Vote today... Mitt Romney or Barack Obama

[jazdoc]

Is there any truth to the allegation made by Romney that in order to make Obamacare work, Obama filtered huge amounts from the Medicare system or was that blowing smoke

Depends on the meaning of 'truth' is.

Obamacare is in part paid for by reducing the rate of growth of Medicare by $760 Billion dollars. This will be"paid" for by cost savings through improved efficiences in Medicare. Please note that actual expenditures for Medicare are projected to continue rising. A couple of comments:
1. Politicians of all persuasions endlessly promise cost savings in government programs through improved efficiences that never materialize. To suppose that this will happen with Obamacare is IMO, magical thinking. To paraphrase from the software industry, government inefficiency is not a bug, it's a feature.
2. In order to defend Obamacare, Democrats have been forced to argue for the first time, that cutting the rate of growth in a government program is not an actual 'cut'.

 

[Bill Hart]

David Brooks column in today's NYTimes (and I'm hardly a fanboy of either the writer or the newspaper) is thought provoking. He pointed to the changing demographics of the country, singling out Asians and Hispanics, both of which- as a gross generalization (but a fair one, in my experience), place great emphasis on industry, family and certainly in the case of Hispanics, religion. But, they rejected the Republican platform, according to Brooks, because they don't have an historical or cultural loathing for big government. If the Republican Party is stuck in the past, I think the Democratic Party is too, to a degree- I think what offends is the notion of supporting a welfare state. There has to be an enlightened way to get the country on its feet without the extremes or excesses of either party. My sense, and i'm not proselytizing, just observing, is that when the economy is working effectively, most people are fine, and don't pay much attention to big social or political issues unless it directly affects them.

 

[FrantzM]

I asked for data. Not ideology. Sweden may be a country full of entitled government slaves, but a poverty problem they have not. Meanwhile in the lower tax USA rural Alabama eerily resembles a 3rd world country. Let's stick with the issue at hand - how does high taxation hurt the poor?

An issue seldom raised in the USA is the alarming level of poverty of some in places like rural Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, etc. Should we conclude that those people don't want to work, that they simply think they entitled to receive without providing anything to the public treasure? Which is the impression that I keep on seeing here as if poor people have made a decision to be poor and revel in their poverty. Or do we really think the problem can solve itself or maybe just by making the rich richer maybe in their infinite generosity and compassion, they will suddenly think about those .. others ?? Poverty is not an issue that should be looked at with such condescension.. with the lack of compassion in display here. It is a serious issue and must be addressed at the Government level.. There are certain things that can't be privatized.. Addressing poverty is one of them ...

 

[edorr]

Depends on the meaning of 'truth' is.

Government inefficiency is not a bug, it's a feature.

The same applies to private sector inefficiency. Anyone that has ever dealt with private insurance can surely attest to this.

This is not just about efficiency though. A for profit insurance company has a fidicuary duty to its shareholders to not insure high risks (i.e. pre-existing conditions), or do so at prohibitive rates. Nothing wrong with that, but this simply means in the healthcare industry a free market system fails to provide a socially desirable outcome (i.e. universal healthcare insurance). A lot of people cringe reading "socially desirable outcome". I don't.

For the record - my wife has a pre-existing condition and would be uninsurable if I lost my job and without Obamacare.

 

[egidius]

context

I have lived and am from the poorest country in the Americas and one of the poorest in the World and income taxes there are not you are talking about .. It is actually nominally low ...the ceiling is low about 25%. Now do people actually pay the taxes? .. Whole different thing

I am with edorr, countries with the Highest standard of Living on the planet do actually have very high taxes rates. Companies are not lining to go to other places ...

I want to give some context: I live in Switzerland. In a way, one of the richest country in the world.
We pay between 23 - 34 % tax of our net income. Now it all depends, how you are allowed to define your net income; famously Microsoft Switzerland was unfortunately always broke the last few years, so their taxation was minimal to zero (of course the staff did still pay tax, so it's all shifted).
And it depends what you get for it: For example we have an incredible public transport, post, water, ( not privatised, and will not be, as people just saw in time what happenend in England an Germany, and now the liberal mood has swung back - a bit.)

But on top of that, we are bound by law to have our private care insurance, which is in a way also a tax; but there is really no question anybody would want to get rid of this, except for the ultra right , so the american opposition against the health insurance does not find any support here in Switzerland, and please understand, this is a deeply conservative country! ..
But even we felt the strain of the last years, and increased taxes seem to be a way to keep the social contract that you get what you pay for. Or you try to sell your family silver? How often can you do that?
FWIW

 

[DaveyF]

actually it increases the roles of the poor....higher taxes, more entitlements, spawning future generations of a "lazy" entitlement society creating no wealth for the country. Let's not forget these people are slaves the govt. They have lost their freedom if they are smart enough to realize it or not. The USA will not bcome a marginalized euro style nation...not in my generation anyway.

Methinks, GOD help you IF you ever find yourself in the position of being poor one day.
BTW, last time I looked, capital gains were taxed as "unearned" income...the key word here being "unearned"!! The meaning of "unearned" seems to be forgotten once "unearned" income starts to flow.

 

[jazdoc]

There are certain things that can't be privatized.. Addressing poverty is one of them ...

Frantz you make an excellent point. However, we have to utilize metrics to assess the effectiveness of government programs beyond simply how much money we are spending. Given the amount of money that our government has spent on poverty programs over the past 50 years, one would surmise that it could no longer exist. I don't think anyone would say that the Great Society antipoverty programs are particularly effective at reducing poverty at a societal level and many advocates for the poor understand that they have contributed to the development of a permanent underclass. It is indeed ironic that the poverty rate stopped declining when the Great Society was enacted:



The two biggest risk factors for poverty are a) being a single mother and b) not having a job. If antipoverty programs are not effectively addressing these cultural issues, they are doomed to failure.

 

[Bill Hart]

An issue seldom raised in the USA is the alarming level of poverty of some in places like rural Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, etc. Should we conclude that those people don't want to work, that they simply think they entitled to receive without providing anything to the public treasure? Which is the impression that I keep on seeing here as if poor people have made a decision to be poor and revel in their poverty. Or do we really think the problem can solve itself or maybe just by making the rich richer maybe in their infinite generosity and compassion, they will suddenly think about those .. others ?? Poverty is not an issue that should be looked at with such condescension.. with the lack of compassion in display here. It is a serious issue and must be addressed at the Government level.. There are certain things that can't be privatized.. Addressing poverty is one of them ...

Frantz- some of that was the focal point of the civil rights movement and the Great Society in the mid-60's. Historically, I don't know why nothing ever worked to improve that- probably an agrarian economy that didn't change, except for pockets in the south where large industry moved in, like automotive, Fedex (but Memphis is a pretty scary place when you get off the tourist trail). Today, the problem is now far greater and extends to cities in the North and MidWest where there were jobs, but no more. Rural southern poverty is now far in the background of what is considered to be the problem of 'poverty' in the States. Not diminishing it as an issue....

 

[edorr]

I want to give some context: I live in Switzerland. In a way, one of the richest country in the world.
We pay between 23 - 34 % tax of our net income. Now it all depends, how you are allowed to define your net income; famously Microsoft Switzerland was unfortunately always broke the last few years, so their taxation was minimal to zero (of course the staff did still pay tax, so it's all shifted).
And it all depends what you get for it: For example we have an incredible public transport, post, water, it all is not privatised, and will not be, as people just saw in time what happenend in England an Germany, and now the liberal mood has swung back - a bit.

And: We are bound by law to have our private care insurance, which is in a way also a tax; but there is really no question anybody would want to get rid of this, except for the ultra right , so the american opposition against the health insurance does not find any support here in Switzerland, and please understand, this is a deeply conservative country! ..
FWIW

Switserland's is in a somewhat unique position. As you mentioned, considering the big role of government in Swiss society (including a generous social safety net), a "government is the problem" platform would not get you elected in Switserland. Make take is this: Switserland has a very big pie to slice up, so you can afford generous public services with a relatively small slice of the pie (taxation). Very few countries could emulate the Swiss model though. May be Luxembourg.

Love the country by the way - used to do consulting for Philip Morris Europe. Hang out by the lake in Lausanne, see the Jazz festival in Montreux.

 

[Bill Hart]

I asked for data. Not ideology. Sweden may be a country full of entitled government slaves, but a poverty problem they have not. Meanwhile in the lower tax USA rural Alabama eerily resembles a 3rd world country. Let's stick with the issue at hand - how does high taxation hurt the poor?

My experience in Sweden, which may now be somewhat dated, is that it was/is a very homogeneous country, shared culture, religion, etc. And I thought the country was feeling the impact of its social welfare (I'm not using that term in the perjorative sense) system. I also don't know what impact immigration in the last twenty years has had, which is why I'm a little hesitant to make blanket statements.

 

[edorr]

My experience in Sweden, which may now be somewhat dated, is that it was/is a very homogeneous country, shared culture, religion, etc. And I thought the country was feeling the impact of its social welfare (I'm not using that term in the perjorative sense) system. I also don't know what impact immigration in the last twenty years has had, which is why I'm a little hesitant to make blanket statements.

Like all countries, Swedish society has plenty of issues to deal with. However, you can safely make the blanket statement that poverty is less of an issue in higher taxed Sweden than the USA.

 

[A.wayne]

Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing.
-Albert Einstein

 

[Andre Marc]

Let's see how close we are to the popular vote...opps I typo'd the pres. It's BARACK, sorry Mr. President.

I think it is time to end this hysteria over taxes. It is a farce. Enough is enough.

If taxes go "up", REALLY meaning will they let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, the top rates will go back to EXACTLY where they were in 2001.

Secondly, those with wages over FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND will pay an additional $35,000 in tax. It just means a few less flower arrangements
at the dinner parties.

I have an account with Morgan Stanley, and they just sent out a PDF entitled "End Of Year Tax Planning"..with around 40 different check boxes and
items to lower your taxes. Not ONE of them applies to anyone with an income of less than $350,000. High earners have so many more loopholes to take advantage
of.

We now know as a FACT that lowering taxes for the top 1% do NOT create jobs, they simply fatten up off shore accounts, and that it does NOT stimulate the economy..SEE: THE BUSH YEARS.

It also makes me sick to my stomach that some would trade lower tax rates for policies that weaken the country and destroy us socially. Oh, things like war
mongering, destruction of the environment, total and utter lack of over sight of the financial services industry, and an absurd social agenda. In other words,
the GOP platform.

Over and out.

 

[ack]

[h=1]Reuters:

Breaking News: President would veto any bill that extends Bush era tax cuts for top 2 percent of wage earners: White House[/h]

 

[edorr]

I think it is time to end this hysteria over taxes. It is a farce. Enough is enough.

If taxes go "up", REALLY meaning will they let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, the top rates will go back to EXACTLY where they were in 2001.

Secondly, those with wages over FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND will pay an additional $35,000 in tax. It just means a few less flower arrangements
at the dinner parties.

I have an account with Morgan Stanley, and they just sent out a PDF entitled "End Of Year Tax Planning"..with around 40 different check boxes and
items to lower your taxes. Not ONE of them applies to anyone with an income of less than $350,000. High earners have so many more loopholes to take advantage
of.

We now know as a FACT that lowering taxes for the top 1% do NOT create jobs, they simply fatten up off shore accounts, and that it does NOT stimulate the economy..SEE: THE BUSH YEARS.

It also makes me sick to my stomach that some would trade lower tax rates for policies that weaken the country and destroy us socially. Oh, things like war
mongering, destruction of the environment, total and utter lack of over sight of the financial services industry, and an absurd social agenda. In other words,
the GOP platform.

Over and out.

+1

 

[edorr]

[h=1]Reuters:

Breaking News: President would veto any bill that extends Bush era tax cuts for top 2 percent of wage earners: White House[/h]

Good for him. Line in the sand. If we go off the cliff, we'll all go together.

The voters will decide who is to blame. Get the tea party rascals out of office. Boehner is secretly hoping for this because he despises them as much as Obama behind closed doors.

 

[rblnr]

+1

Agreed. Btw, according to the CBO, biggest contributor to the deficit by far, more than either war, far more than any entitlements, are the Bush tax cuts. Don't have the chart handy but these are the numbers whether they work with your philosophy or not.

 

[edorr]

Agreed. Btw, according to the CBO, biggest contributor to the deficit by far, more than either war, far more than any entitlements, are the Bush tax cuts. Don't have the chart handy but these are the numbers whether they work with your philosophy or not.

The notion of starting two wars and giving everyone a tax cut and let the laffer curve work its magic to pick up the slack will go down in history as one of the most insane and destructive policies ever enacted in US history.

 

[MasterChief]

Wow, I am somewhat suprised, as a swede, to see all this discussion about my country. The reason for my countrys success was because of hard working entrepreneurs and, imho, a high level of ethics. But that was 50-100 years ago and we are still surfing on that golden era. Then we "invented" welfare state and things are actually not great anymore. High taxes but the goverment are doing a pretty lousy job handling all that money. The only thing the politicians are good at, is to take credit for good things they don't create, for example new jobs. I am considering moving to Galts gulch, if only I can find it.

 

[jazdoc]

Agreed. Btw, according to the CBO, biggest contributor to the deficit by far, more than either war, far more than any entitlements, are the Bush tax cuts. Don't have the chart handy but these are the numbers whether they work with your philosophy or not.

Actually here's what the CBO says: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-07-ChangesSince2001Baseline.pdf. Translation of 'Projection Inaccuracy' =we goofed up our forecast.