PDA

View Full Version : Economics Republican leaders walk out of budget talks


mlyonsd
06-23-2011, 02:22 PM
Obama Pressed to 'Resolve' Tax Hike Dispute as Budget Talks Collapse


Published June 23, 2011
| FoxNews.com

Bipartisan budget talks led by Vice President Biden collapsed Thursday after the top two Republican negotiators pulled out, complaining Democrats won't drop their push for tax increases and calling on the president to get involved.

The decision by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., effectively sidelines the talks, which had accelerated in recent weeks as lawmakers tried to strike a budget deal that would pave the way for Congress to approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The clock is ticking, with the Treasury Department having set Aug. 2 as the deadline to lift the debt cap.

Republicans want to extract major budget cuts before accepting a debt ceiling increase, but do not want tax hikes included as part of the equation. In a joint statement from Kyl and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the senators claimed the White House and Democrats "are insisting on job-killing tax hikes and new spending," claiming such a plan would fail in Congress. Republicans specifically are concerned about a push to let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for top earners.

"President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes, or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit. He can't have both. But we need to hear from him," they said.

Cantor likewise cited his concern about taxes in announcing he would not be attending talks scheduled for Thursday afternoon.

"Each side came into these talks with certain orders, and as it stands the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases. There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don't believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation," he said. "Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue. Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today's meeting."

Democrats chided the GOP leaders for exiting the discussion.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that Democrats want to strip "subsidies" for the biggest oil companies and for companies that send jobs overseas, but added: "I don't know that that's a reason to walk away from the table when we're trying to find a balanced approach."
Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., accused Republicans of "running away from the mess they created."

"Is this the adult moment they promised the American people in November?" he said.

Cantor and Kyl attempted to kick the talks up to the presidential level, calling on Obama to "speak clearly and resolve the tax issue."

There may have been some coordinated pressure to engage the president on the debate, as McConnell took to the Senate floor at the same time to lambaste Obama for not doing enough to push the talks forward.

"He's in charge. I think most Americans think it's about time he starts acting like it. It's not enough for the president to step in front of a microphone every once in a while and say a few words that someone hands him to say about jobs and the economy," McConnell said. "He needs to lead."

Republican aides expressed hope that the president would get more involved, and concern that Democrats in the talks seem "committed" to raising taxes. One senior GOP leadership aide said the meeting held Wednesday was "unserious" with "no movement on spending."
"It was ridiculous," the aide said.

House Speaker John Boehner reiterated those concerns in a briefing with reporters late Thursday morning. "Tax hikes are off the table," he said. "First off, raising taxes is going to destroy jobs. If you raise taxes on people we need to grow the economy and hire workers, guess what? They're not going to do it."

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, testifying elsewhere on Capitol Hill, lent some weight to that concern. Questioned on whether the debate over tax hikes was keeping capital on the sidelines, Elmendorf said, "Uncertainty about federal policy is diminishing household and business spending."

Cantor, in his written statement, offered a glimmer of hope. He applauded Biden for his work "in bringing us this far."

"I believe that we have identified trillions in spending cuts, and to date, we have established a blueprint that could institute the fiscal reforms needed to start getting our fiscal house in order," Cantor said.

But his pullout from the talks signals how difficult any potential deal -- particularly one including tax hikes -- could be to sell to the majority GOP House caucus. On the Republican end, Cantor's decision would likely punt the issue up to Boehner.

One senior House Democratic aide noted this likelihood.

"He just threw Boehner under the bus," the aide told Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/23/house-gop-leader-cantor-pulls-out-budget-talks/

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2011, 02:25 PM
Cut spending...leave tax rates alone. That means these pet projects have to go out the window.

vailpass
06-23-2011, 02:31 PM
Cut spending...leave tax rates alone. That means these pet projects have to go out the window.

Yep. Its a good first step.

Simplex3
06-23-2011, 02:51 PM
If these idiots can't come to an agreement I say the states convene, pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that forces the feds to cut 5% across the board to every government program every month until the budget is balanced. Then if Social Security or defense is light on money they can figure out which pet projects they want to kill to get the money or they can raise taxes and deal with the fallout of whichever choice they make.

KC native
06-23-2011, 02:59 PM
Without raising taxes, We can't address our debt. Fucking republicans acting like 2 year olds again.

KC native
06-23-2011, 02:59 PM
pic is relevant
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/bush-cuts.png

Bewbies
06-23-2011, 03:03 PM
Without raising taxes, We can't address our debt. ****ing republicans acting like 2 year olds again.

LMAO

I'm sorry Ugly Duck and Frankie.

Ebolapox
06-23-2011, 03:04 PM
WE INHERITED THIS MESS HERP DERP

Radar Chief
06-23-2011, 03:16 PM
Without raising taxes, We can't address our debt. ****ing republicans acting like 2 year olds again.

It absolutely amazes me that anyone with a shred of common sense could state that what we need to do is send this government more of what they’ve proven they can’t handle, i.e. our tax dollars. Which is also why this is kind of expected from you.

Simplex3
06-23-2011, 03:19 PM
Without raising taxes, We can't address our debt. ****ing republicans acting like 2 year olds again.

If we taxed everyone at 100% we couldn't keep spending like we are, so why bother.

Not only that but you're asking the entire country to pay for the sins of the boomers, but let the boomers off Scot free by keeping Social Security intact.

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 03:19 PM
Without raising taxes, We can't address our debt. ****ing republicans acting like 2 year olds again.

Jane, you ignorant slut.

http://www.iaza.com/work/110624C/iaza15559142479000.gif

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 03:25 PM
It absolutely amazes me that anyone with a shred of common sense could state that what we need to do is send this government more of what they’ve proven they can’t handle, i.e. our tax dollars. Which is also why this is kind of expected from you.

The guy is a stooge.

The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009(controlled by the Democrats).

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” -Scumbag Harry Reid.

SNR
06-23-2011, 03:26 PM
If we taxed everyone at 100% we couldn't keep spending like we are, so why bother.

Not only that but you're asking the entire country to pay for the sins of the boomers, but let the boomers off Scot free by keeping Social Security intact.Paging RedNeckRaider...... RedNeckRaider, you have a call on line 2...

KC native
06-23-2011, 03:37 PM
If we taxed everyone at 100% we couldn't keep spending like we are, so why bother.

Not only that but you're asking the entire country to pay for the sins of the boomers, but let the boomers off Scot free by keeping Social Security intact.

Well, we can either bitch and moan about how the boomers fucked up or we can actually start to address our problems.

Spending cuts and tax increases are BOTH necessary if we want to improve our financial standing.

Also, altering Social Security doesn't fuck boomers. It fucks everyone else who has paid in and won't receive the benefits they've paid for. FTR, I endorse an increase in the retirement age, lifting of the cap on SS tax, and possibly a means test. The first two solutions make SS solvent into the foreseeable future.

KC native
06-23-2011, 03:38 PM
It absolutely amazes me that anyone with a shred of common sense could state that what we need to do is send this government more of what they’ve proven they can’t handle, i.e. our tax dollars. Which is also why this is kind of expected from you.

Spending cuts in combination with tax increases are needed. DOing nothing doesn't fix the problem.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2011, 03:39 PM
Spending cuts and tax increases are BOTH necessary if we want to improve our financial standing.

Yeah, well you ain't getting that. LMAO

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 03:44 PM
Spending cuts and tax increases are BOTH necessary if we want to improve our financial standing.


Idiot, tax revenues are at their highest levels.

vailpass
06-23-2011, 03:46 PM
Well, we can either bitch and moan about how the boomers ****ed up or we can actually start to address our problems.

Spending cuts and tax increases are BOTH necessary if we want to improve our financial standing.

Also, altering Social Security doesn't **** boomers. It ****s everyone else who has paid in and won't receive the benefits they've paid for. FTR, I endorse an increase in the retirement age, lifting of the cap on SS tax, and possibly a means test. The first two solutions make SS solvent into the foreseeable future.

Who cares what you endorse? You work at a check cashing store and think you are qualified to dispense advice?

Cave Johnson
06-23-2011, 03:50 PM
Ball taken home, apparently.

Stewie
06-23-2011, 03:51 PM
Idiot, tax revenues are at their highest levels.

Don't listen to KC Native. In fact, everything he posts here has been proven wrong for so long that I just laugh and laugh.

Simplex3
06-23-2011, 03:51 PM
Well, we can either bitch and moan about how the boomers ****ed up or we can actually start to address our problems.

Spending cuts and tax increases are BOTH necessary if we want to improve our financial standing.

Get a Constitutional amendment requiring the feds to balance the budget and we can talk about me pitching in more in taxes. Unless and until that happens that's not something I'm willing to do.

Also, altering Social Security doesn't **** boomers. It ****s everyone else who has paid in and won't receive the benefits they've paid for. FTR, I endorse an increase in the retirement age, lifting of the cap on SS tax, and possibly a means test. The first two solutions make SS solvent into the foreseeable future.

If we're all pitching in then we ALL need to pitch in. Grandma might have to get the off brand cat food.

Donger
06-23-2011, 03:52 PM
Without raising taxes, We can't address our debt. ****ing republicans acting like 2 year olds again.

Of course we can. We can't address it as fast as we could with decreased spending AND a tax increase (as long as those increased taxes went to actually pay down the debt, which they wouldn't), but to state that just decreasing spending doesn't address our debt is, well, stupid and inaccurate.

You are aware that the debt is just the total amount of all the annual deficits, right?

Anyway, without applying whatever funds they come up with to actually paying down the "principal" of what we owe, the debt will never go down. I'd like to see how much they intend to pay it down per year. Just balancing the budget (i.e., not running any more deficits) doesn't pay down the debt.

mnchiefsguy
06-23-2011, 03:53 PM
Ultimately it may take both raising taxes and spending cuts to get the country financially solvent...however, the spending cuts must come first, and must be significant, before any taxes are raised.

Cave Johnson
06-23-2011, 03:54 PM
Idiot, tax revenues are at their highest levels.

In absolute terms, sure. But that's like saying Pirates 3 grossed more than Raiders.

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 03:54 PM
http://www.iaza.com/work/110624C/iaza15559142479000.gif

Donger
06-23-2011, 04:07 PM
Heck, I can't even find any data on how much we pay down the debt each year. $250 billion in interest payments alone, but nothing on actually paying down the debt itself.

Direckshun
06-23-2011, 04:09 PM
Any deal to address the deficit is going to have to be part revenue increase, and part spending reduction.

To pretend you can solve a 14T debt through tax cuts is silly.

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 04:10 PM
In absolute terms, sure.

Exactly.

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 04:12 PM
Any deal to address the deficit is going to have to be part revenue increase, and part spending reduction.


Why?

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2011, 04:12 PM
Government CAN'T raise taxes. They can only raise tax rates in the hope that they might collect more taxes. And it's nothing but a hope.

Stewie
06-23-2011, 04:13 PM
Any deal to address the deficit is going to have to be part revenue increase, and part spending reduction.

To pretend you can solve a 14T debt through tax cuts is silly.

It can't be solved at all. This administration is trying like hell to get inflation going, but they're so fucking stupid their own phony tricks are a brick wall to what they want done.

Direckshun
06-23-2011, 04:17 PM
It can't be solved at all. This administration is trying like hell to get inflation going, but they're so ****ing stupid their own phony tricks are a brick wall to what they want done.

You lost me, but good show.

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 04:23 PM
You lost me, but good show.

Why don't you just come out and be honest about it, you want to punish successful people because you are not successful, you never will be successful, and you resigned yourself to be a bitter loser who adheres to a deranged, failed communist ideology.

Stewie
06-23-2011, 04:23 PM
You lost me, but good show.

I know you're lost. Sorry about that.

Donger
06-23-2011, 04:31 PM
Any deal to address the deficit is going to have to be part revenue increase, and part spending reduction.

To pretend you can solve a 14T debt through tax cuts is silly.

And if that revenue increase isn't applied to the debt, it's just a tax increase. We CAN reduce the deficit and pay down the debt with decreased spending while keeping tax revenue where it is.

For some reason, liberals don't want to.

petegz28
06-23-2011, 04:38 PM
Once again the Dems want to focus on the amount people pay vs. the amount of people paying.

petegz28
06-23-2011, 04:39 PM
Any deal to address the deficit is going to have to be part revenue increase, and part spending reduction.

To pretend you can solve a 14T debt through tax cuts is silly.

then why were the Dems yesterday saying they want to cut taxes but increase spending?

Whoarethechefs
06-23-2011, 04:50 PM
My Ideas to balance budget - Will never get done, but this would be a great start.

1. End Bush tax cuts
2. End earned income tax credits
3. Increase or get rid of altogether the FICA cap
4. We have to go Single Payer, no amount of tax increases or budget cuts will be able to keep up with health care costs unless something is done about it.
5. End failed war on drugs - legalize all and let Darwin go to work.

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 06:33 PM
Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, now insist that any deal to raise the debt ceiling must include more spending on roads and "green" energy and still more gimmicky, temporary tax cuts.

ROFL

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/576306/201106231838/Voting-Present-On-Debt-Crisis.htm

FD
06-23-2011, 07:17 PM
It seems like what happened was Cantor through Boehner under the bus here, it will be interesting to see how Boehner reacts.

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 07:22 PM
It seems like what happened was Cantor through Boehner under the bus here, it will be interesting to see how Boehner reacts.

I'm thinking it's the other way around---

Boehner is going to throw everybody under the bus.

I wonder what his quid pro quo end of the deal is he and Obuttocks hashed out on the golf course. :hmmm:

Bewbies
06-23-2011, 09:03 PM
My Ideas to balance budget - Will never get done, but this would be a great start.

1. End Bush tax cuts
2. End earned income tax credits
3. Increase or get rid of altogether the FICA cap
4. We have to go Single Payer, no amount of tax increases or budget cuts will be able to keep up with health care costs unless something is done about it.
5. End failed war on drugs - legalize all and let Darwin go to work.

Single payer is a surefire path to bankruptcy every single time.

Simplex3
06-23-2011, 09:05 PM
Single payer is a surefire path to bankruptcy every single time.

Unless the single payer is the actual consumer.

ChiTown
06-23-2011, 09:36 PM
:facepalm:Without raising taxes, We can't address our debt. ****ing republicans acting like 2 year olds again.

:facepalm:

BucEyedPea
06-23-2011, 09:37 PM
It seems like what happened was Cantor through Boehner under the bus here, it will be interesting to see how Boehner reacts.

It's "threw." I'm glad because Boehner belongs under a bus. :clap:

FD
06-23-2011, 10:07 PM
To elaborate, Cantor is pushing the buck to Boehner because they have gotten to the point in negotiations where they will spell out the tax increases that will inevitably be part of the deal. Cantor wants Boehner to be the one who takes the heat for this. Ultimately, tax increases have to be part of the deal, there is simply no credible plan to deal with our debt problems that doesn't involve them. I appreciate what the GOP has done so far, by posturing that tax increases are off the table they have gotten commitments for trillions of dollars in spending cuts that might not have materialized otherwise, but ultimately a deal will have to be made.

Bewbies
06-23-2011, 10:10 PM
Unless the single payer is the actual consumer.

I'd like to see a system in place more like car insurance personally, but then again I'm someone who thinks people should be responsible for themselves...

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2011, 10:19 PM
I'd like to see a system in place more like car insurance personally, but then again I'm someone who thinks people should be responsible for themselves...

Clearly you were born in the wrong era.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2011, 05:52 AM
To elaborate, Cantor is pushing the buck to Boehner because they have gotten to the point in negotiations where they will spell out the tax increases that will inevitably be part of the deal. Cantor wants Boehner to be the one who takes the heat for this. Ultimately, tax increases have to be part of the deal, there is simply no credible plan to deal with our debt problems that doesn't involve them. I appreciate what the GOP has done so far, by posturing that tax increases are off the table they have gotten commitments for trillions of dollars in spending cuts that might not have materialized otherwise, but ultimately a deal will have to be made.

Let's assume raising taxes increases revenue (even though it probably won't).
Is our corrupt government going to use that "extra" money to pay down the debt?

mlyonsd
06-24-2011, 07:18 AM
Let's assume raising taxes increases revenue (even though it probably won't).
Is our corrupt government going to use that "extra" money to pay down the debt?

I'd go for a debt reduction tax. One that could only be used to pay down the debt. Flat rate across the board. No exceptions.

oldandslow
06-24-2011, 07:25 AM
I'd go for a debt reduction tax. One that could only be used to pay down the debt. Flat rate across the board. No exceptions.

+1

This will be blasphemy to my liberal collegues, but I also want it to be a consumer and/or value added tax.

mlyonsd
06-24-2011, 07:36 AM
+1

This will be blasphemy to my liberal collegues, but I also want it to be a consumer and/or value added tax.I could go for that.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2011, 07:40 AM
I'd go for a debt reduction tax. One that could only be used to pay down the debt. Flat rate across the board. No exceptions.

Sounds good but you know what will inevitably happen, just like SSI, Medicare and Medicaid payroll deductions, the money will get looted and the taxpayer will have that much less money in his or her paycheck.

oldandslow
06-24-2011, 07:57 AM
Sounds good but you know what will inevitably happen, just like SSI, Medicare and Medicaid payroll deductions, the money will get looted and the taxpayer will have that much less money in his or her paycheck.

Not if you make it a consumer or VAT. You can choose to buy an item or save your money...You wanna buy a Mercedes, pay the tax. You don't, save your money.

AndChiefs
06-24-2011, 08:05 AM
Not if you make it a consumer or VAT. You can choose to buy an item or save your money...You wanna buy a Mercedes, pay the tax. You don't, save your money.

I don't want to open the VAT bag of worms...will just give the government another way to waste money.

BucEyedPea
06-24-2011, 08:37 AM
Let's assume raising taxes increases revenue (even though it probably won't).
Is our corrupt government going to use that "extra" money to pay down the debt?

NO. Because each tax increase has been followed by more spending. Always has. Always will. It merely enables the govt to more of what is not working.

Cave Johnson
06-24-2011, 09:03 AM
Idiot, tax revenues are at their highest levels.

You'd be wrong, shitty. As one would expect, 2007 was the high water mark.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Cave Johnson
06-24-2011, 09:07 AM
Unless the single payer is the actual consumer.

Because health care consumers have so much power, right. Shopping around for the most economical cancer treatment and shit.

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2011, 09:49 AM
Without raising taxes, We can't address our debt. ****ing republicans acting like 2 year olds again.

We can cut spending on defense and healthcare instead of rasing taxes on anyone.

talastan
06-24-2011, 09:49 AM
My Ideas to balance budget - Will never get done, but this would be a great start.

1. End Bush tax cuts
2. End earned income tax credits
3. Increase or get rid of altogether the FICA cap
4. We have to go Single Payer, no amount of tax increases or budget cuts will be able to keep up with health care costs unless something is done about it.
5. End failed war on drugs - legalize all and let Darwin go to work.

These last two points are counter productive. The Government Healthcare won't allow Darwin to go to work. The Health industry wouldn't make any money then. Vise Versa the Darwin award winners would drive up the costs of Government Healthcare. Single payer doesn't work on a scale as large as would be needed for our country.

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2011, 09:52 AM
Let's assume raising taxes increases revenue (even though it probably won't).
Is our corrupt government going to use that "extra" money to pay down the debt?


The answer is a big fat NO!.

Only once have we actually paid off the national debt during the Jackson Administration in the 1830's and he let the National Bank Charter expire to do it...and it sure as hell wasn't congress that did it.

talastan
06-24-2011, 09:53 AM
Because health care consumers have so much power, right. Shopping around for the most economical cancer treatment and shit.

Allow interstate sales in Healthcare. Also HSA's allow the consumer to shop around. You just have to willing to put in the research to find the best value for the best price.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2011, 09:55 AM
This is exactly what our criminal politicians have done to our country:

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

Cave Johnson
06-24-2011, 10:25 AM
Allow interstate sales in Healthcare. Also HSA's allow the consumer to shop around. <b>You just have to willing to put in the research to find the best value for the best price.</b>

What do you think this is, a new car purchase, where you go to Edmunds to see what the dealer paid.

In many, including the most expensive, cases (e.g., cancer, my detached retina), treatment isn't optional. The medical providers have the leverage in the relationship.

Bewbies
06-24-2011, 11:26 AM
What do you think this is, a new car purchase, where you go to Edmunds to see what the dealer paid.

In many, including the most expensive, cases (e.g., cancer, my detached retina), treatment isn't optional. The medical providers have the leverage in the relationship.

It's too bad there's only one doctor in your town.

Bewbies
06-24-2011, 11:26 AM
Clearly you were born in the wrong era.

Yes, I was born during the Carter admin. LMAO

BucEyedPea
06-24-2011, 12:03 PM
Because health care consumers have so much power, right. Shopping around for the most economical cancer treatment and shit.

Well they do in plastic surgery who's rates have continually dropped over time. That's because there is a free market for that. Perhaps, you should be arguing for a true free market.

Cave Johnson
06-24-2011, 12:09 PM
Well they do in plastic surgery who's rates have continually dropped over time. That's because there is a free market for that. Perhaps, you should be arguing for a true free market.

Sure, but plastic surgery is elective. Elastic vs. inelastic goods, and all that jazz.

go bowe
06-24-2011, 12:12 PM
Sure, but plastic surgery is elective. Elastic vs. inelastic goods, and all that jazz.

aha! you communist statist...

austrian economics has no elastic or inelastic goods...

hell, austrian economics has no elastic bands...

BucEyedPea
06-24-2011, 02:43 PM
Sure, but plastic surgery is elective. Elastic vs. inelastic goods, and all that jazz.

Baloney. The same is true with any technology—it becomes less expensive over time. It's already happened in healthcare to some degree with procedures that once required hospitalization now being done on an outpatient basis. But the main reason healthcare has not been as elastic is due to govt intervention in hc markets in an attempt to make it cheaper and/or more available. Like mandates, bureaucratic red tape ( courtesy of govt involvement). Stop treating it like a right and you'll get more elasticity. You'll also open up competition for alternatives including in insurance options since HMO's did not arise from the free-market but from govt mandates. No one hears about how the current system was imposed from Federal law. Yet the same is argued for as a solution.

Cave Johnson
06-24-2011, 02:50 PM
The point that Frakt and Carroll make is well-taken. The fact that emergency room care is guaranteed by the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act does not mean that everyone has access to effective healthcare. But 1986 does seem to me to be the real moment when America socialized medicine - under Reagan! In a real Ron-Paul style free market in healthcare, where everyone has to buy their own insurance or not and deal with the consequences, chronically sick poor people must, in principle, be left, at some point, to suffer and die alone or bankrupted. Something in the American psyche does not want that to be America. Whatever part of the psyche that is, it sure isn't inspired by Ayn Rand. It wants to put a floor under human suffering and sickness, to have a minimal baseline for care. We don't want to see people dying in the streets.

But once you have done that, you have socialized medicine.

You have socialized medicine because most of the people visiting the emergency room will not have sufficient coverage and will be unable to pay. So the costs are shifted to everyone else. Worse, the costs of treatment at this level of emergency are far higher than pre-emptive care. And so we are all in this together already. The question is: does it make any sense to construct a socialized system in this absurdly inefficient way that may actually cost much more and provide much less healthcare than a more coherent system?

This is one reason why America's relatively free market in healthcare has become so costly and inefficient. I mean, here's a question worth asking. In what field of human activity is a free market system consistently far less efficient than a socialized one? Why are those decadent Europeans actually more efficient in providing healthcare than we are?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/emergency-care-isnt-heathcare-ctd.html

BucEyedPea
06-24-2011, 02:56 PM
This is one reason why America's relatively free market in healthcare has become so costly and inefficient. I mean, here's a question worth asking. In what field of human activity is a free market system consistently far less efficient than a socialized one? Why are those decadent Europeans actually more efficient in providing healthcare than we are?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/emergency-care-isnt-heathcare-ctd.html

We do not have a "relatively free market in healthcare." This is disinformation. It's been largely socialized in patchwork fashion for nearly 40 years.

Progressive's Motto:

"Fix it until it's broke."

BucEyedPea
06-24-2011, 03:08 PM
Explain to me Pittsie, why does HC costs and insurance premiums rise when the govt passes a law on healthcare? Then the number of uninsured go up. That's elasticity right there.

We have disconnected supply from demand by taking the price to be paid directly by the customer out of the equation. There is no control over the cost of this system by the hc consumers.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 06:00 AM
In preparing his February budget, Obama totally ignored the recommendations of his own fiscal commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. Others noticed: The Senate rejected the initial budget by a vote of 97-0.

Then, speaking in April at George Washington University, Obama said he was presenting a new budget with $4 trillion in long-term spending cuts. But there were no specifics.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf was asked last week if the CBO had prepared estimates of this budget. "We don't estimate speeches," Elmendorf, a Democrat, explained. "We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis."

-----

Now the Joint Economic Committee has chronicled how weak it is compared to others since World War II. In a report entitled "Unchartered Depths," the Committee finds that "employment is now 5.0% below what it was at the start of the recession, 38 months ago.

-----

The bank that acts as the central bank to the world’s central bankers launched a scathing attack on U.S. monetary and fiscal policy, warning that unless interest rates are raised and the U.S. deficit is addressed, the world economy risks rapid inflation and financial instability.

---------

A new report shows that real GDP has risen 0.8% over the 13 quarters since the recession began, compared to an average increase of 9.9% in past recoveries. (Team Obama promised that US GDP growth would be 4.0% in 2011. The Fed announced last week that they see GDP at 2.7% to 2.9% this year. The Wall Street Journal reported: When a new Bloomberg poll finds that 44% of Americans feel that the economy is "worse than when Obama was inaugurated" (versus only 34% who say it is "better"), you know the economic recovery is pretty anemic....

HonestChieffan
06-27-2011, 07:54 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PmJvspf_2q0/TggmyPCjnaI/AAAAAAABE3w/n0szkF-FAk4/s400/Ceiling%2BWhacks.jpg

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 08:23 AM
Nancy had plenty of chances over the past 800 days.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 10:03 AM
Idiot, tax revenues are at their highest levels.


Err...not true.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 10:06 AM
The answer is a big fat NO!.


I do think tax hikes are necessary to reduce the level of red in our budget, but I am concerned that tax hikes never get the "right" result (less debt), but instead leads to more spending.

Garcia Bronco
06-27-2011, 10:40 AM
Explain to me Pittsie, why does HC costs and insurance premiums rise when the govt passes a law on healthcare? Then the number of uninsured go up. That's elasticity right there.

We have disconnected supply from demand by taking the price to be paid directly by the customer out of the equation. There is no control over the cost of this system by the hc consumers.


Exactly...because governemnt has effectively fixed the market.

Garcia Bronco
06-27-2011, 10:41 AM
I do think tax hikes are necessary to reduce the level of red in our budget, but I am concerned that tax hikes never get the "right" result (less debt), but instead leads to more spending.

Which is ultmiately why I never support tax increases. It's not that I think taxes are morally wrong...far from it...it's just I don't trust congress to actually do what the law says.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 10:44 AM
Which is ultmiately why I never support tax increases. It's not that I think taxes are morally wrong...far from it...it's just I don't trust congress to actually do what the law says.

Well, there's no law regarding balancing the budget.

But we need to fix this deficit, and I do think that requires some tax increases. I'm fine with a combination package of widespread cuts and tax hikes, but it must be both. We're not going to fix our problems just by raising taxes. Not even remotely close.

ClevelandBronco
06-27-2011, 10:52 AM
I do think tax hikes are necessary to reduce the level of red in our budget, but I am concerned that tax hikes never get the "right" result (less debt), but instead leads to more spending.

Across the board income tax rate increases, IMO, would only further weaken a middle class that is already withering under siege. The troubled housing market, unemployment and under-employment, investment stagnation, and inflation are already hammering these people unmercifully.

The federal income tax as it is currently structured targets people who get their money through jobs. I just can't figure out a way to justify increasing income tax rates under this current system.

I'm afraid that it's becoming increasingly clear that the game — as we knew it, based upon the rules we were given — is over. This government's debt will crush us.

For me, it past time for the people to separate the government's problems from our problems, and recognize that the very existence of this government has become our most pressing problem.

Increasing income tax rates isn't any kind of answer.