Three Quick Points

Since these things came up in another thread (where someone was trying to change the subject) I'll address them here.

1)-The value of the dollar has fallen by almost ONE-THIRD since Bush has taken office.

2)-If the democrats repeal Bush's tax-cuts, sure, that's sort of a tax increase, but really, it's more about bringing taxes back to what they were just 7 short years ago (not even).  That's not exactly the same thing as a mad dash to randomly increase taxes.

*If* you're making more than $150,000 a year, fine, keep voting republican if all you care about is low taxes. Otherwise, don't bother.

3)-None of the major democratic candidates are talking about "socialized medicine".  FYI, we already have socialized medicine in this country in the form of the VA (where the government hires and fires the doctors, etc.).  We also have a single payer system with Medicare (where the government handles the insurance/payments to doctors).

Medicare runs at about 3% overhead compared to up to 30% for private insurance (and here I thought conservatives cared about 'efficiency'?).  If you want to call that "socialized medicine" to scare people with the horrifying word socialism, knock yourself out.

You should also push for replacing our socialized military.  Doesn't it make more sense to pay some guy from Blackwater $100,000 a year to do jobs our guys proudly do for $33,000?  After all, I assume that a $100 privately washed load of laundry is a great morale booster (for our troops and our tax-payers).

< My Religious Right | Mitt Romney's Ironic Speech on Religious Tolerance >
 Display:
it is insane that repugs ever get elected..

by Bungle on 12/07/2007 05:52:11 PM EST

1)-The whole point is not to sell out our country's defense to the highest bidder, but rather, to have people proudly serve our country because they believe in it (and they get good benefits, like the GI Bill, etc.).

People who are only in it for the money can't be trusted to necessarily protect the best interests of the US (i.e. they might be swayed by the right bidder and follow their own financial interests and or the interests of some other country willing to pay more).

2)-Unemployment is just *one* measure of an economy.  But since you brought it up...

"Our unemployment statistics don't count how many people are unemployed; they leave out a large number of jobless:

*If you're unemployed for more than 18 months, the government eliminates your eligibility for unemployment benefits and no longer counts you in the unemployment statistics--even if your family is starving.

*Worse, if your career simply disappears to India, your education is down the drain, you lose your life savings, and you finally give up and take a job at a quarter of your former pay, you don't count as unemployed at all..."

3)-The WORST argument you could make against *socialized insurance* (there, I'll meet you half way in between a "single payer system" and what you incorrectly call "socialized medicine") is to say "it gives you no choice".

Let me ask you, how many people do you know with insurance that's NOT provided by their employer?  Very few, right? 

For those of us with employer provided insurance, what "choice" do we have? For example, if I don't like Blue Cross Blue Shield, can I *force* my employer to go with Humana?

Exactly.  We both know the answer to that question, and it's the same across the board.

The fact is, we currently have very little choice, unless you believe quitting a job is an option for most people.

Also, I know at least the Edwards plan allows people to buy into Medicare.  That means if KenTX still wants to be ripped off by BlueCross-BlueShield (i.e., rather than 97% of every dollar going toward care under Medicare, only 70-80% will), he can continue to do so.


And again, don't confuse the VA (which is *actual* "socialized medicine") with Medicare (which is "socialized insurance").  Hopefully by now you've figured out the difference, and if so, stop trying to confuse the two in order to scare people.


by Tom Hanc on 12/08/2007 06:26:41 PM EST

Bias yearns for the Jimmy Carter days of stagflation no doubt.

by acroso on 12/09/2007 12:16:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken is gender-blind.  In fact, his wife is a man, baby.

by OneHitKill on 12/09/2007 01:15:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Awww whats the matter.. they getting the better of you?  

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/09/2007 01:57:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who posts gay bashing shit at 1 30 am?  Lets see... You really are fitting a certain profile..

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/09/2007 02:17:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Two Things...

1)-True, although in fairness she does share this profile with me.  And by share I mean she uses it maybe 10% of the time.

2)-Mocking my username and using the word "balls"?  Please, PLEASE tell me you're in high school or college?  If you do, I'll still feel sorry for you but will understand *slightly* more.

by Tom Hanc on 12/09/2007 12:32:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What is the leading cause of bankrupcies in the U.S..  Bzzzzzt Times up!..

MEDICAL BILLS

You are quite happy surrendering your rights to Bush and his facist pals. I guess you would be an expert on the subject. Like you are an expert on every subject.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/09/2007 02:05:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What is the leading cause of bankrupcies in the U.S..  Bzzzzzt Times up!..

MEDICAL BILLS

So people get medical treatment even though they cannot afford it. And what is so bad about getting state of the art medical care that saves your life and then declaring bankruptcy when the bill is more than you can handle? Big deal. Even Donald Trump went bankrupt.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 10:39:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So you saying that people declare bankrupcy just because they dont WANT to pay the bill not because they are NOT ABLE to pay the bill. Of course that notion can be easily refuted.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/10/2007 11:03:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]

"And what is so bad about getting state of the art medical care that saves your life and then declaring bankruptcy when the bill is more than you can handle?"

Save your life, lose your house, it's a fair deal right?  But  isn't that kind of an asshole position to take?  It's easy to be flip about it until it happens to you.

by bfaul on 12/10/2007 11:35:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'd rather lose the house than kick the bucket, know what I mean?

by Twba on 12/10/2007 11:48:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
asshole positions, which I elaborate on lower down in this thread. 

It's that awful, libertarian, cold hearted (and extreme) world view.

It's the most selfish, ridiculous set or ideals one could ever hope to imagine.  But it does justify not giving a fuck about anyone outside of immediate friends and family, so I guess it makes life easier.

by Tom Hanc on 12/10/2007 11:56:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You KNOW I was referring *health insurance* when I posed the question "how many people have insurance that's not provided by their employer".

It's laughable that you'd bring in auto/home owner insurance.

Even more laughable though, is this statement "I can wear you out and wear you down with statistics and logic" in a post that contains exactly ZERO statistics and questionable logic.

Finally, the old conservative line of "if you don't like it why don't you move to (fill in the blank country)" is so tired.  Can't you come up with something original?

For example, if I were to use the same, cheap tactic on you with a more original take, I would say something like "if you love extremely concentrated wealth and a screwed middle/lower class so much, why don't you build a time machine and go back to Victorian Era England or the Gilded Age in America?".

Then again, I guess you don't have to since the economic policies you promote are increasingly moving us closer and closer to those time periods anyway.

by Tom Hanc on 12/09/2007 12:28:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
For example, if I were to use the same, cheap tactic on you with a more original take, I would say something like "if you love extremely concentrated wealth and a screwed middle/lower class so much, why don't you build a time machine and go back to Victorian Era England or the Gilded Age in America?".

Here is a little comparison between a robber baron and a member of today's screwed middle class. It's no contest. We're richer than the richest man a hundred years ago.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 10:45:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And auto insurance is a major ripoff. It doesn't cover preventive care like oil changes and tune-ups.

Imagine how expensive auto insurance would be if we had five dollar copays on oil changes.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 03:19:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken and I would both be thrilled to be paying the taxes we were paying seven years ago.  Those were the salad days.

by OneHitKill on 12/09/2007 01:23:42 AM EST

i know its like so much better now...lmao...

by Bungle on 12/09/2007 03:42:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Our service people should be paid the same as Blackwater personnel."

We agree.

Can you imagine the overwhelming quality of the military we would have if this were true?

by jarett on 12/09/2007 05:38:29 PM EST

I don't want to triple average military pay if we're going to continue fighting BS wars.  That's a great way to add a few more trillion in debt (I'm sure you agree).

Also, how would the private market adjust?  Pay "contactors&q uot; $150k on average instead of $100k (the new rate for our military in this hypothetical situation)?   Assuming they'd want to stay in business, I'd think they'd have to.

But yes, it's a vital job and much of our military is surely underpaid.  Still, I question private armies because the bottom line should be defending our country, not selling out to the highest bidder.  Nationalism aside, there's way too much potential danger (as history shows us).

by Tom Hanc on 12/09/2007 05:48:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
stop saying "socialized medicine".  That's a conservative buzz phrase and more importantly, simply incorrect.

There is nothing "socialized" about the provided medical care or medicine itself, rather (for the billionth time now), it's the *insurance payments* that are "socialized".

At least acknowledge that you are purposely using the conservative frame to cloud real discussion on this issue. If you weren't, you would say "socialized insurance", which sounds a lot less scary.

And your generic arguments about how people do just fine providing for their own food, shelter, etc. is well, generic...and just plain bad.  Couldn't you just as easily say that people do just fine on their own putting out fires or protecting themselves (and therefore, why involve the government at all, good bye police and fire departments and goodbye military)?

Worst of all, you pulled a Tom Delay and said "No American is going without food or without health care" which is pure and utter bullshit.

As for Afghanistan, sure, the original mission of going after Osama made perfect sense.  But they fucked that up too and tried to contract his capture to questionable people over there (which is why he got away) and now he's likely relaxed and happy in Pakistan (who isn't trying very hard to do anything about it).

Then there's that pesky resurgent Taliban.

PS---Saying things like "That's because you're a young liberal without a fully developed brain" is just so god damn stupid and childish.  It's embarrassing actually.

by Tom Hanc on 12/09/2007 08:51:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We need to abolish the IRS and stop the government from siezing our property.

by acroso on 12/09/2007 08:58:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And replace it with what?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/09/2007 11:41:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
who will pay for your fence? Oh yea I forgot, in the new Republican world money grows on trees.

by z1p101 on 12/09/2007 11:43:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
At the rate it's being built, it will be done it 100 years anyway, and it will be built in the middle of the desert where it doesn't matter anyway.

by acroso on 12/09/2007 11:57:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

But someone has got to pay for that thing out in the middle of nowhere plus who will pay the border patrol agents who are going to watch it? Better yet, who is going to pay the border patrol agents who are working in high activity areas. Who is going to pay the farm subsidies and for the bridges to nowhere?

Money does not grow on trees regardless of what this new Republican party tells you.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 12:07:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Money really does grow on trees in a way. The Fed just keeps printing it. anyway..

The Federal government siezes 2 and 1/2 trillion dollars from the people every year and the state sieze another 2 trillion or so.

We only need a couple billion for that fence. Even without the IRS, we'd still have plenty of money for the fence. 

by acroso on 12/10/2007 12:10:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
whould pay for it? Just the border states?

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 12:40:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Federal government should build a fence across the entire border. only about have the Federal gov's money is from income tax so there would still be plenty of extra money left over.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 12:44:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Then who would pay for the people who watch the fence? If no one watches it they will get through. And the coast guard to make sure they don't come over by boat and and farm subsidies and interstate roads and a bout a million other things that all states benefit from.

It is a slippery slope you are on.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 12:55:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]

We can still pay for roads. Double fencing means we need less border patrol agents anyway.

 If the fence costs 2 billion, that means building the entire thing costs less than 00.1% of the money the fed siezes in just one year.

 

 

by acroso on 12/10/2007 01:07:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I am just trying to make the point that we can not run a country this large the way we do without somehow paying for it and I was using your fence because it seems like it is the only thing you care about.

Hello McFly, there are a lot more things that we have to pay for than just a fence that will not stop anyone from coming here anyway as long as there are employers here paying them 10 times plus what they would be making at home.

Sorry I brought up the fence. Lets Kill the IRS and cut out every other thing that the US government deals with besides the bare necessities and the fence. We can even replace Air Force One with a bus.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 01:29:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Democrats want to make the IRS larger. We need to just scrap the entire thing like Paul says.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 02:47:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]

says a lot of things and they are not all things that the "right" would agree with.

And please show me where the Democrats want to make the IRS larger. We are either going to have to start cutting spending or start figuring out a way to end all this wasteful spending. The thing I have learned over the last few years is that the new Republican party is the undisputed king of BS spending. 

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 02:54:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I wonder if Paul is right on the Fed. When our government needs money it doesn't just print it and use it. It instead has bankers print more money and the bankers get treasury bonds, and then the tax payers owe the bankers debt.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 03:01:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
is not what we are doing now and I don't see that happening if he gets elected so it is a moot point.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 03:04:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you think that is not what we are doing?

by acroso on 12/10/2007 03:12:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I see what you are saying. OK I get it.

Because we are not a self contained little country here. What the dollar is worth and how much we print matters globally.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 03:24:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Whether private bankers print it or whether the government itself prints it amounts to the same of inflation.

 

It seems like there should be a simple explanation for this system, but I have never found one.. 

by acroso on 12/10/2007 03:29:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The obvious answer is that people should only pay for the things that DIRECTLY effect them.

No reason for me to pay for lazy dead beats who don't want to work hard enough to protect their particular border state, right?

by Tom Hanc on 12/10/2007 12:12:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The basic difference is that you believe that the police shouldn't protect you if you cant afford it.

The basic difference is that you believe that the fire dept should respond to calls based on your ability to pay.

The basic difference is you believe that people have to "earn" a right to quality health care.

The basic difference is that some people actually  give a damn about the waitress down the street that cant even afford the monthly premium on her health care. Or the family that lost their house because they had a catastrophic illness in the family. That premiums are going through the roof and that more and more small businesses cant afford to offer health care , even huge companies like the auto industry are being severely hampered by health care costs.

The basic difference is that you defend  pharmaceutical companies writing bankruptcy laws. Senior Citizens having to leave their country so that they can afford prescription meds. HMOs that deny up to 10 percent of claims as a matter of course regardless of legitimate need. Blue Cross sending people over seas for medical proceedures because they are 1/3 the cost and the care is equal or better than in America.8 thousand dollar a night hospital stays.Dr's refusing to accept any insurance at all and demanding cash.

The basic difference is you cite how horrible "socialized " medicine is and you have nothing to back it up. You have no idea how successful the system is in France or Norway.

 The difference is you are either willfully ignorant or so callous and blinded by ideology that you see nothing wrong with the status quo.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/10/2007 01:29:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]

am I a fan of the single payer health plan or whatever they call it.

But that is the stupidest idea I ever seen. The uninsured people in this country can not afford a plan and they are barely paying taxes in the first place. What are you going to tell them "buy a $5000 dollar a year plan and instead of paying $3000 in federal incom tax you will only have to pay $500"?

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 02:03:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
to the story about the vouchers then. That school voucher plan sucks also and that is coming from someone who has a child in private school.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 02:13:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]

"Would you like to make private school tuition tax deductible? You are already paying taxes for other people's kids to attend public school."

No, absolutely not. Niether does any other parent at the school that I have spoken to. I think if you ask around the people who are most apposed to the private chool tax break/voucher program are the people who curently using the private school system.

Back to subject, tell me about these health care vouchers and what a joke they would be.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 02:44:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think if you ask around the people who are most apposed to the private chool tax break/voucher program are the people who curently using the private school system.

Does this have anything to do with a feared loss of exclusivity at private schools? Do the parents fear that the same rotten kids that they are trying to keep their own children away from would be forced into the private school by government regulation that accompanies the voucher legislation?

by Twba on 12/10/2007 03:00:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Mostly the government regulation that would come along with the deal.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 03:48:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]

around, they will tell you why. People who send there kids to private schools have the largest opposition to the plan. Was the same when I lived elsewhere.

You were saying something about health care vouchers? 

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 03:42:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ban smoking. That would be a good idea.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 02:15:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
less money for the fence.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 02:17:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]

It would mean less money paid out to Medicare and Medicaid for people who knew full well they would get Lung Cancer, emphysema, Chronic Bronchitis, COPD, and especially heart disease.

Banning that shit is a no brainer as Cheney would say. 

It's like letting people drink absinth until they get sick, which they inevitably will, and then having the government sieze people's property to pay for them.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 02:21:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]

to your congressman an the tobacco lobby who supports him. Also the health care field and their lobby who profit greatly from all those sick people and also support him.

Real world sucks, don't it. 

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 02:25:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It would mean less money paid out to Medicare and Medicaid for people who knew full well they would get Lung Cancer, emphysema, Chronic Bronchitis, COPD, and especially heart disease.

But if they live longer, we just have to confiscate more income from workers to pay the retirement benefits of elderly nonsmokers. What if it is cheaper in the long run to let people smoke and die younger?

by Twba on 12/10/2007 02:26:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Don't try and confuse me now.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 02:31:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Maybe lots of McDonalds around so people don't eat five servings of fruits and vegetables will save society money too so that everyone is getting cancers. Makes them die early?

Try to get people hooked on alcohol and drugs too. 

by acroso on 12/10/2007 02:37:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe we should just let people have the freedom to choose how they live their lives. Some will smoke. Some will eat junk food. Some will eat fruits and vegetables. Some will sit on the couch watching the boob tube all night every night. Some will exercise regularly. How much government regulation of our lifestyles do you want?

by Twba on 12/10/2007 02:44:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As long as we have a welfair state, we need stuff like seat belt laws so we don't have to pay for these people when they get hurt. Same goes for cigarettes.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 02:49:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you really want your lifestyle dictated by a cost benefit analysis performed by a welfare state bureaucrat?

by Twba on 12/10/2007 02:56:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]

No, generally not, just the extremes like smoking and seatbelts.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 03:03:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
how much money do we spend to take care of people with gun shot wounds a year? Using your logic I guess we should ban firearms also.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 03:06:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Because we need those guns in case the government messes with us.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 03:10:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]

That 12 gauge will do a heck of a job on an an Abrams tank.

Lucky for us most of them are in Iraq. 

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 03:57:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That 12 gauge will do a heck of a job on an an Abrams tank.

Lucky for us most of them are in Iraq.

Funny you should mention Iraq. I bet a 12 gauge is more than sufficient after a crude improvised explosive device has blown the tracks off the tank.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 11:17:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Americans are too lazy for all that. We have a President and neo con crew who are shredding the constitution aka "that god damn piece of paper" as we speak.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 11:57:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

When  people drive around without seatbelts and crash, the taxpayer is the first person to pay for them.

 That is unacceptable so everyone must wear them.

by acroso on 12/10/2007 03:12:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
When people drive around without seatbelts and crash, the taxpayer is the first person to pay for them. That is unacceptable so everyone must wear them.

If we take your logic to its absurd end, cars must be outlawed since every year their operation by millions of Americans results in thousands of deaths that increase government expenses.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 03:32:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]

ERs aren't going to be refusing to care for people even if the country moved all the way to the right and Milton Friedman was the president.

That means we have to face reality that the insured will have to pay for the uninsured, and we also have to face reality and keep seat belt manditory.

by acroso on 12/11/2007 06:40:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"But University of Michigan researchers Hanns Kuttner and Matthew Rutledge point out that measuring income at the household level groups together those who live under one roof, whether or not they are related. Family income excludes the income of people not related by birth, marriage, or adoption."

I thought Ken was the one with the reading disability. Anyway, I would have to imagine most of those people are the 20 year old who is no longer covered by dad's plan and has a mall job.

Like I said, I am not for this single payer whatever plan but that Bush idea is retarded.

by z1p101 on 12/10/2007 11:51:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I thought Ken was the one with the reading disability. Anyway, I would have to imagine most of those people are the 20 year old who is no longer covered by dad's plan and has a mall job.

The proportion of health care consumed by twenty-somethings is very small. They are not the ones driving prices higher. The last time I looked it up, uncompensated care for the uninsured of all ages accounted for only about three percent of health care spending. Since healthy young adults consume on average very little health care, a low cost high deductible health insurance plan makes perfect sense for them. Those can be had for less than fifty bucks a month in many states. Insuring the uninsured twenty-somethings would be very cheap. Most of them can afford to do it without government assistance.

by Twba on 12/11/2007 01:02:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
People *assume* they are healthy simply *because* they are young and many therefore ignore the need to get a checkup for a number of reasons.

For example, if I'd had insurance earlier, I'd have had my sleep apnea diagnosed YEARS earlier and instead lost who knows how much productivity (due to much less productive sleep) over the years.

I'm sure you don't disagree that preventative care is the best care, and if people simply wait until they show really bad symptoms of a particular problem to go to the doctor, it creates problems (both physical and financial).

by Tom Hanc on 12/11/2007 01:12:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
For example, if I'd had insurance earlier, I'd have had my sleep apnea diagnosed YEARS earlier...

You don't have to have insurance to pay for an inexpensive consultation with a physician about sleep apnea, athlete's foot, gonorrhea or strep throat. There are many doctors who accept cash in lieu of the hassle of filing reams of paperwork with third parties.

You would have been much better off paying cash immediately rather than waiting years for someone else to pay your medical bills.

by Twba on 12/12/2007 05:28:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Because sleep studies are cheap?  It's not just about being diagnosed, that's just the FIRST step.

BFD if I'm diagnosed and can't afford the treatment.

My surgery was over $14,000.  Should I have tried that with no insurance too?  You know a good garage-based doctor that woulda set me up for $5,000?

by Tom Hanc on 12/12/2007 10:28:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just take the 2 houses for example. One house was built to last hundreds of years, the other to last 50 to 75.

Mark Hopkins' mansion lasted fewer than thirty years.

If the owner of the large house had had access to the inventions of the modern day, he would have had them in spades.

And that was the whole point of the essay I linked. Even a wealthy railroad magnate back then had nothing to compare to the things we take for granted today. Today's middle class gets medical care that could only be dreamed about by the richest men a hundred years ago.

If the owner of the large house had a broken leg, he would have had been able to stay in bed and still have money to pay his bills, the guy in the little house, would not.

If the rich guy's leg was badly broken, his life was in danger. There was no penicillin back then. Even wealthy people died from infections that are now easily treated for poor people. The guy in the little house has disability insurance to pay his bills while convalescing from a leg fracture.

It is a ridiculous argument, and only used when people are afraid that their taxes are going to be raised so some poor child can have breakfast at a public school.

The government already has more than enough tax revenue to feed every student. Tax increases are sought for far less charitable reasons.

You DO realize that you're describing upper middle class life, right?  Graphite shafted golf clubs and Weber Grills?

No. You don't have to be upper middle class to afford a Taylor Made graphite shafted titanium driver. A Weber is within reach of the masses.

Or the waitress who can supposedly afford $60 a month for insurance in your mind.  Which reminds me, where do you get your insurance?  From Payless?  $60 a month?  I guess that covers neosporin and some band-aids if you get a cut.

Aetna sells a policy for a single adult for sixty bucks a month. If the waitress is a single mother, her child is probably eligible for SCHIP.

My health insurance is cheap and covers the big stuff: heart attack, stroke. It doesn't pay for band aids until I meet the deductible. After I pay the deductible, the insurance pays 100 percent, including band aids.

My surgery was over $14,000.

My annual deductible is $2,500. The insurance would cover the rest. Isn't that worth sixty bucks a month, two dollars a day? Could you cut back on non-essential goods and scrape together sixty bucks?

by Twba on 12/12/2007 03:16:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The insurance company probably paid a lot less than fourteen grand. The huge bill goes out and then the pencil pushing desk jockeys at the insurance company negotiate a lower final bill that uninsured patients don't get unless they know how the system works and are willing to spend hours negotiating with doctors and hospitals.

Another crazy aspect of our system is the much higher spending per capita than in other countries. I suspect that quite a bit of the expensive health care is not doing very much good, since our life expectancy is about the same as the countries that spend about half as much per capita. However, I've seen it argued that it takes a lot more health care to keep a nation of obese people close to the life expectancy of a slimmer population.

People like to point out that the US has only five percent of the world's population but uses however much energy, oil, tequila or whatever is supposedly being wasted by Americans. With only five percent of the world's population, the US has won more than half of the Nobels in Medicine over the past few decades. That is almost certainly because we spend so much on health care. Cheap countries let us spend big bucks developing a new drug, then when the patent expires, they buy the generic for pennies. We pay too much and they pay too little.

by Twba on 12/12/2007 05:08:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I tried CPAP and it did NOTHING according to my sleep study. 

Not to mention that most people who've tried it will tell you it's incredibly uncomfortable and limits your sleeping positions quite a bit.

by Tom Hanc on 12/12/2007 08:38:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think that this argument greatly takes things out of context by using different variables. If the Californian had the same amount of income in 2007 dollars plus lived in the same era, the Californian would still come out on top. The argument that the middle class has grown is valid comparable to the 19<sup>th</sup> Century. This does not mean that we should still argue within context. What exactly is the writer trying to prove? Is he trying to say that because as technology increases we become richer however, what of the differences between the wealthy and the poor?

In the 19<sup>th</sup> Century there was less of a middle-class. This creates a great difference from the amount that people had to the poor. Persons within the middle class had to be somewhere and they were not wealthy so therefore they were poor. As freedom has increased to be more mobile people have been able to increase their wages and benefits and be able to change class.

This of course is the burgeoning petty-bourgeoisie (which we all find ourselves within or are we workers really semi-proletariat; ther e's another argument).

There have been lots of gains but the US peaked at its international dominance in 1968 or the kids say hegemonic power. The US controlled 75 percent of the world's market. By today, the US controls less than 25 percent. This of course helped cause neo-conservatives like Regan to gain power. This has also helped us to redefine how we view inequality. Some of this is good, some of this is bad.

Maybe there is more mobility and this can be seen as a sign of more wealth potential than the past but this still does not include all. Much poverty still exists when averages look pretty good (Take the life expectancy of a Black male in Yonkers, NY is 35 whereas the life expectancy of a white male is something like 80.)
 

If a chart would be made of my argument there would be two lines. One would be very high and one would be low. All would rise possibly the wealthy one would decrease due to progressive taxes like on income. Then the lower line would split and begin to rise faster towards the decreasing wealthy line. Then lowest line would begin to remain the same while the other two grew. There might even need to be some hash marks drawn between the two lowest lines to indicate more mobility, but regardless the other two lines would be much higher.
 

Of course these lines of mobility and economic wealth could be broken down into various different lines indicating levels of inequality. We could use indicators such as race, sexual preference, gender, etc.


In comparing this to something else is per capita income really something that should be used as an indicator of wealth? For instance, Bhutan recently instituted a new system called GDH (Gross Domestic Happiness) to replace GDP. They indicate that they are very high. I don't think we should do this but watching those shows that people mention that so many of the world lives on less than a dollar is a bit ridiculous. In the U.S. that would be death. In some places, that is not as bad. Earning 12,000 a year in Vietnam is much different from earning 34,000 in Chicago.

by Tom Hanc on 12/12/2007 08:42:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think that this argument greatly takes things out of context by using different variables. If the Californian had the same amount of income in 2007 dollars plus lived in the same era, the Californian would still come out on top.

You argue that I'm taking things out of context. In the very next sentence, you transport a man out of the nineteenth century to the present with your amazing time machine. Talk about taking things out of context.

...what of the differences between the wealthy and the poor?

We should not be concerned with the difference. We should be concerned with improving the lives of the poor. We should not waste our time envying the rich and their silly luxuries.

Let's think of a modern day robber baron, Steve Jobs. Even with extremely high taxation, he would have probably tinkered in the garage and built a computer. However, without the opportunity to amass great wealth, that computer would have never made it out of the garage. Steve Jobs needed wealthy investors to bankroll the startup of Apple Computer. Rich guys are not inherently evil; they are useful tools to provide us with iPods.

[new] Stop referencing the $60 (none / 0)

No. The sixty bucks is a real world example of the fact that there is health insurance within reach of most of us. I paid sixty bucks a month for health insurance when I worked as an independent contractor. It's a fact, Jack.

copays, deductables, medications...again, if you actually USE even your payless quality insurance, it's FAR more expensive than $60 a month...

No. The insurance was only sixty bucks a month. That's what it cost me to avoid being one of the uninsured. You're upset that that insurance policy had a deductible on top of the monthly premium. So, if I had not bought the insurance, you would be upset that I was uninsured and risked putting a heavy burden on others to pay my medical bills if I had had a very expensive medical situation occur. Since I did buy insurance, you're upset that it did not cover the first dollar of medical bills. I was correct when I guessed that you don't want insurance, you want someone else to pay your medical bills.

Also, people like you fought/fight against S-CHIP, so I wouldn't play up the fact that fictional mom might be elligible for it at the same time.

You're not arguing with those people; you're arguing with Twba. Show me where Twba fought against SCHIP. Research it for yourself.

I took an informal poll tody at work (of people at various levels within the organization, not a bunch of entry level types FYI) and the consensus was that your graphite clubs in the closet and gas grill in the backyard were simply NOT common and were considered to be upper middle class perks.   Say what you want about it, you're out of touch with reality.

I rarely see anyone use a driver with a steel shaft, even at cheap public courses. Graphite shafted drivers are the norm.

My Weber did not cost an arm and a leg. A Viking grill costs an arm and a leg. My Weber cost 300 bucks plus tax. I see kids with iPods that cost more. You are more out of touch than I.

And I certainly agree, if you're the type that can afford those things you might be able to actually afford insurance, which probably explains why you have such a warped, and typical libertarian view...

I can afford health insurance. So can most uninsured Americans who are not eligible for government programs like Medicaid and SCHIP.

by Twba on 12/14/2007 09:44:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
copays, deductables, medications...again, if you actually USE even your payless quality insurance, it's FAR more expensive than $60 a month (not to mention all the ways your private insurer is likely to try and deny paying out your Payless claims).

Also, people like you fought/fight against S-CHIP, so I wouldn't play up the fact that fictional mom might be elligible for it at the same time.

PS---I took an informal poll tody at work (of people at various levels within the organization, not a bunch of entry level types FYI) and the consensus was that your graphite clubs in the closet and gas grill in the backyard were simply NOT common and were considered to be *upper middle class* perks.   Say what you want about it, you're out of touch with reality. 

And I certainly agree, if you're the type that can afford those things you might be able to actually afford insurance, which probably explains why you have such a warped, and typical libertarian view (i.e. "I got mine so if you're complaining you just want more of what I got so FUCK YOU").

Hint: there is a world outside of your neighborhood (yes, even beyond the gates that protect the various yards in your area).

by Tom Hanc on 12/12/2007 08:49:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have a Taylor Made titanium driver with the bubble shaft. It works well enough that I never consider upgrading.

by Twba on 12/14/2007 09:51:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]


talking about government assistance? I'm just explaining your goofy stats just like the article that you linked to did. You pulled a classic Ken move so don't blame me.

And again, I'm not for the single payer system but the Bush plan is still retarded.

 

by z1p101 on 12/11/2007 02:49:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The basic difference is that some people actually  give a damn about the waitress down the street that cant even afford the monthly premium on her health care.

She can afford health insurance. When I was an independent contractor, I only paid sixty bucks a month for my health care insurance policy. A waitress can scrape sixty bucks out of her tip jar every month, can't she?

Now go ahead and tell me how that low cost high deductible health insurance doesn't cut it with you. You want her to have more than health insurance. You want the government to pay all her medical bills. Don't you?

by Twba on 12/10/2007 03:02:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why Middle Class Americans Can't Afford Health Insurance:  
"More than one-third of the people in the United States under the age of 65 had no health insurance for some or all of 2006 and 2007, according to Families USA, an advocacy group representing the uninsured. The most recent census data pegs the number of people in the U.S. without insurance in 2006 at 47 million people, but this is an annual snapshot that does not count those who had no health coverage for only part of the year.

Of the 89.6 million people who reported that they lacked health insurance for one or more months in 2006 and 2007 more than 70 percent worked full time.  

"This is a story of working people, working families. This is not a story of people looking for a handout," Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA tells the Los Angeles Times. "These are people who simply can't afford to pay for health coverage with their modest paychecks."

Families USA research shows that the number of episodically uninsured people in the U.S. has gone up by 17 million since 1999 and 2000, with the rising cost of health insurance the biggest factor driving the trend.

Not only health insurance premiums have been rising faster than inflation and wages, but underwriters use every trick in the book to classify reasonably healthy people as high-risk to charge the highest premiums possible for self-insurance, because private medial insurance policies are exempt from HIPPA regulations that forbid assessing premiums based on health status, medical history, genetic information or disability.

So if you're self employed or work for a small business that does not offer coverage, health insurance companies will try to offset the financial hit they are taking from HIPPA by charging you as much as they can based on your health status (rather, the underwriter's determination of your health status) medical history, genetic information (meaning a parent, sibling or child who has any condition attributable to a genetic defect, even if you, yourself, are healthy) or disability.

Health insurers have another nasty trick they like to pull to ensure that they're not paying out more in coverage than they make in premiums: post-claims underwriting."

Here is the link if you want to disagree  .. email the author

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/10/2007 03:31:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The basic difference is you cite how horrible "socialized " medicine is and you have nothing to back it up. You have no idea how successful the system is in France or Norway.

You're either joking or you really don't know what you're talking about. The major problems all the socialized medical systems are having dealing with the rising costs of health care have been well documented in the international press for many years. France and Norway are not exempt from those rising costs.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 11:03:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
YOU are joking right? They WORK

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/10/2007 11:06:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
YOU are joking right? They WORK

Jamming the ALL CAPS KEY doesn't change the fact that all medical systems are dealing with rising costs. The socialized systems cut costs by rationing treatment. It's a government bureaucrat rather than an insurance company desk jockey who tells you: "Your treatment is not approved, go home and die quietly."

by Twba on 12/10/2007 11:27:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Assertions that All (jammed caps keys) health care systems that are not based on the horrific U.S model aren't viable are not based on facts.

Classic Liberals ( libertarian conservatives) Always always always point out the supposed flaws in other countries systems as a reason why we shouldn't change ours. The tactic has no merit however because no one is saying copy anyone else's system. We are saying fix OUR system.

Skewed arguments like 80% of the people that don't have insurance make less than 75 grand a yr aren't even relevant.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/10/2007 12:41:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
...always point out the supposed flaws in other countries systems as a reason why we shouldn't change ours.

I point out the problems to show that those countries haven't found utopia. That is not an argument that our system is perfect and not in need of reform. It's an argument that copying their system won't eliminate all problems and will most likely just exchange one set of problems for another and could even make the situation worse.

The tactic has no merit however because no one is saying copy anyone else's system.

If you're not advocating copying France's or Norway's systems, then why are you using them as examples of systems that work so well?

by Twba on 12/10/2007 12:57:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
they have *elements* of them that work quite well. 

The goal shouldn't be to categorically reject anything that might in any way resemble what you would call a "socialist" system, but rather, a real discussion on how to maximize the pros and minimize the cons of various programs (including those "socialist" programs that terrify you so much).

by Tom Hanc on 12/10/2007 01:15:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you a teenager?  If you are, your constant mocking of my username is appropriate.

If you're an adult, it's just embarrassing and detracts from what are already poor arguments.

by Tom Hanc on 12/10/2007 11:24:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It *doesn't* bother me because it proves how immature and idiotic you are. 

Keep it up!

by Tom Hanc on 12/10/2007 11:44:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

No.  I was there.  Ken didn't do shit to friedbrownball.  There is nothing wrong with the name ihavenobias.  If you change your name, the terrorists have already won.

If anyone else wants to proudly announce that they can't tell the difference between "bias" and "balls" at first glance, by all means, do so.  The child who gets left behind will be you.

by OneHitKill on 12/11/2007 04:20:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
1000 points to the person who can correctly identify the three usernames I have used on this forum.  Hint: friedbrownball isn't one of them.

by OneHitKill on 12/12/2007 12:24:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
After reading posts like this from you. Is it any wonder that people want to be your pal?  I mean I can see why a couple of people would get so pissed that I refer to you as a common  shit stirring troll. Should I expect a mysterious appearance from a nic that looks like mine expressing how I'm "AIDS ravaged " now?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/11/2007 01:25:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
John Stossel is a right wing hack with zero credibility. Your assertion that you have to EARN quality health care has already been addressed.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/10/2007 11:29:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
John Stossel is Twba's identical twin.

With an identical killer 'stache.

by Twba on 12/11/2007 01:05:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tens of thousands of non-productive bums and leeches will move to Wisconsin to take advantage of socialized medicine.

When I worked in the Twin Cities, we joked that Wisconsin, especially Madison, was already full of bums and leeches.

by Twba on 12/11/2007 12:47:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That would be far preferable to allowing you to screw up the health care options of people like Twba and KenTX.

The current situation is screwed up. The US should have changed its tax code decades ago to eliminate the loophole for employer provided health insurance. We should really have portable private insurance like Switzerland, so we don't lose our insurance every time we switch jobs. That's only becoming more important as we transition to a nation of free agents who don't work for the same employer for more than a few years.

by Twba on 12/11/2007 12:49:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gosh wonder why another smoke and mirrors tax cut tied to buying health insurance and not addressing one single thing that is wrong with the system would "meet a chilly reception"? Its  a rhetorical question.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/10/2007 11:10:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Please (none / 0)
stop saying "socialized medicine".  That's a conservative buzz phrase and more importantly, simply incorrect.

There is nothing "socialized" about the provided medical care or medicine itself, rather (for the billionth time now), it's the insurance payments that are "socialized".

Let's say that the government takes over health insurance. The government collects insurance premiums from all citizens and covers all authorized medical expenses over an annual individual deductible of twenty five hundred bucks. Every citizen has an individual insurance policy with an identical twenty five hundred dollar deductible. That is universal health insurance. Is that what you want?

I don't think you want health insurance, socialized or not. I think you want someone else to pay your medical bills.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 03:36:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And your generic arguments about how people do just fine providing for their own food, shelter, etc. is well, generic...and just plain bad.  Couldn't you just as easily say that people do just fine on their own putting out fires or protecting themselves (and therefore, why involve the government at all, good bye police and fire departments and goodbye military)?

Most people do fine most of the time putting out fires and protecting themselves. We call in emergency services when the situation is out of control. I don't need to call the fire department to operate the fire extinguisher in my garage to put out a little fire in my driveway. I'll call when my neighbor's house is engulfed in flames. I don't need health insurance to pay for a routine doctor's office visit. I need insurance to help me pay for the medical equivalent of a house engulfed in flames.

But private firefighting does exist and has been addressed by the LA Times over the past few years.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 11:00:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're way, WAY more extreme than I thought.  I almost wonder if you're joking.

And no, I'm not joking when I say that.

I'm happy to say you're in the extreme minority when you make these type of statements though.


PS---I want "someone else" to pay my medical bills?  What kind of jackass assumption is that? 

And the waitess can "scrape $60 out of her tip jar" every month to buy insurance? 

Doesn't that ignore the obvious fact that there are copays and other payments in addition to monthly payments if you actually USE the insurance?  What about her kid?  Let me guess, your response is "ha, ha, fuck you too little kid.  Too bad your mom is a dumb slut that should've kept her legs closed until she found a higher paying job".

Man, you really are a cold, heartless guy, at least in my opinion.  Yes, I realize my examples were hyperbolic, but I do believe they are ultimately correct in essence. 


You represent that libertarian "I got mine, so FUCK YOU" mentality that disgusts me. 

And like I always say, we should gather up all you libertarians and ship you off to a giant island so you can divide up the land and live in your individual huts like you always wanted.

You'll have your revered "free trade" when you pony up a wild boar for a few wild hens and obviously, you won't have any pesky government regulations or taxes. 

You want have to support all those lazy deadbeats you despise.  And if a shark bites you while you fish, such is life, if you can't sew yourself up it's probably your fault anyway.

I'll send you a card!

by Tom Hanc on 12/10/2007 11:48:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I want "someone else" to pay my medical bills?  What kind of jackass assumption is that?

It fits perfectly with everything else you've written.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 12:13:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba and I would both be thrilled to have someone else paying our medical bills.

by OneHitKill on 12/11/2007 04:22:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba and I would both be thrilled to have someone else paying our medical bills.

So if anyone would like to be OneHitKill's and Twba's sugar daddy, send us a private message.

by Twba on 12/11/2007 01:04:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Medicare runs at about 3% overhead compared to up to 30% for private insurance (and here I thought conservatives cared about 'efficiency'?).

Some of that overhead is spent ensuring that the insurance company isn't being ripped off. How much does Medicare spend on saving money and avoiding rip offs?

Millions of people with respiratory diseases have relied on oxygen equipment, delivered to their homes, to help them breathe. A basic setup, including three years of deliveries of small oxygen tanks, can be bought from pharmacies and other retailers for as little as $3,500, or about $100 a month.

Unless, that is, the buyer is Medicare, the government health care program for older Americans.

Despite enormous buying power, Medicare pays far more. Rather than buy oxygen equipment outright, Medicare rents it for 36 months before patients take ownership, and pays for a variety of services that critics say are often unnecessary.

The total cost to taxpayers and patients is as much as $8,280, or more than double what somebody might spend at a drugstore.

The high expense of oxygen equipment -- which cost Medicare over $1.8 billion last year -- is hardly an anomaly.

Medicare spends billions of dollars each year on products and services that are available at far lower prices from retail pharmacies and online stores, according to an analysis of federal data by The New York Times. The government agency has paid above-market costs for dozens of items, a comparison of Medicare figures with retail catalogs finds.

For example, last year Medicare spent more than $21 million on pumps to help older and disabled men attain erections, paying about $450 for the same device that is available online for as little as $108. Even for a simple walking cane, which can be purchased online for about $11, the government pays $20, according to government data. [NYTimes]

A low overhead is nothing to brag about when you waste money like there's no tomorrow.

by Twba on 12/10/2007 10:29:19 AM EST

"Despite enormous buying power, Medicare pays far more. Rather than buy oxygen equipment outright, Medicare rents it for 36 months before patients take ownership, and pays for a variety of services that critics say are often unnecessary."

It pays far more than it should for things like medicine, right?  And whose fault is that?  Could it be your pals in the Republican party (and "right" thinking democrats) who voted against price negotiations with the drug companies?  Huh, Joe? 

There are a lot of crooked doctors out there that like to feed off the medicare tit with fraudulant or questionable claims.  Why hasn't the current administration done more to police the problem?  Every dollar spent on watching and auditing medicare would pay for itself and then some.  Instead of bitching about "social programs" why don't they just build a strict system of oversight that greatly reduces waste?  It would cost but I'd bet it would pay for itself in no time.  Now that would be money well spent.  I'd support it and I'd bet 90% of taxpayers would also.  The Republicans for once would be heroes that actually saved taxpayers some money without decreasing services.  Yet that never happens.  Why do you think that is?

Maybe some of that $600 billion spent so far on Iraq would have been helpful, don't you think Joe? 

by bfaul on 12/10/2007 12:19:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you're making more than $150,000 a year, fine, keep voting republican if all you care about is low taxes. Otherwise, don't bother.

Don't assume that raising taxes doesn't affect the behavior of workers. Want to chase all the hedge fund managers out of New York? Raise their taxes until it's cheaper for them to set up shop in London or Zurich.

High tax rates can scare away the most productive workers:

As a self-employed software engineer, Thomas Sorensen broadcasts his qualifications to potential employers across Europe and the Middle East. But to the ones in his native Denmark, he is simply unavailable.

Settled in Frankfurt, where he handles computer security for a major Swiss corporation, Sorensen, 34, has no plans to return to the days of paying sky-high Danish taxes. [IHT]

The world has changed since the "good old days" of ultra high income tax rates in the US. Japan and Germany are no longer rebuilding after a devastating war that saw much of their industrial infrastructure destroyed. Raise the tax rates here and the best and brightest will pack up and move on to greener pastures.

Globalization is knitting separate national economies into a single world economy. That is occurring as a result of rising trade and investment flows, greater labor mobility, and rapid transfers of technology.

As economic integration increases, individuals and businesses gain greater freedom to take advantage of foreign economic opportunities. That, in turn, increases the sensitivity of investment and location decisions to taxation. Countries feel pressure to reduce tax rates to avoid driving away their tax bases. International "tax competition" is increasing as capital and labor mobility rises.

Most industrial countries have pursued tax reforms to ensure that their economies remain attractive for investment. The average top personal income tax rate in the major industrial countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has fallen 20 percentage points since 1980. The average top corporate income tax rate has fallen 6 percentage points in just the past six years. [Cato]

by Twba on 12/10/2007 10:34:15 AM EST

when you'd come up with a CATO institute bust out!  Congratulations!

PS---If it wasn't for our questionable trade policies, we wouldn't be so fearful about the scenarios you present.  We need to REWARD people for staying *here*, not for shipping everything overseas.

Also, what do you think would happen if we slashed the taxes for EVERYONE by, say, 10% (income tax).  Hint: The market would adjust quite quickly and employers would downgrade wages across the board for any given position (i.e. the new starting rate for a teacher is now $3,000 less, etc.), because they KNOW that you're willing to, for example, do a job for $50,000 a year after taxes.

Why should employers give you a nice fat pay raise for doing the same job?  Exactly, they wouldn't.  But people don't realize this and cheer for lower and lower lower taxes.

by Tom Hanc on 12/10/2007 11:53:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Also, what do you think would happen if we slashed the taxes for EVERYONE by, say, 10% (income tax).

The first thing we'd be doing is deciding for ourselves how to use that money.

Hint: The market would adjust quite quickly and employers would downgrade wages across the board for any given position (i.e. the new starting rate for a teacher is now $3,000 less, etc.), because they KNOW that you're willing to, for example, do a job for $50,000 a year after taxes.

Employers pay what they have to to get good employees.

We need to REWARD people for staying here, not for shipping everything overseas.

Then how badly should Japan punish Honda for building a new factory in Indiana?

by Twba on 12/10/2007 12:15:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It's actually Toyota that needs to be punished, and not for building a factory:

Karoushi: Worked to Death 

by OneHitKill on 12/11/2007 04:35:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's Japan's problem, not yours

Ihavenobias would like the US to shut its doors to the rest of the world and be self-sufficient. He thinks that we would be economically better off if we only traded within our borders. How's that idea working out for North Korea?

by Twba on 12/11/2007 01:10:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Because that's the same thing as slapping more appropritate tariffs on imports (like other emerging countries are smartly doing, along with happily taking our outsourced jobs) and encouraging companies to stay.

How is that working out for China (with it's 20% car import tariff vs the 2% import tariff in the US) and India (with 97% of it's retail business being locally owned and making up 40% of its economy and banning chain store development)?

by Tom Hanc on 12/11/2007 01:18:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So China is " taking millions of American jobs." according Hunter? Who knew that China is forcing American companies at gun point to out source everything!? Its all those commies fault! It has nothing to do with greedy un American  disloyal American corporations!

Corporations like the one in Texas that was trying to bring in thousands of guest workers . Come to find out they didn't NEED the guest workers they just wanted cheap labor and lied about the need.  So next time you whine about someone burning the flag. Remember the corporatist ( like you) are shitting on it.

Why would we need taxes anyway? They just go to support public programs. We all know they should be marginalized, categorized, and privatized.

 

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/11/2007 01:44:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A more general population friendly approach would be to make our business more competitive by providing universal health care (thus reducing a huge burden on employers but also creating a more healthy, productive population of workers) and slap tariffs on imports like we used to and other emerging countries are doing (while thriving).

Many businesses will simply return to the US, and those that don't will provide us with plenty of revenue that will help fund the universal health care and investments in inftrastructure and alternative energy.

Will we have to pay slightly more for our non-tainted pet food, toys and non-essential goods like the lastest Ipod?  Maybe, but we make out better in the end.  Not to mention that since people will be paid better here (since the market distortion of wages being driven down by global competition) they'll actually be able to *afford* the products they manufacture.

That was exactly why Henry Ford bumped his average employee salary to $5, double what most competitors offered at the time because he knew much of that money would come right back into his pocket.

That's also why minimum wage increases make so much god damn sense, because paycheck to paycheck types will turn right around and spend that money at most of those businesses that are ironically terrified of paying their employees more.

PS---If we don't tax US business than we screw ourselves because tax payers shoulder the burden.

For example, they tear up the roads more (shipping goods), enjoy an enormous tax payer funded pool of publicly educated workers and finally, they pollute our air and water which increases medical costs due to increased rates of respiratory issues (bronchitis, asthma) and more serious issues like cancer and mercury in fish.

BTW, don't try and tell me they pay for roads with tolls and gas taxes, because those things are already not generating enough money for their intended purpose.

by Tom Hanc on 12/11/2007 01:53:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A more general population friendly approach would be to make our business more competitive by providing universal health care (thus reducing a huge burden on employers but also creating a more healthy, productive population of workers)...

That would only reduce the burden on those companies that spend more than the average on health care. The burden would actually increase for those who pay less than the average now. Unless health care spending is slashed, the total burden on employers and employees to fund universal health care would be no less than what they pay now for health care.

...and slap tariffs on imports like we used to and other emerging countries are doing (while thriving).

Tariffs raise the prices of goods that consumers pay. Those earning the least would be hit the hardest since they spend a disproportionately higher share of their paychecks on goods. Raising tariffs is raising taxes on paycheck to paycheck types.

Many businesses will simply return to the US, and those that don't will provide us with plenty of revenue...

The revenue derived from tariffs on imported goods will be paid by American consumers. Businesses just collect the taxes from their customers and pass them along to the government.

...they'll actually be able to afford the products they manufacture.

Those workers who now manufacture goods for export will lose when the inevitable trade war puts them out of work. You would sacrifice the high paying jobs of those building Caterpillar heavy equipment for export just to bring back a few low paying textile mill jobs. How generous of you.

That was exactly why Henry Ford bumped his average employee salary to $5, double what most competitors offered at the time because he knew much of that money would come right back into his pocket.

Henry Ford actually raised the pay of his workers because his annual employee turnover was about that of a Burger King. He raised the pay to retain skilled workers.

PS---If we don't tax US business than we screw ourselves because tax payers shoulder the burden.

Businesses never shoulder the tax burden. Taxes are just part of the overhead for a business. The overhead is passed along to the consumer in the prices of goods and services. The consumer shoulders the entire burden of taxes levied on businesses.

by Twba on 12/11/2007 05:43:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I wanted to give you a response to your awful argument and link from your post yesterd ay (via my friend who saw your post and summed it up perfectly). 

You know, where you tried to say that poor/middle class people today shouldn't complain because they have it just as good or BETTER thant the rich had it 100 years ago?

 

From what I can gather, this guy is saying that all those pansy-assed liberals out there who bitch about how crappy the middle class have it in America need to shut up and recognize that even the most modest middle American has it waaaay better than the fattest of cats did a just hundred years ago.
 
Maybe Mr Coyote is trying to say that our modern middle class is actually doing great when you compare their standard of living (access to comfort recreation, transport) with the harsh conditions that even the richest 19th century business mogul had to deal with (cold floors, bumpy horserides, cholera). 

This increase in the standard of living is composed largely of non-measurable perks, such as dvd’s, toaster ovens and chemotherapy –technologies that are not equated into our metric of wealth-measuring, which the liberal media fails to include this in their commie metrics.

 

So technology has seen phenomenal advancements lately, therefore the rich/poor gap is a hoax and we should quiet down and let Business operate unchecked? Huh?

 

It’s more reasonable to measure the income and assets of the average joe against a CURRENT member of the ultra-rich. And maybe we could take a moment to review the plethora of examples where the ultra-richies of the last century did indeed acquire a vast amount of "wealth at someone else’s expense".

And howsabout comparing average joe’s healthcare, employment, education opportunities, neighborhood, and financial safety net against someone in, say, the Forbes 100 list?

 

On one hand Coyoteman seems to be inferring that the great income divide is a liberal hoodwink and doesn’t exist at all. But on the other, he seems to be scolding regular folks for complaining when the infallible free market happens to run over their toes.

This dude’s a joker. He’s pissed that his taxes are up his business is down, and he’s swinging at the scarecrow William F Buckley planted in his head.

by Tom Hanc on 12/11/2007 06:12:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This increase in the standard of living is composed largely of non-measurable perks, such as dvd's, toaster ovens and chemotherapy -technologies that are not equated into our metric of wealth-measuring, which the liberal media fails to include this in their commie metrics.

That you consider chemotherapy a non-measurable perk says much about your philosophy.

It's more reasonable to measure the income and assets of the average joe against a CURRENT member of the ultra-rich.

No, it's not reasonable at all to compare your kayak against the Queen of England's yacht. It is reasonable to compare our houses, cars, computers, cell phones, air conditioning, Weber grills, graphite shafted titanium golf clubs, microwave ovens, refrigerators, stereos, recorded music collections, shelves heavily laden with hardbound books and all the other paraphernalia of modern middle class life against that of the middle class of the past to see just how rich we all are now.

by Twba on 12/12/2007 05:37:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
that wasn't *my* response but I generally agree with it.

Here's another for you based on that ridiculous blog post comparing to different time periods:

"Just take the 2 houses for example. One house was built to last hundreds of years, the other to last 50 to 75. If the owner of the large house had had access to the inventions of the modern day, he would have had them in spades. If the owner of the large house had a broken leg, he would have had been able to stay in bed and still have money to pay his bills, the guy in the little house, would not.

The guy in the big house had luxury, beyond anything that his contemporaries could dream of, the guy in the little house does not. The guy in the big house would never have to sleep in a cold bed in the middle of winter, it would have been warmed with a bed warmer, whether of the human kind or coals in the pan kind. He would have been covered with the warmest of feather ticks, which sat on silk sheets. The guy in the little house may not be able to pay his heating bill.

It is a ridiculous argument, and only used when people are afraid that their taxes are going to be raised so some poor child can have breakfast at a public school. They are selfish bastards, and deserve to rot in hell. Either that or they are too stupid and should never reproduce."

The rot in hell I don't agree with though, especially since I don't believe in hell.

by Tom Hanc on 12/12/2007 10:15:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
According to you: "It is reasonable to compare our houses, cars, computers, cell phones, air conditioning, Weber grills, graphite shafted titanium golf clubs, microwave ovens, refrigerators, stereos, recorded music collections, shelves heavily laden with hardbound books and all the other paraphernalia of modern middle class life.."

You DO realize that you're describing *upper* middle class life, right?  Graphite shafted golf clubs and Weber Grills?  Give me a fucking break.  That's YOUR relatively comfortable life you're comparing to the robber baron era, NOT the life of most Americans.

At the very least you sure aren't describing many of the millions of families who've lost manufacturing jobs and used a cheap, old fashioned grill with some lighter fluid and maybe throw around a baseball in the yard for entertainment (rather than their country club golf outing).

Or the waitress who can supposedly afford $60 a month for insurance in your mind.  Which reminds me, where do you get your insurance?  From Payless?  $60 a month?  I guess that covers neosporin and some band-aids if you get a cut.

by Tom Hanc on 12/12/2007 10:19:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So what if tariffs raise the price of largely *non-essential* goods if the money goes toward universal health care and investment in infrastructure and alternative energy (for example)?

That should lower our tax burden and generate growth of business in general.

You need to stop viewing everything in this narrow, libertarian theoretical vacuum.

Also, the cost of goods is largely determined by demand, NOT labor and not taxes.  It's bullshit to say that if we increase taxes by X amount that the cost of a good will also increase by that amount.

The same argument fails in reverse.  Cheap labor does NOT always equate to cheap goods.  Look at Nike shipping their labor to third world countries and then look at the price of their shoes.  They actually INCREASED, as did their profits, which is very, very common.

Business is too smart to price out consumers by increasing the cost of goods too much, and we both know it.  Maybe slashing CEO pay from 2 billion a year to 2 million on the other hand...(as if they won't find a "creative and productive" CEO for 2 fucking million dollars...another absurd conservative theory).

by Tom Hanc on 12/11/2007 06:18:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So what if tariffs raise the price of largely non-essential goods...

I'm sure it is quite important to a single mother working as a waitress who has to scrape more out of her tip jar to buy a pair of shoes for her daughter.

Also, the cost of goods is largely determined by demand, NOT labor and not taxes.  It's bullshit to say that if we increase taxes by X amount that the cost of a good will also increase by that amount.

So, if the tariff on imported shoes is raised by X amount, Payless Shoes won't increase the retail price by that amount?

Cheap labor does NOT always equate to cheap goods.  Look at Nike shipping their labor to third world countries and then look at the price of their shoes.  They actually INCREASED, as did their profits, which is very, very common.

That you use Nike as an example is indicative of your utterly clueless view of how the world works. Cheap labor and raw materials do equate to cheap shoes. Payless Shoes is proof of that. Nike shoes are a status symbol. When you buy a pair of Nikes, you are paying thirty bucks for the shoes and another seventy bucks to avoid the great humiliation of being seen in Payless' cheap athletic shoes.

by Twba on 12/12/2007 06:12:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
People do spend about 21% less on average on clothing than they did 30 years ago.

But you're the same bastard that tries to call me out for denying someone *slightly cheaper* shoes yet you'd deny her and her family affordable health care.

Something tells me the mom in this situation would gladly buy some thriftstore shoes (cheaper than payless even with slave labor) if it meant *healthy* kids with affordable surgeries, medications and other treaments.


And no, it's NOT necessarily true that Payless will increase the cost of a particular good X amount if a tariff is raised X amount. 

Like I said, *demand* sets the price.  They'd be careful not to raise the price too much because they'd rather take a small hit on their profit margin rather than a big one from waitress moms avoiding their store altogether.

by Tom Hanc on 12/12/2007 10:25:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How is that working out for China... and India...

It's not working out well at all. China's per capita GDP is one-tenth that of the US. India's is even lower. China's stock market bubble could burst any day now. India is a mere shadow of what it could be if it had not taken a disastrous detour down the socialist path. 300 million Chinese live on less than a dollar a day. India has enclaves of educated middle class workers surrounded by abject third world poverty.

by Twba on 12/11/2007 05:34:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
relative to the US *yet*, which you well know but pretend not to.  The point is how far they've come and how far they continue to go.

Even better, it was YOU last month that argued about how well China was doing, ironically enough.

PS---Speaking of things waiting to burst, it sure looks like we're seeing more and more of that here in the US, doesn't it?  Housing, the value of the dollar, etc., and that's just the start.

by Tom Hanc on 12/11/2007 06:04:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That same guy that wrote about the labor shortage also wrote this last month:

"All this appeared to reflect the reality that Denmark, though faced with long-term challenges to its high-tax welfare state, is doing quite well economically.
Unemployment is at a 30-year low, and the economy grew strongly last year, giving voters little reason to radically change course."


(Links actings funny so)
http://www.iht.com/articles /2007/11/14/europe/denmark. php

by Tom Hanc on 12/10/2007 12:08:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow, three quick points and all these posts. Someone struck a chord I guess. Nice work ihavenofriedbrownball.

by z1p101 on 12/13/2007 10:57:26 PM EST

 Display: