Thread: Anyone want to predict the outcome of the health care case?

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

No, you have to prove that modestly higher tax rates don't work.

See, because austerity measures alone in Europe has caused them a lot of trouble while a balanced approach has made it so that America is actually weathering a little bit better.

There hasn't been a balanced approach. Spending went way up, taxes went way down. It's classic Keynesian stimulus. If this is balanced, with 24% spending and 15% revenues, I'd hate to see what your stimulus would look like. 30% spending, 10% revenues?

Originally Posted by jviehe

I wouldnt say that. They lie and decieve and the sheep buy it.

I diont think this is true.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

I diont think this is true.

Then how did Obama get elected. How does Pelosi stay in office? They lie and decieve and the sheep buy it.

Last I checked, Pelosi lost her Speakership and Obama is in danger of losing his job as well. The only reason he has a chance is because our nominee is going to be someone just as fake.

Originally Posted by adaher

Last I checked, Pelosi lost her Speakership and Obama is in danger of losing his job as well. The only reason he has a chance is because our nominee is going to be someone just as fake.

People dont vote for Pelosi for speaker.

No, but enough Democrats fell that she lost her job. I think the Democrats' losses were greater than in any election since WWII.

The fact that she is STILL the Minority leader is going to prevent Democrats from being in the majority again anytime soon.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Prove it. Lets give it a shot. We know high taxes doesnt work. Lets try low spending, something the govt actually can control. Spending hasnt been below 18% since 1966.

That is politically unfeasible and economically too dangerous to try at this point. The evidence is more than overwhelming that politically there simply is not enough you can cut and quick enough to make this a spending only issue. No plan offered recently is anywhere close.

True, but I wouldn't say it's politically unfeasible. Spending doesn't have to be cut, it just needs to grow slow. WHen Democrats are interested in slow growth as they were in the 90s, the public doesn't even notice or care. The interest groups howl, but without a major political party to give a damn, no one else does either.

But right now you have a Democratic Party that can't stand the idea of any program growing at less than 10% a year.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

That is politically unfeasible and economically too dangerous to try at this point. The evidence is more than overwhelming that politically there simply is not enough you can cut and quick enough to make this a spending only issue. No plan offered recently is anywhere close.

Theres no defense against the 'politically impossible' argument. But you agree spending and not taxes has to be changed, so thats good enough for me.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

The problem with a post like this is what else the numbers show about the decision making going on at the time.



The trend over the periods of time by President shows we are going in the wrong direction on tax revenues and spending. During the Clinton years the average of the 8 years shows revenues was roughly 19.0% and spending was 19.8%. Two things happened during Clinton's time. Tax Revenues trended upwards (economy, tax changes, and so forth,) and spending trended downwards. Under Bush things changed, revenues average fell to roughly 17.6% with spending being rougly the same 19.6%. The trends however show that during Bush's time tax revenue fell and spending went up. Then Obama gets into office having to deal with a crushed economy, unemployment trending very upwards, tax rates lowered by Bush and Republicans, and 2 wars going on with other conflicts boiling. In Obama's short 4 years we have tax revenues by average (including some estimates) being roughly 15.3% and spending being well up to 24.4%.

The economy demanded some spending but also was completely unable to keep up in the generation of tax revenue. However, Bush put us in a weak position to deal with this allowing the trends to go the wrong direction right up to the crash. His policy produced a failure... debt headed into a recession with a couple wars going on. That will be his failure.

The trends are better shown here...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...993_-_2008.png

If your suggestion that 18% is the target, then tax revenues are off as well as spending. I would argue it should be more like 19% or more until debt is handled. Regardless, it proves we have both a tax revenue problem and a spending problem. There is nothing in the numbers to show that tax revenue levels at present are acceptable or sustainable. Well, at least in terms of avoiding more debt.

I will agree that the lean being spending is the bigger problem, but that does not erase that tax revenues are still short with your listed overall average (or target, whatever you want to call it.) Even if you could cut enough spending to get to 18% - 19%, the economy is in no condition to support tax revenues at that level with all the tax breaks, Bush (now Obama's) tax cuts, required spending levels these days, etc. At the same time drastic cuts in spending now, without some sort of review of tax revenue would accomplish two things. Harm or slow down the recovery, and probably add massive new debt anyway.

The real solution is a gradual shift of both spending cuts over time and tax revenue gains over time until the averages (as a percentage of GDP) allow us to do something about our debt. That would more mirror what happened during Clinton's time. Not saying Clinton gets the credit here, just listing the time frames as he was riding on economy gains and SS input allowing for bonds purchase. Or, the reason total debt still went up but debt held by the public went down. Anyway, it means looking at the tax code for more than just the typical political targets (i.e. Obama's nonsense about "stand with Oil Companies or stand with the American People.") Until this happens, expect debt and quite a bit of it as no other solution can be looked at as serious. Including Obama's

I would argue that setting a % of GDP as a revenue target or a spending target is pretty poor policy.
The government should spend as much as it needs to accomplish it's legitimate goals, and it should spend as little as it can to accomplish these goals, and taxes should be set at a level sufficient to pay for this spending and to effect some modest reduction in the debt during good times.

If there is a war or major crisis, spending may rise, deficits may be necessary, but the worst policy is run deficits in good times, good times should produce surpluses, and until the debt is paid off, taxes should not be reduced just because we have a surplus.


And to return to the actual topic.
Since tax supported health care, run by the government is perfectly constitutional (John Adams signed it into law, I'll take his opinion of what's constitutional over some internet poster). Then if congress feels that it needs to put some form of health care out there and pay for it by taxes, as long as the taxes are sufficient to pay for the spending, I don't have a problem with it, and neither does the constitution.

Originally Posted by jviehe

We know high taxes doesnt work

Can you define high taxes?
I pay 35% and IBM pays 11%.

Am I paying too much?

Is IBM paying too little?

IBM provides very few US jobs; it's now a magnet for transferring our tax money to India and portfolio growth.

Originally Posted by goober

I would argue that setting a % of GDP as a revenue target or a spending target is pretty poor policy.
The government should spend as much as it needs to accomplish it's legitimate goals, and it should spend as little as it can to accomplish these goals, and taxes should be set at a level sufficient to pay for this spending and to effect some modest reduction in the debt during good times.

If the government is not already spending the maximum the economy can sustain, that's fine. The government needs a limit because it will always meet or slightly exceed that limit.

Originally Posted by adaher

If the government is not already spending the maximum the economy can sustain, that's fine. The government needs a limit because it will always meet or slightly exceed that limit.

The amount the government should spend is the amount congress thinks is required (according to the Constitution), you can't get around that.
The way to make the government spend less is public financing of elections.
If elections are publicly funded, special interests lose influence, the common people gain influence, and things in all probability get better.
Because with publicly funded elections, congress will feel less needs to be spent.