The race for the US presidency

[Howell]

An unscripted moment with an Ohio plumber produced a startling confession from Barack Obama Sunday: The Democrat's "middle-class tax cut" is in fact a scheme to "spread the wealth...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/po ... 133633.htm

 

[udaman]

^^^what happens when you are aflicted with the dreaded internet ADD, short post, single sentence "blogger" syndrome. Ya 'run N gun' types don't even give a useful link.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm

Yeah I agree with Tannin, Obama and Slick Willy are both eloquent speakers who don't really understand what's coming out of their mouths, both could sell ice cream to the eskimos in the middle of winter at the artic circle...global warming, ya know .

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.
Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

LOL, so Obama's going to spread Warren Buffet's & Gates' billions around---sure, sure; I believe...change we can believe in

Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS poll last night showed Obama moving into a commanding 53-39 percent lead.

^^^see what I mean

 

[Mercutio]

Gosh that's terrible. How dare he!

I am reminded of a Doonesbury cartoon from the early part of this decade, in which W was addressed with the question "Is there any economic condition in which the correct response is not 'tax cuts for the wealthy?'"

'Cause 20 of the last 30 years have been like that, and look how well that's worked.

 

[jtr1962]

Actually, if Obama does what he says, namely let the Bush tax cuts expire, then he'll raise taxes on just about everyone. Of course, that doesn't count as a tax increase in his book even though the end result is the same. While they're at it, why not just bring taxes back to what they were before Reagan? After all, letting taxes revert to their old rates, even those from 30 years ago, doesn't seem to count as a tax increase.

BTW, the reason tax cuts for the wealthy didn't work as planned is because of the deregulation of the banking industry. Instead of the rich putting their money into solid enterprises which would have created real wealth for all, they thought they could make more "investing" in hedge funds. And now that this didn't turn out to be the case, they want the government to bail them out.

 

[Mercutio]

W's temporary tax cuts were a horrible idea in the first place. You don't increase spending and decrease taxes at the same time. That creates something that intelligent people call a "deficit." If the tax decrease was temporary, it was temporary. The rates never changed. President Dumbass just gave you a discount for a while so you'd like him better.

We need to be more responsible for our finances. We need to pay off our creditors. Taxes need to go up.

You realize that the top tax bracket under Eisenhower was 95%, right? One of the most prosperous eras in American History. And just so we're clear, Eisenhower was a Republican.

 

[jtr1962]

Here's the problems with reverting to the old rates:

1) Lots of people will end up getting hit with the AMT, a tax which was originally only meant for the rich but thanks to inflation can now affect the middle class.

2) The inheritance tax exemption will revert back to its original $600,000. Again, when this tax was passed $600,000 was high enough so that only the wealthy would have to pay inheritance tax. Since the amount was never corrected for inflation, lots of middle class will be affected thanks to the huge inflation in home prices. In many places a simple, middle class home is worth more than $600,000.

3) Many working poor will be paying more, not just the rich. Remember that the lowest tax bracket under GWB was reduced from 15% to 10%. What this means is the working poor will end up with a 50% tax increase.

4) Most important, a tax increase is a tax increase, whether it results from reverting to old rates or simply increasing rates. It's misleading to say only 5% of people will be paying higher taxes.

Another thing-Obama has yet to release his planned rates, assuming he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, and then passes a new set of rates so that 95% really don't pay more taxes. Does he plan to help the working poor by increasing the personal exemption? Is there going to finally be an amount exempt from FICA tax for both employees and the self-employed (who pay double the rate of employees)? There's a highly regressive tax if ever there was one, and the Dems are supposedly champions of the poor. He's short on specifics and long on rhetoric. Maybe I could support a tax increase on the really wealthy (those making $1 million or more) since they could pay it without hardship, but $250K is strictly middle class these days in places like NYC or LA.

In principle I'm against an income tax to start with, much less one at a ridiculous rate of 95% (and you do know thanks to tax shelters virtually nobody paid at that rate, don't you?). However, if we must have an income tax, then you shouldn't take more money (or for that matter any money) from the segment of society least able to afford it. That should mean no income or FICA taxes for anyone making under about $25,000, including the self-employed. I can't find a whole lot of incentive for a person to work when they'll only make $20,000, pay a third of it in taxes and carfare, and still not be able to be self-sufficient. Let a person like that keep their entire pay, and maybe even give them help with their carfare.

You're right that increasing spending and cutting taxes is a stupid idea, but the problem is people don't want to hear it when you cut their precious benefits, and they certainly don't want to pay for those benefits in higher taxes. The real problem is government spending too much on things of questionable value to the average taxpayer, not taking in too little taxes. That includes things like unnecessary wars, medical entitlements like Medicaid and the idiotic prescription drug bill, paying farmers not to grow crops, and the latest round of corporate welfare masquerading as a bailout. There should be no sacred cows in government, but it seems once a new benefit is passed, it's impossible to get rid of it, even if it fails to work as intended. Blame both parties for failing to reign in unnecessary spending. When all is said and done the Iraq war and the bailout will probably cost in excess of $2 trillion. We could have had a first class high-speed rail system for that, and it would have been something the average taxpayer might actually greatly benefit from (plus it would have more than paid for itself in terms of less pollution, no more need to fight wars for oil, etc.) And the $10 trillion "war on poverty". Poverty rates are higher than they were before it started. The primary beneficiaries have been social service providers, not the poor. And making taxpayers pay for these programs, most of which they'll never be eligible for, is tyranny of the worst kind. No, cut spending, not raise taxes.

 

[Stereodude]

You can't tax your way into prosperity. It really is that simple.

 

[CougTek]

I disgress with the above. The country next to mine, Canada, did just that in the nineties and early 2000s. The debt-to-GDP ratio was ugly there in 1995, but they cut their expenses (mostly the money transfered to provinces) and raised the taxes through many programs. The taxation was almost comparable to scandinavian countries. Now their debt-to-GDP ratio is among the best of the developped countries and Canada is in a good position in regards to economy. Their taxes are still higher than in the States, but it is getting better.

I don't approve most of the means they took to enhance their financial situation (they shovelled their responsabilities to the provinces without transfering the money that should have gone with them), but the basement was right and they now have most margin than the majority of the other countries.

However, I still wouldn't want to be Canadian.

I'll add that in general, the governments are better to handle people's money than the people themselves (except, of course, the Bush administration). Give more money to your average Joe-six-pack and he'll buy ...more six-packs. United States' problem (common to most places around the world) is that the great majority of people are much closer to Homer Simpson than they are to an economy teacher. Sure, some will relate their own insignificant story showing how good they've been managing their money...I don't give a shit about your own little pathetic stories. It's the global picture which matters and the picture looks more like a Picasso than a DaVinci. Your government usually knows better than you how to spend your money. Your economy and your little income won't get better if your government doesn't take enough to pay its own bills. United States taxes are too low and that's one of the main reasons you're collectively so deep in the shit right now. G.W. Bush used to say that he prefered to let the Americans manage their own money. 8 years later, your country's debt has DOUBLE! What more does it take for you retarded republicans to understand that you're on the wrong track?

 

[Stereodude]

That's right, they're spending way too much. I won't argue with that.

 

[Tannin]

It's the global picture which matters and the picture looks more like a Picasso than a DaVinci.

Now that was just beautiful. A classic turn of phrase.

 

[jtr1962]

Your government usually knows better than you how to spend your money. Your economy and your little income won't get better if your government doesn't take enough to pay its own bills. United States taxes are too low and that's one of the main reasons you're collectively so deep in the shit right now. G.W. Bush used to say that he prefered to let the Americans manage their own money. 8 years later, your country's debt has DOUBLE! What more does it take for you retarded republicans to understand that you're on the wrong track?

The biggest problem with GWB and the Republicans is the almost mindless faith they have in free markets to do everything better. As we've seen, without regulation free markets devolve to the least common denominator, and concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The mess we're in wasn't caused by undertaxation, it was caused by underregulation. We never should have allowed banks to commoditize everything or sell all these exotic financial instruments. That's for starters. We never should have allowed car companies to sell huge, polluting vehicles like crazy. Had they made sensible cars, now that gas is higher they wouldn't be teetering on bankruptcy. We never should have allowed the things which caused housing prices to outpace inflation, making housing unaffordable for many average workers. We never should have allowed people to borrow equity from their homes every time the price went up a little. We never should have allowed ridiculous rates of executive pay and bonuses, even when a company was failing (aren't bonuses supposed to be a reward for exceptional performance, not failure?). GWB has been retarded when it comes to regulation and spending, not taxation.

Contrary to what you think, most Americans are taxed enough. Someone making middle class wages will pay upwards of 25% in taxes, more if you count sales taxes. This is taking money from people who have to borrow just to pay for necessities. You could argue I suppose that the wealthy should pay more, perhaps even up to the 95% rate Merc mentioned, and i might even agree, but the problem is they'll move all their money offshore if that happens. So in the end the government has only one choice to get its house in order-greatly reduce spending. Forget fighting wars unless we're attacked at home. Forget stupid programs like Medicaid which do little for people's health but suck tons of money. Forget paying seniors for prescription drugs. Forget most forms of income transfer as social programs mostly benefit social service providers. And certainly forget any grandiose ideas of national health insurance. With all the overweight, sedentary Americans who'll develop heart disease and diabetes that'll bankrupt the country for sure. Basically, forget any program which doesn't generate as much in new taxes as it costs. Things like training and placing people in jobs, investing in alternative energy, building high-speed rail or other mass transit, all will generate more in taxes than they cost. We're spending money on things we shouldn't, and not spending it on things we should. That's the real problem. Taxes on the middle class are not too low. They haven't been low since probably the 1920s.

 

[jtr1962]

I'll also add to my previous post that there definitely are certain things probably better left in the hands of government. Obviously national defense and the justice system come to mind. It could also be argued that government should take a larger role in transportation, power generation, and housing. These are all things essential for the economy to function, yet in private hands they can be priced out of reach for average workers. We've already seen that with housing especially. And in most parts of the country transportation is unavailable to those unable to afford a car. With higher energy prices electricity may well become the next thing only available to the upper classes. In order for the economy to function, everyone from the wealthy to the minimum wage worker needs access to reliable transportation, electricity, and decent housing.

 

[sechs]

While they're at it, why not just bring taxes back to what they were before Reagan?

This is a great idea. Maybe we can start to pay back the debt tear that Reagan started up.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif

 

[jtr1962]

Why not cut expenditures instead? I fully agree the national debt should be reduced. In fact, it should be brought down to zero (that's never happened according to that chart), and then the US should constitutionally never, ever be allowed to spend more than it takes in again. But the best way to do that is to cut the nonsense out of the budget. I already gave a list of good programs to eliminate which will have minimal impact upon the citizenry. I'm sure we could find a bunch more.

And if we return to pre-Reagan tax rates, here's the breakdown:

Personal exemption: $1,000
Standard deduction: $1,000 single, $2,000 married
Lowest rate: 14.0% on taxable income < $3,400
Highest rate: 70.0% on taxable income > $215,400

No idea of the brackets in between, but adding in 15.3% for FICA taxes, it looks like people making middle class salaries in the $20,000 to $30,000 area will be paying around half in income taxes. Anyone in the upper middle class will hit that 70% bracket, and with FICA have a marginal rate of over 85%. That's not only a bad idea but pretty much impossible politically.

 

[udaman]

LOLz, Powell endorses Obama...(little late, better than never?)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_on_el_pr/powell

Powell is such a hypocrite. He turned down all offers for presidential aspirations. He supported both Bush Iraq planning/wars. Obama is against both Bush policy in ME or else where. So Powell's not making it racial, at least not in the 'main' he says, lol. And therefore, Powell wouldn't make a good president anymore than Palin would, by his own 'criteria' (I say 'criteria' rather losely and cynically). If Powell thought Obama was a good candidate, he should have endorsed *during* the primaries, and Clinton would have lost sooner. Can't have much respect for Powell now.

WTF is up with everyone saying Obama would be the 1st 'black' president??? Obama is *NOT* black, he's mixed; get used to it people, there's lots of mixed race humans now, categorizing is fun...and just shows how E'ff racist most of the 'races' in the USA are...take your pick. he will be the 1st 'mixed' president with some African-American genetics. If his son were to become president, then you could say that son was the 1st 'black' president.

Fook...I mean yungfook, jungfu on Kristin Kreuk

http://www.yongfook.com/

, and actress who's playing a Chinese character in the new movie Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li...but's she's 1/2 Dane, 1/2 Chinese (unlike Obama who's <1/2 black). I don't see anyone going around and referring to Kreuk as "Chinese actress" Kristin Kreuk . Blue, brown eye color...guess none of the commenters on this blog have ever seen Smallville, Kreuk has hazel green eyes.

http://kotaku.com/5062038/first-look-at-street-fighter-legend-of-chun+li-movie-poster

 

[Mercutio]

And if we return to pre-Reagan tax rates, here's the breakdown:

1980's US Federal budget was approximately $700 billion, which is certainly an ironic number right about now. An inflation calculator tells me that 1980's budget in 2008 dollars would be about $1.7 trillion. The real budget for 2009 will be approximately $3 trillion.

Even if we take a hacksaw to every single budget item, including the items which are supposedly sacred and impossible to cut (e.g. Social Security), I don't think we can even possibly bridge the gap between one figure and the other. If we completely stopped spending money on Medicare, Social Security and our Military, we'd be pretty close, though.

Just something to think about.

 

[ddrueding]

... Just something to think about.

Indeed

 

[jtr1962]

Googling the numbers here's what I came up with (year 2007):

Social Security: $581 billion
Medicare/Medicaid: $561 billion
Defense: $549 billion
Other discretionary: $493 billion
Other mandatory: $309 billion
Interest on the debt: $237 billion
TOTAL: $2730 billion

What can be cut? Get rid of Medicare/Medicaid completely. These are open-ended medical entitlements which if not reigned in will bankrupt us. They never should have been started in the first place. (savings $561 billion)

Means test Social Security. Fair? No, but we're at the point where those who really don't need the benefits shouldn't get them. Perhaps we can cut $100 billion if we keep the cutoff at some threshold where people won't be hurt by lack of Social Security benefits (say an AGI from other sources of at least $100,000). (savings $100 billion)

Defense can certainly be cut in half, perhaps more, and still leave us with adequate defenses to protect our shores which is what the purpose of defense really is. We don't need to be able to send armadas halfway around the world for half-assed wars. (savings $275 billion)

Cut discretionary spending in half. End things like subsidies to farmers to not grow crops, bridges to nowhere, basically any program which doesn't being in more new tax dollars than it costs the government. (savings $246 billion)

Last and most controversial-stop paying interest on the debt! Yes, I'm serious. If the US suddenly does that it will save money. Also, since it's creditworthiness will drop to zero then it can never borrow money again. It will HAVE to have balanced budgets henceforth. IMO nothing else will work to stop us from spending more than we take in (savings $237 billion)

Grand total savings: $1419 billion, or about 52%. Moreover, putting the country on a sound footing of low taxes and low government spending will set the stage for future growth. If we continue as is, national debt as a percentage of GDP is set to grow from about 50% to 600% by 2080. If this is allowed to happen, just the interest on the national debt in 2080 will be more than the entire federal budget, and programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are predicted to grow similarly. Obviously a federal budget equaling perhaps 75% of GDP would be an impossible situation.

Wikipedia article

 

[Fushigi]

Social Security: First, it should really be a separate item than other income tax-based budget items. It is a separate tax and it is the only one that is returned to the contributor as actual money. It is more or less self-funded.

Second, income over $102K is exempt from SS tax. So the wealthy are insulated from making heavy payments into SS. So the SSA could up their funding by raising that cap to $200K or more to nab more from the upper middle class.


Medicare/Medicaid: What do you propose as an equivalent insurer? The poor (Medicaid) cannot afford insurance premiums and the elderly (Medicare) are denied policies due to age or existing conditions. Cut these programs and thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands, will die every year.

BTW, as it is relatively few doctors take Medicaid. The paperwork for claims and the minimal payouts make dealing with Medicaid patients a burden.

In the end I think the smarter move would be to take steps to reduce/minimize healthcare costs and reduce the overall need for preventible treatments by covering preventive care and assisting people with the adoption healthier lifestyles. You can't stop the catastrophic events but if we could reduce heart disease and diabetes we'd save billions and billions of dollars.


Defense: I don't know enough about how the money is spent to say, but I doubt it could really be cut in half. The fleet you want to decommission might still be necessary if we were attacked. And defending our borders can easily involve attacking another country's borders. Also realize that defense-funded research has provided a lot of things for every day life. It was DARPA, for instance, that contributed to lots of technologies including the founding of the Internet.


Discretionary spending: Again, I don't know enough to make a blanket statement like halve the budget. That seems awfully short-sighted. What really needs to happen is a line by line review of projects and their funding. Some projects should be done even if they don't have an immediate measurable return in the form of tax revenue, so an alternative would be 'betterment of US life' or 'betterment of mankind' with an assumption that there may be a tax revenue derivitive later on. Things like cancer research, the backing of student loans, rebuilding infrastructure, etc. don't have immediate or even effectively measured revenue tie-ins but are still necessary.

But I do agree that farm subsidies, indeed pretty much all subsidies, run counter to the idea of a capitalist economy. Low or even no interest loans, sure, but don't just give the money away.


Interest on the debt: I'd go a step further. Mandate debt forgiveness & eliminate the debt as it stands. Effectively declare bankruptcy and reorg.


How about these options to reduce expenses or increase revenue? Declare peace. Collect import duties on goods from all nations and use those revenues to provide loans to companies that build/employ in the US. Make interstates into federal toll roads so the gov't can collect a use tax and make the infrastructure maintenance closer to self-funded.

While we're at it, have the gov't concentrate on enforcing the laws already on the books instead of coming up with new laws all the time. Many new laws are just applying specific circumstances to existing laws and they sometimes create contradictions. This isn't at the federal level but a prime example are the silly cell phone-while-driving laws. They are redundant; there are already distracted driving laws on the books.

Oh, and when a law is passed with specific monetary amounts, said amounts should be annually inflation-adjusted for the duration of the law. That would have made the AMT situation a non-issue for most.

 

[jtr1962]

I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote, especially the parts about indexing monetary-based laws for inflation and ending the passage of new laws (perhaps require taking two laws off the books for every new one passed )

Your take on Medicare/Medicaid was interesting:

Medicare/Medicaid: What do you propose as an equivalent insurer? The poor (Medicaid) cannot afford insurance premiums and the elderly (Medicare) are denied policies due to age or existing conditions. Cut these programs and thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands, will die every year.

BTW, as it is relatively few doctors take Medicaid. The paperwork for claims and the minimal payouts make dealing with Medicaid patients a burden.

In the end I think the smarter move would be to take steps to reduce/minimize healthcare costs and reduce the overall need for preventible treatments by covering preventive care and assisting people with the adoption healthier lifestyles. You can't stop the catastrophic events but if we could reduce heart disease and diabetes we'd save billions and billions of dollars.

I submit that as they stand now Medicare/Medicaid is basically a massive transfer of government dollars to drug companies and hospitals with little practical benefit to patients. Eliminating these programs now probably wouldn't kill any more people than the hospitals and drugs which "treat" them do. You hit the nail on the head as to what the real problem is-lifestyle. Until most of the population by default adopts healthier lifestyles (and many of the poor on Medicaid have absolutely horrible lifestyles), any kind of government health insurance is not affordable. It's one thing to take care of catastrophic events like accidents or certain diseases, but quite another to routinely cover things like heart disease, diabetes, AIDS, and cancer which are mostly preventable via a healthy lifestyle. The honest truth is all the money spent on health care has not made people healthier. Sure, we'll give an overweight person Lipitor. This might prevent a heart attack this year, but the side effects might kill them five years later. We'll spend tons of money postponing death in the very old by a few months. In short, we rely too much on drugs and surgery to compensate for a horribly unhealthy lifestyle. That's all that the money spent by medical science has really done so far. Average lifespans are about two decades short of what they would be given what we know about keeping healthy. They're actually not a whole lot better than those in some Roman cities 2000 years ago which didn't have the benefit of our medical knowledge.

IMO, what needs to be done to get medicine back on track is as follows:

1. Ban direct to patient advertising of prescription drugs. I can't think of a single reason why a layperson needs to know about drugs they're not in a position to directly purchase. In fact, the commercials make things worse. Doctors will sometimes give in to a persistent patient who insists such and such drug they saw on TV will cure them. Often, a lifestyle change or different drug might have been a better solution.

2. Ban drug salespeople from direct contact with medical professionals. Doctors don't need to feel pressured to prescribe a certain quota of a given drug, or otherwise be influenced by salespeople.

3. Teach healthy eating and have regular exercise programs in all levels of school. Do likewise at places of employment. Many adults are more clueless than their children about leading a healthy life. For that matter, teach doctors more about basic nutrition and exercise. Too many doctors these days are trained solely in drug-based medicine.

4. Set up communities so that less auto use is necessary. Granted, this is a long term change but the sooner we start the better.

5. Base insurance rates of a person's lifestyle. It's only fair those who invest more in their health should pay less as they're less likely to require care.

6. Stop spending money on care to postpone life by a extra few months, especially when quality of life is nonexistent. At some point in everyone's life, the time will come where no amount of care will make them better. Hopefully for most this will be when they're well past a century old. Nevertheless, we have to accept that sooner or later, death must be accepted. I'm all for research into slowing or stopping aging, but until then, I see no point spending huge sums for just a few more weeks or months.

7. Clean up the environment. Again, this is obviously long term, but cleaner air, food, and water should bring cancer rates close to zero in non-smokers. As for smoking, I'd love to see it legislated out of existence but that's probably unrealistic. We've had great success chipping away at the number of smokers via education and making smoking less socially acceptable. I think smokers are less than 15% of the population now. If we can get this down under 1% in a generation we will have eliminated the second biggest cause of early death.

8. Cover dental care for everyone. Poor teeth are the source of a host of other health problems, and something which is easily corrected at relatively little expense.

 

[Gilbo]

It's worth mentioning that the American taxpayer pays twice as much for healthcare as those in other G7 nations. All the others have fully socialized healthcare, which has faster turn-around times, and better outcomes.

 

[sechs]

It's worth mentioning that the American taxpayer pays twice as much for healthcare as those in other G7 nations. All the others have fully socialized healthcare, which has faster turn-around times, and better outcomes.

I believe that means that we could reduce the deficit by socializing the health care system.

Where are the fiscal conservatives?

 

[ddrueding]

Where are the fiscal conservatives?

Over here, keeping our mouth shut until we have a decent counter-argument.

 

[Howell]

It's worth mentioning that the American taxpayer pays twice as much for healthcare as those in other G7 nations. All the others have fully socialized healthcare, which has faster turn-around times, and better outcomes.

I did hear about USians paying twice as much recently. As for the rest, is this your opinion or what? How are you defining "faster turn-around times and better outcomes"?

Outside of the US I am only familiar with anecdotal evidence out of Canada. 15 years ago it was a 6-12 month wait for heart valve replacement surgery. Today drug addicts get free needles but Type I diabetics are not covered for their syringe tips. This is not faster or better.

 

[jtr1962]

It's worth mentioning that the American taxpayer pays twice as much for healthcare as those in other G7 nations. All the others have fully socialized healthcare, which has faster turn-around times, and better outcomes.

This is because as a general rule the people in the other countries don't lead the kinds of unhealthy lifestyles Americans do. If you have a population where 50% are chronically ill with the effects of obesity/lack of exercise/poor diet it's going to cost more no matter what your system. Also, as far as I know doctors in these other countries aren't so fast to prescribe drugs. Drugs cause a whole host of additional problems. Oh, and the US remains the only country besides New Zealand which allows direct to patient advertising of prescription drugs.

Yes, there are long waiting lists for certain procedures in countries with socialized medicine. Perhaps that gives people a greater incentive to take a more active role in keeping themselves healthy, knowing that they may not get treatment in time if they don't.

 

[Howell]

But I do agree that farm subsidies, indeed pretty much all subsidies, run counter to the idea of a capitalist economy. Low or even no interest loans, sure, but don't just give the money away.

John Stossel: Do Government Farming Subsidies Hurt American Farmers?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6050559&page=1

 

[Gilbo]

I did hear about USians paying twice as much recently. As for the rest, is this your opinion or what? How are you defining "faster turn-around times and better outcomes"?

Outside of the US I am only familiar with anecdotal evidence out of Canada. 15 years ago it was a 6-12 month wait for heart valve replacement surgery. Today drug addicts get free needles but Type I diabetics are not covered for their syringe tips. This is not faster or better.

Faster Turn-Around Times: The average person receives the treatment they require sooner.

Better Outcomes:
1. Better quality of life post-treatment, as determined by, 1.1, less need for additional treatments, post-treatment, 1.2 post-treatment patient surveys, 1.3, time spent on disability, and 1.4 money spent by insurance to achieve the desired outcome.
2. Fewer deaths.

Many other industrialized nations are well ahead of Canada in these two metrics, particularly Scandinavian nations. They also pay even less per individual than Canadians do which is significantly less than Americans do. Canada is often used as the comparison to the U.S. because 1) we're nearby, but 2) we have similar lifestyles to Americans. Many Europeans are fitter, eat better, pollute their air less, and have stricter regulations regarding toxins in packaging, food, construction materials, water, etc. Canada is very similar to the U.S. in most of these respects, if a little better in most of them. We are still close enough, however, to establish quite certainly that the U.S. system is the least efficient in the industrialized world.

Outside of the US I am only familiar with anecdotal evidence out of Canada. 15 years ago it was a 6-12 month wait for heart valve replacement surgery. Today drug addicts get free needles but Type I diabetics are not covered for their syringe tips. This is not faster or better.

Argument by specious absurdity... The return on investment of providing the former service has been repeatedly demonstrated to be worth the effort. It saves money. The return on investment of providing the latter is relatively inferior, because risk factors which cause additional social burdens with the former situation do no exist for the latter (shockingly, diabetics aren't as statistically likely to share syringe tips, smoke crack, or acquire sexually & blood borne illnesses...). Of course, I'm sure this was obvious to you. You just thought the juxtaposition made a good talking point.


N.B. Interestingly, recently Canada has been taking manufacturing jobs from American manufacturing centres. American companies and factories cannot match the efficiencies of the Canadian counterparts due to the relatively low cost, and high efficiency of Canadian healthcare (which, again, is significantly less efficient than that of many other countries and is a 'model' only when compared to the U.S.). These companies understand the economics of what they're doing.

They are now lobbying for a universal healthcare plan, which is why, after being absent from the platforms of democrat presidential nominees, it reappeared this year. They are aware that they will pay less under such a system than they presently do.

 

[Gilbo]

Just to be clear, with respect to providing needle exchange programs to drug addicts, I'm not saying it's 'moral', 'just', 'good', or 'evil', simply that it has been demonstrated to be financially effective. The world is not a perfect, nor just place.

 

[Howell]

I am still unclear whether this is just your opinion Gilbo. Why should the non-average citizen be denied good medical care? Sweden certainly thinks there are gains to be made by moving toward free-market medicine.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba369/

 

[Howell]

Just to be clear, with respect to providing needle exchange programs to drug addicts, I'm not saying it's 'moral', 'just', 'good', or 'evil', simply that it has been demonstrated to be financially effective. The world is not a perfect, nor just place.

Agreed. It is not a long term solution but it is effective in the short term.

 

[Mercutio]

Apropos of nothing being said at the moment, the Obama victory rally is going to be held in Chicago's Grant Park. As much as I hate the idea of crowds or being around people, I'm actually thinking that it would be neat to go, because that really will be a historic moment in time.

FiveThirtyEight.com is showing Indiana as a likely blue state in 2008. I'll be shocked if it happens, but it really does illustrate the depths of failure Republicans have reached; as I recall, Indiana was the first state to be called in favor of Shrub in 2004.

 

[Fushigi]

Also, the Obama campaign has said it will cover the approx. $2 million it will take for the event, including police OT pay for crowd control, and facilities like porta-potties. Nice of them to not try to stick the city with the cost.

On politics, the IL governor has a lower approval rating than Bush. His reign has been fraught with corruption. But IMO he's not more corrupt than most, just laughably bad at hiding it. He has actually done a lot of infrastructure improvements that I appreciate and has tried to do some other good things like medical care for children.

 

[timwhit]

Also, the Obama campaign has said it will cover the approx. $2 million it will take for the event, including police OT pay for crowd control, and facilities like porta-potties. Nice of them to not try to stick the city with the cost.

On politics, the IL governor has a lower approval rating than Bush. His reign has been fraught with corruption. But IMO he's not more corrupt than most, just laughably bad at hiding it. He has actually done a lot of infrastructure improvements that I appreciate and has tried to do some other good things like medical care for children.

I hope Blagojevich ends up in jail.

 

[Mercutio]

Blagojevich really is an idiot. He's caught in a permanent pissing match with the state congress, has no idea how to fund any of his new programs and can't even keep Daley happy in Chicago. Basically, he's a guy who has painted himself into a corner by not playing ball with ANYONE with any kind of power and as a result Illinois's political process has been broken badly for at least the last couple years.

 

[Mercutio]

I hope Blagojevich ends up in jail.

One of my favorite-ever stupid political facts: George Ryan was the SIXTH Governor of Illinois from Kankakee to be sentenced to time in prison. On the other hand, I respect the hell out of the guy for changing his stance on the death penalty.

I don't remember any scandals or major allegations of corruption from the Thompson administration. Maybe I'm just too young to remember, but that's really the last time I can remember state-level politics in Illinois being fairly clean. He was probably just better at covering it up, though.

 

[P5-133XL]

Someone elected him! People get the govt. they deserve. We elected GWB (though there are issues about that) and see what we got: I'm sure we all deserved it.

 

[Mercutio]

In Illinois in 2004, there was a scandal involving then-Governor George Ryan where he was essentially funding his campaign and lining some crony pockets by accepting bribes in exchange for valid trucking licenses. This really came to a head because a Mexican truck driver carrying one of those licenses caused an accident involving a young family and an Amtrak commuter train. The outcome was that Republicans were seen as more tainted than usual and despite general trend for 2004 politics and Illinois statewide politics, the governorship went to the guy who didn't have an (R) next to his name.

As a rule I think republicans are at best douchebags of the highest order, but I will say that I respect former governor Ryan, who was at one time a ringleader in the effort to bring back the death penalty in Illinois in the mid-70s. During his time as Governor, a number of death row inmates were exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence and after a very long crisis in his own beliefs about the nature of justice and mercy, George Ryan suspended use of the Death Penalty in Illinois.

 

[sechs]

Also, the Obama campaign has said it will cover the approx. $2 million it will take for the event, including police OT pay for crowd control, and facilities like porta-potties. Nice of them to not try to stick the city with the cost.

Well, they do seem to have money pouring out of their ears.

At this point, a lot of money now being donated to the campaign isn't going to be used on the campaign. They've programmed out to November 4 based on the money they pulled in up to the end of September -- and that's plenty.

 

[udaman]

Are you better off now that you were 8 yrs ago?

Well if you go by Obama's rhetorical parroting of Ronald Regan, you answer would be, "if not, then don't vote for Obama", as you'll get more of the Clinton economics that put us all into this fiasco in the 1st place.

Huh, but I though Obama says it's all McCain/Bush policies, we need a change, correct? Alright, then a vote for Obama is not change at all>


I saw Robert Rubin, senior economic adviser to camp Obama, expose how all of Obama's plans will work to fix the economy, not McCain; on today's Stephonopolis Mon. morning TV show. But this is one of the guys who's inaction, resistance to oversight, has led to this worldwide economic panic. Don't vote for Obama if you want change, vote for Obama if you want the kind of leadership that led to this crisis!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin ...since I know Merc et al, don't click on links, or read links provided>>>

Economic Record & The 2008 Global Financial Crisis

Upon Rubin’s retirement, President Clinton called him the “greatest secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton.” “During his tenure as Treasury Secretary,” Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said, “Bob was an ideal public servant who put policy before politics.” [6][dead link]
Yet critics credit Rubin with helping create the conditions for the Financial crisis of 2007–2008, as a result of the policies he pursued as Treasury Secretary. Together with then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives, when such regulation was proposed by then-head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Brooksley Born. Over-exposure to credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities - or credit default swaps (CDS) was a key reason for the failure of US financial institutions Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, and Washington Mutual in 2008.
Arthur Levitt Jr., a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has said in explaining Mr Rubin's strong opposition to the regulations proposed by Ms Born that Mr. Greenspan and Rubin were "joined at the hip on this." "They were certainly very fiercely opposed to this and persuaded me that this would cause chaos." [7]
According to the New York Times, "In November 1999, senior regulators — including Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin — recommended that Congress permanently strip the CFTC of regulatory authority over derivatives." [8] This advice was accepted and derivatives were kept clear of regulation by the CFTC.
Warren Buffett later called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction", and the lack of regulation of derivatives played a key role in the 2008 financial crisis.
Other competent critics of Rubin's philosophy and policies include Kevin Phillips.[9][10]


Rubin, who has been touted as a possible appointee to a cabinet post for Senator Obama. Rubin, alongside Austan Goolsbee and Paul Volcker, is one of Obama's economic advisers

A change we cannot believe in, it's the same old Clinton economics policy advisers who's irresponsibility got us into this mess in the 1st place. Are we better off 8+yrs now, that Clinton adviser polices have led to this crisis, I say sarcastically?

 

[udaman]

Damn the typical American voter is dumber than a door nob.

'Change we can believe in' >>> same 'ol, same 'ol ...that tradition of $$$ can buy you an election, pretty sad how TV spots shape an election. Shows the limited attention span of the average American so brilliantly .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_pr/road_to270

Barack Obama has pulled ahead in enough states to win the 270 electoral votes he needs to gain the White House — and with states to spare — according to an Associated Press analysis that shows he is now moving beyond typical Democratic territory to challenge John McCain on historically GOP turf. Even if McCain sweeps the six states that are too close to call, he still seemingly won't have enough votes to prevail, according to the analysis, which is based on polls, the candidates' TV spending patterns and interviews with Democratic and Republican strategists. McCain does have a path to victory but it's a steep climb: He needs a sudden shift in voter sentiment that gives him all six toss-up states plus one or two others that now lean toward Obama.
Obama has 23 states and the District of Columbia, offering 286 votes, in his column or leaning his way, while Republican McCain has 21 states with 163 votes. A half dozen offering 89 votes — Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio — remain up for grabs. President Bush won all six in 2004, and they are where the race is primarily being contested in the homestretch.
Though sounding confident, Obama is still campaigning hard. "Don't believe for a second this election is over," he tells backers. "We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does."
The underdog McCain is pressing supporters to fight on: "Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. And we never quit."
Less than a week before Election Day, the AP analysis isn't meant to be predictive but rather provides a late snapshot of a race that's been volatile all year.
It's still possible McCain can pull off an upset. Some public and private polling shows the race tightening nationally. And, roughly one fourth of voters in a recent AP-GfK poll were undecided or said they still could change their minds. It's also still unclear how racial feelings will affect the results in voting that could give the country its first black president.
Last month, in a similar analysis, Obama had an edge over McCain but hadn't laid claim to enough states to cross the 270-vote threshold.
Since then, the economic crisis has reshaped the race, and the public's call for change has grown louder. Obama has strengthened his grip in the contest by using his significant financial advantage to lock up most states that Democrat John Kerry won four years ago, even as he makes inroads into traditionally GOP turf that McCain cannot afford to lose.
Obama now has several possible routes to victory, while McCain is scrambling to defend states where he shouldn't even have to campaign in the final days.
In new AP-GfK battleground polling, Obama has a solid lead in typically Republican Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. He and McCain are even in two other usually GOP states: Florida and North Carolina. Obama also is comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. The series of polls showed Obama is winning among early voters, is favored on most issues, benefits from the country's sour mood and is widely viewed as the likely victor by voters in these states.
McCain's senior advisers acknowledge his steep hurdles and no-room-for-error strategy. However, they insist that internal polling shows the race getting closer. They hope the gains trickle down to competitive Bush-won states in the coming days and help the Arizona senator eke out a victory in Kerry-won Pennsylvania. McCain is keeping up his attacks against Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal; his strategists contend that's moving poll numbers.
"This campaign is functionally tied across the battleground states with our numbers improving sharply," said Bill McInturff, McCain's lead pollster in a strategy memo. "All signs say we are headed to an election that may easily be too close to call by next Tuesday."
Democrats privately acknowledge the race is narrowing, though they say they aren't concerned. Obama's top aides hope not just for a win but a sweeping victory that would reshapes the political landscape.
"Strategically we tried to have as wide of a map as possible," to have many routes to reaching the magic number of 270 on Election Day, David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, told reporters this week. "We think we've been able to create that dynamic and have a lot of competitive states in play."
Indeed, Obama has used his financial heft and organizational prowess, a remnant of the long Democratic primary that was fought out in every corner of the nation, to compete in states the party has ignored in previous elections because of their histories of voting Republican. McCain has lagged in both money and manpower.
As a result, the GOP's hold on states usually considered safe has shrunk, and the election's final week is being played out largely in states that Bush won and that are toss-ups in a political climate that greatly favors Democrats.
They include the traditional GOP bastions of Indiana and North Carolina, as well as perennial battlegrounds of Missouri and Nevada. Also on the list are the crown jewels of Florida and Ohio, which were crucial in deciding the last two presidential elections. McCain could sweep all six and still lose the White House.
Obama has every state that Kerry won four years ago seemingly in the bag or leaning his way, including Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire — four states with 41 votes that McCain and his allies aggressively fought for before pulling back this month when they became out of reach. McCain still hopes to win one of Maine's electoral votes, which are allotted by congressional district.
Among Kerry's states from 2004, only Pennsylvania, which hasn't voted for a Republican since 1988, remains realistically in McCain's sights. Public polls show Obama leading by double-digits, though McCain aides say it's much closer. McCain hopes that working-class white voters who haven't fully warmed to Obama will vote Republican. Some aides say a Pennsylvania victory, with 21 votes, could be what allows McCain to win the White House, provided he can thwart Obama in Bush-held states.
Over the past month, Obama has strengthened his standing in four of those offering a combined 34 votes.
He has comfortable leads in Iowa and New Mexico polls. Long considered toss-ups, Colorado and Virginia have started tilting more toward Obama. McCain is still advertising heavily in the four and has visited all in recent days. His advisers say their polling shows the race tighter than it seems.
West Virginia and Montana both emerged as GOP trouble spots after Obama started advertising in them; the Republican National Committee was forced to go on the air this week to defend them.
Earlier in the year, Obama had put millions of dollars into Georgia and North Dakota only to pull out when McCain ended up maintaining an edge. But, as the race closes, there are indications Obama could win them, too. Obama also could pick up a single vote in Nebraska, which awards votes based on congressional districts.
There are even signs that the race in McCain's home state of Arizona — which would be a battleground if he didn't live there — is narrowing. Public polls show McCain with a single-digit lead, even though Obama hasn't targeted the state.