Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Health Care (CNN 1/22-24)

Topics: poll

CNN / Opinion Research Corporation
1/22-24/10; 1,009 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN release)

National

As you may know, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed bills that would make major changes in the country's health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about those bills, do you generally favor them or generally oppose them?
38% Favor, 58% Oppose (chart)

What do you think Congress should do on health care -- pass a health care bill similar to the legislation that Congress has been working on for the past year, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system?
30% Pass similar bill
48% Start work on a new bill
21% Stop working on health care

Would you favor or oppose a health care bill that would create new regulations on the way health insurance companies operate but would not increase the number of Americans who have health insurance?
47% Favor, 51% Oppose

 

Comments
Aaron_in_TX:

Another poll showing that people are generally confused as to how to approach health care. There's a lot of different ideas and little consensus.

Despite 78% wanting SOMETHING to be done on health care, It looks like the 21% is going to get their wish.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - blah blah....its your party who screwed it up...Notice that 58 percent don't like this bogus hosue and senate bills. Don't you Dems ever learn anything? You guys are now fighting eachother. reid is pissed at pelosi, pelosi is ticked at the WH, the WH is mad at the House Dems....you guys have totally fallen apart. The moderate Dems are coming out now saying enough is enough, lets move on.

Next time you ugys try this, perhaps you should do without the sleezy tactics. No back room deals, no kickbacks for one senator and not antoher...not using 300 million tax payer dollars to buy a LA senators vote. No secret midnight meetings in a dark room somehwere. No late night Chrismtas eve votes. No making Obama look like an idiot when he promised transparency and all the people got was secrets, lies and business as usual.

HCR is DEAD....and thank God for that. Scott Brown saved this country from making a huge mistake. Your partys arrogance is what made this whole thing collapse. It was all pure arrogance. Not only will it cost you with HCR, but is going to cost you hwat I think is at least the House and a very good hcance of the the Senate this fall.

It would seem despite the liberal tag line, you don't know better than the people do after all.

Go back to the drawing board on hcr, open the damn doors, get the GOP involved and moderates and if you want true hcr then it not only needs to accomodate the uninsured, but also needs to address other ideas such as tort reform.

Drop the arrogance thing, its not working.

____________________

Stillow:

Oh and don't just dismiss the huge plurality that want a new bill.......they want one that is actual reform and not some liberal piece of garbage.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Stillow, there's no point in arguing with you on who is arrogant and who is not. I'd take a look at yourself before accusing others of arrogance.

I want people who are less fortunate than me to have health care. I also want there to be an end to the phrase "pre-existing condition," and I want there to be some protection so people will not lose their life's savings or their house because they become ill. I'll support republicans if they do this. As it stands, I think the best case scenario for health care reform is either a republican president who has even a smidgen of sympathy for the uninsured, or a republican administration followed by a democratic administration. I've already resolved to not vote for Obama again because we will clearly not see health care reform as long as he is president.

You and I both have insurance, although yours is much better than mine. Perhaps you should try to think about the issue from the perspective of someone who does not have insurance, or from that of someone who had insurance, but was denied a critical claim.

____________________

CUWriter:

39/55 on the NPR poll and 38/58 here. This thing is absolutely radioactive and it is burning a hole right through the entire Democrat caucus.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"You and I both have insurance, although yours is much better than mine. Perhaps you should try to think about the issue from the perspective of someone who does not have insurance, or from that of someone who had insurance, but was denied a critical claim."

Obviously stillow is a heartless bastard since he doesn't support this health care reform bill, right? He obviously would rather just have these people die according to the mindless Dems.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

FM, There is certainly some element of truth to the idea that republicans lack compassion. As evidence I would offer these three points. 1) the rights attack on sotomayor for having empathy and compassion. 2) the designations Mommy and Daddy parties for democrats and republicans respectively. and 3) if the term "bleeding heart liberal" is not an attack on someone who possesses compassion, I don't know what is. Since there is no moral leg to stand on when attacking for someone for caring for others, the right has to come up with schoolyard taunts.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - ITS THE BILL!!!!!!!!!! The hcr bill that came out from pelosi and reids secret meetings is severely flawed. Its a big giveaway to insurance companies...it has sleezy deals init for unions....and forces tax payers to pick up slack for other states who's senators got shady bribes.

Get your head out of the sand and support doing soemthing the right way. This theory that a bad bill is better than no bill is stupid. Look at all the polling, people want reform, only a tiny miniority don't want reform, but at the same time they want REAL REFORM, not a nunch of liberal garbage no one can understand.

Like it or not it was liberal arrogance that caused this thing to collapse, nothing more, nothing less.

____________________

Field Marshal:

bigfoot,

Then would you describe the lefts much more vicious attacks on Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork as compassionate. Talk about seeing through rose colored glasses.

The difference between Reps and Dems is not the degree of compassion but the mode of helping the needy. Dems feel that government is the answer. Reps feel that private organizations are better.

My church was recently highlighted because it fed more homeless people in the city of Denver than the city did on 25% less of a budget.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

FM. If you want to talk about vicious attacks consider Jerry Falwells quote IMMEDIATELY after 911. “(re: 9/11 attacks) "...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."”

I doubt you can dig up any attacks on C.Thomas as disgusting as this.

When I speak of compassion, I am referring to a drive to help those who cannot help themselves, not helping those who can. The left wants to help the needy (those who cant help themselves). The right wants to help the corporations(those who can).

____________________

Stillow:

bigfoot9p6 - Thts a lie. The left has no desire to help the needy. There goal is to make a percentage of the population totally dependent on them so they can retain power. It has nothing to do with helping the needy, its all about power for the left. Look at some of the programs the left pushes? They actually give out free grocery carts and give them to the homeless....ya that helps!!! How about actually helping them get on there own feet, get them jobs so htey can take caare of themselves. Don't just give them the fish to eat every day, teach them to fish!!!!!!

Oh and how about the left wing extremeist truthers who think Bush ordered the terorrist attacks on 9/11. There's a whole group of nutty libs out there who still think W planned 9/11.

Stop the nit picking, cus both sides hurl attacks....

____________________

Field Marshal:

Bigfoot,

Give me a break. You really believe that nonsense? The left only wants to help grow the size of government and their own power. They have no real intention of helping the underprivileged.

And you talk about Jerry Falwell as an example of the right attacks. I wouldn't even venture down that road since for every one right wing idiotic comment, there are 10 left wing ones. Check out Ward Churchill for your esteemed and compassionate left wing loons.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Stillow and Field Marshall,
You are both right, there are a bunch of left wing loons out there who spout ridiculous nonsense. THe difference is that I haven't even heard of Ward Churchill, whereas J. Falwell was a pretty strong influence on the republican party. And FM. I am curious how many people your church has provided with health care. Stillow I dont have to take the fact that the democrats wants to help people as a matter of faith. I can point to the last 100 years: Womens sufferage, Civil rights, the attempt for gay rights, Social security, medicare, medicaide. Not to mention saving millions of lives by winning two world wars (Wilson, FDR, Truman).

____________________

Stillow:

The Dem party thru it spolicy of dependency has probably done irreversable damage to the african american community i nthis country. If you think living on your knees and receiving scraps from g'ment's table is taking care of thsoe who need it, the nI guess it is what it is. I for one beleive you help the needy by helping them to stand on there own. You do not help them by keeping them on there knees giving them just enough to keep them dependent and angry.

____________________

Thaddeus:

Do you all just like to yell at each other? We are the best and have all the answers...You all blow. I'm amazed you guys to write the same stuff day after day. How do we expect politicians to talk with one another, when no one else can.

In a capitalist society there will always be 5-8% unemployment. Achieve full employment and the system fails. Thus the system or "gov" needs to provide a basic safety net of living, the (party) disagreements are about how those services are provided and at what level they are to be set.

I maintain my challenge, someone identify where they can cut 150 Billion from government spending that would have any chance of passing. And then remember you only have to find eight more chunks to balance the budget this year. My guess is you all will prefer to argue about who is, shouldn't be and is a donk for calling someone a racist.

____________________

Stillow:

Oh how the hell do you not know who Ward Churchill is? Per ahps you need to read or watch more news.............

____________________

Stillow:

Thaddeus

Uhhh, did you just take a shot at people positng there opinions and then offer your own? Hhaahahahahahaah!

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

I think slavery and Jim Crow may have done a bit more damage to the AA community than welfare. But if you do not believe in charity, you should be arguing with Field Marshall who was just discussing all the great charity work his church has done. I do not know who ward churchill is, I will look it up on Wikipedia. But I do not watch the news, because it is not news at all for the most part. Your response to Thaddeus was pretty funny by the way.

____________________

Stillow:

bigfoot9p6 - Who said I don't beleive i ncharity? My wife is active in several different charities. But g'ment dependency programs are much different than chairty.

It took a republican president to end slavery. It took republicans to pass civil rights and overcome filibusters by racist Dems like Robert Byrd.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Ok Stillow, lets put your plan of "teaching people how to fish" in theoretical action. I would be interested to hear how private enterprise is going to teach, say an 8 year old homeless girl, how to fish while obeying the existing child labor laws. You don't like our social safety nets? Go to a third world country without any. Their homeless children are child beggars and child prostitutes. I guess they learned how to fish.

As for slavery and civil rights, it took liberals top end the first and enact the second. It is irrelevant what party the liberals adopted at the time.

____________________

Thaddeus:

Point taken Stillow, I redact my opening and closing:
In a capitalist society there will always be 5-8% unemployment. Achieve full employment and the system fails. Thus the system or "gov" needs to provide a basic safety net of living, the (party) disagreements are about how those services are provided and at what level they are to be set.

I maintain my challenge, someone identify where they can cut 150 Billion from government spending that would have any chance of passing. And then remember you only have to find eight more chunks to balance the budget this year.

To be clear however: I have no problem with opinions, and there are often nice discussions on here, it's just posts on here commonly degrade quickly into:
"blah blah....its your party who screwed it up"
"The left has no desire to help the needy."
"The left only wants to help grow the size of government and their own power."
"He obviously would rather just have these people die according to the mindless Dems."

____________________

Field Marshal:

"I maintain my challenge, someone identify where they can cut 150 Billion from government spending that would have any chance of passing.

Tad,

The conundrum is in the second part of your sentence; "any chance of passing".

If i had absolute power, I would greatly reduce medicare. Instead of reaching the age of attainment at 65, it should be 80. That would at least chop it down by a third. You can eliminate a ton of cabinet depts like education, energy, agriculture, EPA or interior since a lot both overlap, and housing and Urban development. The depts in themselves only free up a few percentage points of the deficit. The real savings come from democratic boon doggles like Medicare and Social Security.

If you add in the chance of passing qualifier, then all of the above is mute. The only way something will eventually change is for the country to be on the verge of bankruptcy which Obama should accomplish if he gets re-elected.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Bigfoot,

You are still on the whole, our history is based on liberal policies faulty argument, eh? Revisionist history is all some ideology has if they have no future. Far left policies (socialist) will be in the ask heap of history soon enough.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Field Marshall. That simply not true. Look at it this way. There already exist "conservative utopias" and "liberal utopias." For example a perfect mix of religious conservatism, lack of social programs, and aggressive foreign policy can be found in Iran. A mix of religious tolerance, lots of social programs, and non-aggressive foreign policy can be found in Sweden. I would rather live in Sweden than Iran (although you may have a different preference), and I believe that the world is moving toward this model and away from Irans. As for the future of the Conservative ideology, demographics tells me all I need to know about how that particular life-support system is doing.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Conservatives: Here is the definitions of conservative from dictionary.com (Or those that pertain to politics).
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Here is the definition of liberal.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.


So field marshall, When I say that it was liberals who were trying to change the status quo (as in with slavery, civil rights, womens sufferage, and now gay rights) and that it was fought by conservatives this statement is true by the definition of the two terms.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"For example a perfect mix of religious conservatism, lack of social programs, and aggressive foreign policy can be found in Iran."

Give me a break. There is also a socialist Utopia in North Korea. I would rather live in Iran than North Korea, or for that matter, the Soviet Union prior to 1985, and China, prior to 1979.

You're "open-mindedness" is clouded by your lack of logic, judgment, and intelligence.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Ok FM let me try your brand of logic, judgement and intelligence (when you say: You are still on the whole, our history is based on liberal policies faulty argument, eh?). The major changes that people have made were based on liberal ideas by definition (see above), but modern liberalism in a practical sense is opposed to them (at least I think thats what you've been saying). According to that logic, the earth is by definition a planet, but in practice it is really more of a pineapple. Hmmmm... I'm not sure I get how to use your logic, judgement and intelligence correctly.

North Korea is not a liberal state by the definition provided above. Iran is a conservative state by that definition.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Conservative "IDEOLOGY" is different than the traditional use of the word conservative. The conservative ideology espouses fiscal moderation, religious freedoms, personal freedoms, less government intrusion into the lives of the people, strong military, economic growth as opposed to social welfare, and social mores.

Iran does not fit that definition. It does fit the definition of modern day liberalism which supports the strength of the state over the will of the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#United_States

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

FM. It doesn't make sense to me when precepts of the ideology conflict with others. IE fiscal moderation (while spending trillions on unnecessary wars especially vietnam, iraq and the war on drugs) Religious freedom (in that case why would it even be an issue if Obama was muslim?) Personal freedom (What if I want to marry my gay partner, smoke some pot, and get some prostitutes?) Less government intrusion into the lives of the people (abortion anyone?) Strong military (see: walter reed) economic growth (see the opposition to green energy which would revitalize the worlds dependence on American exports).

It makes so much more sense to apply a definition such as in this case: Conservatives are against health care reform, gay rights and environmental protection. They are trying to conserve the status quo.

As for your second point. Iran remains socially, militarily and religiously conservative. Liberalism promotes advancing beyond that crap.

____________________

Thaddeus:

FM- Thanks for your post, it was refreshing. I agree that the killer is passable and I appreciate the manner that you stick with your conservative values of smaller and fiscally responsible government (I still shake my head when Republicans held up a 100B cut over ten year to Medicare as killing grandmas, that's a drop in the bucket of what the problem is). I actually wish that "Bush II" was more like his father and Reagan in being willing to realize the need to raise revenue. Personally, I agree that until the we are on the brink of default as a country, nothing major will be accomplished. I however don't think it matters who gets elected, one will do it my raising spending faster than revenues and the other will do it by cutting revenues faster than spending. Really six of one and a half dozen of another.

To answer my question: a 3% across the board cut in domestic agencies (~110B), a 10% cut to the defense budget (~65B is basically doubled in the last 7 years). Increasing SS age by 2-3 years as well as doing something with Medicare such as moving to a gradual enrollment similar to SS where benefits increase with age...We'll have to raise revenues someplace as well, returning to 2001 or 1993 rates possibly. I disagree in the assumption that social welfare and economic growth are opposing forces. I think the US and other countries have done quite well since the enactment of SS and medicare or nationalized health care policies.

I will grant that Communist economies have not fared well over history i.e. the USSR, N. Korea, and China pre-1979. But I think there are plenty of "social welfare democracies" like Sweden, Norway, German, England that are doing quite well economically. N. Korea is a dictatorship, with what would be hard pressed to call any economic system at all. I would say it runs more like a corporation.

Is there a place that you rate higher the the U.S. on your scale of what a country should be and how it treats it's citizens?

____________________

Thaddeus:

Math correction the 3% cut should be ~15B, not sure how I typed 110B sorry.

____________________

Stillow:

Do you libs actually honestly beleive this stuff you post? Or is there just some site where one liberal sits in his mother's basements posting it and you repeat it?

bigfoot9p6:

Your flaw in your las tpost is you assume W was conservative, he is not...W is aperfect example of what a big g'ment big spender looked like. Now O is taking the reings and increasing spending and g'ment.

Libs stand for growth of g'ment which by definition inhibits personal freedom. Libs do not endorse tolerance. Go to any college campus when a conservative spaker is there, libs do nothing but try to silence that message.

Libs want to take my gun away, but let the criminal who murdered 6 people out on probation. Ya, criminals with guns, law abdiding citizens without...that will work out very well.

I'm tired of the gay mariage arugment, because tons and tons of liberal who oppose gay mariage....lets see if I can think of one...hmmm, tough, oh ya, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

Libs claim tolerance when there goal is to silence opppoisng voices, ie fairness doctrine. They claim they support personal freedoms, yet they use the power of abusive taxation to contro land modify behavior by hte people.

They propose things ssuch and cap and trade which forces me to make certain choices on everything fro mthe car I drive to what tyep of windows and light bulb I can put in my house.

The founders knew the bigger g'ment became the less free the people would be. That is why the g'ment was deisnged to be small and streamlined. Tyranies are born from large g'ments imposing their will on the people. Brutal socialist states such as Nazi Germany or present day N. Korea are born when g'ment gains enough power to control the peoples choices. Or control parts of there life such as health care for example.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Stillow:
Bush was considered a conservative (and is) until conservative policies he pursued resulted in catastrophe. then he became a liberal. I will never forget the cover of the Weekly Standard issue that read "Bush's Gospel" (and folks on the right deride Obama as the messiah!). "Libs" stand for social safety nets, not just government for the sake of government. Conservatives, on the other hand have a vested interest in the idea that government is inherently incompetent. Therefore, when you elect conservatives you get incompetent government - surprise surprise. Liberals are tolerant, and therefore we speak out against bigotry and people advocating violence against others. I believe that a conservative speaker spoke, however at NYU not so long ago by the name of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I am a liberal who owns two guns (a 22 rifle and a 9 mm glock) and do not advocate taking guns away from Law abiding citizens. I do advocate preventing Meth addicts from obtaining guns. As for gay marriage, Unfortunately democrats are p*ssies, and seem to have temporarily surrendered to the bigots on that one. I already covered the next one. I believe you can still poison your kids with your hummer if you want to, and pay higher electric bills out of protest against energy efficiency.

The founders designed a much larger government (democracy) in place of a very small government (monarchy).

____________________

Field Marshal:

Thaddeus,

Bill Oreilly did a segment with Charles Krauthammer last night about the rise in discretionary spending since the dems took over control of congress and then the second spike up when Obama was inaugurated. It was astonishing. The EPA budget has supposedly jumped by 30% just in the last year. He then spouted off several other departments that have seen large increases as well. Just amazing.


Basically, the only way to your answer is through Medicare and SS. Raising the age is a long term fix and does nothing (unless enacted immediately which is unfeasible) in the short term. In addition, i would cut all departments budgets by 5% per year for the next 5 years.

The Scandinavian countries (outside of Norway which is similar to Canada in that it is a resource nation) have little growth in the economy compared to the US with similar unemployment benefits. Germany is in between but their social nets are not as extensive even as compared to France and the UK.

No, i would still rate the US the highest. We have more help for underprivileged peoples than any other country when you figure in private organizations. In addition, we take in millions of immigrants each year making our task much more difficult.

____________________

Stillow:

bigfoot9p6

You are beyond the ability to reach if you think Bush was or is a conservative. Social issues I guess you could argue he is, but fiscally he is as liberal as Obama is. Reagan was a conservative and he brought us the greatest peacetime economic boom in modern history. There's a reason so many conservatives like myself withdrew there support for Bush around 2003....because he turned out to be a fiscal liberal who loved huge g'ment entitlement programs like perscription drug benefit or other liberal yuck yucks like no child left behind.

While I poison my kids in my SUV, I guess I get to pay your ambulance bill when your kids are smashed riding in your little put put car. That darn safety thing.....

Libs are nything but tolerant...just watch one episode of Keith Olberman. They want to silence talk radio, they want to ban fox news fro mthe WH press room....and you are wrong, one of the liberal agenda items is to ban all guns. Liberal cities like DC and Chicago already have bans.

Anytime you hand over power to g'ment, that power usually comes from people. Why libs insist on living on there knees I will never know. You libs hate people like me until you need someone to pay for one of your entitlements, then all of a sudden I'm your favorite guy so long as I keep dishing out the money so you can enjoy the free ride.

Oh and true conservatives on social issues woud be considered libertarians, i you truly beleive in personal freedom on social issues, then you shoudl not identify as a lib or a con, becaus eboth those sides wish to use g'ment to control your life in there own way.

____________________

Stillow:

Also, the comparions with foreign countries like France and Norway is stupid. Those countires have hardly any military budget...and as a result are totally unable to defend themselves if the need were to arise. The free world relies on the US to protect them. These countries can can use funds which would normally go to defense on other domestic items because they know in the event of a major event by a foreign aggressor that we would once again as we always do an take the lead.

We do not shar ethe same motto with "France of "We Surrendur" These other countries ride on our back to protect them and then spit at us because we are not as civilized as them.....well I say to hell with the frogs.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Stillow,
I ride the bus. When it smashes your SUV, my liberal generosity will force me to pay your bills. If you think conservatives are tolerant consider the "conservative litmus test" being considered compared to pro-life dems, blue dog dems, pro-war dems, etc etc.

I am a liberal (are you convinced yet?) and I do not believe in banning all guns so it is on its face contradictory to say all liberals favor banning guns. Again, I do not live on my knees. I am employed and have employer-provided health benefits. I am not on any sort of welfare. I have never gotten any financial aid from the gov't. Are you hearing me?! I just think that those who are not so fortunate should not be completely screwed at birth. I do not hate you or anyone else. Hate is a conservative family value. You are not providing me anything.

The way this actually works is that the blue states which generate all the money in this economy and pay all the taxes, provide support for the red states farm subsidies, roads, schools, police, fire dept. etc. Then the red states (say alaska, which has the highest federal govt money provided:tax revenue supplied) whine about their taxes and how they shouldnt have support so and so in the blue states. If it wasn't for the blue states, the red ones (with a very small number of exceptions) would be their own white, trailer trash third world country.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"The way this actually works is that the blue states which generate all the money in this economy and pay all the taxes, provide support for the red states farm subsidies, roads, schools, police, fire dept. etc. Then the red states (say alaska, which has the highest federal govt money provided:tax revenue supplied) whine about their taxes and how they shouldnt have support so and so in the blue states. If it wasn't for the blue states, the red ones (with a very small number of exceptions) would be their own white, trailer trash third world country."

LOL. Seems to me that with the blue states being run into the ground and the people fleeing in droves, you would not want to make that dumb comparison.

Soon enough, there will be no people left in the upper mid-west blue states as they all migrate to the red states where the jobs are quality of life are located.

Even California lost residents for the first time since the 1800's last year. All thanks to dumb liberal policies that drive out jobs.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Yeah. I can't wait to leave washington state (Boeing, Microsoft, Nintendo, Starbucks, Amazon.com) and move to Idaho (Mr. Potato LLC, David Duke Inc.).

____________________

Thaddeus:

Yeah, the "stimulus package" had a whole bunch that boosted the Department budgets very quickly. It wouldn't suprise me to see that be considered the new norm, instead of the temporary nature of the original bill, much like the tax cuts from GWB in 2001 & 2003. Have them expire because you can't sell them on the actually long-term cost and then be able to yell, "largest tax hike ever!" Dems will be yelling they want to cut the Education Department by 40%...The State of the Union drama confirmed my beliefs everyone's concerned about the deficit and the economy, but the only thing people talk about is a spending freeze, tax cuts (i.e. lower revenue) and job creation programs (new expenditures) how does that help the problem?

It's funny that states like Alaska, Texas, Wyoming are very similar to countries like Norway etc. by generating much of their income from natural resources. (Norway's State oil company dwarfs Exxon) If I recall Alaska's government is basically fully funded by oil revenues and federal dollars. Compared to the European social democracies the issue in the US is scale, 300 million people and the size we are makes providing services much harder. I recon that with the history of the catholic and other churches, they have pretty good non-governmental social service systems as well. Many of them have their own immigration issues: in Sweden the 9 % of the population is foreign born (excluding other Scandinavian countries), another 4% are first gen. In Us terms that would be 30 million foreign born and 13-14 million first gen. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were close.

I don't know why, but it still frustrates me to no end that Republicans raised such a fear tactic on cutting 10 Billion a year from Medicare to help fund HCR. You're supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, come on play your role...

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR