I’ll file Sam Stone’s opinions and predictions about the economics of the health care bill in the same location as I file all of his other predictions about issues of economics. To say that his economic opinions are agenda driven is to put it mildly.
Did any of his predictions about the outcomes of the Bush economic strategy come true? How can someone prove repeatedly over a decade that they can say something that sounds reasonable but nevertheless is dead wrong and still have any credibility on economic issues?
You got a problem with ‘completely’ rather than ‘substantially’ it seems and even then it was used as an aside, but then you add ‘in many ways’. That qualification wasn’t there originally. ‘Similar’ to Canada’s, not ‘similar’ but substantially different, nor even ‘similar in many ways’. And I submit that ‘substantially’ is far closer to ‘completely’ than you think it is. I even used the term substantially earlier in the post you were bloody well quoting, idiot. Gah, you are a twit.
Are you denying that the goal is a version of Canada’s health care system implemented in the US? Because that was what was said, “Similar to Canada”. Do you normally set goals for things you don’t want to achieve? No, you set goals you want to achieve. Do most goals suggest that is the ideal state, as a person can envision it, to achieve? The caveat, or limiting factor being resources, etc. Of course, why bother otherwise?
What predictions did I make specifically? I remember doing a lot of defending of certain aspects of the economy from outrageous claims, such as that the early 2000’s economy was the worst since the Great Depression. But I don’t recall making long-term predictions. Maybe I did, and just don’t recall. In any event, the housing bubble collapse certainly changed things, didn’t it?
Hey, would you like to go back and look at my prediction for the effect of the stimulus? How about my prediction for where the jobless rate would be?
How about my prediction in 2009 for what the deficits would look like over the next decade? That one got me called a ‘liar’ for daring to say that the deficits would be over 1 trillion per year on average. Well, so far in this decade the deficits have been 1.4 trillion, and 1.6 trillion. The people I was arguing against were parroting the Obama administration’s projected deficits, which were to drop to 761 billion in 2012, and 743 billion in 2013. I said that they were being WAY too optimistic about economic growth, and was called a liar for my trouble.
Current estimated 2012 deficit in the 2011 budget? 1.1 trillion. I see the Obama administration is still predicting it to drop to 768 billion the year after that. Any bets that it will come in much higher?
And hopefully it goes without saying that economic predictions from anyone come with some pretty big error bars. Just ask Christina Romer. Nonetheless, you do the best you can.
You should be happy that you’re not in the hell-hole that is Canada (according to some). After all, you might have to wait for treatment for a non-emergent condition.
The horror! Plus it’s socialism! You are much more free. Enjoy the freedom.
There are a few complainers in Canada - usually its all about THEM, and their desire to get treatment for THEMSELVES, when and where they want it. On demand.
ANY delay for THEM is unacceptable. Especially if a smelly hippie with a potentially fatal condition gets seen first.
Last time we gave you an increase in your allowance you just frittered it away, so forget it. If you can’t learn to be responsible you can just do without.
I think you are confusing the color of states WRT taxes paid and the big pot it comes out of with the question about conservatives, being directed at individuals.
This particular individual taxpayer is tired of footing the bill.
Simply because I’m personally familiar with a few more who think the same as I do about this topic. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to think there may be more I’m unaware of.
You are apparently under the mistaken impression that health care reform means free health care. Obamacare will reduce the deficit; repealing it will increase it by hundreds of billions of dollars.
At least I’m talking about things I’m personally aware of like feeling my tax burden is too high. Are you going to proceed to try and explain to me how I feel about that, you fucking idiot?
Your tax burden is lower than it has been in 60 years. I get the impression that you would gripe about your taxes being too high no matter how much they were cut.
Now there’s something I can agree with. Taxes are not too high in the U.S. at this time. As a percentage of GDP they’ve been lower than they’ve been for a long time.
Right now, I’d say the focus has to be on getting the deficit under control. That means no tax cuts, but it also means no more stimulus. If you’re going to argue for a stimulus, then I’d say tax cuts are still the best way to go about it. But I think either one is wrong right now.
The current focus should be deficit reduction, fiscal and regulatory stability. I’d still look for regulatory cuts where they can be stimulative, because that’s economically ‘free’ in the short term. I certainly wouldn’t increase new regulations right now. But in terms of fiscal policy, budget cuts should be the order of the day. I’d even agree with tax increases, so long as they were met at least 2:1 with budget cuts.
