It's Halftime in Amercia...

[vector2]

np. If you dont mind sharing what are your voting issues?

let me ammend my previous posts. If Obama was doing Simpson-Bowles plan he would have my vote. He did not and that shows me he is not serious about the deficit. His health care reform was a joke. I like the guy but he is letting the wants of the population get ahead of the needs of the country (IMO).

Once you actually see what was proposed in Simpson-Bowles you realize what a **** sandwich it was for Dems:

==================================
1. $200 billion reduction in discretionary spending[13] with proposed cuts including reducing defense procurement by 15% and closing one third of overseas bases, eliminating earmarks, and cutting the federal work force by 10%.

2. $100 billion in increased tax revenues through various tax reform proposals,[13] such as introducing a 15 cent per gallon gasoline tax and eliminating or restricting a variety of tax deductions such as the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for employer-provided healthcare benefits.

3. Controlling health care costs by maintaining the Medicare cost controls associated with the recent health care reform legislation,[13] in addition to considering a public option and a further increase in the authority of Independent Payment Advisory Board.

4. A reduction in entitlements, including farm subsidies, civilian and military federal pensions and student loan subsidies.[13][14]

5. Modifications to the Social Security program to raise the payroll tax and the retirement age.[13]
==================================

Sure those things would lower the deficit, but they're terribly regressive and punishing to those who actually work for a living, especially proposals like a 15 cent gas tax and cutting the mortgage deduction/student loan subsidies during a weak recovery. I think if it had actually included some of the policies that GoodmanBrown proposed in the post above mine such as taxing cap gains as regular income, closure of corporate tax loopholes, expiration of Bush tax cats for the two highest brackets etc, it might've actually had a chance of being taken seriously.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Once you actually see what was proposed in Simpson-Bowles you realize what a **** sandwich it was for Dems:

==================================
1. $200 billion reduction in discretionary spending[13] with proposed cuts including reducing defense procurement by 15% and closing one third of overseas bases, eliminating earmarks, and cutting the federal work force by 10%.

2. $100 billion in increased tax revenues through various tax reform proposals,[13] such as introducing a 15 cent per gallon gasoline tax and eliminating or restricting a variety of tax deductions such as the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for employer-provided healthcare benefits.

3. Controlling health care costs by maintaining the Medicare cost controls associated with the recent health care reform legislation,[13] in addition to considering a public option and a further increase in the authority of Independent Payment Advisory Board.

4. A reduction in entitlements, including farm subsidies, civilian and military federal pensions and student loan subsidies.[13][14]

5. Modifications to the Social Security program to raise the payroll tax and the retirement age.[13]
==================================

Sure those things would lower the deficit, but they're terribly regressive and punishing to those who actually work for a living, especially proposals like a 15 cent gas tax and cutting the mortgage deduction/student loan subsidies during a weak recovery. I think if it had actually included some of the policies that GoodmanBrown proposed in the post above mine such as taxing cap gains as regular income, closure of corporate tax loopholes, expiration of Bush tax cats for the two highest brackets etc, it might've actually had a chance of being taken seriously.

It was a BIPARTISAN Commission and overall I give them a solid B/B+ for the plan.
They reduced taxes but eliminated many deductions. They spread the tax burden more fairly for all Americans.

I'm not happy with increasing my SS payroll tax along with Increased Medicare taxes but for the sake of my country I could live with it provided the Spending cuts were part of the deal.

 

[vector2]

The fact that you'd give it a B+ speaks to the reality of how silly it is to call SB "bipartisan." Maybe if it was a C for you and C for me we'd be talking. The debt deal was to be predicated upon cutting spending and generating revenue with an actual progressive tax structure. We have 21st century costs yet the U.S. tax burden is the lowest it's been since 1958. Not to mention, 37 of the largest corporations in the US paid 0 in taxes in 2010.

In all likelihood the Bush taxcuts will have to expire for everyone if we're to ever make a real dent in a figure like 15 trillion, but let's not pretend that forcing someone who makes <6 figs to pay a higher percentage of their income than Mitt Romney is anywhere close to fair.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The fact that you'd give it a B+ speaks to the reality of how silly it is to call SB "bipartisan." Maybe if it was a C for you and C for me we'd be talking. The debt deal was to be predicated upon cutting spending and generating revenue with an actual progressive tax structure. We have 21st century costs yet the U.S. tax burden is the lowest it's been since 1958. Not to mention, 37 of the largest corporations in the US paid 0 in taxes in 2010.

In all likelihood the Bush taxcuts will have to expire for everyone if we're to ever make a real dent in a figure like 15 trillion, but let's not pretend that forcing someone who makes <6 figs to pay a higher percentage of their income than Mitt Romney is anywhere close to fair.

Overhaul the entire tax code. Still, We must cut spending 3:1 or the country is doomed.
This means for every extra dollar we raise via taxation 3 dollars must be cut from the budget.

Mitt Romney isn't the problem. Taxing him an extra 12-14% doesn't solve the problem.
Again, overhaul the tax code but until Obama gets serious about cutting domestic spending and entitlements the USA is in deep sh@t.


The reason I gave Simpson-Bowles a B is because I'm not an ideologue like many liberals. I understand that the govt. is over its head in promises and committments (some call those entitlements). This means rational, logical heads like Bill Clinton Democrats are needed instead of Saul Alinsky socialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

 

[BLADEMDA]

"I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.''

Ronald Reagan

 

[BLADEMDA]

The fact that you'd give it a B+ speaks to the reality of how silly it is to call SB "bipartisan." Maybe if it was a C for you and C for me we'd be talking. The debt deal was to be predicated upon cutting spending and generating revenue with an actual progressive tax structure. We have 21st century costs yet the U.S. tax burden is the lowest it's been since 1958. Not to mention, 37 of the largest corporations in the US paid 0 in taxes in 2010.

In all likelihood the Bush taxcuts will have to expire for everyone if we're to ever make a real dent in a figure like 15 trillion, but let's not pretend that forcing someone who makes <6 figs to pay a higher percentage of their income than Mitt Romney is anywhere close to fair.

President Bill Clinton also urged Obama at the time to embrace the report.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/01/obamas-simpson-bowles-dilemma/#ixzz1lvzte6Ft

 

[vector2]

I'm not an ideologue...."Saul Alinsky socialists"..

Sure thing, bud.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The question now is whether the recent Republican embrace of a plan that raises taxes by $1 trillion could eventually open the way to compromise along the lines of Simpson-Bowles.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/01/obamas-simpson-bowles-dilemma/#ixzz1lw0U8wlx

We have no choice as a nation. The debt is simply too big to be ignored any longer. It has become the elephant in the room.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Sure thing, bud.

Saul Alisnky Socialists are a part of the Democratic party. These "radicals" won't ever be happy with a mere 27% of a person's income (no deductions). They want at least 40% or more (likely half) through additional "tax the rich" laws designed to redistribute wealth to those who won't work.

The Ron Paul followers know that stealing a person's earnings is unconstitutional no matter how many laws you pass. The intent of this nation was to allow a person the OPPORTUNITY to earn a good living through his/her own sweat. The govt. is supposed to take only the minimum necessary to ensure the function of required, specified, Federal duties; it was never intended to redistribute money to the poor or create a utopian, leftist vision of society.

Surely, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had poor people in their villages/towns.
Where was the govt. run welfare and health care? Did they not care about the poor?
Why not tax the rich landowners and give the money to the poor towns people?

What has made America great is Freedom FROM government intervention in our lives. Govt. is here to protect us and preserve the rule of law. There is simply no constitutional basis for much of what it does today.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I'd love to hear you explain to the working poor (who comprise the vast majority of those in poverty) how they're in a socialist country where the rich are giving away money. I think they might wonder if the system is more easily manipulated by the rich.

 

[vector2]

Surely, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had poor people in their villages/towns.
Where was the govt. run welfare and health care? Did they not care about the poor?
Why not tax the rich landowners and give the money to the poor towns people?

Even though they were both brilliant, I'm still finding it hard to believe that someone just referenced a pair of slaveowners as the moral paragons to follow regarding class inequality and the disenfranchised. I think we've reached critical mass irony.

There is not a single person here who reached his current level of success through 'just' his "own sweat." We do not live in some mythical world where achievement can be disconnected from the luck of your birth situation, or disconnected from the government intervention that creates the secure educational and financial infrastructure that allows one to achieve. Capitalism and free markets are not a part of the natural world no matter how much libertarians may wish it. Pretending that someone can, for instance, become a physician without significant help from society while at same time equating taxation to "stealing" is shameful. If you 'really' want to live in a free nation with limited government intervention then rural Mongolia would be a good place to start.

Saul Alisnky Socialists are a part of the Democratic party. These "radicals" won't ever be happy with a mere 27% of a person's income (no deductions). They want at least 40% or more (likely half) through additional "tax the rich" laws designed to redistribute wealth to those who won't work.

My favorite Saul Alinsky Socialist is Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Narcotized]

Sue enjoyed all these ponzi scam government programs that have left the country broke, so therefore we should continue them?

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

I bet I'd wanna live in the countries with the highest rating. You guys can have Nigeria and China.

Which of the 2 Koreas live better, the free market South Koreans or the higher rated government dependent North Koreans? Which of the 2 Germanies lived better, the free market West Germans or the higher rated government dependent East Germany?

 

[Narcotized]

1) Obama believes in Keynesian economics and has responded to one of the largest US recessions in history.

Don't forget the famous quote from his sidekick, "Never let a crisis go to waste." In other words, use the financial crisis as a means to get what you want, a huge bloated government. They made no secret of what their goal is.

 

[Narcotized]

What % of the deficit is coming from socialist policies vs... bailing out a crashing economy from loose financial regulation?

Those are basically the same thing.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[vector2]

Really? Which of the 2 Koreas live better, the free market South Koreans or the higher rated government dependent North Koreans? Which of the 2 Germanies lived better, the free market West Germans or the higher rated government dependent East Germany? A central planned government run economy can not work better in theory and has never worked better in reality.

You realize that Germany is a social market economy, i.e. a hybrid of socialism and laissez-faire, right? They have the strongest unions in the world, the oldest universal health care system in the world, and extensive social security including pension insurance and unemployment insurance. They also make heavy use of state power to regulate corporations and keep inflation low. Not to mention, Angela Merkel is a Keynesian who approved a 70 billion dollar stimulus when the recession hit Germany. This will probably go in one of your eyes and out the other, but Keynesian economics is counter-cyclical, meaning spending increases in recessions and is cut during boom times as Clinton did in the 90s. It's not spend, spend, spend even though you'd like to caricature it as such.

So what is your point? Sue enjoyed all these ponzi scam government programs that have left the country broke, so therefore we should continue them?? Well that's pretty brilliant.

My point is that everyone here (excluding the silver spoon types) who eventually "made it" did so because of some type of government intervention, not in spite of it. Social programs (that have kept millions out of hunger and poverty and allowed further millions to go to college) are easily sustainable if reform can be implemented and yelling cut, cut, cut is using an axe instead of a scalpel. Not to mention such draconian cuts are so unpopular in the general public that doing away with them altogether would never become law. That being said, why don't you sit back and reflect for a sec on the fact that someone born in France currently has a better chance of out-earning his dad than someone born here...

 

[GoodmanBrown]

The difference is private insurance is a business; it must charge as much premium to cover all medical costs as well as operational costs. The government version is like all government versions; geared to reelect those already in power. This is done by giving away more stuff than is taken in by tax revenue leaving the country broke. There is nothing respectable or admirable about any government run business. They don't have to play by the same rules as a private business and always bleep the tax player.

I feel like you've got to admit that this is just categorically untrue. Social security and Medicare have been running for decades in the black when you take them as independent "businesses." They were so in the black that if they were private businesses, they'd still be sitting on huge reserves and no one would be so riled up. The key now is to adjust revenue and costs to keep each in line with the other.

Really? Which of the 2 Koreas live better, the free market South Koreans or the higher rated government dependent North Koreans? Which of the 2 Germanies lived better, the free market West Germans or the higher rated government dependent East Germany? A central planned government run economy can not work better in theory and has never worked better in reality.

I dunno. This feels like a rabbit hole to me. The government dependence scale for the US is a bit hazy, and we're just arbitrarily making one up for the rest of the world. Are North Koreans really dependent on their government? All the stories I hear coming out of North Korea indicate that black markets are commonplace and people get by despite the government. My implication was that I'd much prefer to move to a country with a solid social safety net than one that leaves one to fend for oneself when you're in trouble.

Blade asked if I planned to move to Greece or Spain in the near future. No, I don't because I'm busy going to med school, then residency, etc. But, I will unequivocally say that if I had to leave the US, I'd choose Spain or Greece over Nigeria or China any day.

Is he really a Keynesian, or is simply like most people; that being he has an agenda (to grow our government and have a society dependent on it) and then he finds stuff that fits his agenda (Keynesian Economics); ie he finds stuff that backs up what he wants, and then "believes" in it.

Don't forget the famous quote from his sidekick, "Never let a crisis go to waste." In other words, use the financial crisis as a means to get what you want, a huge bloated government. They made no secret of what their goal is.

Forgetting for now that Keynesian Economics is a bit silly (If we continue to do more of what made us broke, we will then be rich again!), Obama has shown no economic depth to even have an economic belief. Here is a guy that still wants to prop us the housing market. Everyone on the planet knows housing was a bubble doomed for collapse, and friggin Einstein thinks the answer is to prop it back up. It's downright frightening how little this guy grasps about economics.

Do you honestly believe it is Obama's goal to make government as big as possible? That he's truly interested in a 100% communist government where the state fully controls all means of production and commerce? If so, I don't think we have much to discuss.

As for his housing program, my understanding is that it's simply a program to allow homeowners with current mortgages to reduce the interest rate on their mortgage. I agree, it does prop up the housing market. Will it really reinflate the bubble (and is this what Obama wants), or simply allow the bubble to settle more slowly? Only time will tell.

Narc, I know that you find Keynesian economics silly because it doesn't always work incredibly well in the real world. Would you admit though that the Austrian economics doesn't always work in the real world either? I can think of several examples where the market never became efficient. I've been reading Keynes Hayek, and it's interesting in that both men knew their theories were not perfect in the real world, but simply felt their ideas were better than the alternative. I guess that's how I feel. That government intervention in the economy is full of flaws, but it's better than the alternative of letting markets do whatever they will.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I feel like you've got to admit that this is just categorically untrue. Social security and Medicare have been running for decades in the black when you take them as independent "businesses." They were so in the black that if they were private businesses, they'd still be sitting on huge reserves and no one would be so riled up. The key now is to adjust revenue and costs to keep each in line with the other.



I dunno. This feels like a rabbit hole to me. The government dependence scale for the US is a bit hazy, and we're just arbitrarily making one up for the rest of the world. Are North Koreans really dependent on their government? All the stories I hear coming out of North Korea indicate that black markets are commonplace and people get by despite the government. My implication was that I'd much prefer to move to a country with a solid social safety net than one that leaves one to fend for oneself when you're in trouble.

Blade asked if I planned to move to Greece or Spain in the near future. No, I don't because I'm busy going to med school, then residency, etc. But, I will unequivocally say that if I had to leave the US, I'd choose Spain or Greece over Nigeria or China any day.



Do you honestly believe it is Obama's goal to make government as big as possible? That he's truly interested in a 100% communist government where the state fully controls all means of production and commerce? If so, I don't think we have much to discuss.

As for his housing program, my understanding is that it's simply a program to allow homeowners with current mortgages to reduce the interest rate on their mortgage. I agree, it does prop up the housing market. Will it really reinflate the bubble (and is this what Obama wants), or simply allow the bubble to settle more slowly? Only time will tell.

Narc, I know that you find Keynesian economics silly because it doesn't always work incredibly well in the real world. Would you admit though that the Austrian economics doesn't always work in the real world either? I can think of several examples where the market never became efficient. I've been reading Keynes Hayek, and it's interesting in that both men knew their theories were not perfect in the real world, but simply felt their ideas were better than the alternative. I guess that's how I feel. That government intervention in the economy is full of flaws, but it's better than the alternative of letting markets do whatever they will.

No. It's not better to have govt. intervention. The govt. is there to preserve the rule of law and create a level playing field. The markets function much better without govt. intervention at all. If there is a need for something the market will create it or incentivize a company to do it.

If a company makes bad bets (bad loans) it goes out of business. Only the govt. gets to skirt the law of the free market place (Freddie MAC, Fannie Mae, GM bail out, etc.).
For hundreds of years the free market has worked well in creating the greatest country on earth. Socialism and govt. programs have made things worse and not better (yes, this includes the mortgage deduction, Medicare, SS, etc.). Ron Paul knows we would be better off without ANY of these programs and allow our free society/markets to work properly.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Even though they were both brilliant, I'm still finding it hard to believe that someone just referenced a pair of slaveowners as the moral paragons to follow regarding class inequality and the disenfranchised. I think we've reached critical mass irony.

There is not a single person here who reached his current level of success through 'just' his "own sweat." We do not live in some mythical world where achievement can be disconnected from the luck of your birth situation, or disconnected from the government intervention that creates the secure educational and financial infrastructure that allows one to achieve. Capitalism and free markets are not a part of the natural world no matter how much libertarians may wish it. Pretending that someone can, for instance, become a physician without significant help from society while at same time equating taxation to "stealing" is shameful. If you 'really' want to live in a free nation with limited government intervention then rural Mongolia would be a good place to start.



My favorite Saul Alinsky Socialist is Dwight D. Eisenhower

I disagree with EVERY program listed above. Every single one. Socialism didn't just happen with Obama but has been creeping up on us over the last 90 years. Nations don't rise or fall in a year or a decade. It takes time to destroy a great culture and society. Socialism is our slow growing cancer that is killing the USA. I do agree the masses will never give up on their opium laced programs because they view them as "entitlements" when in fact, they are either just additional taxes or welfare programs to redistribute wealth.

 

[deleted126335]

I disagree with EVERY program listed above. Every single one. Socialism didn't just happen with Obama but has been creeping up on us over the last 90 years. Nations don't rise or fall in a year or a decade. It takes time to destroy a great culture and society. Socialism is our slow growing cancer that is killing the USA. I do agree the masses will never give up on their opium laced programs because they view them as "entitlements" when in fact, they are either just additional taxes or welfare programs to redistribute wealth.

The tragedy is that these programs were put in place with the best intentions by thoughtful people. Education is the magic bullet for so many social ills and the key to upward mobility. Home ownership builds and strengthens communities. It makes perfect sense to encourage them. The governemnt programs that subsidized them wound up raising the prices and served to create housing and tuition loan bubbles.

 

[Per4mer8]

There is not a single person here who reached his current level of success through 'just' his "own sweat." We do not live in some mythical world where achievement can be disconnected from the luck of your birth situation, or disconnected from the government intervention that creates the secure educational and financial infrastructure that allows one to achieve. Capitalism and free markets are not a part of the natural world no matter how much libertarians may wish it. Pretending that someone can, for instance, become a physician without significant help from society while at same time equating taxation to "stealing" is shameful. If you 'really' want to live in a free nation with limited government intervention then rural Mongolia would be a good place to start.

This argument always irks me. Not everyone was handed their success. There are many medstudents/physicians that DID make it on their "own sweat". Not everyone goes to the Harvard's of the country with help from family/friends/past alums/large donations or other connections. Many grind their way from lower or middle class blue collar working families, or single parent households.

Is there some element of "birth luck", of course, but deciding that future success is impossible due to present or past circumstances is a quit first attitude. Is it easier to succeed with a higher starting point? Again, of course, but many have made it to where THEIR GOALS led them without this headstart or any other birth right/handout.

Saying the gov't should create this equal opportunity destiny is a.) impossible due to the inherent differences in individual goals/desires/work ethic and b.) only going to lead to a society reliant on the handouts with no reason to TRY. People will still be born to crack addicted mothers in the slums somewhere....... the numbers may actually rise if everyone can expect their gov't check, health care, and admission to Gov't U for their children.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

This argument always irks me. Not everyone was handed their success. There are many medstudents/physicians that DID make it on their "own sweat". Not everyone goes to the Harvard's of the country with help from family/friends/past alums/large donations or other connections. Many grind their way from lower or middle class blue collar working families, or single parent households.

Is there some element of "birth luck", of course, but deciding that future success is impossible due to present or past circumstances is a quit first attitude. Is it easier to succeed with a higher starting point? Again, of course, but many have made it to where THEIR GOALS led them without this headstart or any other birth right/handout.

Saying the gov't should create this equal opportunity destiny is a.) impossible due to the inherent differences in individual goals/desires/work ethic and b.) only going to lead to a society reliant on the handouts with no reason to TRY. People will still be born to crack addicted mothers in the slums somewhere....... the numbers may actually rise if everyone can expect their gov't check, health care, and admission to Gov't U for their children.

Per4mer8, maybe we're reading vector's words differently, but I'm not sure he's saying that anyone who has succeeded did so because his/her parents were rich. I think he's stating that some of the government programs that are being trashed here are those that help people pull themselves up from blue collar backgrounds. Things like free public schools, government subsidized college loans, state aid to higher education, tax breaks for your parent's feeding and sheltering you, etc.

I don't think he's implying that all doctors come from rich families that paid their way through Harvard, but rather that even "self-made" people have relied on government programs to give them a boost up.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

The tragedy is that these programs were put in place with the best intentions by thoughtful people. Education is the magic bullet for so many social ills and the key to upward mobility. Home ownership builds and strengthens communities. It makes perfect sense to encourage them. The governemnt programs that subsidized them wound up raising the prices and served to create housing and tuition loan bubbles.

Totally agree with this. The question I ask myself is, was it worth it? Though recently it has not been incredibly beneficial, for many decades owning a home was certainly a good investment and a way to increase one's long-term wealth.

And despite tuition prices that are rising much more quickly than inflation, has the large number of college graduates helped the US overall economically?

 

[GoodmanBrown]

No. It's not better to have govt. intervention. The govt. is there to preserve the rule of law and create a level playing field. The markets function much better without govt. intervention at all. If there is a need for something the market will create it or incentivize a company to do it.

Do you believe this is always true? What about Dwight Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System? Before that, even major highways were known by names, so there was overlap, confusion, and no central organization to who built what roads and how they were named. Would private enterprise have built the ~50,000 miles of roads that are now vital to our nation's economy?

 

[Per4mer8]

Per4mer8, maybe we're reading vector's words differently, but I'm not sure he's saying that anyone who has succeeded did so because his/her parents were rich. I think he's stating that some of the government programs that are being trashed here are those that help people pull themselves up from blue collar backgrounds. Things like free public schools, government subsidized college loans, state aid to higher education, tax breaks for your parent's feeding and sheltering you, etc.

I don't think he's implying that all doctors come from rich families that paid their way through Harvard, but rather that even "self-made" people have relied on government programs to give them a boost up.

Possibly. Though the quote was to the effect of not a single person got to their current level of success with the help of government programs......

Now if your argument is that I succeeded due to public school (pretty commonly recognized as being piss poor in many cities/states), got to said public school and later college via state and federally funded roadways, then yes this is correct. But I don't think anyone would argue that public school and roads are inappropriate use of gov't funds or over-extension of gov't programs.

As far as Federal subsidized loans for college/med school. HA!! I get $8500/yr as unsubsidized. The rest is at an interest rate of 8.5%. I bought a house at 4.9%, a used "new" car at 2.9% through private lenders but the US government is charging me 8.5% to better myself and dedicate 8 years to become the best physician I can be and provide a hugely needed service? Really? I see that as an egregious capitalization of the situation. And that $8500 unsubsidized/yr times 4 years, maybe 8 if it gets deferred is a $34,000 investment (yes, up front, non-interest acruing investment) that will be more than fairly paid back at 30+% tax rate on $200k x 20+yrs.

Good thing none of my internal dedication, work ethic, or time spent mattered, it was all secondary to gov't "aid" that "enabled" me to succeed.

Is my argument fairly sensational and anecdotal? Yes. Do plenty of people use gov't programs to "get held up" or elevate themselves higher than possible without? Yes. But is saying that NO ONE can SUCCEED to a high level without government help minimizing the hard work and determination that truly drives success and is the very reason people SHOULD succeed. YES.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

The stock market is only up like 4700 points since Obama took office. Everyone of us 1%ers is making a killing. Made more money last 4 years than any other time, mostly thanks to my farms and stocks.
Bin Laden and many other terrorists are now dead. I think Obama has done an amazing job in the war on terror. Feel a lot safer with him than with Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney.

 

[pgg]

The stock market is only up like 4700 points since Obama took office. Everyone of us 1%ers is making a killing. Made more money last 4 years than any other time, mostly thanks to my farms and stocks.

So, you think everything's cool with the economy, because the market is up around 50% since its 2008 low?


WRT Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya and the "GWOT" I think Obama has done a fine job.

 

[vector2]

This argument always irks me. Not everyone was handed their success. There are many medstudents/physicians that DID make it on their "own sweat". Not everyone goes to the Harvard's of the country with help from family/friends/past alums/large donations or other connections. Many grind their way from lower or middle class blue collar working families, or single parent households.

Is there some element of "birth luck", of course, but deciding that future success is impossible due to present or past circumstances is a quit first attitude. Is it easier to succeed with a higher starting point? Again, of course, but many have made it to where THEIR GOALS led them without this headstart or any other birth right/handout.

Saying the gov't should create this equal opportunity destiny is a.) impossible due to the inherent differences in individual goals/desires/work ethic and b.) only going to lead to a society reliant on the handouts with no reason to TRY. People will still be born to crack addicted mothers in the slums somewhere....... the numbers may actually rise if everyone can expect their gov't check, health care, and admission to Gov't U for their children.

You sort of hit the nail on the head here. What is it that allows the child of a blue-collar single parent to compete on a level playing field with the silver spoon Harvardite? No one is marginalizing the hard work and dedication you put in or giving government the credit for your work, but is your dedication enough on its own to put you on a level playing field with Harvardite? You acknowledge that your experience is anecdotal, but data actually exists. We already know from what I posted above that the US is behind France, Germany, and Scandinavia as far as father-son earnings elasticity is concerned. In addition, if you're born into the top 10% in the US you have a greater than 25% chance of staying in the top 10%, and a greater than 50% chance of staying in the top third. If you're born into the bottom 10% you have a greater than 20% chance of staying there, and a greater than 50% chance of staying in the bottom third. In Canada, both sides of this coin are attenuated towards the middle. The conclusion you can draw from this could be A. Canadians, Germans, and the French are all somehow inherently better at pulling themselves up by their mythical bootstraps than Americans, or B. Social policy at a federal level has a tremendous effect on class mobility, and couching the discussion in terms of individual 'morals' or 'welfare queens' or 'crack moms' is verily ludicrous and a cop out.

If we look at Blade's response to the cartoon, he's against EVERY single program including public schools, government infrastructure projects, and the employer health insurance tax deduction because he's as loony as Ron "Gold Troll" Paul. If you tell him the poverty rate for seniors was 35% in the 60s and less than 10% now he doesn't care because reducing government debt and lowering the income tax rate trumps all.

A little thought experiment...let's say Harvardite is the child of a millionaire who pays for his private primary and secondary education, tutors, SAT prep etc before paying for an ivy league education. The grinder in Bladetopia gets educated where..now that public education is either inaccessible, of useless quality (since it's funded by the crappy property taxes of a crappy neighborhood and not progressively), or nonexistent? Do you expect that even if he does go to school he's going to have the same opportunities and help with his homework as the other kid? And suppose he somehow makes it past secondary education- which private bank is going to give him any amount unsubsidized let alone approve him for a loan in the current credit market with no collateral?

Harvardite, in addition to likely having better nutrition from infancy which has been linked to better cognitive development throughout life, can afford an individual cadillac blue cross/blue shield plan for when he gets sick- the grinder in Bladetopia is left with cough drops since there's no CHIPS/medicaid/employer-sponsored tax breaks for HI. God forbid Grinder or his mom actually get into a serious accident while uninsured since 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

Harvardite lives in a secure gated community with a well-funded police dept. Grinder lives in a not-so-secure neighboorhood and likely has a statistically significant increased risk of overall mortality, being stolen from, or being incarcerated himself. And on and on and on...had a couple other points I wanted to address but today is the last day of my last required MS4 rotation (goodbye VA med sub-I, hello radiology) and the casino beckons. I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[pgg]

if you're born into the top 10% in the US you have a greater than 25% chance of staying in the top 10%

I sure hope mine wind up in the top 10%.

Highly educated, gainfully employed, high earning parents all have something in common: we remember how we got here, and we know the score, and we set our kids up for success. When my 12-year-old can't figure out his math homework I sit my ass down and we do the entire assignment together, and then I make him do more problems until he proves to me that he gets it.

So where's the government program aimed at making parents give a ****?

Social policy at a federal level has a tremendous effect on class mobility, and couching the discussion in terms of individual 'morals' or 'welfare queens' or 'crack moms' is verily ludicrous and a cop out.

You're right.

If we look at Blade's response to the cartoon, he's against EVERY single program including public schools, government infrastructure projects, and the employer health insurance tax deduction because he's as loony as Ron "Gold Troll" Paul. If you tell him the poverty rate for seniors was 35% in the 60s and less than 10% now he doesn't care because reducing government debt and lowering the income tax rate trumps all.

I have to deviate from my usual agreement with Blade here. I'm pretty far off on the libertarian scale, I admit it. I'm totally OK with the dirty little secret of liberty ("you're on your own") ... and it doesn't really bother me that some people squander the advantage an American birth gives them and wind up failures in life.

But there are some non-Constitutionally-mandated things I want our government to do.

I totally favor 100% federally funded comprehensive limitless healthcare for everyone under the age of 18. There's no reason for the richest most powerful country on earth to have kids without medical care, no matter how stupid or screwed up their parents are.

I favor social security and medicare for old people, subject to some rational limits (maybe no free CABG at age 87), because I don't want to live in a country where old people eat cat food or fight over the park bench closest to the steam pipe.

Welfare and programs like WIC have a place too.

Free public education (no "voucher" system), strong defense (albeit one of a less expeditionary flavor), extensive and well-maintained infrastructure, a solid and rational strategy for environmental protection and resource exploitation ...

... but here's the thing:

he doesn't care because reducing government debt and lowering the income tax rate trumps all.

My most basic belief here (and I think Blade's too though I don't presume to speak for him) is that reducing government spending and debt MUST trump all, and Real Soon Now - because if you do the math, the day is coming when that debt will make it impossible to provide both the minimalist Constitution-directed federal services as well as the optional niceties most of us want to see from a wealthy, free, and civilized nation.

And then it won't matter if WIC is fully funded or not, because we'll have larger problems.

the casino beckons.

There's a joke here somewhere about poor people and retirement planning, but it would be insensitive for me to make it.

 

[Per4mer8]

vector2,

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying (notice the last part of my previous post), and I understand that I did start the extremist views/examples with Harvard vs people born to crack mothers......but really these are obviously not the majority.

I agree that being in the top 10% has massive advantages just as being in the bottom 10% or even third has negative consequences, on AVERAGE. But I also think there are plenty of "silver spoon types" who grow up to be screw ups because they never had to work for anything, and there are also many people who got dealt a 7-deuce off suit (for your casino memories) that made it. My whole point is saying that we need to keep creating federal program after federal program to help those that may need or could use some help is idealistic and short sighted. Obviously, and Blade's point is how do we finance these programs? How do we monitor them or set realistic limits, for example how long can you draw welfare, how many kids can you have on welfare/medicaid? These are difficult questions, I don't have the answer. How do we tell someone how many children is "enough" for their family? Is this number less because they are poor, or receiving the benefits of federal aid?

I do see both sides of the issue. I don't want my grandparents, or anyone elses for that matter being broke after years of hard work (or possibly not in social utopia). I do think just allowing hundreds of thousands of lower class, poverty stricken children/families fall by the wayside is callous and disrespectful to the goals of a civilized society. But I also think that just handing people what they need (or what they think they need) is not the answer, again, who sets the criteria, the amount of aid, the duration, the withdrawal of aid criteria, the enforcement, the penalty, etc???

Many people will succeed with or without aid. Many people will fail with or without aid. What is the acceptable % in each scenario? What happens if voters continually vote for the candidate who proposes the most aid/loosest criterion to be eligible for this aid? I do think that over time too much aid and/or assistance programs without limits will breed a society of people not willing to work for anything or give a damn if they put forth their best effort. Over time who decides to dedicate 12-15 years to be a Doc when they can just keep collecting whatever aid is the status quo (saying nothing of continued decreases in salary)? If less and less people dedicate the time and effort to climb whatever career related mountain you want to use as an example and decide to take the easy "entitled" road, who's left at the top to pay for the ever swelling number of bottom 10%ers? Many of these programs are funded in large part by the top 10%, cannibalizing the top by disincentivizing hard work and dedication will make these programs unsustainable. But I guess eventually when both of us are the weathered Docs you'd be OK with just increasing your tax bracket %, but only one last time........

 

[BLADEMDA]

Do you believe this is always true? What about Dwight Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System? Before that, even major highways were known by names, so there was overlap, confusion, and no central organization to who built what roads and how they were named. Would private enterprise have built the ~50,000 miles of roads that are now vital to our nation's economy?

This is a role for our STATE govt. as well. I like that you point out roads or bridges and not huge govt. agenncies like the Dept. of Education or even the FDA.

There is absolutely a role for the Federal govt in the USA; however, it should be about 1/10th the actual size it is today based on strict interpretation of the constitution.

The cartoon posted shows all the things the FEDERAL govt. should never have been engaged in.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Q: What do you think of Social Security?
A: It's a mess. And it proves that the government is not very good at central economic planning, even for retirement. The money was taken from the people with good intention. We should do our best to return it to those that have taken it. But we need to allow the young people to just flat out get out of the system. Because, if you have the government managing these accounts, it's not going to work.

Ron Paul

 

[BLADEMDA]

I am not an ideologue and live in the real world. This means I accept and understand the socialist, america most of us live and work in on a daily basis. The Social programs aren't going anywhere but we can resist the liberal/socialist agenda of expanding them. In addition, if the govt. is in charge of a program it can determine how much and to whom that entitlement goes to.

Since Medicare is essentially free to many Americans the Federal govt. must restrict access to expensive, elective surgeries and "unproven" but likely effective Biotech meds costing tens of thousands of dollars. We can no longer provide first class medical care on demand to those who can't pay the cost. What we can do is provide "coach" level service to those seeking govt. assistance for their care.

Entitlements must be reigned in or the country goes the way of Greece.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Whatever else you may want to say about him, economist Robert Reich is a man who tells it like it is -- or as he would like it to be. The former Clinton administration Labor secretary gave a taped lecture at Berkeley University in 2007 explaining how the "honest" candidate for president would sell healthcare reform to the American people.



The candid candidate would tell Americans, Reich ventured, that healthcare reform will mean young people will pay more, the elderly will die sooner, and medical innovation will suffer. When it comes to seniors, Reich's not-poll tested stump speech would go like this:

If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So we're going to let you die.
​

They applauded in Berkeley -- but advocates of healthcare reform were livid two years later when Sarah Palin offered an equally honest assessment of pending healthcare legislation, charging that it would introduce rationing and "Obama's 'death panel'" into American medicine.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Clint Eastwood also weighed in on the Simpson-Bowles debate, saying he was "amazed" that President Obama ignored the recommendations of the co-chairs of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission: former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming.
"They came back with a recommendation, which was to exactly stop spending, and then everyone said that's enough from you guys, go home," Eastwood said. "I thought, that's a waste of money, a waste of time, a waste of effort from everybody, and not very spirited for the country. I think both those gentlemen are smart and worth listing to, if you've gone ahead and assigned them to this project."
<img style="display: none;" id="poke" alt="Tracking Image" width="0" height="0">

 

[BLADEMDA]

Have any of you left-wing nutballs looked at all the taxes coming down the pike from Obama?
Have you really examined them closely? Do you realize your chance of actually living the American Dream (like he has done) has been severly reduced?

The $250K for married couples or $200K LIMIT for single individuals is NOT indexed for inflatuion. Do you realize what that this means for many people in about 10 years when inflation returns to 4-5% annually?

Now, consider all the taxes you will likely pay before reaching the $250K mark. The SS tax will likely increase substantially over the coming years. I easily see an effective tax rate of well over 35% for many hard working middle class families earning $350K a year.

I realize many of you don't understand the tax system and how it heavily favors the poor and the very rich but I can assure you that W-2 wage of $380K will be decimated by Obama tax increases in the coming years reducing your net income substantially

Throughout my life I've had W-2s ranging from $24K to over $500K and I understand our tax system quite well. Obama will decimate the upper middle class and make your dream nothing but a fantasy.

It isn't the rich that need to fear Obama: It's you

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Medicare Tax coming your way in 2013 just on those earning over $200K.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Obama did not increase taxes in 2011 or 2012. The Graph is correct above as it relates to 2013 taxes (as proposed by Obama).

 

[Apollyon]

There is one thing I keep wondering, though - the Baby Boom was 1946-1964. Even now, the boomers are dying off. Even though people are living longer, they're still going to die, with the vast majority dead before 2050. Will costs (such as Medicare, if it exists) still be high, if there aren't as many people? It seems that all projections are linear, which doesn't seem to correlate with the lower birthrate that followed.

 

[BLADEMDA]

There is one thing I keep wondering, though - the Baby Boom was 1946-1964. Even now, the boomers are dying off. Even though people are living longer, they're still going to die, with the vast majority dead before 2050. Will costs (such as Medicare, if it exists) still be high, if there aren't as many people? It seems that all projections are linear, which doesn't seem to correlate with the lower birthrate that followed.

Incorrect. People are living longer and cosuming more health care dollars after age 65 than ever before. Baby Boomers will be showing up in droves for their Total Joints, Cataract surgery, A. Fib Ablation, Cardiac stents, etc. They like utilizing the FREE health system after age 65.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]