Monday, 4/9/12, Public Square

When George W. Bush left office he did so with a $1.4 trillion deficit.

President Barack Obama hasn’t fully erased the deficit but he has reduced it by $400 billion, and it is estimated by 2013 the deficit will be $800 billion, instead of $1.4 trillion.

How much money is $600 billion? The entirety of the Medicaid program, for example, costs around $300 billion. This means the money saved by President Obama that was being spent by President Bush could triple the yearly budget of Medicaid.

 

About these ads

14 Comments

Filed under The Public Square

14 responses to “Monday, 4/9/12, Public Square

  1. indypendent

    But no facts such as Obama has actually reduced the debt will ever reach way inside the Foxxies in the Hen House.

    BTW – I took a longer look at that RNC Presidential Survey form I received in the mail last week. Seems not every Registered Republican received one of these. As Reince Priebus’ letter stated – I was selected to receive this survey because I am a represtative Republican voter in my district and they value my honest opinion.

    OH…..this is sust too good to be true…

    Isn’t it funny when God has a sense of humor and agivees me teh chance to do something that I’ve watned to do – adn these folks actaully requested ito be told by me – NOW that’s the funny part.

    God does have a sense of humor – doesn’t he?

    • indypendent

      I have not quite decided on how to answer this survey – but I am looking for pictures of vaginas and caterpillars – does not that give you a glimpse of my line of thinking?

      • I like your line of thinking…

        I’ve been listening to how everyone on the right says Mitten$ has ample time to ‘evolve’ in his opinions and he will easily win the women’s vote.

        Two things — flip-flopping is now called ‘evolve,’ and they once again make it clear how little they understand about women.

      • There is, however, entertainment value in their delusions.

        Women and minorities are full and equal members of society and we recognize those who are patronizing. If republicans ever pulled their collective heads out of their collectives asses we’d notice that too.

      • indypendent

        Both my kids read this survey and both were like – it is all about their hatred of Obama – huh?

        My son laughed when he said that they sure picked the wrong woman to ask for her opinion. And then to have the nerve to say this is a REGISTERED survey and I am required to send it in – even if I choose not to participate because they need to tabulate the results.

        But the other main thrust was – money – they want contributions – even if you do not choose to aprticpate in the survey. And then they have the nerve to ask for you to use your postage stamp to save them money.

        But yet they still used a Business Reply Mail envelope.

        Which raised a question in my mind – if a Business Reply Mail envelope is used (they are marked as such with that big box) – so if a postage stamp is applied to this envelope – does the Post Office still have the right to charge them for the Business Reply Postage – because they are using this specific envelope.

        The reason I ask this question is because one time I used one of those Priority Mail address labels on a parcel post package – the woman at the post office told me I could not use the Priority mail addresss label because of the wording – Priority Mail – was incorrect.

        So she taped over the Priority Mail part of the label.

        So if that Box stating – Business Reply Mail – is showing on these envelopes and someone uses their own postage stamp – would that envelope even be honored at the post office?

        Wouldn’t it be funny if the Post Office threw a wrench into the RNC’s survey project by rejecting these envelopes?

        But then again, the RNC would just turn that into another reason to shut down the Post Office – and these Republicans are hot and heavy to close down as many post offices jobs as they can.

        But – again – it goes to show how Republicans do not think or do they not care to follow the rules? Or do they think they are ABOVE the rules?

  2. indypendent

    If we truly care about our country – then let’s prove it by trying to fix this problem:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/homeless-female-vets-housing_n_1411498.html

  3. Arizona seems to be one of our more ‘special’ sates.
    ——————

    Arizona bill declares women pregnant two weeks before conception

    Under Arizona’s H.B. 2036, the state would recognize the start of the unborn child’s life to be the first day of its mother’s last menstrual period. The legislation is being proposed so that lawmakers can outlaw abortions on fetuses past the age of 20-weeks, but the verbiage its authors use to construct a time cycle for the baby would mean that the start of the child’s life could very well occur up to two weeks before the mother and father even ponder procreating.

    On page eight of the proposed amendment to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” and from there, outlaws abortion “if the probable gestational age of [the] unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.”

    Essentially the act would outlaw abortion after 18 weeks, not 20 as the legislation claims, which could keep some concerned parents from making a decision about pregnancy before some medical procedures that gauge the health of the child are able to be determined. While some tests can be conducted soon after conception to catch potential life-threatening conditions and other impairments, outlawing abortions after the eighteenth week could keep parents from opting for abortion after other tests can be carried out (before the 20-week mark).

    H.B. 2036 passed in the Arizona Senator by 20-to-10 and will soon go before the state’s House.

    • indypendent

      Wow – to be legally pregnant even before conception happens?

      Is this really what the Republicans rant about when they say the government is too intrusive?

      • Actually, Indy, there is no war on women according to republicans. They’ve taken that as their talking point du-jour. In fact, it’s made up by democrats and the media. :-) I know. The only people who are buying this are the ones selling it. I kinda like their delusions. If they do nothing, if they don’t honestly address this… Well, you know.

  4. “Mr. Ryan insists that despite these tax cuts his proposal is “revenue neutral,” that he would make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes. But he has refused to specify a single loophole he would close. And if we assess the proposal without his secret (and probably nonexistent) plan to raise revenue, it turns out to involve running bigger deficits than we would run under the Obama administration’s proposals.

    Meanwhile, 14 million is a minimum estimate of the number of Americans who would lose health insurance under Mr. Ryan’s proposed cuts in Medicaid; estimates by the Urban Institute actually put the number at between 14 million and 27 million.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/krugman-the-gullible-center.html?_r=1

  5. Supreme Court To Re-Examine Its Citizens United Ruling

    On January 21, 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a 5-4 decision along partisan lines to allow unlimited corporate spending in elections. Republicans and their corporate masters were elated, everyone else was not.

    In the two years since then, we’ve seen the worst case scenario enacted repeatedly throughout the country, as hundreds of millions of anonymous dollars and further millions from very public donors have poured into election after election. Most notable, so far, has been the Republican primary in which both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, both bolstered by obscenely large donations from billionaire “sugar daddies,” have distorted what would have been the natural (for lack of a better word) progression of the nomination process. This has forced the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, to waste millions fending off the competition instead of focusing on attacking President Obama. It has also left him open to savage attacks from other conservatives at a far later date than he would have normally have had to deal with.

    What we see here is that bored billionaires can literally use politicians like game pieces.

    None of this is remotely healthy for a democratic country.

    But there is hope. The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on a case that speaks directly to the previous ruling of Citizens United. Some time ago, the Montana Supreme Court essentially overruled Citizens United based on the idea that a federal law does not override a state law. Montana has very strict guidelines in place to prevent the very corruption that Citizens United invites because they have dealt with precisely this problem in the past.

    The fact that the Court has even agreed to rule on this case is cause for hope. At the very least, Justice Alito is going to be aware of the fact that he was very very wrong about the amount of corporate influence infecting our electoral system. And that was only in two years! What would a decade or two of Citizens United bring? What happens when corporations and the mega-wealthy figure out just how much they can make from owning the government and how to do it? Obviously, the other conservative Justices will also have seen the true effect of their ruling. All it will take is for one of them to flip their vote and Citizens United can be overturned in every state. It will take time but it can be done. They may go so far as to reverse the original ruling altogether or try to limit the reversal to just Montana. Either way, a precedent is set and Citizens United becomes dangerously weakened.

    Of course, the Justices could vote along party lines again and uphold Citizens United, 5-4. That would not only damage the country in the long run but it would cement, in the public’s mind, that the Supreme Court cannot be trusted to act impartially.

  6. For reference. Lest we forget! I might bring this forward occassionaly the same way I’ll bring ‘what Romney says’ forward. We will not forget! This is a blog, but one that is well referenced. Lots of work went into gathering all this info in one place.

    A Quick Guide to the GOP’s War on Women

    http://thecentristword.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/a-quick-guide-to-the-gops-war-on-women/

  7. He would like for you to listen to what he says instead of what the republican ladies say. No such luck, Mitch!

    Mitch McConnell insists lady Republicans ‘don’t see any evidence’ of War on Women

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/09/1081931/-Mitch-McConnell-insists-lady-Republicans-don-t-see-any-evidence-of-War-on-Women