While I was annoyed at George Stephanopoulos for asking during the last Democratic debate whether the candidates would pledge not to raise taxes, I was more annoyed with Clinton and Obama’s answers.
Everyone in this country wants something for nothing. We want our road and bridges maintained, but don’t tax our gas. We want our children educated, but don’t tax our properties. And on and on.
I wish the Democratic candidates had had the cojones to tell the American people that this country will not be able to get out of the clusterf—k we are currently in because of King George without additional money in the government coffers. I realize that this is a hard thing to hear, especially when so many Americans are suffering economically. Nevertheless, we need a president who has the courage to speak the truth, even when the truth hurts.
One of the toughest questions that will face the next president is what to do about taxes. There can be no real progress on health care, rebuilding the military or any other major issue without dealing with rising budget deficits and mounting debt from nearly eight years of profligate spending and tax breaks for the wealthy.And that is why it has been so distressing to see all three of the presidential hopefuls pretend they can make good on their promises without broadly raising taxes.
This is the reality:
To restore the health of the budget, let alone keep ambitious campaign pledges for spending more money, the next president, regardless of which party wins, will have to tax the American people more than any of the candidates has been willing to admit.
Senator John McCain’s tax talk is particularly divorced from reality.
The presumed Republican nominee has been offering a free-lunch extravaganza — hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks per year, on top of extending President Bush’s tax cuts, with no credible way to make up for the money the government will lose. The more criticism he has faced, the more nonsensical his justifications have become.
Among his more peculiar recent comments is his insistence that today’s superlow tax rates on capital gains — which overwhelmingly benefit the very richest Americans and which he wants to preserve — are important for working people with 401(k) retirement plans. Memo to Mr. McCain: 401(k) savers get no benefit from a low capital gains rate. All of the money in those plans is eventually taxed at ordinary income tax rates, not at the special reduced rate for capital gains.
Sadly, blundering and blustering on taxes is a nonpartisan affliction. In their debate before the Pennsylvania primary, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both took the bait when George Stephanopoulos, one of the ABC News moderators, asked them about a “read-my-lips,” no-new-taxes pledge.
Mrs. Clinton promised to not raise taxes on “middle-class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year.” Mr. Obama pledged to cut taxes starting at incomes less than “$200,000 and $250,000.”
Apart from their rather odd definition of middle class, neither candidate’s numbers add up. In the United States today, anyone making anywhere near a quarter-million dollars a year is in the top 3 percent or so of taxpayers. (The median income is about $50,000.) Even in the states with the largest percentage of taxpayers making above $200,000 — Connecticut and New Jersey — only 6 percent of the population makes that much.
In effect, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are saying that they can pay for their promises mainly by raising taxes on the top 3 percent of taxpayers. That’s neither politically nor economically plausible.
We could cut DoD's budget, too
Here’s the other elephant in the room: DoD’s budget. We spend nearly one quarter (500B) of our current federal budget (2+T) on national defense. And THAT does not count the cost of our excellent adventure in Iraq, which is all being funded through emergency budget supplements. It’s time we had a debate about just how much is too much to spend on defense. So do we really need to contract out logistics to firms like Haliburton or can the DoD supply system handle it with its civil servant workforce? Do we need other contractors like Booze Allen, CSC, CACI and other firms as “consultants” or can the professional government employees do just as well? These are only a few of the questions we need to start asking ourselves.
pd
point well taken
however, the military is only 4%, or 8% of the total… remember it was cut i think during bush i. Supplemental spending is astounding.
You underestimate the cost of the bullets
Actually, defense was 19% of this year’s budget, not including the special appropriations for the wars. You can either download the couple hundred pages of the budget from the OMB or just read the wiki summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal…
If you throw in the cost of the wars, it probably would have been about 25% of the total budget.
But I digress…the topic was about realistic tax policies. So how are we paying for the war? Every other war in history was funded either through special taxes or sale of bonds to American citizens. This one is being funded by China. Sorry Billy, we have to move, China is repossessing our country. Just think, we are still paying a special tax for the Spanish-American war (through a telephone tax, which at the time was a surrogate tax for the rich). And that was a cheap war. We should have kept Cuba. Nice beaches… It would have been worth paying the extra phone fees all these years.
FYI – there have been a number of recent attempts to get rid of the Spanish-American tax, here is a link to one example: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.189…
thanks for the info
yes, i find these figures disturbing…
The approximately 256
The approximately 256 billion surplus we had in 2000 when Bush took office would be nice about now. One-sided – supply-side – economic policy over the last eight years has eroded our economic growth and plunged us into a disgusting amount of debt. The gospel of wealth must die this election cycle.
We spend (waste?) far more
We spend (waste?) far more on failed public education. No tax-addict ever wants to cut taxes, but the fact is that if every government entity would reduce spending by one percent per year for five years, we’d have no problems.
No tax-addict wants that!
We need more uneducated people
They are more likely to vote Republican.
Best way to help the poor
Best way to help the poor is to raise their taxes. Teaches ‘em a good lesson.
great point
i feel the best way we can make changes is to raise taxes on the rich and make them pay the same PERCENTAGE rates as the middle class does.
The "Bitter" Truth
Ah – these are the posts that I wait for. They’re like a bad pitch, just hanging over the plate, waiting to be knocked out of the park. So, essentially Blackrobe’s argument (via the New York Times – and are we REALLY shocked on that one?) boils down to this: in times of economic uncertainty, individuals simply cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs. Therefore, government MUST step in, confiscate more of your earnings, and redistribute them according to – well, whatever method the government damn well feels like. Excuse my ignorance, but perhaps somebody can explain to me how exactly this helps Joe Taxpayer, whom the government-enhancers claim empathy for? I can just imagine the late-night plotting in a smoke-filled room somewhere. “No, no – we can’t CUT taxes! Are you nuts?! That leaves us out in the cold! We’d have no say in how people spend their money! What we need to do is take MORE of it, then tell the people that we’re ‘redistributing according to need’. Clever, huh? The new pollster said 6 out of 10 will buy it! That way, we can funnel some to a couple firms that endorsed me and maybe shoot some to ‘public works projects’. That ought to keep the unions happy. CUT TAXES? Please…” The simple truth is that anyone who looks to government first to solve problems cannot see the forest for the trees. They don’t see that GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM! I can think of several common-sense ideas that would do far more to solve our “budgetary crisis” than a good ‘ol tax increase. For example, if you believe that Washington will cease to exist if each department takes a 5% across-the-board budget cut (yes, including DoD, pd), you’re not anchored on Earth. You want “additional revenue” flowing to the federal government? Conduct a serious top-down review of each and every federal program and actually CANCEL programs shown to have NO SERIOUS IMPACT whatsoever. I guarantee you that, like magic, billions of dollars would suddenly appear to be available. Let’s not even discuss “earmarks” (aka “bend over, America, so I can be re-elected back home”). If you want “new sources of revenue” for generations to come, how about graduating kids from high school that can actually read, write, and perform simple arithmetic? Yes, I know – the schools “have no money. It’s all tied up in Iraq”. The federal government has spent the equivalent of the GNP of several mid-sized countries on public education over the years, and to what avail? The graduation rates at some schools (that receive generous financial aid from the feds) remains pitiful. Does this suggest a “spending problem”? Yes, I know – we need a “common solution” for the “health care” crisis. This will require a “massive influx of revenue”. A good number of the uninsured are either employees of small businesses or independent contractors. The last thing we should do is dip into their pocket for MORE of their income. In fact, the most efficient solution to “solving health care” would involve an extremely complex and difficult procedure – namely, um, letting them keep more of their own money. Then, just perhaps, they could purchase THEIR OWN insurance, no? Oh, THE HORROR! Their “own insurance”?! I know – the government-centrics couldn’t tolerate that. At the risk of becoming too “bitter”, I suppose I’ll close. Blackrobe claims he has the “courage to speak the truth”. Whose truth, my friend?
Dear Gentleman, How Predictable Your Comment
Dear Gentleman,
Your party’s candidate, George Bush, inherited a budget surplus. He pissed that away on a war that hasn’t done a damn bit of good for this country. We could have taken that money and put it into maintaining and improving this country’s infrastructure and, in the process, created decent-paying jobs for many U.S. citizens.
Your party is the one that created giant tax loopholes that encourage American business go take their operations offshore.
Your party is the party that refuses to regulate insurance companies. I’d love for you to explain to us the mechanics of how individuals would go about purchasing insurance policies. It is already a nighmare for companies to do so, and they have a heck of lot more bargaining power than do individuals.
The thing is, Mr. Libertarian, the market in this country is not a free market. And no, it is not because of the unions and the regulators. It is because government gives tax advantages and subsidies to big business. Until I hear you railing against those things, I will just assume that your libertarianism is just a fancy name for plain selfishness and self-centeredness.
-blackrobe
"Intellectual Firepower", Part 2
I’m not sure why I was expecting an intelligent argument here. I suppose in that sense I am an idealist. In posting your “article” earlier, I assumed (correctly) that you’re sole solution to current economic challenges would be: government, government, and more government. I posed the question of HOW exactly massive tax and spending increases would assist the Average Joe (who is…ahem, always foremost in the minds of liberals) during said challenges. Your response? A rant over the “evils” of corporate America and a few insults. How predictable. If this is the case, I suppose I’ll answer my own question (considering I love to hear myself talk…err, type…). Massive tax and spending increases do NOTHING but grow the federal government to nearly unsustainable levels and line the pockets of favored contributors while further eroding the buying and saving power of the Average Joe. Wait – I know. Only “the rich” will feel the pain. Please point out one tax increase in American history where only “the rich” were affected. You can’t do it. Is it “selfish” or “self-centered” to recognize this? The only selfish individuals here would be those who believe only THEY have the answers and only THEY can be trusted to save the “great unwashed” from themselves. Oh, and as for the “mechanics” of individuals purchasing their own insurance, Blackrobe? I’ll walk you through it, step by step. Ready? I hope you’re taking notes here. 1) The government provides an uninsured individual with either a tax deduction or refundable tax credit (depending on income level) for most or all of the cost of an insurance premium. 2) Individual pays insurance premium with means provided. 3) Individual is insured. Scary, isn’t it? We didn’t even need a new, huge bureaucracy either. Wow. Oh – and you’re right, by the way. Thanks to constant government interference, America doesn’t have a “free market”. We’re in agreement there. Do you have any other talking points you’d like to run through today, Mr. or Ms. Blackrobe?
The 20-something perspective
I have to laugh. You need to live a little and your attitude will change. In case you don’t know, the hallowed halls of ivy aren’t exactly the real world. I used to spout the same gibberish you do until I went to work, grew up and learned better.
pd
Firepower?
More like hot air. The gentlemen is usually not so defensive. Me thinks blackrobe has touched a nerve. On the surface it looks like a well conceived argument, while in reality it is an egoistic list of contradictions. In one sentence I read too much government is a bad thing, in the next I see a simple three step approach to government sponsored healthcare. Not to mention the volumes this would add to the tax code. The current republican administration offered its version of a tax cut which did nothing to increase the buying power of the average joe. Too little government can be a bad thing as well. The current administration has been so preoccupied with Iraq to notice the economy was in a downward spiral. You state only the selfish would believe they have the answers and then proceed to provide what you believe to be the answer to the health insurance problem. I am not bold enough to say what the optimal amount of government should be, but I know it should at no time infringe on the personal freedoms and choices of individuals. As for personal income taxes, that’s another complicated situation. Ideally, I should pay less and everyone else should pay more.
A Little Clarity, Anonymous...
Does your head hurt? After that bit of spin, it should. There was no “egoistic list of contradictions” in my response. If my choices in providing healthcare to the uninsured are between a tax deduction or credit and the creation of a huge new bureaucracy that oversees healthcare for 300 million individuals, guess which one I’m going for? I’d rather add a few pages to the tax code than an entire department to the government. Since when are government-centrics sensitive over expanding the tax code, anyway? My “selfish” statement (which you spun so very well – kudos) concerned those who would expand government because they feel only government is capable of solving problems (i.e., “only they have the answers”). How about trusting the American people for a change? If believing this makes me “selfish” or a “hypocrite”, I’m proud to be both. By the way, given your “personal freedoms and choices” statement, Anonymous, I would think a health care proposal involving tax credits would be a go with you?
Trust
Trusting the American people to do what? The majority of Americans prefer to have their decisions made for them. Some Americans foolishly believe their government is actually there to help. Expecting it to function as was intended. Not a bad idea on the healthcare and tax credits, but you know that’s going to create at least one new department and who knows how many levels of bureaucracy. Besides, who is going to provide the healthcare coverage? How much of tax credit will be given? Different income levels, different family sizes will all have to be taken in to account. The average insurance premium for a family of four is more than an eligible famliy pays in taxes. The solution is more complicated than you make it out to be.
True, Anonymous...
You’re correct that such a program wouldn’t be entirely seamless, but it would be much less expensive and difficult to administer than any other proposal on health care currently being debated. I would like to see any tax deduction or tax credit cover most, if not all, of the premium cost, especially for families with children. Different incomes and family sizes should be taken in to account, with those more able to pay receiving less of a credit or deduction. Small businesses should be included as well, considering a good number of the uninsured are employed by such businesses. As I said before, it’ll add some to the tax code, but if my choices are either that or the creation of a new branch of the federal government, it’s no choice at all.
Bureaucracy is in place for health care
Let me preface by saying that I no longer believe INSURANCE is the answer to the health care problems this country faces. That said, the federal government already has a bureaucracy in place to handle health insurance. It’s called FEHB (federal employees health benefits). Every year the federal government negotiates group rates and coverages with a number of health insurers (including the Blues). All information is online for easy comparison of the plans offered. It’s a simple process to sign up or change carriers (once a year) on line. Nothing new is required, only access to the system by non-feds is needed.
pd
So, I guess you are saying that my argument is not intelligent
So, who is insulting who?
You fail to acknowledge that the average person would have absolutely no bargaining power against insurance companies.
But it was naive of me to think that you would actually give a factual refutation of my argument.
I never ranted about the evils of corporate America. What I said is that the market is not truly free because of various tax breaks, tax loopholes, subsidies, etc., all at the expense of the Average Joe.
I guess that you would rather have a government that does not monitor the safety of drugs, meat, etc., because (gasp) it is government regulation. OK, so fine, let the lawyers act as the people’s attorneys general and act as check on corporate negligence and securities fraud. Oh wait, I bet you are one of those people railing against trial lawyers. Am I wrong?
Do us all a favor and be intellectually honest. You are a Libertarian who does not give a good God damn about anyone but himself. You are very happy with the notion of living in a oligarchy because you are a member of it.
Response from the "Oligarch"
Ha! “Oligarchy”?! I actually did laugh out loud at that one, Blackrobe. Do I detect a bit of Marxism? If you actually knew me, you’d feel a bit embarrassed right about now. Anyway, you still haven’t responded to my, well, response, to your original argument, and I suspect you could continue this merry-go-round of insults and non-responses for eternity. I indeed provided you with a factual refutation of your argument – you just apparently don’t agree with said facts. You keep throwing out the term “Libertarian” as if it’s akin to the Scarlet Letter. “Look – he’s wearing a large red ‘L’! LIBERT-AAAARIAAANN! Back, heathen, back!” Actually, I wouldn’t call myself a Libertarian, but that’s neither here nor there. This is apparently your way of attempting to establish a moral high ground. I’m sorry to spoil your self-indulgence party. I never said EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of government is a bad thing. My argument centered on government efforts to “stimulate” the economy. You, once again in an effort to change the subject, laughingly broadened the conversation to include my non-existent condemnation of food safety and securities fraud (still scratching my head there…). You indeed ranted about the evils of “corporate America”, as if the only thing standing between Joe Taxpayer and economic utopia is the boardroom (and if only we had a “strong government” to “stand up” to the members that make up said boardroom). So, Blackrobe, since you won’t make a coherent argument for yourself, I’ll attempt to construct a closing argument for you:
“In the times of economic uncertainty, the American people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs. A strong central government is needed to right the wrongs done to these poor naive individuals by the vicious predators of corporate America. All taxes should be raised immediately, so that the good souls of the federal government can see to it that every single American is provided for. Anyone who disagrees with this statement is a black-hearted monster who is only concerned about themselves.”
Does that about cover it?
(P.S. – One more question, if you care to actually answer: Since you’re convinced that no individual would have “bargaining power” over insurance companies, how do you feel about association health plans for small businesses?)
P.S., Gentleman
I didn’t say that I had the “courage to speak the truth,” although I do (and, no, it does not always do wonders for my popularity or my employability). I said I wished one of the candidates for president had the courage to speak the truth.
Funny, too, how you assume that “blackrobe” is a man.
I guess it is too much of a “HORROR” to think that woman would have the intellectual firepower to take on the Gentleman.
BlackRobe
Relax, the gent just likes to hear himself talk. You know, many words-no substance. If you agree with him, it’s a discussion, if you disagree, it’s a onesided argument. O’Reilly, Cafferty, etc. – you know the type. They’re always right and they’ll tell you why they are.
Always giving the less government pitch, but willing to govern what you do in your own living room.
Nice Try, Blackrobe...
Actually, to be honest, I really don’t lose sleep over whether you’re a man or a woman, Blackrobe (and I certainly wouldn’t make hay over how someone unintentionally classifies to me on a blog, unless I was attempting to score points on pettiness. On that note, you’ve been rather successful). However, for your sake, I’ll attempt to be more “gender-neutral” in my comments from now on. I wouldn’t want to go and upset you again.
Republicans did this on purpose
Run up a huge deficit while cutting taxes for the wealthier population. Reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy and those who have investment income should be taxed higher than 15%. Warren Buffett said it was ridiculous that the average consumer paid less taxes as a % of their income than millionaires and billionaires!!!
Stop Corporate Welfare – they have had record profits for the last 10+ years and pay less taxes! Stop subsidies for Corporations – unless they provide more good-paying jobs here in the US, and stop outsourcing jobs! We subsidize corporations with Billion$ in profit – like Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies for Medicare Part D – and they still overcharge!! Oil companies, etc. It’s ludicrous that we subsidize them and provide tax breaks.
We probably could lower taxes on individuals if we had an administration and congress that enforced the tax laws and stopped giving tax breaks to corporations that ship all the jobs to China.
Gentleman? I dont' think so...
The government is us. If it is failing, it is because we are failing.
But don’t for a minute expect us to accept your simple-minded “government is evil” routine. Government, like any other entity is neither good nor evil, it is simple the sum of its parts. And mostly it’s a “top down” structure. The people at the top create a culture that the mere supplicants must adhere to, so they can keep their jobs and pay their mortgages. When 60% of EPA employees report that they’ve been “pressured” to report information in a “certain way,” then you understand just how compromised the entire Federal government is, not by hard-working Federal employees…but by an evil, duplicitous Administration which feels need to micromanage and win at all costs.
And am I wrong, but are you trying to tell me that the government should get its act together and economize? Isn’t that what the GOP is supposed to be all about? GWB has 7 years. What are they waiting for, the Rapture?
Listen. Here’s the simplistic bottom line (so you can understand it)
- Anyone who advocates for higher taxes loses elections. Anyone who says they’ll cuts taxes, wins. It’s not pretty or intellectually accurate, but no one ever lost money better against the intelligence of the average voter. So the GOP goes on blathering about “tax breaks,” fully aware that they are counter-intuitive and defy an economic sense. They KNOW that a great deal of voters are, and I’m not being mean here, simply too stupid to parse the reality of the situation.
Pilt
Thank you, Pilt. I feel so enlightened...
Wow. Thank you, Pilt. I very much appreciate you breaking things down for me like that. I see things so much more clearly now. Your “we’re failing” line reminds me of Carter blaming the American public for his failings. Yes, I’m absolutely trying to tell you that government should “get it’s act together and economize”. I’m not necessarily a huge fan of congressional Republicans or President Bush on that issue. The GOP needs to find their ba-...er, spine, and actually begin to walk the walk on spending again. I do have a few questions for you, my friend, and hopefully you’ll actually care to answer, unlike some others on the good ‘ol KP. What exactly is the “reality” of the situation that Joe (or Jane – sorry Blackrobe…) Taxpayer is too dull to “parse”? That they need to pay higher taxes? For what? What new federal program can’t the Taxpayers live without? To me, you first should attempt to get your own house in order before looking to someone else’s. By that I mean, until the federal government performs a thorough top-down review of each and every program AND proves each and every program worth their salt, they have no business coming to the American people with their hand out, claiming “hardship”. Why? There are literally BILLIONS that could be freed by eliminating useless or duplicative programs, not to mention the federal re-election fund, a.k.a., “congressional earmarks”. These people have the nerve to suggest the American people need to pony up more to finance their never-ending party? Sorry – that doesn’t fly. Perhaps I’m just too “stupid” to grasp the reality of the situation, though. Or am I “self-centered” and “egoistic”? I can never keep the insults straight. Oh well…You question the “intelligence” of the average voter. Maybe, and this is just a possibility, the average Joe or Jane is “intelligent” enough to recognize legal theft when he or she sees it. Oh, by the way, how exactly are tax breaks “counter-intuitive”? Is that the definition of something that is effective each and every time it’s been tried? Please show me any tax cut throughout history that has failed in it’s objective? You can’t do it. Oh, there I go, being “simplistic” again…
Supply-Side Economics
Oh yes, it has done wonders for the average American. Without it, how would all of those trust-funders and Wall-streeters have enough money to go to charity balls?
Great comment on
Great comment on supply-side economics. I too, have blasted the Bush Admin for their one-sided approach to the economy, which has crushed middle class Americans.
That being said, I will caution against completely disregarding the importance of the supply-side. It is absolutely critical that governements create an atmosphere conductive to business growth and expansion. Certainly taxes and incentitives, need to be properly place to keep America competetive.
But, your correct, the Bush Admin’s manipulation of the concept has really hurt the average American. Besides, I don’t remember any average Americans clammering for a complete overhaul of the tax system during the properous 90s. In fact, if I recall correctly the economy was growing at bit better back then too.
JM
OK. Here's what I mean.
Governments are complex organizations. Your idea that we should have a thorough, top-down examination of all programs is wonderful, in a fantasy-world sort of way. And it is simplistic. It’s a simplistic, Libertarian answer to a much larger issue. My guess, and it’s just that, is that even a massive down-sizing of government wouldn’t save enough money to really make a difference in the Federal budget.
Understand, no one in their right mind would argue against such a review, but I think we all understand that the actual, real-world attempt to undertake something of that scale is impossible.
But hold on a second. The truth is probably elsewhere. The GAO does keep an eye on many programs. Congress does sometimes de-fund programs. Others are time-limited from the start.
But the funny thing is, Congress, who enacts most of this stuff, does it because someone perceives a need for it.
When I talk about your average voter, I’m referring to people who will piss and moan when a bridge is under construction or a road is in bad shape, but will then go to the polls and vote against anyone who might suggest that we need more taxes to fund infrastructure.
As to tax breaks. Show me exactly how well the Bush tax cuts have improved my life…or the lives of others in our country right now…many of whom are on the precipice of fiscal disaster…
Pilt
So, Pghtory...
How are those Bush tax cuts working out for you personally? Inquiring minds want to know.
pd
Marxism, Stimulus Plans, etc.
Wow, so now I am a Marxist just because I used the word oligarchy. Yeesh. Yet you say that I am the one engaging in name-calling.
I have to wonder how you feel about our government coming to the rescue of Bear Stearns. Is that ok? But no, let’s not have a program that benefits all Americans by fixing up our aging infrastructure (remember the bridge collapse) and, in the process, creating decent-paying jobs for people who no longer have construction jobs because the housing market has collapsed. That smacks of Marxism.
So, I guess you would rather have the U.S. be more like some South American countries, where there is essentially no middle class and the wealthy have to live behind gates, travel with body guards, and take helicopters from place to place for fear that they will be kidnapped and held for ransom.
You Win, Blackrobe.
Another day, another non-answer. I asked for your feelings on association health plans and tax credits for health insurance, and you respond with Bear Stearns (?!) and the demographics of South American countries. Nice. Why even attempt any further intelligent discussion at this point? Please, for the sake of the sanity of the other bloggers (considering your constantly concerned about the well-being of your fellow man), don’t post articles you apparently aren’t prepared to debate (or is the real problem that you never expected any opposition?). It’ll save everyone a lot of time and energy. Thank you and have a terrific day.
The Gentleman, King of Tautology
So Gentleman,
If you read the other responses to my original post, you will see that you are the only person whose sanity is being challenged.
Do you propose giving tax credits to people all taxpayers, or only those who itemize? What about people who are Social Security?
Association health plans are fine, but allowing them won’t magically make every employer provide health care benefits for their employees, regardless of whether they work full-time or part-time, have pre-existing conditions, etc.
I never said that governmental health care is the only answer. Take Finland, for example. Everyone in Finland is covered by the country’s public healthcare system. Public healthcare services provide primary healthcare and medical treatment. Employers are free to provide additional health benefits to their employees. Please tell me what is wrong with that? Have you ever stopped to think about the cost of having so many people in this country be uninsured? Have you contemplated the costs of lost productivity, taken into account the cost of ER visits by uninsured individuals, etc.?
tau·tol·o·gy Audio Help (tô-tŏl‘ə-jē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
Your arguments are essentially a tautology.
(1)
(a)Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
(b)An instance of such repetition.
(2)Logic: An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.
Enjoy life in your echo chamber.
-blackrobe
Gent & Blackrobe
Are you two done yet? The discussion has been lost in your insessant need to challange one anothers intellect(or lack of). We get it, you each own a thesaurus and occassionaly read Newsweek and/or the National Review. The time has come to move on.
I own a thesaurus, but all
I own a thesaurus, but all I can say is “Great Comment”
Blackrobe & Gent
I have enjoyed reading some your debate, specifically the health care policy recommendations. I am embarrassed, however, at how quickly it has morphed into childish name calling spat, similar to what we have become accustomed to in both Harrisburg and Washington. I would prefer if each of you would find your voice and get back on message, as you have made some great points.
Gent has suggested the use of refundable tax credits to reduce health care costs. I could not agree more. Providing the American people, and companies for that matter, a monetary ROI in the form of a refundable tax credit to actively participate in wellness policies would go a long way in reducing health care costs. Remember a pound of prevention is superior to an ounce of cure.
Blackrobe has endorsed an equally important aspect to improved health care policy in the United States by noting the failure of the insurance market. The insurance market is afflicted with information asymmetries on the part of buyers and sellers resulting in devestating adverse selection. As the process of adverse selection continues, only the individuals who expect, based on private information regarding their current and prospective health status, to have medical bills greater than the cost of their premiums will elect to enroll in coverage. While, healthy individuals may elect to go without coverage as premiums increase; thus eroding the insurance companies ability to spread out the risk. Insurance premiums continue to skyrocket until health becomes unaffordable to the masses. Another huge problem with this is that even healthy individuals develop serious and expensive medical conditions and/or are involved in accidents that require medical intervention. When this occurs, the uninsured go to the place of last resort – the ER, which is the most expensive medical intervention point. In the ER, the insured pay for their uncompensated care in the form of higher medical premiums and bills. Either way we are going to pay, I’d prefer to pay to have everyone insured so that we can all access preventative check-ups and have piece of mind that major medical conditions would not result in losing everything one has ever worked to obtain.
So, please get back on point. The issues are too important. Clearly, you two come from opposing viewpoints… DO NOT LET THAT STOP THE DEBATE.
JM
Thanks, JM
I will endeavor to tone down the name-calling and invective. I suppose that my fight-or-flight response was triggered by the sarcastic and supercilious tone of the Gent’s comments.
As the saying goes, A society can be judged on how well it treats its poor. What galls me about people who espouse views like the Gent’s is that they see no value in protecting the common good. It’s all about rights, but no responsibiities.
Contrary to his assertions, I am not a Marxist. Rather, I believe in enlightened self-interest. I believe that hard work, perseverence and intelligence should be valued and rewarded.
The logical (and apparent, see various South American countries) result of unenlightened self-interest is society with a small upper class, no middle class and a large lower class. I question how enjoyable life can be in a place like Sao Paulo, Brazil, for the rich if they always have to fear for their safety.
-blackrobe
Yes, JM...Thank You
Yes, JM, I will attempt to tone down my “sarcasm and superciliousness”, following the lead of Blackrobe’s nixing of his or her :name-calling and invective” (by the way, I didn’t know blogging on KP was similar to giving a dissertation…oops – that was sarcasm…sorry…). If we are transforming this debate from how best government can stimulate the economy to the overall role of government in society (the paradigm keeps shifting here), I suppose my friend Blackrobe seems a bit conflicted. On one hand, BR claims “hard work, perseverance, and intelligence” should be rewarded, but under BR’s vision for a large central government, a good portion of the fruits of one’s labor would be confiscated in the name of the “common good”. This is what “enlightenment” looks like? It is true that societies should be judged on how they treat their poor – BR and I are actually in agreement there. I would argue that the most successful American social policy in the past half-century was the welfare reform bill of 1996. The work and training requirements in that bill succeeded in moving millions of previously unemployable individuals into the workforce and helping them achieve a sense of independence and pride, which should be the goal of any public assistance policy. I fear that individuals such as BR see an activist government as an end to be achieved by any means necessary, but society would cease to function otherwise. I would argue that government-backed measures, in small, carefully calculated doses (dealing with areas such as education, health care, welfare reform, etc.) should be a means to achieving the worthy end of individual independence FROM government. When debating individuals like BR, I always come away with the sense that they honestly believe America (or the world, for that matter) would simply descend into chaos if “well-meaning” individuals like themselves are away from the helm of the ship for too long. Society NEEDS them, they feel. America indeed has a responsibility to those who weren’t born with silver spoons (or even A spoon), and the best thing we can do is provide a helping hand, not a heavy one. Ordinary people aren’t looking for some Earth-bound “savior” to shoulder their burdens and lead them around by the hand. They’re looking for a little more take-home in their paychecks, teachers who can actually teach, safe neighborhoods, and a feeling that they are protected from threats to their family’s safety. I’m sorry to burst the bubble of my good friend BR, but other than that, they’d pretty much like to be left alone. Oh, and I’m quite sure they don’t really care much about the “class struggle” in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Did you do a thesis on that or something, BR?
You call that toning down the sarcasm?
Gent,
Clearly it is not possible for you.
I am amused at how you equate enlightened self-interest with a nanny state. Nowhere in this post have I advocated for a nanny state. What I have a problem with is people who say “let the market decide” and then give tax breaks and subsidies to big business while, at the same time, let the average Joe twist in the wind.
Yes, people want “teachers who can actually teach, safe neighborhoods, and a feeling that they are protected from threats to their family’s safety.” The question is, how do you pay for that? If you do not pay teachers a decent salary and provide them with safe schools in which to teach, how do expect to attract excellent teachers? And safe neighborhoods = police and firefighters = $.
Also, my comment about rewarding hard work, perseverance and intelligence was to refute your accusation that I am a Marxist.
Given all this, I thought it appropriate it include a brief definition of enlightened self-interest.
I used Sao Paulo, Brazil as an example of the result of unenlightened self-interest. It was you who read into it a commentary of the “class struggle” in Brazil.
But I guess I should expect that you will read into my comments anything that suits your agenda.
And you are the one who has transformed the conversation. If you look at my original post, it was about the no-new-taxes pledge.
-BR
Ben Franklin's philosophy
Enlightened self-interest is the same one Franklin used to establish many of the institutions and associations we pride ourselves on as Pennsylvanians and Americans. Therefore, Pghtory’s comments against it means he hates America.
pd
Glaring Omission, BR...
I like how you, ahem, “edited” a portion of my post to exclude ordinary taxpayers wanting a “little more take-home” in their paychecks. In your view, it seems like NO government-related program, organization, or entity has an appropriate level of funding. I suppose we could start an entirely new thread on education policy in America. You appear to believe our education problems can be blamed solely on a chronic lack of funding, which I would disagree with. However, that’s for another day. Do I get the impression from your most recent post that you would support an INCREASE in DoD’s budget? Or is this one area of the government that could stand to be cut, in your view?
You still haven’t addressed your glaring contradiction of how “hard work, perseverance, and intelligence” would be, under your economic system, rewarded with higher marginal tax rates? Just an FYI for you: I’m not a huge fan of “corporate” tax breaks myself. I believe “corporate America” is a little too close for comfort with the federal government. However, this isn’t solely a Republican phenomenon. The Democrats have a fairly sizable corporate thread running through their party as well (not that it makes it alright). To me, the notion of “corporate welfare” is an abomination, just as the loopholes in the tax code that permit those in the financial markets to shield assets offshore are. Those should have been closed years ago. Can you imagine the savings if corporate welfare AND offshore loopholes were axed? Billions could be funneled into actual deserving programs or (better yet) returned to the taxpayers.
I could be wrong, but I believe throughout this entire thread, you’ve missed my entire overarching theme, BR. You’ve preach “enlightened self-interest”, which is great. I’m sure you sincerely believe the policies you advocate are in the best interests of your fellow man. I would never fault a person for holding deeply held-beliefs, however misguided I personally feel those beliefs might be. If I gave you the opposite impression, I sincerely apologize. That said, I believe you feel that a person who takes the opposite view, namely that the best policy route for the government to take is to empower individuals and families to handle their own affairs, is somehow greedy, underhanded, and/or selfish. In my mind, nothing could be further from the truth. In my view, it all boils down to what you want your government to be. As I said before, if you see government as an end unto itself, meaning that society must thrive off the direction and deeds of government, then your view is understandable (mistaken, but understandable). However, if you see government as a means to an end, meaning that the actions of government empower individuals to stand on their own, then I believe my view makes sense. In my humble opinion, every comment that you’ve written here suggests that you view government as an end unto itself, and anything that “starves the beast” (i.e., tax cuts, spending cuts, privatization, etc.) is to be blasted as evil, selfish, etc., not necessarily because it would necessarily hurt individuals, but due to the fact that it would place government in a weaker position. In your view, THAT is what would ultimately place the public in harm’s way. Government would be smaller, so naturally people would be more vulnerable. In other words, the shield of the protector would be cracked.
And yes, I think I did tone down the sarcasm. I do have to admit your “invective” was a little easier to deal with this time, too…(kidding)
No real answers
All of your comments are interesting to say the least. After all this reading, I have come to the conclusion there are no simple solutions to the crisis facing our country. With each passing day it seems Americans are becoming less able to find a common ground. What has happened to give-and-take, compromise, and finding a common ground for the common good? There are almost as many opinions, views and values as there are Americans. Oh well, blog on. It beats not saying anything.
To build on your commentary:
Solid economic policy consists of both supply and demand side initatives, which will reqire a good deal of give-and-take to implement. Currently, our country is severly lacking on the demand-side of the equation, as we have failed miserably when it comes to investing in the lower – middle class.
One further note, economic policy must pass three smell tests: 1) factual; 2) moral and; 3) political. Our current policy fails on every level, after orginally being spun as politically acceptable… of course, that tide is begining to change.
Gent, do you actually read what I write?
You seem to enjoy conflating my arguments. Again, my comment about hard, work, perseverance, etc., was to refute your veiled assertion that I am a Marxist.
I was not ignoring the “more take home in their paychecks.” But thank you for allowing me to reintroduce my original point, i.e., given the national debt, the Baby Boomers hitting the Social Security system, etc., it was irresponsible for the candidates to promise no new taxes.
And if you really want the government to run more efficiently, how about campaign finance reform, redistricting reform and the end of no-bid contracts?
To Gent and Blackrobe. The
To Gent and Blackrobe. The reasons for no new taxes are many, the reasons for new taxes are many, candidates claiming no new taxes are many, candidates claiming new taxes are few, the reasons the national debt is as deep as it is are many, etc etc etc. This debate has offered very little in its over extension and needs to either end or go on to personal email between the two of you.
IapvGZQXeZgfJRxs
Best Site Good Work mom son porn free movies 8469