Thread: Tax the Rich

Originally Posted by Crotalus

How can you balance the budget when there is no budget? Obama and Reed haven't even proposed a budget in 4 years.

Excellent point. I guess we'll have to wait till the end of the year and see if what we spent was less than or greater than what money we've raised. Anyone care to guess?

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Keep in mind, though everyone wants to cut the size of Govt and it seems like a great idea, the reason Govt has grown so much is either in response to what people want or to deal with issues mostly caused by the private sector acting badly.

I don't believe this for one moment. Obamacare creates panels and agencies and represents a significant increase in the size of our gov't. And it was not exactly overwhelming supported. How could it have been when we needed to pass the legislation just to find out what was in it? Is the IRS something we wanted or the result of bad behavior? The dept of energy? Dept of education? The argument is always one of either totally dismantling these departments or doing nothing. Yet we consistently speak of trimming back the military with the acknowledgment that we can't eliminate it. How about as a first step we simply stop growing the size of gov't? Much like the immigration issue, why do we need to chose between granting amnesty and rounding up every illegal immigrant? How about we stop the bleeding first? Who knows, maybe we'll even figure out a way to pay for it if it simply stops growing.

Originally Posted by gugi

No, I think it's just plain dumb. A good governance means the ability to run surpluses when the economy is good and deficits when it's bad, on the average should be balanced. This is so that the government can compensate for the insane fluctuations that the free market provides.
Because the fundamental role of the government is to maintain a properly functioning society.

While I personally wold agree that there could be/should be provisions to run a deficit under specific scenarios, regulating the markets is not one of them. In fact, if the gov't and the FED got out of the markets, I think you'd see significantly less "fluctuations" that are mostly blamed on the free markets (when they are anything but free). Our current economic state is a perfect example. In spite of what the president insists, these are not the results of George Bush. This is the result of many years of our gov't, the FED, Fannie & Freddie, enabling poor investment. And all of the response to it has fallen short or been in vain. But when the FED hold interest rates artificially low, when the gov't promotes home ownership for people who might not be good candidates for being property owners, when Congress insists on lending standards to be lowered, and the semi-gov't agencies (Fannie and Freddie) stand by ready to buy up bad loans, you end up with "fluctuation". But none of it is the product of the free market. If we pursued the separation of economy and state with the same fervor we pursue the separation of church and state, I think we'd see some change we can believe in.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

I don't believe this for one moment. Obamacare creates panels and agencies and represents a significant increase in the size of our gov't. And it was not exactly overwhelming supported. How could it have been when we needed to pass the legislation just to find out what was in it? Is the IRS something we wanted or the result of bad behavior? The dept of energy? Dept of education? The argument is always one of either totally dismantling these departments or doing nothing. Yet we consistently speak of trimming back the military with the acknowledgment that we can't eliminate it. How about as a first step we simply stop growing the size of gov't? Much like the immigration issue, why do we need to chose between granting amnesty and rounding up every illegal immigrant? How about we stop the bleeding first? Who knows, maybe we'll even figure out a way to pay for it if it simply stops growing.

Oh - oh I have to jump in and agree with thebigspender wholeheartedly on this one.

Using your examples:

Healthcare - kind of a moral question I guess, but if you think that private insurers haven't behaved poorly - read the news. American's get screwed on a daily basis by private firms. And though many might not care - the world laughs at America and it's claim to superiority when it has child mortality rates the likes of poorer nations in Africa.

Dept of Energy - if it wasn't for the fact that every energy producer has to lobby for rate increases, we wouldn't be leaving our computers on all day or even putting up x-mas lights. Not everyone can afford to build an energy plant so competition is scarce! If they could have it their way - you would be paying a ton more. Now in the long run it might work itself out - but not before killing industry first.

Think Enron - they actually killed folks by turning off the power in Cali in order to force them to pay more... ARG!

Education - I doubt in KS we would be learning about Darwin - nuf said.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

While I personally wold agree that there could be/should be provisions to run a deficit under specific scenarios, regulating the markets is not one of them. In fact, if the gov't and the FED got out of the markets, I think you'd see significantly less "fluctuations" that are mostly blamed on the free markets (when they are anything but free). Our current economic state is a perfect example. In spite of what the president insists, these are not the results of George Bush. This is the result of many years of our gov't, the FED, Fannie & Freddie, enabling poor investment. And all of the response to it has fallen short or been in vain. But when the FED hold interest rates artificially low, when the gov't promotes home ownership for people who might not be good candidates for being property owners, when Congress insists on lending standards to be lowered, and the semi-gov't agencies (Fannie and Freddie) stand by ready to buy up bad loans, you end up with "fluctuation". But none of it is the product of the free market. If we pursued the separation of economy and state with the same fervor we pursue the separation of church and state, I think we'd see some change we can believe in.

I would say that you are almost spot on but you are missing a very big point. All those things you are complaining about happened at the end of us not regulating enough!! We stopped regulating because Wall Street said give people what they want and the public joined in and forced the governments hand - not the other way around!

Country's with strong regulations did not fair nearly as badly as America... And that's because they had stronger regulation. It's a Fact!

Originally Posted by earcutter

Oh - oh I have to jump in and agree with thebigspender wholeheartedly on this one.

Using your examples:

Healthcare - kind of a moral question I guess, but if you think that private insurers haven't behaved poorly - read the news. American's get screwed on a daily basis by private firms. And though many might not care - the world laughs at America and it's claim to superiority when it has child mortality rates the likes of poorer nations in Africa.

Dept of Energy - if it wasn't for the fact that every energy producer has to lobby for rate increases, we wouldn't be leaving our computers on all day or even putting up x-mas lights. Not everyone can afford to build an energy plant so competition is scarce! If they could have it their way - you would be paying a ton more. Now in the long run it might work itself out - but not before killing industry first.

Education - I doubt in KS we would be learning about Darwin - nuf said.

Can you buy healthcare insurance from an IL provider? Why not? Your gov't said you can't. They are just as responsible for the state of health care as the insurance companies themselves. But the free market is not allowed to work on your behalf here. Gov't was quick to tell the health care industry how much money they can generate in profit with Obamacare. But they never told the public how much they could sue for in malpractice did they? And as for the morality of it, I'll give Obamacare some time to get going. Then we can have a discussion about the morality of it. In the meantime you're comparing what you hope it will be to what we currently have. I have a feeling we will all long for what will be described as the good ol days.

The Dept of energy was established to make us energy independent and get us off of foreign oil. How's that working out?

Education - I let the statistics on our educational system speak for themselves. If you're happy with the results, we won't bother arguing about it any further. But the last time I checked we weren't looking so good. Our kids can't read, write, or find the countries that are kicking our ass on a map. But they know all about how to put on a condom. Not that they do, but they've been given the proper instruction. For all the money we spend on education, the success rate sucks. But yes, they know about Darwin.....or, maybe they don't. Maybe that's just another thing they should be learning.

Originally Posted by earcutter

I would say that you are almost spot on but you are missing a very big point. All those things you are complaining about happened at the end of us not regulating enough!! We stopped regulating because Wall Street said give people what they want and the public joined in and forced the governments hand - not the other way around!

Country's with strong regulations did not fair nearly as badly as America... And that's because they had stronger regulation. It's a Fact!

Regulation is fine. It just depends on what that regulation is. The kind of nonsense that Barney Frank was selling (ie, the lowering of lending standards and such) was not the answer. In fact, most of what we've passed since is STILL not the answer. No one is suggesting that there be NO regulation. But gov't plays a much larger role in the disaster than the markets since they created the environment and circumstances. Yet when the sh!t hits the fan, they blame the free market system. No one bothers to question the role of gov't in the disaster.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

In the meantime you're comparing what you hope it will be to what we currently have. You might be right - but when up is the only way you can go, a few assumptions can be made. I guess it depends on where you are on the spectrum.

The Dept of energy was established to make us energy independent and get us off of foreign oil. How's that working out? Great really!! By 2020 I think they were saying America will be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia, and we will actually be independent from the need of foreign oil. I am stoked really!!

Education - I let the statistics on our educational system speak for themselves. If you're happy with the results, we won't bother arguing about it any further. But the last time I checked we weren't looking so good. Our kids can't read, write, or find the countries that are kicking our ass on a map. But they know all about how to put on a condom. Not that they do, but they've been given the proper instruction. For all the money we spend on education, the success rate sucks. But yes, they know about Darwin.....or, maybe they don't. Maybe that's just another thing they should be learning. Yup - it could be viewed as being poorly managed. No question about it. But having to pay for private school gets expensive and at least those who wish, can get educated. There are issues, though if they weren't regulated, and that's what we were talking about... there would be a ton more!

Well those are the things I am reading anyway...

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Regulation is fine. It just depends on what that regulation is. The kind of nonsense that Barney Frank was selling (ie, the lowering of lending standards and such) was not the answer. In fact, most of what we've passed since is STILL not the answer. No one is suggesting that there be NO regulation. But gov't plays a much larger role in the disaster than the markets since they created the environment and circumstances. Yet when the sh!t hits the fan, they blame the free market system. No one bothers to question the role of gov't in the disaster.

You are killing me brother - it's like we live on separate planets lol! I would whole heartily disagree with the comment emboldened. The government is scrutinized - heavily! But ultimately YOU, ME... we are all the government, and I guess looking inward is tough lol!!

Anyway - i am sure we want the same things... positive really. How we get there may be different, but I would be glad if you were my neighbor. These issues are important - I think. Thanks for the banter!

Originally Posted by earcutter

You are killing me brother - it's like we live on separate planets lol! I would whole heartily disagree with the comment emboldened. The government is scrutinized - heavily! But ultimately YOU, ME... we are all the government, and I guess looking inward is tough lol!!

Anyway - i am sure we want the same things... positive really. How we get there may be different, but I would be glad if you were my neighbor. These issues are important - I think. Thanks for the banter!

You can count on it. Same to you sir!