Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Just finished the annual family viewing of "White Christmas." So good. And the movie's secret weapon? John Brascia. Who'...
-
Warning: This is really gross. When the doctors came to me that Saturday afternoon and told me I was probably going to need surgery, I got...
-
A funny thing happened while reading Tim Alberta's new book. I thought about becoming a Christian again. That's maybe not the reacti...
3 comments:
The main difference between an economist and a liberal economist is simple
An economist debates how little a government can take from its private sector and still have a functional government
A liberal economist debates how much a government can take from its private sector and still have a functional private sector
This graph is illustrative of this point.
Did lower taxes lead to greater revenue streams? History teaches us that certain taxes cuts increase revenue not decrease.
Wealth production isn't linear in relation to tax rates as Krugman suggests. If it were tax rates wouldn't have to be subjective.
Also this health plan is anything but "paid for" Many estimates place the deficit of the plan at 2.5 trillion.
I'm genuinely asking the questions:
What is the cost to the taxpayer when companies in addition to AT&T, Catepiller, etc place their numbers on the government healthroll?
Did anyone figure the higher unemployment rate due to increased costs of employment?
What happens when there has to be 10 years of "benefits" and only 10 years of taxation vs the 6 years of "benefits" vs 10 years of taxation currently offered by this healthcare plan defended by Krugman?
namefromthepast: Thanks for commenting. A quick run at some of your thoughts...
Did lower taxes lead to greater revenue streams? History teaches us that certain taxes cuts increase revenue not decrease.
Well that one's easy. No. You'll recall that George W. Bush began his presidency with a budget surplus ... and ended it with a big and growing deficit. I know conservatives like to say that cutting tax rates can increase tax revenues, and I'm sure there's a set of conditions where that's true. But that wasn't the case in this case: George W. Bush cut taxes and grew government (and thus grew the deficit) just like Ronald Reagan before him.
Also this health plan is anything but "paid for" Many estimates place the deficit of the plan at 2.5 trillion.
But the Congressional Budget Office, which is charged with coming up with the official numbers for these things, says it will actually reduce the deficit. There's still some stuff up in the air, of course: Whether Congress will let Medicare cuts go through, whether it really will allow the tax on "cadillac" health plans start up in a few years. But as it stands, our best projection is that it actually is paid for.
What is the cost to the taxpayer when companies in addition to AT&T, Catepiller, etc place their numbers on the government healthroll?
I'm not certain that'll happen. They're still getting federal subsidies to offer prescription drug coverage, after all. They're just not getting an *additional* tax deduction to offer those subsidies.
And so on and so forth. I doubt that I'll convince you that health reform is a good idea. But from my perspective, the cost of health care in America was already a substantial cost burden for the federal government. The health reform plan extends coverage and reduces that burden, somewhat, all at the same time. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Joel
I really appreciate thoughtful comment thanks for being civil.
I agree with you on one point. We won't agree.
A quick run at your thoughts
Reagan inherited a much worse economy than did Obama. Using a conservative approach the revenue streams into the federal government went up drastically.
The problem with Congress be it Rep or Dem they'll spend more than they have.
Between 2002 and 2009 cumulative deficits were $3.35 trillion this credits the entire 2009 deficit and TARP entirely to Bush.
Bush sucked at reducing the deficit so I really don't attempt to defend him on that count. But Obama doesn't seem to have any more stomach for deficit reduction than Bush.
He was supposed to fix the errors of Republicans not double down on them. Right?
Shall we all be bi-partisan and say deficits don't matter so rock on?
The CBO is strictly limited to analyse the bill as written they are forbidden to use commonsense. You alluded to this. So as written the "doc fix" isn't part of the bill, yet one doesn't work without the other, the CBO said that the spending would cost $216 billion by 2019 and increase at 8% every year after that-faster than revenue streams to the program, that means that over 10 years the cost is $2.5T not the $1T advertised by the administration.
The "cadillac tax", unrealistically low medicare reimbursement rates, etc are accounting sleight of hand that the CBO can't legally comment on isn't intellectually honest.
No one likes the cost of healthcare being out of control but grinding towards this law has been just plain ugly.
Moreover, governing against the will of the people will hurt this country more than this healthcare plan.
Joel keeping up a thoughtful fact oriented debate will never appeal to the masses. Say something truly emotional and/or nasty and go to work on one of the cable networks.
Post a Comment