Obama to Call for $50 Billion Spending for Infrastructure

Agree +1.

 

Agree +2

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/health-care-polls-opinion-gap-or.html

Spoiler

 

Thanks. I did eventually find that and link to it at the bottom of the last page.

 

Are we really arguing over $50 billion? That's a rounding error these days.

 

Oops... I even double-checked to make sure you hadn't posted it yet.

Another thing that may have already been said is that a significant portion of the people who were against the bill thought it didn't go far enough. So when it came time for the bill to be voted on polls showed a majority wanted it to pass (because those who wanted it to go further felt it was better than nothing).

On an issue like health care it would be difficult to get any one plan to get huge support, but something that gets plurality support in the middle is probably worth passing.

 

People's concerns with the health care bill is that it won't reduce the amount spent on health care (which it won't ), that the government will be further involved in a citizen's decisions concerning their health, that it will increase the deficit (which it will ), amongst other things. None of these concerns do I see in this poll. How can you list the pros without the cons when they go together. It's like asking "Do you want Iraqi citizens to have freedom?" as opposed to "Do you want Iraqi citizens to have freedom at the expense of American soldier's lives?" they are two different questions. It asks "public option?" when it should ask "do you want a public option at the expense of the destruction of the private health insurance market?" cause the two go hand in hand.

 

I understand the logic behind the counter to the claim that individual portions of the bill are popular, although I think the greater point being made in that link is that the public was unaware of the provisions that were popular.

I disagree with you that it won't reduce the cost of health care. From your link:[rquoter]Once the insurance expansion begins, U.S. health spending is expected to grow slightly more slowly. Between 2015 and 2019, the report predicts, it will increase 6.7% a year on average, down from the 6.8% projected before the overhaul passed.[/rquoter]In other words, costs will start to grow more slowly once the provisions are fully in effect, so if you look past the 10 year window they studied costs should come down. (Although it is well known and accepted that the reform will not bring costs down nearly as much as was originally hoped. Democrats had hoped the public option or medicare expansion would work towards that end but those weren't included.)

I also disagree with you that it will increase the deficit. There's too much wrong in that link to debunk it all here, I think I have done it in the past. I'll give one example:[rquoter]the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. Now, what’s the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That’s $2.3 trillion.[/rquoter]If you look at the CBO score, the law reduces deficits slightly in the six years of spending starting in 2014. The CBO also states that they expect significant deficit reduction in the years after the end of their initial projection. So whether you look at the ten year period starting now, or only at those six years, or at the ten year period starting with 2014, in all three of those cases the CBO said the law would reduce deficits, not increase them. I found this link through google that addresses some of the other things Ryan says. I only read it briefly but I think it captures the gist.

Anyway, I guess that brings us back to the point of the fivethirtyeight article. People (like you apparently) are uninformed or misinformed about the health care reform law, and that drives a lot of the opposition.

 

To answer his question, you make it out to Halliburton-KBR, whatever front companies that Xe f/k/a Blackwater is using, varous other heavy-duty campaign contributors of yours in the Mil-Ind sphere who are the only real winners in Afghanistan thus far.

 

Now that Americans are on-board with allowing tax cuts for the rich to expire, do you think the GOP should go along with it. After all, what the American people want is what they should do, right?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/Americans-Allowing-Tax-Cuts-Wealthy-Expire.aspx


A majority of Americans favor letting the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire for the wealthy. While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers.


How do you explain GOP obstructionism here inspite of the will of the American people?

 

When did I say, what the Americans want is always what the GOP should do? If I did then I misrepresented myself. That is not what I think. I have been pretty clear about being an ideologue.

The American people want less spending and that opinion I agree with and think the GOP should support; although that is a pretty vague political stance(Rasmussen )

 

Sorry - my understanding is that you suggested that GOP obstructionism was due to the will of the American people - that they were obstructing because the American people didn't support the Democrat bills. If that's not accurate, my apologies.

("What's blocking this and most of the Democrats bills is the American people")

 

My view is the Democrats could of (and wanted to) pass that health care bill in 2 months. What made some Democrats waver for months was their constituents hatred of the bill. I think this infrastructure bill will go through a similar process. Democrats are already wavering on it:

Rep Jim Himes of Conneticut says he supports a termporary extension, because earning $250,000 annually “does not make you really rich.” (http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7565/taxcutfight )

Rep Bobby Bright of Alabama came out against ending the tax cuts, because “a vast majority of my constituents … don’t believe in tax increases on anybody at this point in time.”(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100902/ap_on_re_us/us_tax_cuts )

Rep Ron Klein of Florida wants a one year extension of the tax cuts, including those for the rich, because “right now, our top economic priority has to be job creation.”(http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/09/obama-some-dems-at-odds-over-extending-bush-tax-cuts/ )

 

Sry I just realized I was linking the Bush tax cuts

 

Here is my appropriate link: (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/09/dems_breaking_w.php )

 

Tax cuts grow the economy(generating revenue) thus decreasing the deficit.

At least thats how JFK felt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU )

 

Any response to the corrections I posted earlier?

By the way, JFK didn't say tax cuts would reduce deficits. Tax cuts can spur growth to help avoid or get out of recession, and they have been used in that way during this recession. But that's different than what the cartoon argues against.

 

Multiple problems here:

1. Some tax cuts can grow the economy; others don't. Depends on who gets them and how needed they were for that group.

2. A growing economy does not equal a decreased deficit. As an example, you could drop tax rates to 0%. That would grow the economy, but would certainly not help the deficit.

3. Historical evidence doesn't support the argument. Neither Reagan or Bush's tax cuts decreased the deficit or in any way, shape, or form paid for themselves. Both resulted in an absolute decrease in revenues - something that's only happened a handful of times in the last 50+ years.