You are hereForums / Issues / Healthcare / Obama was asked about higher taxes

Obama was asked about higher taxes


By Misty - Posted on 02 April 2010

Major Garrett: Senior White House Correspondent - Row 2 Seat 4

At town hall today in Charlotte, N.C., President Obama took a few questions from the audience gathered at Celgard, a manufacturer of lithium battery components. Obama was asked about higher taxes and HCR law. His 17 minute, 14 second answer.

Excellent response

Some of the comments beg to differ and say the question wasn't answered. Essentially those people would be the ones unhappy with any thing Obama said or did.

Another comment asks why this wasn't covered by the news networks, especially Fox. Not sure if any of them did though. I doubt it. 

Speaking of Obama's answers, here's him answering things like what to make of people calling him a Nazi and a Socialist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001596-503544.html

It has a nice attention grabbing headline by the way. Sigh...

President Obama answered the tax question very well, but he does need to work on shortening those answers. Wow-17 minutes! I like his comparison to a home with a hole in the roof. Just because some family members are safe from the discomforts, shouldn't they all care about protecting the family members who are affected. And wouldn't repairing the roof save money in the long-term as it prevents more damage and spreading problems? Good analogy. I did see it on CNN, not sure if other networks showed it.

From Politico. He had some good lines in his Maine speech, too, on Thursday. He called out the media pretty accurately, so I'm sure the MSM wanted to avoid too much coverage so they aren't exposed for what they are : )

PORTLAND, Maine – President Barack Obama had a new message Thursday for the critics, reporters and slumping polls that have defined his health care reform package so far: “It’s only been a week!”

“Every single day since I signed reform into law, there’s another poll or headline that says ‘Nation still divided on health reform! Polls haven’t changed yet!’” Obama said in a speech at Portland Expo Center.

“Well, yeah. It just happened last week. It’s only been a week!”

Obama then departed from his prepared remarks to take a further stab at the press. “Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm, and you planted some seeds, and they came out the next day and they looked and said, ‘Nothing's happened. There's no crop! We're going to starve! Oh, no! It's a disaster!” he said, laughing and ginning up cheers from the crowd.

“It’s been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place.”

 

Many employees at the University of California are anxious to know how to include adult children under age 26 in their health plan. We received a notice last week letting us know this provision will be effective at UC, following open enrollment, in November. The other provisions and changes are being reviewed and will be provided at that time.

OK...I'll admit that I haven't had time to look at the 17+ minute video yet.  BUT......

Here is the thing that gets me with the "Obama is raising taxes" lament from the GOP:

Umm, yes, he is raising taxes on the people with higher incomes.  But they phrase it in such a way that it sounds like the administration is raising taxes on everyone.   This is done intentionally, to incite anger in the middle and "working" classes, who don't have enough sense to check it out for themselves.  This causes the very people who would benefit from some of Obama's plans to vote against their own self-interest.  The Republican party has this down to an art form.  They use the average American to protect the wealthy.  It's mind boggling!

Yes, the taxes will impact wealthy Americans and corporations but Republicans are really good at ignorning that fact and telling us otherwise. When pressed, they say "well, we know that eventually they'll raise taxes on all Americans to pay for this so it may not be seen in the bill, but we know better." Basically, the whole GOP platform against this bill is made-up stuff like death panels and looking into some crystal ball as to what might happen in the future or what they imagine is in the bill but really isn't.
Just for good measure, though, and one reason that Republicans are successful at this message: they play into the idea that it's really not fair to ask the rich to pay more taxes or higher tax rates when they already pay the majority of taxes.

They pay the majority of taxes because they hold the majority of the wealth.  Have you noticed how the concentration of wealth has shifted in America? 

Seldom do they mention, unless pressed, that it is the rich pay more..fair or not.  They feed the public a message giving the impression that we will ALL have to pay more taxes.  And the public becomes alarmed. 

From The Hill. From someone who knows: Buffet tells Dem's the rich need to pay more taxes.

“He said rich people are not paying enough taxes,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “It was interesting to see someone who is such an aggressive capitalist, who believes so much in our capitalist system, saying we’ve got the scales way too heavily toward people who are very, very wealthy.”

Buffett told lawmakers that because of the cuts to the capital gains tax passed under former President George W. Bush, he pays taxes at a lower rate than some of his company’s employees.

It is an argument the investor has made before. Buffett said he paid a 16.5 percent tax rate on all his income because the tax rate on investment dividends and long-term capital gains is only 15 percent.

By contrast, a single employee at Buffet’s firm, Berkshire Hathaway, who earns between $33,000 and $83,000 must pay a 25 percent federal income tax rate.

There has been an unfair system for far too long. The rich gets loopholes and great tax lawyers to work the system while the average guy seems to suffer with little complaint. Time for some equity, which is simply what the health care reform bill entails. I just don't buy the idea that taxing the rich a little more (returning to the rates under Clinton when the economy was strong) will send companies on a mad dash out of this country or force them to cut jobs as they still enjoy their millions in bonuses and profits. Sure they'll feel more of a pinch than usual but if they take it out on the little guy, they are more greedy than I once thought.

The rich gets loopholes and great tax lawyers to work the system while the average guy seems to suffer with little complaint.

A quick point: Buffett doesn't enjoy a lower tax rate due to loopholes or good tax attorneys; it's the nature of his income which is capital gains and dividends rather than earned income which makes the difference.  It's tax policy, not fancy bookkeeping that puts Buffett in the 16.5% effective rate.  Another example who comes to mind is Ross Perot who pays next to nothing in taxes b/c his liquid net worth is invested in municipal bonds which enjoy tax free income status.

Sorry if that sounds persnickity but the perception that wealthy people might pay lower tax rates because they can afford fancy lawyers and loopholes is something I try to overcome when I see/hear it. 

 

Very good points, Kim. The entire tax system could use a whole lot of tweaking to make things fair.

I'm sure we'll all run right out and buy that! LOL

What point is it that you are trying to make?

Perhaps they are coming to realize that the burdens the Obama policies are placing on the private sector economy are reducing their choices for the future. The stimulus package, Obamacare, higher taxes (when the health care plan kicks in and when the George W. Bush cuts for high earners expire), new environmental restrictions -- they're all job-killers and help to explain why a recovering economy isn't producing many new jobs. Unemployment has been at 10 percent, rounded off, for six months now. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says it's not going to decline a lot any time soon.

We've had such an economy before, in the second half of the 1930s, and Americans didn't much like it. And not just because they weren't making enough money. Because in such an economy it's much harder to find satisfying work, work that can give you a sense of what American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks, in his forthcoming book "The Battle," calls "earned success."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/05/under_obama_reducing_choices_for_the_future.html

Stifling innovation and investment is not the way to provide opportunities or economic growth.  As an investor that is not in the 1% tax bracket but strives to be, why should I continue to work harder to only be punished by higher taxes and the idios in Washington?  Why would I not seek to use an legal tax shelter available to avoid this?  If Buffet is so keen on being taxed more - then why doesn't he add the federal gov't to his charity list?  If investment was not so important then why did Clinton have to reduce capital gains taxes to lessen the effect of the dot com bubble?  Why does the gov't continually look to tax one group of individuals for the benefits of another?  We have forgotten how to rely upon ourselves and goverment policiies continually strip away that desire.  As of now 43% of Americans have less than 10k saved for retirement since SS began.  Why?  We have become a society that thinks we can spend with no consequences thanks to our gov't and both Dems and Reps.  

We have a spending problem - not a revenue problem.  A government whose only idea is to tax more and never to reduce costs.  Note that you can actually reduce the cost of something especially in government without actually reducing a lot of the benefit.  I have no problem paying taxes but I have a great problem knowing that it is wasted by an inefficient, behemoth that has no compunction to get the most value out of my dollar.

Lost amid last month's passage of the new health care law, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report showing that within this decade, President Obama's own budget sends the U.S. government to a potential tipping point where the debt reaches 90 percent of gross domestic product.

Economists Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University have recently shown that a 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio usually touches off a crisis.

This year, the debt will reach 63 percent of GDP, a ratio that has ignited crises in smaller wealthy nations. Fiscal crises gripped Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Ireland when their debts were below where the United States is shortly headed.

 

Perhas Economics in One Lesson should be mandatory reading for both private citizens and public officials so that we can stop being a nation of one step thinkers and actually understand what certain actions will have on our future.

 

******************

If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. Ludwig von Mises

 Who Rules America?

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2009).

 

they're all job-killers and help to explain why a recovering economy isn't producing many new jobs. Unemployment has been at 10 percent, rounded off, for six months now.

Again, once I see an argument with the phrase 'Obamacare' you lose me, but I did read the information, trying to push my annoyance aside. Um-have you seen the March job figures? We are finally producing jobs-more in March in the past 3 years! I love the "rounded off" line. I guess they'll still say that when we go down to 8% too (technically you could round off to 10%, right?) BTW-If the unemployment figures remain around 9% for awhile it's because more people are re-entering the job search, feeling more hope of job prospects, so we should understand that when figures come out.

Come on, how can anybody say-with a straight face- that the stimulus package did not help and Heath Care reform is terrible because it will raise taxes of the poor millionaires to provide care for our neediest citizens? Just looking at the fact that President Obama is adding jobs on his watch, unlike Bush, who saw huge job losses month after month. Don't you think more tax payers will actually help the economy and our debt issues in the long term? Are you really saying you'd rather return to Bush policies? My mind is spinning at the thought.

This Anti-Obama sentiment will be a huge problem for conservatives, especially if the job market continues to improve and more evidence pours in that we are exiting the recession, in large part because of tough decisions President Obama made. We are also placing more security in our long-term growth when we look at the overhaul of a broken health care system. Bonus points to the Obama Administration if they tackle financial reform, too, and save us from more bad Wall Street policies. I hope they can get a good consumer protection panel and reform on risky investment policies. Watch out-the bank lobbyists are fighting this reform HARD-but boy do we need it.

I say bravo to our president for not taking the easy way out, making tough-not always popular-decisions-like the stimulus package and being a true leader in uncertain times. My sense is that the authors of articles like this will find something to complain about even if President Obama works a miracle and manages to get unemployment figures to 5%. Where were these critics when Bush was in charge and we were heading off the cliff?

How do you expect 1% of federal income payers to be able to fund the bottom 40% of those that do not pay federal income taxes.  Are we not responsible for our own situations?  Do decisions not have consequences? Have you any data to refute what actually has spurred growth in this country - from where the innovation comes?  Everyone in the top 1% is not a millionaire and depending on where you live 250k is really a middle class living.  I really urge to you read that book.

At 167k replacement jobs, it would take years upon years to track back to what was lost.  Your only response to anything ever is what were these people saying when Bush was president and Bush's policies.  We have to deal with the hear and now.   amazing how you defy all common sense and can't even refute what is presented.  our president is not a leader as evidenced by the now hyperpartisanship in Congress. Perhaps one day when we have no liberty left you can see that.  Willing to guess you would trade your liberty for security any day.  I voted for leadership but have been greatly disappointed and sorry enough to wish I could change my vote. 

The gov't has caused these problems and you expect them to do something to fix them?  This is the kind of one step thinking that has gotten us to this place.

Serious question though - are you physically able to criticize anything the President does?  It is a really freeing positon to not be beholden to political dogma and able to question everything that is going on in gov't. Why do you believe anything that comes from Washington?

http://www.politicalcentrist.com/

As far as the stimulus - appears that the gov't ranks have increased so guess that is where jobs are growing?

http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/03/recently-at-reasontv-3-reasons

 

Indeed, since the Great Recession started in December 2007, over 8 million jobs have been lost in the private sector while the public sector has added at least 100,000 positions.

 

*******************

If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. Ludwig von Mises

How do you expect 1% of federal income payers to be able to fund the bottom 40% of those that do not pay federal income taxes.  Are we not responsible for our own situations? 

So why is it a bad thing that President Obama is working on policies that deal with poverty and increasing jobs and the number of tax payers?

At 167k replacement jobs, it would take years upon years to track back to what was lost.  

Well, lost because of Bush policies, let's be clear. Even my most conservative friends were cheering this news. You are the first I've heard to find some weeds in this good news. Is it not a step in the right direction? Can you find nothing to smile about? My brother just told me his company is hiring hundreds of new people this month because of the Student Loan overhaul bill. In Buffalo, this is huge news! Why won't you let me celebrate?

Our president is not a leader but rather a bully and perhaps one day when we have no liberty left you can see that.  Willing to guess you would trade your liberty for security any day.  I voted for leadership but have been greatly disappointed and sorry enough to wish I could change my vote. 

Seriously, you see Obama as a bully? Maybe you've been reading too many signs at Tea Parties. Check out the Easter egg roll today so you get the evil Obama picture out of your head. Maybe he's a bully to those billionaires out there or Wall Street companies trying to work the system, but to middle class Americans, he is a welcome relief.

The gov't has caused these problems and you expect them to do something to fix them?  This is the kind of one step thinking that has gotten us to this place.

Again, the government does not need to be a bad word. It is necessary for them to step in in times of crisis. That's just a fact. I think we are starting to see smart government with accountability, not just "throwing money at a problem."

Serious question though - are you physically able to criticize anything the President does?  It is a really freeing positon to not be beholden to political dogma and able to question everything that is going on in gov't. Why do you believe anything that comes from Washington?

Okay, you had to get personal on me. Fine. Well, yes, I am critical of this president at times. For example, if he signs off on any financial reform package-even if it's wimpy- just to get GOP support, I will be outspoken in my disappointment. If he insists on bipartisan support at the expense of the good in any bill, I am against that. I guess I have to turn the tables: Why do you distrust everything that comes out of Washington? I'll admit the Washington ways are not perfect-and I see Obama working on those imperfections-but surely you can admit that some things that get done in Washington are for the good of this country?

I will not apologize for my support of President Obama. He is on the side of middle class people and I truly believe when you look back in 10 years at his overall presidency you will see great accomplishments that lead us in a better direction. Oh, and the country will not be destroyed, as the far-right will have you believe, but will be even stronger.

So why is it a bad thing that President Obama is working on policies that deal with poverty and increasing jobs and the number of tax payers? 

But he is not - his economic policies are not aimed for sustainable job creation.  We have moved on from a manufacturing society and those jobs will not be replaced.  What is being instituted that will allow economic disadvantaged citizens to improve their position?  Redistributing wealth through taxation of others does not fundamentally address this shift. Only masks it.

student loans:

"... America has gotten itself into a vicious cycle with respect to higher education financing that goes like this: In year 1, tuition goes up fairly substantially. Political pressures build to 'do something' about the increases. Congress expands guaranteed student loan programs to make education more affordable, in turn increasing the demand for education and allowing universities in year 2 (or year 3, depending on the lag) to raise prices further. The result is a further expansion of student loan programs, state scholarship efforts, and other third-party funding."

Again looking beyond the superficial of job creation in Buffalo to the larger problem at hand.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/16/not_just_one_terrible_idea_but_two_104771.html

As far as jobs:

Although the headline number of 162,000 payroll jobs was a positive (this is 114,000 after adjusting for Census 2010 hires), the underlying details were mixed. The positives: the unemployment rate was steady, the employment-population ratio ticked up slightly (after plunging sharply), and average hours increased (might have been impacted by the snow in February).

But a near record number of part time workers (for economic reasons), a record number of unemployed for more than 26 weeks, and a decline in average hourly wages are all negatives. 

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/04/employment-population-ratio-part-time.html

contrary to what you continually state it is not solely due to bush policies - the federal reserve had a huge part of this encouraging high risk lending that led to packing of MBS and run up of prices- against consequences of actions by the gov't either too stupid or bought off to care

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04burry.html?ref=opinion

Again, the government does not need to be a bad word. It is necessary for them to step in in times of crisis. That's just a fact. I think we are starting to see smart government with accountability, not just "throwing money at a problem." 

It really shouldn't be a bad word but the fallout of centralized planning is waste and inefficiency.  Smart gov't now? HA!  What accountability?  To whom?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/04/05/MNI21COVR1.DTL

Wasn't trying to be 'personal' but just noting the pattern of your (what seemingly) appears to be total agreement.  We had regulations on the books that were flagrantly ignored by both Dems and Reps in Congress and those in the SEC. What about the criminal neglect of Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC? Why is the President letting them get off scot-free while villifying private companies?

The President is not on the side of the middle class because his policies will do nothing but drive up the cost of living.  That is not what the far right is telling me - dont' listen to them.  That is what history has already taught us by similar policy enaction.  I voted for him to bridge the divide to bring respect back to Washington and to my dismay and disbelief it has actually gotten worse.  I don't care what brats/obstructionist/jackasses the R party has been.  A leader, a true leader could bridge that divide to at least touch some within the party.  Reagan was able to do that.

As far as why don't I trust the government?  What has it  instituted that has ended up a success? SS has caused us to not save for our own retirement.  Wage controls and Medicare introduced a 3rd party player to distort pricing and divorce us from costs.  And now our individual rights are being attacked.  The government's role is to provide equality of the law and to protect us from each other.  As hard as it tries it can't protect us from ourselves.  

What has the government done well domestically?  That hasn't inflated costs? Removed or discougared opportunity?

*******************

If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. Ludwig von Mises

Well for much of Reagan's two terms, he had top marginal tax rates of 50%, though deductions may have resulted in a different tax burden. I don't know what Reagan was bridging... it wasn't for our benefit, as I recall.

Source: Tax Foundation

Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,670
11.0% $3,670 $5,940
12.0% $5,940 $8,200
14.0% $8,200 $12,840
16.0% $12,840 $17,270
18.0% $17,270 $21,800
22.0% $21,800 $26,550
25.0% $26,550 $32,270
28.0% $32,270 $37,980
33.0% $37,980 $49,420
38.0% $49,420 $64,750
42.0% $64,750 $92,370
45.0% $92,370 $118,050
49.0% $118,050 $175,250
50.0% $175,250 -

I like that.  I even be willing to push that 50% bracket up to say income above $2,500,000. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is. 

-- Benjamin Franklin

I'm not sure I'm seeing your point Misty.  As I see it, the tax rate reductions were needed at the time...If you look at 1979, you'll see the top marginal rate was 70%.  The economy was awful, and the reductions worked.  It took time, but it increased jobs and helped the economy tremendously.  (The tax cuts for the middle class were phased in over the next few years) 

Trickle down worked until greed took over, and the trickle down came to a halt, then started flowing upward, and the big shift in concentration of wealth took place as a result.

I guess my point is that those who favor even more cuts to the wealthy are foolish in their thinking when they say this will create jobs.  The times, and the tax rates, are very different from what they were when Reagan took office.  (By the same token, any increase in taxes to the wealthy in 1980 would have been a mistake.)  Common sense, not a one sided economic ideology, tells me there is no "one size fits all" answer.  The wisest course is to do what is called for, and needed, for the times we are living in.   President Obama is doing just that.

I was disappointed when the Reagan Tax Reform Act went through. Just think if we had that deduction now.

Why can't we deduct "personal" interest expenses when I purchase a car, or for the interest on my credit cards?

The deduction for personal interest, including interest on charge card purchase of consumer items, was phased out by the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Another talking point the Republicans cherish as they head into the 2010 elections is that of the big bad bail-outs, which many of them voted for including Maverick McCain. From CNBC. Turns out this "government monster" move is actually earning about an 8.5% return for tax-payers. This is what I mean by responsible government and accountability. President Obama put some strings attached to those bail-out funds (like rules about bonuses, etc.) and suddenly much of the money was returned with profit to the tax-payer. Nobody liked these bail-outs to the greedy Wall Street fat cats, but at least now we can see that tax-payers weren't totally screwed.

The key for Democrats and President Obama will be selling their successes, including making money off of the dreaded bail-outs, and speaking with pride about the jobs created by the stimulus and all they did to stop the bleeding of a horrific economy. They have to be aggressive in ads that counter all the nonsense coming from the far-right. If the GOP fights financial reform, they must point out that they would rather defend Wall Street than average Americans. They may not convince people like Mary Moo, who seems to buy into the doomsday theories, but certainly can convince many Americans of the positive steps they are taking.

As for blaming Obama on the GOP obstructionism, come on. If Reagan had elected officials talking about the validity of his birth certificate or whether he has Nazi policies, even Reagan would have failed at bipartisanship. In this day and age of internet rumors and politicians who openly admit they want the president to fail and will support nothing he says or does (even Pay-Go or Debt Commissions which they previously supported!!) President Obama just has too many strikes against him. But notice how he has not given up-pretty amazing.

And as for manufacturing jobs, didn't we just get good news on that front too? Best expansion in 3 years? Funny how some ignore these things. Or maybe that report is just not good enough news for some. Or we should be thanking Bush for that?

Prepare for a long post, but there are too many points on this thread for me to overlook discussing.  I promise my best effort to note where it's my opinion vs. fact.

  • (Kim's opinion): Generally, I try hard to avoid assigning blame or credit for the economy to politicians.  American companies and their profitability and employment of workers drive our economy.  Certainly, making policy that directly affects said profitability can make politicians share in credit or blame.
  • (Fact) The Status of the Stimulus:  ARRA runs from Fiscal Year 2009 through 2019 with the bulk of distributions to be made through 2011.  Total pkg = $787.2 Billion; of that figure, $575 Bill is spending and $211 is tax cuts/credits.  To date (end of March), $340 has been spent, meaning there is LOTS of stimulus remaining.  Over 50% will be spent in FY 2010, so this year I would expect to see the most impact of any given FY.  (Kim's opinion): As for the initial decision by policy makers to spend this money in the first place -- I just don't see how we could have allowed the "free markets" to correct themselves without help, considering we were facing the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression.  There was severe pressure from inside the U.S. and outside this country as well.  We simply HAD to do something.  Other countries followed suit, btw.
  • (Fact) Bush's expiring tax cuts: The Obama budget seeks extension of some of those cuts, therefore a complete reversal of the cuts seems extremely unlikely.  The top marginal rate will go from 35 to 39.6%.  Capital gains and dividend rates will go to a max of 20%, and only for top wage earners.  Pre-Bush tax cuts saw the top cap gains and dividend rates at the same as the highest marginal rates.  Also, Obama seeks to end the marriage penalty and an increase in the child tax credit.  Overall, Obama's modifications to the Bush expiring tax cuts reduce the otherwise planned tax increase by about 75 percent. 
  • (Kim's opinion) Health Care Reform impact: I don't deny we needed to reform the way HC is delivered and paid for in this country, and I don't think for a minute that what passed is in any way "Socialism." However, I don't buy the CBO's pronouncement that HCR will reduce our deficit.  In fact, even the CBO cautions that the second-decade predictions are imprecise.  I don't care how much proof you throw at me, I will remain skeptical.
  • (Fact) The U.S. still manufactures "stuff": We are the largest and most productive economy in the world.  We have 4.6% of global population, yet the U.S. accounts for roughly 25% of global GDP and produces more output in a year (about $14.3 trillion) than the next three largest economies -- Japan, China and Germany -- combined.  We lead the world in manufacturing, ranking #1 in output.  U.S. manufacturing output exceeded Japan and Germany combined in 2008.  When goods and services are combined, America is the top exporter in the world, accounting for over 9% of global trade. (Kim's opinion) The idea that the U.S. doesn't "make stuff" anymore and that we're falling to second class citizens in the global economic world is phooey. 

 

Wow-a huge thank you Kim! You make so much sense. I understand the resevations on health care and the deficit, but would you agree that if we did nothing and kept the status quo (which, let's face it, was what the Republicans really wanted and if McCain were president he would not have touched the issue) we would be taking a much greater risk with the deficit? At least now we have 30 million more covered people! There is always a chance that the CBO underestimated the savings, too, depending on how things are managed. I'm sure it will be a debate for years to come. I am hoping a robust public option or other measures that will actually lower costs are implemented down the road. At least we now have a starting point. Imperfect, yes but a mold to work with and refine, rather than another unsuccessful attempt to overhaul a huge part of our economy that was in deep trouble.

In absolute agreement about status quo not being an option, and my frustration with the G.O.P. in its lack of offering valid plans.  I fully support health care reform, but mine is from more of a humanitarian standpoint, not fiscal. 

 

Thanks, Kim. I agree that the GOP lost an opportunity to really play a productive role in the health care debate. Many of their ideas were used, but why did they have to obstruct the whole process rather than negotiate in good faith for a bipartisan plan? And why they running on repeal when it is utterly unrealisitc and unhelpful? Why can't they just say: we have many porposals we'd like to put on the table to amend and improve the current comprehensive plan. That's what I like most about the plan: you can add good ideas along the way!

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.