President 0 is doing what he said he would do. Surprise. Well, he talked out of both sides of his mouth. But he said he wanted "tax fairness." Here it comes - higher taxes.
Steve Ballmer is guilty of wishful thinking. Big time.
The latest recipient of the Captain Louis Renault Award for shock! shock! at the anti-business nature of Barack Obama and his administration goes to Steve Ballmer, Obama supporter and CEO of Microsoft. Ballmer provided substantial support for Obama's presidential run, and also giving(sic) $100,000 to his inauguration, as did Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Now, however, Ballmer has balked at Obama's tax positions and now says he'll move Microsoft jobs overseas if necessary:
Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world's largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama's plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies' foreign profits.Also Microsoft fights increasing corporate taxes. Posted by Ron Hebron at June 09, 2009 07:12 AM | Email This"It makes U.S. jobs more expensive," Ballmer said in an interview. "We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."
Obama on May 4 proposed outlawing or restricting about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies over the next decade. Such business groups as the National Foreign Trade Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable have denounced the proposed overhaul.
I have no pity for Ballmer of MS. You leftists wanted this empty-suited, anti-American, anti-business racist bigot... well, now you've got him.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Hinton on June 9, 2009 08:36 AMO wants to make the history books like no other president ever, and he's willing to sacrifice a lot of other people's money to get there. God help us if the health insurance mandate passes--that's his masterwork; his ticket to centuries of fame; his modern day Social Security.
Posted by: gulliver on June 9, 2009 08:37 AM*snicker*
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 9, 2009 08:52 AMWhat's the matter with these people? Are they bedazzled?
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 08:58 AMSo, taxing all those eeeevil rich only goes so far, huh? Pretty easy when it's somebody else's ox being gored, isn't it?
But when you finally wake up and realize Obama's policies lump you in with those dastardly conservatives ... all of a sudden it's bad, right?
We told you so, but you wouldn't - and still won't - listen. So, suck on it.
Posted by: jimg on June 9, 2009 09:59 AMBut what I do know is that it's not on the legislative agenda this year so it ain't gonna happen. :)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 10:39 AMBut what I do know is that it's not on the legislative agenda this year so it ain't gonna happen.
The issue is that it was extensively talked about and pushed by the Obama Administration. And if it's implemented next year, or the year thereafter, what's to stop them from being retroactive?
See, it takes time to respond, to form or re-form, or relocate assets and corporate headquarters. If you wait until the legislation is passed, it's too late. So the smart businessman is proactive and responds to potential problems before they become real issues.
The Obama Administration has already started the flight of businesses and capital, just by talking about it. It'll get worse if it comes up again at all. The Obama Administration is ignorant in that it does not understand what words mean...
Words mean things!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 11:01 AMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060901337.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Can you believe this guy? First... quadruple the annual deficit in a matter of weeks, and then tell us you're gonna work to restrain spending? You know what those rules will be, don't you... can't spend without paying for it, which will mean higher taxes, because as the article points out, nobody is buying our debt.
So, Obama supporters, if nobody buys our debt, and receipts to the treasury continue to plummet (off 34%, I think) from last year, what do you propose we do?
And who did that help? Nobody. It hurt business. The man is anti-business. Many private jet contracts were also canceled because of his scolding of people other than him using private jets.
So, companies are going to start now to move jobs offshore because of what he has said.
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 11:13 AMI like how even when Obama takes concrete steps to reduce deficit spending in congress, folks like Gary criticize him anyway. By stopping deficit spending, we won't need tax increases in the near term.
Do you not agree with PAYGO? It's a common sense rule: if you want something, you have to pay for it. Don't dip into the deficit.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 12:15 PMI like how even when Obama takes concrete steps to reduce deficit spending in congress, folks like Gary criticize him anyway.
I see. Stopping deficit spending is accomplished by passing the largest deficit the world has ever seen, a deficit so huge the deficit alone is larger than the entire 2001 budget! And it's 12 TIMES larger than the last GOP/Bush deficit.
So is that what you mean by PAYGO? This is how you reduce deficit spending by bumping the deficit to some of the highest levels ever imagined, and promising $500+ bllion dollar annual deficits - on an increasing trajectory - for the next 10 years? Is that what passes for fiscal responsibility with the Obama Administration?
The White House is ON RECORD as saying we'll have $500+ billion deficits for the next 10 years. PAYGO my ass!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 12:52 PMWant to talk "tax" and the middle class? The negative effect that package of spending will have on spending power of the U.S. dollar is like a double digit tax increase.
Obama wants to write a check 5 figure check for every man, woman and child in the U.S. during his first 100 days and then tell us all how fiscally responsible he is and how we should trust him with thing like cap and trade? Well, color me skeptical.
I'm sure that most Americans don't realize quite what happened to the dollar yet, but they will in the months ahead when the price of every consumer good starts going up steadily.
Posted by: johnny on June 9, 2009 12:53 PMAs far as your assertion that he is taking "concrete steps to reduce deficit spending" where have you been? Good lord, the man rings up the largest deficit ever... by far... and people actually take him seriously when he says we have to reduce the deficit? And he is *not* going to reduce spending, John. He is simply going to use it as an excuse to raise your taxes. You pay taxes, right? So pay more.
So why didn't he talk about PAYGO *before* he spent us to the poor house?
Unreal.
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 01:15 PMOr is any mention of Obama an excuse to go off on a tirade about all the evils of the government?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 01:16 PMPAYGO is a concrete step to reduce deficit spending. Is it a good idea or not? Yes or no?
Obama just cut my taxes a few months ago, by the way. I'll argue about tax increases if they ever come up in a bill, but they don't exist yet so I'll focus on reality while you focus on scare mongering. :)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 01:22 PMI'm glad you won't answer my yes or no question about whether PAYGO is a good idea.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 01:31 PMJohn, we have a huge debt that other nations are not buying. We have reduced revenues and increased spending. As far a PAYGO, I recommend that our leaders not waste our treasure by stopping the spending.
You? How do you think we should pay for all of the spending that you are in favor of? (hint: taking 100% of the wealthy's property won't be enough). I mean, if they must find a way to pay for the their spending, as you advocate, how should they? I agree, of course, that spending has to be paid for, and preferrably by the same generation that's spending it. What we disagree on is that you don't think they're spending too much.
Is that right? How do we pay for it, and how much spending do you think is too much? What's the number? (I know, I know... we must listen to "experts")
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 01:34 PMI'm all for PAYGO, and if Obama, Reid, and Pelosi actually showed they are committed to it I would applaud them for it.
So far, all we've seen is record deficits from that group, and a promise for deficits greater than we've ever seen, for the next 10+ years.
Right now, because the GOP is trusted more on the economy by the American public, the President is bringing up PAYGO. It's a hollow move, it's simply a political tactic to try to stem the ever-increasing American public's dissatisfaction with the Slavery Party.
Chicago politics - lie, cheat, and steal to just get what you want. That's what his PAYGO claims are about.
Now here's a question for you: where in ANY budget or bill is the President, Pelosi, or Reid calling for implementation in PAYGO? Not their pretty little speeches, but actual policy or budgets?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 01:36 PMIf anyone should know Obama's policies are going to destroy our free market economy, it's Balmer and Gates. They're smart guys with good hearts, I suppose. But their misguided humanitarianism led them to support a man who would seek to make taxes more "fair" rather than to actually get more revenue into the treasury. So if they are disenchanted, they may be the canary in a coal mine. There are probably MANY more like who, like Balmer and Gates, are ready to move out if this happens. But WATCH OUT boys. Obama is just getting started with GM and Chrysler. Don't have a down year selling software or you may find yourselves working for a 31 year old law student in the Obama Treasury Department.
Posted by: scott on June 9, 2009 01:36 PMObama is all about punishing people/business' that he doesn't like (private jets for instance). He doesn't really care if it's good for the country or not.
I'm not sure what things you believe I am in favor of funding, but in terms of health care reform we are going to find revenue sources which don't touch taxes on almost all Americans. The most significant revenue change will be $600 billion of savings in Medicare/Medicaid.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 01:47 PMIt *is* your job to have an say on how we pay for things. Are you a citizen, or a subject?
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 01:52 PM"Either way, PAYGO is good."
No, you are wrong. PAYGO is NOT good. As used by the Dems, it is simply a cover for them to raise taxes. They would like to be able to say "hey, we didn't want to raise taxes, but PAYGO forces us to". Instead of PAYGO, they should just reduce spending to levels that current taxes will support. We are not suffering from too little taxes, we are suffering from too much spending!
Posted by: Bill H on June 9, 2009 02:02 PM"PAYGO is NOT good."
That's what Bush said when they cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and ushered in eight years of deep deficits. Where are the real conservatives?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 02:17 PMWhat you said about the private jet industry was that you didn't care what happened to it. What industry are you in, if you don't mind my asking?
"I did not suggest luxury taxes on private jets. Can you read?"
So what? The same impact applies, whether it is luxury taxes or demonizing an industry. You did say "Oh NO, NOT PRIVATE JET COMPANIES!!!", and "Private jets are typically a luxury. We have a lot of unemployed people in this country helped by the stimulus, and you're concerned about private jets. "
This was in response to the comment "Many private jet contracts were also canceled because of his scolding of people other than him using private jets."
My point, which I am sure everyone here got, was that you, like other liberals, are unconcerned that luxury goods may be negatively impacted "Oh NO, NOT PRIVATE JET COMPANIES!!!". And you don't think through the impact that this has on WORKERS at those companies.
"That's what Bush said when they cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and ushered in eight years of deep deficits. Where are the real conservatives?"
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have been just as adamantly against out of control spending under Bush as I am under Obama. The big difference, however, is that the Republicans were pikers as far as big spending--the Dems are pros!
As far as tax cuts go. Bush cut taxes for EVERYONE. Why do you hate successful people so much that you sneer at them and lie about the tax cuts? Just because a lie about "tax cuts for the wealthy" is repeated over and over again, ad nauseum, does not make it true...
Now here's a question for you: where in ANY budget or bill is the President, Pelosi, or Reid calling for implementation in PAYGO? Not their pretty little speeches, but actual policy or budgets?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 02:35 PMDan, the President of the United States of America does not create rules for the House or Senate since this is not a dictatorship. He proposed them today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060901337.html?hpid=moreheadlines).
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 02:54 PMThat's what Bush said when they cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and ushered in eight years of deep deficits. Where are the real conservatives?
Tax cuts for the wealthy? You're simply a liar. Read the facts, see how taxes from 2000 to 2006 on the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, even 50% increased, and the taxes on the bottom 50% DROPPED. In fact, the total income percentage of the top 5% increased from 35.3% to 36.7%, a change of 3.9% over that timeframe. During that same timeframe, that top 5% - the ones reviled by the Obama Administration - saw their share of income taxes go from 56.5% to 60.1%, a 6.4% increase (nearly double their rate of increase of the share of total income).
Facts are difficult things to overcome. You're flat-out wrong, and reverting to the same tired, worn-out, worthless talking points of the left, showing you are nothing more than a mouthpiece for them.
But answer me these five VERY simple questions to see the errors in your statement (hint: you can find the answers here):
1. What was the deficit in FY2006, the last Bush/GOP budget?2. What was the deficit in FY2007, when the Slavery Party took control of the budget process?
3. What was the largest deficit under President Bush?
4. What's the smallest projected deficit under President Obama?
5. Which year will the smallest Obama deficit be less than the largest Bush deficit?
We'll see how truthfully you can answer. The answers are linked, anyone reading can see how truthful you are!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 03:03 PMRevenues *did not* soar, they decreased below inflation. Deficits did soar, though. The wealthiest Americans benefited the most from his tax cuts.
I'm not really interested in arguing about Bush. The point is those tax cuts should have used PAYGO to ensure that spending decreased as well. That is a conservative philosophy and one I entirely embrace.
What you said about the private jet industry was that you didn't care what happened to it. What industry are you in, if you don't mind my asking?
I never said that I don't care. Any time anyone loses a job it's tragic, but that is no reason to encourage CEOs to take costly and wasteful trips just for the fun of it. Everyone has to buckle down, especially CEOs and especially those CEOs that have received government aid. Which of course is exactly the context that Obama was speaking in.
I work in software development. HOW WOULD I FEEL IF OBAMA SAID DON'T BUY SOFTWARE? Well, he wouldn't. There's a big gap between a private jet and a copy of Excel.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 03:04 PMPresident Bush was never a Senator; if President Obama is so committed to PAYGO, why did he not introduce legislation just last year, or the previous 4 years, when he was a Senator?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 03:05 PMWah, wah, yourself. You have no answer, so you just resort to this type of absurdity. By the way, I am not the party of anything--I am not a Republican, if that is what you were intimating. I am registered as an Independent and am a (small l) libertarian.
Posted by: Bill H on June 9, 2009 03:05 PM(for the little people only, of course)
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 03:05 PMThen why did you bring it up?
Who cares if CEO's take private jets? I don't. Oh, the ones who use taxpayer money? Then why is it okay for Obama, or Pelosi, etc, etc?
There is an irrational hatred toward wealthy people.
Revenues *did not* soar, they decreased below inflation.
That's wrong; I'll assume you're just ignorant, and not lying. In fact, here's the truth:
As for inflation-adjusted tax revenues a little-used but equally telling statistic they'll reach an all-time high of $2.013 trillion. That's higher even than in the last year of the dot-com boom. And by the way, it's an astounding 26% gain since 2003 after inflation.
The fact is that tax revenues after the 2003 tax cuts SOARED by 26% after adjusting for inflation. Your statement is patently false.
Deficits did soar, though.
Again, I'll assume ignorance on your part rather than malice. The reality is that after 2003 tax cuts - which started in late FY2004 - the deficits plunged from $440 billion to $162 billion. That's not quite soaring, is it?
The wealthiest Americans benefited the most from his tax cuts.
Again, ignorance rather than malice? Is that a good assumption?
The facts are plain and obvious; the income tax load of the Nation shifted to the top 1%/5%/10% from the bottom 25%/50%/75%. And that's in terms of absolute dollars, in terms of taxation rates per dollar earned, AND in terms of taxation rates per share of total income.
Bottom line: under the Bush tax cuts the revenue to the US Government increased in absolute AND inflation-corrected amounts, deficits plunged, and tax load - absolute, nominal, and share - shifted to the rich.
Your ignorance is now corrected.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 03:24 PMhttp://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Pay close attention to what happened in the years immediately following the '03 tax cuts.
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 03:30 PMEvery single person here has had to cut back over the last year. We've all made sacrifices directly, or indirectly through TARP and the stimulus. Now, if there has been some massive job losses in the private jet sector then that's a bad thing -- but it's the free market at work. There's less demand for private jets at their costs given the rough economy.
Shanghai Dan: I applaud you on an artfully researched post.
Perhaps I misspoke. Revenues dropped as a percentage of GDP, which you can see from the graph in your post (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues01061407.gif, bars are percentage of GDP). I made the mistake of confusing GDP with inflation which is an incorrect measure.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 03:37 PMPerhaps I misspoke. Revenues dropped as a percentage of GDP
OK, no problem. I type too fast for the brain too, sometimes! :) I don't think revenue dropping as a percentage of GDP is necessarily bad, I'd like to see revenues capped to no more than inflation plus population growth, rather than a share or GDP. But that's a policy issue.
Now, anything about your errors regarding deficits and the shift of tax load?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 03:42 PMNot every One. Some take jets from DC to NY for dinner. Which is fine with me as long as he doesn't bitch about other people doing it.
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 03:46 PMFrom the looks of the recent polls a lot of folks are beginning to get it. I hoped that would be a result if Obama overreached as he most certainly has. I don't think his "lets make the bad guys take a time out" foreign policy approach sits well with most Americans either.
I've said it for a long time. When people finally see that the post-1960's left is all about controlling how we live and taking away as much of our liberty as possible their days will be numbered.
Just that thought might be worth a martini this evening.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 9, 2009 03:53 PMYou could argue that revenues dropping as a percentage of GDP meant that the GDP increased, which means our economy was helped by the tax cuts. I can't disagree with that. Tax cuts help the economy, just as government stimulus spending does -- these are both principles in Keynesian economics.
I argue that government stimulus like infrastructure or unemployment benefits do a better job per-dollar. Also, tax cuts on the lower brackets are more effective than cutting the higher brackets at stimulating the economy, because those folks are more likely to spend extra money quickly rather than save it.
Now, anything about your errors regarding deficits and the shift of tax load?
About deficits: before the tax cuts we had no deficit at all! My original point was about the PAYGO nature was that these tax cuts, if good policy, should have been offset by a reduction in spending to ensure that we didn't have deficit spending.
Especially during the periods of 2003-2007 where we had a relatively strong economy, having deficit spending during that time hurt our ability to spend into the deficit now during bad economic times.
The long-term prospects of Bush's cuts on the top brackets are actually pretty bad. That's they expire automatically: to avoid a disastrous CBO number which would have killed the bill.
The shifting tax load I think reflects how during the Bush years the rich got a lot richer while the middle class didn't really grow. Obviously, their rates decreased disproportionately compared to the other brackets.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 03:53 PMIt's a lot different than the CEO of a company who got a bailout. If a GM CEO used our money to go on an NYC date night of course we'd all be upset. It's impossible for the President to go on a date with his wife, or a short trip to NYC, without the motorcade and the secret service detail. That's not his choice.
I applaud the man for keeping his beautiful wife and adorable kids happy. I'm sure if he could ride up on Amtrak and walk the streets alone with Michelle, he would have preferred to.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 04:04 PMYeah them private jets that are built by UNION workers that pay well, are now out of a job!
Thanks Obama.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 9, 2009 04:10 PMI know you applaud him for going on a date. You applaud him for using toilet paper, I suspect.
Point is, John, he has made *no* sacrifice like you said we all must do. He just bitches about others doing it.
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 04:13 PMAbout deficits: before the tax cuts we had no deficit at all!
We also didn't have 9/11 which shut down Wall Street for 10 days, and led to a massive deepening of the recession. I was contracting for a company at that time that had its VC funding cut on 9/12 because of concern about the economy after the attack.
The big deficit of 2002 and 2003 was because of the after-effects of 9/11, not because of tax cuts.
My original point was about the PAYGO nature was that these tax cuts, if good policy, should have been offset by a reduction in spending to ensure that we didn't have deficit spending.
OK, fine. Let's say that President Bush was wrong for not PAYGO with the tax cuts (never mind the revenue skyrocketed and the deficits were cut by 70%).
Why should Obama get a pass for PAYGO? He was a Senator for 4 years, and he never offered a PAYGO bill. He talked about it as President, but never took action. In fact, it's only come up now that the Slavery Party is behind in the polls in terms of the economy.
If PAYGO is so good and Obama is so good for now talking about it, does it mean he was bad back then?
The long-term prospects of Bush's cuts on the top brackets are actually pretty bad. That's they expire automatically: to avoid a disastrous CBO number which would have killed the bill.
They don't have to expire. Congress and the President can continue them! They can extend the tax cuts with a simple vote. And that would extend the record growth in revenue that the tax cuts kicked off (26% above the rate of inflation over the course of 4 years is nothing to sneeze at).
Or were the tax cuts a bad thing, because they stimulated growth and greatly reduced the deficit?
There's a fundamental problem here - you're trying to play both sides of the fence, and the result is you get impaled on the fence posts!
If tax cuts are bad, then explain the massive growth in Federal revenue at a time when deficits were SHRINKING! Clearly the tax cuts did NOT cause the deficits, because the deficits SHRANK in absolute AND percent-of-GDP numbers. And shrank a lot (from $440 billion to $162 billion)
If tax cuts are good, then why not extend them?
And fundamentally, if PAYGO is what you want, then why not hold the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate to account for their failure to act on PAYGO over the last 4 years? ANY OF THEM could have created a PAYGO bill; NONE OF THEM did.
It's called preaching one thing, doing another. And that's more accurately called being a hypocrite.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 04:18 PMYour anger over the GM private jet thing is misplaced. Don't you think?
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 04:23 PMThe shifting tax load I think reflects how during the Bush years the rich got a lot richer while the middle class didn't really grow. Obviously, their rates decreased disproportionately compared to the other brackets.
This one needs to be addressed separately.
First, let's agree:
- The middle class tax rates DECREASED.
That is not in contention, you even state as much. We can agree that the tax rate on the middle class AND the poor decreased, right?
And, as we've seen with hard facts (linked above) - the bottom 75%, which includes the middle class AND the poor - saw their tax rates and their share of the total tax load decrease.
And, as we've seen with the hard facts (linked above) - the bottom 75%, which includes the middle class AND the poor - saw their share of total income INCREASE.
So, given that the middle class AND the poor saw their tax rates/payments/share drop;
the middle class AND the poor saw their share of total income increase;
how can you reach the conclusion that the tax cuts were only for the wealthy and hurt the middle class and poor? Seems to me that they did the exact oppposite; in fact, by any logical, fact-based measure the tax cuts INCREASED the tax (in absolute, nominal, and share of total taxation) for the rich AND shifted income (in absolute and share of total income) from the rich to the middle class and poor!
Let me put it this way:
You, me, Gary, and Medic/Vet are all together. I'm the poor one. Gary is the rich. You and Medic/Vet are the middle class.
Together, we earned $1000. I earned $100, you and Medic/Vet each earned $200, and Gary earned $500.
Together, we paid $100 in taxes. I paid $5, you and Medic/Vet paid $15 each, and Gary paid $65.
The tax cuts come. After four years, we find:
I now earn $110. You and Medic Vet each earn $208; Gary now earns $474.
I now pay $0 in taxes. You and Medic/Vet each pay $12. Gary now pays $74.
How did that hurt you, Medic/Vet, or me?
That's what effectively happened. Taxation shifted to the highest income earners, and income shifted to the middle class and poor!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 04:32 PMAnd fundamentally, if PAYGO is what you want, then why not hold the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate to account for their failure to act on PAYGO over the last 4 years? ANY OF THEM could have created a PAYGO bill; NONE OF THEM did.
Uh, PAYGO was instituted after democrats took back congress in 2007. It hasn't been introduced during this term of congress because of the various economic packages.
The health care reform bill is budget-neutral, so it effectively plays well with PAYGO.
He talked about it as President, but never took action.
What?! He took office just five months ago and it's been a busy time. I'd understand if this were the third year of his term, but he's proposing PAYGO 120 days into his administration. There's a long time to go (sorry for you!).
This is him taking action! Today!
The long-term prospects of Bush's cuts on the top brackets are actually pretty bad. That's they expire automatically: to avoid a disastrous CBO number which would have killed the bill.
They don't have to expire. Congress and the President can continue them! They can extend the tax cuts with a simple vote.
But their long-term deficits are the reason they do expire. The GOP did the expiration for a reason!
Clearly the tax cuts did NOT cause the deficits, because the deficits SHRANK in absolute AND percent-of-GDP numbers. And shrank a lot (from $440 billion to $162 billion)
First you blame the recession for a higher deficit, then you ignore the economic recovery for contributing to higher revenues/smaller deficit? You can't argue both ways.
The tax cuts on the middle class were great, but we didn't need tax cuts for the wealthy. The long-term deficits that come from these tax cuts on the wealthy will significantly damage the dollar.
That's why Obama promised to repeal those tax cuts on the wealthy during the campaign. He should follow through.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 04:33 PMA better example would be Gary makes $500 year 1, then four years later he's making $1,200. Of course his share of taxes went up if our income stagnated. Which happened.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 04:39 PM"Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care"
"Obama-proposed budget rules allow deficits to swell to pay for health care plan"
-
So, no PAYGO for that! Wasn't he *just* saying that we need PAYGO? Or is that only for the proposals that don't swell the deficit by trillions!
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 04:41 PMPAYGO was instituted after democrats took back congress in 2007.
Really? So explain the stimulus bill of January, 2009. Explain the appropriations bill that creates the largest deficit in history. Explain the commitment to deficits as far as the eye can see.
Because that's clearly not what most people think then they hear the word "PAYGO". Usually it means you pay for any extra expenses before they happen, so that you don't increase the debt. That's not exactly what's happening here, is it?
Or is this an Orwellian definition now adopted by the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate?
But their long-term deficits are the reason they do expire. The GOP did the expiration for a reason!
Show me where the trend indicated the tax cuts were going to create deficits. In fact, the data pointed to LOWERING and even ELIMINATING the deficits, thanks to a fast-growing economy!
The deficit exploded in 2008 when the Slavery Party took over. And it's gone absolutely stratospheric now that Obama has taken the White House. But in 2004? 2005? 2006? Not so much...
First you blame the recession for a higher deficit, then you ignore the economic recovery for contributing to higher revenues/smaller deficit? You can't argue both ways.
What do you think ended the recession? It was the growth of the economy thanks to the tax cuts that ended the recession. Too bad our current Administration wants to extend the recession by increasing taxes...
but we didn't need tax cuts for the wealthy.
Show me where that happened. In ALL data, the wealthy ended up paying MORE of their income as taxes AND more of the total tax load.
It's simply a bogus lie, and you know it. I really hoped you were better than that... Look at the hard data referenced above and tell me how the taxes were cut for the rich. Please!
The long-term deficits that come from these tax cuts
As compared to the $500+ billion deficits that the Obama Administration promises from his "PAYGO" approach? LOL!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 04:49 PMThe requirement for legislation to be financed over the coming decade generally mirrors existing congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that Obama's health care plan will add many billions of dollars to the deficit in the early years. Savings and revenues in later years would have to make up for the initial deficits.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_budget
Sounds like that aligns with the spirit of PAYGO pretty well, right?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 04:50 PMDan, your whole scenario in #57 just doesn't make sense. The only way for that to happen would be for Gary's rates to increase. They didn't, they fell.
No, look at the data.
In 2000, the top 5%:
- earned 35% of the adjusted gross income
- paid 56% of all taxes
In 2006, the top 5:
- earned 36% of the adjusted gross income
- paid 60% of all taxes
Their income was essentially unchanged, yet their tax went up. How can you say that was a tax cut for the rich?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 04:57 PMBut answer me these five VERY simple questions to see the errors in your statement (hint: you can find the answers here):
1. What was the deficit in FY2006, the last Bush/GOP budget?2. What was the deficit in FY2007, when the Slavery Party took control of the budget process?
3. What was the largest deficit under President Bush?
4. What's the smallest projected deficit under President Obama?
5. Which year will the smallest Obama deficit be less than the largest Bush deficit?
But answer me these five VERY simple questions to see the errors in your statement (hint: you can find the answers here):
1. What was the deficit in FY2006, the last Bush/GOP budget?2. What was the deficit in FY2007, when the Slavery Party took control of the budget process?
3. What was the largest deficit under President Bush?
4. What's the smallest projected deficit under President Obama?
5. Which year will the smallest Obama deficit be less than the largest Bush deficit?
In 2000, the top 5% paid 24% of their income in taxes. In 2006, they paid 20%. So yes, the rich saw their taxes decrease. (Table 8)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 05:04 PMHow?
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2009 05:15 PMNow, I'm sure you'll disagree with the bill. But it definitely isn't long-term deficit spending. A small contribution to the deficit now, with savings and revenues down the line to make up for that early investment.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 05:22 PMAny answers at all to questions asked in 36, 65/66?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 9, 2009 05:41 PMExcept to the extent that it is his choice. His conscious, deliberate choice. Which hovers somewhere around 100%. (or are you saying he is incompetent? That I can believe ;'}
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 9, 2009 06:04 PMYour conclusion is faulty. What your numbers show is that the top 5% saw their tax RATE go down. It doesn't necessarily follow that their TAXES decreased. Also, if you look at the other numbers in that table, you will find that:
--the top 5% saw their tax RATE drop from 24.42% to 20.68% (a drop of 15.3%)
--the top 50% saw their tax RATE drop from 16.86% to 13.98% (a drop of 17.1%)
--the bottom 50% saw their tax RATE drop from 4.60% to 3.01% (a drop of 34.6%)
This clearly shows that the lower income taxpayers benefited MORE, percentage-wise than the upper income taxpayers.
Posted by: Bill H on June 9, 2009 06:14 PMI see no problem with the middle-class tax cuts, but I think the cuts on the top 1% (> $388,806) are simply unsustainable for the long haul especially when we all recognize the need to reign in deficit spending.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 07:17 PM
OK, have you actually done the math and checked how much "tax revenue" you would gain? Roll their tax cuts away, you go from 22.7% to 27.5%. Let's call it 5% just to be easy.
The top 1% made $1.8 trillion in income. What's 5% of that? It's $90 billion. That's a drop in the bucket of the ~$900 BILLION deficit average that Obama is promising.
And Obama promised to raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% by only 3%! Well, do that math - take 3% more of their total income ($3 trillion); you come up with $99 billion. Again, not even close.
Hey, you realize you can confiscate EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR of the top 1% and still not balance the budget? This year's deficit is GREATER! You could reduce their income to ZERO, and you still don't have enough money.
The tax cuts aren't the cause of the deficits; Obama/Pelosi/Reid and their insane spending is the problem!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060901337.html?hpid=moreheadlines
$3.5 trillion worth. The AP says "The federal deficit is on pace to explode past $1.8 trillion this year,". So, we are going *beyond* the already outrageous $1.8 trillion annual deficit.
Folks, please... this is bad. John, this is bad, okay?
#80. No, honestly it is not worth reading the NY Times. You may disagree, but that newspaper is no longer a trustworthy source of information. They print what liberals want to read. They've gone to the Newsweek model without being honest about it.
"Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans say the rest of the new government spending authorized in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan should now be canceled. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 36% disagree and 20% are not sure."
Trends.
Posted by: Gary on June 10, 2009 08:12 AMIt's worth reading this NY Times articles and the associated graphic: article - graphic
Thanks for the supporting information proving it's the spending - NOT the "tax cuts" - that created the deficits.
Go ahead, repeal the tax cuts on the wealthy (increase taxes 3% on the top 5%, just like Obama promised to do). If you collected every dollar of that tax, you would solve 5% of your deficit. And you haven't addressed the real problem - spending.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 09:00 AMYep. Dude needs to get a life.
Posted by: jimg on June 10, 2009 09:31 AMI know who is in favor of that.
John, what do we do now? Huge deficit. Lower revenue. Can't sell bonds (borrow).
So, now what?
I wish deficits were lower and I don't want to see $500bn deficits for the rest of Obama's term. But he can't come in on day one and eliminate eight years of recklessness. the biggest single contributor to our dismal deficit situation are Bush policies at $673 billion. Another $700 bn comes from recessions. Just $200 bn represent Obama's policies according to the Congressional Budget Office.
So while you may have complained about Bush's excess at the time, we are still feeling the effects of it and it's impossible to ignore that.
For example, look at this CBO projection. Note how Obama's spending is so much more irresponsible than the CBO baseline? Well, that's because Bush tax cuts expire soon and the CBO must follow the law as written. Keeping those middle-class tax cuts and indexing the AMT, a REAL fix, result in a $2.1 trillion revenue decrease (2010-2019).
Medicare physician payments are scheduled to drop by 28% in a few years. No administration would ever let that happen. Fixing that is $300 bn.
So, that's $2.4 trillion dollars that everyone supports, but which the CBO cannot analyze as their "baseline" as the law is written. Obama's tax cuts are $500 bn and his new discretionary spending is $950 bn.
So, $2.4 trillion in legacy fixes. That's the picture he inherited. Yes, that means his worker tax credit might have to go due to the worsening economic picture. Or his spending might have to shrink.
But it is reprehensible to ignore the $2.4 trillion shortfall he came into office with, that any politician or any party would have found themselves in. Keeping Bush's tax cuts on the top 3% would make that shortfall even more pronounced.
Now look, at a certain point Obama's spending becomes his own responsibility. But fixing the AMT, fixing Medicare funding, and keeping middle-class tax cuts are things everyone agrees we have to do regardless of party.
I want to get rid of farm subsidies. I want to cut a lot of pork. But when republicans can only find $5bn of cuts I really wonder if the problem is harder to solve than commenters here say:
Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending, the conservative Cato Institute concluded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp
What now? Well, with eight years of irresponsibility, we have very limited options. I have to agree with the NY Times' conclusion:
The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it wont be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 11:23 AMI have zero desire to raise taxes. No one likes taxes. But our debt is a serious systemic issue, and we cannot ignore like Bush did or during the next recession we will find ourselves without the tools to climb out.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 11:26 AMLook for more people being shocked that Obama would do this, even though they voted for him.
#89, so tax increases. Just as I thought.
The quote was, "some combination of tax increases and spending cuts." Please stop being such a fucking partisan hack.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 11:42 AMThis just in... in May we had a $189.7 billion deficit. Highest ever.
Why are you using foul language when I simply ask how we should get out of this mess? Why are you so mad when you're getting your way?
Posted by: Gary on June 10, 2009 11:51 AMLiberals always resort to type. My theory, and I would point to this most recent evidence above, is that liberalism attracts angry, controlling people.
You can't have a discussion with liberals. They either swear at you, or in the case of talk radio or conservative speakers on college campuses they try to shut conservatives up. Nice bunch of people, eh John?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 10, 2009 11:52 AMAlright, my next question. How much should my taxes be raised?
Who?
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 10, 2009 01:17 PMGary has misrepresented my posts many times. He is unable to present a convincing argument backed up with facts on his own, so he simply distorts my view. (Quoting "raising taxes" is like getting a "peanut butter sandwich" when I ordered a pb&j.)
Yes it is frustrating presenting thought-out and well-researched posts to come back to stupid partisan rejoinders from someone looking to draw devil horns on Obama.
We'd be in nearly the exact same situation whether Obama was in office or McCain was office. A stimulus, whether mostly a spending package like democrats had, or a mostly a tax package as republicans would have wanted, would have passed. (Obama's recovery package had $288bn in tax cuts.) The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would have to be indexed. Medicare payment rates would be fixed. Most of Bush's tax cuts would be extended. And the recession would be destroying our fiscal outlook.
It's a serious issue. It deserves far more sober analysis than some are giving it here. And that isn't a political answer: these facts will be nearly the same if Obama loses the 2012 election or if republicans gain seats in the 2010 mid-terms.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 01:21 PMSkip over who?
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 10, 2009 01:28 PMNo, you didn't hurt anyones feelings, John. You simply revealed what you are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 10, 2009 01:31 PMthe biggest single contributor to our dismal deficit situation are Bush policies at $673 billion
I have one question: HOW? After the tax cuts were implemented, the deficit SHRANK! It went from $440 billion pre-2003 tax cuts to $162 billion after the 2003 tax cuts. HOW did the deficit increase because of the tax cuts? The data doesn't back it up.
Furthermore, how do you propose to balance the average $1 TRILLION deficits that Obama's budgeting us to have? What tax rates do you propose to cover that?
And you never answered my questions from post 36/65/66, so I'll answer them for you:
1. What was the deficit in FY2006, the last Bush/GOP budget? - $162 billion.
2. What was the deficit in FY2007, when the Slavery Party took control of the budget process? - $460 billion.
3. What was the largest deficit under President Bush? - $440 billion.
4. What's the smallest projected deficit under President Obama? - $680 billion.
5. Which year will the smallest Obama deficit be less than the largest Bush deficit? - Never.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 01:36 PMBalmer is a good example of what is going to happen to many Americans when Obama's policies hit them in the wallet.
That will happen when gas costs $5.00 a gallon because of cap and trade and the lefts' refusal to drill for our own oil. When Obama taxes soda pop,(which is just the beginning). When he institutes a national sales tax. When all goods and services cost more due to Obamas' higher energy costs (which will be passed on to the consumer). When we have the inevitable inflation caused by this insane spending. When impractical new "green" cars end up costing $40,000. When people realize that "wind and solar" didn't magically make us energy independent and that global warming is a leftist scam. Americans will give Obama the boot just like they did Jimmy Carter and wonder what the heck they were thinking in 2008.
One thing we should thank Obama for. He is revealing without disguise the agenda of the post-1960's left.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 10, 2009 02:08 PMI'm sure glad we have experts spending our money for us.
Who again?!
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 10, 2009 03:29 PMAccording to the CBO, tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and the Iraq War -- all of which weren't funded cuts or new revenues.
We were supposed to have an $800 bn SURPLUS this year. Bush's actions ate into most of that surplus. Recessions took a bigger chunk out. The bail outs created by the Bush administration represent another large chunk. Finally, Obama's spending is a fraction of the difference.
I'm not blaming Bush for all of our ills, but no one at the time thought it was a fiscal conservative administration and no one should believe that now. "Tricks" such as having the tax cuts expire automatically or never having the political will to fix the AMT aren't examples of brave leadership and especially not fiscal stewardship.
Bush claimed we'd have a balanced budget in a few years when he submitted his FY 2009 budget (the last one he submitted)... Those numbers assumed the AMT wouldn't be fixed, his taxes would expire, Medicare payments would drop 37%, the wars wouldn't need any funding, and no disasters would occur.
We can't let Obama, the Democrats, or the Republicans try to fool us like that again. We should understand the serious and systematic problems with our budget and talk rationally about how to fix them.
And yes, that means spending cuts and future tax increases absolutely must be part of discussions. And look, if it's not Obama, it'll be some other president in the future. You can't lose $700bn in tax receipts in one year and come out ahead.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 03:30 PMI'm not blaming Bush. But Dan, the man wasn't fiscally responsible.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 03:32 PMI don't know any conservative that was happy with Bush's spending. We do know however that had Bush cut spending you, John, and the rest of the left would have been hollering about how Bush and those mean Republicans don't care about children and the elderly. It's right there in your playbook. You can look it up.
The point is Obama has to man up at some point and take ownership of the state of affairs that he chose to preside over. So far he's only made things worse.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 10, 2009 03:51 PMOh, OK! We'll play that game. Show me WHICH YEAR did the national debt drop, year over year? Please show me (here's a hint - it wasn't President Clinton. You have to go back to Ike...)
It's most telling that you let partisan politics drive your position, not logic or reason. You excoriate President Bush for spending $4.5 trillion in deficit spending over his term. And you excuse President Obama for promising to spend at least $10 trillion in deficit spending over his term. What, was $4.5 trillion additional debt not enough? We now need to double that amount?
And I thought we had agreed that it was the Congress that set the budgets? Remember that little civics course? So who set the budgets up through FY2006? And who set the budgets for FY2008 and that massive FY2009 (which drove all of that $1.4 trillion in spending)?
There's your question to answer... Which party has been writing the budgets and the appropriations bills for the last few years which have so jacked the debt.
Which party pays lip-service to PAYGO as they merrily promise to add $1 trillion a year to the national debt for at least the next 10 years?
That party, my friend, is the party that you support and belong to - the Slavery Party, more commonly known as the Democrat Party.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 04:02 PMOh, OK! We'll play that game. Show me WHICH YEAR did the national debt drop, year over year? Please show me (here's a hint - it wasn't President Clinton. You have to go back to Ike...)
It's most telling that you let partisan politics drive your position, not logic or reason. You excoriate President Bush for spending $4.5 trillion in deficit spending over his term. And you excuse President Obama for promising to spend at least $10 trillion in deficit spending over his term. What, was $4.5 trillion additional debt not enough? We now need to double that amount?
And I thought we had agreed that it was the Congress that set the budgets? Remember that little civics course? So who set the budgets up through FY2006? And who set the budgets for FY2008 and that massive FY2009 (which drove all of that $1.4 trillion in spending)?
There's your question to answer... Which party has been writing the budgets and the appropriations bills for the last few years which have so jacked the debt.
Which party pays lip-service to PAYGO as they merrily promise to add $1 trillion a year to the national debt for at least the next 10 years?
That party, my friend, is the party that you support and belong to - the Slavery Party, more commonly known as the Democrat Party.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 04:04 PMI'd understand it can read that way, but who am I arguing against? People blaming Obama.
The situation is complicated, he came into office with an unsustainable US budget not of his own creation. The Bush administration created that budget picture and did nothing to fix it. Obama, if he is to be effective, must fix these long-term problems that we've ignored for decades.
These are serious issues and deserve more than simple blame or trying to score political points on the word "taxes." The require a sober analysis of where we stand.
So when Gary asks, "omg how much should you raise my taxes" he is missing the point. A conservative president would probably have to raise revenues too, eventually, even with all the spending cuts that are politically attainable.
The point is Obama has to man up at some point and take ownership of the state of affairs that he chose to preside over.
Bill C, I couldn't agree more. I do not think that day is today because if these issues were easy to fix, they already would be fixed by now.
He is already presenting more realistic budget outlines than Bush ever did, and that is a step in the right direction. He is being honest even when it opens him up to criticism: his administration projects $500 bn deficits after the crisis ends, which is an unsustainable number. Dan and others are able to point at this and criticize Obama. If Obama wasn't trying to fix the AMT for real, didn't budget for disasters or war funding, and played the tricks that Bush did his numbers would look much prettier (though still worse since this recession will have lasting effects and the debt incurred from it will cost a lot to maintain).
He will eventually have to take ownership of it and consider deep, systematic fixes.
You may not agree, but fixing health care is a good step: Medicare will bankrupt the US without changes. Private health care will dominate our GDP and crowd out other sectors unless it's fixed.
At some point it'll have to get even more serious. He will have to consider serious spending cuts, marginal revenue increases (cap-and-trade, capital gains, reducing deduction benefits for the top 5%, etc), or even small but broad tax increases for most Americans.
As a supporter, I am not anxious for any tax increase. No one likes taxes. It will hurt his standing with the American people and it could fulfill a myth about "taxing and spending." But just managing a mess, instead of fixing it, and leaving it to the next administration is irresponsible, as we're witnessing. We have to do something to fix our systemic problems.
Saying that these are typical liberal problems ignores that we are in atypical times and that a typical conservative president put us on these shaky budgetary grounds. To be fair to republicans here, no one thought Bush was a true fiscal conservative, which is why Dan's defense of his budgeting is so confusing to me. It reeks of revisionist history.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 04:18 PMOMG, did I read that right Obama will fix the problems.
OK John, show US all please where he has fixed zip?
This rate of spending we (the USA/taxpayers) can not handle.
Long term mean getting the GOV out... remember Johnston and HIS war on poverty. How's that working out.(by the way, they said it done in 10 years) Heck do you even know some of the words spoken after S/S was brought in and what it was suppose to do and NOT do. (that's gone)
DUDE you living in a pot smoke room for way to many years.
By the way, not that it matters to you. I've been in health care for the pass 20+ years. I've seen what gov health care CAN'T do.
Go spend a month in the EU, then come back and tell me all about Gov health care.
What are you, 21 yrs old?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 10, 2009 04:35 PMDon't forget that as soon as Obama took office the used fear mongering to shove through his massive stimulus package...which no one had read. He's about to use the same tactic to frighten the country into accepting nationalized health care.
You also conveniently forget that Democrats have controlled Congress the past two years.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 10, 2009 04:39 PMYou may not agree, but fixing health care is a good step: Medicare will bankrupt the US without changes.
I see this often used as a rationale for single payer, universal healthcare. Why would people NOT on Medicare need to have their plans changes to fix a program for people on Medicare?
If my car's brakes are getting close to worn out, why does it help me to go and force your brakes to be replaced?
If Medicare is the problem then FIX IT! Why try to fix something that isn't broken, in the name of fixing something that is?
Again, it's the same illogical train of thought that leads people to condemn President Bush and the GOP for averaging $300 billion/year deficits, and praise President Obama for promising us $1 trillion deficits for the next 10 years...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 04:43 PMThe projections that Obama presented are unsustainable. I do not sit there and happily accept those projections, but we need accurate projections allows us to realize what problems are facing this country and will allow us to fix them instead of sweeping them under the rug like some administrations. Obama's first budget was never going to fix all of the systemic problems that face this country's long-term fiscal outlook.
The differences between Bush's deficits and Obama's are significant:
- Bush's deficits have already occurred, whereas most of Obama's have not. Because of that, Obama and congress can work to fix these budget issues.
- Obama entered office during the worst recession in generations. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
It's most telling that you let partisan politics drive your position, not logic or reason.
The government slashing spending in a weak economy will drive it even further into the dumps. That's what happened during the great depression. That's what happened when FDR cut spending and raised taxes before WWII.
I am letting the context and the facts, which I have cited repeatedly, drive my arguments. Perhaps I wouldn't be making them with such zeal if McCain were in office, but I certainly would not be criticizing his record deficit at this point. In fact, I don't even think Bush's record deficit of his last year in office is something terrible.
Bush's deficits during good times, however, and his unfunded excursion into Iraq and Medicare Part D, and his tax cuts which weren't offset by spending cuts, put us in dangerous financial waters. If we had sane spending during the boom years, the deficits we're seeing today would be much more management and our debt wouldn't be as large of a percentage of GDP.
So when the economy is booming again, and revenues are soaring in, we should keep that in mind and do everything to either bring down the debt as a percentage of GDP, or even try to go as far as balancing the budget.
Did you know, Dan, that Bush could have vetoed appropriations and TARP? You really need to get off the SLAVERY PARTY BLAME TRAIN. The reason Bush's spending skyrocketed his last term was because of the TARP legislation he supported as well as AIG and Fannie/Freddie bailouts he supported. He signed the appropriations. Nearly any President would have done the same in those circumstances. And all Presidents would have seen significant drops in revenue intakes due to the faltering economy.
Medic/Vet, I didn't say Obama will fix the problems. I said he must (...to be a successful president).
I don't know what you mean by getting the GOV out? What would you cut? Do you think your party will ever end social security, medicare, the huge defense sector, or other big programs? It seems kind of unlikely! Our fixes should be based in reality and not just ideals and principles.
I don't want to go on a health care tangent, but Obama's plan allows everyone to keep their current private health insurance. It's all about choice. There is no element that is like an EU single-payer or socialized system.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 04:44 PMThe government slashing spending in a weak economy will drive it even further into the dumps. That's what happened during the great depression. That's what happened when FDR cut spending and raised taxes before WWII.
Actually, there is a lot of research indicating that FDR's high spending, taxes, and Federal controls extended and deepened the Great Depression. The solutions didn't work last time, trying them again won't help!
Bush's deficits during good times, however, and his unfunded excursion into Iraq and Medicare Part D, and his tax cuts which weren't offset by spending cuts, put us in dangerous financial waters.
And the deficit in 2004 was? And the deficit in 2005 was? And the deficit in 2006 was? All those falling deficits, wow such a dangerous situation!
Did you cry for the heavens when the budget deficits fell in the 90s?
So when the economy is booming again, and revenues are soaring in, we should keep that in mind and do everything to either bring down the debt as a percentage of GDP, or even try to go as far as balancing the budget.
And how do you propose to get the economy booming again when the companies that grow the economy - like Microsoft, the focus of this thread - tell the Obama Administration they're making the US uncompetitive?
So much for the growth when the companies all leave! Then what do you do? Finish nationalizing other industries?
Did you know, Dan, that Bush could have vetoed appropriations and TARP?
Yes, he should have vetoed TARP. He never had a chance to veto the FY2009 appropriations bill that President Obama signed precisely because he promised to veto it; Pelosi and Reid never sent it to him!
But they did send it to President Obama who dutifully signed it (after he voted for it as a sitting Senator).
And about Obamacare? Take an eye-opening, if long, read about how it's going to drive up costs, reduce coverage, reduce choice, reduce portability, and further burden small businesses.
So much for HOPE and CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 05:03 PMCompared to what other program?
Did you really say that. Where did our founding father put SS or medicare into our system. They didn't, but defense they did.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't want to go on a health care tangen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I bet not, it's a loser for the few that have seen a gov run system. Yet YOU think he can fix it?
John. I'll ask 'again' what has Obama fixed so far?
Care to keep digging?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 10, 2009 05:25 PMThe modern left hates capitalism and regards business as evil. These are people that idolize Marx, Che, and Castro. It's hardly coincidental that every leftist protest march is organized by some group that is either connected directly to the socialist or communist parties in this country.
Obama could have eliminated the capital gains tax the day he took office and the market would have soared.
Obama doesn't care if the economy recovers. What he wants is a leftist state which crushes dissent, indoctrinates children, and forces everyone into permanent government dependency. It's why leftists war against Christmas every year and Christianity in general. Traditional families are the enemy of the state.
I don't have to make any of this up, do I?
I've addressed almost every argument you presented and we're arguing in circles. I think we've both made our points. :)
That whole Obamacare report isn't worth reading. It talks nothing about the bill that is coming out of congress within a few weeks and is from a partisan think-tank from DC. I'll take my analysis from the CBO and other non-partisan institutions.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 05:38 PMWell rather then go all night long with you. How about this instead.
What gov program since FDR has been able to work it's self out of a job, because it worked so good?
Not S/S, not medicare, not AFDC, not NEA.
So which one would it be John. Try none!
All these programs that were put in place have done nothing but grow and yes, show little success.
Yet Obama tells the banks and GM that the gov doesn't want to be their keeper.
(pot meet kettle)
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 10, 2009 05:40 PMCBO and other non-partisan institutions.
+++++++++++++++++
Again, you show us what little you know. CBO is not non-partisan.
O-brother
We spend more on defense than every other single part of the discretionary budget. That means every highway and transit project, all pork projects, the State Department, planetarium projectors, etc. Defense is bigger than all of that combined. That's why John McCain has fought hard to reform the contract process at the DoD. I hope Obama backs those reforms.
Neither Medicare nor Social Security have any deficit spending. In fact, their excess revenue has offset other deficit spending in the past. Cutting those entirely would not help the deficit at all.
So is that your plan with helping the deficit? Fail.
About health care: We'll all be able to keep our insurance company and our doctor if we like them. Obama's plan is about affordable choice and extending the promise of health care to everyone in the nation (who can choose to buy a private insurance plan, just like now).
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 05:51 PMThe CBO is by law nonpartisan. It has a long history of delivering nonpartisan, unbiased budget reports.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 05:58 PMThe reason the deficits in 2004-2006 weren't okay is this picture. They put us on shaky grounds and grew the debt as a percentage of GDP.
Yep. And the Slavery Party/Democrat solution? Even HIGHER deficits forever! That'll solve the problem!
Yeah, it's been run to the ground - it's pretty clear that fiscal responsibility is to be only a talking point for the fascist Slavery Party, and anything that has ever gone wrong must be the fault of the GOP.
I think that sums it up?
Oh, one last thing:
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 06:50 PMIs this what Ron Sims calls government creating wealth more efficently??
Posted by: Michele on June 10, 2009 06:54 PMOnly decadent capitalist pigs would dare build vehicles people actually want.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 10, 2009 07:15 PMIt's no problem, they'll just take the money from the deficit, after all what's another trillion among friends?
And it's going to help overall Government spending levels, because it replaces private sector spending with Government spending, meaning that while the Government gets bigger deficits, we all get a higher debt load!
Doesn't this make sense?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 10:10 PMThe public plan is one possible part of health care reform. The bill is significantly larger than that one topic.
Given that the AMA supports a shared responsibility law, making it so everyone in America must have health care insurance, I'm sure your in complete support? After all, it's 250,000 doctors!
None of the money for health care is from deficit spending, that's complete bullshit. The bill will be budget neutral. Get your facts straight, Dan.
Michele, People who currently have private insurance will find they are waiting months with the government insurance instead of days or weeks that they wait currently with non-government medicine.
People can keep their current insurance company if they want to! There is absolutely no government takeover of health care planned. Rather, there is the possibility of a public health insurance plan with coverage similar to members of congress that anyone can purchase. You'd pay premiums and deductibles just like any other insurance company.
If someone signs up for the public insurance plan, they can choose to do so. If they find the lines are long for some reason, they can switch to a private insurance company. There is nothing here forcing anyone into a government insurance plan.
If you guys don't know what's being proposed, how are you supposed to effectively advocate against it? Come on guys, you're all smart and you should know this stuff.
This isn't a single-payer system. It's not socialized health care.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 10:37 PMRead and learn. And ALL of the healthcare spending will be new entitlements, and will be deficit spending. Even the Washington Times says as much, and re-iterates the FACT that Obama says one thing, and does another.
Face it - the Obama Administration and its plans are bankrupting this nation, are fiscally irresponsible, and a drag on the economy.
What more can be said - you simply refuse to learn, to accept basic facts, or even make logical conclusions (deficits are bad, ergo the deficit spending of Obama is good! George Bush cut taxes, deficits went down, ergo the tax cuts increased our deficits!)
This is done, enjoy...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 10:55 PMThe early years of health care reform will have some losses, but later years will bring in revenues to overcome those losses. Over a ten-year period the bill will be budget neutral. It will not incur deficit spending.
What do you mean "even" The Washington Times? It's widely known as having a conservative lean: Read and learn. Of course their editorial is going to be against Obama. The Washington Post is good newspaper in the region.
You seem to have a problem seeing basic facts. But Bush was a perfect fiscal conservative, right? What a joke. Not even conservatives thought that at the time. Nice try changing history.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 11:02 PMYou are wrong. There are significant savings in Medicare and Medicaid as well as some to-be-decided revenue increases to fund health care expansion. None of it will be deficit spending. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm tired of speaking with someone so unconcerned about reality.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 10, 2009 11:08 PMWelcome to Obamacare!
Oh, and your contention is that the new spending won't be deficit spending, just the $1 trillion annually beyond that new spending will be?
WONDERFUL!
John, it's really, REALLY simple. If you're worried about too much spending, then STOP SPENDING. You can't forgive Obama for $10 TRILLION in new debt, for $1 trillion annually in deficit spending. How can you? It's not intellectually honest?
Figure it out - I'm out of this thread, you haven't shown any logical consistency, you refuse to answer basic questions, you refuse to even admit that your Obamassiah is blowing $2 trillion this year, and is planning to deficit spend $1 trillion per year for the next 8 years.
Crowing how you're so concerned about the deficit, and that the solution is to add even MORE Government spending is simply insane. It doesn't add up. You're a fool, a partisan, or both.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 10, 2009 11:58 PMI suppose your solution is to keep things as the status quo? This could never happen in America... Except when it happens in Oregon. People are denied coverage all the time and that is something that would be reformed under health care reform.
That's one of the many ways that health care is broke in this country right now, and why it's a crisis we have to fix.
Just because there are deficits in the budget doesn't mean the rest of the country halts all progress. We've needed to fix health care for generations. The best way to ensure our long-term sustainability is to fix Medicare via health care reform. Without fixes Medicare will bankrupt the country. Health care reform will be completely budget neutral and also address long-term health care spending which will otherwise dominate our GDP and make us less competitive.
Health care reform should be argued on its merits, not unrelated facts about the deficits. However, deficits are an important problem to fix over the course of Obama's administration. Earlier in this thread, I outlined the painful fixes that will probably need to occur. In response, you argue like a little kid: "answer basic questions" and "refuse to admit." I don't need to "admit" things or answer leading rhetorical questions -- you can present your arguments with citations and I can present mine.
I understand the budgetary picture of this country much better than you do because I actually try to understand it rather than just vilify Obama. I am much more honest about the systematic causes and even the fixes. You just want to blame Obama for everything.
He's been in office for five months, Dan. That is not enough time to make the sort of systematic changes necessary to fix Bush's poor budgetary legacy. As I've said before, any president would find himself in a very similar situation at this juncture.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 12:28 AM
...would disappear. I know they say you can keep your own insurance, but they will drive those companies out of business. One congresswoman freely admitted it.
In #89, you said, "But fixing the AMT, fixing Medicare funding..."
Why is Medicare screwed up if it's a great government health-care program?
In #111, you said, "Medicare will bankrupt the US without changes. "
Why is Medicare screwed up if it's a great government health-care program? Did they tell us when they started it that it would someday bankrupt the United States? No? Why didn't they?
Why didn't they say, "This new Medicare system will one day bankrupt the nation!"?
And now you want to give them the entire health care industry? Why? Once you do that, you will (after a very short time) have no more options but the government plan which will decide how you live, what you can eat, and what medicine they chose to let you have. If it's too much, you die.
It's simple rationing.
Boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent think the government can take care of them better than they can themselves.
Posted by: Gary on June 11, 2009 07:09 AMHere is the article: Canada's ObamaCare Precedent
Here is just a bit of it:
"Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither." -snip-
"The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself." -snip-
He then discusses how Canada, Great Britain and even socialist Sweden are moving toward more private involvement in the their health care system.
And the conclusion:
"Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?"
Posted by: Bill H on June 11, 2009 08:25 AMThe difference between Medicare and my health insurance is that old folks don't have jobs and thus usually don't have private health insurance. Anyone who currently has private health insurance could keep their plan.
As for the public plan putting private companies our of business... We need to limit the public plan so this doesn't happen. That means no low Medicare-style rates, no doctors being forced to accept it, no unfair collective bargaining, etc. A public plan will, however, have less overhead than private insurance companies (no advertising or shareholders to worry about) and thus provide competition for private insurance. The message is: Keep your overhead down or you'll lose customers.
Giving folks the OPTION to sign up for a public plan is not nationalization. Why is it that the GOP is so worried about giving people the ability to choose a public plan?
But I have to say, if you want to make the fight about the public plan, go ahead. Set the goalposts there. A public plan is just one small part of a much bigger health care reform package, and if your sights are set on the public plan then the rest of the package is that much easier to pass.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 10:46 AMThey are going to kill private insurers. Some of them admit this. Some of them (the liars) do not.
Posted by: Gary on June 11, 2009 10:54 AMIt has to do with their desire for power and control. These are the kinds of people who enjoy telling people how to live their lives. They are control addicts. As long as they can tell Americans what they can eat and how to live their lives they're happy as clams. It doesn't matter to them that their ideas have been historic failures.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 11, 2009 10:59 AMHate fast food... institute nationalized healthcare and kill it.
Hate SUV's... institute global warming laws and kill 'em.
1. Lowering taxes RAISES actual "revenue" to the treasury.
2. Social Security started out requiring us to pay 2%. Now it's over 15%. (do you really believe socialized medicine will be any different?).
Obama asking for PayGo now is just shutting the barn door after the horses have already run out. They are BORROWING the money. It should be called Go PAY, because we're going ahead with spending, and we'll PAY for it later...or your grand kids will pay for it later I should say...
Posted by: scott on June 11, 2009 11:07 AMThat's not true.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 11:08 AMhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458888993599879.html
Look at the chart. Are we now 1920's Germany, or present-day Zimbabawe?
#146, yes lower taxes raises revenues, but the Left doesn't care about that. They care only about punishment. We've seen that with the disdain showed for private jet manufacturers. They care not about the jobs lost. They only care that some rich guy doesn't get to fly on one.
It's pure envy, and doesn't actually advance anybody's well being.
Posted by: Gary on June 11, 2009 11:12 AMI agree with the AMA with regard to their conditions. I also agree with their support of shared responsibility.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 12:41 PMThe other subgroup under this larger category is a potpourri. It includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a patch to keep the alternative minimum tax from affecting more households; the Bush tax cuts that apply to households making less than $250,000; and some changes to Medicare reimbursement. This category adds $232 billion to the 2009-12 deficits. In the C.B.O.s accounting, these programs are mostly considered to be Mr. Obamas, since they require new legislation. In criticizing Mr. Obamas budget, Congressional Republicans have generally avoided mentioning the fact that his main contribution to the deficit is to continue policies they support.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 01:48 PMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
Of course, we must know that none of this is Obama's fault. That first year is already going to be more than both projected. $2 trillion plus.
"IRS Weighs Rules for Taxing Private Use of Work Cellphones "
Posted by: Gary on June 11, 2009 03:07 PM"In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade."
So, the CBO calls this "Obama's budget". But of course, none of this is his fault. He's just the President.
The near-term (2009-2012) deficits we face now would be nearly the same regardless of who was President and who was in congress. We'd see a +/- $50 billion difference over that time frame depending on how a stimulus package was shaped, but there would have been some form of stimulus even if it was just tax cuts.
So, Obama entered office during bad times. It's his job to clean up the mess, certainly. But you can either be logical about it and understand why we're here, or you can ignore the history that it took to get to this place and vilify Obama. You're clearly interested in vilification, which is why I am defeating you so roundly in this discussion.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 03:58 PMWhat you ought to own up to John is that liberal programs do not work. Both Social Security and Medicare are going broke. The War On Poverty not only has been a failure it has turned African American communities into killing fields every weekend. Liberals run the education system in the country which we flood with money and it is a failure when compared to other countries, and liberals constantly whine they need more money.
Why on earth should we believe that a massive takeover of healthcare by liberals would be any different? We're simply being sold a bunch of lies so that liberals can make the fools that vote for them eternally dependent. Even Europeans are waking up to the messes liberals create.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 11, 2009 04:20 PMWhat partisan bullshit? I offered you CBO numbers.
Posted by: Gary on June 11, 2009 04:20 PMWhat you ought to own up to John is that liberal programs do not work. Both Social Security and Medicare are going broke. The War On Poverty not only has been a failure it has turned African American communities into killing fields every weekend. Liberals run the education system in the country which we flood with money and it is a failure when compared to other countries, and liberals constantly whine they need more money.
Why on earth should we believe that a massive takeover of healthcare by liberals would be any different? We're simply being sold a bunch of lies so that liberals can make the fools that vote for them eternally dependent. Even Europeans are waking up to the messes liberals create.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 11, 2009 04:22 PMSo John, how am I being partisan (and what's wrong with that anyway?) when I present you your favorite non-partisan CBO's own numbers for Obama's projected deficits? Hell, even the White House' projections are dreadful.
Instead of trying to understand what I'm writing, you simply choose to distort it for to make partisan gains.
And why is it liberals always accuse us of having no solutions? We do. Stop spending money we don't have, and stop raising every damn tax there is.
That is not a solution nor a plan.
We're going to have a $1.75T or so deficit this year. What specifically would you cut to reduce spending by $1.75T?
Oh, I know what you'd cut! Spending! And taxes! So specific, I'm impressed!
Bill, What you ought to own up to John is that liberal programs do not work. Both Social Security and Medicare are going broke. The War On Poverty not only has been a failure it has turned African American communities into killing fields every weekend. Liberals run the education system in the country which we flood with money and it is a failure when compared to other countries, and liberals constantly whine they need more money.
So these are your plans? End social security, medicare, and public education?
Do you have any idea what ending social security and medicare would do for our deficits? It would increase them! Both problems bring a surplus into the US budget!
Department of Education funding is $46.7bn for FY2010. That's not nothing, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to overall budget.
The 'war on poverty' happened in the sixties. Perhaps you can think of a new talking point.
So let's recap. We should put old people out of their homes without health insurance, stop sending Americans to college, and embrace poverty. That's not the America I want to live in, but it's also not an America that has a balanced budget.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 04:53 PMThe standard demo playbook answer anytime conservatives even breathe the words "cut taxes". Exactly what they would have shouted had Bush actually cut spending. I've pointed this out dozens of times...John simply has confirmed it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 11, 2009 05:17 PMThat's harsh.
Posted by: Gary on June 11, 2009 05:22 PMDismissing the War On Poverty as ancient history is to deny the far reaching ramifications that exist today. 70% of African Americans are born to single mothers. The result has destroyed the black community, which is filled with violence and has astounding school drop-out rates.
Launching a massive new government healthcare program while we admit not knowing how to fund Medicare and Social Security is pure lunacy. You can play with the numbers and lie all you want. History says it won't work.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 11, 2009 05:32 PMOne major component of health care reform is making Medicare sustainable over the long-haul. But the fact that it's gone fifty years is a sign of a successful program, not one that has failed. Medicare provides universal coverage for old Americans and is cheaper per person than any insurance company in the country.
Health care reform may not create a government program... And if it does it will not be on the scale of these two programs which are offered to every elderly American. Will be unlike Medicare and SS, the public plan wouldn't be free to join or an entitlement and taxes wouldn't pay for it.
Just like Wall St and pollution and big tobacco have regulations, so should health care. And the richest nation in the world shouldn't have 45 million people uninsured. We should keep most insurance plans private, all doctors and hospitals private, and preserve choice. If you like your insurance or your doctor, you can keep them.
Your whole point linking the war on poverty w/ the problems in the black community I think is completely unfounded. We didn't end poverty, but there was progress in the sixties: "In 1959, 22.1 percent of Americans were beneath the poverty line. By 1973, 11.1 percent of Americans were impoverished." (src)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 05:43 PMAs for the results of the War On Poverty one only has to look at the rate of single parenthood prior to 1965, and the murder rate among African Americans skyrocked once those children of single mothers reached their teenage years. It's an American tragedy which I notice Obama does not address. You can look it up for yourself, John.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 11, 2009 06:10 PMThe growth of the suburbs as well as the modern conservative moment started in the sixties. And the civil rights movement began in earnest. Maybe each of those is responsible for crime in the black community. It sounds like you have to prove the relationship to make that claim.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 06:25 PMThat has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read here on Sound Politics.
It doesn't deserve comment.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 11, 2009 06:31 PMand #167 "One major component of health care reform is making Medicare sustainable over the long-haul. But the fact that it's gone fifty years is a sign of a successful program, not one that has failed."
Are you kidding, being disingenuous or are you just ignorant of the long term deficit of both programs, but ESPECIALLY medicare?
From the A SUMMARY OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees
:
"The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is now 3.88 percent of taxable payroll, up from 3.54 percent projected in last year's report. The fund again fails our test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected annual assets drop below projected annual expenditures within 10 years๏ฟฝby 2012. The fund also continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2017, two years earlier than in last year's report..." -snip-
"The projected exhaustion of the HI Trust Fund within the next eight years is an urgent concern. Congressional action will be necessary to ensure uninterrupted provision of HI services to beneficiaries. Correcting the financial imbalance for the HI Trust Fund๏ฟฝeven in the short range alone๏ฟฝwill require substantial changes to program income and/or expenditures."
and Social Security (OASDI):
"The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 2.00 percent of taxable payroll, up from 1.70 percent projected in last year's report." -snip-
"DI program costs have exceeded tax revenue since 2005, and trust fund exhaustion is projected for 2020. In addition, OASDI continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2016, and will be sufficient to finance 76 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2037..."
Conclusion:
"The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose serious challenges. "
Finally, Medicare is one of the chief reasons for health care inflation in the private sector. Medicare is notorious for not paying doctors and hospitals enough for their services. Consequently, doctors and hospitals pass those costs on to their private sector patients. The same is done with indigent patients that utilize emergency room services.
So, as I said at the beginning, to present medicare as a "success", you either have to be kidding, disingenuous, or ignorant of the true nature of this program.
What is "big tobacco"? Why do things that some people don't like have to have the adjective "big" in front of it, like "Big Oil", or "Big Pharma'?
Just asking.
But in the short-term, they actually reduce deficit spending.
This health care reform bill is designed in large part to change the cost curve of Medicare. It is the fix we need. Of the $1 trillion that will be needed over the next decade for this package, over $600 billion of it will come from Medicare and Medicaid savings. This is the fix we need. I don't think that going back to a world where our seniors lack health insurance is either realistic or something the people want.
You can ask senior citizens how much of a success Medicare is, but they're the only group in America with universal coverage. You can note its long-term solvency issues and whine or you can work to fix those issues. I am working to fix those issues rather than strand the senior population without health care.
The line about Medicare paying too little is simply a myth. Medicare pays nearly market rate. You may be confusing Medicare with Medicaid, either intentionally for political purposes or not.
Gary, it means large tobacco companies. :)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 11, 2009 09:02 PMAnd your line that "The line about Medicare paying too little is simply a myth. Medicare pays nearly market rate." is a lie. I don't know who has been telling you that lie, but it is a lie. Medicare only pays about 3/4 of the actual cost of doctor and hospital bills. The remainder is shifted to the private sector. Do some actual research before you start spouting lines about "myth".
So how are we going to get "medicare savings"? More cost shifting to the private sector?
Government is THE reason for the problems we have created in the health insurance industry since the 1940's. It started with wage and price controls during the war, the response to which was offering health insurance through businesss. Third party payers increased utilization and took away the market dicipline of patients looking for cost/benefit in choosing doctors, procedures, etc. Adding Medicare and it's shifting of costs to the private sector has just made health insurance costs skyrocket (of course along with the added cost burden of defensive medicine and the huge added cost of malpractice premiums).
The best thing that government could do is to GET OUT. We would be MUCH better off with refundable tax credits for seniors to buy into HSA plans with catastrophic insurance coverage. The tax credits could be used to pay the premiums and the rest to go into the HSA account. This would give incentives to reduce utilization as well as to cost compare. Right now we have NEITHER. Without that, you will not reduce costs or improve results. You will either have INCREASED costs or rationing to keep costs down. Neither is acceptable. Everything the federal government touches with regard to business makes thing worse, not better. They couldn't run the railroads; they couldn't run the post office; Congress couldn't run their own House bank; they've made a mess of the health insurance market; they won't be able to run the car companies. If they are allowed to pass a misconceived health insurance plan, God help us all--even Canada is hoping for Obama to fail on this one!
Posted by: Bill H on June 12, 2009 06:21 AMThat is just a ridiculous conclusion. It's like saying "I moved my mortgage balance to my Mastercard account. In the short term it is better for my budget since the minimum payments are lower than my mortgage payment was!" In the meantime you are paying 18% interest instead of 5% interest! Medicare and Social Security's long term underfunding is in the $100 Trillion range! Whether they have a temporarily, slightly positive, effect on the budget is pretty much irrelevant compared to the HUGE liability we have staring at us!
Posted by: Bill H on June 12, 2009 07:07 AM"Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children. "
Story:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
For what it's worth...
Steve Ballmer is indeed guilty of wishful thinking and the left is intoxicated with the prospect of continuing the delusion despite its transitory nature. That's a part of what anyone gets when they make policy from feelings. Any way you look at it, Liberalism (now Progressive-ism) will fail.
Liberals will never get that for the Obama program, illusion itself is everything.
The program is so easy even a liberal can repeat it. Regurgitate empty memes and baseless talking points formulated by wishful thinking and blame someone else when they fail. Re-formulate new empty memes and talking points using adapted wishful thinking and regurgitate them as you go along. Oppose any sensible ideas and defend blindly what your side does even if it is clearly insane; after all, for those who don't use it, the truth is no obstacle nor is shame. Confidence is the key.
Principles and the truth are just moving targets to evade. Whenever you encounter an inconvenient principal or fact, change the subject. The better you get at this, the more you become deluded that you actually know something, and the better your nonsense sounds.
The rats don't get the fact that while they are eating up our reserves, they are also destroying their own. There is only so much slack in political good will at any given point and when it is gone, it's gone. Bush's good will and mandate for leadership was destroyed by an effective media campaign of hateful ignorance and leftist bigotry. In exchange for popularity, he kept us safe. Obama's cache will be propped up by the media until it hurts each person so badly that individuals strike out in panic and anger when they realize what his policies have stolen from them.
A point will arrive when we are better off or not based on the applications of the current insane policies regardless of leftist rhetorical gamesmanship. Ballmer just sees the slack tightening on him sooner than the leftist true believers and he is (now) reacting. Liberals will dismiss him as an aberration and continue to regurgitate their meaningless nonsense while patting each other on the back.
How much liberal dripspittling nonsense will you be able to finance when you kill the golden Ballmers of our society who create the wealth? When has liberalism ever produced anything that resembles wealth?
Obama is good for America because he is clarifying the difference in outlooks between the parties.
The American electorate is grabbing their wallets and watching . . . and waiting.
Ballmer is just one of the first.
We will see.
And given that health care insurance costs grow faster than inflation, how will we prevent the tax credit growing faster than inflation? Magic!
I'm glad you believe that the free market works for medicine. How you expect people to do cost/benefit on their doctors or treatments they prescribe is beyond me. I guess everyone should go to med school, or maybe Yelp.com can get into the comparative effectiveness review.
This would give incentives to reduce utilization as well as to cost compare.
It would do more than create incentives. It would put some treatments outside of the reach of many individuals. "Your free market, unrelated cheap-o insurance doesn't cover insulin. Good luck!"
Medical care is not a right of the rich. The insurance companies, public or private, are the ones who should have incentives to reduce costs, not the individual. The individual has no responsibility to deny treatment suggested by a doctor.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 09:43 AMYeah, you're right.
But the conservation was about the deficit. And when someone suggest ending SS/Medicare to patch the deficit, they must not understand that for over 20 years each program has had a positive contribution for our budget.
I think their fixes are relatively easy and attainable, with the proper political will. A lot of the health care reform bill is $600bn in Medicare/Medicaid savings over the next ten years.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 09:47 AM(a) If the Dems do modify the proposed tax scheme these businesses are going to move in the opposite direction, and bring jobs back from Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC)?
(b) Next question, if the Dems don't alter their proposals Ballmer and the MS billionaires are going to favor Republicans with their political contributions in the subsequent election cycles?
The answers to (a) and (b) above is 'no'.
Next question.... If MS's off-shore approach is so profitable, why does their stock performance suck (e.g. Vista, BING, IE...)?
Steve and the folks in Redmond would do better spending their energy on developing products, and less whining about the government.
Where is Google's CEO on this issue? Absent!
hmmmm. :-)
Paula = government
Cat = liberals
However, like Group health insurance you could have an open enrollment period once a year where people could enter the plan.
"given that health care insurance costs grow faster than inflation..."
This is NOT a given, if you (1) get government out of the medicare market; (2) reform tort laws to reduce defensive medicine and eliminate outrageous tort judgements; and (3) put the pricing discipline back in the market, medical inflation would drop a LOT.
"I'm glad you believe that the free market works for medicine. How you expect people to do cost/benefit on their doctors or treatments they prescribe is beyond me. I guess everyone should go to med school, or maybe Yelp.com can get into the comparative effectiveness review."
That's why you're a liberal and I'm a free-market libertarian. It's beyond you. My family has been under an HSA plan for more than 5 years now. We ask about the cost of treatments and we ask whether there are cheaper pharmaseuticals. It's not that hard to do! More doctors are starting to get used to this. When we first started on the HSA, they were questions they weren't used to hearing, but over the last 5 years that has changed a lot. You need to have more faith in the American people and in the free market. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason the free market cannot work for health care.
"Medical care is not a right of the rich."
Medical care is not a "right" at all. A right is something that a person inherently has without imposing an obligation on another. You cannot have a "right" to medical care without imposing an obligation on another to provide you with that medical care. In the past doctors, like attorneys, provided pro-bono services to those who could not pay. If we changed the system away from being confrontational (i.e. sue-happy), there is likely to be more of this. There are also charities that help out. Pharmaseuticals also have programs to help those who cannot afford their prescriptions. Again, a little faith in the wisdom, compassion and ingenuity of the American people!
"The insurance companies, public or private, are the ones who should have incentives to reduce costs, not the individual."
Insurance companies already have this incentive--it is called the profit motive. The more they can reduce costs, the more they can make for their shareholders (in the case of a Stock Company) or for their policyholders (in the case of a Mutual Company).
It is ridiculous to say that the individual should not have the incentive to reduce costs. Why the hell not? They don't have that incentive today because someone else is paying for it and they only see the impact VERY obliquely through premium increases.
Let's say you go out to dinner with 9 other people. If people are on a budget, I guarantee you that the group will spend LESS on dinner if each is paying his own bill than if the bill will be split 10 ways. People will think--I'm not going to order the cheap dinner since others will probably order the filet mignon, I'll order that too. You'll have a LOT more people ordering the filet than if they were paying their own bill themselves. It is the same with healthcare. If you have to pay each time you go to the doctor, you will be a bit more discerning about going for a minor ailment (utilization).
Utilization and severity are both issues in the cost of healthcare, but utilization is in the control of the individual and you CAN certainly get savings.
There is no such "right" to that which belongs to another. There are laws/statutes, etc that the community agrees upon that does this, but that's far different than a "right".
Rights also cannot be taken away from people whereas entitlement benefits can.
(no, John, this does not mean we want to kick sick old people out of their homes to be eaten by dogs in the street)
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2009 12:02 PMSo sick people should have to pay much more for health insurance coverage, or perhaps not get it at all.
That will make it so many, many old people will be unable to afford health insurance under your alternative for Medicare.
It is ridiculous to say that the individual should not have the incentive to reduce costs. Why the hell not? They don't have that incentive today because someone else is paying for it and they only see the impact VERY obliquely through premium increases.
First of all, health insurance usually has deductibles.
But lowering individual costs is what INSURANCE DOES. It POOLS risk. Why? Because the alternative is rationing health care to only those who can afford it. As I said before, your ideas would put some treatments outside of the reach of many individuals. "Your free market, unrelated cheap-o insurance doesn't cover insulin. Good luck!"
Your analogy about dinner simply doesn't apply. If I get bare-bones insurance that doesn't cover more than $10k in cancer treatment, I'll be happy to pocket the extra money for thirty years... Until the worst happens. Then one of three things happen:
- I go bankrupt paying for my own treatments of cancer.
- I cannot afford treatments, and my life will end.
- I will hope that a hospital and a pharma company will give me pro-bono work out of the kindness of their hearts... Even though I pocketed all that earlier money and didn't pool risk.
You shouldn't be able to get fire insurance while your house is burning. That's why every American should always have health insurance coverage, so they can't skip out on the insurance while they feel healthy.
The free market cannot work with health care. People cannot anticipate getting cancer. They cannot do more than ask their doctors and do elementary research on treatments. And when your life is at risk, you should not be asked to penny-pinch. This isn't about your home or your car or your dinner, it's about your life, and in no place in the world has a completely unregulated free market health care system worked. It will not work here.
I wonder why with all of your fringe views you would even consider giving folks a tax credit for health insurance. We should all fend for ourselves, right?
Ridiculous. Police isn't free market, firefighters aren't free market, highways aren't free market, and health care should not be a free-market libertarian paradise.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 12:05 PMThis is what we mean when we say liberals want to control other people's lives. I wonder what aspects of the nation liberals want to be handled by the free market? Any?
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2009 12:15 PMThis is how the left love to frame debate. Disagree with them and you have "fringe" views.
That's how opposition to abortion and gay marriage have somehow become "extreme right wing" positions.
Leftists don't want to talk about how nationalized health insurance has not worked in other countries.
John and his friends certainly don't want to talk about a system that might well decide not to pay for treatment should he develop a serious illness at, say, age 75. And they certainly don't want anyone to bring up the fact that liberal programs always cost more and more and ultimately fail.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 12, 2009 12:47 PMAnd then when you try to discuss it, liberals come out of the blue and claim that you want to actually kick people out of their homes and kill them. Reasoned debate is very difficult when one side accuses the other of simply wanting to kill people.
House bill will include $600 billion of tax increases. And that will have to go up *after* they destroy the private health insurance industry.
Said:
"Leftists don't want to talk about how nationalized health insurance has not worked in other countries."
Then address it Bill.
How has 'nationalized health insurance' not worked in:
(a) Switzerland?
(b) France?
(c) Germany?
(d) Japan?
(e) Singapore?
(f) Sweden?
(g) Finland?
....
Go ahead there MikeBoyScout, tell us all about how these countries have better health care than America. Then tell us how this could possibly mean that nationalized health insurance would be a good idea here.
This comprehensive study ought to answer your question...and I notice you pointedly omit the United Kingdom and Canada.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf
Its notable that countries that have some combination of private and public insurance fare better. Obama seems to be proposing such a plan, however in my opinion Obama and the left ultimately want a single payer system.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 12, 2009 01:54 PMIf your "freedom" means everyone else having to pick up the costs when you get sick, then that's a pretty narrow view of freedom. I don't think it's too bad of a requirement to have some tax penalty for lacking insurance. True, it isn't a crime, but society (and usually state governments) have large costs for the uninsured's treatment. They should pony up.
Right, used to be in this country that the government was not involved at all in health care, and I guess that meant that every citizen was on the "fringe" a that time.
Yes, and poor and old people didn't get health coverage. We fixed those problems with Medicare Medicaid. Imperfect solutions to be sure, but seniors have universal coverage.
"Fringe" does not mean "wrong." I'll admit it is a pointed thing to say, but you have to accept that ending Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security is outside of the political mainstream. No mainstream GOP leaders are advocating for that. That's what I meant, not a reflection that his idea is completely insane. It's not completely insane.
And then when you try to discuss it, liberals come out of the blue and claim that you want to actually kick people out of their homes and kill them. Reasoned debate is very difficult when one side accuses the other of simply wanting to kill people.
Blah Blah, "liberals" do this, "liberals" do that. I explain my position and I'm willing to hear others explain theirs. If someone takes offense, they can explain their position with more depth.
If you want to end a SOCIAL SAFETY NET, you should justify why removing that net won't result in a loss of property or livelihood. Of course discussions about social security and medicare come down to life and death decisions. You have to accept that as part of the discussion.
Look, Bill said we should end Medicare and SS. Then he followed up by saving that Medicare would be replaced by a tax credit, and I presume he'd replace SS with something else as well. That isn't the same as simply killing the programs. And giving people tax credits for health care is still a government entitlement. It is not libertarian, and it will certainly amount to some re-distribution of wealth. If these are acceptable trade-offs -- acceptable intrusions of government -- then I have to wonder why a health insurance shared responsibility mandate or why insurance regulations are not.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 01:57 PMNo one in America is forced by our culture to go without adequate health care--even illegal aliens.
Mandating Nationalized Health Insurance for everyone is not providing health care, but seizing and then over-regulating it.
This fear tactic scam is easily proven incorrect. Any time you want to know the facts, visit a local emergency room; no one gets turned away--ever.
Jensen and his knot-headed ilk use this blatant lie to create public policy at the direct expense of personal liberty and idiots like him are actually to dumb to know better.
Liberals are the only people in modern America who have no concept of liberty left. They are too busy trying to force others to pay their way and take care of them.
In terms of measuring the basics of health care: Cost, life expectancy, and birth success rates, all Western countries do better than us. All. And all of them have universal coverage.
Whether the left eventually wants to move to single-payer is immaterial. That is what I want right now, but if our system is perfectly find after these reforms then what would be the impetus to switch?
In other words, if Obama's health care reform plans make sense; if they have good regulations on insurance companies, necessary reforms for Medicare, a smart law that will lead to universal health care coverage, then that bill should be evaluated on its merits and not concerns about a future shift toward single-payer.
I predict that without a "public plan," health care reform will pass very easily (maybe 63-65 votes?). With it, it might only pass with 55 or so, but that'd mean that five senators would have to vote for cloture even if they're against the public plan. It could happen if those five are democrats though, since this is the administrations big legislative issue.
So if the very narrow focus is on the public plan, then it's actually a fight that can be lost by progressives and still lead to very serious health care reform.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 02:18 PMI read Tanner's and the CATO Institutes paper you referred, but it does not make the case that nationalized health care is a failure. It would be more correct to summarize the analysis and conclusions as US health care is the most expensive, but there are problems with a nationalized or government supervised approach.
I think that is clear from the very title:
"The Grass Is Not Always Greener:
A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World"
For those who have neither the time, nor the inclination to read all 42 pages yourself - here is a very brief excerpt:
"There is no doubt that the United States
spends far more on health care than any
other country, whether measured as a percentage
of gross domestic product (GDP) or
by expenditure per capita. As Figure 1 shows,
the United States now spends close to 16 percent
of GDP on health care, nearly 6.1 percent
more than the average for other industrialized
countries."
"To sum up: the French health care system
clearly works better than most national health
care systems. Despite some problems, France
has generally avoided the rationing inherent in
other systems. However, the program is threatened
by increasing costs and may be forced to
resort to rationing in the future."
So, maybe it would be useful when discussing ways to fix the cost/coverage problem of health insurance in the US, apparent to all political stripes, not to go overboard on the evils of socialism, and offer ideas which would fix the problem.
just saying.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 12, 2009 02:21 PMWhen did I say that? All I have ever said is that we should not spend money that we cannot pay for. I am not for ending SS or Medicare. Some of us have been screaming about the eventual collapse of SS and liberals have told us there is nothing to worry about. In just a couple of years, it's going to be a dire trouble.
I do *not* want the government to take over the nation's health care system, or its automobile industry, or its banks, or determine your salary, or what you can eat, or where you can live, etc.
Where do you draw the line, John? Maybe that's a better question. What part of your life don't you want me to take care of?
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2009 02:21 PMI don't have a problem with requiring people to pay for health insurance. We require car insurance. Fine.
I do have a problem with a public plan that doesn't have to remain profitable and can continually double down on the national debt competing with businesses that have to make a profit to survive. All this will do is kill private insurance. Period. And duh.
No one talks about a couple simple steps to take to reduce costs.
-- Tort reform. Stop ambulance-chasing weasels like John Edwards from milking the system and driving up costs for everyone with ridiculous lawsuits. Sure, we need to penalize bad doctors who make bad decisions. But there are far more good docs out there running scared and paying through the nose for malpractice insurance and then running gobs of tests just to cover their butts. Fix this please.
-- Eliminate all the Mandated coverages. I'm willing to place a bet that I'm already as looney as I'll ever get. Therefore, I don't want to include mental health coverage in my plan, nor do I want it to cover chiropractic visits, naturopathic care, acupuncture, or marriage counseling. Plus, we're done with babies so we don't need any of the pregnancy and newborn stuff.
Give people a clear set of choices for their insurance plans to cover, just like a menu, and then let them handle the costs themselves.
-- If you're too broke for coverage, then yes, we can as a society help ... just as we help people who are starving and really need food. But this shouldn't be a lifetime situation, it should be temporary as much as possible. It should be means tested (so you don't have a RIGHT to this), and it shouldn't be given to anyone who CAN afford the lowest budget catastrophic coverage. If your brother and sister and cousin can't afford it, maybe pull a few bucks out of your own wallet and help them yourself before calling on the government and the rest of us.
-- Let's let insurance companies compete with low budget, high deductible, catastrophic coverage that takes care of you if you really hit one of the biggies: cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.
If we have a big enough pool with everyone (healthy young folks too) then that can help keep premiums low.
-- Finally, let's promote the notion that every single time you get a sniffle you need to deluge the emergency room. Yes, we will all get sick. And more than likely, at some point, that sickness will result in the end of our turn on the planet. So it goes. Grow up and find comfort in the moments you have. Take control over what junk you put into your system, get enough rest, and take some walks and go out and mow your own yard for exercise now and then.
I agree Mike. What I fear is that Obama, given his far left background, actually desires a single-payer type system.
I like your points. Very sensible.
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2009 02:37 PM"I don't want to take over the banks" (takes over the banks)
"I don't run car companies" (runs car companies)
"I don't want set pay" (sets pay)
"I don't want to take over all of health care" ()
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2009 02:42 PMThe conversation you're quoting me from involves Bill and I. Bill implied we should end SS and Medicare, but followed up later with more policy details.
Some of us have been screaming about the eventual collapse of SS and liberals have told us there is nothing to worry about. In just a couple of years, it's going to be a dire trouble.
I do *not* want the government to take over the nation's health care system, or its automobile industry, or its banks, or determine your salary, or what you can eat, or where you can live, etc.
Me neither.
I wouldn't call a single-payer health care system as a government take over of health care system (hospitals, doctors, pharamacies, big pharma) but maybe you would. Either way, that's not being proposed.
Insurance regulations, medicare efficiencies, a universal health care mandate, and a public plan don't constitute a nationalization of the system, in my opinion.
Where do you draw the line, John? Maybe that's a better question. What part of your life don't you want me to take care of?
Um plenty. These type of leading questions are really silly, Gary.
We talk mostly about education and health care. These are fundamental aspects of life, not trivialities. I very much understand and support government involvement in these sectors, because there is a large segment of the population that the free market has never supported very well: the poor and the vulnerable.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 02:48 PMI didn't have to make this up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 12, 2009 03:05 PMThe government, regardless of what is saying intends to take over the while deal... hospitals, doctors, medicine... everything.
Then they own you.
Car companies, banks, energy, food, the press, online poker... the whole deal.
Then people will say, "I didn't want them to take over all of that. I just wanted to give up a little bit of freedom."
Green from without.
Red from within.
Did you know we live in a democracy? If people didn't want health care reform, they wouldn't have overwhelmingly elected democrats.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 03:26 PMAlways funny to hear a liberal preach about "democracy". Didn't hear much talk about that after Prop. 8 passed in California, did we?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 12, 2009 03:47 PMAlways funny to hear a liberal preach about "democracy". Didn't hear much talk about that after Prop. 8 passed in California, did we?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 12, 2009 03:47 PMSo John, do you want the government to take it all over?
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2009 03:54 PMhttp://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamacare-say-goodbye-to-private.html
I think you missed my point. You have this thing where you refer to "government" as some other entity. I was saying that we elected our representatives who control government.
These health care reforms are not born from a sense of governmental entitlement to interfere with our lives, they are a result of electing the party that you'll probably admit tends to focus more on health care than the alternative.
Health care reform isn't a government power grab as much as it is the direct result of the country choosing Obama to lead the nation.
Bill C, I think everyone wants some reform of the health care system, John.
I'm glad we can all recognize that.
The fact is that republicans can't get through a health care bill any time soon, so you do have to argue a little bit on democratic terms, right? In that sense, I'm very encouraged how the bills are forming in a very bipartisan way. I'm sure the GOP would have their plan be fundamentally different, but they know their position in government is to shape the majority's agenda and not just oppose it.
You guys aren't senators, so I can't expect that same level of participation, but we have to get real. We can't frame this as "nationalization" or "take-over" especially if the public plan doesn't make it into the bill.
In either case, this bill would create 45 million new health insurance customers with tools to clarify and improve the individual market. Insurance companies are at the table for a reason (so they're not on the menu?).
I think a lot of Obama voters had no idea what they were voting for.
The voters are smarter than you give them credit for. But to be frank, most voters will never know the specifics of a "public plan" vs. a bill that doesn't have it. A lot of it is about marketing. People simply trust democrats more on health care, according to polling. Say the Senate bill doesn't have a public plan, the criticisms from the right will change in substance but the surface-level attacks will still be about nationalization, big government, etc.
What I'm getting at is this: People may not know Obama's specific health care proposal, but they do trust him to handle the issue. Democrats should make sure they craft bills that stand up to close scrutiny, so they live up to that trust. Clearly Obama's election wasn't just a referendum on his health care plan, but that was an issue he talked about in great detail through the general election and especially in the primary.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 04:23 PM
I'm not the President, but he is not proposing a single-payer system or the end of private health insurance. The health reform bill preserves choice: if you like your doctor or your insurance plan, you get to keep them.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 04:40 PMHow can a private insurance company... that has to answer to shareholders and make a profit... effectively compete with a Federal Government plan that does not have to make a profit, can jury-rig the system at any time in its favor via legislation, and can exist for decades running in the red?
With all due respect, this just makes zero sense. The public option will drive all private insurers out of the business, leaving behind only the Federal system... leading to ... "tada" ... single payer.
Which is exactly what any one who's honest in this debate would admit is the real goal.
Maybe I know these people better than you do, John.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 12, 2009 04:55 PMHow about restrictions such that the public plan can't run deficits and other limitations that don't create unfair competition?
If private health insurance companies have no real competition to bring down costs and overhead, then they won't. They'll be looking at short-term earnings rather than long-term efficiencies.
In terms of profits and shareholders, I think that's a big contributor to what's wrong. One plan offered as an alternative to the public plan, but is good either way, is health care co-ops which are basically non-profit insurance companies. I'd switch to one of those in a heart beat since I the profit motive obviously has nothing to do with actually saving lives and providing treatment that people need, as we've seen in the last few decades.
I think the public plan is a good idea. It keeps the insurance industry honest and forces them to compete with a plan that has little overhead. But I also support reasonable ways to keep that plan from competing unfairly with private insurers.
If the public plan is a blazing success in ten or fifteen years, then of course the debate about health care may shift. I think conservatives fear single-payer looking attractive more than anything else.
Bill C, Maybe I know these people better than you do, John.
Roll eyes. When the single-payer train pulls up, vote for candidates from the opposite party. Democracy in action!
Posted by: John Jensen on June 12, 2009 05:05 PMDid you know we live in a democracy? If people didn't want health care reform, they wouldn't have overwhelmingly elected democrats.
Great, then you have no problem with the Iraq War, since the people re-elected George W Bush in 2004. Clearly disagreeing with the Iraq War means you're a fringe left-winger, right?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 12, 2009 05:32 PMI'll say it again. They will destroy private health insurance. You don't want that to happen, right? So why give them the power to set profits on private insurers? Don't you know that means the end of them?
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2009 08:43 PM"Did you know we live in a democracy? If people didn't want health care reform, they wouldn't have overwhelmingly elected democrats."
Overwhelmingly?? When, where?
We live in a Representative-Republic moron, not a democracy. There's your wonderful liberal education revealing itself once again.
"These health care reforms are not born from a sense of governmental entitlement to interfere with our lives, they are a result of electing the party that you'll probably admit tends to focus more on health care than the alternative."
We nice Democrats don't mean to interfere with you, (that you know of) but it's our system or death ...
"People may not know Obama's specific health care proposal, but they do trust him to handle the issue."
Some people (obviously like you Rizzo) will believe anything so long as there are no facts involved.
"Democrats should make sure they craft bills that stand up to close scrutiny, so they live up to that trust."
Then we can all watch as the Democrats blindly vote the mess into law just as they made the largest increases in human history without even reading the bill. Hey Rizzo, wanna buy a watch?
"Clearly Obama's election wasn't just a referendum on his health care plan, but that was an issue he talked about in great detail through the general election and especially in the primary."
Anyone with a brain knows that McCain was the only candidate that provided ANY details on health care reform. Obama provided NONE. Obama's health care plan was all generalities and platitudes but that's enough detail for liberals like Rizzo.
Great job defending your views Rizzo (Jensen).
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 13, 2009 10:09 AMThis doesn't exist. What you are saying is not true.
Amused, Anyone with a brain knows that McCain was the only candidate that provided ANY details on health care reform.
That's some great revisionist history. False, of course, but impressive nonetheless.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 13, 2009 12:08 PMThis doesn't exist.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 13, 2009 12:19 PMยง2704(b)(1) then tells the Secretary to look at how much other health plans spent on "all other non-claims costs," and based on that survey, set an allowable percentage for this category. Plans are then required to rebate premiums if they go above this amount. This is direct (but confusing) regulation of premiums and profit margins.
-
I ask again, John. Do you want a single-payer system. And I ask again. Did you watch that video?
Posted by: Gary on June 13, 2009 12:56 PMThe fact that you write it certainly impresses you enough to consider it a fact.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 13, 2009 12:56 PMRizzo is the one who makes up the stuff that exists.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 13, 2009 01:53 PMยง2704(b)(1) then tells the Secretary to look at how much other health plans spent on "all other non-claims costs," and based on that survey, set an allowable percentage for this category. Plans are then required to rebate premiums if they go above this amount. This is direct (but confusing) regulation of premiums and profit margins.
I didn't know that this existed in the HELP bill. We can't be sure if that'll make it to the Senate floor.
This isn't simply a profit cap. It's a cap on the percentage of revenues that can be spent on non-health care-related items such as administration, advertising, or -- yes -- profit to shareholders. But since it's a percentage, profits can still grow as the customer base does. Also, it gives shareholders an incentive to demand less administrative overhead or smarter advertising since they'll be able to get a bigger chunk of those revenues for themselves.
I see your concerns, though. And your principles may be incompatible with these regulations. But I have no sympathy with the profit that health insurance companies seek to make. Their function in our society should be society and not simply making a profit. Everyone in the company can be very well-compensated, but I'm not convinced that we should give health insurance companies a perverse incentive to deny coverage so they can keep more profits.
I believe the free market for health insurance has completely failed. I would prefer a much more heavily regulated industry, just like banks have heavy regulations. If we want to get down administrative costs, we have to do more than ask nicely. Though insurance companies definitely are at the table in this process, so I'll be curious to see if I hear more about this section of the bill.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 13, 2009 04:06 PMOut of the mouth of boobs. Rizzo said, "I have no sympathy with the profit that health insurance companies seek to make.
Their function in our society should be society and not simply making a profit."
You just said all anyone ever needs to hear from you about your understanding of health care.
Another installment in "From the paper thin mind of a liberal" or "how to learn from feeeling and then telling others all about it."
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 13, 2009 04:23 PMBut John, isn't denying coverage exactly what ultimately happens under single payer systems? That's what's happened in Britain where women over 70 are denied certain treatments for breast cancer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-59036/Older-women-denied-breast-cancer-treatment.html
I know hating private business is an obsession with you liberals, but really, is having the government run things so much better?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 13, 2009 04:33 PMI know hating private business is an obsession with you liberals
Bill C, I would appreciate if you show me the basic respect of not saying things like "hating private business is an obsession with you liberals." I am not speaking as a "liberal," but as an informed member of society with my own opinions. I work for a private business and I went to a private college.
I see a large difference between the health sector and the clothing sector. I do not wish the government to come in and twiddle with eat thread of cotton, but the health sector should absolutely be heavily regulated.
A modern example is GM: I want the government out of GM as soon as possible, and I do not want the government to have any influence on the design or sales of cars. But I also recognize that letting GM fail could have hurt this country more than saving it.
really, is having the government run things so much better?
Obama is not proposing a single-player plan. Obama is not proposing that the government "run" anything. And the UK is not a single-player plan, it is a socialist plan. (The differences are very wide.) So, really, your question is irrelevant.
You know what's different about a private insurer in this country? Well, insurer A might offer coverage while insurer B does not. And either might deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. And either might raise your premiums when you get sick. And if you happen to lose your job, you'll lose both insurers -- so your next one will definitely charge you insane premiums and deny coverage for pre-existing breast cancer.
If the public plan didn't cover this procedure after Obama's plan takes effect, the woman could switch to a private insurance plan that does -- with no pre-existing condition denials, no high premiums, and no bullshit.
The system is simply broken. Even without a public plan, which is not single-payer, the insurance system needs to change. Everyone agrees, and serious regulation of insurance companies so everything I just mentioned no longer occurs is vital for the long-term strength of our nation. Frankly, I think this problems are far more important than Blue Cross having awesome advertising campaigns or having a very high profit motive.
And I didn't even mention the 45 million that have no health insurance.
(France has a single-payer model with the addition of private plans as well. That sounds appealing to me longer term, but we'll see how the country is doing after this health care reform law.)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 13, 2009 07:56 PMThis from the same guy who referred to another contributor to this thread as a "fucking partisan hack." Now that's respect, isn't it?
As for you not being a "liberal", John? Yeah, right.
What you continue to ignore is that big leftist government programs always cost more than is claimed and end in failure.
John, when can other people not in your business start to decide what your profits can be? And first you denied that the Secretary of HHS would have the ability to do that, and then when I showed it to you, you said it was a good thing. We told you Obama was after a single payer system which you denied, and when we showed you he was, you said it was a good thing.
So we disagree. You would like the government to take care of you. I choose to take care of myself by contracting with the companies and doctors I find best suited for me. If I believe a company is being managed poorly, I will choose another.
Once the government takes it over, all choices are gone. And medical care will get worse, and more scarce.
And since we're gonna kill company profits, I suspect pharmas will start to whither and die also.
The Marxists first have to get the people mad at the evil companies by causing the problem in the first place, and then offer to come to the rescue of the angry masses.
Refer to the Paula Poundstone gig for the analogy.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can sure fool quite of them.
Posted by: Gary on June 14, 2009 08:16 AM"After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections. "
Wait... I thought none of this spending was Obama's fault. I guess the White House disagrees,
Obama could turn out to be the left's worst nightmare because he has exposed his side for what it really is. He's taken over banks, 2 car companies (including firing the head of GM) triggered the printing of money that likely will result in inflation, and proposed nationalizing health care.
Obama has also annoyed many with his foreign policy which reflects the moral equivalency of the far left. His obvious favoritism towards the Palestinians may end up losing him a lot of votes.
The sooner we get these people out of office the better. 2010 will be a good start.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 14, 2009 09:26 AMBacks away from the estimate that the funds could create or save 3.5 million jobs, instead promises 600,000 by the end of the summer."
-
By all means lets allow them to "guess" with our health care.
So did Obama's actions so far put your employers out of business and you out of a job (assuming you had a job)?
That's always a sure way to cut income taxes...
John Jensen you surely need to get a grip on reality and you can start with some basic Economics...
Posted by: juandos on June 15, 2009 05:59 AMsilence
Obama is not "after" nor proposing a single-payer system.
This is what the President said today:
What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system may be working. But I believe and I've even taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief that it is important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States. So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this they are not telling the truth.
---
I also think that one reason doctors and hospitals have to overbill insurance companies is to make up for what they *don't* get from Medicare.
You "think"? Medicare pays near market rates according to the OMB. The conservative myth that Medicare vastly underpays is false. The problem is that you continue to associate the cost of goods with the quality delivered. Google "mcallen texas medicare". We pay more, and get far less. The number one factor is the over-utilization of unnecessary medical procedures. There is bipartisan consensus on this fact. (And it's not about "defensive medicine", Texas has stringent malpractice laws.)
Wait... I thought none of this spending was Obama's fault. I guess the White House disagrees,
I never said that, you fucking partisan hack. Stop misrepresenting my views.
By all means lets allow them to "guess" with our health care.
CBO.
Bill C, What you continue to ignore is that big leftist government programs always cost more than is claimed and end in failure.
Your metrics are stupid, what's why. Social Security and Medicare has virtually eliminated poverty among seniors. They have unquestionably saved lives. They have not "ended" and certainly not in failure, you are wrong.
juandos, So did Obama's actions so far put your employers out of business and you out of a job (assuming you had a job)?
Nope, I still have a job. In fact, our company is being bought out by a bigger one and we're all getting raises. I guess by your logic that means Obama's policies are working great. Thanks for the economics lesson. :)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 15, 2009 12:32 PMCool! So it *is* his fault. Then we agree. Sorry, I thought you didn't think it was his fault. I stand corrected.
Yeah Gary, Obama's 10 year budget projection is his own. If we go through the next two terms of his without beginning to address the fundamental revenue/spending gap, then it is his fault, absolutely.
For this year and next, however, any president would not only run deficits but very deep ones because of the continuation of Bush's priorities but mostly the deep drops of revenue due to the recession. I appreciate the anger about the deficit: I'm mad too, but we have to have to have a sober view of how to fix it. The solution isn't ignoring history or how we got here.
I understand that during the mid-term elections all conservatives are going to point at 2009 and 2010 as irresponsible spending -- and I accept that's what running a campaign is about. Sure, put pressure on Obama to be responsible going forward. But we're not in campaign mode, we don't have to be dishonest with ourselves. I've cited CBO evidence numerous times supporting my point, you've done nothing to refute that evidence.
All told, you've misrepresented my views about the budget about a dozen times now. It is not that hard to read what I write at face value and stop distorting my views. I said nearly the same stuff in comment #89.
Now look, at a certain point Obama's spending becomes his own responsibility. But fixing the AMT, fixing Medicare funding, and keeping middle-class tax cuts are things everyone agrees we have to do regardless of party.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 15, 2009 01:07 PMhttp://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html
When challenged "crusader" resorted to profanity in much the same way "John Jensen" does. There are other similarities in the way they frame their arguments.
Just an observation. One thing that is consistent about leftist trolls is that they nearly without exception use phony names and e-mail addresses.
My earlier point was that I think it's petty to say things like "liberals hate private business" when referring to me. Go ahead, make your ad hominem more obvious and say, "Jensen hates private business." That way I can actually respond with my views.
The problem with using "liberals" is that I am not here to defend the views of every person associated with the left, I'm here to defend my own. And I don't hate businesses, so a statement like that is idiotic.
Bill, I've never posted under another name here. But I'm not certain why it would matter if I had.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 15, 2009 02:41 PMBill C, I am representing my own views and I don't see the need to attack some group you want to bundle me with. Just attack me personally.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 15, 2009 03:57 PM-
Regulations will *help* them? Gee, thanks. So like I said, you want the government to force business' to do things the way *you* want them to.
Who are you to say what "excessive profits" are?
Does John work for the Democratic Party? I think a betting man would say so. As are the people Medved lets call his show that usually start off with "I'm a conservative, but"...and then launch into the dems latest talking points.
It's how these really dishonest people play politics. They are a very organized bunch of liars. Ever notice that these leftists such as demo kid, crusader, John Jensen, and on and on never, ever reveal a real e-mail address? Tells you volumes, doesn't it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 15, 2009 10:17 PMAnd John, you know, there isn't anything to stop you from starting your own insurance company that you would have control over. If you kept costs down by not advertising, then you should be able to
not make profits very well.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293
Whatever, I'm debating some guys on a blog about it. It's not a point of conflict. The GOP isn't lashing out about it, and almost all of the bill has bipartisan support. The areas of conflict: pay or play, taxes and public plan.
The most major reforms about health care: no pre-existing conditions, community premiums, and an individual mandate have bipartisan support. We would have called these items major health care reforms just a year ago. So if some small things anger you here or there, or if the public plan doesn't make it in, the democrats are still going to get major health care reform and a lot of republicans may be there too.
Gary: The bill the CBO evaluated missed a lot of components that will be in the final bill. You can read more here. (You should actually subscribe to that Ezra Klein blog. He's as progressive as they come, but his blog is very informative on health care.)
Anyway, the CBO assumptions had a weak individual mandate, no employer mandate, and no changes in Medicaid admissions. Those assumptions won't be reflected in the final bill, so the CBO numbers aren't totally accurate.
Also, keep in mind that there is a HELP (Senate) bill, a Finance (Senate) bill, and a House bill. Once they're mostly merged and huge details like the public plan are decided, then CBO numbers will be more relevant. Getting the CBO involved now is useful for congress, but not so much for our analysis since the final product will look so different.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 16, 2009 10:52 AM-
Okay, you know this because...? Why isn't there a bill yet? Haven't the Dems been clamoring for this forever? Or, as with other bills, they'll slap it together hours before it's voted on?
I'm beginning to feel encouraged.
Posted by: Gary on June 16, 2009 12:40 PM
