are seeing government intervention once again. Greed, and the "right" to dominate this country economically.
 
2013-02-27 04:22:20 PM

saintstryfe: Just for shats and giggles i tossed "6.3 trillion dollars divided by 350 million people divided by 75 years " into WRA and got 240 dollars per person per year, about 20 dollars per month (BTW, if you don't know the Zen of Wolfram Alpha, learn it). Granulating further, that's 65 CENTS per day. That seems entirely reasonable to me.


lol, and that's the number from the people doing their best to fight *against* the bill.
 
2013-02-27 04:46:25 PM
I'm sure that the most increases in the debt and/or deficit is pretty much always from Republicans and the "defense" budget. We still need to occupy Germany and Japan and we still need to invade random countries but God forbid we try to take care of our own citizens like every other civilized country in the world does.
 
2013-02-27 04:48:05 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Investors Business Daily is World Net Daily minus some racism

 
2013-02-27 05:04:30 PM
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report