|
View Poll Results: How is Obama doing? (poll started 6/6) | |||
Great - above my expectations | 18 | 6.87% | |
Good - met most of my expectations | 66 | 25.19% | |
Average - so so, disappointed a little | 64 | 24.43% | |
Bad - sold us out | 101 | 38.55% | |
Trout - don't know yet | 13 | 4.96% | |
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
02-24-2010, 11:07 AM | #8851 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
|
|
02-24-2010, 11:09 AM | #8852 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
It warms my heart whenever I see any variation/mix of Ds/Rs in the Yes/No congressional votes (until I get all cynical and realize that even those votes are likely just "swapped" for some other political favor). |
|
02-24-2010, 11:09 AM | #8853 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
I try not to keep a list ... could be used as evidence against me someday
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
02-24-2010, 11:10 AM | #8854 | ||||||||||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
The Peace Corps were already in place in 2000. Did Bush support or oppose similar types of activities? Not to mention there's a world of difference between the type of nation building envisioned by the Peace Corps (bottom-up) and Bush's neocon foreign policy (top-down re-creation of government structures enabling the spread of free market democracy). Quote:
NCLB? You mean Unfunded Mandates R Us? Quote:
That civil rights bus had left the station by 2000. The best comparison would be gay rights. Tell me, was Bush as active on these as Kennedy was on civil rights for blacks? Quote:
Kennedy took an active step to ban the death penalty where he could. Bush's record as Governor of Texas should speak for itself on this topic. Quote:
Kennedy specifically believed in government intervention to stimulate the economy. Bush had to be convinced to consider spending specifically for this purpose, and only agreed when he was in the last throes of his presidency. Quote:
New spending on Afghanistan, Iraq and Medicare Part D still dwarf the total of new spending initiatives introduced under Obama. Quote:
Context. Kennedy brought the top rate from something like 90% to 70%, while Bush brought it from the high to mid-30s. There's a world of difference here that you're not seeing. Quote:
First of all, there's a huge difference between a state actor like the Soviet Union and a non-state actor like Al Qaeda. Secondly, Kennedy actively engaged his foe with diplomacy, while maintaining a hawkish stance. The Bush administration actively avoided diplomacy, even with state actors at one or two removes from Al Qaeda itself. A completely different approach. Quote:
Oh, so now Kennedy was more like W than Obama, and not: Quote:
Keep shifting those goalposts. Eventually you'll have a defensible argument. |
||||||||||
02-24-2010, 11:12 AM | #8855 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
|
|
02-24-2010, 11:13 AM | #8856 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
The taxpayers who've been footing the bill for glorified daycare for the past few decades would be interested to know that their contributions amount to "unfunded". The states were given tremendous (an excessive amount) of leeway to determine their own so-called standards.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
02-24-2010, 11:17 AM | #8857 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I love it when liberals claim their platform, and what distinguishes them, is that they're basically "for good things". I'm for everything you said there - which is why I can never be a Democrat, because they have no clue how to get those things. Just being in favor of good things is enough for some. I have a bunch of hard-core Democrat friends who really, literally believe that if you're against their method of achieving good things, then you're necessarily against those things (and hate poor people, I guess). If I have concerns/fears about the stimulus, its not I hate people having jobs, and I love poverty. It's because I worry that the stimulus will eventually cause more poverty and job loss. Last edited by molson : 02-24-2010 at 11:23 AM. |
|
02-24-2010, 11:17 AM | #8858 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
There's a world of difference between the escalation of military assistance from 800 "advisers" in Vietnam under Eisenhower to the 16,000 troops under Kennedy and dropping 300,000 troops on Iraq. Regardless of that, however, explain to me how Kennedy's approach is "to the right" of Bush. Quote:
You have his words in the context of a 90% top rate. For a more realistic context, consider Ted Kennedy's views on taxation in the past decade. And anyway, to prove that Kennedy would be "to the right" of Bush, you'd have to argue he'd cut taxes even more than Bush. Good luck with that. Quote:
Don't let logic impact yours. |
|||
02-24-2010, 11:20 AM | #8859 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Edit: Nevermind Jon, I just got what you were trying to say.
Last edited by flere-imsaho : 02-24-2010 at 11:23 AM. |
02-24-2010, 11:23 AM | #8860 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
The lack of accountability for decades was a significant impetus behind NCLBA. I can't fathom anyone actually believing it was an entirely lofty ideal without some element of "finally gotcha" involved as well.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
02-24-2010, 11:24 AM | #8861 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Nope. But I can definitely understand why you feel so right about everything if this is what you think of people who disagree with you. Edit: There's more than two ways to think about things (or in your world, "good v. evil"). I'd be all in favor of a simple, efficient, transparent, single-payer health care system. My objections to most of the crap that's been actually proposed is not that it's "big government", but that they just promote more inefficiency, more corruption, and will ultimately cost the government and taxpayers more money per person than they're spending now, but with worse quality of care. And I've never even been to Aruba! Agree or disagree with that, but don't tell me any of your opinions are morally superior to anyone else's when we want the same good stuff. We'll get a compromise on the health care stuff, and it will be a plan that mostly benefits those that make their living leeching off the government in some way. That's common ground for politicans, D and R, and the entities that keep them in office. Last edited by molson : 02-24-2010 at 11:36 AM. |
|
02-24-2010, 11:31 AM | #8862 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Yeah, I get that, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Arles wants to make the point that Bush believed in federal spending for education as much as Kennedy, but at best Bush's greatest education initiative is more about the restriction of funds (and accountability, and targeting) than any new expenditures. Quote:
According to wiki, federal funding for education increased by $12 billion from 2001 to 2007. While $12 billion is certainly a lot of money, when it's adjusted for cost increases and compared to the expansion of other spending during the Bush Administration, I'm not sure if it's accurately depicted as "spending a ton". |
||
02-24-2010, 11:35 AM | #8863 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
how do you know this though? what causes you to believe that this would be the case? where's the evidence, or examples of other countries where this is the case, as opposed to the opposite? (honest question, not trying to be an ass)
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. Last edited by DaddyTorgo : 02-24-2010 at 11:36 AM. |
|
02-24-2010, 11:42 AM | #8864 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
I'm going to chime in here from a personal perspective. I've worked for two government agencies. One is the USDA and the other was the IT department that supports software that controls Medicare reimbursement. I can tell you with absolute certainty that molson is spot on in his assessment of what will happen. Seeing what I've seen would push the average taxpayer to tears for all the wrong reasons. |
|
02-24-2010, 11:43 AM | #8865 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
The typical solution to problems in the U.S. seems to be more layers, more complicated interactions of different entities. I remembered the flow charts of the original health care plan and I couldn't understand how people were so confident these things would interact in the way it was sold. I see other countries with far superior health care systems spending a fraction per person (and as % of GDP) that we do. Sounds good to me. But those aren't the systems that being proposed here. We're going to spend MORE, and give people tax breaks and benefits to more easily participate in our shitty system. When I see the more complex solutions to problems in the U.S., I know why this happens - the more entities that are involved, the more complicated the regulations, the more opportunity for health insurance companies and other corporations to take advantage of the government. The bigger our health care system is, the more the health care industries in this country will be able to steal. People ask why we can't be like other countries on health care and I wonder the same thing (well I don't wonder, I know why we can't be like that.) But the point is, if someone wants to propose a European-style health care program for the money European countries spend on it - that'd be intruging to me. I will disclaim that I'm not an expert on any of this. This is just my feeling based on observations of how government works, and America's history in trying to accomplish things like this. Last edited by molson : 02-24-2010 at 11:46 AM. |
|
02-24-2010, 11:46 AM | #8866 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
I'm actually with you on this, molson. As much as I'd like single-payer, my confidence that it could be implemented effectively in the U.S. without becoming a pork barrel (and, heck, corruption) boondoggle, is not high.
|
02-24-2010, 12:00 PM | #8867 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
But we're not even trying to be better, we're just trying to be bigger and more complicated and more beneficial to corporations. (by "we" I mean the politicans, I think the the supporters of health care reform have their heart in the right place) Germany spends about half per person on health care that the U.S. does. And it spends about 1/3 less as a % of GDP on health care that we do. Are any of the proposed plans out there "more like Germany" in that sense? (or in any sense?) Of course not. The Insurance companies will have to benefit from any health care reform for it to pass. (which means it has to be bigger, more complicated, cost more) That's how things are here. That's consistent with the plans that have been proposed. Medicaid fraud in this country is RIDICULOUS. It's so easy for companies to make money off of it. That's not an accident. Any dollar we spend towards preventing medicaid fraud would come back in criminal and civil penalties several times over. But that won't happen, and that's not an accident either. The BEST we can do, I think, under the current state of things, is to generally have smaller, simpler government. At least that decreases corporate dependence on taxpayer money. So that's why that's what I am generally in favor of. Last edited by molson : 02-24-2010 at 12:08 PM. |
|
02-24-2010, 12:06 PM | #8868 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
As an investor (unwillingly, damn taxes) I am pretty interested in the ROI on something like the stimulus bill. I don't buy the bullshit that it is some mystical beast defying all possibility of quantification or reason, and at the same time is supposed to save us.
If they claim it 'created' 1.5 million jobs then they can specify HOW it did it. Otherwise it is just statistical noise and the same old games to dance around the numbers to satisfy whatever partisan agendas exist at the moment. Say it eventually spends 862 billion in various forms, I think the straight up dollars per supposed job is a valid (if overly simple) metric. The funny thing is, regardless of whether it is tax cuts, unemployment extensions, or what not... it is still valid. The whole point is inject X dollars into an economy and Y jobs pop out the other end. If extending unemployment somehow doesn't have an effect on job creation it would be the economic charity case bill. I argue that unemployment benefits indeed does spur job creation, since it sponsors consumption and reduces push towards substitute occupations of inferior quality... but ya all of these programs are supposed to have an effect, lets guesstimate it. For 862 billion if we just flat out gave people money, we could give over 4 million people 'jobs' doing absolutely nothing for one year with salary at $200,000. We could be a bit more modest, create 16 million jobs at $50,000. Obviously, that by itself is not very useful, doesn't really invest all that much, just makes 4 million live a pretty good life for a year, or 16 million a roughly average income for a year. However, as a benchmark I think it makes sense. If we are seeing much small results than this we have a few mathematical explanations: - Waste, creating less jobs because parts of the pile are funneled off due to corruption/overhead. I think a large chunk is going right here. - Extended timeframe investments, can't measure over one year alone since the actual impact is designed to be spent over a period of time. However these should be relatively obvious to find and break down, for instance unemployment extensions can be measured as a pool of payments that will be paid out over the next X months. (As an aside, modeling unemployment benefits has been a pet project lately... I'm trying to measure impact on consumer spending to time market trends, actually very amusing but I'd argue that unemployment extensions are actually responsible for a good deal of job retention in retail and arguably may have the biggest net impact of the entire bill...) - Cost of materials, which gets tricky... Ya to build a bridge you create a bundle of salaried jobs, but to actually have them doing stuff you need machines, concrete, etc. Most people would outright subtract this as an expense of the bill and say that you need to remove those dollars from the measurement. I disagree however, materials need to be produced, and to do that companies need some sort of labor (hence jobs created/retained). But, in terms of economic impact the value of dollars spent on material towards jobs has a relatively lower effect, since you need to cut out the company's margin on selling the product, inflationary impact on prices (if their is a run on concrete because all these projects start at the same time, I'd hope they'd raise their prices otherwise they are inefficient capitalists!!!), and the fact that rather than creating or retaining employment most materials can be produced by simply ramping up productivity of an existing employment base. - Tax cuts. Yuck, just yuck. Unless they are carefully designed to actually create jobs I've found tax cuts to be highly inefficient at improving investment. It essentially returns to the giving people $200K deal again. Or worst, backdoor subsidies that tend to get priced in and end up a useless handout to certain businesses. Anyhoo, i just resent the notion that just because its the government you can't start breaking it down or that it has to be some mysterious beast you need to feed or else the economy will collapse. Why not consider the ROI of a stimulus bill (or gosh damn frickin TARP)? Why must we pour money down a hole when we can just as easily not spend and not tax the money out of people's pockets in the first place? |
02-24-2010, 12:09 PM | #8869 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
My point is that it's not even a left/right issue. Nobody wants a plan like Germany's here because powerful corporations would suffer. Even fiscal "conservatives" should be in favor of a plan that is more efficient, costs less, and covers more people, even if it involves a bigger government role. I certainly would be. Democrats can push a "compromise", which keeps the lifeline of the important corporations, and yet they can still claim that they're compassionate because they got that (and blame the republicans for not geting more). (That's basically why I hate Democrats more - because they get to keep the support of corporations and still convince their supporters that they did some wonderful thing for humanity) Last edited by molson : 02-24-2010 at 12:15 PM. |
|
02-24-2010, 12:21 PM | #8870 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
I wouldn't mind a Germany plan... I hates overly powerful corporations. I love small efficient businesses, or large efficient businesses, or basically businesses operating under true competitive conditions and constantly improving quality/quantity/price equation... none of which apply to Big Healthcare, be it hospitals, insurance, or pharmaceuticals.
|
02-24-2010, 12:22 PM | #8871 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
|
02-24-2010, 12:22 PM | #8872 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
you're right about that it's not a left/right issue. it's a "powerful corporations vs. little people" issue. the corporations don't want a plan like Germany's - I think a vast majority of the supporters of health care reform would embrace such a plan.
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
02-24-2010, 12:26 PM | #8873 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
It makes sense to me, that kind of sums up the difference between the GOP and DNC. The GOP knows that they can't (don't want to) pass real healthcare reform, so they don't. The DNC can't (doesn't want to) pass real reform either, for the exact same reasons, but they actually get people behind them by doing a little bit, and largely by opposing the GOP (they REALLY get their supporters fired up about that, because everyone likes to feel like part of a team), and yes, compared to the GOP, they can actually trick people into believing they're committed to real reform. They don't even really have to change anything to get credit for doing so. It's pretty much the same net effect though. Where will things be in 5 years? It will either be no different, or it will be a more bloated mess, more easily taken advantage of by corporations. I'm sure it won't be more efficient, it won't be more transparent, because those are never the priorities of either party. I wish Democrats would win a 100% majority in each house, just to see what excuses they could come up with to largely keep the (beneifical to them) status quo. Last edited by molson : 02-24-2010 at 12:28 PM. |
|
02-24-2010, 12:32 PM | #8874 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
And this is where the nutty left comes in. I've never heard the Republicans call themselves "the party of Lincoln". Nope, never.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
02-24-2010, 12:35 PM | #8875 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: MA
|
Stop hating on Lincoln ISiddiqui. FFS.
|
02-24-2010, 12:37 PM | #8876 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
I've read Zandi's paper... I don't want to give him too much approval, because he's pushing some things I don't agree with, but obviously the numbers speak for themself. The impact of short term spending from unemployment spending is quite significant statistically, and tax cuts are relatively meh (I'd quibble on the exact numbers but he might have a better model than me haha).
Just want to caution that one year impact on GDP does not an economy make. If you wanted to measure economic health in general based on your ideology you could skew the impact of tax cuts or other spending higher or lower... I hate the notion of focusing on a statistic by itself (numbers can be gamed so many ways)... however at least it gives a start to breaking down these mysterious numbers. Now we just need people to actually understand and use these results when designing public policy. For instance, if all these tax cuts don't have such a big one year stimulus effect... why are they included?! |
02-24-2010, 01:25 PM | #8877 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
Duh. Because Senate moderates are fiscally responsible.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
02-24-2010, 01:27 PM | #8878 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
I was reading recently about the German economic system and how much power workers have at the executive/board level. Fascinating stuff.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
02-24-2010, 01:28 PM | #8879 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Actually, I'd like to see ROI more often for pretty much every piece of government spending. Too many bills are passed to spend money seemingly on the basis of "hey, it's a good idea" while no one is asking why it's a good idea, how you measure that it's a good idea, if it's quantifiably better than that other idea, etc.... If I could pass one law, it would be to require that all new spending bills contain specific and measurable ROI values, and their performance against these measures is reported on clearly and publically. Quote:
Correct. Not to sound like a Wall Street Quant or something (and I'm really the furthest from it), but honestly almost everything can be measured, in some way. State your program, define your measures for success, and then execute against that. Quote:
More realistically, create an application process for 862,000 grants of $1,000,000 a piece given to the best entrepreneurial ideas. That might stimulate some jobs! |
|||
02-24-2010, 02:23 PM | #8880 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
If you gave me 862 billion I'm sure I could create quite a few jobs.... and they'd actually last longer than a year, but then we couldn't help the bigwigs slush funds out as much...
German co-determination (I believe that is the term) is a very interesting topic. In a pure ruthless capitalist sense I think executive boards should be fully shareholder run... but the shareholders have been pretty sheep like in general so its pretty much an abysmal failure. Worker participation is better than the stiffs they generally have, besides actually knowing something about the business they might tend to pick (on average) policies that generally boost the health of the company (whereas the executives of say some US companies are typically looking to prey upon the company in many ways). ----- However, policy-crafting aside, the practice generally has better worker relations and per-capita productivity (which are worth their weight in gold by themself). Some thinkers try to marginalize its impact, but in general I think thats the influence of the monied interests coming into play, or capitalism purists (like I generally am) pushing an agenda. Overall I think its better than what we do here on average, but just about anything is better than what we do here. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing an American company from implementing any of these tactics themself as a way of improving their shareholder value overall, the freedom is one pleasant aspect of our economy (rather than government mandate) unfortunately the way that freedom is just poorly exercised is disheartening. ----- I agree fully with you flere, every bit of public policy that deals with funds allocations should have measurement criteria built into it by default. Even if it is only for tracking purposes. Government transparency is probably the single biggest thing I think we could do to reduce spending (and if I were running hte stimulus, would be where I invest to create short and long term jobs). When the state is taking up a large percentage of the workforce in a supposedly free market economy, we have issues. Both from an economic standpoint and from a government power standpoint (the more necessary the government becomes to the survival of a populace the easier it becomes for the government to control and oppress that populace, even if its relatively benign oppression at first). |
02-24-2010, 02:34 PM | #8881 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
Quote:
A good part of why is because their doctors get paid much less than US doctors. This article sums out how office-based doctors get paid. Keeping German Doctors On A Budget Lowers Costs : NPR |
|
02-24-2010, 02:41 PM | #8882 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
But what you said flies in the face of the point I was making. Maybe it was unintentionally unfair to go after a sentence you said in a different context but you did put it out there (and it was what jumped off the page at me as I was scrolling down, which is the only reason I commented on it in the firstplace) Quote:
Okay, I'm going out on a limb here & say that spending $12B should always be accurately depicted as "spending a ton". That's whether it's to eliminate enemies that desperately need to be eliminated, cure cancer, or to put down synthetic turf on the back lawn of the WH. Damn the relativity, a billion here & a billion there sooner or later does add up to real money.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis Last edited by JonInMiddleGA : 02-24-2010 at 02:41 PM. |
||
02-24-2010, 02:46 PM | #8883 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
Yet the doctors still sign up for work and do their job, and apparently they even do a good job. If they close up shop early because the money has run out, it hasn't seemed to cause a massive outcry from the public (who are still rating the quality of service very high).
Its really simple economics. If its broke, people bitch, they spend more money. If its not broke, people tend not to bitch, the job still tends to pay more than anything else they could be doing, so the doctors show up for work, and if they cut off service to optimize their money... THATS A GOOD THING! We want optimization and restraint... keeps price inflation down, saves doctor work hours, prevents money going to waste instead of fixing people. You could say it increases the probability of undetected problems since there was restraint in performing the potential procedure that would have detected it... but that becomes a probability game that the Germans are winning.... they generally have lower health problem rates than us. A common sense gamble that is paying off. So what exactly is the problem in paying doctors less? We pay every profession what we need to, anything more than we need to is simply a market inefficiency. Most of ours in the US are created not by the market, but the government interference itself (or government sponsored interference). |
02-24-2010, 02:47 PM | #8884 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
I'll just let that quote stand on its own. Quote:
For the past 2+ years, there hasn't been an increase of 0%, much less 0.5% increase. At this point, having that extra 0.5% is something that's starting to fade from memory.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
||
02-24-2010, 02:55 PM | #8885 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
If you make $1000/week, getting a $5/week raise isn't really going to affect you now is it? |
|
02-24-2010, 02:58 PM | #8886 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
It's one trip through the drivethru that couldn't be taken otherwise. And at this point, that's an improvement in my quality of life.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
02-24-2010, 03:06 PM | #8887 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
Quote:
Was this directed at me? Because I'm the one who brought up doctor's pay in Germany but I don't remember mentioning any of the things you are seemingly responding to (like where did I say it was a problem to pay doctors less?) |
|
02-24-2010, 03:06 PM | #8888 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
Well an interesting example is that for many people wages have been pretty flat this decade (oh those recessions, if nothing else a good excuse to prevent giving your workers a raise).
Even the horrible CPI (a terrible statistic that has been mangled beyond recognition) says from 2000 to present inflation is about 30%. So I'd just argue that those percentages tend to add up pretty quickly. 7% since 2007. I'd argue I'd rather have the government keep its hands off my 0.5% if I had a choice.... Just a general question, how many people here actually make 30% then they did in 2000? If you don't on average you have been getting poorer this decade even if you haven't taken a pay cut, congratulations! |
02-24-2010, 03:08 PM | #8889 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
|
02-24-2010, 03:10 PM | #8890 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
Quote:
I'm mostly stressing the point it is a good thing, but you are right I do come off as posturing it towards you. My bad, still just emphasizing the points I considered important is the bulk of the post. I'm sure someone in this thread will bring up the counter argument anyway, so we'll just assume I was throwing it at them! EDIT: I should mention in these posts I'm rarely attacking anyone particular on the board, I much prefer attacking the faceless hordes using terms like 'the rich' or 'fascists' or 'damn dirty liberals'. I do tend to use bombastic and somewhat combative phrasing though, so just ignore that... I've disagreed with everyone on this board at some point I think. Last edited by SportsDino : 02-24-2010 at 03:13 PM. |
|
02-24-2010, 03:14 PM | #8891 | |||||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, maybe "to the right" isn't the right semantics. I would say more fiscally conservative and hawkish than Bush. Either way, his policies were certainly nowhere near the strategy of the current democratic party (and, to be fair, certainly not what the current republicans are doing now as well). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Arles : 02-24-2010 at 03:37 PM. |
|||||
02-24-2010, 03:16 PM | #8892 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
Quote:
That's why I asked. It seemed out of character for you to jump on me, especially for things I didn't say. |
|
02-24-2010, 03:39 PM | #8893 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I don't know a whole lot about the history of U.S. taxation but I'm trying to understand the context of this. Were there other kinds of tax liabilities that are more present today than there were then? Or was the federal government simply taking billions more from people back then (relative to income/wealth)? Or in other words, how has the overall revenue of the government changed over time - relative to different kinds of taxation and overall income/wealth of individuals in the U.S.? I'm sure those numbers are out there, I'll look if I get the chance. Last edited by molson : 02-24-2010 at 03:40 PM. |
|
02-24-2010, 04:03 PM | #8894 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
Yeah motherfucker, considering I eat one meal a day more often than not for the past couple of years, and the dominant motivation for that is cost-related, it would be. And since between a third & half my meals every week for the past six months have involved store brand peanut butter or baloney, yeah it would be. Sorry if that bursts your bubble somehow but welcome to the state of the economy in the late 2000's.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
02-24-2010, 04:04 PM | #8895 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Well, payroll taxes have expanded ever since Medicare and Medicaid started in 1965. But that doesn't necessarily account for all of the difference in the resulting income tax drops from 90% in the 1950s to 38% in the late 1980s (and hovering around there since)
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 02-24-2010 at 04:06 PM. |
02-24-2010, 04:17 PM | #8896 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Arles: You need to look at your timeline. The Kennedy tax cuts were signed into law by Johnson and took effect well after Kennedy died. He also wasn't about less government spending, as his initial plan was to use deficit spending to jumpstart the economy, but conservatives in Congress balked. In fact he would have likely tried to boost spending if he hadn't been killed. He told his chief economist:
Quote:
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
02-24-2010, 05:08 PM | #8897 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
Even though I argue against the stimulus impact of top bracket tax cuts, I do have to say that a 90% bracket is pretty much insanity. Not that anyone paid quite that much, the history of tax dodging started pretty much as soon as it was passed (and indeed it was only passed after the monied interests made sure they could dodge into the forseeable future).
Ideally our taxes even on the very rich would fall below 38% (in my opinion much lower), the main reason I object is because of the assumption that revenues must be fixed or growing, and that a 1% cut in the top bracket would be equivalent to a multi-point bump to pretty much the middle class (because the extremely poor are exempted from everything). It would literally kill the economy to fix revenues, give the rich a 1% cut to 'stimulate' the economy, and watch consumer spending equivalently drop by say 2-5%. We have a economy where a tenth of a percent in consumer spending is enough to send the DOW into a fit (dumb sheep investors, but I digress). The unpleasant realization for the Republicans (which I wish they would embrace) is that they need to cut that top tax rate by cutting the pool from the bottom up. Instead of a 'fair' cut of 1% across the board (or a more progressive proportional cut across the brackets), they need to insist on nothing at the top, large cuts in the bottom and middle. A little delayed gratification, but I think they could get their cut if they schemed it right... Spending is stimulated, circulation of money in the economy increases (this is the multiplier effect you see in one year GDP calculations for instance), the revenues of the rich actually go up in proportion to dollars of tax reduction multiplied by circulation (a billion in spending is more than a billion in revenue, short term), causing tax receipts from the fixed high tax bracket rate to increase. If the loop generates a net positive cash flow you feed it back into tax cuts, extending the range you apply it to until you get to top bracket cuts. There also are a few fringe benefits: - decreasing demand for social services from the lower/middle classes over time which can be rolled into spending cuts (and therefore more tax cuts) - increased job creation to produce the goods that are being bought - reduced default rate in the middle class loan sector helps stop depletion of reserves (the much mentioned 'deflation' of the money supply, despite general inflation in PRICES) It is not a wonder cure and it can easily be sunk by our spend/tax happy and ill-disciplined politicians and businesses, but if we were smart it would give us a feedback loop that could get us closer to some reasonable level of efficiency (instead of our expensive bloatocracy). Unfortunately no leader of the common day thinks about systems, they are all about bullet point statements of 'I will reduce taxes' or 'We must save social security... by spending on it', and so on. They are too narrowly focused to look at incremental processes as a solution, they want the headlining giant bill to make them famous, or they want to 'leave it to the market' which is too short-sighted to invest these days. Anyhoo, I just felt like babbling about tax systems and maybe bring up something in a light others haven't seen before. |
02-24-2010, 05:33 PM | #8898 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
Here's a chart of the history of the bottom and top tax brackets.
National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates From 1950-1963, the top bracket was 91-92% for income over $400,000 (not adjusted for inflation). |
02-24-2010, 05:36 PM | #8899 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I still think there's a context there missing - I don't believe for a second that people making more than $400k were shelling out 90% of that (or the amount above $400k) to the government every year. That's about as restrictive as NBA max salaries. What was a person's "real" total tax liability in the 50s v. today, relative to various levels of income/wealth? I don't know if that can be measured. Last edited by molson : 02-24-2010 at 05:41 PM. |
|
02-25-2010, 12:28 AM | #8900 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
It's $260 for the year which to many, is a nice chunk of change. We forget the hoopla over a $600 rebate check many received a few years ago. With a family, every bit helps. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 27 (0 members and 27 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|