State of the Union

[Art]

Gbear,

You certainly provide one interesting counterpoint, but I think it's based upon a false premise. Corporations are not individuals. They are entities. The reason farmers, for example, form corporations is so they can pass the company to their children since being a family farmer would be taxed out to the government.

Some corporations can be classified as more of an "individual'. But, as a general rule and statement, a corporation is an entity. No matter though, the question you asked me is when I hire a guy to build a house for me whether he should pay income tax on the money.

It is a great counterpoint. And, I'll say it depends . We start getting into a vicious cycle here. First, the money I make is taxed. I then give my money to a store, or a corporation, or a contractor, or whatever, and it gets taxed again. This is normal, of course.

But, simply put, it depends on who this guy is. Is the contractor a guy I know who's taking the money with a wink and a smile? Is he the owner of Providence Homes Incorporated and the money is reported on a corporate balance sheet and he, as President of Providence Homes Incorporated must pay himself a salary? You see, directly speaking, he doesn't pay income tax on the money he makes from my house. His corporation pays him income, and the corporation is taxed. His business pays him income and his business is taxed.

Remember, now, I don't believe any business should be taxed on their profit, so, I'm coming from a very strict belief system here. The point remains though, what if this guy is the President of Providence Homes, PHOM on the NYSE. He pays $2 dividend on the profits his company makes. The profits are taxed. I helped him make the profits and my money was taxed. He then gives the profits back to me and it's taxed again. You see how the cycle works?

I don't believe in income taxes in general. I do not believe in capital gains taxes at all. And, the fact is, a company that is taxed on its profits should not have that same dollar taxed in the form of dividends. It is, as you recognize, double taxing the same dollar. Your example, as compelling as it is, doesn't clearly equate to a 1 for 1 comparison. It's still good though, don't get me wrong .

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Hydrogen car? Are you effin kidding me? We need to look for alternate energy sources, but the key should be Fuel Cell technology, not some sci-fi Marty McFly dream.

Uhh ... Kilmer ...

That's what fuel cells are: Generating energy from hydrogen fuel. From the Department of Energy Website:

Fuel Cells

Hydrogen's potential use in fuel and energy applications includes powering vehicles, running turbines or fuel cells to produce electricity, and generating heat and electricity for buildings. The current focus is on hydrogen's use in fuel cells.

A fuel cell works like a battery but does not run down or need recharging. It will produce electricity and heat as long as fuel (hydrogen) is supplied. A fuel cell consists of two electrodes—a negative electrode (or anode) and a positive electrode (or cathode)—sandwiched around an electrolyte. Hydrogen is fed to the anode, and oxygen is fed to the cathode. Activated by a catalyst, hydrogen atoms separate into protons and electrons, which take different paths to the cathode. The electrons go through an external circuit, creating a flow of electricity. The protons migrate through the electrolyte to the cathode, where they reunite with oxygen and the electrons to produce water and heat. Fuel cells can be used to power vehicles or to provide electricity and heat to buildings.

Here's the president's quote:

Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car, producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.

So, they are one and the same.

For me, this was the one part of the speech that I really agreed with ... though I honestly don't know how effective or ineffective his proposed spending on it will be. Also, I found the "child born today" thing to be somewhat odd. That would mean affordable fuel cell cars wouldn't come until 2019 (2003 + 16). I've read forecasts which predict that consumer-level fuel-cell cars, albeit expensive ones, could become available between 2007 and 2009. 2019 seems a little far off for competitive efficiency to lower prices.

[gbear]

Um Art,

no taxation on business profits? no income taxes? Just where should our government get money from? Are you only for sales tax? Otherwise, we have to keep printing more money.

That cycle you defined is exactly how taxation works. If it doesn't work that way, and you only let government tax once, the government has to print more money each time it wants to do something. The result is more money in the system, and that means inflation because the money becomes worth less as more of it is made available.

The whole current system is based on taxing money as it flows from one entity/individual to another. That why the double taxation arguement is annoying to me. It's not double taxation. It taxed just like all other transactions. It's taxed as it goes from one entity to another. Truth told , the money has been taxed more than 2X. That's how it all works. The exception as you point out in your wink wink example is the black market.

[redskin56]

how about allowing judges the authority to overrule excessive awards in trivial suits? how about forcing litigants to cover all costs when nuisance suits lose? one key is to raise the risk level (i.e., financial risk) for those who pursue frivilous, ambulance chasing litigation.

First of all, let me state that I'm a republican. Second let me state that the idea of tort reform in this country is fatally flawed IMHO.

As for what is quoted above:

Every state in this country along with Federal Courts already have this process of reducing jury awards on appeal. It is called remittitur. This is a proceedural process by which an excessive verdict of the jury is reduced. If monetary damages awarded by a jury are grossly excessive as a matter of law, the judge may order the plaintiff to remit a portion of the award. This usually takes place before the defendant pays the damages.

Most every state in the country have either boards of medical inquiry or statutes that call for plaintiffs in frivolous law suits to pay for the legal fees encountered by the defendants. In fact, in CA, if you file ANY lawsuit, not only med mal, if it is found to be frivolous, you have to pay court costs and attorneys fees for the other side. In most states before you can file a med mal case, you have to go before a board, with the entire case, and that board determines if the suit has merit. If the board determines the case is without merit, then if you go forward and file it anyway, if you loose, you have to pay ALL court costs and attorneys' fees for the other side.

In short, these practices already exist. You never hear about a multi million dollar award being reduced on remittitur because it is not glorious to the media. The only group that would benefit from tort reform in this country is the insurance companies. If one of their doctors, as many have posted, commits mal practice, they would only have to pay $250,000 no matter what the damages truly are. Furthermore, that doctor would still have to pay huge insurance premiums. Does anyone think that after tort reform and caps on damage amounts that the insurance companies are going to lower their rates?

As a side note, legal malpractice insurance is just as expensive as medical malpractice insurance. Are the Attorneys trying to pass any legislation to reduce this?

This is a self centered proposition that the insurance companies are trying to get passed. IMHO the way to fix the whole thing is to regulate the insurance companies. Set rates that are fair and EQUAL for everyone, including the doctors and attorneys. Tort reform will only hurt those who are maimed, injured, killed or otherwise by negligent doctors.

[fansince62]

skin56...are you arguiing for government management of pricing in the insurance industry?

[Art]

Reply within.

"no taxation on business profits? no income taxes? Just where should our government get money from? Are you only for sales tax? Otherwise, we have to keep printing more money."

um, gbear. Until 1913 or so, there was no federal income tax. In fact, it was seen as controversial to even suggest the government should have any of an individual's hard earned money. The fact is, we support far too much that the federal government has NO business supporting.

Included in this is social security, medicare, almost every social program, etc. The federal government has a simple charter. Defend this nation and stay out of our lives. Individual states have other charters. But, the federal government should get no money from anywhere other than sales tax, and even then, they should spent less.

"That cycle you defined is exactly how taxation works. If it doesn't work that way, and you only let government tax once, the government has to print more money each time it wants to do something. The result is more money in the system, and that means inflation because the money becomes worth less as more of it is made available."

Gbear, you do understand that each time the government wants to do something, it should almost always do NOTHING, right? We aren't a socialist state. We don't have a government that is supposed to do much of anything for the citizens. We have a government that should be very small, and very out of the way. That there seems to be a sense of entitlement that the government has to provide for the people is a fundamental change of principles that Americans can't believe in if they believe in the foundation of this nation. Again, states have different measurements. Communities should get together and do things.

But, every time the government wants to get together and do something, it should stop, and remember, industry and people do that. Government doesn't. I cringed hearing Bush talk about spending a single taxpayer dollar on developing alternate fuel sources for the nation's automobiles. That's not the government's place. Industry should do that. The government can simply say that by X year if this is not done, they'll be fined a million bucks a day and that will effectively provide an incentive to research new technology we know is possible.

"The whole current system is based on taxing money as it flows from one entity/individual to another. That why the double taxation arguement is annoying to me. It's not double taxation. It taxed just like all other transactions. It's taxed as it goes from one entity to another. Truth told , the money has been taxed more than 2X. That's how it all works. The exception as you point out in your wink wink example is the black market."

And, Gbear, that's how the system works now, but it's not how the system worked for most of the first 200 years of our nation. Other than in times of war there's almost no reason for ANY individual to give 40 percent of his income to the federal government. That's not what we are as a people. That's not who we should want to be.

And, when you have dollars already taxed, and they are passed along to others, it's simply far too Marxist to say that's how it works. That's not how it works. It's time to fix it before we forget who we are.

[roofgoat]

Originally posted by NavyDave

Loved the speech.

Tort reform should be the that the 250,000 is the most the lawyers can make from the lawsuit and those doctors guilty of negligence should be on a National llist just like we have for sex offenders so they cant justmove to another state or join the military and leave their history behind.

I think your 2 ideas above are interesting. I like the idea of limiting lawyer fees, don't know if it's legal or not, but that might help things.

If there are to be limits, the list idea is good too. If a Doc or Hospital makes a serious mistake, I want to know. The list could help. Some may say that would forever damage the Doc's reputation so he can't earn. Maybe, but the price of serious negligence may mean that the Doc has to teach or do something else other than practice.

[Kilmer17]

TEG- I should have been more specific. I meant anyone who contracts aids now. Obviously those unaware of the dangers cant be held to that standard. BUt for a person to contract the disease today means they made bad, but obvious choices that lead to that disease.

I was unaware that fuel cells and hydrocars are one in the same. BUt Im not the only one. The pundits last night were saying the same thing (lead by Matthews and Colmes I might add) that I was saying. If they are one in the same then I stand corrected.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

TEG- I should have been more specific. I meant anyone who contracts aids now. Obviously those unaware of the dangers cant be held to that standard. BUt for a person to contract the disease today means they made bad, but obvious choices that lead to that disease.

Thats cool - shouldve just let it go.

Still, I think over 96% of children (those 13 and under) with AIDS get it from birth (according to the CDC). They shouldnt be viewed as being stupid.

Neither should the 1% who still contract AIDS from tainted blood even today.

[Kilmer17]

Simple testing of the blood would solve that problem. And I would argue that the children dont contract aids, rather they ar eborn with it.

But I think you got the gist of what I meant.

[redskin56]

skin56...are you arguiing for government management of pricing in the insurance industry?

In the purest sense I guess I'd answer no to that question. But, something must be done and I'm not a fan of Socialized medicine. The costs for medical care are exorbitant. It seems as if the insurance companies are charging ridiculously high premiums for both providers and patients. It follows that if the government regulated the industry, as a whole, that it would be a short term answer to provide less costly insurance to the public. I know this would not be a popular idea, but what would possibly be another approach? Socialized medicine? Which is the lesser of two evils?

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Thats cool - shouldve just let it go.

Still, I think over 96% of children (those 13 and under) with AIDS get it from birth (according to the CDC). They shouldnt be viewed as being stupid.

Neither should the 1% who still contract AIDS from tainted blood even today.

I think Kilmer is saying that the people who go out and have tons of sloppy sex with people who are or aren't shady without wrapping it or asking if they are tested. Or sharing dirty *** needles......those people are stupid. Of course there are kids AND adults who are victims here. Hell, they should get bumped to the front of the line for help.

[fansince62]

skin56...I was just asking because the historical evidence is that government managment of pricing exacerbates resource distribution even worse (i.e., the cure is worse than the disease). tough one in an area I don't work in...I'll listen to the rest of you smart folks!!!

[redskin56]

fansince,

Obviously this is one of the most difficult issues facing this country today, hence the attention it receives and ideas for making it work better. Currently, the most talked about solution is tort reform. I don't think that tort reform will even come close to helping the matter, let alone solving it.

If we took a snapshot of exactly where every dollar spent in the health care industry (doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and lawyers) I would bet that the majority of those dollars wind up in the insurance companies' accounts. Insurance is very profitable and something must be done to turn those companies profits back towards the consumer and allow access to quality health care. My overall point is what we have is not working for everyone. No one should go without quality care. It is an expense issue rather than an access issue. If you can't afford insurance, then you will not receive the same quality of care as those who can.

The cost of medical malpractice insurance is not causing individuals to pay more for health care coverage. Its a revolving door. The insurance company provides coverage to the patient and to the doctor. Who is gaining a windfall in these scenarios? I don't have hard facts to support this, but I'd bet the insurance companies are making more of a profit than any of the doctors, lawyers or hospitals.

Government regulation may not be the cure, however, something should be done to reduce those profits and give it back to those who need it the most. Those who pay the insurance premiums.

[Kilmer17]

Thats not true. Ins Companies are losing money on malpractice insurance. That's why they are raising the prices in the fashion they are.

People dont like to realize this, but Ins companies are regulated in price by the federal and state governments. The companies asked for, and received, permission to raise their premium prices simply to the level equal to the amount they are paying in claims. They then pass that cost onto the doctor, who in turn passes it on to the public who then cry about the cost of insurance.

The demon here is ther trial lawyers. Ask John Edwards where his cash came from.

[BG]

There were times I wanted to stand up and root and times when I started to scare myself. I started thinking "Christ BG, are you a Republican now?" HOWEVER--- I had an overwhelming feeling that the proverbial smoke was being blown up my arse.

Hydrogen fueled cars? Nahhhhh, but hey I'll put my tax dollars into it. At least he is proposing a plan to seek alternative fuel resources. What about our homes? What about natural gas? He's buttering us up to dip into Alaska and stop the strikes in Venezuala.

I'm all for relief in Africa. Not hust AIDS. AIDS is a horrible threat but the continen has other problems as well. I am definitly all for lending a hand.

I was soooo pumped when he talked about medical liability reform. This should be a much more imprtant issue and the dems are gonna screw everyone on it. I am independent, and I tend to go with the left quite a bit but I know they will screw this one over. Its supply and demand. There is a large demand and Docs/Insurance co's can jack their prices up and send us lowlies to HMO's to get subpar care. If the amount of suits were cut in half, the overall quality of doctor patient care could improve. Moreso, its rediculous to think that my doctor could lose everything just because he pulled over to help someone and tried to save their life.

I won't go into Iraq or NK cuz I stand behind the ol rascal so long as he takes action.

Tax cut----:rolleyes:where's my stuff man? I get no break. Screw that, you rich people should give me my $ back (give me my $ back, give me my $ back you bi*ch) , and besides how are we going to pay for all that **** your'e proposing!?!?!?!?! How can you stimulate and economy when you reduce the goverments' budget in trillions almost immediatley?????????

Good speech though----

[Art]

BG,

It is a factual statement and a classical truism in economics that lowering taxes grows government intake. Each time we've lowered taxes in the past, the government has enjoyed a huge spike in revenue because lowering taxes actually increases tax collection.

You saw this under JFK and it was especially noticed under Reagan where his policies spurred so much greater government revenue that Congress couldn't contain itself and spent at even greater rates. Not only do you put money in the pockets of people who are capable of spending it, which spurs job growth, but, importantly, you have a situation where easier tax laws and lower burden actually increase collection because people don't try to cheat as much.

I have no idea how much money you make, or how much you pay in taxes. If you don't receive any money back, it means you aren't paying anything in federal income tax and, honestly, you can't get back what you don't pay in, in the first place. When the top 50 percent of wage earners in this country -- which is something like 43,000 or whatever -- pay 96 percent of the federal tax burden, you have a system that simply only allows 50 percent of the people to get money back.

Just an informational to help you out here.

[BG]

Art--I am always up for info and will always stand corrected if wrong. THere are a lot of things I am not as informed as would like to be.

It seems to me that the amount of new expenditures Bush hopes to take on will not find enough capital. The tax cuts he is proposing, and I am going off of memory here, will not only force him to largely cut back government programs --which can be good in some instances--but leave him grasping at thin air for revenue to spend on some rather progressive reforms.

I am an econmical moron. I have no understanding of it, nor did I ever study it at any time.

It is a factual statement and a classical truism in economics that lowering taxes grows government intake. Each time we've lowered taxes in the past, the government has enjoyed a huge spike in revenue because lowering taxes actually increases tax collection.

Ya 'splained it, & I don't get it :?:

During the Reagan years did we not start to see the decline of jobs on a massive scale? Bush sr. came in to the rescue but had to impose new taxes in order to spur the economy?

While you may be telling me that the govenrment took in large amounts of $ cash, that doesn't neccesarily mean that the economy took in large amounts, or does it? I know the 80's were the decade of decadence. Lots of spending but we experienced a large backlash from that. .

From what I have seen on paper, I get the smallest % of a break out of anyone else, and I make less than 43,000......

[Art]

BG,

The Reagan years were the largest sustained growth period in American history until the 90s and the somewhat fradulent -- due to corporate fraud -- era. Under Reagan, jobs grew, income grew, government intake grew at the greatest rate in history, and all with a massive tax cut. As is normal with any sustained period of economic growth, it is followed with a down period. The same thing happened during the last year of the Clinton presidency, where after so much growth, the recession hit.

The mistake by Bush Sr. was taxing INTO the recession. You can't raise taxes into a recession. You have to cut taxes to spur growth and increase spending, which, in turn increases the amount of money the government receives. I can point you to actual data from the Reagan years, but, it is without question just how much the policies of Reagan increased government revenue allowing the funding of many programs that should NEVER have been funded in the first place.

The backlash from the 80s was an out of control Congress spending at even a greater rate than the largest government revenue expansion in history. Fortunately we have amendments now that will largely make such mistakes more difficult. You can deficit spend during slow periods in the economy.

What Bush now has is a growing economy and a languishing market, which is why he's making the "splashy" but not all that meaningful move of ending the double taxation on dividends. You already saw the benefit of the announcement when Microsoft announced it would give dividends for the first time.

As for your personal situation, it is true, making what you make, that you get the least break of all. As is right and appropriate. My wife and I paid nearly $40,000 in taxes last year. You paid very, very little in federal income taxes. You can't be given something you already don't pay. I, however, CAN be given what I do pay. I'm not mocking you here, I swear. But, it is true, you agree I hope, that you can only cut taxes for people who pay taxes.

The Bush plan lowers the tax bracket of EVERY citizen who pays taxes. While a person who pays $36 million in tax one year, may get a $4 million cut, the fact is, he probably deserves it, because, he's still paying $32 million, which is more than you and I will make in our lives. Obviously, when you force one percent of the people to shoulder 33 percent of the federal burden, when you cut taxes, those people are going to get more than you are because THEY are the ones paying the money in the first place.

I don't like a number of the programs Bush proposed because he should be more conservative with his spending. But, given the tax cut accelerations, it's likely he'll be able to fund these programs just from the growth.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Simple testing of the blood would solve that problem. And I would argue that the children dont contract aids, rather they ar eborn with it.

But I think you got the gist of what I meant.

No, I don't get the gist of what you're saying. It was a stupid statement to make and an exhibition of your ignorance.

500 babies a year in the U.S. alone contract HIV through breast feeding. That is, by some miracle they weren't born with it, but later contracted it from their mothers who breast fed.

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I thought it was total crap until he started on Iraq.

Hydrogen car? Are you effin kidding me? We need to look for alternate energy sources, but the key should be Fuel Cell technology, not some sci-fi Marty McFly dream.

Aids in Africa? BFD. Lets cure disease HERE. How about 15 billion dollars to find a cure for cancer? Or juvenile diseases? Or Autism?

I did like his thoughts on kids with parents who are in prison, but what exactly did he propse to fix it? Mentors?

The only thing that made this speach palatable (other than his foreign policy) was comparing it to the laughable response from the Dems. What a joke that was.

He actually sounded like a liberal democrats. Republicans don't care about aids. Republican don't care about prescription drugs. Actually Bush's program is D.O.A. When seniors find out that they have to leave medicare to get those drugs- they will do everything to defeat it. Republicans sure don't care about fuel cell cars. I'm actually suprised the oil interests aren't telling bush to end his foolish talk. :laugh: :laugh:

Actually Kilmer; hydrogen is a key component in fuel cell technology. The reaction between hyrdogen and oygen in the fuel cell is what generates the power. I'm no science major but I do know hydrogen is a key component. We are probably a decade away from coming up with viable cell that can be mass produced.

[Larry]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the fuel cells I've studied (lightly: No claims of expert-hood here) are simply another way of turning hydrogen and oxygen into water and energy. (They simply turn it into electrical energy, as opposed to mechanical, which is what you get from burning it in an engine).

And, as far as I'm aware, the only present way of getting hydrogen is from the electrollysis of water, which takes as much energy as you get back when you turn it back into water. (Actually, it takes slightly more: That whole Second Law thing.)

Never mind the whole problem of storing, transporting, and dispensing the stuff. Has somebody got some method I haven't heard of for obtaining it?

Has somebody got a way of:

• Seperate water into H and O.
  
• Combine H and O into water.
  
• Collect leftover energy.
  
• Repeat.
  

[88Comrade2000]

Actually, I was wrong. What bush is proposing is actually a hydrogen car?

Here's a link to an article on fuel cells:

http://www.fuelcells.org/whatis.htm

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Larry

Maybe I'm missing something, but the fuel cells I've studied (lightly: No claims of expert-hood here) are simply another way of turning hydrogen and oxygen into water and energy. (They simply turn it into electrical energy, as opposed to mechanical, which is what you get from burning it in an engine).

And, as far as I'm aware, the only present way of getting hydrogen is from the electrollysis of water, which takes as much energy as you get back when you turn it back into water. (Actually, it takes slightly more: That whole Second Law thing.)

Never mind the whole problem of storing, transporting, and dispensing the stuff. Has somebody got some method I haven't heard of for obtaining it?

Has somebody got a way of:

• Seperate water into H and O.
  
• Combine H and O into water.
  
• Collect leftover energy.
  
• Repeat.
  

You don't need straight hydrogen to run fuel cells. All you need is a fuel that has has a lot of hydrogen stored in the fuel. Gas can be used by fuel cells. You still would get some emissions but it is no where near the levels produced by an regular auto engine. The only fuel that would produce zero emissions in a fuel cell would be pure hydrogen.

[Larry]

And if the hydrogen comes from, say, gasoline, then this helps our energy independance how?