Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is, of course, also nothing that can be cut sufficiently to pay for the long-term costs of health care reform.

The long-term costs of ACA have been shown by independent estimates to be revenue-neutral at worst, and to save money at best. Your unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary.

Cite, please? As I understand it, the only reason CBO scored it as revenue neutral was by comparing 10 years of revenue to 7 years of benefits and assuming that politically-impossible Medicare cuts included in the bill would actually be enacted. I'd, of course, be interested in an objective assessment of that issue.

I doubt you're "convinceable", but anyone else interested in the issue might be interested in Ezra Klein's reporting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/omb_aca_cbo_and_the_deficit.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/cost_control_and_the_aca.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/does_health-care_reform_bend_t.html

A lot of the confusion does seem to be over the misconception that health care costs in the US are somehow stable or sustainable. They ain't. They're exploding. Waving a "Don't Tread on Me" flag won't address that problem.

Wait, I ask for an objective source, and you cite me Ezra "JournoList" Klein? I think that speaks for itself. Clearly he has no prior position on whether or not ACA was a good idea. You're making my points for me.

I read the first link -- all I have time for -- and it cites OMB. You do know who OMB works for, right? Umm -- President Obama. From OMB's website, because it is just too good to pass up: "The core mission of OMB is to serve the President of the United States in implementing his vision across the Executive Branch. " I'm shocked, shocked that such an objective review reached a conclusion that the President's policies are a good idea.

Excellent rebuttal of the facts there, champ.

As I said, you clearly have no interest in an honest debate of the facts. The links are for those interested in the issue--not hard-core partisans who think "B-b-but *that* guy thinks ACA was a good idea!!!" You're a classic example of the "epistemic closure" that is ravaging American "conservatives" these days. If Buckley were to come back today, he'd never stop throwing up.

Oh, come now, what kind of response did you really expect? I've set forth my position (in more detail than you have, btw), and raised some quite legitimate questions as to the credibility of the sources you link to in response. The merits are not fairly debatable on an internet message board in much more detail than we've engaged in already, and no one can know the answer with certainty at this point anyway. If you really disagree that the Obama Administration intentionally low-balled the costs of ACA in order to help it pass, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree and see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CBO however is nonpartisan. And if you really want to see how they did the numbers it is right there for you. You don't have to listen to someone's political spin and take it as gospel.

Anonymous wrote:

I addressed CBO above. I thought the seven years of costs v. ten years of revenue used in their scoring was not actually in dispute by anyone, since that is just their process, nor is the fact that they had to include Medicare cuts that are vanishingly unlikely to be enacted. Feel free to correct me if that is mistaken. The sophisticated defense of ACA is that it will reduce the rate of growth in costs -- "bending the cost curve" -- and that is a complex economic point that, as far as I know, is hotly disputed by partisans on both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense spending will ultimately be cut somewhat as part of any solution to the problem. I'm not thrilled about that, and there is less money there than you think without substantially undermining our national security, but we are reaching the limits of what we can afford there as well.

Well .. how is it that we're only safe when we spend more than the rest of the earth COMBINED on defense? Most of the threats facing us are things that a new fighter jet, a new air refueling tanker, or a littoral combat ship can really resolve.

And this is the bottom line. We bankrupted the Soviets by dragging them into an arms race. We just never took our foot of the gas--the defense lobby is just too powerful in this country. So we're bankrupting ourselves by maintaining multiple carrier groups, insanely expensive fighter aircraft, etc, etc, etc...

Read some of Andrew Bacevich's work on this. He's a Republican in the Eisenhower tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich

No, we didn't bankrupt the Soviets by the cold war. Social forces combined with the evils of a centralized economy to tear the Soviet Union apart. At the peak of the cold war, even the most outrageous estimates put the cost at 15-17% of GDP, and that was only for a few years. Also, that's about what we spend on health care today. I guess if you believe that number could topple a superpower, then you should be really concerned about health care reform because we must be next. But you and I know that although such a number is a drag on an economy, it would not destroy us nor could it destroy them.

I think you're being incredibly naive when you make the distinction between a "drag on an economy" and "destroying a country." Of course cold war spending didn't "destroy" the Soviet Union--after all, it's still there. But you're damned right health care has the potential to drag our economy (and our status as the world's economic superpower) down the toilet. That's why the passage of the ACA and its cost-controls was critical. Now conservatives may be right, and those cost-control measures may be gutted by a cowardly pieces of shit that get elected to Congress, but there's actually a road-map. Which is one Hell of a lot more than we've got from the disingenuous fucknuts on the GOP side of the aisle, who think that "freeze discretionary spending and don't touch anything else" is a recipe for a return to sanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense spending will ultimately be cut somewhat as part of any solution to the problem. I'm not thrilled about that, and there is less money there than you think without substantially undermining our national security, but we are reaching the limits of what we can afford there as well.

Well .. how is it that we're only safe when we spend more than the rest of the earth COMBINED on defense? Most of the threats facing us are things that a new fighter jet, a new air refueling tanker, or a littoral combat ship can really resolve.

That is only true today *because* our conventional military capabilities are so overwhelming, and it is an argument for keeping things that way, in my view. Also, overwhelming American military power does a lot more good than you think in terms of deterring major conflicts that would be much more likely to occur in a scenario where forces are more balanced. Not only are we safer -- much of the world is safer, too. Look at pre-1945 Europe for what happens in a more balanced situation (although to be sure there are confounding factors in the post-1945 era, such as nuclear weapons). The fact that everyone knows that the American military cannot be directly challenged is good for peace and stability. You really think that in a world where there were, say, 10 or so top-tier military powers that were relatively evenly matched, it is less likely that there would be war as compared to the situation we have now? You correctly see the significant costs of our defense budget, but don't fully account for all the benefits associated with that spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is, of course, also nothing that can be cut sufficiently to pay for the long-term costs of health care reform.

The long-term costs of ACA have been shown by independent estimates to be revenue-neutral at worst, and to save money at best. Your unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary.

Cite, please? As I understand it, the only reason CBO scored it as revenue neutral was by comparing 10 years of revenue to 7 years of benefits and assuming that politically-impossible Medicare cuts included in the bill would actually be enacted. I'd, of course, be interested in an objective assessment of that issue.

I doubt you're "convinceable", but anyone else interested in the issue might be interested in Ezra Klein's reporting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/omb_aca_cbo_and_the_deficit.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/cost_control_and_the_aca.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/does_health-care_reform_bend_t.html

A lot of the confusion does seem to be over the misconception that health care costs in the US are somehow stable or sustainable. They ain't. They're exploding. Waving a "Don't Tread on Me" flag won't address that problem.

Wait, I ask for an objective source, and you cite me Ezra "JournoList" Klein? I think that speaks for itself. Clearly he has no prior position on whether or not ACA was a good idea. You're making my points for me.

I read the first link -- all I have time for -- and it cites OMB. You do know who OMB works for, right? Umm -- President Obama. From OMB's website, because it is just too good to pass up: "The core mission of OMB is to serve the President of the United States in implementing his vision across the Executive Branch. " I'm shocked, shocked that such an objective review reached a conclusion that the President's policies are a good idea.

Excellent rebuttal of the facts there, champ.

As I said, you clearly have no interest in an honest debate of the facts. The links are for those interested in the issue--not hard-core partisans who think "B-b-but *that* guy thinks ACA was a good idea!!!" You're a classic example of the "epistemic closure" that is ravaging American "conservatives" these days. If Buckley were to come back today, he'd never stop throwing up.

Oh, come now, what kind of response did you really expect? I've set forth my position (in more detail than you have, btw), and raised some quite legitimate questions as to the credibility of the sources you link to in response. The merits are not fairly debatable on an internet message board in much more detail than we've engaged in already, and no one can know the answer with certainty at this point anyway. If you really disagree that the Obama Administration intentionally low-balled the costs of ACA in order to help it pass, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree and see what happens.

Actually, you sniffed "Cites?" and I provided them. You demurred on the basis that Klein thinks the ACA was a good piece of legislation. You've rejected figures from the OMB as obviously cooked. Also the CBO. You've made no argument--you've only done this kind of red-faced snorting most partisans engage in in lieu of debate.

As far as "in more detail than you have, btw" I think that can be left up to the reader. But, no, the Obama didn't low-ball the costs in order to help it to pass, and yes, we are going to see what happens. I think your point that "This will depend on Medicare cuts--which we know will never happen" while possibly true, is a bit irrelevant to the argument.

Doing nothing will bankrupt the country. Scuttling the implementation of ACA (including the Medicare cuts) will leave us no worse off. Sticking to the schedule outlined in ACA will quite possibly salvage our long-term prospects.

In any case, it's a fait acompli now, and unless the GOP can manage to muster 60+ votes in the Senate and re-take the White House, we will indeed see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, you sniffed "Cites?" and I provided them. You demurred on the basis that Klein thinks the ACA was a good piece of legislation. You've rejected figures from the OMB as obviously cooked. Also the CBO. You've made no argument--you've only done this kind of red-faced snorting most partisans engage in in lieu of debate.

As far as "in more detail than you have, btw" I think that can be left up to the reader. But, no, the Obama didn't low-ball the costs in order to help it to pass, and yes, we are going to see what happens. I think your point that "This will depend on Medicare cuts--which we know will never happen" while possibly true, is a bit irrelevant to the argument.

Doing nothing will bankrupt the country. Scuttling the implementation of ACA (including the Medicare cuts) will leave us no worse off. Sticking to the schedule outlined in ACA will quite possibly salvage our long-term prospects.

In any case, it's a fait acompli now, and unless the GOP can manage to muster 60+ votes in the Senate and re-take the White House, we will indeed see what happens.

I've said like three times that CBO used 10 years of revenue compared to 7 years of costs in their scoring, and have yet to see a substantive response. And I asked for an independent source backing up your claims and OMB, whatever its value on this is, is clearly NOT independent. Nor is Klein, he is a Democratic partisan. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just doesn't suggest objectivity.

Anyway, I'm content to leave our discussion here to persuade people one way or the other. We've probably reached the point of diminishing returns.

[Anonymous]

You're "7 for 10" line is just muddying the waters. The CBO was asked to score the program over the coming decade--that's how they operate with all scores. The benefits don't kick in for three years--hence we don't start having appreciable costs til that time.

Since PP doesn't really seem all that interested in the facts, but rather bumper-sticker slogans about "7 out of 10" this ain't for them, but for those of good faith interested in the topic:

In years one, two and three, the bill doesn't spend, save, or raise much money. In fact, in the first year, the bill spends more than it saves, though both sums are tiny. So start by throwing out three of the four years that Republicans are upset about. The only year the bill raises a substantial amount without offering much in the way of benefits is 2013, and even then, it's not raising nearly as much money as it will a year or two later.

Democrats did engage in budget gimmickry by pushing the beginning of the bill back to 2014. But the gimmick wasn't that they were raising lots of money in the early years in order to offset the cost of the later years. It was that they wanted to keep the bill's 10-year price tag under $1 trillion, and by starting the bill in 2014 -- which is only six years away from the end of the 10-year budget window -- that gave them room for higher annual spending than if they'd started the bill in 2011 and had to spread the spending across nine years.

That was a trick, and one I opposed. But there's no "10-6 dodge." Indeed, the bill saves much more money in the second decade than in the first. The cuts and revenue, in other words, aren't front-loaded. If anything, they're back-loaded. (http://wapo.st/aymbiV)

Graph here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/04/CBO10yeargraph-thumb-454x327-18160.jpg

One more point to the only "valid" conservative critique of ACA--that the cost controls are politically difficult to stick to:

Some conservatives say, that might all be true, but the cost controls in the health-care reform bill are tough, and we'll never implement them. Unfortunately, there are no policies that will substantially cut the long-term deficit and aren't tough and difficult to implement. We can either pass deficit-reducing legislation and implement it or we can go bankrupt. There's no other choice. And the upside for the Affordable Care Act's cost controls is that they've been passed into law, and you'd need 60 votes to stop them, which is better than hypothetical policies where you'd still need 60 votes to stop them. (http://wapo.st/atDgY8)

[Anonymous]

Final link should be http://wapo.st/atDgY8 without the stupid sunglass-wearing emoticon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great. In America we do things a little differently. The government doesn't control our lives and it doesn't tell us how to live and take away our incomes to give to other people because they feel they can do so. Please take that back to Europe where you riot because of having to work until age 62.

Well, we do have roads and schools and speed limits and stuff like that. And we do say children can't be hired as laborers, and stuff. Oh, and we have rules and regulations about consumer and workplace safety. We also have a military. I also like having stop signs, clean water (more or less), and a sewer system. Occasional snow removal is nice, too. Oh, and so is electricity. And ambulances, fire trucks, and a police force. Judges are cool to have around, you know, in case you need it.

I have lived in countries where the government didn't do enough to, um, 'redistribute the wealth,' and the result was that those who could afford it all lived together, each behind tall fences lined with barbed wire, and hired private police forces to keep them safe. AIDS and other medical problems were rampant if you lived outside of the gate. Lots of kids got really crappy educations if any at all. So the wealthy became more and more isolated among themselves. Few people on the low-end were able to 'pull themselves up' by bootstraps of any sort, so, unfortunately, folks on either end of the economic spectrum rarely got to know each other in any way.

No, I'm not exaggerating.

Yeah, I'll pay to educate your kid and help pay for his/her immunizations and stuff because your kid and my kid have got to live in this country together, work together, make it a better place for the next generation, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. In America we do things a little differently. The government doesn't control our lives and it doesn't tell us how to live and take away our incomes to give to other people because they feel they can do so. Please take that back to Europe where you riot because of having to work until age 62.

Well, we do have roads and schools and speed limits and stuff like that. And we do say children can't be hired as laborers, and stuff. Oh, and we have rules and regulations about consumer and workplace safety. We also have a military. I also like having stop signs, clean water (more or less), and a sewer system. Occasional snow removal is nice, too. Oh, and so is electricity. And ambulances, fire trucks, and a police force. Judges are cool to have around, you know, in case you need it.

I have lived in countries where the government didn't do enough to, um, 'redistribute the wealth,' and the result was that those who could afford it all lived together, each behind tall fences lined with barbed wire, and hired private police forces to keep them safe. AIDS and other medical problems were rampant if you lived outside of the gate. Lots of kids got really crappy educations if any at all. So the wealthy became more and more isolated among themselves. Few people on the low-end were able to 'pull themselves up' by bootstraps of any sort, so, unfortunately, folks on either end of the economic spectrum rarely got to know each other in any way.

No, I'm not exaggerating.

Yeah, I'll pay to educate your kid and help pay for his/her immunizations and stuff because your kid and my kid have got to live in this country together, work together, make it a better place for the next generation, too.

Totally, totally agree. And when the poor see their babies dying in the streets, it's not long before they swarm over those walls and EVERYONE pays the price.

We're all in this together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. In America we do things a little differently. The government doesn't control our lives and it doesn't tell us how to live and take away our incomes to give to other people because they feel they can do so. Please take that back to Europe where you riot because of having to work until age 62.

Well, we do have roads and schools and speed limits and stuff like that. And we do say children can't be hired as laborers, and stuff. Oh, and we have rules and regulations about consumer and workplace safety. We also have a military. I also like having stop signs, clean water (more or less), and a sewer system. Occasional snow removal is nice, too. Oh, and so is electricity. And ambulances, fire trucks, and a police force. Judges are cool to have around, you know, in case you need it.

I have lived in countries where the government didn't do enough to, um, 'redistribute the wealth,' and the result was that those who could afford it all lived together, each behind tall fences lined with barbed wire, and hired private police forces to keep them safe. AIDS and other medical problems were rampant if you lived outside of the gate. Lots of kids got really crappy educations if any at all. So the wealthy became more and more isolated among themselves. Few people on the low-end were able to 'pull themselves up' by bootstraps of any sort, so, unfortunately, folks on either end of the economic spectrum rarely got to know each other in any way.

No, I'm not exaggerating.

Yeah, I'll pay to educate your kid and help pay for his/her immunizations and stuff because your kid and my kid have got to live in this country together, work together, make it a better place for the next generation, too.

Totally, totally agree. And when the poor see their babies dying in the streets, it's not long before they swarm over those walls and EVERYONE pays the price.

We're all in this together.

Oh, sure! No one argues with any of *that* stuff! It's completely non-controversial!

We Republicans are talking about the Socialist-y things like...well...welfare queens!!! Y'know, black/brown people getting things!

[Anonymous]

While we're on the topic of wealth redistribution:

Sallie James observes that Republicans’ zeal for spending cuts doesn’t extend to cutting farm subsidies. She might have added that though people usually think of “entitlement” spending as meaning Social Security and Medicare, farm subsidies are another category of spending that would be left unmolested by a cap on “domestic discretionary spending.”

Basically the currently elderly, people living in rural areas, and people whose income depends on the military-industrial complex would all be protected from a drive that focuses specifically on domestic discretionary. Not coincidentally, these are many of the people inclined to vote Republican.

I think it’s important for progressives to get smarter about the fact that there’s really very little evidence for the proposition that there’s a debate in America about the merits of “small government.” There’s a conflict, instead, about whose interests the government should serve—a conflict whose basic contours you can learn a lot about by examining the demographics of each party’s core constituency. (http://bit.ly/aVTW9m)

Again, for conservatives, "small government" means welfare for conservative white folks and no one else.