A seeming contradiction that can make perfect sense.
Reader comment on: NYT on Republican Congress
Submitted by ben (United States), Nov 5, 2010 10:00
Sometimes in life we spend money to save money. For example, if I have a leaky roof I spend 1,000 dollars to fix it so that the water doesn't rot my house and result in a 10,000 dollar loss. In this case, I could write that "Republicans will deny money to fix my roof, though they have not said how they would make up for the savings that would be lost if they denied my repaired roof." This makes perfect sense.
In the same way, they argue that funding preventive care can result in lower health bills. Is this a contradiction? The health care system pays for care, there isn't an incentive to provide better health because it cuts into the bottom line. Obamacare makes an effort to try to address this structural problem.
And yes, I will continue to mock the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves. Bush's tax cuts sure haven't raised revenue. . .
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
The Future of Capitalism replies:
I agree you sometimes have to spend money to save money, I just am not convinced ObamaCare as a whole is an example. I certainly don't think he question is a settled one the way the New York Times sentence approached it. It hasn't worked in Massachusetts.
Federal revenue in 2000, last year of Clinton, was $2.025 trillion. Federal revenue in 2008, last year of Bush, was $2.524 trillion. How can you say the Bush tax cuts didn't raise revenue? Revenue went up $500 billion. These are numbers from Obama's White House Office of Management and Budget.
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item