Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[Diogenes]

Reagan Racism:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Welfare queens are the legacy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration and his IDIOTIC "war on poverty." Johnson wasn't racist for creating them, but Reagan was racist for pointing out that they exist?

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South"), and...

If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.

Ronald Reagan - California Governor 1966 on Fair Housing Act

Actually, I have a pretty hard time of faulting him for that. I take the idea of private property seriously. You ought to be able to use YOUR PROPERTY in any manner that you see fit. If you don't want to rent it to Homosexuals, or drug users, or Islamic terrorists, or Jehovah's Witnesses evangelicals, it's YOUR PROPERTY. The government getting to decide your morality for you is something that I think a lot of people are opposed to. The notion that the government should be "thought police" is a dangerous road to follow.

As president, Reagan aligned his justice department on the side of segregation, supporting the fundamentalist Bob Jones University in its case seeking federal funds for institutions that discriminate on the basis of race. In 1983, when the supreme court decided against Bob Jones, Reagan, under fire from his right in the aftermath, gutted the Civil Rights Commission.

That sounds pretty subjective to me. I have noticed that a lot of people try to sometimes paint "unintended consequences" as the main goal. The Civil rights commission was one of those champions of quotas, and affirmative action. This is just another form of discrimination with the shoe on a different foot. If you take the view that discrimination is wrong for one class of people, then it is wrong for another class as well.

The government has every right (indeed every DUTY) to insure that people are not discriminated against under the law, or in any other contact with the government, such as employment, regulations, etc. But the government has no business in meddling with what private individuals chose to do.

To name a few...

Rather poor and far fetched examples.

As for health care, what's your recommendation for more affordable health care? How do low-income families afford it?

My recommendations for more affordable health care? Make all insurance policies below a $10,000.00 deductible illegal. The reason health care costs are completely ridiculous is because too many people aren't paying their own bills. Were they paying their own bills, they would negotiate and bargain shop. Both of which would reduce costs for everybody. Medical people CHARGE outrageous fees because their patients don't care and insist on the best. Patients don't care because someone else is picking up their tabs. Insurance companies pass the costs back through the system resulting in increased premiums. All the feedback pressures drive it in the positive direction. It needs negative feedback to stabilize at a quiescent point.

A Hospital room should not cost $1,000.00 per day. It's a freakin' BED in a ROOM for crying out loud! Motels manage those for something like $50.00 per day? ( and make a profit) What's the other $950.00 for?

Also, legal reform and a windfall profits tax on lawyers ought to help a lot, but the biggest improvement would be realized from reintroducing market forces into what is currently a bureaucratic cluster f***.

[Diogenes]

Yeah, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Property rights and freedom of association are not inherently racist, just because racists may wish to exercise those rights.

As for your argument that because Reagan showed up at some places where bad things happened, I guess anyone campaigning in Salem must be a supporter of burning witches at the stake? If they Campaign in Chicago they must be a supporter of Organized Crime and Corruption? Wait... that one's true.

[KitemanSA]

A Hospital room should not cost $1,000.00 per day. It's a freakin' BED in a ROOM for crying out loud! Motels manage those for something like $50.00 per day? ( and make a profit) What's the other $950.00 for?

Law suits?

Also, legal reform and a windfall profits tax on lawyers ought to help a lot, but the biggest improvement would be realized from reintroducing market forces into what is currently a bureaucratic cluster f***.

Three simple changes:
1. Compensatory damages shall be limited to those true and accurately demonstrable damages. (No payment for pain and suffering, only for actions undertaken to relieve pain and suffering)
2. Punitive damages may not be insured against. (You can't pay someone to take your jail time, why should doctors be able to pay someone to take their punishment?)
3. No government activity may limit the RATE of return for any medical procedure or insurance action. (If you need $X million income and you are limited to 5%, you need $20X million receipts. If they have no limit, someone will undercut them if they try to charge too much.)

[ScottL]

The Welfare Queen story was proven incorrect. Reagan was called out on his proof and no such person could be found. He positional stereotype by stating a falsehood as fact. Then again nobody every said politicians tell the truth...

He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965....All men are created equal unless the state or south say so apparently.

He supported Bob Jones' University which applied a ban against interracial dating. Later when pressured, he reversed his view, which he was known to do depending on the sway of public opinion. He also held various views on the Latino population within California, failing to realize that much of that population at that time had been there since the Mexican-American war, describing them as illegals. That's the equivalent of calling Native Americans illegals. During his presidency he systematically carved up social programs such as affirmative action social welfare programs designed to start equalizing the playing field for blacks and poor. You can't honestly tell me the moment African Americans got voting rights, they magically became treated equal. It takes generations for repressed groups to recover and equalize.

[Diogenes]

The Welfare Queen story was proven incorrect. Reagan was called out on his proof and no such person could be found. He positional stereotype by stating a falsehood as fact. Then again nobody every said politicians tell the truth...

Your logic is flawed. In attempting to prove a negative you didn't find proof of a positive. That doesn't mean the "Welfare Queen" in question doesn't exist, it means that the media people couldn't find her. I would expect such a person would not want to be found. As for Reagan ignoring the press, that was EXACTLY his style.

Something else you might not have considered was the fact that many people of that time were well familiar with the phenomenon of "Welfare Queens." I used to work as a grocery boy in 1979, and I personally waited on DOZENS of welfare queens. I've carried cart full's of steak and lobster out to the Caddilacs of people who paid for their groceries with food stamps. I saw them buying bubble gum over and over again till they had sufficient change to buy a pack of cigarettes. (They would give you real change for a $1.00 food stamp coupon. )

At that time in History, a LOT of people knew exactly what he was talking about regarding "Wellfare Queens." H3ll, even Jerry Reed wrote in his song "When your Hot your Hot" Lyrics saying "Who's gonna collect my Welfare check? Who's gonna pay for my Cadillac?" (As they were carting him off to jail.)

The meme was well established before Ronald Reagan mentioned it.

He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965....All men are created equal unless the state or south say so apparently.

Most Democrats opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As the man had only switched from Democrat to Republican in 1962, you shouldn't expect him to change his Democrat views so rapidly. It takes time for a man to realize what a fool he has been.

He supported Bob Jones' University which applied a ban against interracial dating. Later when pressured, he reversed his view, which he was known to do depending on the sway of public opinion. He also held various views on the Latino population within California, failing to realize that much of that population at that time had been there since the Mexican-American war, describing them as illegals. That's the equivalent of calling Native Americans illegals.

Yeah, all the Mexican's living in California are there legally nowadays. Even so, it's not like he Founded the KKK or something (Democrats.) It's not like he was a Grand Kuegel in the klan either. (Robert Byrd.) It's not like his party opposed every attempt at granting civil rights to black Americans. (Oh wait, it did! When he was a Democrat.)

During his presidency he systematically carved up social programs such as affirmative action social welfare programs designed to start equalizing the playing field for blacks and poor.

Here is where your logic flies apart. These programs did not equalize the playing field. It made them dependent, and encouraged illegitimacy, drug use and crime. You've never heard of the horrors of "the Projects." Those Social programs which you seem to be advocating may have been well intentioned (by the rubes.) but they had the consequence of WRECKING the black family. We are STILL LIVING with the utter mess created by those social "give-away" programs of the 1960s. The only benefit to be had was political. The Black vote thereafter went steadily to those who guaranteed the flow of addictive federal money to that constituency. Democrats managed to put them back on the plantation of helplessness in exchange for keeping Democrats in power.

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. The Democrats are all about giving away (other people's) fish.

You can't honestly tell me the moment African Americans got voting rights, they magically became treated equal. It takes generations for repressed groups to recover and equalize.

They got voting rights in 1868. (But for Jim Crow, "Grandfather Clauses", and Poll taxes, created by Democrats.) The 24th amendment did away with Poll Taxes, but it went too far and did away with ALL taxation. When the country began, a firm principle was "No Taxation without Representation." Modern Democrats have turned that on it's head. Now we have Representation with No Taxation, which is just as objectionable.

Giving people money is the WRONG ANSWER. Making opportunities available for people is the right answer. Reagan was not into giving people stuff, he was into removing obstructions from their path to advancement.

[Maui]

So there are 2 polls out in the last 24 hours that by a 3 to 1 margin show people want the debt ceiling deal to include at least some tax increases.

Quinnipiac says 67% to 25%

Gallup say 73% to 20% if you total all the different options

I'm sure the Tea Party is ecstatic with the GOP's stand (same with this board which seems to be Tea Party HQ), but this seems to confirm the GOP have dug themselves a bit of a hole.

Personally, I hope Obama continues to reject the McConnell deal and holds the GOP's feet to the fire on this. They demanded the deficit be addressed as part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling, I think Obama should hold them to it.

How many chances do you get to cut $4T? If it doesn't happen now, when will it?

[Jccarlton]

I hope those two thirds will be happy as we lose even more jobs:
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-wh ... ing-2011-7

[choff]

I would add to that, in Canada health care spending as a percentage of GDP actually declined by .1 % last year. Also, I recall reading at one time that it costs any national economy $1 million dollars a day for every lawyer in it.

I was hoping we could hear some good news about the polywell before things got to the point of financial black hole. I fear that even if WB8 will work, it falls victim to budget woes, the very problem it could offset.

[Maui]

I hope those two thirds will be happy as we lose even more jobs:
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-wh ... ing-2011-7

I know, its endless fun to recite the "job killer" talking point. But be reasonable, tax rates are one piece of a large and complex puzzle.

See this: The relationship between taxes an unemployment is anything but clear-cut.

After all, in Denmark 50% of the GDP is spent on goverment (vs 25% for us... or low 20s in typical years). Denmark's unemployment? 7.4% Before the recession? 3.1%

The overall tax rate now (ie, taxes as a percentage of GDP) are lowest they have been in half a century. Shouldn't we have the best economy in half a century then? At the minimum, the economy between the time of the Bush's cuts and the Great Recession was no better (and probably worse) than the economy from Reagan through Clinton despite taxes being lower. What gives?

If you want to talk about job killers, what about the 493,000 government jobs that have been lost over the past 2 years?

The hard truth of the matter is that to balance the budget you have to take money out of the economy. Whether you do that with spending cuts or tax hikes, the effect is the same (at least in the short to medium term): it kills jobs.

So the choice is not jobs vs taxes, its jobs vs reducing the deficit. Unfortunately, we're in a situation where we really have no choice but to choose reducing the deficit over jobs.

Now, I will agree with you that on the whole the private sector is going to be more efficient, effective, and innovative vs the public sector. But at some point you run out of non-essential programs that can be cut. If we are going to have to do awful things like take away the money people that have been paying into SS or MC their entire lives, is it that unreasonable to also ask an oil company that is clearly not investing its profits in new U.S. jobs (your link even points out that fact more or less) to foot its own bill when it makes a bad investment in a well? After all, if my company makes a bad investment, its not like we get compensated. Doesn't compensating them for dry wells that actually discourage innovation? If Exxon is going to be compensated for dry wells, what motivation do they have to improve techniques & tech for finding good sites to drill?

[Maui]

Carlton,

What about a $4T deal that included a balanced budget amendment. Would you go along with that?

I would support a balanced budget amendment. In fact, in most cases, I would prefer it because it would force politicians to focus on spending, not tax rates. ie, Bush couldn't claim he lowered taxes by lowering the tax rates when, in fact, he was costing taxpayers substantially more via spending.

My ideal plan: tax rates would be calculated each year based on the previous year's spending. In other words, we get a bill for what the gov spent. There's no fighting over taxes vs spending. The debate can simply be about what services we feel are worth spending on.

I do think, however, that while a balanced budget amendment shouldn't require a super majority to raise taxes (again, I think taxes should ideally simply mirror spending) that a super-majority should be allowed to approve a non balanced budget for a given year given that the the budget provides a plan for paying back money.

[Maui]

I never thought I would say this, but I actually almost completely agree with Bill O'Reilly on something.

He outlines his plan here:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly ... ebt-talks/

I agree with everything except the flat tax part. But maybe me and Bill can sit down and have a chat and can work on exchanging the flat tax for a balanced budget amendment or something. We'll work it out... I have faith. Breath easier America, help is on the way.

[choff]

It would be interesting to see how the jobs picture in the US would be affected if a healthcare system like France or Austrailia were adopted saving 6% or more in GDP.

It might be a case of 'it costs more but it employs more', bill collectors and insurance people might lose their jobs, then they contribute less in tax revenue, so you don't save much GDP.

Restrict the excessive legal liability, you help small business create jobs but you unemploy lawyers.

Cutting subsidies to business to cut taxes and they cancel each other out, the only saving is on administrative overhead, but then you have unemployed administrators.

Same with taxing the rich more, then they spend less, hurts GDP.

Build a fusion reactor, you unemploy the coal and gas industry.

It's very hard game to win, the balance sheet might look better but more people end up hurting. Do nothing, more people end up hurting anyway.

[Jccarlton]

Carlton,

What about a $4T deal that included a balanced budget amendment. Would you go along with that?

I would support a balanced budget amendment. In fact, in most cases, I would prefer it because it would force politicians to focus on spending, not tax rates. ie, Bush couldn't claim he lowered taxes by lowering the tax rates when, in fact, he was costing taxpayers substantially more via spending.

My ideal plan: tax rates would be calculated each year based on the previous year's spending. In other words, we get a bill for what the gov spent. There's no fighting over taxes vs spending. The debate can simply be about what services we feel are worth spending on.

I do think, however, that while a balanced budget amendment shouldn't require a super majority to raise taxes (again, I think taxes should ideally simply mirror spending) that a super-majority should be allowed to approve a non balanced budget for a given year given that the the budget provides a plan for paying back money.

To be blunt, no. Tue gov't needs to cut all spending back to 2005 levels and keep them there. Long term it the government's porton of GDP cannot exceed 15% until the long term obligations are dealt with. Otherwise, more than likely the US will continue on a death spiral of never generating enough revenues to be able to cover obligations.

[choff]

If it starts getting down to the wire, I would recommend that the GOP accept the tax hikes proposed by President Obama. The reason being, while they may seem difficult to swallow, they're nothing to compare with the tax code changes the IMF could impose in a post-default world.
The Congress and Senate would be expected to rubber stamp those changes in a take it or leave it/you have 24 hours to comply type fashion. Whats even more depressing, Americans could eventually come to prefer the new bond slavery to foreign bankers over democracy.

[Maui]

Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration. It doesn't sound likely that we would fail to pay interest on bonds.

Still, stopping that much money from going out is going to tank the markets, and have fun trying to explain to seniors why they didn't get their checks and meds.

But most importantly, they'd be back out of office in 2012. They know that, and so they will agree to something in the end. But, unfortunately, my bet is it will be the McConnell plan and, therefore, a wasted opportunity to cut $4T.