US Politics - 51 threads to the election!

[Shryke]

I agree. Advocating the instant abolishment of programs in which government have encouraged the people to depend on will only result in many hardships. That is way a transition out of these programs is the best option at the moment.

Why would you want to transition people out of the most efficient health care system the US has?

[Shryke]

But raising taxes during a weak recovery is fine?

No. That's why you borrow the fucking money. At a negative interest rate.

Of course, over the long term, taxes need to go up again. Perhaps back to levels seen in the 90s.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

So, is it your opinion that we should raise taxes on middle income earners as well? I haven't heard any Democratic politicians advocating that move.

At some point, yes. Today may not be the right time for that, but a robust social safety net can't be funded entirely by taxes on only a few wealthy people.

BTW, to answer Swordfish's earlier question about raising taxes in a recession, it seems to me that you could let the Bush tax cuts expire while applying the extra tax revenue for the first couple of years to economic stimulus, which would probably be better for the economy in the short run without knee-capping federal revenue in the long run. Of course, politics at the moment is a long way from attempting something like that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Harry,

Fair enough. That's a very honest and forthright opinion.

[Swordfish]

I don't think it does. At best, it demonstrates that raising taxes on millionaires doesn't suddenly resolve our deficit/debt problems.

So we agree. Swell.

no idea why you are being pedantic about it, but I'm prepared to agree and move on.

I don't want quotes from people. I want quotes from leading Democrats. .

It is good to want things. It prevents us from taking things for granted.

However, since it has little to do with the context of the conversation, and since you have already moved the goal post to 'leading democrats', I'm going to go ahead and refrain from being your google lackey in this case.

As I said, and you clipped, it matter very little what they say either way, since what they do is all anyone should need to determine whether they really care about spending or not.

the fact that it is coming from a lot of people who carry water for the democrats should be proof enough that it's an emerging talking point. That is, after all, the definition of a talking point, yes?

At some point, yes. Today may not be the right time for that, but a robust social safety net can't be funded entirely by taxes on only a few wealthy people.

BTW, to answer Swordfish's earlier question about raising taxes in a recession, it seems to me that you could let the Bush tax cuts expire while applying the extra tax revenue for the first couple of years to economic stimulus, which would probably be better for the economy in the short run without knee-capping federal revenue in the long run. Of course, politics at the moment is a long way from attempting something like that.

Wow.

So we're back to 'letting tax cuts expire isn't a tax increase' and we're throwing in a 'besides we can just redistribute that revenue as stimulus' for good measure?

Can you cite an economist who advocates raising taxes during a weak recovery? Even if those monies are to be spent on stimulus?

At the risk of sounding redundant, that isn't very keynesian of you.

[Shryke]

Wow.

So we're back to 'letting tax cuts expire isn't a tax increase' and we're throwing in a 'besides we can just redistribute that revenue as stimulus' for good measure?

Can you cite an economist who advocates raising taxes during a weak recovery? Even if those monies are to be spent on stimulus?

At the risk of sounding redundant, that isn't very keynesian of you.

How wouldn't it be very "keynesian"? It depends what people are spending the money they save on taxes on now vs what the government would spend it on. You could easily be taking money that would be going to non-stimulative spending and hire some people with it for a better net effect.

[TrackerNeil]

the fact that it is coming from a lot of people who carry water for the democrats should be proof enough that it's an emerging talking point. That is, after all, the definition of a talking point, yes?

So something can be a Democratic talking point even when leading Democrats aren't saying it? As long as they are Democrat-friendly, that counts? If that's the standard, then the guy at the Tea Party rally with the sign comparing President Obama to a monkey proves that racism is a major Republican theme.

[DanteGabriel]

If that's the standard, then the guy at the Tea Party rally with the sign comparing President Obama to a monkey proves that racism is a major Republican theme.

There are decades of proof of that. We don't even need to use Tea Party troglodytes as evidence in that case.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

So we agree. Swell.

My comments were limited to millionaires. Your comments were not. I don't see how we agree.

the fact that it is coming from a lot of people who carry water for the democrats should be proof enough that it's an emerging talking point. That is, after all, the definition of a talking point, yes?

There's a strange asymmetry to this whole thing, isn't there? If I want to find Republicans who deny that there's a revenue problem, I can find relevant quotes from Eric Cantor and John Boehner, the senior members of the Republican leadership in Congress. If I want to find Democrats who deny that there's a spending problem, however, I'm apparently stuck quoting the posts by anonymous message board participants who occupy no position of power in the Democratic Party. Surely if the two parties were the same, there would be something from Nancy Pelosi, George Miller, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, etc., etc., etc. And yet there isn't.

But let's move on to "what they do." There are plenty of Democratic proposals, from Barack Obama, from Congress, and in the super-committee that would raise taxes and cut spending by a 1:1 ratio or even more. All have been rejected by Republican leaders who refuse to raise taxes. And of course any Democratic proposal would need to pass the Republican House of Representatives. So given that that is clearly not sufficient for you, how would you propose that Obama demonstrate his willingness to cut spending?

At the risk of sounding redundant, that isn't very keynesian of you.

Why not? Tax cuts for the wealthy have a weak stimulative effect. Many forms of government spending have a much stronger stimulative effect. So you can have a deficit-neutral plan that provides much more stimulus for the economy. (I stole this idea from a think tank proposal on Ezra Klein's blog that ran sometime last year, I don't recall when. I'll cite my source if you can find one leading Democrat who denies that there's a spending problem.)

[ThinkerX]

At what point does violence become acceptable? I don't know that we're all that far away from it.

Right? The more I hear about the inaction or shady actions of Congress the more I grow to agree with the "blow it all up and start again" idea

Ah...I remember reading many a thread with identical sentiments...years ago, on the 'more paranoid' sites.

So...seeing these sentiments expressed here, would that mean the paranioa is starting to go mainstream?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Ah...I remember reading many a thread with identical sentiments...years ago, on the 'more paranoid' sites.

So...seeing these sentiments expressed here, would that mean the paranioa is starting to go mainstream?

So it would seem. And right in the sanctum sanctorum of the Democratic elite, apparently. These are troubling times indeed.

[SpicyTurkey]

I'm not sure you do, really, so let me be clearer. I think runaway healthcare costs are a problem, full stop: for corporate balance sheets, for household budgets, and for governments on all levels. So I don't think that we need to transition people off of government programs, because that doesn't solve the problem, it just shifts it from the government to the individual. (I think the problem would be better solved by universal coverage plus some kind of aggressive price controls, which I imagine that you would probably take exception to. But that leads us into an ACA discussion, which has been talked to death and I'm not really interested in re-hashing it.)

That's where you are mistaken. Government is the problem. The over regulation of the market is the result of the constantly increasing cost. By removing the government (albeit slowly) we are removing the problem. Though what you seem to advocate is more of the same, and that in no way addresses the cause.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Harry,

How does the ACA do anything about the cost of healthcare? Particularly in light of the fact that requiring people to buy insurance (assuming the mandate will survive the supremes) only kicks the can down the road and does not actually make people consider the cost impacts of their healthcarw choices and may further insulate them from those choices.

[Lyanna Stark]

That's where you are mistaken. Government is the problem. The over regulation of the market is the result of the constantly increasing cost. By removing the government (albeit slowly) we are removing the problem. Though what you seem to advocate is more of the same, and that in no way addresses the cause.

Are you a candidate for Libertarian of the Week or something? I didn't think anyone seriously still thought no Government equals great anymore. *cue recommendations to live in Somalia, which has no Government*

[TrackerNeil]

That's where you are mistaken. Government is the problem. The over regulation of the market is the result of the constantly increasing cost. By removing the government (albeit slowly) we are removing the problem. Though what you seem to advocate is more of the same, and that in no way addresses the cause.

Oh gosh...here we go again. Yes, it was government that forced banks to make loans without anywhere near the capital needed to cover them. It was government who required lenders to force the ratings agencies to rate these chancy loans AAA. It was government that mandated citizens to buy more home than they needed or could afford. All government.

Harry,

How does the ACA do anything about the cost of healthcare? Particularly in light of the fact that requiring people to buy insurance (assuming the mandate will survive the supremes) only kicks the can down the road and does not actually make people consider the cost impacts of their healthcarw choices and may further insulate them from those choices.

The ACA moves the system away from fee-for-service towards fee-for-outcome, which should control costs to a degree. You can read more here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

"Fee for outcome"?? So, doctors don't get paid if someone comes into an ER with a massive gunshot wound and dies despite the Dr.s best efforts? How will that discourage unnessary procedures if the staff knows they don't get paid if the patient dies regardless of their efforts? Aren't they going to throw the kitchen sink at every patient to make sure they get paid most of the time?

I did look at your link. It was a time line not an explaination.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Are you a candidate for Libertarian of the Week or something? I didn't think anyone seriously still thought no Government equals great anymore. *cue recommendations to live in Somalia, which has no Government*

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

How does the ACA do anything about the cost of healthcare?

I'd like to refer you to my earlier comment about how I'm not really interested in arguing about the ACA. I only brought it up because I'm in favor of UHC accompanied by some kind of government cost controls, and ACA was billed as doing both those things. Whether or not it'll be effective--well, we'll see, won't we?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I only brought it up because I'm in favor of UHC accompanied by some kind of government cost controls, and ACA was billed as doing both those things. Whether or not it'll be effective--well, we'll see, won't we?

We'll only "see" if it gets past the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it'll be a great "what if" debate.

[TrackerNeil]

I did look at your link. It was a time line not an explaination.

Yes, but it's a good jumping-off point for further investigation, which is easy to do.

Like Harry the Heir, and in accordance with my previous statements, I am not going to debate the ACA any more. There is a ton of information out there about the law, and those who are interested in finding out more can easily do so. Those who are not...well, there's nothing I can do about them.