Strong Majority Favor Repeal of Obamacare
Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide favor repeal of the recently passed health care law, including 49% who Strongly Favor repeal.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 36% oppose repeal. That figure includes 24% who are Strongly Opposed.
Forty-three percent (43%) believe repeal would be good for the nation’s economy. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe repeal would be bad for the economy, while 20% say it would have no impact. Political Class voters strongly believe repeal would be bad for the economy, while most Mainstream Americans think repeal would help the economy.
Despite the ongoing support for repeal, just 41% believe the law is even somewhat likely to be repealed. Forty-five percent (45%) say repeal is unlikely. In April, however, 51% considered repeal unlikely.
Oh, another Rasmussen poll. Guess we’ll find out in about four months as to whether a house effect of R+6 compared to nearly every other polling firm will make them geniuses or fools. But I suspect Rasmussen enjoys the fact that they can throw total outliers out there this cycle and that people who are looking to drive a particular narrative can use them without end.
Meanwhile, I will just chuckle at the fact that it seems you can change the wording or the lead-in questions on these health care polls and get about a fifth of the respondents to change their opinions. I suspect it shows how little a lot of people really understand about the issue.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 05, 2010 at 1238 hrs
whatever dude go look it up
see googlePosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1340 hrs
Not that i give a
<u >rats bum bum</u>Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1342 hrs
Or it could be recess, you just don’t like the poll numbers. The poll numbers showed when the bill was passed, people didn’t want the bill. Now that the lies about the bill are coming out, of course more people are against it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1402 hrs
Funny, Sup was, I’m sure all good with Rasmussen when he was the first to show The Chosen One winning handily against Hillary and later, McCain. No it doesn’t fit his worldview, so it must be wrong.
Posted by Deeka on July 05, 2010 at 1437 hrs
It’s a horrible bill, no surprise that the majority of people don’t want it. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, even admitted as much “People will learn to like it”
Ugh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1556 hrs
ow that the lies about the bill are coming out, of course more people are against it.
That was my chuckle of the day. Thanks!
Because what we had during the debate on the bill was lie after lie after lie coming from proponents, and the Gospel Truth coming from the nay-sayers. Thank goodness they’re finally being heard! :D
This bill will never be repealed. Nor should it. It’s half-assed at best and you guys are already declaring it the death of human liberty on earth. Why anyone should listen to you on this issue is beyond me. I surely don’t.
Posted by scott on July 05, 2010 at 1606 hrs
Could be Dan and deeka, but it’s not, since unlike 98% of the people here, I can talk about a poll without trying to bitch about the topic being polled. Clearly, however, you guys can’t. Dan can’t go two sentences without babbling about your personal beliefs, beliefs which I could frankly give a rat’s patoot about. And deeka, well, your entire argument is based around an illogical and unprovable assumption about my own beliefs. Maybe you should just stick with what you actually know to be true, hard as that might be for you.
I think the health care bill is flawed legislation, but I also recognize that the GOP had a lot of time to address this issue its own way with Bush and GOP Congress and they basically screwed the pooch. That’s the practical reality of politics. My opinion beyond that is irrelevant to this discussion.
Anyway, here’s a story about the KFF poll from June that has the HCR bill polling 48-41 favorable.
Here’s a story about the AP-GfK poll from June that has support at 45-42.
Oh, and the Gallup poll from June that has support at 49-46.
And here’s a link to a bunch of HCR polls on RCP. What it shows, once again, is that Rasmussen’s margins are way outside what other polling firms are showing.
Much of that difference, as I alluded to, likely results from house effect, which is different from bias. To consistently get results so far out from other polling firms are producing, Rasmussen probably has a different opinion on how to model the electorate right now. Hard to say whether that model is right or wrong until one collects evidence in November, but it’s fair to say right now that their results are appreciably different in many instances from those of other companies.
Based on the numbers, my personal bet is that the split is probably around 35 percent for and 45 percent against, with another 20% that either supports or opposes depending on how you word the questions and what questions are asked leading in. I suspect some of the movement towards support that the left is citing is likely not support as much as it’s the lessening intensity of those who are opposed. Anyone in politics can tell you that it’s really hard to keep people actively angry for an extended period of time. People wear out and they give up.
Anyway, my two cents.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 05, 2010 at 1614 hrs
RS….....
One of the differences may be the fact that Rasmussen polls “likely” voters, not just whoever answers the phone, or replies to the e-mail. “likely” voters are usually, but not always a bit more knowledgable about the issues.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1631 hrs
I look forward to the repeal of this law. Conservatives are going to ride this anti-socialist wave straight to the White House in 2012….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1719 hrs
Pure comedy!
I’d like to see how many candidates campaign on repeal of HCR. And if any do, how many of them win.
Posted by scott on July 05, 2010 at 1721 hrs
Its not like Ted Kennedy was replaced by a Republican. Dont worry, Scroll, we will get to revisit this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1821 hrs
to scott, I am not sure about the rest of the country, but all GOP here in Nevada except one, are campaigning abut repealing it. The exception is a RINO and already in the House.
gee, recess, get off your period. You bitch at me about giving personal opinions and yet you do the same. Talk about being moronic.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0135 hrs
I think the health care bill is flawed legislation, but I also recognize that the GOP had a lot of time to address this issue its own way with Bush and GOP Congress and they basically screwed the pooch.
What? So this too is Bush’s fault?
Healthcare as an issue wasn’t even on the radar until Obama started whipping his base in to a frothy head about it during the campaign. Then you lefties got yourselves all hot and bothered and prematurely ejaculated this POS that we have now.
The speaker of the house of representatives, of the United States of American actually said that “we have to pass the bill so Americans can find out whats in it.” She didn’t even know what was in it… Seriously, that gussied up clown actually said that, to the American public, at whose will she serves. These are the morons that you have delivered unto us. You guys own this garbage legislation… Of all the people on Earth, I’d think it’d be progressives who want repeal. This thing is going to be pretty embarrassing for you guys.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0808 hrs
I’m counting the days until the welfare zombies realize that the “One” didn’t give them free healthcare. You guys can bitch about the poll numbers, or who is biased, or “I’d like to see someone campaign on that”, but the FACT of the matter is that a very large minority or a small majority of Americans understand exactly what road this legislation is designed to take us down. You can keep on with the hyperbole and dismissals, but we will all get to watch it play out in real time this fall.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0814 hrs
I find it funny that Scott thinks nobody could campaign or win on the repeal of the healthcare bill, but just two years ago we watched as his own progressive brethren voted quite simply for the candidates who said the nastiest things about Bush.
We now have a congress run by, quite possibly, the dumbest people on Earth. We have a President who doesn’t even know how many states are in the country he figureheads, and we have a “stimulus” package that has quite likely put this country into a double-dip recession, or possibly a depression.
Our President went to a city in our state that has a recorded unemployment in the low teens, a real unemployment likely double that, and said that “his stimulus plan” has managed to keep unemployment down to 9.6%... Who is out of touch?
We don’t even need to run candidates on an “anti-healthcare bill” platform, we have as much incompetence to point and laugh at as any minority electorate in the history of this country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0822 hrs
a very large minority or a small majority of Americans understand exactly what road this legislation is designed to take us down.
Wait…you don’t mean… SOSHULLIZMZ!?!?!?!
I’ll make you a bet right now that the bill doesn’t get repealed, nor will you see a big effort to do so in either legislative body—even in the long-shot case of the GOP taking the house.
Who is out of touch?
You are.
a “stimulus” package that has quite likely put this country into a double-dip recession, or possibly a depression.
I rest my case.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 0930 hrs
good thing you are not a lawyer…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0940 hrs
Hate to say it, but I tend to agree with scott - this bill will not end up being repealed no matter who ends up in congress in January. Obama will simply veto whatever hits his desk.
Entitlements never get repealed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0947 hrs
Bullshit. There will be no bill on his desk to veto.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 0950 hrs
a very large minority or a small majority of Americans understand exactly what road this legislation is designed to take us down.
Wait…you don’t mean… SOSHULLIZMZ!?!?!?!
I’ll make you a bet right now that the bill doesn’t get repealed, nor will you see a big effort to do so in either legislative body—even in the long-shot case of the GOP taking the house.
Who is out of touch?
You are.
a “stimulus” package that has quite likely put this country into a double-dip recession, or possibly a depression.
I rest my case.
I love your style Scott. It reminds me so much of a certain boxing colloquialism. “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.” in this context it translates to “No substance, all piss and vinegar.”
You are doing a great job of proving just how vapid the progressive left has gotten.
1.) I would like to see the bill repealed. I don’t think it will happen, and the point I was making is that the MORONS you elected have/will provide ‘us’ with plenty of fodder for our political blunderbusses.
2.) You have no case to rest. The stimulus is a failure, plain and simple. Your party, and it’s candidates are what created the current economic situation… Continued and capitalized upon by the progressive ‘republican’ party in this decade. Progressive ideology has failed. Face it.
3.) Scott, you are a raging lib who lives in a conservative suburb, and doesn’t plan to move into the paradise of the liberal city until his kids graduate from “the good schools”. You are the one who is out of touch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0954 hrs
Bullshit. There will be no bill on his desk to veto.
I agree. Repeal will take place in January 2013.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1000 hrs
The stimulus is a failure, plain and simple.
It just saved us from a second Great Depression, that’s all. In fact, the biggest problem with it was that it wasn’t big enough and contained too many tax cuts. The biggest danger to the economy right now is too much fiscal restraint and too much hand-wringing over the deficit before we’re out of the woods on the recession.
you are a raging lib
What does that even mean? Do I hold extreme political views? Which ones?
doesn?t plan to move into the paradise of the liberal city until his kids graduate from ?the good schools?.
You have absolutely no idea why I have lived in Waukesha for most of the last 25 years, so I think you should stop talking now.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1011 hrs
Repeal will take place in January 2013.
How much you wanna bet? Publicly. Right here, right now. How much?
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1016 hrs
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a longshot ... I’d say about a 15% chance…. but the path is there… claim the House, Senate, and Presidency and this thing is repealed…
What do you think, Scott… what is the percentage chance that this will be repealed?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1024 hrs
Zero.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1026 hrs
There will be no bill on his desk to veto.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with you. While I think it’s possible a bill will pass both houses, it’s not a certainty. As I said before, entitlements never get repealed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1027 hrs
Zero.
Scott,
So you’d be comfortable giving me a hundred to one odds this thing won’t be repealed by three years from today?
If this is the case, I’m in for a cool hundo, dadio…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1030 hrs
Yes, you’re right. It’s not “zero.” Even I wouldn’t take a hundred to one odds on it. But I’d take 20:1 maybe. But then we’d have to start talking real specifically about what is meant by “repeal.”
Suffice it to say I don’t think the GOP is going to take the house this fall. Even less of a chance of the senate. And, anything could happen between now and then, but just off the bat I’d have to say there’s also slim odds that you’d take the white house away from Obama.
Given that… AND the fact that nobody is going to win an election campaigning on restoring the insurance industry’s ability to claim preexisting conditions, or their ability to cap annual or lifetime benefits or rescind coverage after the fact… I’d have to say there’s VERY little chance of the health care reform bill being “repealed.” It’s remotely possible that a Republican congress might nibble the edges, delay one provision nor another, but it’s not going to fundamentally change it. I mean, if you’re counting on people previously uninsured who are angry because they now have to have insurance to support repeal, I think you’re dreaming.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1050 hrs
You doodieheaded crumbbums! Na na na na boo boo! My idea is better than yours!
No it’s not!
Yes it is!
No it’s not!
Yes it is!
INFINITY!
Don’t mind me, just trying to fit in.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 06, 2010 at 1211 hrs
“Your party, and it’s candidates are what created the current economic situation…”
@ djmamayek - OK, you’re freaking shitting me, right!?!?! I really have to assume that this is NOT what you intended to write, right? I mean, you’re saying that our economy went to shit immediately on January 20, 2009?!?!? No matter that our economy was already shedding 750,000 jobs per month? No matter that we were already waging two wars and cutting taxes at the same time? No matter that the shenanigans on Wall Street were already creating a financial crisis that loomed as large as the Great Depression? That we were already in a recession?
If you want to say that the current fixes have yet to work, that’s one thing. Unlike YOUR party, the Democratic candiadte NEVER proclaimed that the “economy was fundamentally sound”. In fact, Obama predicted that the things would get worse before they got better. He missed the mark on projecting what would happen if the stimulus was passed. HE FLAT OUT MISSED THE MARK. And it’s pointless (at least on this board) to argue what “would have happened” if the stimulus had not been passed. I
To say the Democratic Party has failed to “FIX” the current economic situation as promised is one thing. To say it “CREATED” the current economic situation is LUNACY and not worthy of further discussion…
In the meantime, all we can do is wait and see how this plays out in November at the polls and with any resultant legislation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1214 hrs
I think a repeal is a long shot, however you could legislate the hell out of this , more then nibbling on the edges. If positive proof is obtained that CBO estimates where slanted or ill advised it would be solid ground to stand on in terms of tossing out the meat and bones of this thing.How about mandating the budget must be balanced yearly, no money no programs. Nothing will happen while Barry remains the circus ringmaster, tide will change for the better come November , it should be a good enough patch so he cant do any more damage untill he is replaced in 2012. If Barry truly wants to help his fellow Americans, then he should just ride out his term in typical lame duck fashion, dont touch anything, dont talk to anyone, just dont do anything , enjoy his moment, draw lines in sand during photo ops, throw the dog a bone in the rose garden.
We pick up some defense this fall and in 2012 we go back on offense.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1227 hrs
To say it “CREATED” the current economic situation is LUNACY and not worthy of further discussion…
Being that the housing bubble was inarguably bi-partisan, and the financial meltdown has been mitigated… for what part of the current economy is Bush responsible? The lack of jobs (stimuli)? The debt? The current housing market?
Some people truly believe BHO will never be responsible for the economy. BHO appears to be one of them. Fortunately most Americans know better….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1251 hrs
Yes, you’re right. It’s not “zero.” Even I wouldn’t take a hundred to one odds on it. But I’d take 20:1 maybe.
No you woundn’t.
The Supreme Court may very well knock down the unconstitutional mandate. The unconstitutional mandate provides funding for many of the provisions in this non-deficit neutral and very expensive Trillion dollar bill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1255 hrs
for what part of the current economy is Bush responsible?
Yes, he’s responsible for a large portion of the deficit right now. Those tax cuts seemed like a good idea to you then, but now they are probably bigger contributors to our deficit than our wars or the stimulus money or the bailouts. In fact, I think everyone who whines about the deficit should automatically have their tax cuts revoked on principle.
The Supreme Court may very well knock down the unconstitutional mandate.
Sheer fantasy.
in this non-deficit neutral
Of course the CBO disagreed with you. And of course I’m sure you absolutely unfazed by that.
Some people truly believe BHO will never be responsible for the economy. BHO appears to be one of them
Yeah, us Democrats are always blaming the Previous Occupant. Not like you Republicans, you stalwarts of personal-responsibility.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1306 hrs
Yes, he’s responsible for a large portion of the deficit right now.
Right now, maybe, but his projections give him the brunt of the responsiblity.
Those tax cuts seemed like a good idea to you then, but now they are probably bigger contributors to our deficit…
... because liberals don’t believe that lower taxes create real GDP weath.
Of course the CBO disagreed with you. And of course I’m sure you absolutely unfazed by that.
Ten years of taxes for six years of socialization? CBO hardly disagreed….
Yeah, us Democrats are always blaming the Previous Occupant.
Now we are getting somewhere?
Sheer fantasy.
How about 20 to 1 on this? I’m in for a hundo, dadio….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1319 hrs
because liberals don’t believe that lower taxes create real GDP weath.
What exactly don’t I believe? Can you elaborate on this for me?
How about 20 to 1 on this?
Watch out. Fred Dooley lost his house to me once. Seriously, though? You want to bet me about repeal of HCR? Ok. What constitutes “repeal”? The whole thing? Most of it? A key provision? I’ll put $100 down on your $5, depending on the terms—but I also ask one other thing. When you lose, I want you to publicly admit that you were wrong and I was right and also that you’re a big schmuck.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1327 hrs
..for what part of the current economy is Bush responsible?
For what part is Bush not? For sitting on his ass after he was quoted in June, 2009 that “Wall Street got drunk”? For funding two wars while cutting taxes? For cutting regulatory agencies that allowed the financial crisis to happen?
Don’t get me wrong, this is not a “it’s Bush’s fault”. There is enough culpability to go around for EVERYONE. But when you try to pin the creation of the current financial crisis on the Democratic party, then sometimes it’s necessary to take a stroll down “Memory lane”. My point is you cannot blame the Democratic party alone. You cannot point to 1/20/2009 as the date the economy went to shit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1357 hrs
@ djmamayek - OK, you’re freaking shitting me, right!?!?! I really have to assume that this is NOT what you intended to write, right? I mean, you’re saying that our economy went to shit immediately on January 20, 2009?!?!? No matter that our economy was already shedding 750,000 jobs per month? No matter that we were already waging two wars and cutting taxes at the same time? No matter that the shenanigans on Wall Street were already creating a financial crisis that loomed as large as the Great Depression? That we were already in a recession?
I guess I wasn’t clear enough. When I said “your party” I meant progressives. I include George Bush in that group. The lax lending standards were encouraged by a progressive democrat congress in the nineties, and a progressive republican one in the 2000’s. The “Shenanigans on Wall-Street” were only part of the story. . . The progressive movement spans both political parties, of that you can rest assured.
Obama and his cronies can only really be blamed for the miserable failure of the stimulus, and the UNBELIEVABLE amount of debt they piled on top of Bush’s bad choices…. Which is not unsubstantial in and of itself.
In fact, I think everyone who whines about the deficit should automatically have their tax cuts revoked on principle.
Spoken like a true tax and spend progressive. Deficits are not created by tax cuts. Revenues to the government increased under Bush…. The deficits and our nearly insurmountable debt were created by spending… It’s a simple concept, really.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1817 hrs
First paragraph, third sentence. I meant progressive republican congress and progressive democrat president, and progressive republican congress and progressive republican president.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1818 hrs
Here is the link to the “evidence” of the increased revenues under the “Bush Tax Cuts” (which are improperly named):
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7731/01-24-BudgetOutlook.pdf
(Page 77)
The Statists among us should love the source.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1825 hrs
I meant progressives. I include George Bush in that group.
Dude, don’t DO that when I have soda in my mouth!
Seriously, though, I know what you’re getting at. I just think it’s a completely wrongheaded view of where we are and how we got here. A more accurate reading of recent history is that American politics has shifted rightward in many ways over my lifetime. Ask yourself if Richard Nixon would not be widely considered a “RINO” in today’s America. That’s what I’m talking about. And it hasn’t just been Republicans who have shifted. The entire political sphere has. One of the main reasons Bill Clinton was elected is that he co-opted some key Republican issues such as free trade and “ending welfare as we know it,” etc. He was a moderate who stole some of their issues.
Similarly, the Democratic party has co-opted the pro-business stance of conservatives. This is why we have such shitty regulations on things like banks and oil rigs. It’s why we still haven’t done jack or shit about global warming, too.
Failure to properly regulate wall-street and the banking industry is the real reason for the Recent Unpleasantness—not the fact that we gave mortgages to some people who previously couldn’t get them.
While it’s true that in the larger picture America and the rest of the world becomes more and more liberal, I’d say the US has taken a marked turn rightward since 1980 at least, and probably since before then.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1829 hrs
Deficits are not created by tax cuts. Revenues to the government increased under Bush…. The deficits and our nearly insurmountable debt were created by spending… It’s a simple concept, really
It’s a false concept, too.
Deficits are created by tax cuts. What we have here is another conservative fantasy that tax cuts “pay for themselves” in increased revenue.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1834 hrs
Scott, the CBO clearly shows that the “Bush tax Cuts” increased revenues.
Debt cannot be created without spending. This country spends too much money. Too much on war, too much on “stimulus”, too much on Social Security, too much on Medicare, too much on Medicaid, too much on welfare, and on and on and on.
You can have no revenue, but still be in debt. But you cannot be in debt without spending any money.
While it’s true that in the larger picture America and the rest of the world becomes more and more liberal, I’d say the US has taken a marked turn rightward since 1980 at least, and probably since before then.
How, then, do you explain the election of 2008? Barack Obama was considered to be among the most liberal members of the Senate… Although it is hard to tell, since he had never done anything before being elected President.
It’s why we still haven’t done jack or shit about global warming, too.
I think if we outlawed late night hotel room massages we would do more to stop global warming than if we implement “Cap and kill the economy”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1906 hrs
You can have no revenue, but still be in debt. But you cannot be in debt without spending any money.
Not sure this is as clear on paper as it was in my head… But you get the idea.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1909 hrs
the CBO clearly shows that the “Bush tax Cuts” increased revenues.
Tax cuts are not magic. They do not produce enough additional economic activity to make up for the revenue loss. If other factors such as natural business cycles, changes in population and other economic factors happen to increase revenue after a tax cut, that tax cut has still reduced revenue. I’m sorry, this is magical thinking that needs to stop.
Barack Obama was considered to be among the most liberal members of the Senate
You guys have been saying that shit about every single Democratic candidate since I can remember. Doesn’t make it true. He isn’t Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1916 hrs
They do not produce enough additional economic activity to make up for the revenue loss. sorry, this is magical thinking that needs to stop.
In my best “Scott voice”:
“But, but, I just showed you the CBO reports.”
Seriously, Scott, the tax cuts were clearly a more effective stimulus than the bike bridge over 43-N in Ozaukee county, that was “funded in part by the American Reinvestment Act”...
You guys have been saying that shit about every single Democratic candidate since I can remember.
Okay. If you say so… I was nine when Bill Clinton was running for President.
Since I know you love links so much….
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/01/31/4427310-is-obama-the-most-liberal-senator
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1933 hrs
This makes me hot.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 06, 2010 at 1939 hrs
The CBO did not say tax cuts paid for themselves. And tax cuts are generally not as stimulative as direct government spending.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1947 hrs
The CBO did not say tax cuts paid for themselves. And tax cuts are generally not as stimulative as direct government spending.
lmao. Scott is denying a CBO report…. Hah!
Of course they’re not, the government ALWAYS knows what’s best, especially when people like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are at the reigns…. Or for that matter, people like GWB, and Dick Cheney.
Furthermore, WTF are you talking about when you say that the tax cuts didn’t “pay for themselves”? Revenue went up, but your point still doesn’t attack that fact, or really make any sense. If spending growth outpaces revenue growth, you will have a permanent structural deficit. Something we in the private sector call “bankruptcy”. The problem with the Bush tax cuts was not that they weren’t stimulative, they clearly were. The problem was that Bush was increasing spending at a much more rapid pace.
You wanna talk about “magical thinking”? How, Scott, do you propose that we rein in the national debt? Seriously… even you must see what we are headed towards here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1957 hrs
It just saved us from a second Great Depression, that’s all
That remains to be seen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 2006 hrs
Revenue went up, but your point still doesn?t attack that fact
Revenues can go up or down for a lot of reasons, not just tax policy. And I reiterate: the CBO did not say that tax cuts pay for themselves. The only people who say this are conservatives who, for ideological reasons, want to cut taxes at any cost. Budget in surplus? Cut taxes? War time? Cut taxes! Economic recession? Cut taxes? Martians landed? Cut taxes! its’ the only economic idea conservatives have had in 30 years. A one size fits all answer to any problem or condition.
That remains to be seen.
The stimulus spending was not large enough. And now we are talking about reversing it by cutting spending. If this does end in a decade long downturn, it’ll be because of folks who oppose stimulus spending and favor deficit hawking in a time of recession.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 2030 hrs
I can see that this discussion has reached it’s [il]logical conclusion.
Gotta go. Flying out to stimulate the Las Vegas economy with some of my Bush Tax cut money tomorrow morning.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 2047 hrs
Gotta go. Flying out to stimulate the Las Vegas economy with some of my Bush Tax cut money tomorrow morning.
Bet the pass line. Take the odds. If the point is 4 or 10, place the 6 and 8. Sounds crazy but you’ll probably win more than you lose when the shooter 7 outs.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 06, 2010 at 2051 hrs
Gotta go. Flying out to stimulate the Las Vegas economy with some of my Bush Tax cut money tomorrow morning.
Oh yeah…Freedom Fest djmamavek?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 06, 2010 at 2056 hrs
Funny, I am a craps man. I always play conservative, 6, 8 and odds.
I will probably check a little bit of freedomfest out, although the trip was booked long before I knew about that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 2104 hrs
Funny, I am a craps man. I always play conservative, 6, 8 and odds.
May lady luck smile upon you. Playing that way, she will. What minimums you play? I was doing $5 at Luxor last December, sat at the table for 5 hours but walked away with $600 to show for it.
I will probably check a little bit of freedomfest out, although the trip was booked long before I knew about that.
Well hopefully you can see a little bit. They charge admission for the conference and it’s pretty expensive ($500), although I’m sure they’ll have the vendor area outside the regular conference rooms to increase sales. The list of speakers and debates makes the price worth it. Unfortunately I couldn’t make this years. They really gotta hold that in a month other than July in Las Vegas.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 06, 2010 at 2136 hrs
Deficits are created by tax cuts.
This is what Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Mao, and Karl Marx believed….. that the money you make in inherently the gov’ts and not yours…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 2222 hrs
Before I got married, I did Vegas twice per year. Had a $1k take one night at the Frontier. Parlay the hard ways for the big win!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 2343 hrs
Scott, I don’t know how you do it. I don’t have the patience.
Re: the CBO report. Correlation is not causation. And for the low tax supply siders out there, if you’re going to preach from the Laffer Curve, you should at least understand it. There are two point on the tax curve that, in theory, produce the same same tax revenue. But the part you always conveniently leave out is that there are many points in between, and half of those produce more revenue. In certain circumstances, it is prudent to bump tax rates, according to your own freekin’ theory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 0004 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 106
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:13 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).