WP:Senate Passes Plan to Cut $35 Billion From Deficit (Cuts come from poor

[Sgent]

Even liberal advocacy groups say the Senate measure largely shields Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, imposing the burden instead on pharmaceutical companies, private insurers and more-affluent Americans who fraudulently qualify for nursing-home coverage by transferring assets to family members. But the Senate Medicare provisions have prompted a veto threat from the White House, which has strongly objected to the bill's tampering with President Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit.

The Senate bill would save $36 billion over the next decade by eliminating financial incentives to lure managed care companies into Medicare. The White House called those enticements "critical."

"If a final bill is presented to the President that limits the choices of seniors, takes away their prescription drug coverage, or cuts the Stabilization Fund . . . , the President's senior advisors will recommend that he veto the bill," a White House statement said.

<..>

The House's Medicaid cuts present a far more immediate political obstacle. By allowing states to impose new co-payments and premiums while scaling back some benefits, the legislation is expected to save more than $30 billion over 10 years, the CBO said, not because cost-sharing would bring in revenue but because new costs would keep the poor out of the health care system.

Washington Post Article (Scary)

[catmother]

does this surprise anyone. they always cut benefits

for the poor. why don't they cut their spending on the war in iraq. we never hear about cuts there. they just keep screwing us.

[OneBlueSky]

1. kee[ing the poor out of the health care system is simply . . .

one more tactic in their policy of reducing the population . . . and they're certainly not going to do that by killing off the rich . . .

when there's less of us, there will be more for them . . .

[grytpype]

2. AND, they are going to enact $70 billion in tax cuts a few weeks from now.

So the net effect is going to be a $24 billion increase in the deficit. They cleverly broke the legislation in two pieces so they could get this headline. Now if they could only break their incompetent and corrupt selves into two pieces, America would be better off.

[Deep13]

3. Bush plan: reverse outcome of Civil War.

Let me say right out front to avoid letting people know what New England snob I really am: I have absolutely nothing against the South or even for the men in grey who fought for their homes. Their situation was much different than the powerful interests that ran the Confederacy.

Having said that, the Federals won and strengthened the powered of the Federal government. That strong govt. had the power to impose labor laws, civil rights measures, environmental legislation and generally to act as a counterweight to rich interests that might overwhelm local authorities. In short, the powerful Federal govt. is generally (though not universally) good for democracy.

Bush seeks to overturn that situation by hobbling the Federal government and making it so weak that its power is mostly symbolic. He is doing this by bankrupting the government and saddling the poor with economic and social burdens. He seeks to reinstate an almost fuedal system and destroying the central govt. is the first step.

[sweepster]

5. Your kidding right?

The federal gov't and powers under the shrub have increased exponetially (sic). Do you really think the Patriot Act, Fema and Homeland Security is symbolic and weak-and will be less threatning in the future? Wait until regular americans(as opposed to the terrorist the acts were supposedly enacted to protect us against) start getting arrested and detained.

I am not a shrub fan but just about all gov't agencies have increased budgets under his presidency.

[Deep13]

6. He's weakened those by appointing idiots to run them.

The increased budgets with reduced revenue is to force the govt. into debt and to make the lower and middle class responsible for that debt.

[acmejack]

4. Here are the Dem traitors!

The Republican senators who voted against the budget bill were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. The Democrats voting for the bill were Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

[Deep13]

7. DeWine: painting self as moderate for '06 reelection.

He won't find any solution, like restoring the Bush tax cuts, but he won't side with the extremists (this time) either.

[bluedog]

11. the emergency aid was under this bill for Nelson and Landrieu

Many Democrats generally opposed the bill because it allows the oil drilling and increases the deficit when coupled with a $70-billion tax cut bill.

But two Democrats supported the bill,

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whose hurricane-devastated state won emergency aid under the bill.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/04/Worldandnation/Senate_okays_36_billi.shtml

[twaddler01]

8. Will he veto it?

:scared:

[moondust]

9. Attempted murder.

Pure, unabashed class war. Republicans (and a few DINOs) are a blight on humanity.

[ninkasi]

10. For conservatives to advocate

even more tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of children, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor, says all that needs to be said about their values. It is against every ethical or moral principle of humanity.

How any person who considers themselves to be decent, or moral, could tolerate this amazes me. This has become a country with no compassion, no ethical standards, and a country so mired in corruption that we no longer have any right to criticize other countries on the way their run their governments.

Now, under Bush, the government even wants to give itself the right to use torture, or other cruel and inhumane techniques on other people. From torture to deliberately letting more and more people die due to neglect or lack of medical treatment, is no great leap at all. It's where the neocons are taking us, more and more every day.