House Votes to Cut Food Stamps to Avoid Defense Reduction
irish -liberty or death!
2012/05/14 14:57:46
The U.S. House voted to cut food stamps, federal workers’ benefits
and other domestic programs to avoid scheduled reductions in defense
spending.
The chamber today passed, 218-199, a plan to cut about $310 billion
in spending to replace automatic defense-spending reductions that
lawmakers in both parties agree shouldn’t be allowed to take effect in
January.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-10/house-votes-to-cut-f...
Obscenity, thy name is Congress!
http://www.newsmax.com/Politi...
Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.
Democrats wanted to make sure they did not increase the federal deficit. The savings from Medicare offset new spending resulting from the health care bill. while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare, the law doesn't cut Medicare.
Congressional Budget Office, Selected CBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation, 2009–2010, December 2010
...
Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.
Democrats wanted to make sure they did not increase the federal deficit. The savings from Medicare offset new spending resulting from the health care bill. while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare, the law doesn't cut Medicare.
Congressional Budget Office, Selected CBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation, 2009–2010, December 2010
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/12...
The Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Reform and Medicare: Overview of Key Provisions, July 2010
http://kaiseredu.org/tutorial...
The Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Reform and Medicare: Overview of Key Provisions, July 2010
http://kaiseredu.org/tutorial...
http://www.westernjournalism....
http://spectator.org/archives...
http://townhall.com/columnist...
spectator.org? really?! lol what's next, new world order?
you've failed. try again.
However, to meet the government requirements of health care policies, many employers may be forced to either lay off, or stop hiring people. If obamacare goes into effect without the unconstitutional mandate, how do you think it can be paid for? The best America can hope for is that this whole healthcare scam is ruled unconstitutional and tossed in the trash!
If you think your attempts at distraction are effective, then you are even less intelligent than the average slug!
The bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009.
your opinion is just stupid as your name, Todd. lol what a name!!
In short, 0bama is a liar and so are you. In 0bama's case, I am sure it is intentional. In your case, I don't know if you are just too stupid to realize you are repeating lies or if you are actively trying to deceive people into believing that what you know to be untrue is actually true; your attempt is akin to try convincing people that water is dry.
I love how scum like you will call a person's opinion and name stupid, when it is obvious that you have already been shown that you way off base and just can not accept facts. Now, why don't you go try to convince somebody that the Earth is flat, or that unicorns really come at Owebama's beck and call, because you are not going to convince me that the $500 Billion slashed from medicare is not being slashed from medicare to support an unconstitutional takeover of the health-care industry in this country.
By the way, your handle on here sounds an awful lot like what I would expect you find in your underwear after a bad case of diarrhea and not enough toilet paper. Now, you might want to go wash your face; I think 0bama left some brown stains on your nose, from how close you try to follow his lying @$$.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012...
You better get that nose of yours out of Obama's butt, and smell the socialism. By the way, have you seen how the New York Times reported on Obama? LOL. The New York Times has sent in its response to the Obama campaign's heavy criticism of today's NYT/CBS News poll (see previous post), which the campaign objected to, in part, because it surveyed the same group of people surveyed for a poll last month. That now controversial poll has Mitt Romney leading Obama among those surveyed -- including women -- and shows two-thirds believe the president supported same-sex marriage "for political reasons."
By the way, you should change your handle to lying libs.
cutting a portion of nutrition benefits is NOT going to boost the economy.
The only waste here is over 70 percent of the Department of Defense's whole budget, which is basically taxpayers' money given to defense contractors. The wealthy have no problem with taxpayer handouts of any kind, as long as they get the checks!
These lawmakers must be getting calls from their defense lobbyists and pressured with: "don't forget who donated to your campaign in the last election." Then there are those that have defense contractors manufacturing in their particular district. That is more understandable, if they are manufacturing something absolutely necessary for our defense. How about we quit all the war and the saber-rattling and try peace for a while, till we can take down our debt.