Oh . . . bama

[turk]

I'm not convinced that taxing income is the answer to the problem. Kennedy, Reagan, and W. Bush didn't think so either. Health care needs reform to make it more affordable. http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... -tax-rates

[glasseye]

For the record, the Premier of Newfoundland elected to travel to the US for his surgery because it was available sooner, not because the US surgeons were better. In Canada, if you're sick, you get in the same line-up regardless of whether you're dirt poor or as rich as Steve Jobs. Equal treatment for all, get it?

As for the babies and Bellingham, I have no direct knowledge. It's possible that there was some treatment available there that wasn't yet available in Canada.

Neither of those facts change the overall statistics that Americans as a whole pay more and get less, heath-wise, than most other Western countries.

People from many Western countries frequently travel to India and other Asian countries to have routine procedures performed. Like the Mexican dental work referred earlier, hip replacements can be done in Asia just as well and much cheaper than in the west. This has the multiple benefits of reducing demand on Western health systems, encouraging new industries in countries that need them and providing lower-cost alternatives for those who need these procedures.

[hambone]

Tell me:
with joblessness the way it is, and so many without health care and in poverty,
why shouldn't the very wealthy share with their fellow citizens?
One could argue that they are the very reason we are in the mess we are in. There is selfishness at stake.
This situation is beyond belief. I have never been interested in politics, but what is occurring these days sets a new historical prescident.

All this left/right bullshit does nothing else but provide more smoke and mirrors so the honest hardworking folks petty squabble whilst unkle Buffet and cadre laff thru diamond teef. Well if someone wants to call a bowl of shit chocolate pudding, then let them reap the rewards. Unfortunately there are bystanders getting caught with flecks of poop.

The only thing that is going to change this Continuous Era of Bush is when we go
stop children what's that sound, everybody look what's goin round. 1968 all over again. Remember: nobody's right when everybody's wrong.

[turk]

You should be against the Bush tax cuts before you are for them. That will be what the pols say in 2011.

[glasseye]

stop children what's that sound, everybody look what's goin round. 1968 all over again. Remember: nobody's right when everybody's wrong.

Man, ain't it the truth.
It was truth then and it's truth now.

Buffalo Springfield
"For What It's Worth"

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

[ruckman101]

You know turk, I can't accept anything as fact coming from the Heritage Foundation. The foundation was started because the IRS was threatening to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies. The Heritage Foundation is funded by corporate interests. In fact, the author of the article you posted a link to recently bailed from the Heritage Foundation, and now works for the Cato Institute, founded by Charles Koch. But you keep carrying the torch, the Koch Brothers thank you. Women, minorities and the poor don't.


neal

[turk]

Some more conspiracy theory eh? Fact: Hoover's and FDR's tax hikes made the 1930's depression longer and deeper than it had to be - as I understand it was WW2 that "stimulated" full employment bringing the country out of it finally. Fact: the tax cuts of the twenties created a boom (also remembered as the "roaring twenties"). Fact: Kennedy's tax cuts similarly helped the economic boom and rise in revenues in the early sixties.

JFK:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Fact: The Reagan tax cuts contributed to the largest peacetime expansion of the U.S. economy in history. It raised revenues. It raised standards of living across the board. The median family income rose to its highest point in 1989 at over $40,000. It since has fallen, subsequent to H.W. Bush and Clinton tax hikes, etc..

Now I'm not saying income tax rates are the only piece of the puzzle. I'm not overstating their importance. I'm simply pointing out these coincidences as evidence supporting low tax rates as beneficial to the strength of a complex economy. Rather than a detriment as many here seem to believe. If you have different facts to point out the opposite, please show them.

[ruckman101]

How about the fact the tax cuts in theory were initially instigated to help the economy, and instead was a major contributor it it's collapse. So now to fix the problem, more of the same, except now taxes will go up for the poor.

And again, I'm very skeptical of any data that comes out of the Heritage Foundation, a blatant propaganda mill for corporate interests.


neal

[turk]

Well, I don't know if tax cuts were a major contributor to the collapse. I could point to a few other contributors the the collapse though. Did the corresponding economic conditions, and the tax cuts that happened prior to them I mentioned, come from the Heritage Foundation? Or are they common knowledge? I think I mentioned before, elsewhere in this thread, that government revenues, and employment aren't tightly coupled with high taxes. Revenues have risen fairly steadily through the decades regardless of
the tax code. That is contradictory to what the demand side economic theory preaches. You know, Krugman, et al.. I've looked it up and there is no evidence that "multipliers" are a significant driver of the economy. Going back to WW1. Kinda reminds me of another theory discussed here. That's the unmentionable one. You know.

[ruckman101]

Indeed, there were other factors contributing to the economic collapse. But in terms of job growth, again, an abysmal failure. It was very successful at widening the economic divide between the elite and everyone else.

Why is it "socialism" to consider redistributing the wealth down to the less wealthy, but not when the wealth is redistributed upwards to the wealthy?



neal

[Velokid1]

The pattern I see is tax cuts lead to a boom lead to a recession. You can point to the boom as proof of the greatness of tax cuts... Or you can have broader vision and point to the recessions as proof of the idiocy of tax cuts.

After each recession, the mega corporations come out even larger and more powerful than before. They love recessions because they are able to endure far better than all the little people; and they come out the other side with even more of our wealth.

[turk]

Indeed, there were other factors contributing to the economic collapse. But in terms of job growth, again, an abysmal failure. It was very successful at widening the economic divide between the elite and everyone else.

Why is it "socialism" to consider redistributing the wealth down to the less wealthy, but not when the wealth is redistributed upwards to the wealthy?



neal

How exactly, does taxing everybody at an equal rate, regardless of how much money they make, constitute "redistributing wealth upwards to the wealthy"?

See the disequilibrium?

If the rate stays the same, the more money one makes, the more taxes are put into the public coffers.

On the other hand, if the rate goes up incrementally with income level, a larger fraction of the pie is taken, even though the pie increased in size as well. This assumes wealth creators would want to continue making greater pies while having incrementally larger pieces taken, until most of it is not theirs anymore. So, it contradicts its own assumption: people are altruistic by nature, so mandate taking a bigger share of the wealth they create for altruistic purposes, because they can't be trusted. BUT, they will want to continue making more money anyway, because they are altruistic.

[ruckman101]

You've missed my point turk. I was referencing the continuing redistribution of wealth up to the elites from the poor and ever shrinking middle class that started with Reagan. The disparity rivals the robber baron era.


neal

[turk]

I'm not so sure that is a direct cause/effect relationship if it's even the case. Your point is the rich are exploiting the poor to a greater degree than the Gilded Age Robber barons did before the rise of various labor movements? Really? So it's on a par with slave wages and no safety regulations and people crammed into tenement buildings again? I don't see that. I saw the general standard of living rise a little. I saw the streets get safer subsequent to the booms of Reagan, and then Clinton. That would have been in three major cities I lived in from 1987 to today. L.A. New Orleans, and Chicago. Maybe it was different elsewhere.

[ruckman101]

The income gap during the robber baron era was greater than current levels, but we're closing in on surpassing it. The larger the gap, the harsher the negative consequences become.

http://washingtonindependent.com/91038/ ... in-elusive

So why is income redistribution from the poor to the wealthy not also decried as socialism as redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is decried to be?


neal