World Politics

[Anonymous]

It makes me wonder at what point the Tea Party is going to push for calling unconstitutional the law that says hospitals and ERs cannot turn away patients due to lack of insurance. I mean, if we are a capitalist, free nation with laws and regulations that are crippling the economy, isn't this just another way that the evil government gets in the way?

As I see it, this is a logical path of the Tea Party. If you get sick or injured and don't have any insurance, it's your own damned fault for being lazy or stupid. So no health care for you. If hospitals and care centers were able to turn away these social leeches who cannot prove they can pay for coverage, it would in theory dramatically reduce costs for the rest of us, and motivate these people to wise up. Plus with that cost reduction it would mean more profits for health care providers and insurers, which equals more jobs. Right?

The sad part is that watching the debate the other night, every candidate up there was basically a Tea Party Republican. They were racing to out do each other in that regard. Even Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman, who were all once considered moderates. And with Rick Perry joining the race today, he'll be running on an Evangelical/Tea Party platform.

Someone should challenge these TP candidates on this health coverage law.

I think you may be reaching a bit. There is a big difference between governmental cradle-to-grave care and turning away people in an emergency situation. Resisting one does not mean an embrace of the other.

But, since you bring it up, were'nt you arguing that medical care will have to be restricted or rationed at some point? Will this include turning away non- life or death situations at the ER? I'm guessing it will.

Just curious though, is there anything that the government should not be involved in? How much scope will or should be allowed? In our situation, where we are borrowing about $4 Billion per day, even if you wanted total government, haven't we pretty much demonstrated we cannot pay for the amount of govt we currently have now? Even if you were to get the tax rates most on the left are asking for that will still be impressively short of the amount of revenue to fund the amount of govt we have today. European models don't seem to be the answer (even those with a meager military budget), so where do you stand up and declare that we can't afford this anymore? And who do you cut from the 'system'?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I actually don't think I'm reaching that much in my question regarding the Tea Party and their principles.

Here's how I look at health care. We can keep the system we have where one-fifth of the country has no health care (one in four in Texas), and they use the ER and jack the prices up for everyone. We can cut those people off (the Tea Party principle), or we can change the system. My plan isn't ideal, but I think it's better than those choices.

Single payer with a co-pay. If you choose, you can opt-out of the system as long as you purchase your own care. When I say rationed I mean things like means testing for those who can afford it, no cosmetic care, no elective surgery. Some decisions won't be easy, and beyond things like cheap glasses instead of contacts. I realize this. But one must compare it to what we have now. By rationing I also mean phasing out of the plan the most expensive forms of end of life care. This plan of mine would be coupled with health-savings accounts where you could put away up to something like $20k a year into an account for health care. If we started this now, in some 20 years we could phase out the most expensive end-of-life care, and have people pay for it - or insurance for it, out of this account. People could also pay for things like the co-pay, supplemental care, long term care, etc. with the HSA. And yes, I suppose you may have to turn away non-life threatening care at the ER, as those people should just make doctors appointments, now that such an appointment will cost them a $25 co-pay (they can take out of their HSA).

Yes, I realize the proof is in the pudding, and the costs are going to be hard to calculate. But if we can get everyone covered to where they do things like get doctor checkups or annual dental cleaning, or aren't afraid to go to the doctor in fear of the bill, we can get people more healthy. Plus with everyone covered, and a government plan, care can be purchased at a discounted rate.

I honestly don't know how well this would work, and I realize there would be a lot of unhappy people, but it would get everyone covered at least for the basics, the only thing mandatory would be that you have to purchase insurance as you can opt out of the plan, and some restrictions would have to be compromised on allowing private insurers to cut people off. But I believe it would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now, or eliminating government care like the current Republican plan.

I honestly haven't heard a single conservative health care answer. Let alone a TP one. Most of them involve state that Medicare and Medicaid should be replaced with vouchers, or just eliminated, complaining about Obamacare (or Obamneycare as Pawlenty called it) like the system is fine the way it is otherwise? Or the only offers they give are things like people should be able to purchase care across state lines, allowing states more freedom with Medicaid costs, or banning abortions. All of which will hardly make a difference at all in the big picture.

One more: Big tax credit and free health care if you ride a bicycle.

 

[Anonymous]

I actually don't think I'm reaching that much in my question regarding the Tea Party and their principles.

Here's how I look at health care. We can keep the system we have where one-fifth of the country has no health care (one in four in Texas), and they use the ER and jack the prices up for everyone. We can cut those people off (the Tea Party principle), or we can change the system. My plan isn't ideal, but I think it's better than those choices.

Single payer with a co-pay. If you choose, you can opt-out of the system as long as you purchase your own care. When I say rationed I mean things like means testing for those who can afford it, no cosmetic care, no elective surgery. Some decisions won't be easy, and beyond things like cheap glasses instead of contacts. I realize this. But one must compare it to what we have now. By rationing I also mean phasing out of the plan the most expensive forms of end of life care. This plan of mine would be coupled with health-savings accounts where you could put away up to something like $20k a year into an account for health care. If we started this now, in some 20 years we could phase out the most expensive end-of-life care, and have people pay for it - or insurance for it, out of this account. People could also pay for things like the co-pay, supplemental care, long term care, etc. with the HSA. And yes, I suppose you may have to turn away non-life threatening care at the ER, as those people should just make doctors appointments, now that such an appointment will cost them a $25 co-pay (they can take out of their HSA).

Yes, I realize the proof is in the pudding, and the costs are going to be hard to calculate. But if we can get everyone covered to where they do things like get doctor checkups or annual dental cleaning, or aren't afraid to go to the doctor in fear of the bill, we can get people more healthy. Plus with everyone covered, and a government plan, care can be purchased at a discounted rate.

I honestly don't know how well this would work, and I realize there would be a lot of unhappy people, but it would get everyone covered at least for the basics, the only thing mandatory would be that you have to purchase insurance as you can opt out of the plan, and some restrictions would have to be compromised on allowing private insurers to cut people off. But I believe it would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now, or eliminating government care like the current Republican plan.

I honestly haven't heard a single conservative health care answer. Let alone a TP one. Most of them involve state that Medicare and Medicaid should be replaced with vouchers, or just eliminated, complaining about Obamacare (or Obamneycare as Pawlenty called it) like the system is fine the way it is otherwise? Or the only offers they give are things like people should be able to purchase care across state lines, allowing states more freedom with Medicaid costs, or banning abortions. All of which will hardly make a difference at all in the big picture.

One more: Big tax credit and free health care if you ride a bicycle.

Perhaps I've missed where a TP platform cuts these people off?

I don't disagree with how over the top end of life care has become, BUT, just imagine how the left will demonize this sort of idea particularly if it were a republican who put the idea forward. Additionally, the elderly will be so stirred up that this will never ever happen. Never.

You realize the contribution limits on HSA's were throttled entirely because democrats were concerned about too many benefits for the rich? You also realize this was a bare knuckle fight to get HSA's through in the first place? Larger contribution amounts are a good idea, but it won't happen for idealogical reasons.

FWIW, people can pay for things like Long Term Care (qualified medical expenses, which is quite broad) with HSA's now.

There are many market driven ideas to make healthcare more affordable, but none of them involve more governmental control. One cannot complain about cost of care and then be in favor of mandates such as the elimination of insurance underwriting that excludes pre-existing conditions. These positions are not compatible. If we are going to insist that insurance covers everyone including the un-healthy then cost will go up.

 

[Anonymous]

Did anyone see what's been going on in Italy over the weekend?

Italy delivers tough austerity measures

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced a painful mix of tax increases and spending cuts on Friday to meet European Central Bank demands for action on shoring up Italy's strained public finances.

At an emergency evening cabinet meeting, the government adopted an austerity package worth 20 billion euros in 2012 and a further 25.5 billion euros the following year to bring the budget into balance in 2013.

The measures ranged from a special levy on incomes above 90,000 euros to higher taxes on income from financial investments and cuts in the cost of government, notably through a cull in the number of local politicians.

"The tax hikes certainly won't help the economy, which is already stagnating, and consumer confidence is sure to fall further," said Raj Badiani, an economist at IHS Global Insight.

"The new fiscal measures appear to be credible, but the real problem is on the reform front. We need a timeline for measures to liberalise the service sector and labour markets."

Barclays Capital cut its forecast for Italian economic growth in 2012 to 0.7 percent, just over half the government's official 1.3 percent forecast.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/italy-crisis-idUSLDE77B0OP20110812

I'm left wondering why tax increases will harm economic growth... Maybe Raj Badiani is a Tea Party member?


Then there's a proposal for the Eurozone to take a page out of the American playbook.... i.e., monetize their own debt.


Italy calls for euro bonds, UK backs fiscal union

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/13/us-eurozone-idUSL6E7JD02L20110813

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Perhaps I've missed where a TP platform cuts these people off?

It's my belief that this fits their principle. No government control or payment for social services (except stopping abortion).

I don't disagree with how over the top end of life care has become, BUT, just imagine how the left will demonize this sort of idea particularly if it were a republican who put the idea forward.

Actually Robert Reich (of all people) somewhere stated that if we were honest, completely honest, we would accept this and say instead of keeping you alive another 2-3 weeks or months spending astronomical amounts of money doing so while you suffer, we'd just let you die and try to make it as painless as possible. He got a bit of chuckle and murmur from the group he was talking to, but in a brutally honest way, he's right.

You realize the contribution limits on HSA's were throttled entirely because democrats were concerned about too many benefits for the rich?

I'm not quite the flippant liberal you think I am.

As noted, as I see it we need drastic changes, and my plan would be better than what we have now where one in five people have no coverage at all and use the ER which drives up costs dramatically, and it's better than the Republican (Ryan) plan, or Obamacare.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman was on Meet the Press this morning, he was completely ripping Obama and Geithner for having no leadership.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure what's stopping Warren and friends of Warren from just whipping out their checkbooks and taking care of their guilt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1

 

[usedtobefast]

It's my belief that this fits their principle. No government control or payment for social services (except stopping abortion).


Actually Robert Reich (of all people) somewhere stated that if we were honest, completely honest, we would accept this and say instead of keeping you alive another 2-3 weeks or months spending astronomical amounts of money doing so while you suffer, we'd just let you die and try to make it as painless as possible. He got a bit of chuckle and murmur from the group he was talking to, but in a brutally honest way, he's right.



I'm not quite the flippant liberal you think I am.

As noted, as I see it we need drastic changes, and my plan would be better than what we have now where one in five people have no coverage at all and use the ER which drives up costs dramatically, and it's better than the Republican (Ryan) plan, or Obamacare.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman was on Meet the Press this morning, he was completely ripping Obama and Geithner for having no leadership.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...mulliganism/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

 

[Merckx index]

I'm not sure what's stopping Warren and friends of Warren from just whipping out their checkbooks and taking care of their guilt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1

This is the kind of post that encourages me to believe you aren't serious in your discussions, but just engaging in the typical knee-jerk, party-line responses used by those of your (and yes, other) particular persuasion(s). A major Republican tenet, which was at the root of the deficit fiasco, is that raising taxes or even closing loopholes will result in decreased investment and ultimately lower revenues. Here is one of the wealthiest men in the world saying, Neither I nor anyone i know ever shied away from an investment because we thought the tax rate was too high, and all you can do is provide a flippant response.

Do you think he's wrong, Scott? Then explain why. While you're at it, you could also offer an opinion as to whether we will always depend on human greed for far more wealth than is needed for basic survival as an incentive to creativity and invention. This seems to be another basic Republican principle, which, true or false, is surely one of the most pessimistic notions in history. I think one has to question the long-term future of a culture that depends on large numbers of people either acting like, or wanting to act like, emotional gnats when it comes to their needs and wants. The idea that if people don't have the "freedom" to pursue more money than they can possibly ever spend they won't create businesses, technology, opportunities. That no other motivation exists that could persuade them to do these things.

Did you ever hear the expression, "do what you love, and the money will follow?" While this is in most cases not true, it does express an important point: the ends are an illusion, all that really exists are the means.

 

[Spare Tyre]

This is the kind of post that encourages me to believe you aren't serious in your discussions, but just engaging in the typical knee-jerk, party-line responses used by those of your (and yes, other) particular persuasion(s). A major Republican tenet, which was at the root of the deficit fiasco, is that raising taxes or even closing loopholes will result in decreased investment and ultimately lower revenues. Here is one of the wealthiest men in the world saying, Neither I nor anyone i know ever shied away from an investment because we thought the tax rate was too high, and all you can do is provide a flippant response.

Do you think he's wrong, Scott? Then explain why. While you're at it, you could also offer an opinion as to whether we will always depend on human greed for far more wealth than is needed for basic survival as an incentive to creativity and invention. This seems to be another basic Republican principle, which, true or false, is surely one of the most pessimistic notions in history. I think one has to question the long-term future of a culture that depends on large numbers of people either acting like, or wanting to act like, emotional gnats when it comes to their needs and wants. The idea that if people don't have the "freedom" to pursue more money than they can possibly ever spend they won't create businesses, technology, opportunities. That no other motivation exists that could persuade them to do these things.

Did you ever hear the expression, "do what you love, and the money will follow?" While this is in most cases not true, it does express an important point: the ends are an illusion, all that really exists are the means.

And this is the kind of post I wish I had written myself. Thank you.

 

[Anonymous]

This is the kind of post that encourages me to believe you aren't serious in your discussions, but just engaging in the typical knee-jerk, party-line responses used by those of your (and yes, other) particular persuasion(s). A major Republican tenet, which was at the root of the deficit fiasco, is that raising taxes or even closing loopholes will result in decreased investment and ultimately lower revenues. Here is one of the wealthiest men in the world saying, Neither I nor anyone i know ever shied away from an investment because we thought the tax rate was too high, and all you can do is provide a flippant response.

Do you think he's wrong, Scott? Then explain why. While you're at it, you could also offer an opinion as to whether we will always depend on human greed for far more wealth than is needed for basic survival as an incentive to creativity and invention. This seems to be another basic Republican principle, which, true or false, is surely one of the most pessimistic notions in history. I think one has to question the long-term future of a culture that depends on large numbers of people either acting like, or wanting to act like, emotional gnats when it comes to their needs and wants. The idea that if people don't have the "freedom" to pursue more money than they can possibly ever spend they won't create businesses, technology, opportunities. That no other motivation exists that could persuade them to do these things.

Did you ever hear the expression, "do what you love, and the money will follow?" While this is in most cases not true, it does express an important point: the ends are an illusion, all that really exists are the means.

Oh, I'm serious. If I were Buffett I'd have written the check, encouraged "my mega-wealthy friends" to do the same AND THEN written my NY Times op-ed. Others agree that this might have been more persuasive;

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/tax-fortune-please-why-warren-buffett-volunteer-pay-191814147.html?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=


I would have thought Buffett would have been the type to lead by example but this is clearly not the case.

You say the root of our deficit fiasco is a republican tenet. Wrong. The root our our problem lies in built in increases in mandatory spending, a democratic principle called baseline budgeting.

You and the rest of the planet will know when our corrupt "leaders" are serious about fixing what's wrong with our fiscal health when these built-in increases are brought under control. An example: If we were to freeze our Federal spending for FY 2012 (at 2011 levels) the left would demonize the absence of an increase in spending as a "cut". They would immediately scare as many seniors as possible and fall back to the "rich-don't-pay-their-fair-share" mantra. Your side would clamour about a nearly $1 Trillion "cut" to the budget and the CBO would score such a move as an $8+ Trillion "cut" over the next 10 years.

Yet, it is only me who is "flippant".

Unlike you, I don't have a problem with Buffett or any or anyone else, as long as their achievements were accomplished corruption free, being wildly successful. Good for them. There was a time in this country where success was celebrated. No longer though, right?

I suspect Buffett will be fine no matter what the tax rate. But tell me, what is fair in your view? I mean, between 0 and 100%, what should Buffett pay? Additionally, please show me where significant tax increases helps an economy in the condition ours is in? And while you are at it please show me where our government has EVER had to do with less (as in spending) anytime over the last 100 years or so. And finally, how much income would you hope to raise in new taxes and how much of an impact would your new revenue have on the deficit? Do you even know? Are you aware that higher top marginal rates can and do lead to less revenue to the treasury? Or are you just bitter towards the success that some have achieved and your real goal is to punish? I'm not accusing, I'm just asking.

Also, I find it just short of amusing (if it were not so sad) that mercy can only come from government. Somehow republicans (the limited government types) are somehow void of human compassion because someone like me believes the best way to help the unfortunate and infirm does not involve some governmental bureaucracy. This may surprise you but government has a terrible track record when it come to dealing with poverty and those in ill health. Trillions have been spent on this war and guess what? There are more in poverty today as a percentage of the population than before the "war" started. But, let's just gloss over the facts and demonize those who you oppose politically. It's disgusting but not new.

BTW, Buffett is extremely generous with his philanthropy and I suspect many of his "mega-wealthy" friends are as well. Direct philanthropy not through the filter of a Federal program. Imagine that.

Re-read your post above and then stop wondering why there is no longer civility in political discussions.

 

[Merckx index]

You say the root of our deficit fiasco is a republican tenet. Wrong. The root our our problem lies in built in increases in mandatory spending, a democratic principal called baseline budgeting.

By “deficit fiasco” I did not mean the deficit per se, but the difficulty in getting Congress to agree on a way around the stalemate. The Republicans refused any deal that involved any revenue increases. The Democrats offered a deal with a huge amount of cuts—granted, they were not specific about where and what. Even many Republicans thought this was a very reasonable offer.

I’m not trying to make a “Democrats are completely right, Republicans are completely wrong” argument. I’m simply pointing out that by long revered previous standards, the Republicans were throwing a monkey wrench in the works. First, by holding hostage raising the ceiling, which all adminstrations/Congresses, Dem or Repub, have always done in the past essentially automatically. And second, by holding out for a solution involving solely cuts, when again, traditional solutions have involved a mix of cuts and revenue increases.

And most critically, by refusing to compromise. Let’s suppose, Scott, that you and the Republicans you seem to side with are absolutely, totally 100% positive that your position is the correct one. Can you not see that even in that case the name of the game is still compromise? Any idiot can compromise when he or she is not even certain which position is correct. The art of compromise is bringing together two sides who are, or at least will not admit otherwise, totally certain their views are correct. But the Republicans would not compromise under these conditions.

You and the rest of the planet will know when our corrupt "leaders" are serious about fixing what's wrong with our fiscal health when these built-in increases are brought under control. An example: If we were to freeze our Federal spending for FY 2012 (at 2011 levels) the left would demonize the absence of an increase in spending as a "cut". They would immediately scare as many seniors as possible and fall back to the "rich-don't-pay-their-fair-share" mantra. Your side would clamour about a nearly $1 Trillion "cut" to the budget and the CBO would score such a move as an $8+ Trillion "cut" over the next 10 years.

You’re very quick to label anyone who challenges you as part of some other “side”. You really don’t know how I would react to a freeze. Again, I’m simply pointing out that the Republicans repeatedly spurned an offer that involved massive cuts, just because it also involved some revenue increase.

Unlike you, I don't have a problem with Buffett or any or anyone else, as long as their achievements were accomplished corruption free, being wildly successful. Good for them. There was a time in this country where success was celebrated. No longer though, right?

Did I say I had a problem with Buffet? As for celebrating success, what is your definition of success? Accumulation of as much material wealth as possible? My point is that this an outdated notion. The planet can’t afford it any more.

I suspect Buffett will be fine no matter what the tax rate. But tell me, what is fair in your view? I mean, between 0 and 100%, what should Buffett pay?

He already answered that question himself, if you had been paying attention. His point was that passive income should be taxed as high as income from “muscle or brain power”, as he put it approximately.

Additionally, please show me where significant tax increases helps an economy in the condition ours is in?

The problem in discussions like this is that there are many factors involved. One can point to earlier periods when raising or lowering taxes had various effects on the economy (Reagan lowered taxes drastically at first, but then raised them considerably), but how does one separate out all the other factors that contribute to what the economy does?

Beyond that, I could turn the question around and ask, please show me where major cuts help an economy like ours? Cuts mean people have less spending power, which hurts businesses. Buffet made the point that running a huge deficit is in effect a stimulus, he defines stimulus as government paying out more than it takes in. Yet despite this huge stimulus, the economy is still hurting. So how is reducing the stimulus, which is what cuts will do, going to help the economy? If tax rates stay the same, but consumer power decreases, what exactly is going to spur the economy?

And finally, how much income would you hope to raise in new taxes and how much of an impact would your new revenue have on the deficit? Do you even know?

As I’m sure you know, the figures being thrown around were in the range of 3-4/1, cuts/revenue increases.

Are you aware that higher top marginal rates can and do lead to less revenue to the treasury? Or are you just bitter towards the success that some have achieved and your real goal is to punish? I'm not accusing, I'm just asking.

Again, sometimes they do, sometimes they may not. You can’t have a controlled experiment with the economy. You can’t say, if we lower marginal rates to such and such a level, we will increase revenue by this much. We can look at history and find examples where lowering or raising had various effects, but every situation has unique aspects that complicate making conclusions.

Again, though, I’m trying to get to a deeper view of the problem. What does it say about people if they won’t work as hard if their tax rate goes up a little? I can honestly say that my income tax rate could be doubled and it wouldn’t effect in the slightest what I do. I might not be happy with that new rate, but if everyone else were paying it, at least everyone in my income bracket, I could certainly deal with it. And if it helped others bring themselves up to survival level I would welcome it.

I don’t work to make money, beyond what I need for basic survival. Beyond that, I have far more important interests than being able to afford cars or private planes I don’t need, far more living space than I need. Greed blinds one to the joy of simply being alive, to the point where one isn’t even aware of what one is missing. It was said of Thoreau that he could get more out of five minutes with a woodchuck than most men could get out of a night with Venus (or something like that). That is not metaphor. It’s real.

It isn’t all about objects in the environment, it’s about our capacity to interact with them. That capacity is built, very slowly over time, by transcending desire.

I’m a little astonished that you so carelessly equate “success” with accumulation of huge amounts of material wealth. Why should I be bitter? I don’t envy these multi-billionaires. Many of them have very serious psychological problems, and live in this constant paranoid fear that something is going to be taken away from them. Murdoch strikes me as grotesque, willing to do just about anything for a buck. I won’t even get to the really pathological cases like Madoff.

Also, I find it just short of amusing (if it were not so sad) that mercy can only come from government. Somehow republicans (the limited government types) are somehow void of human compassion because someone like me believes the best way to help the unfortunate and infirm does not involve some governmental bureaucracy.

Many, including I, would have had some agreement with this until recently. I lost a lot of respect for Republicans when they in effect caved in to the Tea Party.

This may surprise you but government has a terrible track record when it come to dealing with poverty and those in ill health. Trillions have been spent on this war and guess what? There are more in poverty today as a percentage of the population than before the "war" started. But, let's just gloss over the facts and demonize those who you oppose politically. It's disgusting but not new.

I suggest you read some history. Not history of a few decades ago but a history beginning when white Euros settled this country, through the 19th and early 20th century. You really think government has a terrible track record dealing with poverty? You think conditions haven’t improved for enormous numbers of people during that period? Do you have any idea how bad the average worker’s life was a hundred, a hundred and fifty years ago? The incredibly long hours in incredibly humiliating conditions? How did it come about that workers got a higher wage, shorter hours on the job, medical care, and everything else? You really think private enterprise led the way?

Now granted, it took uprisings by common people to make change. Government was initially just as resistant as private enterprise—mostly because government was controlled by private enterprise. But virtually all the key changes during this period came about through government legislation.

Re-read your post above and then stop wondering why there is no longer civility in political discussions.

???Where did I show a lack of civility? I challenged you on some points. That is not lack of civility.

 

[fatandfast]

The Teaparty has shown it can work the negative.They almost shut down the government, caused harm to the Us credit rating and economy. Already there is lots of weakness with all wings of the GOP. It's everybody vs Romney because half a dozen things he did have been adopted by Obama. Bachmann went on TV and acted drunk when they played clips of things she has said up to her getting the straw poll/pole. She wouldn't answer questions about gays, religion,economy if the previous audio or video would make her contradict herself. She rambled months ago about how she makes no decisions without Jesus and that she submits to her husband, She called gays mentally ill. All she was asked was is that still your position but she clammed up.

If this was the plan of the Teaparty all along to have every elected member just serve out one term and make room for somebody else than it's going to work. Lots of Partypeople are finding out that they can't even introduce a bill in committee without some support. They may be able to shoot bills down but they can't get any passed. If they go neck and neck for 6 months and rip each other apart it will be a gift to an ever weakening Obama .

The GOP better figure out if there are 3 parties or calm the Teapeople down.
Also don't let anybody else get interviewed by David Gregory. Before this is over people in Minn will make it clear that Bachmann is from Iowa. I also laughed really hard when she said I come from the district that elected Jesse Ventura when asked if she was ultra conservative

 

[Anonymous]

By “deficit fiasco” I did not mean the deficit per se, but the difficulty in getting Congress to agree on a way around the stalemate. The Republicans refused any deal that involved any revenue increases. The Democrats offered a deal with a huge amount of cuts—granted, they were not specific about where and what. Even many Republicans thought this was a very reasonable offer.

I’m not trying to make a “Democrats are completely right, Republicans are completely wrong” argument. I’m simply pointing out that by long revered previous standards, the Republicans were throwing a monkey wrench in the works. First, by holding hostage raising the ceiling, which all adminstrations/Congresses, Dem or Repub, have always done in the past essentially automatically. And second, by holding out for a solution involving solely cuts, when again, traditional solutions have involved a mix of cuts and revenue increases.

And most critically, by refusing to compromise. Let’s suppose, Scott, that you and the Republicans you seem to side with are absolutely, totally 100% positive that your position is the correct one. Can you not see that even in that case the name of the game is still compromise? Any idiot can compromise when he or she is not even certain which position is correct. The art of compromise is bringing together two sides who are, or at least will not admit otherwise, totally certain their views are correct. But the Republicans would not compromise under these conditions.



You’re very quick to label anyone who challenges you as part of some other “side”. You really don’t know how I would react to a freeze. Again, I’m simply pointing out that the Republicans repeatedly spurned an offer that involved massive cuts, just because it also involved some revenue increase.



Did I say I had a problem with Buffet? As for celebrating success, what is your definition of success? Accumulation of as much material wealth as possible? My point is that this an outdated notion. The planet can’t afford it any more.



He already answered that question himself, if you had been paying attention. His point was that passive income should be taxed as high as income from “muscle or brain power”, as he put it approximately.



The problem in discussions like this is that there are many factors involved. One can point to earlier periods when raising or lowering taxes had various effects on the economy (Reagan lowered taxes drastically at first, but then raised them considerably), but how does one separate out all the other factors that contribute to what the economy does?

Beyond that, I could turn the question around and ask, please show me where major cuts help an economy like ours? Cuts mean people have less spending power, which hurts businesses. Buffet made the point that running a huge deficit is in effect a stimulus, he defines stimulus as government paying out more than it takes in. Yet despite this huge stimulus, the economy is still hurting. So how is reducing the stimulus, which is what cuts will do, going to help the economy? If tax rates stay the same, but consumer power decreases, what exactly is going to spur the economy?




< Snipped 10,000 character limit>



It isn’t all about objects in the environment, it’s about our capacity to interact with them. That capacity is built, very slowly over time, by transcending desire.

I’m a little astonished that you so carelessly equate “success” with accumulation of huge amounts of material wealth. Why should I be bitter? I don’t envy these multi-billionaires. Many of them have very serious psychological problems, and live in this constant paranoid fear that something is going to be taken away from them. Murdoch strikes me as grotesque, willing to do just about anything for a buck. I won’t even get to the really pathological cases like Madoff.



Many, including I, would have had some agreement with this until recently. I lost a lot of respect for Republicans when they in effect caved in to the Tea Party.



I suggest you read some history. Not history of a few decades ago but a history beginning when white Euros settled this country, through the 19th and early 20th century. You really think government has a terrible track record dealing with poverty? You think conditions haven’t improved for enormous numbers of people during that period? Do you have any idea how bad the average worker’s life was a hundred, a hundred and fifty years ago? The incredibly long hours in incredibly humiliating conditions? How did it come about that workers got a higher wage, shorter hours on the job, medical care, and everything else? You really think private enterprise led the way?

Now granted, it took uprisings by common people to make change. Government was initially just as resistant as private enterprise—mostly because government was controlled by private enterprise. But virtually all the key changes during this period came about through government legislation.



???Where did I show a lack of civility? I challenged you on some points. That is not lack of civility.

And most critically, by refusing to compromise. Let’s suppose, Scott, that you and the Republicans you seem to side with are absolutely, totally 100% positive that your position is the correct one. Can you not see that even in that case the name of the game is still compromise? Any idiot can compromise when he or she is not even certain which position is correct. The art of compromise is bringing together two sides who are, or at least will not admit otherwise, totally certain their views are correct. But the Republicans would not compromise under these conditions.

Who refused compromise? The conservatives did not want any increase in the debt ceiling. Period. So right off the bat they threw that position out, which was compromise. The thing that disappoints me is neither side wanted to talk about changes to baseline budgeting, which is the true problem. So then it became a game of which side is going to "win" and which side is going to "lose". Political gotcha theater. Nothing more and nothing serious.

First, by holding hostage raising the ceiling, which all adminstrations/Congresses, Dem or Repub, have always done in the past essentially automatically.

Which is our problem, no?

And second, by holding out for a solution involving solely cuts, when again, traditional solutions have involved a mix of cuts and revenue increases.

If you insist on calling a reduction of a automatic increase a cut then we will not be able to agree on much. Tell me, will our budget be cut going forward? Will we actually spend less than the year before? No and no are the correct answers.

This was the first line of your original post:

This is the kind of post that encourages me to believe you aren't serious in your discussions, but just engaging in the typical knee-jerk, party-line responses used by those of your (and yes, other) particular persuasion(s)

So I'm thinking you might be able to cut me some slack instead of posting this;

You’re very quick to label anyone who challenges you as part of some other “side”

And BTW, with the recent debt negotiations, where was the compromise from the dems? I remember Reid repeatedly stating that whatever was passed or being discussed out of the House was "dead on arrival".


And here,

Did I say I had a problem with Buffet? As for celebrating success, what is your definition of success? Accumulation of as much material wealth as possible? My point is that this an outdated notion. The planet can’t afford it any more.

your assumptions and condescension get the better of you. You see Buffett's wealth only and I see a guy who has had success on many levels... from employing people to creating wealth for tens of thousands of investors... to investing in multiple corporations (most of which are flourishing)... to his philanthropy. I'd say that constitutes success by most measures but perhaps not yours.


I asked YOU what was a fair rate of taxation for Mr. Buffett. And yes, I'm paying pretty close attention. Are you? I asked you a series of questions and you didn't answer any of them. I already know what Buffet thinks about his tax rate as I actually can read. I'm interested in what YOU think it should be and what YOU think is fair.

I’m a little astonished that you so carelessly equate “success” with accumulation of huge amounts of material wealth

Since I've managed to astonish you perhaps you could point to where I've stated as much... it should be very easy for someone as smart as you. Your tone in tenor lacks civility as I pointed out earlier. You assume you know my motivations and condescend to me as if I'm a 5 year old.... which is fine. Just don't get indignant when I point this out.

I suggest you read some history. Not history of a few decades ago but a history beginning when white Euros settled this country, through the 19th and early 20th century. You really think government has a terrible track record dealing with poverty? You think conditions haven’t improved for enormous numbers of people during that period? Do you have any idea how bad the average worker’s life was a hundred, a hundred and fifty years ago? The incredibly long hours in incredibly humiliating conditions? How did it come about that workers got a higher wage, shorter hours on the job, medical care, and everything else? You really think private enterprise led the way?

Again, the condescension is reasonably thick here. I am fairly well versed in the periods before, during and after the industrial revolution. But I'll play along using your tactic and turn this question around. Do you think the above was all due to our bureaucratic controls?

 

[fatandfast]

wonder why there is not a loud cry for a flat tax if over and under taxation appear to be the biggest problem from the right. I think lots of Republicans listened to the Adam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80UWndzXdBE

 

[Cobblestones]

Oh, I'm serious. If I were Buffett I'd have written the check, encouraged "my mega-wealthy friends" to do the same AND THEN written my NY Times op-ed. Others agree that this might have been more persuasive;

I would have thought Buffett would have been the type to lead by example but this is clearly not the case.

...

BTW, Buffett is extremely generous with his philanthropy and I suspect many of his "mega-wealthy" friends are as well. Direct philanthropy not through the filter of a Federal program. Imagine that.

This is why the first argument holds no water. Buffet has spread his wealth around a lot. So has Bill Gates and others. Why should another cheque to the IRS make his argument more persuasive? He does what he preaches. The problem is that others in his positions aren't so inclined.

I can tell you that probably everybody confronted with the choice of either donating money to wherever you want or to pay taxes, is going to pick the former. So why don't we just eliminate taxes altogether and force everybody to donate a corresponding part of income to whatever that person chooses? Can you figure out why?

 

[Cobblestones]

.... and we have the added benefit of continuing to dumb-down the American public because they will, without doubt, rely on the FDIC to guranatee their deposits instead of understanding how to read and understand a P&L and Balance Sheet of thier local bank before depositing their hard earned cash.

This is in the same vein.

First of all, I'm sure all the banks who were invested in Lehman etc. knew how to read P&L statements and balance sheets which is why they pulled out in time and didn't experience huge losses which put them in need of being bailed out. And of course everybody else who opens a modest savings account will be just as sophisticated in their analysis of his or her bank's health.

But let's move on to a different example, the stage collapse at the Indiana state fair. Apparently, there were no inspections of the structure because no government agency was regulating these things. If true, is that what is meant by 'cutting through the red tape', or 'get government off my back', or 'deregulating small businesses'? In the wonderful world of libertarian utopia and personal responsibilities, were the spectators expected to conduct their own inspections prior to attending the concert. And would their deaths, clearly caused by failing in their personal responsibilities, ruled as suicides then? (That would also make the insurance companies happy because presumably they wouldn't have to pay out life insurance benefits).

Isn't that what libertarianism stands for?

 

[Anonymous]

This is why the first argument holds no water. Buffet has spread his wealth around a lot. So has Bill Gates and others. Why should another cheque to the IRS make his argument more persuasive? He does what he preaches. The problem is that others in his positions aren't so inclined.

I can tell you that probably everybody confronted with the choice of either donating money to wherever you want or to pay taxes, is going to pick the former. So why don't we just eliminate taxes altogether and force everybody to donate a corresponding part of income to whatever that person chooses? Can you figure out why?

This:

Oh, I'm serious. If I were Buffett I'd have written the check, encouraged "my mega-wealthy friends" to do the same AND THEN written my NY Times op-ed. Others agree that this might have been more persuasive;

I would have thought Buffett would have been the type to lead by example but this is clearly not the case.

...

BTW, Buffett is extremely generous with his philanthropy and I suspect many of his "mega-wealthy" friends are as well. Direct philanthropy not through the filter of a Federal program. Imagine that.

Was in response to this:

This is the kind of post that encourages me to believe you aren't serious in your discussions, but just engaging in the typical knee-jerk, party-line responses used by those of your (and yes, other) particular persuasion(s). A major Republican tenet, which was at the root of the deficit fiasco, is that raising taxes or even closing loopholes will result in decreased investment and ultimately lower revenues. Here is one of the wealthiest men in the world saying, Neither I nor anyone i know ever shied away from an investment because we thought the tax rate was too high, and all you can do is provide a flippant response.

Do you think he's wrong, Scott? Then explain why. While you're at it, you could also offer an opinion as to whether we will always depend on human greed for far more wealth than is needed for basic survival as an incentive to creativity and invention. This seems to be another basic Republican principle, which, true or false, is surely one of the most pessimistic notions in history. I think one has to question the long-term future of a culture that depends on large numbers of people either acting like, or wanting to act like, emotional gnats when it comes to their needs and wants. The idea that if people don't have the "freedom" to pursue more money than they can possibly ever spend they won't create businesses, technology, opportunities. That no other motivation exists that could persuade them to do these things.

I stand by my comments.

BTW, charitable giving generally declines as AGI taxes increase.

However, for affluent donors in particular, conventional thought may not hold true. Past experience seems to indicate that these individuals give more when tax rates are lower.

http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/fundraisinggiving/impact-changes-tax-rates-charitable-giving

I think most of us who are still sane are not interested in a zero tax rate for fairly obvious reasons. I don't believe anyone is particularly interested in anarchy so I'll pass on your straw-man.

 

[Anonymous]

This is in the same vein.

First of all, I'm sure all the banks who were invested in Lehman etc. knew how to read P&L statements and balance sheets which is why they pulled out in time and didn't experience huge losses which put them in need of being bailed out. And of course everybody else who opens a modest savings account will be just as sophisticated in their analysis of his or her bank's health.

But let's move on to a different example, the stage collapse at the Indiana state fair. Apparently, there were no inspections of the structure because no government agency was regulating these things. If true, is that what is meant by 'cutting through the red tape', or 'get government off my back', or 'deregulating small businesses'? In the wonderful world of libertarian utopia and personal responsibilities, were the spectators expected to conduct their own inspections prior to attending the concert. And would their deaths, clearly caused by failing in their personal responsibilities, ruled as suicides then? (That would also make the insurance companies happy because presumably they wouldn't have to pay out life insurance benefits).

Isn't that what libertarianism stands for?

First of all, I'm sure all the banks who were invested in Lehman etc. knew how to read P&L statements and balance sheets which is why they pulled out in time and didn't experience huge losses which put them in need of being bailed out. And of course everybody else who opens a modest savings account will be just as sophisticated in their analysis of his or her bank's health.

Well, we all still have the illusion of a healthy FDIC to make us more comfortable in our bank deposit decisions. BTW, if you can understand a P&L and balance sheet so can (and should) many others.

Your stage collapse example is unfortunate on your part. A wind gust with nearly twice the force that was forecast ultimately resulting in loss of life and somehow if there were only some governmental agency in charge the wind would have just changed directions. Perhaps oversight would have eliminated any and all possibility of something going wrong.

In the wonderful world of libertarian utopia and personal responsibilities, were the spectators expected to conduct their own inspections prior to attending the concert.

Or even better, the regulatory environment could be so cumbersome and expensive so as to discourage a concert promoter from ever venturing to risk his capital and put the event on.

No event = No possibility of tragedy. Problem solved.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is in the same vein.

First of all, I'm sure all the banks who were invested in Lehman etc. knew how to read P&L statements and balance sheets which is why they pulled out in time and didn't experience huge losses which put them in need of being bailed out. And of course everybody else who opens a modest savings account will be just as sophisticated in their analysis of his or her bank's health.

But let's move on to a different example, the stage collapse at the Indiana state fair. Apparently, there were no inspections of the structure because no government agency was regulating these things. If true, is that what is meant by 'cutting through the red tape', or 'get government off my back', or 'deregulating small businesses'? In the wonderful world of libertarian utopia and personal responsibilities, were the spectators expected to conduct their own inspections prior to attending the concert. And would their deaths, clearly caused by failing in their personal responsibilities, ruled as suicides then? (That would also make the insurance companies happy because presumably they wouldn't have to pay out life insurance benefits).

Isn't that what libertarianism stands for?

Yes, as I understand it.

 

[rhubroma]

This is why the first argument holds no water. Buffet has spread his wealth around a lot. So has Bill Gates and others. Why should another cheque to the IRS make his argument more persuasive? He does what he preaches. The problem is that others in his positions aren't so inclined.

I can tell you that probably everybody confronted with the choice of either donating money to wherever you want or to pay taxes, is going to pick the former. So why don't we just eliminate taxes altogether and force everybody to donate a corresponding part of income to whatever that person chooses? Can you figure out why?

This is what has been traditionally done in orthodox Islamic countries, which is that the wealthy have been on religious grounds expected to donate to the community.

I don't see this as a possibilty in a post-Enlightement, liberal capitalist society however.

 

[Hugh Januss]

BTW, Buffett is extremely generous with his philanthropy and I suspect many of his "mega-wealthy" friends are as well. Direct philanthropy not through the filter of a Federal program. Imagine that.

Re-read your post above and then stop wondering why there is no longer civility in political discussions.

Direct? Like a donation to a nonprofit organization which passes all the money directly to those that need it the most? An organization such as Livestrong perhaps?

Really I get it already Scott, government-bad, private enterprise (of any kind, since they are all beautifully self regulating)-good.

Entertaining to hear you whine about condescension.

 

[Anonymous]

Direct? Like a donation to a nonprofit organization which passes all the money directly to those that need it the most? An organization such as Livestrong perhaps?

Really I get it already Scott, government-bad, private enterprise (of any kind, since they are all beautifully self regulating)-good.

Entertaining to hear you whine about condescension.

Like a donation to a nonprofit organization which passes all the money directly to those that need it the most?

I can only assume you think this is what our government does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm pretty sure Livestrong is not on Buffett's radar, but I could be wrong about that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/buffett-signs-up-40-richest-families-to-giving-pledge-2043539.html

Really I get it already Scott

I'm flattered (I guess) you read my posts but you certainly are not compelled to.

Entertaining to hear you whine

I'm whining? Eeek... don't wanna be a whiner. I'll clean that up for you.

 

[Anonymous]

This is in the same vein.

First of all, I'm sure all the banks who were invested in Lehman etc. knew how to read P&L statements and balance sheets which is why they pulled out in time and didn't experience huge losses which put them in need of being bailed out. And of course everybody else who opens a modest savings account will be just as sophisticated in their analysis of his or her bank's health.

But let's move on to a different example, the stage collapse at the Indiana state fair. Apparently, there were no inspections of the structure because no government agency was regulating these things. If true, is that what is meant by 'cutting through the red tape', or 'get government off my back', or 'deregulating small businesses'? In the wonderful world of libertarian utopia and personal responsibilities, were the spectators expected to conduct their own inspections prior to attending the concert. And would their deaths, clearly caused by failing in their personal responsibilities, ruled as suicides then? (That would also make the insurance companies happy because presumably they wouldn't have to pay out life insurance benefits).

Isn't that what libertarianism stands for?

FWIW, Life Insurers pay death claims as a result of suicide provided the death happens at least two years (or thereafter) from the time of issuance.

 

[Anonymous]

This is why the first argument holds no water. Buffet has spread his wealth around a lot. So has Bill Gates and others. Why should another cheque to the IRS make his argument more persuasive? He does what he preaches. The problem is that others in his positions aren't so inclined.

I can tell you that probably everybody confronted with the choice of either donating money to wherever you want or to pay taxes, is going to pick the former. So why don't we just eliminate taxes altogether and force everybody to donate a corresponding part of income to whatever that person chooses? Can you figure out why?

This is not actually 100% correct.

Buffett signs up 40 richest families to giving pledge

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/buffett-signs-up-40-richest-families-to-giving-pledge-2043539.html

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

You guys have more free time than I do. I can't keep up!

Will try to catch on at a later time...