LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 212
0 members and 212 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-10-2011, 02:39 PM   #11
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,231
Re: Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
That plan is a fiscal disaster.
A plan that likely costs more isn't?

A plan that was focused on cost-cutting before expansion wasn't a preferable idea? Ty's right - the Dems demanded expansion as a concession to do the cost-cutting. That was a political reality. But that doesn't mean it was a wise economic compromise.

I am unaware of any business that takes on non-revenue producing costs as part of a plan to improve its solvency. Might I be surprised that Obamacare does this? Yes. And that would be delightful. Might you be shocked in ten years to discover the plan has been an economic disaster? Yes.

Only difference in those two scenarios is we can't afford your faith being unfounded. And we could have avoided that risk. But we didn't.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 PM.