KCRWs Left, Right & Center 1.23.09
Obamarama; Bankers Behaving Badly; Foreign Policy Choices; Caroline KO’ed
Well, he’s the man now. We discuss the symbolism, the messianic atmosphere surrounding the Inauguration versus the hard realities Obama says we’re facing and the first of many policy decisions he’s already made, plus those he’ll be tackling. Bank execs who are tone deaf give the tone deaf a bad name: what ARE they doing with our money? George Mitchell, Richard Holbrooke, Hillary Clinton: familiar faces but not lately -- is the world getting the message? There’s been a regime change in America. And can the Kennedys ever regain their dynastic power? Caroline’s out…and it’s mostly her own fault.
Just after the link to the Krauthammer piece he mentioned, Matt wanted me to share this humor piece about the Faux Bush Library which he mentioned during his rant; and don't forget, Matt and Tony both have new books out -- Tony's is quite tough and unapologetic, called American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century and it's likely to stir some controversy. Don't forget Matt's book The Tyranny of Dead Ideas. You might be interested in knowing that the photo of Matt at that link was shot by our photographer the night we did the post-election round up live stage show.
Obama’s Inaugural Surprise
Friday, January 23, 2009; Page A15
Fascinating speech. It was so rhetorically flat, so lacking in rhythm and cadence, one almost has to believe he did it on purpose. Best not to dazzle on Opening Day. Otherwise, they'll expect magic all the time. …(link above)
The GWB Presidential Library
Please Donate to the GWB Presidential Library
Dear Fellow Constituent:
"The George W. Bush Presidential Library" is now in the planning stages and accepting donations.
The Library will include:
1. The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.
2. The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
3. The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
4. The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in
5. The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
6. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find
7. The National Debt Room, which is huge and has no ceiling.
8. The Tax Cut Room, with entry only to the wealthy.
9. The Economy Room, which is in the toilet.
10. The Iraq War Room. (After you complete your first visit, they make you go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth visit.)
11. The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location, complete with shooting gallery.
12. The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.
13. The Supreme Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
14. The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
15. The Decider Room, complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.
Note: The library will feature an
electron microscope to help you locate and view the President's accomplishments
The library will also include many
famous quotes by George W. Bush:
1. 'The vast majority of
our imports come from outside the country.'
2. 'If we don't succeed,
we run the risk of failure.'
3. 'Republicans understand
the importance of bondage between a mother and child.'
4. 'No senior citizen
should ever have to choose between prescription drugs and medicine.'
5. 'I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.'
6. 'One word sums up
probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be
prepared'.'
7. 'Verbosity leads to
unclear, inarticulate things.'
8. 'I have made good
judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.'
9. 'The future will be
better tomorrow.'
10. 'We're going to have
the best educated American people in the world.'
11. 'One of the great
things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.' (During an education photo-op)
12. 'Illegitimacy is
something we should talk about in terms of not having it
13. 'We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.'
14. 'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'
15. 'I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.'... (George W. Bush to Sam Donaldson)
PLEASE GIVE GENEROUSLY!
Sincerely,Jack Abramoff, Co-Chair
G.W. Bush Library Board of Directors
My Groups
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 3 days ago
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: 4 days ago
-
the KCRW Music Library Updated: 4 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Obama - keep inspiring us all to grow up, be accountable and do the hard work to make our country better than ever.
As much as it may hurt, the best course of action is to allow the foreclosed properties to be resold to families who can make payments their mortgages. The valuation of properties will return to a more normal levels that will be affordable to more people and the market will stabilize.
I think it's a little overly pessimistic to say that a foreclosure is only going to net 5% of the value of the mortgage. Unless you find a Dioxin dump or something, there is no way a $200k property is going to suddenly be sold for $10k in foreclosure.
Paul Krugman has written some articles about this.
These confounders are why it is difficult to unravel the mortgage crisis. It sounds spectacular when Bob Scheer screams that we should freeze all the foreclosures or poor people will be turned out into the street, but how do you separate these people from ones who were gaming the system? Not that these people should be punished, but they will most likely not maintain their home value has fallen below their mortgage value, and any bailout money thrown in their direction will be lost.
It's kind of like lawsuits. Companies get sued all the time and will frequently calculate that it's cheaper to settle then to fight even when the suit has a low chance of being successful. If someone sues company X and it will cost $50K to fight(with a chance of loosing and paying even more) or $25K to settle then it and move on then it makes business sense to settle.
If we rip the band-aid off then the greatest majority of the homeowners, most of whom were not involved in the "game," are stuck in an already overbuilt market now flooded with foreclosures. These people will be marooned upside down in these homes for many years and at the same time at the mercy of a labor market glutted with people in the same boat.
So if we were to stop foreclosures, it may be more helpful to the general economy. Cut it either way, it's a shitty deal for the taxpayer.
I’m not sure Bob Sheer is correct in equating the “toxic” assets held be financial institutions with defaulting mortgages; these still mysterious assets are probably not mortgages but complex instruments derived in inchoate ways from bundled mortgages. Stopping foreclosures, whatever it’s other benefits or faults, will not preserve the value of these derivative assets as the assets are surely based on the income stream from the mortgages (or credit cards or ….), i.e. the monthly mortgage payments which will have to be lowered if the borrowers are to keep their homes. Of course, foreclosure and resale at a lower price will also not save the derivative instruments.
It’s hard to say because ten months after the collapse of Bear Stearns, we still do not know what the banks have on their books – a scandal, I think, and terrible failure by the government not only because taxpayer money is being given to these institutions but because it is the mystery, the lack of transparency, which is paralyzing the financial system. Banks will not lend to one another because they fear their peers are insolvent. Private investors will not put money into the banks because the don’t know what they are buying.
I assume the banks are unwilling to acknowledge their assets – and the government is unwilling to force them to do so – because doing so would reveal that the assets are almost worthless and the banks insolvent. But the effort to maintain an artificially high value of the “junk” is futile and, as Japan’s example shows, only prolongs the crisis.
I think it’s disastrous for the government to buy or guarantee the “toxic” assets at some artificially high value; it would cost trillions and bankrupt the nation. The banks need to write off the “toxic” assets at market value and recapitalize; the taxpayer can help with the recapitalization (and private equity will gladly invest in a “clean” bank), but the bad debt must be written off. And if this means that huge financial institutions shrink – great. We can’t afford companies that are “too big to fail.”
As to homes, they are overpriced by any standard and so there are only three options: the price falls to level commensurate to family income; we raise income to a level at which people can afford the homes; or we continue using excessive leverage via unorthodox mortgages or government subsidies.
Who should lose their home and why?
chrissowick suggests that everyone vulnerable should be foreclosed on and be out on the street so that homes can be recycled to people like him/her. This will supposedly also wring the excess "bubble value" out of housing (particularly in bubble areas like California, Florida and Nevada where scarcity, irrationality and maybe some of the stuff Mr. X talks about apply.) And some suggest there is too much housing, perhaps too much big mansiony housing built for the affluent rather than ordinary people, and want to tear some down.
My neighbor asks me to loan him $1000.00. He seems like a good guy so I agree. He signs a note saying that he promises to pay the loan back in 6 months plus 5% interest. As I have no idea whether or not he will do so, I have added a clause to the note saying that for each month he fails to pay off the loan, there will be a penalty of 35% interest compounded monthly..
No one twisted my arm to lend him the money. I made the decision. I then added something in to protect my investment and to make a profit if my neighbor couldn’t pay me back within 6 months - a win/win for me.
Now this transaction is between 2 individuals and it is not regulated by any group of which I am aware.. However as there is a signed piece of paper I would say it is covered under contract law. So, when he defaults after 1 ½ years, off I go to small debts court. I am not good at math, but I am thinking that 35% a month over 12 months is reasonable and as my neighbor agreed to it in writing, he owes it to me.
How do you suppose the small debts court judge would view this contract? Do you think he/she would say, that my neighbor signed the contract with his eyes open and that he should pay me the full value?
Turns out that, if I had bothered to do some checking, I would have found out that my neighbor was deeply in debt. The court would say that I had not done my due diligence and that my 35% clause was in bad faith – and they would be right. The best I will get will be my original $1000 in regular installments until the debt is paid.
If the banks had done their due diligence before providing mortgages to people who would not be able to make the payments once the next tier interest rates kicked in, none of this would have happened.
To force people out of their homes now is to reward the banks for their failure to do their job. No one is saying that the mortgagees should be allowed to keep their homes for free. The suggestion is that the mortgages should be adjusted to allow the home owners to make reasonable payments and remain in their homes.
I’m posting the below link once again because I think it is still one of the best explanations to this financial crisis.
http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/355.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php
My last post was cut off, perhaps because the system made me sign in again. It used to, and perhaps still does, cut off the first post people make, so perhaps the system had a beginner's mind concerning me and cut the post off. LRC please get your tech people to fix this.
Anyway I tried to restore the post and respond to some later comments.
Who should lose their home and why?
chrissowick suggests that everyone vulnerable should be foreclosed on and be out on the street so that homes can be recycled to people like him/her. This will supposedly also wring the excess "bubble value" out of housing (particularly in bubble areas like California, Florida and Nevada where scarcity, irrationality and maybe some of the stuff Mr. X talks about apply.) And some suggest there is too much housing, perhaps too much big mansiony housing built for the affluent rather than ordinary people, and want to tear some down.
Instead of throwing all these people into the street, creating some internal migration as the old owners are thrown out and chrissowicks move in, destroying families, neighborhoods and communities that have their tax bases destroyed why don’t we keep people who live there in the housing and turn the bad mort gages into good ones by making them fixed, affordable and reasonably related to the value of the property? If people can make payments on good mortgage loans why should they lose their homes because of bad mortgages loans?
A question is how to get there. One idea is to have the government take over the failed institutions, fix the mortgages in some large systematic way the way the FDIC is doing but without the rate adjustments and balloon payments, and then sell good mortgages that people can rely on back into the secondary market. Another idea is to have the government buy the toxic assets, probably at a higher price that subsidizes the lending industry and have the government deal with them, perhaps by foreclosing on them. The Resolution Trust Corp. response to the similar S&L bailout a couple of decades ago (how quickly we forget) was not very positive in that regard. Another idea is for the government to make or insure low rate fixed mortgages without traps or tricks which people will then use to refinance all the bad mortgages. This may obviate the need to figure out the value of existing bad mortgages on an individual bases, an exceptionally time consuming and unproductive process. The problem remains with oversecured mortgages. The proposed bankruptcy changes will allow courts to “cram down” the oversecured portions. While bankruptcy is not available, affordable or suitable for everyone, changing the law may convince the holders of oversecured loans and particularly bad second mortgages to take their losses and be on with their lives instead of holding on and trying to wring some value out of them.
Remember that the recession is mostly a product of a bad financial services sector which has neither the inclination nor perhaps the short term self interest to lend in order to keep the economy going. Without these loans, businesses can not manufacture and consumers can not make big purchases. So the government needs to step in. As with the S&L debacle, new banks can be reconstituted, in perhaps a better and more broadbased way, once the crisis has passed.
Another question is whether people should lose their homes because of job losses during a recession, particularly one caused by bad mortgage loans, but really any recession will do. Again what does this accomplish? In fact during the Great Depression there were efforts to prevent this such as the Home Owners Loan Corporation, which actually made a profit for taxpayers and could be revived.
What about people who resisted the temptations of the subprime mortgage era, did without an extra big screen tv or big house, and made their mortgage payments? Their political opposition has stymied reform or at least given cover to industry opposition. I say good for them, and too bad the industry wasn’t as cautious and scrupulous, but it does them no good to everyone else foreclosed on. Their neighborhoods and communities will be devasted as well.
This is going to get a lot more ugly before it gets any better.
I was struck by the horrible reporting on Richard the Marine and really couldn't get past this part of the story. I think TAL was trying to make the listener more sympathetic to the guy by leaving out anything that made him look bad.
They tell us about "Richard" who suddenly owed $2000 dollars more per month because his rate went up after he got a loan. He clearly couldn't afford the loan but the loan originator put on his application that he made $196k per year when he only reported $37k to the IRS (why isn't the loan originator in jail for defrauding the bank? Did Richard sign the loan application saying he made well over 5 times what he really made?, if so isn't he in on the fraud?).
The story doesn't tell us is what is original payment and rate were, what his loan amount was, down payment, current home value, etc. We do find out that he currently makes $96k now compared to the prior $37k This is quite an improvement in 3 years which I found interesting but the story doesn't expound on this but I would assume that since Richard can pull down nearly 6 figures, he isn't some illiterate moron who can't understand finances. We are told that his rate is now 10% and payment is exactly what he makes minus tax.
With so much information left out, Richard sounds like a hard luck case but when you read between the lines it isn't hard to see that he is in a house he can't afford and no bank can make anywhere what it's worth with him in it. Maybe he was greedy?
The rightwing is already back to their games.
Exhibit A: McCain insisting that tax cuts for the wealthy be made permanent and then suggesting everything else in the economic recovery package be subject to a "litmus test" as to wether it will help the economy.
Isn't THAT rich? This after 8 years of tax cuts for the wealthy that led to an economic meltdown? Only a fibber of McCain's caliber could pull this kind of verbal doozy off.
I've been resisting giving Obama any advice but here it is:
OBAMA: STOP READING YOUR PRESS CLIPPLINGS. And stop trying to live up to this "different kind of politician" image.
The rightwing are hungry lions. Throw them some meat and they'll smile. Turn your back and they'll take off your hand. It's like a cowboy who is blamed for stealing horses, but the other rustlers who saw you can't testify in your impeachment because the horses couldn't lead you to the water...oh never mind.
The point is: Stop cowtowing to the establishment and the wealthy elite. Start dancing with the gal WHO BRUNG YA: "bottom up economics"
First off, I don't see what this has to do with my prior post but whatever.
This is partly the difference between Keynesian and supply side philosophy. Long term lowering of taxes give inverters more incentive to invest which helps spur economic development which creates jobs. People who keep more of their own money, rich or otherwise, don't hoard it in a mattress, it gets invested or spent.
http://tinyurl.com/cc3eye
And job creation is only worthwhile if the jobs created are for Americans and most of the economic development was in foreign countries.
And over reliance on Supply Side theory got us into the mess we're in now, a system of private profit and public risk because we can't let institution "too big to fail" actually fail. In practice, Conservative economic policy has been an unmitigated disaster for the nation.
Whatever it's a part of Obama won. And he ran on a "bottom up" philosophy. So, far, though, all i've heard is the same stuff we heard from the financial experts before the election.
So far, I can't tell much difference in our economic policy then and now. Other than McCain is still running around like a lunatic spouting off double talk.
I took Obama at his word when he spoke about "Bottom up" economics. That's all I'm saying.
I don't claim to be an expert in this area. BUT, common sense tells me that if it's true the average american has $17K in debt. And you give him $600 bucks. Chances are that money's going to the Credit Card Company.
And since Credit Card Companies are permitted to collect multiple times what they originally lent in interest charges, fees and penalties...causing consumers to be in perpetual debt...well...
..."here's your problem".
Perhaps the TARP should have just been handed over to the Credit Card Companies to clear off some of the debt and then credit that to the card holders and let them declare bankruptcy and protect their homes. Leave the middle man out of it.
Obama needs to apply the same stern stance and force of will to the Economic Recovery as he has to torture and Guantanamo.
McCain and his rightwing buddies and high-paid lobbyists and corporate executives must be held accountable for their 8-years of excess and greed.
They must be punished.
So far, the package looks like a Republican proposal. 75% of it could have been proposed by Bush himself. But because it's not 100% what they want, the Republicans are threatening a "no" vote.
Why?
Because there are no financial consequences to their actions. They are not driven by elections...no problem if they lose an election as long as they're laughing all the way to the bank.
We should be doing what we do in Narcotics cases. Ceize all of their assets and ban them from government for five years. Destroy them. And when they have eaten enough humble pie, invite them back in.
The most important thing Obama needs to do, though, is to find the best person he can to be Treasury Secretary. I'd start with making a list of people who have used legal tricks to avoid paying taxes. I'd move those guys to the top of the list. From that list, I'd choose whoever has the most Wall Street experience. And from there, I'd choose whoeven went to elite school.
Because no matter what your background is, and "elite school" is the ticket that will solve all of our problems.
I used to believe that split government led to less spending (Balanced budgets after Clinton and the Republican Congress in the 90s) but Bush, Republicans and the Democrats blew that theory out of the water wither their zillions in TARP cash.
Now they want to spend 350Billion on "stimulus" which is really nothing more than pork on a scale never seen. It's not for Dams and Highways "infrastructure" and such. A huge chunk just to toss to the states to make them happy. Money for museum "improvement" and art projects. If "stimulus" is just tossing money around then why all the mock outrage at somebody spending a million in TARP funds to redecorate an office? They hired people to do the decorating so that money went into working folks pockets, it's not like they put the cash in a jar on the guys desk as a display.
The deficit isn't all out of wack because Taxes are too low, it is because spending has gone out of control. Trillion isn't even a huge number now!
Conservatives wouldn't want to socialize risk like we have seen lately, let them fail, those assets are worth something to somebody. Conservatives wouldn't have wanted inflationary fed rates for the last several years which fed the crisis. Just because Bush was in the white house doens't mean he was being a conservative, he never vetoed anything the Republicans sent him which is why his job approval rates were so low, he wasn't a fiscal conservative.
Now we are about the try Liberal fiscal policy which seems to be geared toward trying to outspend all prior Congresses combined.
Keynes theory is countercyclical, spend when times are bad and pay back the debt, or at least reduce it when times are good. Bush instead did tax cuts for the rich, at the same time as a huge expensive war that was funded by more debt. Whatever conservative meant in the past, in America it is policies that favor the rich as opposed to everyone else, business over labor and consumers and government, combined with various social conservative agendas, which are generally about sexuality and authority but sort of become moving targets as the movement itself apparently tries to discipline its members bydeciding what the issues are (what exactly was conservative about keeping Terry Schiavo on life support?) When Republicans captured the government they started using the government to benefit business and the rich in as many ways as possible. This left out anti-government academics who have been loud in the opinion media as conservatives seek to regroup in the wake of the voters' rejection of the Bush Administration.
If you believe that the war rather than the New Deal ended the Great Depression (which is certainly arguable, although less so than that the new Deal made the Depression worse) than the fact that we have a war that is straining our warmaking ability to the breaking point, plus all the debt created by the Bush tax cuts, then we are obviously in a fine mess. On the other hand it is arguable that war is the equivalent of dumping wealth and people into the ocean and that infrastructure will at least lay the groundwork for future expansion.
We still have the problem of dealing with the Ponzi scheme of phony "derivative wealth" based on overvalued mortgages, which has rendered so much of the financial sector underwater. So the banks are trying to be like the roadrunner cartoons where the coyote walks off the cliff but won't fall until he looks down. Even the coyote falls eventually despite his denial. The solution is to fix the bad mortgages by making them fixed, affordable and reasonably connected to the value of the property. We also need to have an economy where consumer spending is based on wages rather than debt, which is also a Ponzi scheme. Much of the problem with debt is the defacto immunity to regulation that Congress and the Courts have given banks. We need a 21st Century financial sector that keeps debt in check.
In application, not in theory, conservative economic ideology is nothing more than Private Profit and Public Risk. Although I can't blame you for wanting to runaway from youir failed experiment.
If FDR had not succumbed to pressures to balance the budget too soon, there is pretty good evidence that the New Deal would have worked. However, because he couldn't resist the pressure to balance the budget, it took the war to pull us out of the depression.
The fact is, even conservative economists of the Chicago School of Free Market economic theory, are supporting the massive infusion of federal cash.
Nor do I think you can blame "liberals" as we struggle to clean up a conservative economic policy disaster. You guys partied hard despite every warning flag.
In some ways this economic catastrophe will be like the Y2K problem. Y2K was a non-event precisely because everyone took action to correct the programming in millions of devices and most of the bad things predicted never happened. Looking back from our perch today, people badmouth the entire effort as government scare mongering, but the nation's response to Y2K was actually a tremendous policy success.
If the actions of Progressive thinkers advert a full scale economic depression, then this period will end much like the Y2K event, expensive and exhausting but with the worst of the disasters avoided. But what's clear and what we will not forget is that we're just cleaning up your conservative economic mess---again.
That may be but keep in mind that the banks stockholders are taking a beating with the USA taking stock in exchange for the TARP money.
The big Ponzi schemes that are looming are Social Security, medicare, etc. Neither party has any idea how to fix this looming train wreck of unfunded liabilities.
Rick, you are just being partisan when you claim that this is all the republicans fault. We have been throught this many times, everyone is to blame for the mortgage melt down.
Lets not forget that the risk was all made public when the democratic congress and republican President got together to pass TARP etc.
The one we're dealing with at the banking level is the massive losses caused by the leveraged debt of securtized derived instruments based on bundled mortgages. Many of the banks, particularly the investment banks, were leveraged up to 9 times value of the (overvalued) underlying assets.
The second problem is the actual mortgages themselves, which, while over valued, is a wholly different problem.
Even if the government made every mortgage holder "whole," there would still be the massive economic problem of owning over leveraged assets in a falling price market and the drain on institutions that are covering the unregulated "insurance" (Credit Default Swaps) on those instruments (like AIG).
In fact, real income for the American worker has been steadily falling, with those masked by free and easy credit. Americans ran up their credit card debt--unwisely--instead of demanding better salaries because they were pitted against labor in 3rd world developing countries.
There you go again, blame the conservatives. Conservatives don't party! They can hardly break a smile.
What will happen is that if we have a protracted recession the compliant media will blame it all on the prior administration, if the recession ended next month, Obama would get all the credit even thought he hasn't done anything yet.
Or, If the phoo shits, wear it.
Your "tax cuts for the rich" is just so much democratic propaganda. Taxes were cut across the board for everyone. The only reason "the rich" would receive more money in tax savings is because they pay 70% of taxes in the first place. Obama's "tax cuts for the poor" would not return any money "the poor" paid into the system, it would give money to someone who hadn't paid any taxes in the first place. That's called welfare. It won't stimulate the economy and it won't make a difference in a poor person's life to receive a single $600 payment. As you said, it'll probably go to the credit card companies.
Ok, Rick. I'm giving you credit where it's due. As long as you stay off the housing topic and foreign relations, you make a lot of sense when you're arguing with this rightwingers.
Obama has to face up to the reality that he will get the Blame from rightwingers no matter if they sign onto his recovery package or not. Even if they sign onto it and it fails, they will say they were just being bipartisan and they didn't have enough votes to block it anyway.
If Obama keeps kissing conservative tail, I may have to tune out of politics for awhile.
We have been thought this before, the Republicans have not controlled every lever of power for the lat 8 years. And they never held the amount of power that the Democrats hold now.
Not to name names, but certain people blogging in this spot need to get out more.
And when I say out, I mean of the country. You don’t need to go far. Just over the border to Canada will do just fine. Excellent health care - not perfect but from what my relatives tell me, no one is going bankrupt or losing their home because of medical bills. No one dies because they can’t afford to see a doctor.
Same goes for the pension fund. All workers pay into it and its there for when you retire. Granted, it’s not a lot. You need to have something in addition to be comfortable, but everyone – working or not - is entitled to it at age 60.
No one refers to these government programs as Ponzi schemes because they aren’t.
It’s the same for the education system by the way. It doesn’t seem to matter whether your kids attend school in a well to do neighborhood or in the inner city, they will receive a quality, government paid for education.
It seems that, in general, Canadians feel that when all of its citizens are cared for and educated, it’s good for the entire country.
Conservatives who refuse to re-evaluate the failings and shortcomings of their ideologies, deal with the tragedy you have inflicted upon this nation, will spend the next 50 years in the political desert as well.
I don't care what you call it, I take issue with the blind faith in conservative, free market ideology as practiced while you've had near total control of power the last 8 years that got us into this mess.
Only if you look at 1/2 of the equation. National Debt got deeper and the interest to pay off the borrowing didn't cover the increase in revenue and it was all compounded by increases in Federal spending. Nothing was offset by the increased revenue without cuts in spending, the hole only got deeper.
Gee, hardly explains the surpluses of the higher taxed but more successful Clinton years. The secret in those days was the fiscal discipline that Gingrich & Co imposed on Clinton, spending cuts and PAYGO.
I don't know a whole lot about the CPP but just a cursury search and I found some interesting things. First off, it started in the 60s while SS started in the 30s. CPP invests in stocks rather than funneling all its money to the Government like SS. I did notice that the CPP gets critsized by people who don't want them to invest in politically incorrect companies but I get the impression that they stick to indexes mostly so good for them. Overall, the CPP is a pay as you go system like SS so it could run into issues later if the contributer to pensioner ratio gets out of wack but since the government isn't taking the money to spend on other stuff, that is great.
From just a cursury look at CPP, I would like it way better than SS which is a totall mess. Also keep in mind, it is only intended to replace 25% of pre-retirement income and I am not sure if it caps or whatnot.
I like Canada and have been there a few times. One thing people there have said to me is that over the years, their government has never had to worry about National Security because of the USA. I did hear some grumbling about the health care system though, I was told not to get sick because a doctor trip would take all day.
Now it's different, the "progressives" have near absolute power with a strong majority in the the house to force through anything they want and a near filibuster proof majority in the Senate along with President Obama ready to sign anything they pass.
My point was that tax revenues were greater with tax rates that promote investment and expansion and tax revenue decreased with higher tax rates.
The tax revenue decreased after Clinton raised taxes and rose again when Bush reestablished them. Clinton's ability to balance the budget in his final years was largely related to the Dot-com bubble that burst in the first year or so of Bush. Lest we not forget that Clinton had a republican congress after the first several years.
Bad news though, the President is going to tell Nancy Pelosi to remove the money for condoms from the Stimulus bill. Durn.
In response to few preceding comments:
“They just die because they can't see a doctor.”
Utter nonsense .
“From just a cursury look at CPP, I would like it way better than SS which is a totall mess. Also keep in mind, it is only intended to replace 25% of pre-retirement income and I am not sure if it caps or whatnot.”
As I said “it’s not a lot” The point is that it is available for every citizen.
“I like Canada and have been there a few times. One thing people there have said to me is that over the years, their government has never had to worry about National Security because of the USA”.
So you’re point would be that It’s better to spend tax dollars on National Security rather than health care, a pension fund and education? We’re sick, uneducated and we can’t afford to retire, but by god we’re safe.
“I was told not to get sick because a doctor trip would take all day.”
More nonsense: In any case the point that I was making was that I would prefer a few inconveniences over going broke in order to pay for an operation.
“Canada's healthcare system is failing, they suffer from the same cost overruns many other socialized systems face.”
This statement is false. But by all means go and hunt the net for facts and figures to back up your statement... In the meantime, Canadians will continue to receive good health care
“The man most responsible for initiating the Canadian healthcare system now admits it was a mistake and would like to morph it into something more like that in the U.S.”
Again more nonsense - The Canadian responsible for health care died in 1986.
It makes me recall Bill Clinton's comment when he was campaigning for Obama and attempted to give him kudos about his response during the Wall Street crash, "Obama didn't make any rash decisions, he consulted his economic advisors, he consulted my advisors, and then he said, tell me what to do and I'll sell it."
Building plants in China and shipping good American jobs offshore while offshoring the profits is not exactily what I think of as investment and expansion.
Think people don't die on the waiting list? Think again:
There is even a company that helps Canadians go out of the country to get treatments because of the long waits in Canada. Looking at the testimonials they seem to come to the US a lot.
I contrast this with my own experience with the US system. My wife has back issues which ultimately ended up diagnosed as a bulging disk after and MRI. She had two Epidural Injections last June and July and I have not heard complaints about back pain since. It took a few months to sort it all out but there was never a long wait for procedures or to see a doctor, specialist, Physical Therapist or MRI.
Regarding Health Care:
The job of the press is to report these types’ system failures. It’s what they do. There is always room for improvement – no matter how well things work. Canadian Health Care is approximately 45 years old and it could likely use some enhancements. Nonetheless, my family tells me that they receive good medical care. I have no reason to think this is not so.
Perhaps are there are others, who have first hand experience with this issue, who might care to comment.
For those who can afford to pay for quality medical insurance in this country that’s fine. Many American citizens are not so fortunate. Using the word socialism and sighting negative articles from the internet feels like an attempt to shut the discussion down.
Of course Republicans have controlled every lever of power. Where have you been living?
You know, it's like the Republicans are trying to reassure us we made the right decision not voting for them again. Weed through all the double talk and all they really care about is tax relief for the wealthy.
If I had voted for McCain, it would have been for two reasons:
1. His experience.
2. The misguided belief he didn't really mean it when he talked about making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.
Turns out that's all he really gives a hoot about.
"Surprisingly few Canadians travel to the United States for health care, despite the persistence of the myth."
The piece is quite long but there is a shorter precis here:
http://tinyurl.com/3byluf
It concludes: "This study refutes the false generalizations that have been extrapolated from the embellished anecdotes of Canadian medical refugees in the United States. Debates on health care policy should be based on the best factual information available regardless of whether or not those facts support individual ideological viewpoints. This important study should be downloaded and made readily available to refute those that insist that single payer approaches should be dismissed immediately without further consideration merely because of the fictional massive medical migration from Canada into the United States."
I'm going to call SETI and tell them I've made first contact. What planet should I tell them you're calling from?
Actually in the Bush years, revenue fell and than rose during the big boom years of mortgages, 2005 -06. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/07/08/washington/20060709_ECON_GRAPHIC.html Speculation was that came from business and executive bonuses. Perhaps it was taxes paid by all the people who got rich off selling mortgages or securitizing them. If, as we now suspect, all of those transactions were overvalued, commissions and the taxes on them were not. So maybe the government got some additional money out of the mortgage binge which it is now spending (borrowed of course) on TARP. It is arguable that similar things were true for the Clinton years where the Enron and dot com experiences made things seem wealthier than they were. In any case what you describe is the so called "Laffler curve" from the Reagan era, which mostly describes extremes of economic theory but doesn't help much in more central areas where economies mostly are.
The Bush tax cuts gave a small amount to everyone as a political sweetener, but the overwhelming amount of the benefit went to the wealthiest people. There wasn't any dispute about that in numerous campaigns.
We still have the problem that a consumer economy depends on people buying the stuff that it makes. We essentially have a global economy now instead of a national one, which means that capital can flow after cheap labor, political power and low taxes and deregulation. No government can control it. British PM Brown was talking about this the other day and trying to get the big countries to gether on a banking system. I suppose the dynamic of the US inauguration prevents that from being a public concern at the moment.
Anyway, if owners and managers get all the money instead of workers, they can't buy enough to keep the economy going. Instead they go looking for high yield investments, which the finance industry tries to provide by Ponzi schemes and cooked books, which is how we got the mortgage mess, and Enron before that. You can't finance a consumer economy primarily by borrowing. The ratio between workers and CEOs and their financiers needs to go back down where it used to be.
As to health care, there is no perfect system for everyone, since there are limits to how much you can spend on health care and with limited funds you get some kind of rationing. Our limited experience with Canadian health care has been positive. There may be some lines for some things. The US system which runs by excluding a large part of the population, having insurers compete to insure the healthy and dump the sick, shifting costs between the various insureds and particularly abusing the uninsured, generating debts, lost savings and bankruptcies, and marketing the most profitable kinds of care and the expense of less profitable kind Plus there's a lot of time and money wasted messing with complex billing and denying claims. I guess that does employ some people, and most health related jobs can't be moved to low wage countries. However there are better ways to employ people.
I would like to hear some verification about whether the person who developped the Canadian health care system really wants to adopt an American model, or whether he is dead. No doubt there are a number of people that could be. Like everything else, I am sure viable health care depends on a viable economy.
And also keep in mind that to truly control the Senate you gotta have 60 votes which neither party had throughout the Bush Presidency but you could argue that they did have all the levers for 4 years and 5ish months but they did not for the other 3 years and 7ish months.
Turns out SETI requires confirmation by a second party. I'll take you to my leader. Do you come in peace?
Your argument that Republicans are not responsible for the mess they created over the past 8 years shows "no signs of intelligent life."
First: StanH, I surprisingly agree with everything you say about Healthcare. Why isn't Obama talking about this? If we're ever going to get universal healthcare like the rest of the civilized world, the time is now. Once this system is created you will find very few people begging to go back to the old system of paying huge insurance premiums; and it will stimulate the economy by reducing costs for businesses and increasing the take-home pay of consumers. It's win, win, win, lose...a loe for the insurance companies and a win for everyone else.
Secondly: I believe all Americans should boycott any business that does not have an active union. We're paying millions to bailout corporations that are in turn spending money to defeat pro-worker legislation.
Thirdly: I have one last proposal. The above two I think are mainstream now. My third proposal isn't: the government should cap the earnings and benefits of any employee or executive of a publicly-traded corporation (I don't think there should be any cap on stock-option benefits) I would make an exception for anyone who holds a personal patent or a copyright as well as professional athletes, artists and owners of private corporations.
Using thier numbers over 150,000 Canadians come south for health care. The most recent article I cited said the number was 300,000, one from a few years ago said 100,000 so I would guess it's somewhere in that range. That's a lot of people for a population of 30some million.
It's not only for minor procedures!
The Canadian system even participates in "medical tourism" by sending people south with their high risk pregnancies or even sending people with major injuries to the US.
Health care systems have a kind of trade off on a three way matrix of Cost, Access(or coverage) and Quality. If you want to have universal access and High quality you will have high costs. If everyone has "universal coverage" and there isn't enough money to cover the costs then there is queuing or lower quality. Depending on how you want to define coverage vs quality, Canada has had to sacrifice by forcing people into wait lists for services.
If the USA wants to offer universal coverage then either quality will have to be sacrificed or a large amount of money will have to be paid.
Besides, there is also a difference in kinds of procedures those few who do drift across the border are getting. Lasiks, for instance, is considered cosmetic in Canada, and low on the list if it's ever done at all in their system. But I had to pay for my own Lasiks here in the US for the same reason. So is Botox.
That's hardly Canadians fleeing a bad nationalized health care system. In fact it's a sign of quality health care, no different than your health care plan sending you to an out-of-system specialist.
Again, not all Conservatives are Republicans, and not all Progressives are Democrats. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle were mesmerized by the snake oil of unregulated markets or cowed by the fear of being tarred by the Conservative majority as Anti-American if they stood up for the Constitution and the BOR.
The nation has finally awoken from the long, delusional, Conservative nightmare.
Attack the data, not the person.
Universal health care supplemented by or administered by private hospitals work great in other countries.
I have no idea what the fuss is all about.
That said, I never doubted the veracity of their data. I never attacked them, I just pointed out their advocacy. That is not an attack, that is just adding context which you seem to consider "intellectually dishonest" and "ad hominem"
Had you bothered to read my post you would have even seen that I even pointed out that the data they used was inside the range of the numbers from two articles I cited. Hardly an attack.
Here's a piece from a book I'm reading dealing with finding a pragmatic middle way between the discredited rhetoric of both the Conservative and the Liberal approaches to politics. Writing here about health care reform.
Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. Norhaus and Shellenberger
But a point of view does not discredit their methodology or their data. They stated a hypothesis, they designed a study, they conducted the study, they tested their hypothesis against the data, presented the study for peer review, and they published their study. The data stands on its own.
To therefore reject the study's conclusions out of hand because it comes from a source you do not agree with our that has a point of view -- what organization doesn't have a point of view -- is intellectually dishonest.
I did observe you'd accepted some of the numbers from the report. I was objecting to your outright dismissal of the report based on where it came from.
"The fact that many thousands of people are leaving Canada and paying thousands of dollars for procedures done in the USA when they could get it done in Canada for free should cause people pause"
You appear to be deliberately choosing to ignore what has been previously said about Canadians going outside of Canada for certain surgeries. But by all means, cling to your bias and your smear tactics. This country doesn't need your say so to move forward and take care of all of its people - thank goodness.
However, you're overlooking the basic fact: A tiny percentage of Canadians elect to go outside their system to get care, yet 100% are assured of basic medical care.
In America 50 million people have no insurance outside of county emergency rooms and something like 3 times that are under insured. Even more don't know if they're really covered or not, because most people don't find out until they try to make a claim.
You may be interested to know that Canadians also have access to supplemental policies to cover procedures not covered by their basic coverage, just as in the US with Medicare.
And every Canadian buys an American Policy when they travel to the US, because they'd go broke if they needed medical care here. Some may duck in and back along the border, I'm talking about the Snowbirds that flock down in the winter.
The wait lists can be horrible if you need a Knee replacement. Look at some of the tables of wait times. After you see the your GP, it can take between 20 and 80 weeks before you are treated.
Has the following approach to the banking crisis been discussed? If so, what was the critique?
Take
Spend.
Just kidding... kinda, I really wish this web site wouldn't cut off posts if you type it prior to logging in. I am interested in what he had to say.
Only 25 million more to go, not a bad start (not)
My double negative was on purpose that time.
The only reason the rightwing wants to protect the present "private" system is because universal healthcare would cut out the middle men, i.e. the insurance salesmen, who are making money on selling paper with a lot fine print on it.
The only thing the current "private" system covers is the insurance companies' behinds.
You can still have private health care providers and private insurance under universal healthcare if you are concerned about waiting times, etc. There is nothing in a universal healthcare provider system that bans or outlaws private hospitals and private doctors.
That's all just Hospitals and Insurance Company propoganda.
This is a long post but since there is a lot of talk about health care reform, I wanted to be somewhat thorough.
High level background for people from outside the USA:
Most people in the USA get their health insurance through their job and even then, some people have a part of that cost deducted from their pay. If they want to cover your family, that costs extra and it's deducted too. Usually there is a cost to add one person (like a spouse) then an additional cost to add more than one family member but then no more cost for more than that (which means someone with a spouse and 2 kids may pay the same as a person with a spouse and 4 kids.
The most obvious problem is that if you don't have a job or your employer doesn't offer insurance, you have to pay for it yourself. Another problem, some people elect not to take insurance because even with coverage they don't want to pay the amount deducted monthly (these people may be poor or may prefer to spend it on other stuff). The other problem is that if you don't like your coverage, you don't have much choice unless you can afford to forgo employer coverage and buy your own coverage (again, many can afford it but choose to go without).
We have also talked about the Canadian system and if I had to choose between that or the current status quo here, I choose the status quo but I recognize that the US system has problems and I am willing to compromise.
If I had to reform the system to cover everyone, here is the basic outline for my plan:
The government pays the cost of basic insurance for all US Citizens.
The government would determine how much it will pay per month for each person for a basic plan along with what that minimum plan would cover and what “out of pocket” fees people would have to pay for doctor visits, emergency room, prescriptions, etc. Insurance companies would then provide plans to everyone that meet or exceed those minimum requirements. People would have the option to sign up for plans with greater levels of coverage and pay the cost difference out of their own pockets.
There are a lot of details to think through. Very poor people might need help with out of pocket fees. People should be allowed to change insurance companies at least once a year which would allow people to switch coverage if a company doesn't provide them with good customer service. What should the minimum coverage should be, if it's covers too much then costs will go too high but if it covers too little we could end up worse then we are now. How do we determine what the governments cost should be per person, do we make it the same per person or use some sort of sliding scale based on age?
Funding would be an issue and taxes would go up but I would hope we could minimize the impact so that people who have insurance wouldn't see their taxes go up more than what they pay now.
My plan won't satisfy anti-insurance company absolutists but if your want to keep your conscious clear, you can elect to use a non-profit insurance company . It won't satisfy the hardcore right or libertarians either but I think that the system we use now isn't working and that there is no way you can sell a totally non-government solution. It won't satisfy die hard egalitarians who would balk at people being able to pay extra to get better health care than somebody else.
I think the use of an intermediary other than the government is important to keep costs down and allow people to make choices about their level of coverage. The ability switch companies is important to forcing companies to give good service. If you leave it up to one entity to cover everyone then there is zero incentive to keep costs down or give good service. The competition would keep costs lower than if they were totally cut out. The ability to switch plans is something most people don't have in the US and Canada now.
There you have it, my idea for universal coverage.
yeah, but...
We don't need any conservative ideas or compromises...the House Republicans handed the keys to Obama today when they refused to vote for the stimulus package. Obama tried to be bipartisan but they don't want to play along.
So, hopefully he can stop cowtowing now and simple implement his vision for a progressive America, including healthcare for everyone.
In any case, the wealthy will be just fine. Whether it's universal healthcare or a private healthcare system like we have now, the rich will continue to have access to the best doctors, medicines and facilities. It's a fantasy if you believe your company insurance plans covers the same type of healthcare the rich have access to.
It's all about money not care to the Repubicans.
-Sarah
To add another voice to the housing market/foreclosure discussion, I thought I'd post the letter I sent to the President today. Slightly different versions were sent to Senators Boxer and Feinstein as well. I generally agree with Robert Scheer, but I'm as opposed to bailing out homeowners as I was to bailing out crooked executives:
"Dr. Mr. President,
I implore you and the Congress
Hold on there a second, that's comparing apples and caviar.
Homeowners are lower and middle class.
Crooked executives have golden parachutes whether or not their companies' are bailed out.
Get real.
We're not "bailing out crooked executives"---we're bailing out corporations ran by "crooked executives." Anyway, they are not so much "crooked" as "apathetic" to the consequences of their actions.
Like you, they are apathetic to the suffering of the average, hard-working American citizen.
Brock,
Thanks for the response, despite your caustic tone.
While I understand your concern for hardworking Americans like, say, me, I don't think there is any alternative to letting housing values reset to their historical norms relative to inflation.
A few years back I could have taken out one of those crazy "liar" loans ("state-your-income", I was told)
but I didn't do that because the houses were and are clearly inflated.
Take a look at these graphs and then tell me who needs to "get real"?
http://www.lesjones.com/2008/11/25/inflation-adjusted-us-house-prices-1975-2008/
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/11/house-price-to-income-ratio.html
The housing mess won't settle until values reach something approximating historical norms. If we inflate the value with artificially low interest rates we'll just extend and encourage the bubble effect. Isn't that what helped get us into this mess in the first place?
I guess what I don't understand is what a reasonable solution would be. Homeowners are of all income levels. In fact, the tax benefits are so great of owning that wealthy people generally have at least two (some politicians apparently don't know how many they have). Are we to freeze foreclosures for all homeowners regardless of income or net wealth? Are we to subsidize mortgage restructuring for just poorer Americans and, if so, how is that fair to renters?
Can you explain to me how a foreclosure freeze helps? Doesn't it just delay the inevitable for a few more months? If someone can't pay their mortgage now, why will they be able to do it in six months. Maybe I just don't understand what Mr. Scheer is suggesting.
What should minimum coverage be? How can you possibly know what illnesses and injuries you are going to get? Minimum coverage will cover what I am going to get, and not what I'm not going to get? That is an unworkable standard.
What is described as "rationing" is choices, particularly about high end care, like operating on people who have high odds of not surviving. Having such people die may seem like a good idea unless you care about one of them (Blankley endorsed this posiiton a few weeks ago). Then there are popular elective items like cosmetic surgery, viagra and the like, perhaps any medication that is marketed to patients on television. These drive a profit based health care system. Then there are items that fall in between, like joint replacements and the like. People can live in some form without them but life is much better with them. What care do you ration? And how? We ration based on your relationship to a high end employer who has a high end insurer. Many others get left out. How good is that?
One good idea is to make sure you pay for things that keep people healthy, like exams and testing. This doesn't happen in our system, even for the "EPSTD" stuff that Medicaid is supposed to happen for kids. The market doesn't make it work. Insurers seem to resist paying for examinations because everyone would get them, and that adds up. They like it better to compete to avoid paying claims by avoiding the sick people, denying claims and putting up barriers so people give up.
One idea popular with conservatives is to give the patient a consumer choice in deciding what health care you want. So people can choose to be sick rather than spend money for care, kind of what we do now for the uninsured. In fact anyone who is poor or feels poor is likely to do without care at some level. More likely is people get to risk doing with care or being able to afford it. Young people who feel they are subsidizing their elders, when they have enormous student loans to pay back or are paying for an expected life style in the business world may figure they are likely to stay healthy. If you have a religious belief in consumer choice, all of this may seem like a good idea. Without it it seems like a dumb idea. Doctors spend years in school to learn what makes people healthy. Amateurs can't know more than the pros. Even so, what is good about turning health into a lottery? Shouldn't society want people to stay healthy, and shouldn't people who are sick get treatment? Why do we want people to be sick or in pain because they can't afford care or because they gambled and lost? We have Las Vegas and people who want to gamble can go there, but why have people gamble with health? If anything, bad health detracts from everyone else's wealth and well being. Why should health care be a commodity like all the other commodities? Isn't it more important?
A foreclosure freeze is a way to keep things as they are until we also fix all the mortgages that are unaffordable, either up front or due to rate adjustments, and which exceed the value of the property.
In some ways home prices and interst rates are offsetting. In the 70's interest rates were high and home values were held down. A few years ago, restraining interest rates may have contributed to home value rises. But there were other factors. There was a lot of scarcity, particularly in cities on oceans (in Nevada perhaps the desert functioned as the ocean (that limited building. A rising population contributed to a scarcity of homes, while the housing and credit reporting system started producing more homeless people at the bottom. Industry decided to build super expensive high end houses that were more profitable than more normal sized houses. There was an unstated political deal that home values would rise indefinitely, and people expected this. Then as the mortgage industry invented or exploited gimmicky ways of back loading costs and front loading "teaser" rates, and paying enormous sums to mortgage insiders, then things took off. The assumption was that people could refinance based on the increasing home prices. In addition mortgages sat on the top of an iceberg of more expensive debt, like credit cards, and an inadequate safety net for things like medical bills. But irrational bubble behavior also took off (consumers expected this would go on forever or became trapped in the cycle while insiders gamed the system to see how long the bubble would last) so prices, profits and prosperity were inaccurately and artificially high.
All those tenants are being evicted because the landlords were sucked in by "get rich in real estate schemes." so we have homeless people and vacant houses with no one to fix them up and run them. Most of them were not even behind in their rent payments.
We haven't really seen much of a plan to do much about this, other than failing "voluntary" measures and some efforts from the FDIC in the institutions they took over. It needs more attention.
"How do you figure the lower taxes led to the economic meltdown?"
Federal income tax rate cuts have repeatedly led to dramatic economic slow-downs or recessions, and/or massive federal deficits and debt, and/or declining Standards of Living.
"The deficit isn't all out of wack because Taxes are too low..."
The Department of the Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office DISAGREE with you. After four rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate:
* "The federal budgetary situation worsened for the fourth consecutive year, moving from a surplus of $236 billion in 2000 to a deficit of $413 billion in 2004."
* "Receipts ... As a share of GDP, they accounted for the smallest proportion since 1959"
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6002&type=0&sequence=0">Budget Review
"The big Ponzi schemes that are looming are Social Security..."
Gibberish.
Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 72-year history.
"If taxes go down and that stimulates the economy then the boom causes more taxes to come in at the lower rate."
Oh you poor gullible fool
Neither has have ever happened.
Federal income tax rate cuts have never stimulated the American economy, never increased federal income tax revenues, and never created a net increase in the American workforce.
"If FDR had not succumbed to pressures to balance the budget too soon, there is pretty good evidence that the New Deal would have worked."
In fact, the New Deal worked like a charm:
http://edgeofthewest.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/newdealeconomy1.jpg?w=480
"However, because he couldn't resist the pressure to balance the budget, it took the war to pull us out of the depression."
Nope.
The GDP in 1936 was 13% !
LONG before even any hint of war.
"The hole in your argument about 'tax cuts for the rich' is that each time taxes were cut, tax revenue went up."
Your gullibility knows no bounds.
Every time federal income tax rates were cut, federal income tax revenue PLUMMETED:
* As David Stockman, Director of the OMB 1981-1985 stated, federal income tax revenues plunged to 1940s levels after the federal income tax rate cuts in 1981.
* As I posted previously, after four rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate from 2001 forward, receipts, as a share of GDP, accounted for the smallest proportion since the 1950s.
"The tax revenue decreased after Clinton raised taxes"
No.
Federal income tax revenue rose to the highest level in American history.
"and rose again when Bush reestablished them."
No.
Federal income tax revenues PLUNGED to 1950s levels.
"Clinton's ability to balance the budget in his final years was largely related to the Dot-com bubble that burst in the first year or so of Bush."
Wrong again.
"Lest we not forget that Clinton had a republican congress after the first several years."
Perhaps it might be better if you remembered that the federal budget was in NET balance in the Summer of 1994. Newtie and the Blowhards didn't take office until January 1995, and didn't get any major budget legislation signed by President Clinton (utilizing the White House's budget framework) until February of 1996, after they had shut the federal government down for the second time.
Again, no difference between a by plan or government plan here either. I don't think you can buy "coverage" for cosmetic surgery other than when it comes to reconstructive which might be covered in all plans anyway.
That's kind of my point, I want to disconnect the insurance from the employer. You get it paid for or partially paid for by the Government.
That is kind of the point of my idea. You can purchase basic coverage and the Government pays for it. The basic coverage might have higher per visit fees or drug co-pays (with assistance for the truly poor) and maybe even more restrictive networks of doctors and drug stores. If you want a less restrictive network, more drug options and quicker diagnostic testing, you pay the difference in the plan.
I simply proposed nationalized health care where the government pays for private insurance who then pays for service. I think one of the problems with Canada's system is that the government pays doctors directly and therefore sets what the doctors rates are.
I know some people don't like the idea of anyone making a profit on health care and in my plan, you can always choose a non-profit insurance company. I think the competition between insurance providers is important.
You have some good questions and I think most of them are valid no matter what type of health care system we have.
The tax cut took effect in 2004 and by 2005 receipts were already back to the historical norm as a percentage of GDP. The receipts in 2000 were at historical highs as a percentage of GDP just before the tech bubble burst.
Look at the outlays in constant dollars and you see that the spending was going up during the 2000s while back in the 90s it was held pretty constant. The surplus of the late 90s comes from fiscal restraint and a growing economy fueled by the tech bubble.
You are being absurd here. Why is President Obama saying he will make overhauling SS a "central part" of his effort to reign in spending? Look at the Wiki article about it? The SS trust fund will start paying out more than it takes in starting in 2017 and by 2041, it will be exausted. If nothing changes, people born after 1974 will not get SS at all.
Do you have to be so purile? Can't someone disagree with you without you resorting to petty insults?
"Many in the Washington establishment were shocked Aug. 17, when the Congressional Budget Office reported a surge of ‘unanticipated tax receipts’ that will sharply push down this year's deficit."
That was due to a tax cut EXPIRING.
When you cut tax rates, revenue DECREASES. When you raise tax rates (or a tax cut expires), revenue INCREASES (except on Bizarro World).
"The Kennedy tax cuts led to a very high rate of economic growth and no reduction in tax revenue as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the period (average of 17.6 percent)."
A) There were no "Kennedy tax cuts" as the American RightWing likes to refer to them. The failed tax cuts were enacted in 1964 and took effect later. President Kennedy was shot dead in 1963.
B) The national economy experienced a DRAMATIC slow-down in 1966, less than 18 months after federal income tax rate cuts were enacted into law, with GDP going OVER A CLIFF from 10.1% down to 1.4% (note that the previous high levels of GDP occurred while the top marginal rate of individual income tax was 91%).
"The Reagan tax cut program also led to higher GDP growth than would have been expected"
After the 1981 federal income tax rate cuts under Reagan were enacted, GDP was a net negative 9% over the six subsequent quarters.
"Tax revenues as a percent of GDP fell slightly from 19.6 percent of GDP at the beginning of his administration to 18.3 percent at the end, but total tax revenues were almost certainly far higher -- actually, the tax cuts probably 'paid for themselves' within four years."
LAUGHABLE !
Federal income tax revenues WENT OVER A CLIFF, plummeting down to 1940s levels after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate, as David Stockman, Reagan's Director of the OMB 1981-1985 stated.
The "total revenues were almost certainly far higher" claim by the FAKE RightWing Moonie Times was AFTER Reagan signed SEVEN large tax increases into law, in a DESPERATE attempt to reverse the lost revenue:
* In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The 'Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act' raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the 'Highway Revenue Act' of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. According to a Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it THE LARGEST PEACETIME TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
* In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
* The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the 'Deficit Reduction Act' of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP.
* The 'Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act' of 1985 raised taxes yet again.
* Even the 'Tax Reform Act' of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years.
* The 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act' of 1987 raised taxes still more.
"Mr. Friday, you're wrong."
I'm afraid not, and you're arguing with the U.S. Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office.
"You are using the data from the year the cuts took effect?"
Sorry, but no.
It was after four rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate were well in effect and failing.
"The tax cut took effect in 2004 and by 2005 receipts were already back to the historical norm"
Tax receipts only rose because a tax cut EXPIRED.
"The SS trust fund will start paying out more than it takes in starting in 2017 and by 2041, it will be exausted."
A) So WHAT ?
In 14 of the past 50 years, including 1975 through 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll taxes. No biggie.
B) The CBO states the trust fund will be there until 2052, however, even this is using the projections from the Social Security Trustees that were appointed by Chimpy Bush, which utilizes RIDICULOUS economic assumptions, such as that the GDP growth over the next 75 years will be LESS THAN HALF what it was over the last 75 years.
No surprise, as every trustee that Chimpy appointed had already held the view that Social Security should be scrapped and given to Wall Street prior to their appointment.
Once again, Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 72-year history.
"Do you have to be so purile? Can't someone disagree with you without you resorting to petty insults?"
Sorry, but you keep posting unsubstantiated RightWing propaganda over and over and over again. When someone is that hopelessly gullible, I merely call 'em like I see 'em.
If you don't like being uninformed, try educating yourself instead of repeatedly falling hook, line, and sinker for RightWing gibberish.
It went back into surplus after they raised SS taxes. No problem, they can just raise taxes again I guess.
"Joe, I have asked you before in a private email to refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you want to continue to comment on this blog, I insist on respect. Or I will begin to delete your posts."
I received no such private e-mail. I'll check my spam filter.
I've made no "ad hominem attacks".
Please forward another e-mail, and please detail EXACTLY what words you have a specific problem with, and I will be glad to get back to you.
"No they didn't, they expire on Jan. 1, 2011"
Wrong tax cut.
I suggest you do some research before embarrassing yourself again.
"It went back into surplus after they raised SS taxes. No problem, they can just raise taxes again I guess."
Non-sequitur.
Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 72-year history.
No it's not and you saying it is doesn't make it so.
Joe, there's something about the way you format your email that makes them look spastic....but more importantly, very difficult to transcribe. As someone who has been "in trouble" in the past, my suggestion is just to write shorter messages. I couldn't really find anything offensive in your attacks either.
But, like I said, I didn't really understand why I got "in trouble" either. I think she just wants the conservatives to feel comfortable posting here so it isn't just people from the Left and Center shouting them down all the time. I guess.
Anyway, maybe she was just using you to send a message to "all" of us.
Thanks for that, Brock. Believe me, I completely understand your frustration. We all must have a place to live, after all. I'm nearly desperate to stop renting.
I was out shopping today and here in Glendale/La Crescenta/Montrose, California small homes and nice condos are still selling for about $400 - 500,000. I still think this is too high for starter properties, even in a nice neighborhood.
Dean Baker has an interesting proposal out for dealing with the foreclosure problem, but of course I've heard nothing about it in the mainstream press:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-subprime-borrower-protection-plan/
At least this proposal makes sense to me and while not punishing the poor, it does not reward the wealthy.
I just don't want to see homebuyers bailed out and renters (who are often the poorest among us) receive nothing.
Thanks for the civil discussion. We may agree more than we thought.
"Joe, there's something about the way you format your email that makes them look spastic....but more importantly, very difficult to transcribe. As someone who has been 'in trouble' in the past, my suggestion is just to write shorter messages."
Well, I can only respond to what I'm given.
"I couldn't really find anything offensive in your attacks either."
Apparently. they don't care for my adjectives.
Hey, it's their board. If they don't want me posting, I'll gladly oblige.
I don't need to post here, I can just as easily urge my local affiliates to air something else in their time-slot and be done with it.
I'm already sick of hearing myself talk about something i have no idea about, but i guess i'll clarify what i was saying. First of all, this is just my opinion, of course. But you don't use indentations or italics when you're pasting other people's quotes--you opt for the "" "" instead, and it offends my delicate visual sensibilities. Also, you use a lot of returns, which creates a lot white space. And then you paste several of these posts one right after the other...they all look exactly the same, the same length...etc.
In the end, it looks like a lot of crazy pasting and cutting with no formatting and it's visually annoying. It gives off the impression you're just spouting off.
But that's just my opinion. If you want to copy somebody who "the man" seems to love...emulate Charly, StanH, Mr. X or Rightguy.
That's a technology problem. I utilize a browser that has a very tiny footprint because it is machine-language based, and writes and reads in a pure form. So, those blue buttons that are for formatting purposes either don't work or work sporadically, so my only choice left is to use the quote marks.
Additionally, there is no Preview Mode with this board, otherwise I could likely construe what they are using and manually adopt it, but I cannot.
I'm certainly not about to load a bloated inferior browser just to post to this board, as I have no problems with any other boards. So I have to make do.