57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"
38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."
This is a poll, harris poll I think, and only 2500 people were polled. But holy fuck these people are insane.
"It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."
How true.
Amazing how that works. Just a few years ago many Democrats thought the last two exactly the same about Bush (and replaced the top two with "not eligible due to drug use, evading military service or just looking like a monkey :D ).
Just goes to show that BOTH of the primary parties are wacked. :(
you can pull that statement back to include american politics in general.
the amount of energy that went into this healthcare debate is shameful when you consider our bigger budgetary problems. there is a very real chance we won't stay solvent enough to make it to 2014 when this bill kicks in.
That's not a fair comparison.
That Obama list is just pure creative insanity.
The list for GWB list you talk about was actually true stuff
whether you thought it mattered or not is another matter - but the claims were true.
1. GWB was a draft dodger
2. GWB had an admitted alcohol habit and coke habit though he denies that.
3. GWB had a a dismal record as CEO of companies he headed before being president
other claims are more subjective - namely that GWB was the superficial rich privileged black sheep son of a former president who did not regard him very highly, and was simply driven by proving his father wrong and only ever a puppet figurehead for the NeoCon movement and not expected to actually drive or even be actively involved in policy and govern - which fits his record of "ranch" days - and that Rumsfeld and Cheney were really in charge
I really don't remember anyone seriously comparing him to Hitler - let alone 20%.
Let alone comparing him to the second coming of a supernatural figure of ultimate evil
GWB was far too incompetent and inept figure to warrant comparisons of that magnitude. :-X
Rumsfeld was proven an incompetent - good at starting fights but incapable of finishing them.
Only Cheney had the "Dr Evil" gravitas to warrant comparisons like that. :)
I could make a list of what I suspect Obama will suffer from - the stuff that sticks in history
But it would be far from that crock of idiocy above.
And there is no sign of it happening yet.
But he may well suffer from the Blair kind of thing
The dependence on charisma to lead, without putting in the grinding graft to make the leadership actually work and follow through after the political victory
He may succeed in introducing reforms but be a failure in actually making them work.
But that is for the future - it is too early to say.
But if he succeeds in following through - I predict in 5 years no serious political figure will oppose his reforms in any abolistionist sense - they will only be talking about reforming and fine tuning them - probably extending them in ways that would seem impossible now.
If shit works it kicks the ass of the current politics of hypothesis and the politics adjusts to the reality.
And if so he will be a historically significant and highly rated president for just this health reform alone - if he does nothing else.
A nightmare for republicans is that he succeeds in some other significant was as well.
e.g. If he sorts out the middle east in some significant way
And economically - if he presides over a powerful recovery of the economic basket case he was handed by good old GWB.
Fuck - then he would be clearly in the top 5 best presidents you have had - maybe #1 considering the complexity of the problems he has solved.
Then you would have to suspect supernatural influence if you believe in that sort of thing :P
You know - if things go too well then it has to be a work of evil, if things are just unchanging constant shit - you have the usual goody but incompetent fuck in charge.
I bet JFK and Lincoln were charged with a list like above.
and they were both murdered!
chase — Mar 23, 2010you can pull that statement back to include american politics in general.
the amount of energy that went into this healthcare debate is shameful when you consider our bigger budgetary problems. there is a very real chance we won't stay solvent enough to make it to 2014 when this bill kicks in.
I understand the worry about huge budget deficits.
What I don't understand is how you have only become concerned with it since Obama took office.
GWB ran a 5 trillion deficit over his 8 years before it ended with the near death experience of total economic collapse that would be beyond most peoples imagination.
Which involved draconian wild action to see off which was the only course of action and it actually started under GWB - there was no choice but to prop the system up which sent the deficit north even more
But I don't remember any post from you about deficits prior to the crisis hitting at it's hottest.
You need to keep your eye on the ball mate.
You were being shafted by GWB for his personal political fortunes and his tax cuts now were being financed by borrowing - in your tax payer name later.
It is one of the reasons why things are more fucked up that they should be.
It is the prime reason I want the current UK gov out next election.
needs to be punished for putting politics above good management.
fingers — Mar 23, 2010[quote author=chase link=1269366569/0#2 date=1269382107]you can pull that statement back to include american politics in general.
the amount of energy that went into this healthcare debate is shameful when you consider our bigger budgetary problems. there is a very real chance we won't stay solvent enough to make it to 2014 when this bill kicks in.
I understand the worry about huge budget deficits.
What I don't understand is how you have only become concerned with it since Obama took office.
+1. Obama got elected and suddenly the world was ending. Before that, the financial situation was okay... I find that way more disturbing (with a lot of people, not just chase) than anything else.
Your denying the cycle of our Presidents, or economy.
We have always been worried about the deficit. Even when Bush was in office. I don't believe any President has ever grown the deficit in such short manor than Obama, even % wise, not to mention dollar figures I no longer understand.
The deficit is a political toy. The politicians use to run on it. Use to....key omission in this campaign on both sides. Very little mention of balancing the budget. Don't care why, it's critical that it gets that way, or that we have a plan to get us that way.
The only people who care about the deficit is the American people, and that's very few. The reason we care is that the other side uses it against each other every election. Scare tactics used at the right time. Then we forget about it until next election when we are in up to our ass in debt again.
I've about decided the only fix to our own government is for it to fall apart so we can start over. I figure if we shoot ourselves enough, eventually we will die. :D How about that one Chase?
One of the reasons I'd like unlimited terms for President is so we could bring back people like Clinton who can fix shit so we can get back to bitching about blowjobs. Hell, give unlimited opportunity as well. Election every 4 years.
"You were being shafted by GWB for his personal political fortunes and his tax cuts now were being financed by borrowing - in your tax payer name later"
And you could say the same with Obama. The difference being health care at any cost when we're broke, taxes rising, government growing at never before percentages or dollar amounts, all this right in front of people, Transparent as hell.....in our name later.
I think permanent damage has been done concerning the deficit by this administration or Obama.
Healthcare is for Obama's political fortune, plain as day.
Isn't the "deficit" is only smoke and mirrors? Theoretically, one year the Government could budget one trillion and spend three trillion (thus having a deficit of two trillion), yet another year the budget could be for three trillion and four trillion were spent making it sound like a better proposition (only one trillion of deficit).
The real problem is that the second example spent a LOT more. Or am I missing something here?
Like I've said before, both parties have gone on spending sprees (just using different excuses) and both have grown the Government into the bloated waste it currently is.
It's always a nice warm and fuzzy feeling when you're helping people (whether they be from our country - the Democrat approach - or another - the Republican approach), but it always seems like using a sledge-hammer to extract a tooth. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that the Government is qualified to handle most of these "social" issues! I keep looking back at that HUD example where a report found only 28 cents out of every dollar sent to HUD was used for the purpose it should be - the rest went to "overhead" (aka waste). If any business was that inefficient, they wouldn't be around long! ::)
Growth of government is my main concern.
Hookbender — Mar 24, 2010Your denying the cycle of our Presidents, or economy.
I'm not ignoring it,
the budget deficit in simple terms is the difference between government receipts in tax etc and its spending.
Running a deficit in a recession is normal it is required, and in this huge economic quake we had recently critical.
But the flip side is running a surplus in good times - and paying down the debt.
You are ignoring the cycle - Bush ran a deficit every year in power and left in the middle of an enormous recession, the path of the deficit was inherited from the previous year, the budget deficit of 2009 was set by the handling of events of 2008.
It is like taking over the wheel of an enormous supertanker, the direction you go in is determined by your predecessor at first, your influence on the direction takes a long time to be felt and continues to be felt after you hand over the steering.
A president's direct influence on budget deficits can only be judged with at least a years lag of cause/effect.
i.e. Obama's deficits will be 2010 2011 2012 2013 (yes a year he may not even be in power)
Bush owns 2002 - 2009
2001 belongs to Clinton - etc.
remember the only way to bring national debt under control is to run budget surpluses in "boom" times - the presidents who haven't done this are directly responsible for debt levels.
You supported healthcare, Hook. And lots of people supported stimulus. A lot of economists say the problem with the stimulus is that it was not large enough.
It would be nice if Obama could wave a magic wand and correct the massive failures that led to our current deficit, wouldn't it? That's not going to happen. If you were voting for Obama and expecting to get magic, that's on you. The current crisis is so bad that there's not a man out there who can fix it.
One thing I know. The party that still refuses to do anything about regulation is about to get some new seats in Congress. Your guess as to the results? I know what I think will happen.
charger — Mar 24, 2010
One thing I know. The party that still refuses to do anything about regulation is about to get some new seats in Congress. Your guess as to the results? I know what I think will happen.
ask yourself why that is charger. were the leaders in washington representing their constituents views, or were they doing what they deemed best? if it was the former you have nothing to worry about. if it was the latter, than get the fuck out. the fact they know they will be voted out of office yet continue on the current path sickens me.
unfortunately i really have no faith the next crop of republicans will be any better though.
chase — Mar 24, 2010[quote author=charger link=1269366569/0#11 date=1269454210]
One thing I know. The party that still refuses to do anything about regulation is about to get some new seats in Congress. Your guess as to the results? I know what I think will happen.
ask yourself why that is charger. were the leaders in washington representing their constituents views, or were they doing what they deemed best? if it was the former you have nothing to worry about. if it was the latter, than get the fuck out. i really have no faith the next crop of republicans will be any better though.
They will be just as good at saying no.
As to "constituents' views" I believe that has been addressed... both by previous polls and by current ones. Previous polls often asked "do you support current healthcare legislation" and got a 55-60% no. However, looking closer, when they asked the followup question "why" surprisingly, 10-20% said the legislation
did not go far enough! This runs counter to the entire thesis of the tea partiers.
It's clear now, because when you look at polls, healthcare, now that it's passed, gets much higher approval. In fact, it gets
majority approval.
If you think you can read the tea leaves, wait a day. You never know what is behind someone's vote or opinion if its asked in a vacuum.
charger — Mar 24, 2010
It would be nice if Obama could wave a magic wand and correct the massive failures that led to our current deficit, wouldn't it? That's not going to happen. If you were voting for Obama and expecting to get magic, that's on you. The current crisis is so bad that there's not a man out there who can fix it.
than why are obamas deficits projected to run rampant long after his own economic team claims the recession will be over? the projected deficit conveniently dips in 2012 before skyrocketing. using the recession as a cover for the ballooning deficit will only work so long. i understand the common thinking is that $ had to be spent to pull out of the deathspiral, but when is enough? we are driving the ship into the ground...
chase — Mar 24, 2010[quote author=charger link=1269366569/0#11 date=1269454210]
One thing I know. The party that still refuses to do anything about regulation is about to get some new seats in Congress. Your guess as to the results? I know what I think will happen.
ask yourself why that is charger. were the leaders in washington representing their constituents views, or were they doing what they deemed best? if it was the former you have nothing to worry about. if it was the latter, than get the fuck out. the fact they know they will be voted out of office yet continue on the current path sickens me.
unfortunately i really have no faith the next crop of republicans will be any better though.
And BTW, the Republicans were predicted to pick up seats before there was even talk of healthcare... Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight puts the average pickup at a midterm at 15-20 in the house and 2-4 in the senate. Add to that the wave of retirements and the worst economy in about 80 years, and I expect the actual seats lost due to healthcare to be much less than everyone predicts. We'll see.
chase — Mar 24, 2010[quote author=charger link=1269366569/0#11 date=1269454210]
It would be nice if Obama could wave a magic wand and correct the massive failures that led to our current deficit, wouldn't it? That's not going to happen. If you were voting for Obama and expecting to get magic, that's on you. The current crisis is so bad that there's not a man out there who can fix it.
than why are obamas deficits projected to run rampant long after his own economic team claims the recession will be over? the projected deficit conveniently dips in 2012 before skyrocketing. using the recession as a cover for the ballooning deficit will only work so long. i understand the common thinking is that $ had to be spent to pull out of the deathspiral, but when is enough? we are driving the ship into the ground...
They are all Obama's deficits now?
It took us 40 years to get into this sort of debt. 1 year of Obama and it's all his debt?
Okay.
Time for the graph - again
Not one republican government in the last 30 years has run a surplus in good economic times
This huge financial crisis is a legacy of republican governance and the trajectory of debt went vertical under Bush at the end of his term
Bush did what had to be done, in fact I would say it is the only courageous decision he made as president.
but that trajectory won't be turned around in a few years - it will now take decades.
Republicans DO NOT have a record of good budget housekeeping
They are as profligate and economically irresponsible as the left wing in the UK.
Ideologues can't do good prudent governance, they don't govern on facts but belief in "ideals".
They fuck it up with different ideology, but the end result is the same - the circle of politics, right and left at the extreme is indistinguishable in the outcome.
Reagan is hailed as a great president by the right in the US - but on the deficit he started the rise/
Chase - the only president since you have been alive who is worthy of your support is Clinton.
Obama doesn't have a record yet - only projections - which are worse than long range weather forecasts.
If you don't believe that - check out the forecasts Bush adminstration made in 2007 about 2008/2009/2010.
It didn't include a spike going north in late 2008 with 2 trillion+ emergency deficit.
The huge mistakes made under Bush will take a generation to work out and the last party to claim to be best to work that out is the fuckers who got everyone into the mess in the first place - especially as they have no past record of ever doing anything but running deficits.
I sum up the US right wing position on most things as
"Insanity: the belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing."
-Albert Einstein
I sum up the UK left wing position on most things as
"Insanity: the belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing."
-Albert Einstein
chase — Mar 24, 2010[quote author=charger link=1269366569/0#11 date=1269454210]
It would be nice if Obama could wave a magic wand and correct the massive failures that led to our current deficit, wouldn't it? That's not going to happen. If you were voting for Obama and expecting to get magic, that's on you. The current crisis is so bad that there's not a man out there who can fix it.
than why are obamas deficits projected to run rampant long after his own economic team claims the recession will be over? the projected deficit conveniently dips in 2012 before skyrocketing. using the recession as a cover for the ballooning deficit will only work so long. i understand the common thinking is that $ had to be spent to pull out of the deathspiral, but when is enough? we are driving the ship into the ground...
This is why I keep picking on you with the fox news thing. This is a republican talking point. Just forget about Bush and look only at Obama and the shape the countries in while he's in charge. It's all his fault this situation isn't fixed in a year, right? In this case, it just isn't his fault.
charger — Mar 24, 2010You supported healthcare, Hook. And lots of people supported stimulus. A lot of economists say the problem with the stimulus is that it was not large enough.
It would be nice if Obama could wave a magic wand and correct the massive failures that led to our current deficit, wouldn't it? That's not going to happen. If you were voting for Obama and expecting to get magic, that's on you. The current crisis is so bad that there's not a man out there who can fix it.
One thing I know. The party that still refuses to do anything about regulation is about to get some new seats in Congress. Your guess as to the results? I know what I think will happen.
On healthcare, yes, I support it and I'm glad something is finally being done to improve it. But I don't have to like everything about this healthcare bill to support it. I think the timing is bad to do healthcare the way this bill is doing it. I would rather have seen the current system be improved upon than having this huge bill fed to me with no say so at all and it be done 90% behind closed doors. But it is what it is. And I've been convinced through reading various reports on the bill, the good out weigh the bad. Plus, I really want healthcare for all people. I'm willing to sacrifice some personally to achieve that. If that's necessary.
I know Obama, or anyone else, can't fix this shit quickly. And, while I still have high hopes that Obama is very successful, I don't agree with all his decision making. Nor would I completely agree with any Presidents decisions.
And to be quite honest with you, I'm kinda still fighting off that die hard conservative mindset I use to have. It's probably a good thing that some of my opinions remain just that, my opinions. I just hope to come to the conclusions I do with much better information and sources of information. You guys keep me honest, so to speek. I like that.
fingers — Mar 24, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1269366569/0#6 date=1269393249]Your denying the cycle of our Presidents, or economy.
I'm not ignoring it,
the budget deficit in simple terms is the difference between government receipts in tax etc and its spending.
Running a deficit in a recession is normal it is required, and in this huge economic quake we had recently critical.
But the flip side is running a surplus in good times - and paying down the debt.
You are ignoring the cycle - Bush ran a deficit every year in power and left in the middle of an enormous recession, the path of the deficit was inherited from the previous year, the budget deficit of 2009 was set by the handling of events of 2008.
It is like taking over the wheel of an enormous supertanker, the direction you go in is determined by your predecessor at first, your influence on the direction takes a long time to be felt and continues to be felt after you hand over the steering.
A president's direct influence on budget deficits can only be judged with at least a years lag of cause/effect.
i.e. Obama's deficits will be 2010 2011 2012 2013 (yes a year he may not even be in power)
Bush owns 2002 - 2009
2001 belongs to Clinton - etc.
remember the only way to bring national debt under control is to run budget surpluses in "boom" times - the presidents who haven't done this are directly responsible for debt levels.
I think your probably right! :)
Heh - when discussing this sort of stuff - probably is the best you can hope for :)
unfortunately probability doesn't make for good politics -
fake certainty and sincerity works best
demagoguery clearly works best for the right.
How's that Hopey Changey stuff working out for ya!
Let the banks collapse (you lose your job and your house)
Nuke thy enemies (they might nuke you back)
That sort of shit. :)
It kinda works on a very very superficial populist level.
Like the drunk in a bar who is Mike Tyson in his head but knocked flat on his ass in reality
:)
Was perusing Albert Einstein quotes
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
fingers — Mar 24, 2010Time for the graph - again
Not one republican government in the last 30 years has run a surplus in good economic times
?
Looks like the ONLY time that Republicans actually had the majority in both the House and Senate for the last 40 years (the last two years of Clinton's term), things went down. It usually doesn't matter what party the President is from...
Looks like it started going down for about 5 years of his 8
besides the republicans had far more important issues to deal with than
the deficit.
Like the source of Stains on Monica lewinsky dress for instance.
If it doesn't matter who is president then it is not obama's deficit is it and never will be
- just ignore it like Bush and Reagan did before him and grow it massively
From the NY times - out of date since the health bill hass passed - but still relevant - the projected cost of the health bill is peanuts compared to the current deficit
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1
Americas Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making
There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.
The first is that President Obamas agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.
The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the countrys choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.
Mr. Obama responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.
The story of todays deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bushs policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
The first category the business cycle accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. Its a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obamas main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obamas agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, dont cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.
Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, hes not fixing it.
And, he added, not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.
When challenged about the deficit, Mr. Obama and his advisers generally start talking about health care. There is no way you can put the nation on a sound fiscal course without wringing inefficiencies out of health care, Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me.
Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.
First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isnt clear whether Mr. Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.
Second, even serious health care reform wont be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.
Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isnt on course to meet his target.
But Congressional Republicans arent, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.
Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending, the conservative Cato Institute concluded.
What, then, will happen?
Things will get worse gradually, Mr. Auerbach predicts, unless they get worse quickly. Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.
The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it wont be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.
That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.
fingers — Mar 25, 2010 the projected cost of the health bill is peanuts compared to the current deficit
its projected at 1 trillion+, which isn't peanuts. compared to our unfunded liabilities it is, but our deficit is only 13 trillion last time i checked. anyhow, i agree with you strangely enough. i think far too much emphasis was put on this bill at a time when there are more pressing concerns in our nation. the fact is, even if left unchecked, medicaid/medicare and social security would have bankrupt us before the problems this bill aims to fix would have. hell, this bill EXPANDS medicaid.
seems like a diversion to me, but i'm paranoid
I checked that figure as it was so startling.
but 1tn+ is then projected Gov expenditure over 10 years.
which is means 100bn a year or 1/14 th of the current deficit 7% is relative peanuts but any increase in the deficit is not good news.
But the flip side - potential gains - the idea behind this bill which is more interesting.
It hasn't been debated and considering that the state of the debate in the US has been framed pretty low and generic - like a gun lobby type argument - about constitutional rights, it never was the issue.
Which is what angers me about republican tactics - the stupidity of it, it seemed more like - shit mobilize the forces to reject it before they understand it move.
The whole picture swings on the economic argument based on analysis that health reform will pay off and lead to a reduction of the deficit - the 1tn will still be a committed cost - but if it's effect yields more than 1tn over the 10 years in savings and new taxable activity then it will have won money.
The background evidence for the economics -
The US spends on average twice as much of their income on health as comparable countries.
Health outcomes don't reflect any advantage for 99% of the population - it has just average performance - with extremes of 3rd world levels.
Insurance is simply a private tax - a burden on the free movement of individuals and business.
The government is the backstop for all those uninsured anyway - which the industry uses to cherry pick the lucrative.
The insurance companies, big pharma and the health providers are an effective cartel that can inflate costs as at will - as they can.
Welfare cases can't afford to get a job and lose health benefits - even if the want a job and can do something.
So the big idea is if they can reduce the "tax" - the 18% of GDP spent on health by even 2% directed to other more productive activity - that is enormous on the growth rate in the medium term and will pay off the expenditure yield a surplus.
It is like a fundamental tax cut from another and frankly exotic angle - but not the sort of concept that can be explained on Fox News debating with Sarah Palin. :P
A fundamental tax cut like that has social and psychological effects that are hard to predict - maybe people give up and get lazy, or people get more economically energised.
That is where it will be judged- on both the health and financial situation.
The key is implementing it - and that is where Obama will be tested as I expect that the inertia of the system will be brought to bear.
They will want to make it more expensive to prove him wrong.
It is interesting though - Obama has actually changed something significant in the US !!!
Usually US presidents give up on that and concern themselves with a significant changes to a foreign country with the military :)
A damn sight easier to do that
CraigBert — Mar 25, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1269366569/0#17 date=1269468612]Time for the graph - again
Not one republican government in the last 30 years has run a surplus in good economic times
?
Looks like the ONLY time that Republicans actually had the majority in both the House and Senate for the last 40 years (the last two years of Clinton's term), things went down. It usually doesn't matter what party the President is from...
BULLSHIT.Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 1995 to 2006, except for one year (2002) where they had 49 seats in the Senate. During that period, when there was a Republican congress, there were also five years of Republican presidency--yes folks, all three branches were Republican for 2001, and 2003-2006.