Meanwhile back at the ranch,

[philly4life]

That post didn't make a whole lot of sense.

I think he was using "tom" as an abbreviation for "tomorrow".

[Eagle Road]

I think he was using "tom" as an abbreviation for "tomorrow".

Yeah, you got it, I didn't realize that the abbreviation was going to be a problem for TE, guess I'll spell it all out from now on.

[TerpEagle]

Yeah, you got it, I didn't realize that the abbreviation was going to be a problem for TE, guess I'll spell it all out from now on.

I got it. Sorry for the confusion.

[TerpEagle]

Had to pay for those wars somehow, right? Shouldn't our government be constantly aware and continually trying to balance the budget? The two things are mutually exclusive...the gov't can cut wasteful spending WHILE funding programs/services that contribute to the greater good.

Ever hear of "Throwing good money after bad"?


By "those who can best withstand it" you mean the middle class, right? The companies/corporations don't just pay higher taxes when required. They raise their prices, which means we all pay more for their increased taxes.

Except that wars weren't paid for. Revenue was decreased through tax cuts.

The government should be trying to balance the budget - it was beyond balanced and the debt was being paid off at the end of the Clinton's second term in office. Instead of continuing the pay off the budget, we entered two wars - one of which was totally unnecessary and instead of trying to balance at least some of that spending with increased revenue at home - taxes were lowered.

So again, why the economy was good, austerity was ignored and spending far exceeding revenue.

When the economy went in the shitter it's unrealistic to expect spending to be cut when more average people need it than before. Had austerity measures taken place when times were good the spending now wouldn't be as bad.

Prices are controlled by supply and demand more than anything else. If supply is high, consumers will pay a certain amount of money for a product. If a product becomes too expensive - people for the most part will find an alternative.

Raising the taxes on a company is not going to double the price of milk. There may be very small increase due to the taxes, but they're still going to be controlled by what people are willing to pay and ideally personal taxes are lowered to aid consumers.

It's not just corporations and corporate taxes I'm talking about. If these companies are making record profits, it means that their shareholders and executives are bringing in higher incomes. Higher income citizens should be able to handle a greater tax burden in general and especially when the economy is in trouble.

[TerpEagle]

I have one main sticking point against the ACA, and it's that our government can't do anything cheaper or more efficiently than private industry. It just doesn't work that way, because the gov't is not just allowed, but supposed to operate at a loss.

As I posted last week (and that thread was soon deleted) it's already happening with the ACA. The cost JUST FOR THE WEBSITE of healthcare.gov was $634 million. Link: http://weaselzippers.us/2013/10/09/g...acare-website/

There's a gov link in there that shows how much was spent. So the gov't spent that much just to get a website up and running that crashed immediately after going live. To put that in perspective, they could just give $2 million to every US citizen for healthcare, and it would cost less than this website.

So, can anyone explain to me how the ACA is going to save money for anyone, if we already know that the gov't doesn't know how to not waste money.

I assume you mean $2. $2 million sounds better though.

[philly4life]

I assume you mean $2. $2 million sounds better though.

Yes, math fail on my part. Still a lot of coin for a website development, and the kicker is that the company doing it is Canadian. So that money didn't even directly help our own economy.

[Eagle Road]

Except that wars weren't paid for. Revenue was decreased through tax cuts.

Correct,

The government should be trying to balance the budget - it was beyond balanced and the debt was being paid off at the end of the Clinton's second term in office. (Instead of continuing the pay off the budget, we entered two wars - one of which was totally unnecessary and instead of trying to balance at least some of that spending with increased revenue at home - taxes were lowered.)

I disagree, but not the way you think, I personally don't think EITHER war was necessary,


So again, why the economy was good, austerity was ignored and spending far exceeding revenue.

True, but who authorized the spending?

When the economy went in the shitter it's unrealistic to expect spending to be cut when more average people need it than before. Had austerity measures taken place when times were good the spending now wouldn't be as bad.

Let's not also forget that subprime lending was a BIG part of that bubble that burst, keep in mind that "some" of that good economy was a bubble in and of itself and an extension of the dot. com. start ups.

Prices are controlled by supply and demand more than anything else. If supply is high, consumers will pay a certain amount of money for a product. If a product becomes too expensive - people for the most part will find an alternative.

It all depends on said product, and if it said product is essential or non-essential.

Raising the taxes on a company is not going to double the price of milk. There may be very small increase due to the taxes, but they're still going to be controlled by what people are willing to pay and ideally personal taxes are lowered to aid consumers.

Again, it depends on the product and the company, aside from some big corporations, that ARE showing record breaking profits, and are NOT being taxed appropriately because of our fucked up tax laws and loop holes.

There are just as many small companies out there that have managed to weather the fiscal storm since 2008, but they did it at a price, that being they cut staff and expenses to the bare bone, they simply have NOTHING left in reserve, meaning that in order to stay solvent, ANY TAX INCREASES WILL get passed directly onto the end use consumer.


It's not just corporations and corporate taxes I'm talking about. If these companies are making record profits, it means that their shareholders and executives are bringing in higher incomes. Higher income citizens should be able to handle a greater tax burden in general and especially when the economy is in trouble.

Again, don't hate the player, hate the game, we need a major tax revision in this country.

[philly4life]

Except that wars weren't paid for. Revenue was decreased through tax cuts.

The government should be trying to balance the budget - it was beyond balanced and the debt was being paid off at the end of the Clinton's second term in office. Instead of continuing the pay off the budget, we entered two wars - one of which was totally unnecessary and instead of trying to balance at least some of that spending with increased revenue at home - taxes were lowered.

So again, why the economy was good, austerity was ignored and spending far exceeding revenue.

When the economy went in the shitter it's unrealistic to expect spending to be cut when more average people need it than before. Had austerity measures taken place when times were good the spending now wouldn't be as bad.

Prices are controlled by supply and demand more than anything else. If supply is high, consumers will pay a certain amount of money for a product. If a product becomes too expensive - people for the most part will find an alternative.

Raising the taxes on a company is not going to double the price of milk. There may be very small increase due to the taxes, but they're still going to be controlled by what people are willing to pay and ideally personal taxes are lowered to aid consumers.

It's not just corporations and corporate taxes I'm talking about. If these companies are making record profits, it means that their shareholders and executives are bringing in higher incomes. Higher income citizens should be able to handle a greater tax burden in general and especially when the economy is in trouble.

Ah yes, the tax cuts. Good times, good times. Got my $300 check, and felt like king of the world. I should have said "had to "pay" for those wars". They weren't paid for, but they racked up a lot of debt.

Obviously supply and demand control prices, as does inflation, however if tax rates are increased for all the companies within a certain business, then all of them can raise prices commensurate to each other so the "choices" are still the same, but cost more across the median. End result of my argument is that corporations or even wealthy private individuals aren't going to sacrifice profit because Uncle Sam decided to take more. Prices will be increased, jobs will be cut/shipped overseas, inventories will be lessened (increasing demand, and thus price), benefits will cost employees more.

I am in complete agreement about the unnecessary war, although I think Afghanistan wasn't exactly necessary either. Nothing has changed over there, nor gotten any better, and the instant we leave the Taliban (or whoever) comes rolling in and reverses any positives we may have had.

[TerpEagle]

Yes, math fail on my part. Still a lot of coin for a website development, and the kicker is that the company doing it is Canadian. So that money didn't even directly help our own economy.

It's a bigger math fail because you believed a rumor - according to MSM left-wing site TheBlaze.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...t-634-million/

That was the total amount awarded to the company in contracts with the Health and Human Services department over the last 7 years.

And it was awarded through a competitive procurement process - so go complain to the efficient American companies that offered higher bids but were beaten out by a company from socialist Canada.

[DJCon57]

jobs will be cut/shipped overseas

This is already happening with or without healthcare. Businesses have been doing this for 15 years+ and now going "SEE! HEALTHCARE! WE HAVE NO CHOICE!" and some people are buying it. Makes me sad people don't see this.

[TerpEagle]

Ah yes, the tax cuts. Good times, good times. Got my $300 check, and felt like king of the world. I should have said "had to "pay" for those wars". They weren't paid for, but they racked up a lot of debt.

I am in complete agreement about the unnecessary war, although I think Afghanistan wasn't exactly necessary either. Nothing has changed over there, nor gotten any better, and the instant we leave the Taliban (or whoever) comes rolling in and reverses any positives we may have had.

I'm not sure why you're arguing the cost of war spending with me or pointing out the fact that it had to but wasn't paid for. I think we agree on that point.
And I'm not a huge fan of the other war either. Both were funded by drummed up patriotism over a tragedy.
While one of not both wars (at least to a the extent that is had gone) were unnecessary - the fact that they weren't funded it the bigger issues. If America, in the time of a good economy, gave a mandate to go to war - we should have been paying for it.

Obviously supply and demand control prices, as does inflation, however if tax rates are increased for all the companies within a certain business, then all of them can raise prices commensurate to each other so the "choices" are still the same, but cost more across the median. End result of my argument is that corporations or even wealthy private individuals aren't going to sacrifice profit because Uncle Sam decided to take more. Prices will be increased, jobs will be cut/shipped overseas, inventories will be lessened (increasing demand, and thus price), benefits will cost employees more.

Perhaps. And it will eventually lead to an unsustainable oligarchy - if it hasn't already. People dislike socialism due to a fear of a loss of freedom - espcially economic freedom. But if companies continue to profit and choose not to reinvest into society - that's when economic freedom of the masses will really diminish.

[Eagle Road]

This is already happening with or without healthcare. Businesses have been doing this for 15 years+ and now going "SEE! HEALTHCARE! WE HAVE NO CHOICE!" and some people are buying it. Makes me sad people don't see this.

So, what do you think of the American taxpayer bailing out Chrysler corp. to the tune of 1.3 billion, now that Chrysler is growing again they decided that they can afford to build two new plants for a cost of 1.3 billion dollars.

Great, right, jobs for the people that bailed them out, except that Chrysler, is building those plants in Mexico.

So, how did that stimulus work out?

[TerpEagle]

So, what do you think of the American taxpayer bailing out Chrysler corp. to the tune of 1.3 billion, now that Chrysler is growing again they decided that they can afford to build two new plants for a cost of 1.3 billion dollars.

Great, right, jobs for the people that bailed them out, except that Chrysler, is building those plants in Mexico.

So, how did that stimulus work out?

I'm much less supportive the government funding/bailing out larger, multinational companies than I am to providing services to citizens and providing money for small business and research.

The government, however, should place strict rule on companies that do get a bailout. But I doubt that's very realistic as those large companies have a lot of lobbying power to keep their deals pretty sweet.

[Eagle Road]

I'm much less supportive the government funding/bailing out larger, multinational companies than I am to providing services to citizens and providing money for small business and research.

The government, however, should place strict rule on companies that do get a bailout. But I doubt that's very realistic as those large companies have a lot of lobbying power to keep their deals pretty sweet.

Sometime if you are interested I will give you a first hand inside look at just how some of that stimulus money was dived up, I was present during one of those deals, it was far from being an "above-board" program.

In the end, it just added to my distrust of the government in general.

[FuriousXGeorge]

[QUOTE=Eagle Road;1723636]

No, you are not agreeing with me. You are agreeing the social method is the best but then coming up with excuses not to implement it to imply it is some sort of utopian ideal and not a practical reform. (It won't work here, the funding wouldn't be secure, etc)




So, your argument is that because it works in some other countries that it HAS to work here, OK, try this on for size, how many of those other countries are operating right now, and for the LAST FIVE YEARS, without a budget.


Seems kinda irresponsible to me, but I know, I am the crazy one because I choose to ask a couple of questions rather than swallowing the government mixed kool-aid.

You could use "but we don't have a budget!" against literally any bill. It's a complete nonsense argument. You don't like Obamacare meaning you have to find a new plan? Well we can't fix that because Luxembourg has a budget and we don't! Kool-aid drinker!

You are simply having another tantrum and arguing for the sake of arguing because you don't like your idiocy being pointed out.

We don't have a budget because of the same political roadblocks I just pointed out, that in no way impacts the viability of potential programs whether the heritage foundation reform we did pass or single payer.