>A nonpartisan study says helping kids stay healthy has long-term fiscal benefits Conservatives have long badgered Congress’ own numbers crunchers, with some success, to say tax cuts aren’t as expensive as they look.
But in a turnabout, liberals now have something to cheer for from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In a paper published last month, the CBO said Medicaid and other programs that provide a long-term boost for the recipients’ economic prospects may be far cheaper than their initial price tags, once those long-term effects are included in the calculus.
The study argues that those higher lifetime earnings would in turn boost economic growth, which would then result in more money sent to federal coffers in taxes in the decades ahead.
Gideon Lukens, director of research and data analysis with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told HuffPost the CBO paper was significant because it took something on which there is broad scholarly agreement — programs like Medicaid can have a beneficial effect for enrollees far into the future — and then showed the budget impact.
“I haven’t really seen where other studies have done that, so I think it’s a really useful contribution,” Lukens said.
“The CBO analysis is another important contribution to the research literature about the long-term benefits of Medicaid coverage during childhood and pregnancy,” wrote Edwin Park, research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, in a blog post.
Even Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative American Action Forum and a former CBO director, said the idea in general was plausible as federal programs can affect conventional and human capital, making them more effective.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/medicaid-tax-cuts-cbo_n_658f27d0e4b0cd3cf0e56371
Anonymous
Quoted By:
“The question is how big, how fast and how you finance it, what you have to offset. So I find this sort of enterprise entirely plausible,” he told HuffPost. To get at those questions, the CBO looked at the impact of a policy called continuous eligibility, which allows children to remain in Medicaid for a year once they qualify, even if a change in family income would make them ineligible. The paper found the policy’s return on investment over 70 years could be as high as 197% (or bringing in to the government almost twice as much as first spent) to as low as -151% (or costing nearly one and half times more), depending on assumptions about whether it was deficit-financed and other factors. While the paper is not an official statement of CBO policy and won’t change how proposals to boost or cut Medicaid eligibility will be scored, CBO Director Philip Swagel called it another example of how the agency is trying to improve its ability to forecast the impacts of bills beyond the usual 10 or 11-year score they get as lawmakers consider them. “That capacity could be used to supplement the analysis in conventional cost estimates and provide additional information about effects that are more than 10 years in the future and that alter nominal [Gross Domestic Product],” he wrote in a post on the CBO’s blog. While good news for Medicaid advocates, the paper has some caveats. The wide range of estimates for how much money the government would recoup or lose reflects the importance of the assumptions used in the paper. One variable is whether the program expansion is paid for by redirecting other spending or by borrowing, and a second is how one assesses the value of money spent now versus in the future — the so-called discount factor.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Still, the paper gives ammo for liberals to demand at least some proposals be scored by the CBO on a “dynamic” basis. Led by former House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republicans have often wanted a similar feedback effect included in assessments of the upfront costs of tax cuts. While CBO has said tax cuts, depending on how they are structured and paid for, can generate extra economic growth that trims the initial costs, they do not “pay for themselves,” as some conservatives and libertarians often argue. Holtz-Eakin said the paper implicitly raises the question of how far CBO should go in taking a holistic approach to spending programs. Pentagon spending, for example, could look cheaper if the improved job skills and resulting higher wages of veterans were taken into account. “Do we want to put the CBO in the position of finding the benefits as well as the costs of everything you debate?” he asked. Lukens said he did not think dynamic scoring should be extended to social spending proposals, but the approach could be used so lawmakers have additional information about a spending proposal if they want it. He said it also highlights the likely impact of states trimming Medicaid rolls now that early pandemic-era eligibility waivers have lapsed. Those cuts could save much less than estimated or even cost the government money over the long run if the paper is correct. “Unfortunately, it is coming at a time when millions of children are losing Medicaid coverage, especially with many falling through the cracks for procedural reasons as opposed to being ineligible,” Lukens said.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>CBO Bunch of lying faggots said Obamacare was a budget neutral law, too. Their assessments are less than meaningless. You find more truth in numbers from the CCP.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251966 >“I haven’t really seen where other studies have done that, so I think it’s a really useful contribution,” Lukens said. They just need new math to justify their gut feelings.
Republicans are arithmetically illiterate(or liars)
Republicans are arithmetically illiterate(or liars) Sun 31 Dec 2023 17:43:34 No. 1252030 Report >>1251966 taxcuts make the rich richer
the poor poorer
and shrinks the middle class
Republicans 1+1=3
Dems 1+1 = 2
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251966 no federal income tax cut has ever resulted in a long term drop in federal revenue in the history of the US. also medicaid needs to be abolished. it does not help a single human. it gets embezzled from and defrauded all the time. and it is just unethical on its face.
Anonymous
>>1252030 >taxcuts make the rich richer >the poor poorer Explain the way this works for me.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251966 >When you help people in need they can go on to live successful and productive lives Shocker
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252109 Well you see, Stephen Colbert made jokes about it when I was young, and most of my boomer friends who vote blue blame poor people on lack of taxes.
You see, if there would only be more taxes, nobody would be poor any more.
It's simple marxian economics, really.
We could even tax poor people for being poor to pressure them to stop being so homeless
Anonymous
>>1252109 >Cut taxes for the rich >They hoard the money instead of using it. Simple as
Anonymous
>>1252228 tax cuts have been shown to increase consumer spending and overall increase federal tax revenue.
Anonymous
>>1252230 Not when given to the rich
Anonymous
>>1252231 wrong. drumpf's "tax cuts for the rich" increased tax revenue.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1252234 Well shit
I guess your correct. I'm going to have to rethink my life.
Anonymous
>>1252235 Thank you for being reasonable. There is hope for /news/ yet.
Anonymous
>>1252234 Wouldn't that be due to inceased revenue due to corporations price gouging under the guise of inflation?
Anonymous
>>1252238 Probably not since your fantasies aren't reality
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1252250 >A think tank blog Fuck off.
Wsj is more reputable than a literal fucking progressive think tank
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1252254 >Unironically claiming Murdock Propaganda, the people who pushed the Big Lie and white washed Trump's failed coup to the point the they got successfully sued for hundred of millions of dollars for defamation is creditable. LOL
Here's your right wing myth being debunked.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/3-myths-about-the-trump-tax-cuts-155801290.html Anonymous
>>1252257 >Yahoo news >But come on. Those claims about a supply-side tax miracle in 2021 completely ignore... What makes this source better than wsj?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1252275 >I don't need data, I've got feels Nobody cares.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252278 Why are you quoting yourself?
>Nobody cares. The last argument a /pol/ppet can make when they're cornered.
I accept your concession.
Anonymous
>>1252274 >>But come on. I wouldn't let my 12 year old son write like this and this is what passes as a real source for you guys now. They're not really paying that guy a salary for that shit, are they?
Anonymous
>>1252303 What source are you objecting to?
Anonymous
>>1252250 tax cuts don't explode the debt. spending does. and biden's been on a spending frenzy.
Anonymous
>>1252313 >Spending bad >Unless spend on wall Anonymous
>>1252316 trump only spent 15 billion on the border wall during his entire term. biden spends 96 billion every month.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252311 Just the absolutely trash blog level writing of yahoo news. Three word sentence fragments is what I would expect from a child. Presumably this an employed adult?
Anonymous
>>1252319 15 billion for no wall?
Anonymous
>>1252322 >Trump’s administration built 52 miles of new primary border barriers — the first impediment people encounter if they’re trying to cross the southern border with Mexico, that can block access either for people on foot or for vehicles — where there were none before. >The administration built 458 total miles of primary and secondary border barriers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows. The majority were replacements of smaller, dilapidated barriers. >Replacement barriers and secondary barriers that are behind primary barriers don’t add additional miles to the southern border’s total coverage. Anonymous
>>1252250 >https://www.americanprogress.org literally propaganda made by chinese communists
Anonymous
>>1252330 so is it a shitty wall or do walls not work
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252340 walls don't work when you leave the door open and let everyone in.
Anonymous
>>1252340 >Among the biggest beneficiaries of the wall contract changes is Galveston-based SLSCO, which has won the second-most in border wall contracts since 2017, about $2.2 billion, including nearly half a billion dollars in supplemental agreements. North Dakota-based Fisher Sand & Gravel has also won more than $2 billion in contracts since building a controversial private border fence in the Rio Grande Valley, which a ProPublica/Tribune investigation found was in danger of toppling if not fixed and properly maintained shitty wall and shitty concept
Anonymous
>>1252342 >a controversial private border fence in the Rio Grande Valley, which a ProPublica/Tribune investigation found was in danger of toppling if not fixed and properly maintained >private border fence you retards can't even read your own citations. kek
Anonymous
>>1252345 so you think giving multi billion dollar government contracts to people who build shitty walls is a good idea
Anonymous
>>1252346 did the actual contracted work have any issues or did they make revisions based on the proof of work? oh, you don't know because you're a retard.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252313 Taxes keep you from going into debt.
Cutting taxes explode the debt, as proven by trickle down economics.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252334 The Russian fascists of the heritage foundation projecting again?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252361 this has nothing to do with what we're discussing. the fisher sand & gravel contract was built in texas. your article is from california.
Anonymous
>>1252361 this has nothing to do with what we're discussing. the fisher sand & gravel contract was built in texas. your article is in regards to a wall segment in california.
Anonymous
>>1252370 >n-n-no, we're talking about a specific contractor that had alleged issues, not another contractor who had confirmed issues my bad, go ahead with your bad faith argument followed by claiming libs are btfo
Anonymous
>>1252373 goalpost recap:
>sure biden spends 96 billion every month but trump spent 15 billion on a wall that doesn't exist!! >ok the wall exists but it doesn't work!! >ok it works but what about this totally unrelated proof of concept prototype?? >ok it was just a proof of concept but what about this other completely different part of the wall in california?? keep moving those posts. regardless of that, trump's border budget is a drop in the bucket when compared to the astronomical expense and fiscal irresponsibility demonstrated by the biden admin.
Anonymous
>>1252380 >In an October update, the administration said it had identified $15 billion — most of it from military funds — to build a total of 738 miles, which comes out to roughly $20 million a mile. >That’s compared with the $2.4 billion the government spent from 2007-15 to build 653 miles of fence, as well as gates, roads, lighting and other infrastructure, according to the GAO. Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252382 15 billion over the span of 4 years. Thats like a week's worth of biden spending.
Anonymous
>>1252380 walls don't work though.
All they do is create an easy to climb structure, and connect directly to the roads used to construct them which makes it easy to get out of the desert.
They're looking to find and surrender to a border patrol agent for asylum, which was harder when our border was undeveloped rocky desert. Magafags ruined that effective barrier. You can see it in the surge of new migrants coming in a custom build maga highway. Magafags shot themselves in the foot and are blaming dems, again.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252387 >source: my blown out turd hole Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252382 >most of it from military funds I like how conservatives cover up the fact that Trump stole from military families to launder money for his wall.
the not so great replacement theory ideDUH
the not so great replacement theory ideDUH Mon 01 Jan 2024 21:05:28 No. 1252402 Report >>1252237 You may be using sarcasm against sarcasm, but tax the rich so I can get some child care so I can have a child and then you can stop complaining about necessary immigrating brown people replacing you
Anonymous
>>1252402 Or just get off your ass.
Anonymous
>>1252406 When you can't shelter, feed, or pay your own bills on twenty dollars an hour working a minimum of forty-five hours a week then your economy is fucked. Taxes supplementing workers in that situation would have a greater net positive for the country, economy than tax cuts for the rich. Quit boot licking the people fucking you in the ass after you get off your forklift.
Anonymous
>>1252406 >Just be a wage slave for the billionaires Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252402 >Tax the rich so I can give money to billionaires via fedbux Uh, are you OK?
Anonymous
>>1252411 i personally benefit from tax cuts so i'll keep voting for them. thanks for your input though
Anonymous
>>1252420 you don't live in america
>inb4 lie about the high paying job and wife and kids Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252421 whatever helps you cope
Anonymous
>>1252420 Proving once again the middle class is the most vicious to the impoverished.
don't eat the rich, use them for fertilizer
don't eat the rich, use them for fertilizer Mon 01 Jan 2024 22:56:16 No. 1252424 Report Quoted By:
>>1252423 the bourgeoisie is almost gone in the US, and the super rich have increased, just like the days of the robber barons.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252423 it's not my responsibility to be your caretaker.
Anonymous
>>1252411 >>1252413 I don't work for anybody except myself and the customers I choose. I started my own business in 2014 barely knowing anything about IT (only what I learned in school which was basically nothing) and almost a decade later I'm not a useless shitbag any more.
Nothing is stopping you from getting off your ass and doing something productive for somebody else and getting paid for it. Whether it's cutting grass for a living, teaching kids how to play guitar, or whatever your niche interests are, you can figure out a way to get paid for them and not be a drag on society and everyone around you. If you get good enough at what you do, no matter what it is, you can make a decent living at it. As long as it's something genuinely productive that people need and not some faggot liberal arts performing bullshit.
There is no sense of accomplishment in demanding the government force other people to pay for things. It will never be enough and it will never make you feel good about yourself or the outcome. The only way to feel good about doing something for somebody else is getting off your lazy ass and actually doing it yourself. It will legitimately make you feel better, as a form of exercise, socialization with another human being, and the genuine feeling of being useful to another person which I know you guys are sorely lacking.
Demanding more gibs doesn't accomplish anything. Go forth and be less of a useless faggot, friend.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1252438 The overhead to start out in most industries is low, and the ones that aren't are because of government regulation that creates artificial barriers to entry. Those should be eliminated, but there's still nothing stopping you from literally feeding children yourself except your own inability to quit whining like a bitch and just act.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252439 i'm not engaging with this larp bait, someone else can
Anonymous
>>1252436 >Pretending you're a successful small business IT. Stop being a crab bucket.
Anonymous
>>1252442 You're the one acting like nobody can get out of the bucket, faggot.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252449 Nobody can get out of the bucket with the current system heavily favoring the rich.
You make it sound like people who get the golden ticket get it through hard work and not luck.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1252436 You sound like someone who hires illegals and garnishes their wages illegally.
Anonymous
>>1252473 I don't have any employees, faggot. There's nothing stopping you from being a productive member of society except your unwillingness to learn useful skills.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251966 >The study argues that those higher lifetime earnings would in turn boost economic growth, which would then result in more money sent to federal coffers in taxes in the decades ahead. This fails the logic test as people on Medicaid don't work, and even if they do, they don't make enough to have taxable income.
Anonymous
>>1252475 Way to not refute illegal activity. How does it feel to be part of the problem?
Anonymous
>>1252475 So at best, you're a con artist assuming you aren't lying.
Anonymous
>>1252513 >>1252534 I assume you faggots have never done anything useful in your lives.
Anonymous
>>1252537 there are a billion Indians who could replace you
Anonymous
>>1252538 Lol ok, so why don't they?
I work in IT. I work with Indian tech support all the time and they suck ass. (Obviously) Most of them can barely speak English, they're all following a written script (even the ones providing support for their IT contractors who are supposed to be higher tier) and can barely function.
I do hardware, installation, construction, repair, etc. Things you can't do from India . No Pajeet is replacing me, faggot.
If you're in software you might be competing with India, but otherwise not.
Anonymous
>>1252539 You need to work with a professional about your repressed homosexual rage. Keep hiring illegals suppressing American wages, being part of the problem.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252756 I sincerely hope you find a way to be more useful to society before you end up as dog meat.