House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama

Republicans counter that low taxes and spending cuts would unleash capital into the economy and put it on firm footing — and avoid a European-style debt crisis that could force far harsher steps.

Except this has never happened, anywhere, ever. Why do you think all your companies left? To keep profits for themselves as Job #1 to rake in even more cashola. Pretty sad. Reaganonics is a FAIL. The strongest nations in Europe who are not in a debt crisis (you know there are a lot of nations right?) have a strong social safety net, high taxes, and companies that exist. This is not rocket science.

High taxes are fine if the return from an accountable government means clean food, healthy lifestyle and free-as-in-beer healthcare paid for by taxation.

A voucher system might not be so bad, it would place a little bit more responcibility in the hands of those that use federal aid. It might also cut down on administrative costs so more of the money taken out of my paycheck goes to people that actually use the entitlements. Though at this point I've pretty much given up thinking that government can make anything better than sub-par trash.

The strongest nations in Europe who are not in a debt crisis (you know there are a lot of nations right?) have a strong social safety net, high taxes, and companies that exist.

They also have low growth rates, garbage bonds, low population growth, and a piss poor labor base.

High taxes are fine if the return from an accountable government means clean food, healthy lifestyle and free-as-in-beer healthcare paid for by taxation.

I don't think government should be responcible for any of that, rather it should be the job of the consumer to moniter the products they consume. I also don't see why government should have anything to do with my lifestyle or how healthy it is. And I wouldn't touch European style healthcare if they paid me let alone the other way around. I'll take my high deductible and instant gratification.

Republicans controlling the House pushed to passage on Friday a bold but politically dangerous budget blueprint to slash social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid and fundamentally restructure Medicare health care for the elderly.

Instead of using the word 'slash' it would be more realistic to use set a fiscal path to 'save' them instead. The course that these programs are currently on is unsustainable and everybody knows it unless there are major changes made to them to keep them solvent. It is good to see the Republicans face the reality not fill people up with sunshine and offer the hard but necessary solutions. I am also a bit mystified at President Obama's position on Medicaid vouchers. His own healthcare law does just that for people that cannot afford insurance so they can buy private insurance on the Govt set up healthcare exchanges. Yet now he's talking how that will kill Granny if the very same thing his own law does is now used also to keep Medicare solvent. Go figure.

"a summer showdown with President Barack Obama"

The real showdown is next November.

"President Barack Obama"

Incredible!

"And I wouldn't touch European style healthcare if they paid me let alone the other way around. I'll take my high deductible and instant gratification."

Are you an American without a passport who can't locate France on a map? Or have you actually been treated for an ailment at a hospital in Europe? A pathological, vitriolic hatred of government is understandable if you're a citizen of Iran or Burma, but I find such attitudes among Americans incomprehensible.

How can anybody believe that the "free" market is a natural, sentient being whose dictates must be obeyed? What a bizarre thing to believe. Deregulation is a misnomer and laissez-faire was planned, end of story.

How can anybody believe that the "free" market is a natural, sentient being whose dictates must be obeyed?

Ummm....Seems 'war' or 'trade' has been kinda of the options since we became sentient and crawled done from the trees.

Deregulation is a misnomer and laissez-faire was planned, end of story.

Not sure how free trade was planned but if you insist, I guess it is the end of story. By the way want to buy a Chevy Volt? It's planned and no laissez-faire from that bad boy.

"Not sure how free trade was planned"

Well, that's surprising. I suppose you think "free" trade spontaneously emerged as a "natural" form of barter and exchange among humans. It did not. There is no "free" trade without government involvement. A cursory look at 19th century British economic history will show that.

"A pathological, vitriolic hatred of government is understandable if you're a citizen of Iran or Burma, but I find such attitudes among Americans incomprehensible."

You're dealing with people who see only Democrat = Bad Repbulican = Good

Some people don't deserve a vote.

Republicans counter that low taxes and spending cuts would unleash capital into the economy and put it on firm footing — and avoid a European-style debt crisis that could force far harsher steps.

It is ironic to me -- and perhaps the folks on the board who are from the area can correct me on this -- that one of the European nations in deep trouble is Ireland. Ireland was touted for years by conservatives in the US as a country that proves that low taxation brings unparalleled prosperity.

It appears now that their low tax rates have been just as much a liability, because a government sometimes needs to act, especially when private individuals are frozen in their tracks with fear.

As for Medicare, I have long considered that the high costs of the system are inflated mainly by the extremely unhealthy lifestyles of US citizens. Diabetes and its complications, for example, is almost epidemic and, for the most part, is preventable.

The ideal, I believe, is to live as free from preventable medical complications as possible, and then receive the necessary care to ease one's passing when the time has come. It is very inexpensive and easy to monitor the health and lifestyle choices of a person in exchange for "free" health care as the incentive, if they choose to maintain their health.

In that sense the health care problem is always seen as a supply-side problem, without considering the demand-side.

Except this has never happened, anywhere, ever. Why do you think all your companies left? To keep profits for themselves as Job #1 to rake in even more cashola. Pretty sad. Reaganonics is a FAIL.

The one thing this post proves, is that there is someone on this forum with out a clue as to economics, history, or for that matter reality. I'm not going to get into specifics, but allow me to simply point out to a little something called the Laffer Curve. To put it simply, if you have a 0% tax, government gets no money, if you have 100% tax, then again government gets no money. You have to find a balance in order to maximize the amount of income a government can get. Reagan believed that he could lower the marginal tax rates, and that by doing so, he would increase revenues. He was correct. Some Republicans believe, that as long as they lower taxes, this will always occur. They are incorrect. Its about balance.

On the topic at hand though, I have to say I am very disappointed with this plan being passed. Sure its a start, but its only a start. A plan that balances the budget 25 years from now is not what we need. Who the hell knows if we'll even be around 25 years from now. No, what we need is one that balances in 6 to 8 years. Actually I take that back. We need one that balances today. However the shock to the US economy from going off the dole would be considerable, and so the political will to accomplish what they need to do, isn't there.

In that sense the health care problem is always seen as a supply-side problem, without considering the demand-side.

We both know the reasons for this yabits. There is a limit on supply, but no limit on demand, thus it will be seen as a supply-side problem. Why are you even bringing it up?

Some people don't deserve a vote.

Some people don't deserve a vote to impose their personal ideology on others who do not share their way of thinking. You should know better than to state something like this - there was a time when people thought that blacks didn't deserve to vote either...

If you want to blow your money on some socialist plan to save the world go ahead. Get as many people together as you can and pool your money together and go for it. But don't use the power of government to impose it on everyone else. I guess choice is only for abortions.

"government is best which governs least"

I have long considered that the high costs of the system are inflated mainly by the extremely unhealthy lifestyles of US citizens. Diabetes and its complications, for example, is almost epidemic and, for the most part, is preventable.

So yabits believes the government should have even more say into how people live their lives, like a mandatory government-provided food menu, daily weigh-ins, and forced population control.

Are you an American without a passport who can't locate France on a map?

Actually I'm a fairly well educated one that speaks five languages, three of which I'm fluent in, and that is regularly sent abroad to conduct performance reviews of my companies international offices. So yes, I can find France on a map...its teh 1 shped liek a boot rite?

A pathological, vitriolic hatred of government is understandable if you're a citizen of Iran or Burma, but I find such attitudes among Americans incomprehensible.

I just don't like seeing money wasted, especially if it's my money. I don't see the benefit of government safety nets, food and drug regulations, or financial ones when they are, at best, lagging. Having worked at all levels of employment from laboring to corporate controlling and in both public and private industry I find the inefficiency of government to be well deserving of my ire.

How can anybody believe that the "free" market is a natural, sentient being whose dictates must be obeyed?

You're confusing a free market with a coercive entity. The market doesn't require that you do anything at all; rather it exists for the benefit of those who actually feel like doing something.

You're dealing with people who see only Democrat = Bad Repbulican = Good

I think I've made it quite clear that I don't distinguish between the two. As far as I'm concerned they're both out to strip the general population of their rights, they just use different methods. I vote based my own research and I'm frequently drawn to third party or independent candidates. The most disastrous thing in modern American history is the split ticket vote.

So yabits believes the government should have even more say into how people live their lives, like a mandatory government-provided food menu, daily weigh-ins, and forced population control.

Not quite.

I believe that "we the people," with the emphasis on the WE, are responsible for designing systems that will reward individuals who can either choose to go for the benefits or choose not to. In this case, completely free health care and a nice annual tax break would be the rewards for choosing to follow a regimen that promotes health.

To the extent that a major draw on the health care system is due to completely preventable conditions, a reward system which largely eradicates those conditions would provide a win-win -- especially w/regards to the budget.

I understand that conservatives look for the easy way out, which usually brings about a lose-lose outcome for the vast majority of we the people.

The debate is part of a wider argument about the role of government in U.S. and the scope of federal spending in the face of the recession and spiralling US deficits. The Republicans have argued that government spending has become unsustainable even as they have pushed through a series of massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Democrats, meanwhile, say that government spending is vital while unemployment remains high. Once the American people begin to understand the size of the problem, only then should we begin to lay out an array of possible solutions.

The U.S. goverment should make the case of reducing malpractice lawsuits, a goal of many doctors can help lower health care costs, and should be considered as part of any health care overhaul. There should be a medical malpractice lawsuit limits. On every states, as a federal law, U.S. should place some kind of damage award cap or attorneys' fees limit on medical malpractice lawsuits.

The Republicans have argued that government spending has become unsustainable even as they have pushed through a series of massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

In addition to the fact that Republicans themselves spent like crazy and grew government from 2001-2008. Some foolishly want to pin all the blame on the president at the time, but he had the full support of his party all along the way.

Democrats, meanwhile, say that government spending is vital while unemployment remains high.

If businesses and consumers can't stimulate an economy to provide for the general welfare of the people, it becomes the role of government to do so.

I believe that "we the people," with the emphasis on the WE, are responsible for designing systems that will reward individuals who can either choose to go for the benefits or choose not to. In this case, completely free health care and a nice annual tax break would be the rewards for choosing to follow a regimen that promotes health.

Two problems with that. For starters nothing is free; it would be paid for by taxes and those that would pay the most into that system would receive the comparatively least value for that money. The second problem is this system of rewarding healthy behavior in that it with rewards there often come penalties, especially when government is involved. Health should be a choice that a person makes for themselves, not a societal one.

If businesses and consumers can't stimulate an economy to provide for the general welfare of the people, it becomes the role of government to do so.

Define general welfare. I believe that it means food, water, and shelter. Three things that anybody with a functioning brain can find in the U.S in abundance. For those without a functioning brain there are charity shelters and institutions for them, I used to volunteer at one.

Anything beyond those three basics I consider a luxury.

Two problems with that. For starters nothing is free; it would be paid for by taxes and those that would pay the most into that system would receive the comparatively least value for that money.

Huh? Yes, nothing is free. But it's elementary to understand that a healthy population draws far less from an expensive health care system than a less healthy one -- especially if the ailments are preventable. As in most things, but especially in the medical area, an ounce of prevention is worth 20 pounds of cure. The payback is as self-evident as our current system is unsustainable.

Health should be a choice that a person makes for themselves, not a societal one.

You are wrong. There is no such thing as a "societal choice" -- just individuals choosing to cooperate together on a common goal, and putting a structure in place to support that goal. Most people understand that there will always be anti-social people who feel they are superior to everyone else, and who feel the need to demonstrate their superiority by being contrary to something that would be of universal benefit -- as good health certainly is.

Define general welfare. I believe that it means food, water, and shelter.

FDR defined it in his second bill of rights. It means far more than those three.

Most people understand that there will always be anti-social people who feel they are superior to everyone else, and who feel the need to demonstrate their superiority by being contrary to something that would be of universal benefit

And that is their prerogative. I smoke and drink and eat horribly but my blood work is, in no uncertain terms, perfect as is my blood pressure. At the same time I have a number of fairly costly genetic issues which are not covered by any state run program in current existence nor have they apparently seen fit to even register the drugs used to treat it due to the comparative rarity, the French damn near killed me because of it. The plan I worked out with my insurance provider is perfectly crafted for me and me alone. I would gain little from a universal system and lose out quite a bit and as such I see no reason why I should pay into one.

FDR defined it in his second bill of rights. It means far more than those three.

And it is flawed, like many of his other decisions. Freedom and protection of life and property are glorious, but to believe that society should be held responsible for retirement, education, or welfare I find to be gross overreach.

In my current job I’ve gotten the pleasure of seeing what kinds of people such entitlements breed in other nations. I’m used to seeing old money strut around the main offices but in Europe it’s like everybody does it. No sense of responsibility, no dependability, and, when I find they’ve tried to hide a major mess up, no spine.

At the same time I have a number of fairly costly genetic issues which are not covered by any state run program in current existence nor have they apparently seen fit to even register the drugs used to treat it due to the comparative rarity...

So tell me: About how many taxpayer dollars were spent in the basic research performed by government agencies like the NIH and CDC that led to the development of drugs to treat these "rare" conditions? Drugs that would never be developed if only market forces were applied.

How many of the scientists, chemists and researchers received government grants in the course of their education to better equip them to achieve advancements in medicine?

The irony is that some of the very people who have benefited most from the kinds of research and education grants that would be slashed from the government budget, are coming out in favor of those cuts, claiming that government has "overreached."

Would that the researchers could locate the genetic issue associated with pathological self-serving and anti-social impulses.

About how many taxpayer dollars were spent in the basic research performed by government agencies like the NIH and CDC that led to the development of drugs to treat these "rare" conditions?

For mine? None that I know of, the treatment was financed by a couple hundred of us with a particular variety of acromegaly.

Would that the researchers could locate the genetic issue associated with pathological self-serving and anti-social impulses.

Self-serving, absolutely. Everything I do I do for me from my work, to my retirement plan, to my charity work I love making myself happy and I'm the best qualified to keep myself that way. Anti-social, heck no. I love people, one of the main reasons I don't like entitlement programs is because I've seen what they do to people. I've also seen what subsidization and excessive grants have done to once successful businesses.

For mine? None that I know of, the treatment was financed by a couple hundred of us with a particular variety of acromegaly.

LOL! If any drugs are used in the treatment, a large part of the development was paid for out of government budget allotments for basic research. Taxpayer funding for basic research has contributed to the development of nearly every pharmaceutical brought to life since WWII.

Unless the treatment is being administered by untrained amateurs, rest assured that a great deal of the training of medical professionals has been subsidized by taxpayers.

Taxpayer funding for basic research has contributed to the development of nearly every pharmaceutical brought to life since WWII.

Why are U.S taxpayers sending their money to Hong Kong? Additionally even if a fraction of money paid for other treatments and drugs I doubt that medical advancement would have ground to a standstill or even slowed for that matter. People still want medicine and they're willing to pay for it. I don't know of a business in the world that would stop producing a product or researching new ones if there was money behind it. Plus the government has this bad tendency of funding really stupid projects as well as making it absurdly difficult to start researching good ones via the FDA's testing requirements before a drug is considered acceptable.

My group's funding for research was based on a clear outline of demanded results and we got them this time. For the longest time the only treatment plans in the states that I had to look forward to was one of a few types of radiation or one of two drug therapies that pretty much guaranteed diabetes. I don't get to pick what research my taxes go to and the results I was getting were unacceptable.

Unless the treatment is being administered by untrained amateurs, rest assured that a great deal of the training of medical professionals has been subsidized by taxpayers.

Were that true in this case I'd stand by my position of ending subsidization anyway.

Additionally even if a fraction of money paid for other treatments and drugs I doubt that medical advancement would have ground to a standstill or even slowed for that matter. People still want medicine and they're willing to pay for it.

It is obvious you don't understand what basic research is, and how the costs for it need to be amortized throughout a society. (Since most businesses will not invest in things where the commercial payoff may not come for decades -- and where the immediate payoff is knowledge.) In the case of the US, a great deal of the funding comes out of the federal budget.