U.S. Politics, 15

[Merentha]

This is what I was going off of, Swordfish. While some money would be made from extending cuts and that ending the cuts could possibly (as ljkeane says, the direct impact of financial policy is not always known), much more can be made by, say, removing the cut on capital gains tax and the top two income brackets and using the funds to extend unemployment, fund foodstamps, and fund infrastructure-building projects. Even if every economist agrees that raising taxes would slow growth, that's not the end of the equation. The funds gained by increased taxes can be used to stimulate growth more than would have been stimulated under low taxes.

FDR's examples are good ones.

[Swordfish]

This is what I was going off of, Swordfish. While some money would be made from extending cuts and that ending the cuts could possibly (as ljkeane says, the direct impact of financial policy is not always known), much more can be made by, say, removing the cut on capital gains tax and the top two income brackets and using the funds to extend unemployment, fund foodstamps, and fund infrastructure-building projects. Even if every economist agrees that raising taxes would slow growth, that's not the end of the equation.

Of course it isn't the end of the equation.

No one here has claimed that it is.

I was simply pointing out that your demands for a bunch of proof that raising taxes slows growth seemed odd since it isn't really a controversial question.

And it looks like they are going to extend unemployment, so you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy here.

I think the time will come when the types of tax increases you are talking about should be made, but this isn't the time.

[Lord Mord]

Altherion,

The narrative will be rewritten no matter what. When you have to deal with somebody who will try to lie and cheat you at every step, it is usually better to use force if you have that option.

Wait, are we still talking about small business owners? I doubt very much that even a significant portion of these are cheaters -- they just see their own long-term survival as more important than some notion of community. It's one thing to change a damaging practice, but to take an exceptional risk of expansion when markets are contracting -- it sounds like you want business to jump off a cliff and have faith it'll all work out, or else. I don't see resistence to this attitude as reprehensible.

You misunderstand. This is not a punishment for bad behavior, it's just a redistribution of resources (in fact, exactly the one that the right keeps crying wolf about) and an incentive to act differently.

An incentive is either the threat of a stick or the promise of a carrot. I don't suppose you're suggesting that higher taxes are meant to look like a reward.

In theory, I am a fan of higher taxes for high-earning individuals; it just doesn't make much sense to expect businesses to expand whose burdens have been increased. Can you explain that process?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is what I was going off of, Swordfish. While some money would be made from extending cuts and that ending the cuts could possibly (as ljkeane says, the direct impact of financial policy is not always known), much more can be made by, say, removing the cut on capital gains tax and the top two income brackets and using the funds to extend unemployment, fund foodstamps, and fund infrastructure-building projects. Even if every economist agrees that raising taxes would slow growth, that's not the end of the equation. The funds gained by increased taxes can be used to stimulate growth more than would have been stimulated under low taxes.

FDR's examples are good ones.

The Depression lasted an awfully long time compared with other downturns. Are you sure that's the model you want to use for how to do things "right"?

While some money would be made from extending cuts and that ending the cuts could possibly (as ljkeane says, the direct impact of financial policy is not always known), much more can be made by, say, removing the cut on capital gains tax and the top two income brackets and using the funds to extend unemployment, fund foodstamps, and fund infrastructure-building projects.

Well, you seem to be proceeding under two assumptions that are dicey at best. The first is that a public job is "just as good" as a private job in the economy. The problem with that is that while the wages for private jobs are paid for by the goods or services they provide, public sectors jobs do not create the wealth to pay their own wages. Instead, they also must be paid for with the wealth created by private sector jobs. Taking money out of your left pocket and putting it in your right only works for so long.

The second assumption is that the government will spend that money as efficiently as would the private sector. But that's far from certain. In fact, if you just took the 2.5 or so million jobs allegedly created or saved by the stimulus, and assume that actually happened, you'd come up with a cost of more than $250k spend per job. That doesn't sound all that efficient to me.

FDR's examples are good ones.

The Depression lasted an awfully long time compared with other downturns. Are you sure that's the model you want to use for how to do things "right"? Especially given that we were not the debtor nation in 1932 that we are now.

[Shryke]

The Depression is actually a really good example to watch.

FDR's original ideas worked great and following the data you see sharp downturns in Unemployment and the like.

Then, when political pressure forces FDR to back off from his original plans and give in to more conservative (at the time) critics, the numbers turn around and the economic situation begins to worsen again.

Well, you seem to be proceeding under two assumptions that are dicey at best. The first is that a public job is "just as good" as a private job in the economy. The problem with that is that while the wages for private jobs are paid for by the goods or services they provide, public sectors jobs do not create the wealth to pay their own wages. Instead, they also must be paid for with the wealth created by private sector jobs. Taking money out of your left pocket and putting it in your right only works for so long.

And this ... just wow. This might explain alot about you actually.

A public sector job is just as good. Especially, actually, in this economy where, as the link I posted last page shows, companies aren't spending their money anyway. A public sector job guarantees an injection of cash back into the economy because PEOPLE SPEND MONEY. Which goes into the private sector, stimulating the economy. (In fact, the lack of this kind of spending is exactly the reason companies are saving cash and not creating their own jobs)

This cash also returns to the government in the form of taxes of course.

The second assumption is that the government will spend that money as efficiently as would the private sector. But that's far from certain. In fact, if you just took the 2.5 or so million jobs allegedly created or saved by the stimulus, and assume that actually happened, you'd come up with a cost of more than $250k spend per job. That doesn't sound all that efficient to me.

Except, even if we assume the private sector will always spend money more efficiently, the private sector isn't assured to spend it on jobs anyway.

In fact, it's inarguable that right now they are doing exactly the opposite of that and deliberately not spending it on creating more jobs. Often, they are cutting jobs.

[Commodore]

If Obama wants to be seen as concerned about the deficit, he will have to propose significant spending cuts, since these tax rates are now set for two years.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Key provisions of ACA declared unconstitutional:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302420.html?hpid=|

This probably deserves it's own thread.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Oh, this is a "District" Court Judge. Lowest level of the Federal Courts.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Depression is actually a really good example to watch. FDR's original ideas worked great and following the data you see sharp downturns in Unemployment and the like. Then, when political pressure forces FDR to back off from his original plans and give in to more conservative (at the time) critics, the numbers turn around and the economic situation begins to worsen again.

Rather than get too far down this tangent, I'll simply say that's a disputed issue and people can read up on it on their own if they choose.

A public sector job is just as good. Especially, actually, in this economy where, as the link I posted last page shows, companies aren't spending their money anyway. A public sector job guarantees an injection of cash back into the economy because PEOPLE SPEND MONEY.

From where does the public sector get the money to pay those workers?

Which goes into the private sector, stimulating the economy. (In fact, the lack of this kind of spending is exactly the reason companies are saving cash and not creating their own jobs)

This cash also returns to the government in the form of taxes of course.

Shryke....Last things first. You do understand that only a very small percentage of those wages actually gets returned as taxes, right? Because if you were receiving back in taxes the full amount of those wages, people wouldn't have an money to spend on goods. The average family of 4 making $50k/year off a government job is going to be paying a net income tax rate of well under 10%. So the other 90+% of those wages is being paid for by something other than the taxes generated by that salary. Government jobs are not a zero-sum game that pay for themselves, no matter how much some convoluted economic theory may claim that to be true.

The rest of your point overlooks the reality of what money/wealth actually represents. Money is the stored/transferable value of goods and services. The people who have those government jobs are going to spend that money, as you point out, in the private sector. Which means they will be buying those goods and services produced by people in the private sector, including all those nifty electronics and other items we import. But they are spending that money without having contributed in any significant way to the goods and services they will consume from the private market. They are creating nothing that can be used to pay for those goods we import from overseas. So, we're now actually consuming more of those same goods but having no additional goods or services to exchange for them.

And just to be clear, I'm not denigrating the people who hold those public sector jobs. They're working and earning their pay. My point was that public sector jobs aren't a good for the economy as private sector jobs, not that they can't/don't have any value at all.

If you really believe your point, though, envision the U.S. economy with 80% of the workforce employed by the public sector. Do you really think such a model would be sustainable?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

The Florida Judge wouldn't rule on this issue but said, in Dicta, the question was open to the Courts and indicated it would need to be addressed by the Supremes. The Florida Court did rule the Justice department couldn't post hoc rationalize the mandates as a tax.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Triskele,

The Florida Judge wouldn't rule on this issue but said, in Dicta, the question was open to the Courts and indicated it would need to be addressed by the Supremes. The Florida Court did rule the Justice department couldn't post hoc rationalize the mandates as a tax.

I'm not sure about the whole unconstitutionality argument, at least given how the Constitution has been interpreted to date. According to the argument, the government would be perfectly entitled to set up a massive single-payer health system, financed by tax dollars, that is far more intrusive and controlling than this system, which at least allegedly decide which health insurance company you wish to use. So this argument may be elevating form over substance.

Or here's a question. Suppose partial privatization of Social Security passed, and people were required to put 50% of their social security earnings into certain private investment vehicles. Is that constitutionally different from requiring people to buy private health insurance?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

If SS were privatized and payments to private investment concerns required by law it would fall squarely within what I believe is an assumption of power not granted to the Feds. However, if it was not mandated but was optional, I think it would squewk through. The really interesting question is how "conservaties" would have reacted to such a mandate if it was replacing Social Security. Liberals as well.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

If SS were privatized and payments to private investment concerns required by law it would fall squarely within what I believe is an assumption of power not granted to the Feds. However, if it was not mandated but was optional, I think it would squewk through. The really interesting question is how "conservaties" would have reacted to such a mandate if it was replacing Social Security. Liberals as well.

That was sort of my point. Does a mandated choice between 1) the government investing your money, or 2) required private contributions to private entities, really amount to a "choice" in a constitutional sense? Would that really be much different from mandatory health care? And if so, it seems like you could fix any alleged constitutional infirmity via the creation of the dreaded Public Option.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

That's a very good question. For consitency's sake I'd have to say no it's not a real choice.

[The Progressive]

Lol, I find it funny that commodore and cocoman go out of great length to avoid commenting on each other posts .......... one side vehemently declares that Obama is a class warrior who's trying to fleece the wealthy, and the other side consistently claims that Obama is a corporate-stooge.

On the ACA, it most likely will end up at SCOTUS, but not before all of its major components are already in place and people start liking it.

I also want to praise Pelosi once more for leading Congressional Democrats to oppose this bullshit tax deal that the Republicans try to shove through an embattled White House.

[Shryke]

Key provisions of ACA declared unconstitutional:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302420.html?hpid=|

This probably deserves it's own thread.

:rofl:

This is probably the greatest news for Public Option supporters in a while.

If the mandate does get struck down, Health Insurers are going to shit a brick and then fold.

[TerraPrime]

I was thinking the same, actually.

The mandate is what makes it still profitable to insure people. Otherwise, insurers will have to accept people with prior conditions, and they cannot do recessions, and people can game the system by buying insurance just before they need big ticket surgeries/treatment. It'll ruin the private insurance business, as far as I can tell.

If the court strikes down the mandate but says nothing of the rest, then it seems like it'll be the end of private insurance. So unless the SCOTUS strikes down the entire ACA, I don't see how this is a good thing for those who don't want single-payer government-run healthcare.

[awesome possum]

Key provisions of ACA declared unconstitutional:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302420.html?hpid=|

This probably deserves it's own thread.

That didn't take long, and honestly, who didn't expect something like it:

The federal judge set to issue one of the first decisions on the Obama administration's health care law has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform.

From 2003 through 2008, Hudson has been receiving "dividends" from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. In 2008, he reported income of between $5,000 and $15,000 from the firm. (Data from 2009 was not available at the Judicial Watch database.)

A powerhouse Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal). The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser toformer Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

Another firm client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

:rofl:

This is probably the greatest news for Public Option supporters in a while.

If the mandate does get struck down, Health Insurers are going to shit a brick and then fold.

And neither Congress nor the White House is going to let the entire health care system collapse like that, so they'd pass something else. Given that the public option didn't have enough support even when Democrats controlled both chambers, I think it highly unlikely that it would pass the second time around.

I suspect what you'd see in a compromise is a big move to the "state flexibilibility" option that seems to be getting some press recently.

Of course, in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court upholds the order striking down the plan, the very unworkability being trumpeted in here is exactly what will lead them to conclude that the mandate is not severable from the rest of the bill.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

Hey if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can estanlish the power of Judicial Rewiew in a case in which he was, at a minimum, a material witness I don't see why this Judge has any issues.

:P