The Obamacare effect and the debt.

As you may recall, the polling done on the ACA after it passed revealed an odd paradox. When asked if they favored the ACA a majority of respondents said they did not. When asked about component parts of the ACA, like free preventative care, not being excluded from coverage for pre-existing conditions, and having 80% of premiums go towards medical care, they were all for it.

60% of respondents to questions (to a AP/NORC poll) about the debt feel the US spends too much. But 65% said we spend too little on education, 63% on healthcare, 62% on SS, 62% on infrastructure, 59% on assistance for the poor, and 58% on Medicare. Reminds me of the Tea Party jackass protesting deficit spending while holding a sign saying "keep your government hands off my Medicare."

Given what I assume to be near universal support among The Following for the Repub's tactic of threatening financial calamity unless they can successfully hurt the economy ahead of the 2024 elections, here's what I wonder. Is it okay with you folks the next time a Repub is in the WH if Dems refuse to increase the debt ceiling unless Repubs support a repeal of the Trump tax cuts that add to the deficit?

 

It's very simple: Voters like the government to fund a lot of programs, however, they just don't like to pay taxes for any of it. It's the "I want to eat my cake and have it, too" mentality. Hence, the ever expanding debt, since politicians will get voter backlash for cutting programs, and they get voter backlash for taxing to pay for them. The solution: Put it on the national credit card. Unfortunately, the average voter's knowledge about this is from two minute partisan soundbites, that's whey the problem will never get addressed in a good faith effort.

 

"the party of fiscal responsibility" also "2 santa clauses."

crashing the economy, which will sweep them into power next year, is a feature of their campaigns.

The Two Santas Strategy: How the GOP has used an economic scam to manipulate Americans for 40 years | Milwaukee Independent

 

That's a good article. I've said the same thing many times. Just wait for the GOP to gain full control again in 2024, so they can push through another tax cut. And, so, the cycle continues.

 

I used to listen to Hartmann's radio show. I've always appreciated the intellectual rigor with which he approaches topics.

 

And they will justify the cut along the same lie, tax cuts pay for themselves, that's been shown to be a lie over and over.

 

You could fund a true universal health care system by cutting military spending only very slightly. Why do we never hear whining about cost when the invariably increase the military budget that's already more than the next ten biggest world's militaries combined?

 

first time i've read that article. thom hartmann does a good explanation of "2santas"

 

The reality of the situation is that EVERYTHING is a political calculation. If Democrats think that they can further their agenda and not be hurt at the ballot box, they will do so. If they cannot, they won't. This applies equally to both sides.

If you do not understand this dynamic, you do not understand politics.

 

Both parties are guilty of over spending on defense because neither party wants to be the one accused of under spending in the event of a military conflict. Which is why it will take both parties to agree spending cuts are necessary before there are any.

 

it is not about "military strength" or "national defense." the products are very expensive, do not meet the 1st requirement of a weapons system ("sailor proof") and do not translate into victories.

our economy demands we must not only buy defective weapons for ourselves, but that we sell them to allies and give them to client states as "foreign aid."

 

"the democrats" do not have an "agenda" or i would link to it. we do have a "platform," that i would be happy to discuss in comparison to the repub "platform/ agenda"

Democrat, Republican Party platforms compared - Metro Voice News

 

A platform and an agenda, in this context, is the same thing.

So in your mind you are thinking that my post about the nature of politics is a lead in to a discussion comparing the two party's platforms/agendas?

That is an entirely different topic. You can make a tangential connection, but that doesnt make it on topic in any way. I have zero interest in going off on this non-sequitur.

 

In this case the Repub agenda is to inflict harm on the economy, perhaps massively and permanently so, to strengthen their chances in the next election cycle. Your challenge is to find an example of the Dem's willingness to do likewise.

 

Nonsense.

Just because you give some bombastic description of the other sides motives means literally nothing. We both could do that ( mischaracterize the motives) for the opposing side, but the problem is we would just be two fools bickering aimlessly and accomplishing exactly nothing. At least now, there is only one.

 

Just because you characterize something as nonsense means literally nothing. Repubs, as recently as the first two years of the Trump admin, had every opportunity to do something to reduce the deficit. Instead, they chose to increase it under the guise of a tax cut they claimed, in contradiction to accurate predictions by economists, would shrink the deficit.
I actually agree in principle that the deficit needs to be addressed. But as you might imagine the way I think it should be done is not in agreement with Repubs. They, for example, want to cut out a research program working on vaccinations we may need in the future.

House Republicans want to cut federal spending — and they just passed a bill that would do that.

But they don’t want to cut defense spending.
They don’t want to cut veterans’ health care spending.
They don’t want to cut Medicare or Social Security.

Their bill, which would raise the country’s borrowing limit for a year in exchange for a decade of spending reductions, does not include many specifics. It achieves most of its savings with spending caps for discretionary spending — the part of the budget allocated annually by Congress that is not automatic like Social Security payments — but it doesn’t say what discretionary programs should be cut and which ones should be spared.

If the entire discretionary budget were subject to cuts, the reductions would be “aggressive” but “achievable,” said Marc Goldwein, a senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which backs deficit reduction.

But if favored programs are protected, the cuts everywhere else will get much deeper and harder to implement. “It goes from being an achievable goal to one that would be very difficult to achieve,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/08/upshot/federal-budget-republicans.html

 

Perhaps true, but what IS relevant is that your bombastic description of the other sides motive is in fact, legitimately nonsensical. It is not my label that matters, rather it is the reality of your mischaracterization that prevails.

Utter nonsense.

 

At last we agree on something. Voters are the real problem.

 

Your persistence in this matter indicates you have fallen for the Repubs laughable contention, in the face of history proving otherwise, that they actually care about the deficit.

 

Which are then used against you, making the need for you to get more weapons. It's a double win for the weapons manufacturers.

 

I'm not really sure what it is that you are babbling about this time, but I cannot honestly say that I even care. It is no doubt more aimless bickering. One would think you would tire of such.

 

When asked, people will generally be in favor of nirvana when they do not make a direct connection with the cost to them of the nirvana.

 

The point I made is so clear I think even you can comprehend it. But then pretending you do not is, I suppose, the most graceful way you can exit the thread without experiencing further embarrassment.

 

The American people are wise enough to recognize sacrifice is sometimes necessary to reach an essential goal.

A strong majority of voters say Americans should make economic sacrifices to help the environment, according to a new poll.

In a Hill-HarrisX survey, 68 percent of registered voters said the country should make “some” or “big” economic sacrifices in an effort to improve environmental conditions.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said “big” sacrifices are needed, while 42 percent said “some” sacrifices should be made.

Twenty-three percent said the country’s population should make “a few” tough economic choices, and 9 percent said Americans should make “almost no” sacrifices to help the environment.

The survey comes amid a debate over what steps should be taken to combat climate change. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other progressive lawmakers have made the large-scale “Green New Deal” a focal point of the Democratic Party’s legislative agenda, a move that has been met with criticism from Republicans who argue that the initiative amounts to socialism and would increase costs for all Americans.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...-majority-of-americans-say-theyre-willing-to/

 

Look, nobody thinks that you just came up with something so incredibly brilliant that I just did not know how to respond. Literally nobody.

The fact is, that you do nothing but bicker aimlessly, and when you wait several days to reply on this thread while responding to other threads, at some point people just get tired of responding to your aimless bickering. I could go back and see what your bickering is about this, time, but I just was not in the mood.

Lets see what it is that you said that you now apparently think that was so brilliant that I just had to leave to avoid "further ebarassment"..... What were those golden words from you?......"Your persistence in this matter indicates you have fallen for the Repubs laughable contention, in the face of history proving otherwise, that they actually care about the deficit."

LOL....Yeah.......wow.......gee whiz....get me out of here so I dont suffer any "further embarassment" (extreme sarcasm)


I think the proper term for this false belief would be delusion. You have this delusion that your statement was so on point that I just had to find some way out to avoid embarrassment.

What a tool.