Tax Cuts? Really?

[Predicto]

Go back to the first post, I am defending the notion that tax cuts will have a faster, more efficient, longer lasting, more impactful, outcome on economic growth than this proposed government spending bill.

Well you don't seem to be talking about that much anymore (and back when you were, you weren't providing much back up for your arguments other than slogans).

[Predicto]

Ya know... Please Blitz was right. I'm just being snotty to everyone today.

I apologize to everyone.

I'm gonna take a break from the Tailgate for a few days. Clearly I need it.

[Hailskinz1991]

But it's the entire industry that needs to be reformed. From the patients to the nurse to the doctor to the chief resident to the chief of medicine to the clerk calling in the insurance, to the clerk taking the claim, to the management of said insurance balking back to the drug makers who control both of them. And this is just one part of compensation, albeit a large portion of it all.

Our entire way of life has flaws from top to bottom. These flaws are just too heavy and they must be corrected or the floors going to come out from under us.

I don't think any thing we are considering with regards to our economy is going to work. I'd rather just batten down the hatches and ride out the storm. I want a truly comprehensive post mortem done on what got us in this mess and a complete collective understanding of why it happened. Hopefully, the world can prove me wrong about our current possible entrance into a "dark age". I just have lost faith. We simply aren't ready.

I think the biggest problem with Health Care is the price to receive service. Medicare/caid and Private Heath Insurance both contribute to the rising costs of service because ultimately the consumer (the patient) has no clue what these services cost. All is paid is a co-pay. (minimal).

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ya know... Please Blitz was right. I'm just being snotty to everyone today.

I apologize to everyone.

I'm gonna take a break from the Tailgate for a few days. Clearly I need it.

If your "snotiness" requires a break, 95 percent of this place needs a break

[Hailskinz1991]

I think a lot of people would disagree with you. They have universal coverage, lower costs, better preventive care, better prenatal care, longer lifespans, no exclusions for preexisting conditions, they can choose their doctors and change their plans, and are the highest rated nation in the world for health care according to the World Health Organization.

I'm sure that there are a few small areas where the US system is superior, and I'm sure you can find a few anedotal examples to demonstrate that. We ought to be better in - we pay twice as much per capita than they do and only 2/3ds of us even get coverage.

You want examples?

watch all six,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

and then this one,

[Predicto]

You want examples?

watch all six,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

and then this one,

Umm... that was about Canada, not France.

[Hailskinz1991]

I think the only possible answer is to have the Government control it. Maybe not run it directly (no single payer system), but set standards and regulations for competing health care insurers and mandate coverage for all. It's one of the few things that the French do right.

Not me, this path is scary. Imagine a government health care system where costs are rising...where would the money come from? The focus will then become on "preventative care" in other words the creation of the "Fat Police" - Hey you put down that Cheesburger! You're under arrest!!!!

[Hailskinz1991]

Umm... that was about Canada, not France.

What was the last innovation to come from France?

hmmm......Cordon Bleu? Champagne? beats me.

Besides, I hope they have good coverage Chiroc is going to need it. I hear he was just mauled by his Maltese!!!!

[TMK9973]

Hail - You are just wrong about companies always spending. In a down economy, like this, "Cash is king". Companies want to hoard $$'s. They want to build up their cash reserve, and pay down debt. Their debt celling is being lowered and any tax breaks would lead, most likely, to 1 time cost cutting maneuvers (Such as severance pay for layoffs, or acquisitions)).

In GENERAL, companies make money, re-invest to make more money.

In a down economy, companies spend LESS money, even without a shrinkage of profits, on the FEAR of shrinkage of profits (See Microsoft). In these cases, tax breaks will have the wrong effect.

We need to ensure money is spent. The best way to do that is to mandate it. The best way to do that, is to have government use their resources and spend it.

[karmacop]

Hail -

You're just wrong here on how best to get out of a recession. You might have some points in a good economy, but we're talking here about how best to create demand for goods and services, which is what is producing this downtown.

The best way to do that is to create jobs, and to do it very, very quickly. Ideally, these jobs will last long-term, or at least a few years. The best way to create jobs is to have the government hire them directly, right now, through a spending plan.

Here's an article on what lessons the US should have learned from Japan, which went through the same thing in the 1990s:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/191646706_2.html

When the private sector is obsessed with their balance sheet woes and the danger of falling into a deflationary spiral is real, increasing government spending is far more efficient than a tax cut in boosting domestic demand. It is more efficient because the entire amount of government spending will add to aggregate demand while a large part of any tax cut may be used by the private sector to increase savings or decrease debt as we have seen in the recent U.S. income tax rebate. Japan tried both, but it was largely the government spending that kept its GDP and employment from falling.

Not everything went well in Japan. Because the concept of balance sheet recession was not yet known in economics in the 1990s, trial-and-error solutions with largely ineffective monetary, structural, and other policies continued. Moreover, because of the lack of conceptual understanding, the critical importance of fiscal policy in maintaining an income stream in this type of recession was never fully appreciated, with the result that every time the economy showed signs of recovery with fiscal stimulus, it was assumed that the conventional pump-priming had worked, and the stimulus itself was cut "in order to rein in the budget deficit." But no sustained recovery is possible in a balance sheet recession without the recovery of private-sector balance sheets, and premature withdraw of stimulus invariably resulted in economic downturn. That prompted another fiscal stimulus, only to see it cut again after the improvement in the economy. This stop-and-go fiscal stimulus lengthened the total time of Japan's recession by at least five years, if not longer. In the United States, a similar premature withdrawal of fiscal stimulus in 1937 also lengthened the duration of the Great Depression until the onset of World War II.

The United States would do well to make sure that this mistake is not repeated. In particular, Washington should enact a medium-term (at least three to five years) seamless package of government spending to assure the public that they can count on the government to keep the economy going for the entire period. Such a commitment will go a long way in removing the fear of falling into a deflationary spiral and allow the public to plan for an orderly repair of balance sheets. This stance by the government should be maintained until private-sector balance sheets are repaired and people are willing to look forward again. If and when that point is reached, the government must embark on fiscal consolidation in order to avoid crowding out private-sector investments.

[Kunia5]

Please give us a break: these Stoessel dogma videos were made back in the early 90s, when the current finance mess was just getting started. The naive 90s.

Ask Ted Turner now what he thinks of unfettered capitalism, and I'll bet you'll get a different answer. Bill Gates is in favor of higher taxes for education and infrastructure. Stoessel assumes he is anti-government.

And Medicare, for all its flaws, is actually more efficient than private health insurance. 25% overhead for private vs. 2% for government-run.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-court24-2009jan24,0,3164270.story

Private industry isn't always better. Don't regurgitate dogmas.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND WATCH THIS VIDEO IN ITS ENTIRETY!!!

(all six parts)

Then if you need more watch this...

[JohnLockesGhost]

Milton Friedman said it:

The true cost of government isn't the taxes we pay, it's the spending government does. We need the government to reduce its burden on society and shrink. But of course it won't.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Private industry isn't always better. Don't regurgitate dogmas.

Yeah, it is. Government needs to be there to protect life, liberty and property. Government does a terrible job planning, innovating and adapting.

BTW, Health Care is a terrible issue with which to prove the supremecy of government-run industry. It's just too confused with regulation, programs and subsidies. On the whole our insurance-run health care system is no more "free" than France's government-run system. They're just more honest about it.

[karmacop]

Milton Friedman said it:

The true cost of government is the taxes we pay, it's the spending government does. We need the government to reduce its burden on society and shrink. But of course it won't.

Your statement is based on the assumption that all functions of government are bad, and all government spending is wasteful. That's just not true.

The real debate should assume that government must spend and act for the public good, and then simply debate which programs are beneficial and worthwhile, and which are not.

Anyone who disputes the above is not living in a reality-based world.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Your statement is based on the assumption that all functions of government are bad, and all government spending is wasteful. That's just not true.

The real debate should assume that government must spend and act for the public good, and then simply debate which programs are beneficial and worthwhile, and which are not.

Anyone who disputes the above is not living in a reality-based world.

Hell, I don't assume that at all. Most programs are unnecessary and wasteful, but the government has important functions that must be carried out.

And if you want a list of things we could cut, I'd start with the Dept. of Agriculture and then move to other whole departments.

[GibbsFactor]

Hell, I don't assume that at all. Most programs are unnecessary and wasteful, but the government has important functions that must be carried out.

And if you want a list of things we could cut, I'd start with the Dept. of Agriculture and then move to other whole departments.

Department of Education?

[karmacop]

Yeah, it is. Government needs to be there to protect life, liberty and property. Government does a terrible job planning, innovating and adapting.

These are not mutually exclusive. The job of protecting "life, liberty and property" is large, and itself involves plenty of "planning, innovating and adapting."

Think about all the things that protect "life, liberty and property" -- our entire judicial system, environmental and labor laws, our military and intelligence communities, etc. You're for all of that, I assume. All of these programs require "planning, innovating and adapting" to be useful to its citizens.

I think that a better way to think about government is that it steps in to provide necessary and beneficial services and programs that individuals, by themselves, would have difficulty funding and establishing but that clearly benefit the public.

For example, roads, public transportation, electricity grids, etc. technically don't "protect life, liberty or property," but I think most people would agree are useful and something that the government has to provide.

[JohnLockesGhost]

These are not mutually exclusive. The job of protecting "life, liberty and property" is large, and itself involves plenty of "planning, innovating and adapting."

Think about all the things that protect "life, liberty and property" -- our entire judicial system, environmental and labor laws, our military and intelligence communities, etc. You're for all of that, I assume. All of these programs require "planning, innovating and adapting" to be useful to its citizens.

The CIA is still fighting the Cold War.

[karmacop]

The CIA is still fighting the Cold War.

So what's your solution? Disband the CIA and let a private company take over? I don't get your point.

Clearly government can do better. But the response to poor government is not always a knee-jerk "smaller government" refrain. It should be "better government." If that means smaller government, so much the better. But if it means more government spending to address a problem that the majority of Americans want fixed, then that should be acceptable as well.

[JohnLockesGhost]

So what's your solution? Disband the CIA and let a private company take over? I don't get your point.

Clearly government can do better. But the response to poor government is not always a knee-jerk "smaller government" refrain. It should be "better government." If that means smaller government, so much the better. But if it means more government spending to address a problem that the majority of Americans want fixed, then that should be acceptable as well.

Well, I wasn't making a point specifically about the CIA (although it needs reform, and a redefined mission) I was just countering your point that government bureaucracies adapt well to the changing world to protect our life, liberty and property.

We need to have a smaller government. The federal government's budget is over 3 trillion dollars. It's a huge burden on the country, a country that's growing poorer by the day.

[Kunia5]

This argument always ends predictably.

You state the simplistic axiom, that "small government" is always better. And I ask "which programs would you cut?" And you answer "that isn't my problem," or "I didn't make the mess." Or some other distraction.

Would you cut Social Security? How about Medicare? Any entitlements at all? Pork spending is less than five percent of the total budget, so don't mention that.

Well, I wasn't making a point specifically about the CIA (although it needs reform, and a redefined mission) I was just countering your point that government bureaucracies adapt well to the changing world to protect our life, liberty and property.

We need to have a smaller government. The federal government's budget is over 3 trillion dollars. It's a huge burden on the country, a country that's growing poorer by the day.

[wilsonian]

So what's your solution? Disband the CIA and let a private company take over? I don't get your point.

Clearly government can do better. But the response to poor government is not always a knee-jerk "smaller government" refrain. It should be "better government." If that means smaller government, so much the better. But if it means more government spending to address a problem that the majority of Americans want fixed, then that should be acceptable as well.

We've had plenty of government spending over the past 8 years, and look where we are now. The only thing the government has is a printing press. If that was the answer to all our problems, Zimbabwe would be the envy of the world. When has massive government spending ever sped up recovery instead of delaying it? And how exactly is more spending going to solve this problem? Where is all this money going to come from? How big of a burden are future generations going to face as a result of our "stimulus?"

Certainly, government has an important role to play, but that role is very limited. Aside from defending the country from attack, maintaining law and order, and providing basic infrastructure, it should stay out of our lives. Government spending, in my opinion, will not work for this reason: the government is spending other people's money, and very few people spend other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.

[luckydevil]

This argument always ends predictably.

You state the simplistic axiom, that "small government" is always better. And I ask "which programs would you cut?" And you answer "that isn't my problem," or "I didn't make the mess." Or some other distraction.

Would you cut Social Security? How about Medicare? Any entitlements at all? Pork spending is less than five percent of the total budget, so don't mention that.

I would be down for a means tested welfare state ( medicare is the first thing I means test). I would get rid of social security.

[JohnLockesGhost]

This argument always ends predictably.

You state the simplistic axiom, that "small government" is always better. And I ask "which programs would you cut?" And you answer "that isn't my problem," or "I didn't make the mess." Or some other distraction.

Would you cut Social Security? How about Medicare? Any entitlements at all? Pork spending is less than five percent of the total budget, so don't mention that.

Actually, five or so posts up I wrote I'd start with the Dept. of Agriculture.

But, you're right entitlements are a huge piece of the puzzle. I'd be in favor of a schedule that would raise the retirement age. There are many politically feasible reforms that I would support.

We could also cut down our military expenditures by bringing troops home from various parts of the world.

[luckydevil]

I would the cut the military budget in half ( that is a conservative number).