Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2010, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,806,382 times
Reputation: 12341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"Nope. First of all, you have to know how much hole tax cuts are going to put you in, and then you be daring enough to cut spending proportionally "

Wrong. Tax cuts bring in MORE money, not less. Check your history.
I speak after looking at history, not a revisionist's history however. In fact, we don't have to go farther, we're living it. 2001+ era has seen greatest tax cuts and proves the point I made earlier. How is the economy doing? Why has this decade among the worst in job growth (hint: it did not keep up with population growth), and forget about salaries keeping up with inflation. And deficits... yep, we've seen the trillion mark cross for the first time, and in the last budget of the President who followed the conservative principles of cutting taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2010, 10:59 AM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,917,108 times
Reputation: 12828
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Woolsey: Public Option Too Potent to Ignore

Critics charge this would cost too much and add to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office, however, has found that the public option will reduce the deficit over the long term. The robust public option favored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and other health care advocates, paying Medicare rates plus 5 percent, would save the government $110 billion over the first 10 years of its life. Even the version included in the House reform bill would save approximately $25 billion over that span. These savings could be used to bolster subsidies to make coverage more affordable for the uninsured and to lower the deficit.

But our health care system is in crisis now. More than 40 million Americans are uninsured, more than 85 percent of them in working families. Another 25 million are underinsured. By the end of this day, 14,000 more Americans will lose their coverage.

Even those with health insurance are struggling to meet its skyrocketing costs. Health care expenses for the average family of four are projected to jump $1,800 yearly. Over the past decade, health care costs have risen on average four times faster than workers’ earnings.

Woolsey: Public Option Too Potent to Ignore - Roll Call

The Democrats might not have balls, but it's the absence of a heart within the members of the Republican party that is oblivious to the plight of the average American that cannot afford health care.
The CBO numbers have been adjusted a number of times now and each time they show LESS savings and reduction of our nation's debt. The CBO can only estimate based upon what has been placed before them, in writing. To date, Obama's bill is not yet completely written. In otherwords, the CBO can only guess at a cost without the full bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:00 AM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,707,597 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Just posted this info on another thread, but it is worthy of its own.

Largest among these Republican deficit-raising reconciliation acts was the 'Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act' of 2001. The effect of this legislation was to increase the federal deficit by over half a trillion dollars -- specifically, $552 billion -- over five years.

The second-largest deficit-growing impact came two years later with the Republicans' 'Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act' of 2003, which increased the federal deficit by more than another third of a trillion -- specifically, $342.9 billion -- over five years. This one, moreover, required a tie-breaking vote in the Senate by Vice President Cheney -- of 'Reagan showed that deficits don't matter' fame -- to pass.

Finally, case three -- the Republicans' 'Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act' of 2005, which passed by a 54-44 vote in the Senate -- added another $70 billion to the federal deficit over 4 years.

All 5 Democratic resorts to reconciliation, by contrast to the Republican case, brought substantial decreases to the federal deficit. Of these, by far the largest was the 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act' of 1993, which lowered the federal deficit by more than 2/5 of a trillion -- specifically, $433 billion -- over five years and ultimately passed, against stiff Republican opposition, by a vote of 51-50. (Yep, that means Al Gore can take credit for the largest reconciliation-wrought cut to the federal deficit rather as Dick Cheney can take credit for the second-largest reconciliation-wrought growth in the federal deficit.)

Dorf on Law: Republican Deficits and Budget Reconciliation
And the net effect of this was job loss over the decade from 8-29-1999 8-29-2009 so much for tax cuts on the rich making jobs for the poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:14 AM
 
47 posts, read 159,928 times
Reputation: 36
Default An explanation please

Ok this isn't a threat but if someone doesn't explain this to me like a third grader, without rhetoric or the spin, I'll, I'll... I'll start a new thread!

What is Congress proposing to do?

As I understand it, the House and Senate each voted on their respective version of the Bill. At this point they cannot agree on a single version for both to vote on and send to the President.

If that is correct, what is it they are (planning) to do? Are they sending something to the President which will allow them to continue shaping the HC bill after he signs that (something), but as a side effect to signing, everything on the table right now pertaining to the HC bill(s) become law and effective (whether it contradicts itself or not) as of signing? Is that it? I really don't understand.

Please refrain from telling me what's good or bad about that or how often it has been done in the past, I'll be able to decide on my own once I get the un-spin versions. (I heard this on O'Reilly and quite frankly my head is still spinning...)

Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,180 posts, read 19,449,121 times
Reputation: 5297
Quote:
Originally Posted by sPlat View Post
Ok this isn't a threat but if someone doesn't explain this to me like a third grader, without rhetoric or the spin, I'll, I'll... I'll start a new thread!

What is Congress proposing to do?

As I understand it, the House and Senate each voted on their respective version of the Bill. At this point they cannot agree on a single version for both to vote on and send to the President.

If that is correct, what is it they are (planning) to do? Are they sending something to the President which will allow them to continue shaping the HC bill after he signs that (something), but as a side effect to signing, everything on the table right now pertaining to the HC bill(s) become law and effective (whether it contradicts itself or not) as of signing? Is that it? I really don't understand.

Please refrain from telling me what's good or bad about that or how often it has been done in the past, I'll be able to decide on my own once I get the un-spin versions. (I heard this on O'Reilly and quite frankly my head is still spinning...)

Thanks.


The House and Senate pass their own bill. That is pretty common. Typically what happens when this occurs is the Senate and House will merge the bill and come out with a final bill. However, when the two sides merge a bill like that, both the House and the Senate will need to vote on the bill again as it will now be different than the original bill each chamber passed. They need to do this even if the changes were very slight. This is where the current problem exists.

Because of the election of Scott Brown the Republicans now have 41 votes. Due to the fact a merged bill with the House would likely differ (even if slightly) from the version passed through the Senate the bill would now have to come back to the Senate for another vote. 99.9% of the time, this happens with no problem. However, now with Brown and the 41 votes the GOP will filibuster the bill and block a final vote if it were to go back to the Senate. So what is going to happen is the House will vote on the Senate version of the bill, as is. Since the Senate already passed the Bill they would not need to vote on it again. From there is where Reconciliation would take place, and it would be used. Reconciliation would not be used to pass the entire bill. What it would be used for is to make patches, additions to the Senate Bill, basically as a way to merge the House and Senate biill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Metro-Detroit area
4,050 posts, read 3,958,313 times
Reputation: 2107
Let's listen to this Republican and then form your own opinion as to whether they are a bunch of opportunistic, self-serving, hypocritical, liars!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjD3g...ayer_embedded#


The words used to describe them are harsh but anyone who wants the truth already knows that the Republican party has used reconciliation on MANY occasions and nothing was sneaky or UN-American about it then.

Now that the current President is getting a little wise and waking up, they want to circumvent him from using the same established protocols they they used in order to pass legislation.

Last edited by reconmark; 03-13-2010 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:50 AM
 
47 posts, read 159,928 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
The House and Senate pass their own bill. That is pretty common. Typically what happens when this occurs ....
Thank you for an excellent answer.

I believe I now understand what is going on in Capital Hill and think I can also follow the conversations in this thread

Thanks again!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,647 posts, read 26,363,905 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Nope. First of all, you have to know how much hole tax cuts are going to put you in, and then you be daring enough to cut spending proportionally without going insane. But, to understand that hole, a degree of accountability is required that ain't something to be found in the books of those who profess tax cuts the most, and certainly not those in office.

Even Reagan realized this after his first year in office that it is necessary to raise taxes to maintain sanity. He was less of an ideologue than Bush. BTW, Rep Paul Ryan (R) presented your style of budget with spending cuts and more regressive taxation (rich get tax breaks, poor/middle class pay more in taxes). The result, a $182B bigger hole in deficit (compared to Obama's plan).

So, how many of these "conservatives" are for starting the spending cuts by focusing on the biggest drains on the economy as a whole (defense/war and health care)?

Haven't been watching Hannity lately?

He's been counting down the greatest waste of our tax dollars.

Lots of crap we can cut before we even think about tax increases.

I do agree that those who have the most to lose should pay the most for the protection of those assets. If you build a three story house and, as a result, the local fire department has to buy a ladder truck...well, you get the picture.

Maybe the federal government could restrict its activities to those prescribed by the Constitution and kick the rest back to the States. The only real problem we have is that our government uses the Constitution for toilet paper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,694,120 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"Nope. First of all, you have to know how much hole tax cuts are going to put you in, and then you be daring enough to cut spending proportionally "

Wrong. Tax cuts bring in MORE money, not less. Check your history.
"Voodoo Economics" according to GHW Bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 04:15 PM
 
58,973 posts, read 27,267,735 times
Reputation: 14265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"Nope. First of all, you have to know how much hole tax cuts are going to put you in, and then you be daring enough to cut spending proportionally "

Wrong. Tax cuts bring in MORE money, not less. Check your history.


I speak after looking at history, not a revisionist's history however. In fact, we don't have to go farther, we're living it. 2001+ era has seen greatest tax cuts and proves the point I made earlier. How is the economy doing? Why has this decade among the worst in job growth (hint: it did not keep up with population growth), and forget about salaries keeping up with inflation. And deficits... yep, we've seen the trillion mark cross for the first time, and in the last budget of the President who followed the conservative principles of cutting taxes.

It proves you don't know what you are talking about.

Being you know , why don't you give us a year by year breakdown to prove you are correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top