I mean if your don't like the president of this country, then why did you immigrate here to the United States. The US hasn't seen any difference you have ever made to herself, even if there was something you actually did, it would definitely be harm rather than anything good. If you ing hate Obama and what he does, then please give us some reasons for your hatred but before you can collect enough proof to convince us your thoughts were ing true, please stay silent or move back to your own country that you deserve to live in. After all, you're a rockets fan and also pretty dumb, I think that's enough to explain why you hate US so much for no ing reason.
I'm gay and I hate myself.
I'll blame no one. I'll be quite thankful.
Here are some Usual Suspects
July 27, 2009
An Incoherent Truth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.
But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.
To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)
Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and compe ion.
By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people.
On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care. And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies — subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families.
Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.
The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.
So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?
Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?
But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.
( costs = revenues for Blue Dog owners. )
There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.
But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.
So what do the Blue Dogs want?
Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.
One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.
But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.
Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.
Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.
Nice Boutons.
Print an article from an intellectual liberal pundit that knows when to lie about the economic facts, to make himself look good.
Have anything that unbiased by chance?
Unbiased is a relative term...
i'd blame the people that wrote it.
Well, he clearly states as fact what is known to economists otherwise, and is a Nobel Prize winner of economics!
He's a ing liar! Knowing he intentionally lied in one area makes the entire article suspect. Besides, he is a self proclaimed liberal.
I am going to side with a Nobel prize winner in economics on this one...
A quick rundown through the article, and I don't see the author claiming to be unbiased (nor factual for that matter). It would actually be good to read what your counter points are to what the guy's opinion is instead of taking you at face value.
After all, and unlike you, he *IS* a Nobel prize winner.
the nobel prize kinda lost its luster with me.
especially after Irena Sendler gets beat by this idiot
The Nobel Prize doesn't mean any more. , Al Gore won!
Are you agreeing that he is not being factual?This tax cut added to government revenues. Without it, the deficit would have been larger. Any unbiased economist will concur that the tax breaks spurred economic growth and because of that more people had money to pay in taxes.where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?
No, I'm actually disputing he ever claimed his opinion was fact. You merely jumped the gun on that one.
Opinion, really. We obviously will never know what would have happened if those tax cuts would have not passed.
That they were meant to to do that? Arguable. But that they actually did that is clearly not the case, at least in this instance. You have to look no further than the economic stimulus package that came a few years after. Why would you need to stimulate the economy is you're in the middle of 'economic growth'? If anything, it contributed to the growth of the housing bubble.
There is no such thing as an "unbiased economist."
With a record like this on important issues, why should we trust democrats?
Besides, how long did it take President Obama to pick a dog, yet he wants to rush health care reform. Don't democrats realize how much more complicated it is than selecting a pet?
nice. never realized that.
You don't have to. That's why you didn't vote for them in the first place.
tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves.
Then add in the $800B for the estate tax cuts, and you have real money to fuel a housing/asset bubble.
who wants it passed?
You are wrong.
Assume the two hypothetical extremes:
1) At 0% taxation, the government makes no revenue.
2) At 100% taxation, the government makes no revenue. sure, the first year, they confiscate everyone's wealth, but then who in their right mind is going to work, just to have it all taken away?
Somewhere between 0% and 100% is a taxation level that will make maximum revenue. It's not a point to just simply cut it in half either. Now since we have a history of the federal revenue being about 18% to 18.5% of the GNP, no matter what tax rate we use through history, we are at the wrong side of the curve. We need to continue to reduce taxes.
The "static" thinking person cannot understand how reduces taxes increases revenues. The mechanism is actually not too complicated. When individuals have more money, they simply spend more. The extra money creates more jobs, and the cycle slowly, over years, balances to a point of greater GNP, thus, greater revenues. 18% of a larger economy is more than 18% of an economy choked by tax rates.
When you increase the taxation of people and corporations, there is less money in the free economy to be spent. Jobs are lost. 18% at a smaller economy is less revenue for the government.
Right now, the tax cuts implemented by President Bush and a republican congress are set to expire next year. The 10% marginal rate will go back to 15%. 15%, to 25% to 28%, 28% to 31%, 33% to 35%, and 35% to 39.6%.
Do you guys paying the 10% marginal rate want to see your taxes increase by 50%? My god. The tax paying lower income received the biggest tax break. Myself, I used to drift between the 28% to 31% rate. I'm in the 25% rate this year after my deductions, but will go into paying 28% again. I'll be paying almost $2,000 more.
Let/s be conservative, and call it $1,500. Take that $1,500 and consider 200 other people in my situation. $300,000 less in the local economy. That's at least 1 to 5 jobs (depending on wages, probably 2 at my wages and benefits) directly affected because me and 20 other middle class workers are paying higher taxes.
The opposite holds true. When you reduce taxes, the free flow on money in the economy reduces spending, and reduces the need for employees.
Either way you look at it. Increasing or decreasing the money in the economy, it eventually gets taxed out. That's why the natural balance point is in the area of 18%.
Lower taxes = bigger economy = larger revenue at 18% of GNP.
Spinning the wheel
What's next? Laffer curve?
How can you fact check such a thing?
Fact check is not always correct. They make errors like anyone else. This is one of them if they actually claim, as fact, rather than opinion, that revenues would have been higher.
STATISTICS DO NOT MAKE FACTS!
I did not tread all of it, but they are flat out wrong if they stated it as fact! Without living an alternate time line, it's opinion. Not fact.
Fact Check lost credibility with that one.
Are you suggesting Laffer's theory is flawed?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
