News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[OmCheeto]

I suspect that's got be a static calculation, i.e. how much could theoretically be collected tax cheats, and therefore not very useful.

I've read that much of the cheating is going on in the very small private business sector. Something I can totally relate to. Not personally mind you, but from what I see, every day.

Here's an example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041501158.html"
Congress Struggles For Way to Fill Gap
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 16, 2007


Judging from his tax returns, Dinh Kim Huynh wasn't getting rich in the manicure business. In 2000, Huynh and his wife claimed taxable income of just $7,578 from their two nail salons in Southern Maryland -- so little that they qualified for a tax credit for the working poor. Their tax bill was $195.

But like millions of American business owners who trade primarily in cash, Huynh was not altogether honest with the Internal Revenue Service. When IRS agents poked around, they discovered four cars in Huynh's name, including a $77,000 Mercedes; receipts for diamonds and Rolexes in a closet at his Waldorf home; and a videotape of Huynh flashing a five-carat ring during the purchase of yet another vehicle at a local Honda dealership, court records show.

Huynh, 57, appears to be an especially bold contributor to the tax gap, the difference between what Americans owe the federal government and what they actually pay. By the most recent estimate, the tax gap is $345 billion. Unreported business income accounts for nearly a third of that amount. According to IRS data, U.S. shopkeepers, mechanics, farmers and landlords will pay less than half the taxes they owe on the returns that must be filed by midnight Tuesday.

hmmm...

Maybe I should get a business license for a lemonade stand, so I can write off my $25,000 truck, which I have to use to go to the store to get my lemons.

hmmm...

I wonder if this is how Greece got started? "No one else is paying their fair share, everyone else is cheating on their taxes, why should I be the sucker paying the bill, riding the bus, while Mr. Cheat over there is driving a $77k Mercedes?"

 

[mheslep]

The Greek tax system has nearly destroyed the society there according to author Michael Lewis (Liars Poker, Big Short)

After systematically looting their own treasury, in a breathtaking binge of tax evasion, bribery, and creative accounting spurred on by Goldman Sachs, Greeks are sure of one thing: they can’t trust their fellow Greeks.

[...]

The scale of Greek tax cheating was at least as incredible as its scope: an estimated two-thirds of Greek doctors reported incomes under 12,000 euros a year—which meant, because incomes below that amount weren’t taxable, that even plastic surgeons making millions a year paid no tax at all. The problem wasn’t the law—there was a law on the books that made it a jailable offense to cheat the government out of more than 150,000 euros—but its enforcement. “If the law was enforced,” the tax collector said, “every doctor in Greece would be in jail.” I laughed, and he gave me a stare. “I am completely serious.”
[...]
The Bonfire of Civilization
The day before I left Greece the Greek Parliament debated and voted on a bill to raise the retirement age, reduce government pensions, and otherwise reduce the spoils of public-sector life. (“I’m all for reducing the number of public-sector employees,” an I.M.F. investigator had said to me. “But how do you do that if you don’t know how many there are to start with?”) Prime Minister Papandreou presented this bill, as he has presented everything since he discovered the hole in the books, not as his own idea but as a non-negotiable demand of the I.M.F. The general idea seems to be that while the Greek people will never listen to any internal call for sacrifice they might listen to calls from outside. That is, they no longer really even want to govern themselves.

Thousands upon thousands of government employees take to the streets to protest the bill. Here is Greece’s version of the Tea Party: tax collectors on the take, public-school teachers who don’t really teach, well-paid employees of bankrupt state railroads whose trains never run on time, state hospital workers bribed to buy overpriced supplies. Here they are, and here we are: a nation of people looking for anyone to blame but themselves. The Greek public-sector employees assemble themselves into units that resemble army platoons. In the middle of each unit are two or three rows of young men wielding truncheons disguised as flagpoles. Ski masks and gas masks dangle from their belts so that they can still fight after the inevitable tear gas. “The deputy prime minister has told us that they are looking to have at least one death,” a prominent former Greek minister had told me. “They want some blood.” Two months earlier, on May 5, during the first of these protest marches, the mob offered a glimpse of what it was capable of. Seeing people working at a branch of the Marfin Bank, young men hurled Molotov cocktails inside and tossed gasoline on top of the flames, barring the exit. Most of the Marfin Bank’s employees escaped from the roof, but the fire killed three workers, including a young woman four months pregnant. As they died, Greeks in the streets screamed at them that it served them right, for having the audacity to work. The events took place in full view of the Greek police, and yet the police made no arrests.

As on other days, the protesters have effectively shut down the country. The air-traffic controllers have also gone on strike and closed the airport. At the port of Piraeus, the mob prevents cruise-ship passengers from going ashore and shopping. At the height of the tourist season the tourist dollars this place so desperately needs are effectively blocked from getting into the country. Any private-sector employee who does not skip work in sympathy is in danger. All over Athens shops and restaurants close; so, for that matter, does the Acropolis.

The lead group assembles in the middle of a wide boulevard a few yards from the burned and gutted bank branch. That they burned a bank is, under the circumstances, incredible. If there were any justice in the world the Greek bankers would be in the streets marching to protest the morals of the ordinary Greek citizen. The Marfin Bank’s marble stoop has been turned into a sad shrine: a stack of stuffed animals for the unborn child, a few pictures of monks, a sign with a quote from the ancient orator Isocrates: “Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.” At the other end of the street a phalanx of riot police stand, shields together, like Spartan warriors. Behind them is the Parliament building; inside, the debate presumably rages, though what is being said and done is a mystery, as the Greek journalists aren’t working, either. The crowd begins to chant and march toward the vastly outnumbered police: the police stiffen. It’s one of those moments when it feels as if anything might happen. Really, it’s just a question of which way people jump.

 

[OmCheeto]

The Greek tax system has nearly destroyed the society there according to author Michael Lewis (Liars Poker, Big Short)

Sounds like we are in agreement then.

hmmm...

 

[CAC1001]

It gets better than that. We borrow money from China to give tax breaks to the rich, so that they can invest in China, which increases our trade deficit, which ultimately leads to more borrowing from China. Supply-side economics is reduced to a sad joke, in a global economy. The money from tax breaks for the rich doesn't trickle down, it trickles away [as a function of domestic vs foreign manufacturing].

From what I understand, nowhere has supply-side economics ever claimed any kind of "trickle-down" theory (i.e. cut taxes for the rich and their spending will trickle-down to benefit the middle-class and poor).

Certain politicians both on the Left and Right have promoted this view, but it is incorrect.

I am not an economist, but there's two sides to economics I believe: demand-side and supply-side. Demand-side deals with consumer demand. You get a cut in consumer demand, and that can lead to a recession.

Strict demand-side economics claims that without government stimulus of some kind to make up for this drop off in demand, we will see demand drop, then deflation and unemployment will occur as prices go down due to the drop in demand and unemployment goes up. The unemployment creates a further drop-off in demand, which means even further deflation and even more unemployment.

To stop this cycle, government needs to step into temporarily make up for the drop-off in consumer demand.

Government can try to stimulate demand in a few ways: tax cuts for consumers (i.e. middle-class tax cuts (this would mean likely all marginal income tax rates, as $250K isn't rich)), direct government spending, sending people checks in the mail, or some combination of these.

Proponents of spending say that you shouldn't give people money through tax cuts or checks because they will hoard it and it thus won't stimulate whereas with the government, you can be sure they will spend it.

Proponents of tax cuts or checks say that the government is too slow at getting the money out and too inefficient, whereas with giving the money to the people directly, you can flood the economy with stimulus very quickly and the people will know how to spend it better than bureaucrats.

Supply-side economics looks at the other aspect of it: the supply of goods and services the economy is producing. As opposed to demand-side stimulus which is to create demand, supply-side stimulus is to create investment. It thus calls for cuts (if the rates are too high) in things like corporate tax rates, investment taxes, and the upper-income tax brackets, which many small businesses fall under as S-Corporations (although I don't know how many).

If inflation is too high, for example, a demand-sider says that there is too much demand, which must be curtailed through say tax hikes (take away the people's money and thus consumer demand will drop, therefore less demand for the supply of goods/services and prices stop going up).

A supply-sider says you see if investment and business taxes are excessively high, and if they are, you cut those and thus create more goods and services to meet the demand, thus bringing down inflation.

Also the Federal Reserve can increase or decrease the supply of dollars in the economy too.

Historically, tax cuts have usually been some combination of both supply-side and demand-side. When JFK wanted to cut taxes, the Republicans were against it, because JFK's tax cuts were to stimulate demand. The Republicans said it would overflow the economy with excessive demand and drive up inflation.

Ronald Reagan's tax cuts were also a combination of supply-side and demand-side. Republicans always talk of Reagan's stimulating the economy through supply-side economics, which I think he did, but I wonder if Reagan might have also inadverdently given America a good-old Keynesian demand-side stimulus, because he cut taxes across the board (marginal tax rates, investment taxes, etc...) and he upped the defense budget to re-build the defenses. The business and investment taxes, along with deregulation, helped free the economy to produce more, but the middle-class tax cuts and the defense spending were classic Keynesianism.

President George W. Bush's tax cuts were for everyone, across-the-board, and included everything from middle-class income tax cuts to cuts in investment taxes. So Bush's were also a combination of demand-side and supply-side.

BTW, a trade deficit is not necessarilly a bad thing. Historically we have always seen the trade deficit shrink during times of recession (it pretty much became a trade surplus during the Great Depression). This current recession has also slowed it.

It's like a "strong" dollar versus a "weak" dollar. A "weak" dollar will actually help close the trade deficit. The "strong" dollar of the 1990s helped enlarge the trade deficit.

 

[CAC1001]

On extending the Bush tax cuts, I'd say make them permanent for two reasons:

1) I think a snowball has a better chance of surviving a summer in the Sahara than of the government reducing spending with increased revenues from taxes, especially this administration; they seem to see the solution to everything as bigger bureaucracies and more government. The Republicans are not too trusty with this either.

2) Let successful people keep their money! A top rate of 39.6%, combined with state, property, FICA, etc...taxes, means if you work your butt off to say be a highly-paid professional, you are handing more than half your income to the government. At that point, the government is saying, "Here's how much you get to keep of YOUR money."

I have no problem with higher-earners being taxed more highly, but let's not tax excessively. If I make say $400,000 a year, I don't want to have to hand 2/3 or more of it to the government.

One thing the Democrats also need to learn is that they cannot pay for their social-welfare state dream just by taxing the upper-brackets and businesses more. In Europe, they have value-added taxes and high fuel taxes, which primarily hit the poor and the middle-class.

Yes, they hit the rich too, but the rich guy I doubt cares if the price per gallon of gas goes up any to put gas in his Escalade or if his grocery bill goes up some.

 

[Al68]

One thing the Democrats also need to learn is that they cannot pay for their social-welfare state dream just by taxing the upper-brackets and businesses more. In Europe, they have value-added taxes and high fuel taxes, which primarily hit the poor and the middle-class.

Yes, they hit the rich too, but the rich guy I doubt cares if the price per gallon of gas goes up any to put gas in his Escalade or if his grocery bill goes up some.

None of this even affects the personal financial well-being of rich people either way. This obsession Democrats have with rich people is just part of their power hungry delusions. What historical power hungry (oppressive) world leader didn't believe, and have followers who believed, that they were fighting against the "rich and powerful" on behalf of "the people"?

And of course Democratic politicians can't really want their stated agenda to succeed, because the societal "ills" they claim to be fighting against are what keeps them in power.

 

[turbo]

How does giving billions of dollars in tax-cuts to the wealthiest 1-2% of the populace help the economy? The GOP has not managed to elucidate that, though they claim it over and over again.

It is sensible to extend tax cuts to people who earn little money, since they will spend the cut. It is stupid to give tax cuts to multi-millionaires and billionaires, since they don't have to spend the gift, and probably will not. As someone who spent a number of years in the top 2%, I don't have any objection to rescinding that Bush cut while retaining it for poor and middle-class people. If someone making over $250K/y cannot manage to shelter income and reduce their taxable income legally, they have NO sympathy from me.

If you are a right-winger, and buy the GOP argument on the necessity of extending the Bush cuts, please ask yourself why. Why will such an extension benefit the US? Please be specific. If you think (or hope) that such an extension will benefit you personally, please let us know that, too. I have spent years in that tax category, and I would have to lie (with crocodile tears) if I wanted to claim that I would have been crippled (or my behavior changed) by a a 2-3% increase in the marginal tax rate.

 

[nismaratwork]

How does giving billions of dollars in tax-cuts to the wealthiest 1-2% of the populace help the economy? The GOP has not managed to elucidate that, though they claim it over and over again.

It is sensible to extend tax cuts to people who earn little money, since they will spend the cut. It is stupid to give tax cuts to multi-millionaires and billionaires, since they don't have to spend the gift, and probably will not. As someone who spent a number of years in the top 2%, I don't have any objection to rescinding that Bush cut while retaining it for poor and middle-class people. If someone making over $250K/y cannot manage to shelter income and reduce their taxable income legally, they have NO sympathy from me.

If you are a right-winger, and buy the GOP argument on the necessity of extending the Bush cuts, please ask yourself why. Why will such an extension benefit the US? Please be specific. If you think (or hope) that such an extension will benefit you personally, please let us know that, too. I have spent years in that tax category, and I would have to lie (with crocodile tears) if I wanted to claim that I would have been crippled (or my behavior changed) by a a 2-3% increase in the marginal tax rate.

I'm sure they would, but they're too busy chugging the Kool-Aid.

 

[nismaratwork]

None of this even affects the personal financial well-being of rich people either way. This obsession Democrats have with rich people is just part of their power hungry delusions. What historical power hungry (oppressive) world leader didn't believe, and have followers who believed, that they were fighting against the "rich and powerful" on behalf of "the people"?

And of course Democratic politicians can't really want their stated agenda to succeed, because the societal "ills" they claim to be fighting against are what keeps them in power.

So, because the Democrats are lying sacks, you think that the Republicans aren't also? They're in very similar, and often overlapping, pockets, but I don't think this is an example of obsession with the rich. I believe this is an example of not extending a handout from one group of sociopaths, so that they can use that money as a handout for their own group of sociopaths. Even then, it's not a reason to support these cuts, just a reason to hate both parties.

 

[WhoWee]

How does giving billions of dollars in tax-cuts to the wealthiest 1-2% of the populace help the economy? The GOP has not managed to elucidate that, though they claim it over and over again.

It is sensible to extend tax cuts to people who earn little money, since they will spend the cut. It is stupid to give tax cuts to multi-millionaires and billionaires, since they don't have to spend the gift, and probably will not. As someone who spent a number of years in the top 2%, I don't have any objection to rescinding that Bush cut while retaining it for poor and middle-class people. If someone making over $250K/y cannot manage to shelter income and reduce their taxable income legally, they have NO sympathy from me.

If you are a right-winger, and buy the GOP argument on the necessity of extending the Bush cuts, please ask yourself why. Why will such an extension benefit the US? Please be specific. If you think (or hope) that such an extension will benefit you personally, please let us know that, too. I have spent years in that tax category, and I would have to lie (with crocodile tears) if I wanted to claim that I would have been crippled (or my behavior changed) by a a 2-3% increase in the marginal tax rate.

Don't get caught up in the whole rich versus poor debate.

This debate should be framed around incentives to help small business (and business owners).

Some hard choices need to be made. Reckless spending with no return on investment has to be capped. Additionally, how long can people stay on unemployment (benefit extensions) before they start to lose skills? We need to create jobs and like it or not - small businesses create jobs.

 

[mheslep]

How does giving billions of dollars in tax-cuts to the wealthiest 1-2% of the populace help the economy? The GOP has not managed to elucidate that, though they claim it over and over again...

As various GOP leaders have repeatedly stated, half of those tax increase dollars as of January '11 will come from small business, small business creates the vast majority of jobs in the US.

 

[turbo]

As various GOP leaders have repeatedly stated, half of those tax increase dollars as of January '11 will come from small business, small business creates the vast majority of jobs in the US.

If rescindining W's tax cuts for the rich equates to a crippling tax increase, I have a glass of Kool-Aid for you.

 

[mheslep]

If rescindining W's tax cuts for the rich equates to a crippling tax increase, I have a glass of Kool-Aid for you.

I hope the dems keep up that same tune: 'our hand waiving is somehow obviously correct and alternative views are nuts.' It will take the Republicans coasting back into the majority party.

More from the professional Kool-Aid drinkers:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With income tax rates set to go up on Dec. 31, Congress is hotly debating what to do next. But most economists agree: Keep them where they are.

One option, to let the tax cuts passed during the Bush administration expire for only the richest 3% of taxpayers while renewing them for everyone else, is popular among Democrats and the choice of the Obama administration.

But a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm

 

[lisab]

One of the best ideas the Republican party has come up with is pay-as-you-go, which was policy during the 90s and resulted in reducing the deficit drastically. Inspired by that idea, I propose a poll...well I guess there's already a poll, so a nested poll:

For those who would like to extend the tax cuts, please indicate how you want them to be paid for.

1) Borrow from the Chinese (actually the same as borrowing from the next generation)
2) Borrow from the Saudis (ditto)
3) Print more money

Or is there some other way that you have in mind?

 

[Al68]

How does giving billions of dollars in tax-cuts to the wealthiest 1-2% of the populace help the economy?

Nobody is advocating giving anything to the rich.

The GOP has not managed to elucidate that, though they claim it over and over again.

Why would they "elucidate" a claim they never made?

If you think raising taxes is a good idea, the burden of justification is on you. Why on Earth would you think anyone has any obligation to justify their position to confiscate less property from others by force than you want them to?

And confiscating less property from someone by force than you want them to does not constitute "giving" them anything. That's the type of propaganda that works on children with IQ's below 70, hardly suitable for a science forum.

 

[Al68]

So, because the Democrats are lying sacks, you think that the Republicans aren't also? They're in very similar, and often overlapping, pockets, but I don't think this is an example of obsession with the rich. I believe this is an example of not extending a handout from one group of sociopaths, so that they can use that money as a handout for their own group of sociopaths. Even then, it's not a reason to support these cuts, just a reason to hate both parties.

What's not a reason to support tax cuts? I don't know what you're trying to say here, or what "handouts" you're talking about, or what "sociopaths" you're talking about. I just can't make any sense of your post.

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps the better question to ask in this debate can be framed around the Obama tax cuts.

How many jobs were created from Obama's tax cuts to 95% of all Americans?
Better yet, how many jobs were created from Cash for Clunkers?

We've seen massive stimulus spending, a takeover of the auto industry, extensions of unemployment, promises of a better future, promises of Green energy potentials, Union subsidies, COBRA extensions, promises of better health care, etc.

The question is when and how? The Government can't subsidize our future - somebody has to pay for it. An extra $10 in someone's pocket buys a pizza - and a need for an additional $10. An extra $100,000 left in a business creates growth, employment, and future tax revenue.

 

[russ_watters]

If rescindining W's tax cuts for the rich equates to a crippling tax increase, I have a glass of Kool-Aid for you.

Well it certainly doesn't equate to a tax cut to extend it as you characerized earlier. Your posts are entirely propagandizing; misdirection, obfuscation, strawman, and hyperbole.

 

[nismaratwork]

What's not a reason to support tax cuts? I don't know what you're trying to say here, or what "handouts" you're talking about, or what "sociopaths" you're talking about. I just can't make any sense of your post.

Handouts to the people, and, depending on the party, corporations or unions which got them elected. Does that help decipher the riddle?

WhoWee: How many jobs were created by Bush's tax cuts?

 

[mheslep]

One of the best ideas the Republican party has come up with is pay-as-you-go, which was policy during the 90s and resulted in reducing the deficit drastically. Inspired by that idea, I propose a poll...well I guess there's already a poll, so a nested poll:

For those who would like to extend the tax cuts, please indicate how you want them to be paid for.

1) Borrow from the Chinese (actually the same as borrowing from the next generation)
2) Borrow from the Saudis (ditto)
3) Print more money

Or is there some other way that you have in mind?

Why did you leave off the obvious 4) 'cut spending' from that list? The projected yearly revenue for the tax increase for the top 2% is a small fraction of the current $1400B yearly deficit; projected revenue from tax increases across all income levels is still a fraction. So discussion of this particular scheduled tax increase as any kind of remedy for this deficit is a meaningless distraction aside from the political consequences, which I grant are (unfortunately) significant.

As far as what to cut, there have been several straightforward proposals:

[...]
There's a simple spending correction plan to balance the budget, put forward recently by Rep Ryan:
o Resend the balance of TARP
o Resend the balance of the AARA stimulus.
o Restore other non-entitlement spending back to 2008 levels.
That's $1.3T, done.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why did you leave off the obvious 4) 'cut spending' from that list? The projected yearly revenue for the tax increase for the top 2% is a small fraction of the current $1400B yearly deficit; projected revenue from tax increases across all income levels is still a fraction. So discussion of this particular scheduled tax increase as any kind of remedy for this deficit is a meaningless distraction aside from the political consequences, which I grant are (unfortunately) significant.

As far as what to cut, there have been several straightforward proposals:

Is there a reason that a small fraction shouldn't be added to other measures to add up to a larger fraction?

 

[mheslep]

Is there a reason that a small fraction shouldn't be added to other measures to add up to a larger fraction?

Yes sure, but i) I was responding both specifically to a post where spending was omitted entirely and generally to the larger discussion where spending is often omitted entirely, ii) increasing taxes tends to slow economic growth, a bad thing especially with 9-10% unemployment hence the majority of economists polled in the link I posted above favoring no tax increase (for anyone) at this time.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes sure, but i) I was responding both specifically to a post where spending was omitted entirely and generally to the larger discussion where spending is often omitted entirely, ii) increasing taxes tends to slow economic growth, a bad thing especially with 9-10% unemployment hence the majority of economists polled in the link I posted above favoring no tax increase (for anyone) at this time.

Well, The TAARP and AARA bit you mentioned sounds good, I'll admit... entitlement reform just isn't going to happen with democrats where they are, and I don't know enough about it to discuss it.

In the one narrow area of not extending, or increasing (whichever term) these taxes for the top 2%, is that likely to slow economic growth? I understand that across-the-board tax increases slows economic growth, but is there any material out there examining what taxing that top 2% does, other than get that small amount to add to other small amounts?

 

[lisab]

Why did you leave off the obvious 4) 'cut spending' from that list? The projected yearly revenue for the tax increase for the top 2% is a small fraction of the current $1400B yearly deficit; projected revenue from tax increases across all income levels is still a fraction. So discussion of this particular scheduled tax increase as any kind of remedy for this deficit is a meaningless distraction aside from the political consequences, which I grant are (unfortunately) significant.

As far as what to cut, there have been several straightforward proposals:

Yes I realize I left it off, because politically I don't see it happening. It seems that no matter who runs congress they'd rather borrow than cut.

And speaking of things not happening...the third item on the list, cutting social programs. I can't imagine any politician explaining to retired folks their benefits will be cut to allow the wealthy to keep their Bush tax cuts!

But yes, resinding unspent bailout money should certainly be considered -- to cut deficit spending, not to ensure the wealthy get a tax cut.

 

[turbo]

Yes I realize I left it off, because politically I don't see it happening. It seems that no matter who runs congress they'd rather borrow than cut.

And speaking of things not happening...the third item on the list, cutting social programs. I can't imagine any politician explaining to retired folks their benefits will be cut to allow the wealthy to keep their Bush tax cuts!

But yes, resinding unspent bailout money should certainly be considered -- to cut deficit spending, not to ensure the wealthy get a tax cut.

Borrowing is a way to satisfy the desires of the people who bankroll both parties. Neither party seems to have a problem with that. My wife and I borrowed only as needed and repaid as quickly as possible. We have been married for over 35 years. We have not owed anybody any money for over 20 years. We are not wealthy, nor do we try to emulate the life-styles of the wealthy - we are pragmatists who have lived within our means and resisted the temptation to spend additional income. As we made more money, we saved more and invested more.

Right now, there are no fiscal conservatives at the helm of our government. There is nobody in either party that seems capable of espousing and fighting for conservative fiscal policies. Right now Glenn Hubbard is on PBS, echoing all the GOP blather on how Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy cannot be allowed to expire. He is making NO sense, with no rational argument for how allowing marginal tax rates to return to Clinton-era levels will destroy our economy. Gwen Ifil is a willing participant in this sham-conversation, feeding him GOP softballs over and over.

So much for the "liberal media".

 

[WhoWee]

And speaking of things not happening...the third item on the list, cutting social programs. I can't imagine any politician explaining to retired folks their benefits will be cut to allow the wealthy to keep their Bush tax cuts!

The Dems will have some explaining to do as details continue to leak out regarding "health care reform".
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/09/10/113149.htm

"Key Findings
National Health Expenditures:



Health spending in 2010 is projected to reach $2.6 trillion and account for 17.5 percent of GDP, up 0.2 percentage point from pre-reform estimates. This growth is driven in large part by the postponement of cuts to Medicare physician payments and legislative changes to COBRA premium subsidies.

In 2011, public and private health spending is expected to grow more slowly as reductions in Medicare physician payment rates (including a 23-percent reduction in December of 2010) come into effect and COBRA premium subsidies expire.
Health spending is projected to rise significantly in 2014 when health coverage is expanded to millions of uninsured Americans. Expanded coverage means overall spending is expected to increase by 9.2 percent, significantly higher than the 6.6 percent rate put forward in February. Public spending is projected to increase by 9.7 percent in 2014, while private spending is anticipated to increase by 8.6 percent.


Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/09/10/113149.htm#ixzz10Iy25Iq7"

 

[turbo]

The Dems will have some explaining to do as details continue to leak out regarding "health care reform".
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/09/10/113149.htm

"Key Findings
National Health Expenditures:



Health spending in 2010 is projected to reach $2.6 trillion and account for 17.5 percent of GDP, up 0.2 percentage point from pre-reform estimates. This growth is driven in large part by the postponement of cuts to Medicare physician payments and legislative changes to COBRA premium subsidies.

In 2011, public and private health spending is expected to grow more slowly as reductions in Medicare physician payment rates (including a 23-percent reduction in December of 2010) come into effect and COBRA premium subsidies expire.
Health spending is projected to rise significantly in 2014 when health coverage is expanded to millions of uninsured Americans. Expanded coverage means overall spending is expected to increase by 9.2 percent, significantly higher than the 6.6 percent rate put forward in February. Public spending is projected to increase by 9.7 percent in 2014, while private spending is anticipated to increase by 8.6 percent.


Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/09/10/113149.htm#ixzz10Iy25Iq7"

You might ask yourself why the GOP fought tooth-and-nail to deny ANY reform, and why they fought to water down the reform to the point that real savings would be difficult to realize. Is the health-insurance industry important to the well-being of our country?

It would be instructive if you can explain how protecting the profits of the insurance companies is critical to the health of our economy.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You might ask yourself why the GOP fought tooth-and-nail to deny ANY reform, and why they fought to water down the reform to the point that real savings would be difficult to realize. Is the health-insurance industry important to the well-being of our country?

It would be instructive if you can explain how protecting the profits of the insurance companies is critical to the health of our economy.

Lovely strawman.

 

[turbo]

Lovely strawman.

So you don't have a cogent response? You cannot deny that it happened (if you paid attention to how the bill even got out of committee and how it was hobbled before it came to the floor). The party of NO will eventually get its comeuppance, if the media will get honest in its coverage. Our government is bought and owned by corporate interests (both parties!), and is disinterested in acting for the common good.

 

[WhoWee]

You might ask yourself why the GOP fought tooth-and-nail to deny ANY reform, and why they fought to water down the reform to the point that real savings would be difficult to realize. Is the health-insurance industry important to the well-being of our country?

It would be instructive if you can explain how protecting the profits of the insurance companies is critical to the health of our economy.

As you know, I deal with these issues on a daily basis. In my professional opinion, you can not increase benefits, increase regulation, and insure all pre-existing conditions without increasing costs.