Obama's Final Betrayal

[BeecherVol]

I'm not even sure what that means.

Certainly I am all for ensuring the tax burden is spread fairly. It is not right now, and I agree, undue burden is placed on small businesses in order to subsidize and ensure corporations / top 0.1% do not have to pay taxes.

If the government could run on 10% of every dollar you earn, but they take 20% for other things that are not essential, do you (personally) have more or less at the end of the day.

 

[utgibbs]

much less of both would help

Yes.

We need less military, prison, policing, and corporate welfare. Absolutely.

We do need more health care, infrastructure, and minimum income stabilization though.

However, we can do the latter for a lot less than we do the former. Mucho efficiency savings!

 

[Lexvol]

Well, we have funnelled about 3 trillion (1/3 or so of GDP) Citibank et al. in the latest Quantitative Easing (#2)

That's REAL wealth redistribution. Everyone seems to approve. Everyone likes funnelling money to the top of failed businesses, it seems.

I don't think you could win on a redistribution/bailout platform either. When/if the public gets the particulars about what went where, there will be more questions than answers.

 

[sjt18]

@sjt:

I provided all the data, and the real world says your ideology just ain't so.

You provided data then completely ignored the historical context and direct implications of the data. Progressives, both GOP and Dem, were in control for over 60 years before Reagan began to stem the tide.

Republicans have ALWAYS increased debt relative to GDP.

You associated it to Presidents. Presidents DO NOT CREATE SPENDING BILLS. Is that really all that difficult for you?

If you want to pee and moan, then elect Democrats, as the trend consistently goes down then.

Simply false according to the very data you presented.

I have probably forgotten more about wealth creation than the majority of posters on VN know. Perhaps not you, sjt, but certainly the vast, vast majority. I deal every waking hour in the real world economy, and I am certainly an able captain on its waters.

Here then is an unassailable fact for you to chew on for awhile. In world trade (especially commodities like I work in) where there is no effective governing body, effective economics DO NOT default to Keynesian ideals. It associates better with supply side but is really a near pure free market (at times). Traders are NOT constrained by overbearing gov't planners... they are constrained by the fear of loss.

What you so aggressively espouse is nothing but a boat anchor impeding the ship.

Taxes never inhibit wealth creation; taxes, when used properly with authentic democracy, raise all boats.

Simply not true to the extent that taxes transfer wealth from those who produce it to those who do not. I am not suggesting that there is no legitimate case for this to happen btw. I AM saying that if it happens too much you sink the economy.

Markets, by the way, REQUIRE sound government.

They require discipline. "Sound government" to play off Jefferson is the one that involvles itself to the minimum degree necessary to assure fairness. Its job can NEVER be to prevent failure or "pain". Failure and pain are absolutely necessary to keep a market and economy disciplined... to assure that resources are not risked recklessly.

Gov't is not the answer but the cause of things like the housing bubble and banking/finance scandals. There can NEVER be a company "too big to fail". Failure must ALWAYS create conservative pressure within the market.

 

[Lexvol]

Yes.

We need less military, prison, policing, and corporate welfare. Absolutely.

We do need more health care, infrastructure, and minimum income stabilization though.

However, we can do the latter for a lot less than we do the former. Mucho efficiency savings!

Just to make it easy for everybody, what we need to do is spend less than we bring in.

 

[sjt18]

So there should be no government or taxes?

We should go to the Fair Tax or some other indirect form of taxation focused on consumption. The Federal gov't should not have the power to manipulate individual behavior by the tax code.

 

[bam15]

I agree that most could care less about the politics side, and in my case that is what screws up a lot this.

I disagree about the public not rejected his policies, which brought about a lot of spending. IMO there were more that vote against what he did, instead of what he hasn't done.

At this point Im not sure what he could do. He's chopping off somebody no matter which way he goes politically. Which is driving his current decisions.

The problem is judging public perception. The same people who voted for Obama two years ago, jumped off the bandwagon or failed to vote. Moreover, those same people who failed to vote, will show up again in large numbers simply because he is a charismatic and black. No matter how imminent his self-destruction is, the guy could still turn around and win. However, I don't think he is doing much for his cause.

Political activists (Lower in numbers) will vote for or against the President only because of where he has stood in the past. This is where the spending comes into play, and I do not believe people care as much as you assume. The numbers are effectively skewed. I will add that I've seen a growing number of once apolitical people, getting involved in ever growing numbers, on both sides.

He's not doing too much to help his cause, but the dude still has some Mojo left in the tank.

I think it's rather simple, if the economy doesn't turn around by 2012, he's toast. People don't care about George Bush four years later.

 

[utgibbs]

If the government could run on 10% of every dollar you earn, but they take 20% for other things that are not essential, do you (personally) have more or less at the end of the day.

I think this is an important point.

Government is FAR more efficient at certain things than the private sector. Health care is the #1 example.

Now, I agree with your point. However, taxes and government are necessary. The tax system, as I have said repeatedly, does not adhere to a single maxim of Adam Smith. It all needs to change (but the conversation isn't even close to being that informed yet as this thread proves. None of you knew the maxims of Adam Smith).

The notion that private sector is super efficient and government never is just ain't so.[/I] This market fundamentalism is the anti Mark Twain alive in the world today.

 

[bam15]

We should go to the Fair Tax or some other indirect form of taxation focused on consumption. The Federal gov't should not have the power to manipulate individual behavior by the tax code.

I would have no objections to consumption taxes.

 

[Lexvol]

I would have no objections to consumption taxes.

Other than a flat tax it seems to be the most Constitutional and fairest option. The tax code needs to be eliminated yesterday.

 

[sjt18]

BTW, we have the technology... let's become a true democracy. Let the people vote on all tax increases and year over year budget increases (total percentage).

Two things I would expect. Taxes would not go up. Budgets would not be allowed to increase at a rate greater than inflation.

A third thing.... Progressive elitists would attempt a coup.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm not even sure what that means.

Certainly I am all for ensuring the tax burden is spread fairly. It is not right now, and I agree, undue burden is placed on small businesses in order to subsidize and ensure corporations / top 0.1% do not have to pay taxes.

do you even have any idea what you're talking about? Any at all?

 

[bam15]

Just to make it easy for everybody, what we need to do is spend less than we bring in.

Yes.

But most downturns call for increases in spending (depending on who you adhere to philosophically)

The only problem is this turns into repetition and diverges into vote-buying and hand-outs when the downturn is over, and many conflict on when the downturn is over in the first place.

 

[bam15]

Other than a flat tax it seems to be the most Constitutional and fairest option. The tax code needs to be eliminated yesterday.

Easily the fairest option.

 

[utgibbs]

We should go to the Fair Tax or some other indirect form of taxation focused on consumption. The Federal gov't should not have the power to manipulate individual behavior by the tax code.

This is a good point, sjt, however it needs some qualification.

1. Fair Tax is Orwellian propaganda. It is regressive which is unfair. HOWEVER, it meets two tenets of Adam Smith - simple and transparent. A flat and progressive system is very, very good.

2. I believe in good consumption taxes. This includes supertaxes on speculation / luxury / etc. - items with no productive value or have high externalities. We must tax carbon, but we should offset that with a dividend. The TN system is NOT the answer. It is a regressive nightmare.

3. You don't want the tax code to influence behaviour - ostensibly it should be a matter of democratic consensus - but you approve of "markets" adjusting prices? Especially when those markets are generally controlled by an oligopoly?

 

[BigPapaVol]

I think this is an important point.

Government is FAR more efficient at certain things than the private sector. Health care is the #1 example.

Now, I agree with your point. However, taxes and government are necessary. The tax system, as I have said repeatedly, does not adhere to a single maxim of Adam Smith. It all needs to change (but the conversation isn't even close to being that informed yet as this thread proves. None of you knew the maxims of Adam Smith).

The notion that private sector is super efficient and government never is just ain't so.[/I] This market fundamentalism is the anti Mark Twain alive in the world today.

Another example of you just saying words and having no idea what they might mean when thrown together. There are hordes of examples of gov't driven public and private markets. Every single one of them is a disaster, including military healthcare and medicare.

I'm aware of the maxims of Adam Smith, likely moreso than you, but why does an efficient, fair or even useful tax code need to rely heavily on Adam Smith. He wasn't the arbiter of all things right and fair.

Your last statement is just blather. When economics is like nuclear physics to you, avoid the conversation or stick to telling us senseless hypothetical crap about Fulmer winning. Seems to me that roughly one of you hard lefties in here knows enough econ to have the conversation and you are not him.

 

[sjt18]

I think this is an important point.

Government is FAR more efficient at certain things than the private sector. Health care is the #1 example.

Gov't is NOT more efficient. They have the power to set price caps without negotiation. They create the inefficiency in the rest of health care distribution. If gov't had full control, the quality and quantity of service would be negatively effected in a massive way.

If we have a national will to see everyone covered, and I think we do, then we need a voucher system. Each individual receives a voucher and then shops for the best insurance deal. The one thing that MUST go is the employer/3rd party based system. The consumer MUST be re-engaged in that market.

The notion that private sector is super efficient and government never is just ain't so.[/I] This market fundamentalism is the anti Mark Twain alive in the world today.

The private market except to the extent that gov't interferes unnecessarily IS super efficient at almost everything. It has to be because inefficiency kills. The gov't is almost never efficient.

Cite your examples.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Easily the fairest option.

Fair, but any talk of a program that would actually move some tax burden away from the upper tiers is seen as inherently racist and an attempt to cut the knees out from under the working (or not) poor.

 

[utgibbs]

BTW, we have the technology... let's become a true democracy. Let the people vote on all tax increases and year over year budget increases (total percentage).

Two things I would expect. Taxes would not go up. Budgets would not be allowed to increase at a rate greater than inflation.

A third thing.... Progressive elitists would attempt a coup.

See, in truth, we aren't that far apart.

You are talking RADICAL stuff right now, sjt. I'm proud.

Authentic democracy is the way forward. I'm not sure voting through the TV is the answer, but I'm not going to write it off for sure!

 

[bam15]

Fair, but any talk of a program that would actually move some tax burden away from the upper tiers is seen as inherently racist and an attempt to cut the knees out from under the working (or not) poor.

Unfortunately.

 

[utgibbs]

Gov't is NOT more efficient. They have the power to set price caps without negotiation. They create the inefficiency in the rest of health care distribution. If gov't had full control, the quality and quantity of service would be negatively effected in a massive way.

If we have a national will to see everyone covered, and I think we do, then we need a voucher system. Each individual receives a voucher and then shops for the best insurance deal. The one thing that MUST go is the employer/3rd party based system. The consumer MUST be re-engaged in that market.


The private market except to the extent that gov't interferes unnecessarily IS super efficient at almost everything. It has to be because inefficiency kills. The gov't is almost never efficient.

Cite your examples.

There are over 20 population sized examples proving government is far more efficient at delivering health care than the market.

I'm skeptical of any voucher system as it comes from Friedmanites. I will say, it sounds better than the current mess in the US, but it is not as simple - and has never been proven to work. I look around at over 20 countries with an NHS who provide better care at less money and think - solution. I'm a KISS guy.

 

[utvolpj]

do you even have any idea what you're talking about? Any at all?

fair question to any gibbs post

 

[BigPapaVol]

Unfortunately.

and honestly, I don't mind eating the burden or even more. We all decry it, but understand tax burden as a necessary evil. I simply can't fathom that we, as a nation, are OK with creating a government that will be a solution to our problems and increase the growth rate of our dependency / dependent population. Makes no sense to me, in a nation whose strength is steeped in independence.

 

[BigPapaVol]

There are over 20 population sized examples proving government is far more efficient at delivering health care than the market.

I'm skeptical of any voucher system as it comes from Friedmanites. I will say, it sounds better than the current mess in the US, but it is not as simple - and has never been proven to work. I look around at over 20 countries with an NHS who provide better care at less money and think - solution. I'm a KISS guy.

list the 20. Maybe just 10.

 

[utvolpj]

I would have no objections to consumption taxes.

but they can't just be dumped on top of our current system like some are trying to do now