Published on January 29, 2007 by Brian Riedl
The link reads like this to me:
MYTH: The government needs some tax revenue.
FACT: Spending will still occur, getting rid of the revenue, and hence it might as well not have been collected in the first place! Duh!
MYTH: The Bush tax cuts reduced revenue from the rich.
FACT: The government still collected revenue! And more total revenue, despite collecting less from the top 1%, so it's all good!
MYTH: The Bush tax cuts were bad.
FACT: They actually made all Americans richer, and ended world poverty!
|
Published on January 29, 2007 by Brian Riedl
You are quoting the Heritage Foundation? Really.
I'll see that and raise you a Malcolm Gladwell.
The projections for Obama's plan cited ~ 1 trillion in tens years.
Why is everyone picking on the Bush "tax cuts" rather than the Bush "spending increases"?
Simplest statement: The economy didn't crash before the tax cuts. In fact when those taxes were in place it flourished.
Links:
FDL
political Correction
Bloomingberg businessweek
Rhonda Abrams (unsure if that is editorial or not)
Greenspan
Also a problem I have with blaming the stimulus package:
This package is smaller than all the spending on the wars -- wasted money there cost the USA more than anything in the stimulus package. That added more debt to us than any other single in the pass decade and continues to climb.
Something else that is currently missing now that wasn't back in the 'good days' of pass economies is trade protections, which forced foreign products to be as expensive if not more so than USA products.
Simply cutting the the tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 would save 680 billion dollars which when coupled with foxes report:
that says cutting the lower end of the tax cuts would cost 31 million families 1,033 dollars (or only 32.023 billion dollars) and newly weds 595 dollars (or 20.825 billion dollars saved) shows a total possible saves from restoring taxes (not raising taxes -- we aren't adding new taxes we are simply asking you to pay what you should have been) would save a total of 730 billion dollars a year.
Finally a new york times and the Cato institute.
Now here's my thing:
The Bush tax cuts amounted to 1.3 trillion dollars of tax cuts between 2001 and 2010. So my question would be how would ending those tax cuts not restore roughly the same amount to pay off the national debt? The only current reason is the downturn of the economy, which is why the amount returned is only about 730 billion dollars (which matches the economic losses of the recession... surprise surprise...).
And everyone lived quite fine with the taxes at their original levels. In fact as pointed out by Fox news for the average USA family they only amounted to about $1,033 dollars of savings from an average family income.
Now here's my thing -- we have 1.2 trillion in war spending in 8 years, and another 1.3 trillion in tax cuts (from original tax levels before the cuts) over nine years then it stands to reason we have 1.5 trillion and 1.44 trillion over ten years of costs that are directly attributable to the party that can't even keep its books balanced.
Yet somehow these people are going to tax cut us out of debt.
Again that's like leaving a job making $100,000 a year to work at Mcdonald's to not only continue living at the same level but to also pay off your million dollar house. It simply isn't smart.
Now the wars are winding down (hopefully) which will (again hopefully) cut the amount of spending there... perhaps actually paying our taxes again would allow us to pay off our debts?
Taxes and movement:
doesn't happen
still not happening
still not moving
points and links
another articleIn fact raising taxes seems to have one effect -- it gets the rich to spend their money instead of letting it go to taxes... and not just spend it but spend it on things like hiring more people, expanding their business, giving their employees more benefits (which are tax deductible), and charity.
Indeed the times when the rich were are their most generous, respectable, and nicest have been the times when they have been taxed the most. A fact that poor President Hoover would have probably liked to know and something that served President Roosevelt very well.
Indeed if we simply let half of the tax cuts from 2000~2008 end we would collect enough revenue to quite easily bring us back to the black with only about an 9% cut in spending total.
I acknowledge your point about physical mobility in the face of modest tax increases on the wealthy which I still oppose. I notice they don't seem to address whether or not the tax increases generated the the projected revenue or if the wealthy just modified their shelter tactics.
I don't think it's the governments job to make rich people nice at gunpoint.
I'm going to need a citation for your last sentence please. I don't think it's correct.
3.9 trillion seems to be the highest estimate I've found for eliminating all of the bush tax cuts. Half of that would average out to around 200 billion a year, and it would barely make a dent in our current deficits.
Published on January 29, 2007 by Brian RiedlYou are quoting the Heritage Foundation? Really.
I'll see that and raise you a Malcolm Gladwell.
Wow.
3.9 trillion seems to be the highest estimate I've found for eliminating all of the bush tax cuts. Half of that would average out to around 200 billion a year, and it would barely make a dent in our current deficits.
Our current yearly budget deficit is projected to be around 1.2 trillion dollars in the presidents suggested budget with a total budget of 3.824 trillion dollars. You are saying that with a 9% cut in spending each year (which was part of my original statement) which is half of the 19% you were okay with earlier and half of the taxes from the tax cuts coming back we couldn't cut the debt out?
I find that unlikely. Our actual 8 month deficit is $929 billion. Divide by 3 multiple by 4 puts that right around the president's budget of 1.2 trillion (actually it hits 1.3 trillion). If the high estimate you found is right with 3.9 trillion cutting that in half would still be 1.95 trillion dollars -- you are saying that applying 1.95 trillion dollars to a 9 trillion dollar problem wouldn't help -- or that simply using that money and a 9% budget cut wouldn't nearly eliminate the yearly debt?
So basically the Bush tax cuts then amount to less than 9% a year of the yearly budget (since you earlier figure of 18% would supposedly do it and I'm proposing going with 9% and getting rid of the tax cuts)?
I did probably stumble into some hyperbole with the tax cuts allow covering the debt... but it certainly couldn't hurt our odds. Working at Mcdonald's and the $100,000 dollar job might not add much to the bottom line... but it still adding which is better than subtracting.
Now to be a bit more fair to the Tax cuts -- Congress is obligated to either spend all the money it pulls in (beyond a small rainy day fund) through science grants and investments (constitutional mandate there), the arts and sciences (again constitutional) or investment in the market (not constitutional) rather than do the last it is often better, easier and more popular to simply cut takes rather than run a real surplus.
In some ways Alan Greenspan's Zero Debt problem led us to where we are now: Old Brookings institute report from 2001 that is interesting today.
A more recent reminder of this washington post
3.9 trillion seems to be the highest estimate I've found for eliminating all of the bush tax cuts. Half of that would average out to around 200 billion a year, and it would barely make a dent in our current deficits.Our current yearly budget deficit is projected to be around 1.2 trillion dollars in the presidents suggested budget with a total budget of 3.824 trillion dollars. You are saying that with a 9% cut in spending each year (which was part of my original statement) which is half of the 19% you were okay with earlier and half of the taxes from the tax cuts coming back we couldn't cut the debt out?
I find that unlikely. Our actual 8 month deficit is $929 billion. Divide by 3 multiple by 4 puts that right around the president's budget of 1.2 trillion (actually it hits 1.3 trillion). If the high estimate you found is right with 3.9 trillion cutting that in half would still be 1.95 trillion dollars -- you are saying that applying 1.95 trillion dollars to a 9 trillion dollar problem wouldn't help -- or that simply using that money and a 9% budget cut wouldn't nearly eliminate the yearly debt?
So basically the Bush tax cuts then amount to less than 9% a year of the yearly budget (since you earlier figure of 18% would supposedly do it and I'm proposing going with 9% and getting rid of the tax cuts)?
I did probably stumble into some hyperbole with the tax cuts allow covering the debt... but it certainly couldn't hurt our odds. Working at Mcdonald's and the $100,000 dollar job might not add much to the bottom line... but it still adding which is better than subtracting.
I'm having some trouble following the numbers here.
The 19% I'm kind of fond of refers to total federal spending as a percentage of GDP.
Assuming eliminating the BTCs would generate 3.9 trillion in ten years that's about 400 billion a year which would be substantial if congress doesn't find something besides deficit reduction to spend it on. Both parties have a lousy track record on controlling spending.
Assuming a 10% total spending cut in a 4 trillion dollar a year federal budget in the interest of round numbers that would be another 400 billion per year.
Both of those comes to ~800 billion knocked off of at least a 1.2 trillion dollar annual deficit which still leaves us bleeding at least 400 billion a year, and entitlement spending would still trend sharply upward.
Are we talking about roughly the same numbers here?
|
|
3.9 trillion seems to be the highest estimate I've found for eliminating all of the bush tax cuts. Half of that would average out to around 200 billion a year, and it would barely make a dent in our current deficits.
Go to this site and see what you can do.
I actually got there more easily than I expected.
The government is bloated, I agree 100%.
It is also made of jobs, so when you cut those funds...
Now to be a bit more fair to the Tax cuts -- Congress is obligated to either spend all the money it pulls in (beyond a small rainy day fund) through science grants and investments (constitutional mandate there), the arts and sciences (again constitutional) or investment in the market (not constitutional) rather than do the last it is often better, easier and more popular to simply cut takes rather than run a real surplus.
In some ways Alan Greenspan's Zero Debt problem led us to where we are now: Old Brookings institute report from 2001 that is interesting today.
A more recent reminder of this washington post
I think the notion of surpluses after eliminating the national debt were never a realistic concern especially in light of exploding entitlement costs.
I have agreed since Perot that the national debt was an enormous danger.
|
|
Now to be a bit more fair to the Tax cuts -- Congress is obligated to either spend all the money it pulls in (beyond a small rainy day fund) through science grants and investments (constitutional mandate there), the arts and sciences (again constitutional) or investment in the market (not constitutional) rather than do the last it is often better, easier and more popular to simply cut takes rather than run a real surplus.
In some ways Alan Greenspan's Zero Debt problem led us to where we are now: Old Brookings institute report from 2001 that is interesting today.
A more recent reminder of this washington post
I think the notion of surpluses after eliminating the national debt were never a realistic concern especially in light of exploding entitlement costs.
I have agreed since Perot that the national debt was an enormous danger.
The national debt is an enormous danger.
We are also paying less in taxes as a percentage of GDP than we have since the 50's
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
Remember the tax code is progressive, so you aren't raising taxes on all income for people who make over 250,000 dollars. You would be raising taxes on the money they make in excess of 250,000 dollars.
I mean, there are a lot of benefits for the rich.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394285/Lawyers-slam-chequebook-jus tice-millionaire-Ryan-LeVin-pays-hit-run-widows.html
3.9 trillion seems to be the highest estimate I've found for eliminating all of the bush tax cuts. Half of that would average out to around 200 billion a year, and it would barely make a dent in our current deficits.Go to this site and see what you can do.
I actually got there more easily than I expected.
The government is bloated, I agree 100%.
It is also made of jobs, so when you cut those funds...
That was easy, and there is so much more I would like to cut that wasn't an option.
|
|
That was easy, and there is so much more I would like to cut that wasn't an option.3.9 trillion seems to be the highest estimate I've found for eliminating all of the bush tax cuts. Half of that would average out to around 200 billion a year, and it would barely make a dent in our current deficits.Go to this site and see what you can do.
I actually got there more easily than I expected.
The government is bloated, I agree 100%.
It is also made of jobs, so when you cut those funds...
Wars are expensive, and worse they are out of country spending.
Okay now bear with me it's been a long time since I've gone through my economics classes.
Well the real question is where is federal spending in comparison to GDP?
governmentspending.com says that the GDP is 16.753 trillion dollars. A budget of 3.9 trillion is 23.8% of the current GDP.
However this raises an issue -- GDP of course includes governmental goods, and services... so if we cut those goods and services we actually cut the GDP too.
So cutting the budget from 23.8% to 19% of GDP will be a reduction of 4.8 percent of government caused GDP which means the GDP shrinks too by 3.4656 percent. So we need the GDP to rise in some way without also increasing governmental spending.
This presents us with two ready solutions: Trade protection. If the price of foreign goods is higher than USA good then more USA goods will sell. Since the creation of goods in the USA is performed by people in the USA this raises GDP -- more demand means more local sells means more value added in the USA (labor is the renewable unsung hero here since it is the only value added commodity that isn't 'bought' in the GDP so to speak), this becomes self perpetuating since more work and workers means more people able to buy meaning more goods needed meaning more workers working (this is what china has been doing but using the second method I'm about to mention). This solution has many problems though -- our trade partners won't like it, China will hate it and it will likely spur USA isolationism again (which generally hasn't been a good thing for the world -- not bad -- but definitely not good either).
The odder solution to this is deflation. If the value of goods decreases against the dollar then we will sell more overseas and we will be able to get more with fewer dollars -- stretching them out more. Then the amount the government cuts without cutting into the GDP can raise too, since actual GDP will increase due to the consumer being able to gain more with less. However this method ends up being self defeating because if the trade deficit doesn't go away. This is because people then start buying more meaning demand goes up and prices do too (inflation) putting us right back where we are.
Also simply cutting government GDP doesn't actually give us anything to pay the debt off with. In fact paying off the debt actually negatively impacts the GDP. This is because when the government spends it only adds to GDP no matter where the money the government spends comes from -- see the problem? Yes debt spending adds to the GDP. Later when you pay off that debt you are actually not spending on producing goods and services... which means the GDP goes down more (paying off that debt spending increase from the years before).
And this is simply to stop debt spending -- it doesn't even touch on paying off the government's debt, our personal debts or ending the trade deficit.
Wars are expensive, and worse they are out of country spending.
Unless you have the means of production located in your own country and everyone is buying their war goods from you (i.e. world war 2)... even then it takes government control of industry to keep things moving smoothly -- without it... well the poor soldiers of the civil war can tell you about their shoddy equipment produced by the lowest bidder out of the cheapest goods made to the lowest standards.
Published on January 29, 2007 by Brian Riedl
Heritage.org?
Really?
|
|
Wars are expensive, and worse they are out of country spending.Unless you have the means of production located in your own country and everyone is buying their war goods from you (i.e. world war 2)... even then it takes government control of industry to keep things moving smoothly -- without it... well the poor soldiers of the civil war can tell you about their shoddy equipment produced by the lowest bidder out of the cheapest goods made to the lowest standards.
Not to mention the infrastructure damage of the Civil War.
Am I to understand that your position is that communist countries and the axis fell because their governments did not have enough control of their economies?
In a matter of speaking for the Axis yes -- after all its hard to control something that is bombed to pieces. The fact of the matter is the axis infrastructure was much more easily targeted than the allies. As such it was easier to take from them -- destroying is taking just as much as invasion is. Once that infrastructure for the economy started disappearing so did the people's will to fight, and ability. As goes the economy so goes the nation.
As for communist? I'm sorry the closest we've seen to an actual communist system has been china... who are we paying our debt to again? They are very much in working order even though they are clearly moving much more towards socialism than communism.
Despotism isn't the same as communism -- even Marx never actually tried to install an actual communist system.
Communism relies on altruism -- which is a self-deception.
Just out of curiosity I want to see what it is that we all agree on.
1. Do we all agree that what the US government is currently doing financally is not working? (BTC, "too big to fail bailouts", Fed inflation, etc.)
2. Do we all agree that what the US government is currently doing, civil-rights wise, is not working? (ie Patriot Act, the Creation of a police state, War on Drugs, etc)
3. Do we all agree that what the US government is currently doing militarly is not working? (ie adventurism, empire building, pre emptive wars, etc.)
If you answered yes to all three questions, I would sincerely like to know why the solution would be to give them more power to continue doing all three.
Edit- Thats not snark. I would really like to know.
Double secret edit- I know this is overly simplified, but just indulge me please. I believe this issue transcends just republican vs. Democrat or what have you. I truly believe that the Government is corrupt. And I truly believe that it was corrupted by greed, ie corporation, banks, etc. I can not see any solution beyond reducing its size and power of the populace. I agree with Cirno in that Government is much too big in the wrong areas.
The problem is I think those three questions are much to broad.
For example on number three:
I think our military is doing an amazing job. Tell me one other country that has had a war as long as this one in the modern era with as few losses as we have had. For the length, distance, and level of immersion our military has had in these wars the casualties being as low as they are is simply amazing. The fact that even with iffy allies (Pakistan) and spotty civilian help our military has managed to almost complete the job in Iraq and is looking to start to do the same in Afghanistan is simply exceptional.
However if you are asking about our foreign policies -- including those in regards to places like China, Europe, Iran, and every where else -- not just our foreign interventions then I'm probably going to find good points too.
The USA is very schizophrenic when it comes to all our policies. This is due to the incredible high rate of cycling we do in government and extremely short attention span to things that are working (or not working).
Yeah I had to double edit it. Im just looking for an over all grade.
I agree that the military is doing an amazing job in the middle east. I just disagree that it is a job they should be doing.
Honestly I would go with a "D" currently and a high one at that.
In my opinion the major problems are coming from the toxic political climate (which honestly the republicans seem intent on keeping -- REPUBLICANS not necessarily tea partiers... my impression is the tea party would vote democrat IF they thought the democrats would somehow fix the deficit -- and if that's not the case the tea party people have been lying so bad they deserve to have their teeth fall out).
The military is functional and even more than functional -- the problem is the gadgetry is getting a bit funky back off the military lobbyist and allow us to approach military research with a method other than throwing billions of dollars at it.
As far as civil rights goes I don't think we are in a horrible position honestly -- the supreme court needs to rethink its position on police responses and illegal search and entry -- this could be readily handled with a repel of 90% of the patriot act (which should be unconstitutional on the grounds that it is unconstitutional), and simply realizing that the fourth amendment requires that evidence illegally gained must be thrown out simply because it is illegal to use it, while punishing those responsible would fix 90% of my problems there.
Financially I again don't think we are in has 'horrible' of shape as is being suggested. I believe repelling the tax cuts, ending a large portion of our foreign spending and redirecting our local spending into projects in infrastructure would go a long way in helping us. Facing the truth and switching over to a government ran health system (not health care but full on health system) would be another great step in reducing waste both in the corporate world and the public sector.
Federal inflation is only a problem if it doesn't produce value -- federal spending is only a problem if it doesn't produce value -- same as with a corporation, so long as the value is there. The government is supposed to stay in the red or close to it -- keeps it hungry and people watching it closely and keeps it out of ownership... but I agree our current place needs at minimum leveling off.
Abraham, I really respect your opinion and I always look forward to your posts as I find myself agreeing with them alot. However, there are some things that I find myself in serious disagreement with here.
1.Civil rights. If we were to enact the changes that you suggest, I would agree that we werent in a horrible position. But we havent and looks like we arent going to in the near future. So I maintain that we are in a pretty bad place.
2. Financially. I dont know what to say other than Standard & Poor's and Moody's disagree with you.
3.Military. I agree that we have a fine military. I guess I should have included the Intelligence community here too and made it a "Foreign Policy" campaign. I apoligize for moving the goalposts and I assure you it was not intentional. I fear that we engaging in adventurism, and how many times does that have to backfire on us before we stop it? Dont forget that at one time our government helped Al-qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarek, etc either come to power or stay in power. I think that maybe its time to stop directly meddling with other nations.
4. Off topic about the Tea Party- I dont think the Tea Party would vote any one way as a collective. The Tea Party seems to me to just be a collective of people who feel angry at the government for various reasons. The reasons vary and I am very wary of anyone who claims to represent them. Incidently, my [sarcasm=]favorite[/sarcasm]kind of tea partier is the "reduce my taxes, but dont touch my Medicare, Social Security, Military, Farm subsidies, or local infrastructure!" types that we have here locally.
Edit- Health System. The only problem I have with this is it should only be implemented at the state level as per the Tenth Amendment. I mean if there was a law that said "Thewhiteknife doesnt have the authority to create a health system, only Abraham Spaulding does." , I would fully expect to be prosecuted if I then created a health system. Rule of Law and such.
Keynesian deficit-spending did NOT get the USA out of the Great Depression; the build-up for World War II did. Ever since, outrageous investment in the machinery of death (how many nuclear warheads does the USA have?) has been one of the cornerstones of American prosperity.
I also don't believe that the United States has EVER really based itself on free markets. Imho, that's 20th-century mythology.
Communism, at least in the Marxist tradition, was NOT based on altruism. It was based on using technological advancements to divide the finite amount of work that needs to be done between the existing population. The dictum of Lenin that "Those who will not work will not eat" is not very touchy-feely.
EDITed last paragraph.
Keynesian deficit-spending did NOT get the USA out of the Great Depression; the build-up for World War II did. Ever since, outrageous investment in the machinery of death (how many nuclear warheads does the USA have?) has been one of the cornerstones of American prosperity.
Uh, what?
The start of WWII actually brought on increased Depression. It wasn't until the US took on a more centralized and planned form of economy that the country began to leave the Depression.
That's why war-time generally helps the economy - because it causes the government to take on a centralized and planned economy. Not because killing brown people somehow magically generates money for us to pick up a'la Grand Theft Auto. Only now we use PMCs instead, so all the war does is create a constant drain of wealth and resources to be funneled right into their pockets.
As for our investment in the MIC, if that's the cornerstone, it's no wonder we're in trouble; what it represents is a lot of money being funneled into intentionally inefficient and unneeded projects that the military doesn't even want, with most of the money ending up in the pockets of a staggeringly small number of military-gear-based groups and corporations. There's a good reason Eisenhower warned against it.
Communism, at least in the Marxist tradition, was NOT based on altruism. It was based on using technological advancements to divide the finite amount of work that needs to be done between the existing population. The dictum of Lenin that "Those who will not work will not eat" is not very touchy-feely.
Leninism is not Marxism.
Communism as defined in the Communist Manifesto is an economic philosophy based on leaving capital as a measure of wealth and instead utilizing labor as a measure of wealth. Leninism is based very strongly on political authoritarianism (see: your quote), while the Communist Manifesto was based on economic theories of labor.
Either way, I would argue that the Communist Manifesto honestly has little to no influence on modern economic thinking. On the other hand, if you graduate ECON without reading through Capital, your school has done you a very grave injustice.
|
|
Just out of curiosity I want to see what it is that we all agree on.
1. Do we all agree that what the US government is currently doing financally is not working? (BTC, "too big to fail bailouts", Fed inflation, etc.)
2. Do we all agree that what the US government is currently doing, civil-rights wise, is not working? (ie Patriot Act, the Creation of a police state, War on Drugs, etc)
3. Do we all agree that what the US government is currently doing militarly is not working? (ie adventurism, empire building, pre emptive wars, etc.)
If you answered yes to all three questions, I would sincerely like to know why the solution would be to give them more power to continue doing all three.
Edit- Thats not snark. I would really like to know.
Double secret edit- I know this is overly simplified, but just indulge me please. I believe this issue transcends just republican vs. Democrat or what have you. I truly believe that the Government is corrupt. And I truly believe that it was corrupted by greed, ie corporation, banks, etc. I can not see any solution beyond reducing its size and power of the populace. I agree with Cirno in that Government is much too big in the wrong areas.
The problem with your question is that is assumes there is an alternative.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. If government isn't the one providing services, who will.
We tried limited government. It was called the dark ages and it sucked.
The problem with your question is that is assumes there is an alternative.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. If government isn't the one providing services, who will.
We tried limited government. It was called the dark ages and it sucked.
Hey, that's not true - we also tried the Articles of Confederation!
Which uh.
Uh.
Uh.
I'm sorry you can't apply the very argument against the government and then hand wave it when it comes to the markets.
As I pointed out if the markets worked the way you suggest they do (or at least 'should') then the fraud wouldn't happen even if the government was inept -- since the market wouldn't allow it.
Until you come up with a legitimate reason on why the market isn't to blame for continuing in the very same sins you point at the government I'm afraid the free market is just as much a failure as the government.
In fact the only thing the markets have ever proven is that they will be corrupt, incompetent, negligent, self-serving, criminal, and liars at every turn possible.
There isn't a single case where that has proven false to date. To say that because people in the free market are swindlers and scumbags and then to say the very institution based on these people isn't faulty or to blame is well below your intelligence level.
I can use that very same argument against your position that big government is bad: "Just because there are scumbags and swindlers in big government is hardly an argument against big government"
It's hypocrisy at worse and simply naivety to the point of stupidity at its best.
"In fact the only thing the markets have ever proven is that they will be corrupt, incompetent, negligent, self-serving, criminal, and liars at every turn possible."
This statement in particular is simply false, and it's intellectually indefensible.
Most people who do business still do it honestly whether for personal reasons or because it's good business or both. Your statement is too grossly general to defend. Some individuals, corporations and markets will behave like you said some will not.
Free markets are likely to be superior to government control precisely because people tend to act in their own self interest and they are better qualified to determine their own interests that some central planner. Capitalism doesn't require everyone to be...
I'm wondering how you would explain something like price fixing then. To me this is one of the biggest potential failings/abuses of a free market.
Edit- Health System. The only problem I have with this is it should only be implemented at the state level as per the Tenth Amendment. I mean if there was a law that said...
The problem I have with free market medicine and insurance and the like is that in a free market you must profit or you fail. So now in order for that hospital to run in a free market it must make money. To make money it has to charge and charge more than it costs to run the hospital. What's more it isn't enough that the hospital profits, it must also do so to the most extreme measure it can -- which means cutting costs, keeping competition out, reducing the amount of work that goes into each and every facet of each part of the operation of the hospital and paying as little as possible. This leads to longer wait times (because you have to be seen but they know they can work the doctors and nurses as hard as possible for as little as possible and you won't leave since you have nowhere else to go), more mistakes, more component failures (lower costs means lower quality too), and generally more suffering.
In the end it is profit at the cost of human misery. The stock holders or owners don't care -- they got their profit, from there it doesn't matter to them at all so long as they get theirs (self-interest).
For me it's as simple as this: No basic business model should be built on taking advantage of the suffering of others.
If the only medical care in town is provided by a for profit hospital then the only place to get medical care is that hospital and you are paying extra because someone else owns the hospital, and they are making money off of your misfortune. For me that's an unethical place to be and unacceptable.
By having public hospitals where the staff gets paid through taxes the hospital doesn't have to worry about how its bills are getting paid. It doesn't have to worry about profit margins. Instead it can focus on giving the best care possible to everyone. It doesn't matter what your ability to pay for the service is because they get paid regardless of what you make.
The constitution provides for taking care of the welfare of the nation -- the health of the nation plays directly into that. In fact I would argue that there is no way possible currently that you can have a state only healthcare system -- all healthcare is interstate -- because the drugs, training, patients, staff, techniques, and communication is too spread out for one state to seal itself off from the others.
Everyday I see patients transferred from one hospital in Indiana to one in Kentucky -- patients from Kentucky going to hospitals in Virgina. Patients from Ohio going to Indianapolis -- there isn't a state level health care system.
Same for insurance -- when you sending your bills to one state for a company in another state with a call center in a third state and you actually live in a fourth state then saying it is a 'state' issue is bull -- it's a national issue -- that's how the businesses treat it (and why they lobby Washington instead of the states) and that's how the nation needs to treat it.
2. Financially. I dont know what to say other than Standard & Poor's and Moody's disagree with you.
Ah yes the fine gentlemen that knew so much they were blindsided by the recession. Yeah they are out only for their profit and anything they say must be viewed from that standpoint. These people don't actually care if what they are saying is accurate for the USA -- they care if it is making them more money than they made before -- not just profit, but excess profit which leads to even more profit.
The business world worships one thing, and respects only one thing: Profit and more profit. If you aren't increasing your profit then you aren't anything to them and should be dropped. Never mind if you have been solid with the same profit margin and market share for the pass 50 years -- if you are not increasing at the pace they expect (not just increasing but increasing even more than before) then you are to be dropped because you aren't good enough.
That is the problem with current business in the USA -- not only must you be increasing but you must be doing so by more than before.
We have a market. The market is 100%. You have say... 5% of that, and are growing at a rate of 10% (so next year you'll have 5.5% of the market). That means in the next year you'll have 6.05% of the market (respectively), followed by 6.7% of the market. However this grow isn't enough for business currently -- instead of simply increasing and growing you are expected to do so at an exponential rate -- not only must you grow but the amount by which you grow must go up too.
So instead of the very respectable 10% that first year putting you at 5.5% the next year you better do 15% putting you at 6.0742% of the market. The next year it better be 20% growth meaning you are taking 7.3% of the market... the problem is that this can't be maintained without increasing the market too, or expanding into new areas. Such progress is exceptional -- but if you are not exceptional then you are trash -- and not just exceptional but always more exceptional.
This is the sort of thing that burns people out in a given field and quickly -- athletes, artists, scientists, generals, everyone crashes because of this mentality. It isn't sustainable and it is overheating and killing our economy -- the horse is being flogged for more but the horse is almost dead, it needs rest, it needs food, it needs drink and it's not being allowed to get any of it.
Hey, I never said that their decisions were altruistic. But no matter why they come to the decision, you have to admit that a downgraded credit rating is bad and not good. These are the agencies that thought that Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, etc. were rock-solid. So how bad off are we that we are not?
I think our biggest communication hurdle here is this. You wish for a more powerful government to keep away the corporate influence. I believe that already government=corporation, big banks, etc. More powerful government just equals a further slide into fascism.
Uh, what?The start of WWII actually brought on increased Depression. It wasn't until the US took on a more centralized and planned form of economy that the country began to leave the Depression....
I probably was unclear or spoke out of ignorance in my first post on this matter, but when I was referring to Keynsian methods above, I was referring to the New Deal and ignoring the many such methods, as you point out, during the War.
With that in mind, and I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but what it looks like you're saying is that the war gave the government a reason to unleash more Keynsian methods and brought it to bear on the lucrative economic venture that is profiteering under the justification of the war effort and that it was THIS that ended the Depression.
I agree and I'm not really sure how your argument counters mine. In fact, to be honest, it sounds like a fine-tuning and refinement of mine.
But my founding in economic theory is very weak. See next post.
Leninism is not Marxism.Communism as defined in the Communist Manifesto is an economic philosophy based on leaving capital as a measure of wealth and instead utilizing labor as a measure of wealth. Leninism is based very strongly on political authoritarianism (see: your quote), while the Communist Manifesto was based on economic theories of labor.
Either way, I would argue that the...
Believe me, as a lifelong commie, I'm well aware of how little Marxism has to do with the parameters of the national conversation!
That being said, and I hate to have a spat over Marx in a Libertarian thread, and I hope BT won't mind (and I'll keep it short!):
In Marx, socialism is the fulfillment of the needs of the working-class, and, as such, is the fulfillment of their self-interest. There is nothing altruistic about it. Workers in the Marxist schema are pursuing their greedy, naked, class-interests just as much as capitalists are in Adam Smith.
It's just, as you allude to, that Marx believed and we Anklebiters believe to this day, that in order to fulfill such needs, they would have to provide for everybody.
I'll defer on Marx vs. Lenin for now so that we'll have something to talk about next we meet, but it was either Marx or Engels who said in regards to the criticism of the hippie anarchists of the day, "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? It's the most authoritarian thing there is." (Rough paraphrase.)
|
|
I think our biggest communication hurdle here is this. You wish for a more powerful government to keep away the corporate influence. I believe that already government=corporation, big banks, etc. More powerful government just equals a further slide into fascism.
But what approach will be most successful in removing the influence. It has always been there, and was generally even worse (read up on party bosses if you don't believe me. Tammany Hall is as good a place to start as any).
The issue I have is that the party of increasing corporations influence is running as the party of limited government.
As an aside, Fascism is more a cult of personality than a coherent philosophy. It is basically "We are superior, because some people are superior, follow me as we join together against them!"
Them being...well, whatever isn't us. When an us is a majority rather than a minority. Fascism!
More or less.
|
|
I'll defer on Marx vs. Lenin for now so that we'll have something to talk about next we meet, but it was either Marx or Engels who said in regards to the criticism of the hippie anarchists of the day, "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? It's the most authoritarian thing there is." (Rough paraphrase.)
Best summary of the French Revolution (and therefore most pre-industrial revolutions) I've seen..
Those who don't learn history are destined to repeat it...
Hey, I never said that their decisions were altruistic. But no matter why they come to the decision, you have to admit that a downgraded credit rating is bad and not good. These are the agencies that thought that Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, etc. were rock-solid. So how bad off are we that we are not?
I'm saying that again they are lying their butts off about the state of the nation for personal gain -- just like they lied about the position of goldman and bear.
Yeah I use the word lie -- I honestly believe they knew what was going on and were lying about it -- their profits certainly didn't plummet hard... which is because they divested. No I won't ever be able to prove it -- the guys are much to slick to be caught by me.
Best summary of the French Revolution (and therefore most pre-industrial revolutions) I've seen..Those who don't learn history are destined to repeat it...
Hee hee! That's great, it's like reading 500 pages of Georges Lefebvre in 6 minutes!
Liberte, fraternite, egalite!
Right so back on track:
Now this is -- speeding senator style
California trying to outdo florida (yes that is a fark reference -- the article is about gun control)
Interesting IPO -- look at the list of buyers.
SCOTUS rules that running from the cops in a vehicle is the same sort of crime as manslaughter
What's the point in having this beautifully polished machinery of oppression , if we never take it out of the garage and grind up some peasants with it?
Seriously, they hafta limit signage for possible police surveillance? Oh that makes sense.
Military-industrial complex in action.
What's the point in having this beautifully polished machinery of oppression , if we never take it out of the garage and grind up some peasants with it?
Seriously, they hafta limit signage for possible police surveillance? Oh that makes sense.
Man if they think window signs are a true sign of tyranny I'd hate to see how they react to the horrifying militarization of the civilian police force.
More fun in the Near East.
|
|
What's the point in having this beautifully polished machinery of oppression , if we never take it out of the garage and grind up some peasants with it?
Seriously, they hafta limit signage for possible police surveillance? Oh that makes sense.
The Washington Times...
Oh the Moonie Gazette always makes me laugh.
Seriously, it is a city ordinance in Dallas being discussed in a Washington Paper.
This is more relevant to your argument. Note which side of the aisle it comes from.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/10/239780/wisconsin-craft-beer/
Stuff that I
linkified
Man if they think window signs are a true sign of tyranny I'd hate to see how they react to the horrifying militarization of the civilian police force.What's the point in having this beautifully polished machinery of oppression , if we never take it out of the garage and grind up some peasants with it?
Seriously, they hafta limit signage for possible police surveillance? Oh that makes sense.
I say that alot, everytime I hear a story like that one. It's kind of my catchphrase, in real life.
Edit- But I agree with you about the militarization of the police force--horrifying. What about m16's and mp5's says "Im here to apprehend you"?
What's the point in having this beautifully polished machinery of oppression , if we never take it out of the garage and grind up some peasants with it?
Seriously, they hafta limit signage for possible police surveillance? Oh that makes sense.
The Washington Times...
Oh the Moonie Gazette always makes me laugh.
Seriously, it is a city ordinance in Dallas being discussed in a Washington Paper.
This is more relevant to your argument. Note which side of the aisle it comes from.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/10/239780/wisconsin-craft-beer/
Thats because both sides of the aisle are the exact same.
Man if they think window signs are a true sign of tyranny I'd hate to see how they react to the horrifying militarization of the civilian police force.What's the point in having this beautifully polished machinery of oppression , if we never take it out of the garage and grind up some peasants with it?
Seriously, they hafta limit signage for possible police surveillance? Oh that makes sense.
I say that alot, everytime I hear a story like that one. It's kind of my catchphrase, in real life.
Edit- But I agree with you about the militarization of the police force--horrifying. What about m16's and mp5's says "Im here to apprehend you"?
Every time a civilian police officer calls someone else a "civilian" I cringe.
