View Full Version : Another litany of wise verbiage...
...from the master himself, Mr. Thomas Sowell.
Rat-make special note to read this, it bears upon U.S. taxes, debt, etc., that seem to interest you.
This is a clarifying piece, to be sure.
A taxing experience
Thomas Sowell
November 25, 2004
When liberals in the media or in politics start being alarmed about the national debt, it means just one thing: They want higher taxes. The thought of reducing spending would never cross their minds.
As we are endlessly reminded, the federal government's debt has reached record levels during the Bush administration. That enables the liberal media to use their favorite word -- "crisis" -- and adds urgency to doing their favorite thing, raising taxes.
Since we have a larger population than ever and a larger national income than ever, it should hardly be surprising that we also have a larger national debt than ever. But what does it mean?
Donald Trump probably has a bigger debt than I do -- and less reason to worry about it. Debt means nothing unless you compare it to your income or wealth.
How does our national debt today compare to our national income? It is lower than it was a decade ago, during the Clinton administration, when liberals did not seem nearly as panicked as they seem today.
As a percentage of the national income, the national debt today is less than half of what it was in 1950 and about where it was in 1940 -- back in those "earlier and simpler times."
If someone were to produce a political dictionary, "crisis" would be defined as a desire to pass a law and "national debt" would be defined as a desire to raise taxes. And the two in combination would mean a desire to discredit the existing administration.
If it seems that raising taxes is the only way to reduce the national debt, at least when so much spending is mandated by "entitlement" programs, that only shows the need for an economic dictionary. "Taxes" is one of those treacherous words with more than one meaning, enabling politicians to shift back and forth between meanings when they talk.
Unless spending is reduced, then of course more tax revenues are necessary in order to reduce a deficit or bring down a debt. But tax revenues and tax rates are two different things, even though the same word -- "taxes" -- is used to refer to both.
What "tax cuts" cut is the tax rate. But tax revenues can rise, fall, or stay the same when tax rates are cut. Everything depends on what happens to income.
Tax revenues rose after the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s because incomes rose. Incomes are likewise rising during the Bush administration today.
If Congress can just reduce the rate of increase in spending, rising tax revenues can reduce the deficit and eventually eliminate it. But of course that will not give liberals an excuse to raise tax rates or even to denounce "tax cuts for the rich."
There was a time when the purpose of taxes was to pay for the inevitable costs of government. To the political left, however, taxes have long been seen as a way to redistribute income and finance other social experiments based on liberal ideology.
Given that agenda, it is hardly surprising that some of the biggest spending liberals can go into hysterics over the national debt, especially when that debt exists under a conservative administration of the opposite party.
This does not mean that nothing needs to be done about the national debt or about our tax system. A lot could be done about both -- but it would not be what liberals want done.
Promoting the growth of the national economy would be one of the fastest and best ways of reducing the national debt. We could, for example, stop letting little bands of self-righteous activists stifle the building of homes or businesses under "open space" laws or stop the drilling of oil off-shore, on-shore, or anywhere else.
As for taxes, we could stop taxing productivity and start taxing consumption. After all, productivity is what makes a society more prosperous.
Someone who is adding to the total wealth of this country is not depriving you of anything. But someone who is consuming the nation's wealth, without contributing anything to it, is. Yet our tax system penalizes those who are producing wealth in order to subsidize those who are only consuming it.
Tax reform is overdue, national debt or no national debt.
Rat Faced
12-09-2004, 10:51 PM
Two questions that would be important here...
1/ What was the International Exchange Rate of the Dollar
2/ What was the price of Oil.
Two seemingly unrelated items, however they have a huge influence on what is "Managable Debt" to a country.
EDIT:
Also, what was the Debt in 1999 compared to Income?
Is the Debt rising or falling?
vidcc
12-10-2004, 12:06 AM
oh my..just 2 words to get to the word "liberals" :whistling
Tax revenues rose after the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s because incomes rose. Incomes are likewise rising during the Bush administration today.
tell that to the middle americans that saw their jobs outsourced and had to take lower paid jobs.
i would like to know what percentage of people have higher incomes..well actually in the spirit of this mans essay..i would like to see how many peoples disposable incomes have actually risen after paying increased cost of living expenses such as healthcare...against those that have lost.
If Congress can just reduce the rate of increase in spending, rising tax revenues can reduce the deficit and eventually eliminate it. But of course that will not give liberals an excuse to raise tax rates or even to denounce "tax cuts for the rich."
i seem to remember "the number one liberal" wanting to return to "pay as you go"...you know where we don't spend what we don't have....if he was elected....is that happening now with this administration?...no...because this president is a religious conservative not a financial conservative...
This essay has less to do with what needs doing to fix things and more to do with trying to demonise anyone that is tagged with "liberal".
It suggests that liberals have only one aim in life...to tax... not just the rich (poor rich, they have such a hard time of it) but the poor as well (one of GWs great fear mongering tactics)....
he writes of economic growth as if it is only possible if a right wing government is in power, yet under the last democrat administration we had longer and stronger growth than at any time in our history... i'm assuming Clinton is considered liberal
This is not an essay of wisdom.... it's a rant :)
Two questions that would be important here...
1/ What was the International Exchange Rate of the Dollar
Do you mean "is", rather than "was"?
Exchange rate relative to what other currency(s)?
2/ What was the price of Oil.
What has that to do with anything?
Two seemingly unrelated items, however they have a huge influence on what is "Managable Debt" to a country.
"A" country?
Mr. Sowell speaks of the United States, Rat; there are universalities in economics, but this essay does not neatly overlay the situation in the U.K., I'm sure.
This piece caught my eye as it provides a more positive (less negative?) overview of the U.S. situation you found so worrisome previously.
EDIT:
Also, what was the Debt in 1999 compared to Income?
'99? Please don't tell me you want to bring Slick Willie into this?
Is the Debt rising or falling?
Ah...
Better you should re-read the article, Rat.
Vid-
Do you realize how tone-deaf you seem when you dip so easily into your rhetorical catalogue to characterize this piece as a "rant"?
You have merely cemented into place your liberal (rather than independent) status.
I remember your banging on about deciding things on the "merits"?
It would seem otherwise. :)
vidcc
12-10-2004, 01:59 AM
Vid-
Do you realize how tone-deaf you seem when you dip so easily into your rhetorical catalogue to characterize this piece as a "rant"?
You have merely cemented into place your liberal (rather than independent) status.
I remember your banging on about deciding things on the "merits"?
It would seem otherwise. :) i am judging this purely on it's merits.
If the piece spoke purely of the need for fiscal responsibility, it would not be a rant...but it is just another "you know the trouble with liberals" piece...therefore a rant
i call what i see.
As to me being a liberal i am because i don't pass the "moral values test"...I.E. i am pro choice
I am a financial hardliner. I believe we need tax to function as a civilised nation, but only tax for the right things. i believe tax should be spent wisely and value for money be the number one priority.... something i am not seeing in this "tax cutting" republican administration
edit:
Is the Debt rising or falling?
Ah...
Better you should re-read the article, Rat. he says "well we have more debt but we have more money" (that's how i read it)
a person earning $100,000 per anum can afford a bigger morgage than one earning $ 50,000.
Thing is we are still spending over our means, so debt is rising. surely if we are earning more we should have less debt....if we were fiscally conservative.
Smurfette
12-10-2004, 02:06 AM
Where are the figures? I mean, I could confide that my disposable income has fallen to just over half what it was three years ago, but the statement is meaningless unless I actually quote some numbers, isn't it?
Conservatives always bleat that the poor are a burden on the wealthy, don't pay their way, pull their weight, don't contribute etc etc et-bloody-cetera. We had 17 years of fearmongering Conservatives over here blabbering on about how "The Labour Socialists" and "Limp Wristed Liberals" (Tory quotes for ya) would raise income tax to 35% and spend everything on lesbian minority help groups purely to distract the populace from the coal mine and steel mill closures, education underfunding and NHS dismemberment. It worked, too, with the help of a little (well, a lot really) disinformation. It still amazes me that they don't recognise that the enormous public spending strain that they were trying to rescue us from in the late 80s was in no small part due to the huge welfare bill from all those out of work miners, steelworkers, teachers and medical staff coupled with the extra administration costs involved in trying to save money in the hospitals.
The piece quoted reads like propaganda to me and, to be honest, I'm surprised that anyone with an education cannot see it as such.
3RA1N1AC
12-10-2004, 06:39 AM
he says "well we have more debt but we have more money" (that's how i read it)
if i borrow more money, then i will HAVE more money, but i will also OWE more money? inconceivable! i'd reckon that if trump has a lot of debt, it's because he borrows & spends a lot. and the u.s. gov't has run up an enormous debt because it's been borrowing & spending as if borrowing & spending are going out of style.
trump... trump is such a dubious example. who wants to look at our national economy and think "yeah, this is prolly how trump would manage things"? trump built his fortune out of borrowed money. he told people "i'm the hot new brand, i'm a visionary, so gimme gimme gimme," they believed him and lent him massive amounts of cash, then he nearly went bankrupt when it came time to pay his loans back because he hadn't managed the money wisely. trump rode high through the '80s on credit and then crashed hard during what he called "the depression of 1990" and everyone else called a "recession." it seems only fitting that a huckster such as trump is now having what looks like his final 15 minutes of fame as a glorified gameshow host.
clocker
12-10-2004, 12:41 PM
When liberals in the media or in politics start being alarmed about the national debt, it means just one thing: They want higher taxes. The thought of reducing spending would never cross their minds.
Apparently, reducing spending has yet to occur to the Bush administration either, but why bother when simply leaving the spending out of the budget ( as so much of the war expenditure has been) will do the trick?
Donald Trump probably has a bigger debt than I do -- and less reason to worry about it. Debt means nothing unless you compare it to your income or wealth.
Of course the Donald "doesn't worry about it"...he has discovered that declaring bankruptcy will absolve him of the burden that debt imposes on the less fiscally adventurous.
Beginning to worry about you here j2....you really want to use Trump as the poster boy for your fiscal policy?
We could, for example, stop letting little bands of self-righteous activists stifle the building of homes or businesses under "open space" laws or stop the drilling of oil off-shore, on-shore, or anywhere else.When I see an oil rig in your backyard and a Wal-Mart next to Pete Coors' "open space" then I'll be glad to condemn the "little bands" of activists.
Not holding my breath.
Increasingly, this Sowell guy that you keep holding up as a genius strikes me as a slightly more coherent Dennis Miller...but not as funny.
Apparently, reducing spending has yet to occur to the Bush administration either, but why bother when simply leaving the spending out of the budget ( as so much of the war expenditure has been) will do the trick?
I am not terribly happy about the Republican spending spree, either.
My point (and Sowell's) is that the economy can grow itself back to a healthy state without more taxes, and that deficits run by Republicans are cause for Dems to scream CRISIS!!!, but if such occurs under a Dem administration, it's business as usual.
Just now, it happens the Dems are doing the ranting, not Mr. Sowell.
Of course the Donald "doesn't worry about it"...he has discovered that declaring bankruptcy will absolve him of the burden that debt imposes on the less fiscally adventurous.
Beginning to worry about you here j2....you really want to use Trump as the poster boy for your fiscal policy?
No, I just didn't feel qualified to take liberties in editting Sowell's column.
Personally, I think Trump is a clown, but while I'm sure it seems he is given extraordinary liberty vis a vis his business dealings, I assure you that his bankers have him properly leashed.
When I see an oil rig in your backyard and a Wal-Mart next to Pete Coors' "open space" then I'll be glad to condemn the "little bands" of activists.
Not holding my breath.
Increasingly, this Sowell guy that you keep holding up as a genius strikes me as a slightly more coherent Dennis Miller...but not as funny.
Sowell is a genius-the fact that (as an economist) his amounts to a third point-of-view can seem intrusive and jarring, but he is a student of history in all it's permutations, and, along with Walter Williams, constitutes the acme of the properly melded economic statement.
That he also thinks liberals are knee-jerk to the core is but icing on the cake. :D
vidcc
12-12-2004, 03:21 PM
J2
the "liberal" term as used today started with the Reagan time, this is where the great demonisation started and liberal became a word used as an insult in right wing circles.
since then just how many "liberal" administrations have we had?.... and just what state were we in economically with the liberal in charge?
deficits run by Republicans are cause for Dems to scream CRISIS!!!, but if such occurs under a Dem administration, it's business as usual.
i'm not sure you/he can justify that statement, if the economy is in a poor state whatever party is in power will try to paint a bright picture.
If a democrat administration was in power and the economy was in the same state as today it is certain that the right will be shouting "crisis" ....you know it and i know it.
it just seems to me that it's the republicans that run up the defecits, then the "liberals" have to be the "margret thatcher" spooning the medicine.
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 03:31 PM
J2,
You know fine well that the exchange rate and price of energy are huge factors in the managable debt in a country.
If the finance brokers have confidence in the currency, then you can maintain much higher debt. If they dont, then the weakening currency increases the problem greatly.
At the moment, there is a very weak Dollar, as there is little to no confidence and investment shifts to those currencies that are perceived to be stronger. (That of course brings other problems to those countries.. economics is such a quagemire)
This is also echoed in the problem that "Oil" is priced in US Dollars, High Oil Prices therefore also increase the problem as a whole for the country, whilst at the same time make the Oil Companies themselves rub their hands in glee. This may be one of the reasons that Dubbya really doesnt seem to be doing anything to protect the value of the Dollar :rolleyes:
Why dont you want "Slick Willie" brought in? Could it be that he has a much better record on this subject?
The Debt is increasing.. not because of the Tax Income, but because the weak Dollar and the high cost of fuel limit consumer spending, except overseas.
Unfortunatly, the US companies split themselves into more manageable units, as an example; although Ford will do ok, the Taxes for its more profitable overseas companies will go to the treasuries of those overseas countries, and not into the USA's coffers.
The price of "US" goods are reducing all over Europe... however "Levies" arent paying taxes to Washington, when they sell in the UK, they pay it to Westminster, as the goods are supplied at cost for sale in Europe to their UK company. There is no "Profit" as far as Washington is concerned... this is one of the methods used by international companies to stop themselves being taxed twice.
We really should thank them for helping our economies, to the detriment of your own. ;)
J2
the "liberal" term as used today started with the Reagan time, this is where the great demonisation started and liberal became a word used as an insult in right wing circles.
So: that the term "liberal" is one a Democrat candidate shuns is due to the blandishments of a "conservative" President?
That's only appropriate...
...but what does the fact of the successful "demonization" of the term (especially in light of our left-leaning media) tell you, vid?
It tells me the truth will out-if the message can cross that particular threshold intact, it must really sting, huh? :D
Once upon a time, Liberalism was a worthy cause/aspiration; it has become that which it purports to abhor, and intolerant into the bargain.
If nothing else was proven in this election, it is that the libs better get their shit together as to their assessment of what America is, rather than what they (in all their anointed elitism) think it ought to be, or the current implosion will continue unabated.
If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and support Howard Dean or his like for DNC chair-keep thinking that 51% of Americans are too stupid or "unenlightened" for words...
...and voila!-you'll be in the same situation as now 2-4-8 years down the road, only your minority will be commensurately smaller.
I'll give you a hint as to the problem:
Conservatives don't think liberals are bad people, just somewhat mis-informed.
Liberals believe conservatives are black-hearted, evil, spawn-of-the-Devil.
Now, being possessed of a passing familiarity with your humble correspondent, you cannot possibly believe this is true, as I am the prototype conservative, wouldn't you agree? :)
since then just how many "liberal" administrations have we had?.... and just what state were we in economically with the liberal in charge?
i'm not sure you/he can justify that statement, if the economy is in a poor state whatever party is in power will try to paint a bright picture.
If a democrat administration was in power and the economy was in the same state as today it is certain that the right will be shouting "crisis" ....you know it and i know it.
Uh-huh.
Notice one difference, though:
A Dem deficit will garner no Dem dissent; there is no lack of same from jelly-spined Republicans in this case.
See?
We Republicans welcome dissent, and regard it as healthy.
it just seems to me that it's the republicans that run up the defecits, then the "liberals" have to be the "margret thatcher" spooning the medicine.
That last is a refreshing thought; perhaps you've fingered a "winning" issue for your team, huh? :D
:lol:
J2,
...economics is such a quagemire...
We really should thank them for helping our economies, to the detriment of your own. ;)
Two operative statements in your post, Rat.
Possibly the fact of the first leads to the reality of the second?
In any case, give thanks for that last, and don't worry about us-we'll be fine-just sorely put-upon tax-wise if a Dem gets elected. :)
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 04:27 PM
The longer you leave it, the worse the Taxes will be.
In effect, thats an admission the Dems will get the blame for the Republicans stupidity in causing the problem in the 1st place, plus the interest acrued on that debt...
Everything will be fine, Rat; a little work on the Social Security issue, a little tax-code simplification, and all will be well.
With all this talk about debt, deficit, out-sourcing, etc., the doom-and-gloomers have succeeded in obscuring the fact the United States is the greatest financial engine in the world.
Fear not, good sir. :)
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 07:46 PM
It could be, no doubt about that.
With the amount of money that goes to the Government, you could have by far the best Health and Education in the world, together with the best standard of living for your citizens.
This is one of the reasons its so sad to see that you have none of the above. :(
You have an inadequate perspective of the plusses and minuses of our country.
You will be a charter participant in any such exchange program as I ever can manage, Rat.
Were I driven as I once was, I would love to host you, JP and Big Les (and whoever else was so inclined) for a few months/years.
As I am afflicted with overwhelming laziness, though, you'll have to manage to get here on your own. :D
I'd have made a terrific welfare/dole recipient. :lol:
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 08:06 PM
I think, in my entire life, i have been "On the Dole" for a total of 1 week... just after leaving college.
I've been to the USA, as you know, and enjoyed it immensly. I would even have moved there, in the right circumstances... but certainly NOT because of the Health, Education or the Standard of living.
All of which the standards were lower there than here... and this is NOT a rich part of the UK, far from it in fact.
Maybe we could do a straight-up switcheroo-
You run my gig and I'll do whatever it is you do...
What do you do, Rat?
Any non-specific description will do... :)
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 08:22 PM
Government Surveyor
Comic_Peddler
12-12-2004, 08:23 PM
All of which the standards were lower there than here... and this is NOT a rich part of the UK, far from it in fact.
Kind of odd seeing as whenever you hear from Americans who have moved to the UK say your standards of living will be lowered when living in the UK.....
Edit: perhaps you should visit a large cross section of a rather large country before passing judgement after visiting one part.....
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 08:25 PM
Well, i guess only rich Americans can afford to actually move here ;)
I'm talking of the General Population..
No one will argue that there are more Rich Americans per head of population, than there are here.. however, our poor do not pay for health, have better access to education and have better benefits.
This is what im refering too, when i say "your citizens", not the minority that have a lot of money...
It also depends upon where in the UK they go... If they go to the South East and London... they had better be Damn Rich :lol:
Comic_Peddler
12-12-2004, 08:26 PM
Well, i guess only rich Americans can afford to actually move here ;)
umm, do you think Americans are some kind of third worlders?
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 08:29 PM
umm, do you think Americans are some kind of third worlders?
Look at your Child Mortality figures, and then you tell me....
In 2002 it was 7.2 per 1000 Births..
Singapores was 4.2
Czech Republic was 5.2
You work the Math...
Comic_Peddler
12-12-2004, 08:46 PM
I apologize for my countries child mortality rate in light of the UK's obvious superiority to the rest of the world.......
Hmm, funny, I seem to remember reading something about the last time the UK thought it was superior to the rest of the world.....
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 08:49 PM
Unfortunatly not...
Our rates, while much lower than your own, is no where near the best...
The UK is not superior to the rest of the world.
If i'm to be on an average or lower income I'll stay here, however i'd much rather be Rich in the USA ;)
Comic_Peddler
12-12-2004, 08:51 PM
If i'm to be on an average or lower income I'll stay here, however i'd much rather be Rich in the USA ;)
But I recall you basically said we are paupers over here, so that would never happen.
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 09:08 PM
No, I said that with your Government income, that you should have the best Health, Education and Standard of living for your citizens...
An example:
Your Government spends more %GPD per head of population on Health than any European Country, yet do not have a Universal Health Service and still have to pay for Health Insurance or go without.
That is just sick... no other country bows down to the pharmacutical Industry as much as the USA. Why do you think its cheaper to get the same things from Canada than you getin the USA (even on Medicare)? Because even with this "Subsidy", the Canadians pay less for the Drug from its source.. ironically, this is usually the US Drugs company.
The Government allows these companies to rip it off, and that means that the US consumer has to pay over the odds for, not just Drug Company profits, but also Insurance Company/Insurance Broker profits, Hospital Profits, Dr's Profits etc etc etc
The same is true in Education, the Schools allow Soft Drinks companies to "sponsor" them with vending machines becasue they are so starved of money, even though they know this is bad for the kids.
The Government gets the money, it also spends the money... so where the hell does it go?
I will re-iterate.
If i am on average or lower wages, which is the vast majority of the citizenry, then i would much rather be here.. the Standard of Living i will have will be much greater, because of lower BASIC costs.
However my money goes further in the USA, apart from the basic necesities... so if i was on above average wages, id rather be in the USA.
If you have the money, you can have whatever standard of living you want, no matter where you are...
If i had the money (above average income), it would go further and buy more over there.. even if I have to BUY Health Insurance and decent Education for the kids, that would be offset by how much cheaper my house/car is and the other savings such as fuel. At the exchange rate currently, prices for a lot of things are a lot cheaper in the USA...
But by God i'd hate to be poor there.
Comic_Peddler
12-12-2004, 09:34 PM
That is just sick... no other country bows down to the pharmacutical Industry as much as the USA. Why do you think its cheaper to get the same things from Canada than you getin the USA (even on Medicare)? Because even with this "Subsidy", the Canadians pay less for the Drug from its source.. ironically, this is usually the US Drugs company.
And I can travel a tenth of the distance and go to Mexico and get the same drugs for a tenth of the prices in Canada.
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 09:35 PM
You make my point sirrah...
They are the same Drugs, from the same companies... and most of them are US. Why are you the ones getting ripped off?
NikkiD
12-12-2004, 09:37 PM
I have to agree with RF on a few points here. If I were of average or below average income I would much rather live here in Canada. Canada also has government sponsored health care. For a middle income family in the US, which doesn't have the luxury of healh care benefits from work, or can't afford private insurance, the cost is astronomical. I may have to wait a little longer to see the right doctor here, but I don't have to mortgage my house to do it. Education is more affordable here, although not as cheap as in the UK.
If I were above average income and health care wasn't an issue for me, and education costs were nothing, I would rather live in the US, where citizens are not as penalized for earning money. Here, the more you make the more you pay - in everything. You pay health taxes so those who make less than you can get free health care. You pay higher income taxes so those who make less than you don't have to. You pay higher unemployment benefits, even though most who make good wages are less likely to claim unemployment, you pay more in Canada Pension benefits, even though by the time you retire, there probably won't be any benefits left to give. So yes, if I were rich, I'd rather live in the US where I get to keep a little more of my hard earned money.
Comic_Peddler
12-12-2004, 09:47 PM
You make my point sirrah...
They are the same Drugs, from the same companies... and most of them are US. Why are you the ones getting ripped off?
I reiterate, I CAN go elsewhere to get items at a cheaper price, nothing is stopping me from doing that.
As an aside to what Nikkid said, people are always saying "you have no universal health care". This is correct, BUT no one ever seems to mention any alternatives that the poor have. For example, free clinics. Which a lot of these are NOT funded by tax dollars.
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 09:53 PM
The money still has to come from somewhere...
YOU may be able to go to Mexico easily, someone from Hawaii can't...
The people near to the Border of Canada go there, the people near the Border of Mexico go there. However most people arent near enough to the Border of either country to make the Time/Effort worth while.
The point about "Free Universal Healthcare" is... your Government spends MORE % of GPD on Healthcare than any European Nation. Where is this money going? Its a LOT more than is required FOR a Universal Healthcare system.
If the Government was NOT spending this money, then it would make sense... but it is.
Here are some figures for you... 1990, however things havent changed that much.
Country %GDP spent on Healthcare
United_States__________________12.1__
>___________________________(1996=13.6)_
>===========================================
>Canada________________________9.3_
>France________________________8.8_
>Sweden________________________8.6_
>Germany_______________________8.1_
>Switzerland_____________________7.7_
>Italy___________________________7.7_
>Norway________________________7.4_
>Japan__________________________6.5_
>United_Kingdom__________________6.2_
As you can see, nearly TWICE the amount of GDP than the UK spent on Healthcare. Your population is 6 times as great, your economy is much MORE than 6 times as great as the UK's.... You actually spent THREE times as much per capita in 1990 than the UK did.
On top of this, you paid Health Insurance...
Biggles
12-12-2004, 10:04 PM
J2
I have, you will not be surprised, one or two reservations about the article.
Firstly, it is a little odd for an economist to nail his political colours to a mast in the opening two words of a piece.
Secondly, there is an element of making a virtue out of necessity in "talking up debt" This is never a good starting point.
The simple fact is that any administration would rather not have that level of debt and particularly not one that is rising at a fairly consistent speed. This would suggest a structural difficulty that needs addressing. There are two main options - stop the outflow (either through direct taxation or through indirect taxation) the other is to cut back government spending. Neither are easy or palatable. Bush has tried to stimulate the economy through tax cuts in the hope that a more vigourous economy will help self-right the imbalance. I am not convinced that this will provide the solution looked for.
The dollar is being allowed to sink because this will limit demand for imports - making them more expensive and in turn making US exports more affordable. This is, however, a double edged sword as commodities like oil are traded in dollars making them cheaper for competitors like China whose only really significant costs are energy ones.
Biggles
12-12-2004, 10:06 PM
The money still has to come from somewhere...
YOU may be able to go to Mexico easily, someone from Hawaii can't...
The people near to the Border of Canada go there, the people near the Border of Mexico go there. However most people arent near enough to the Border of either country to make the Time/Effort worth while.
The point about "Free Universal Healthcare" is... your Government spends MORE % of GPD on Healthcare than any European Nation. Where is this money going? Its a LOT more than is required FOR a Universal Healthcare system.
If the Government was NOT spending this money, then it would make sense... but it is.
Here are some figures for you... 1990, however things havent changed that much.
Country %GDP spent on Healthcare
United_States__________________12.1__
>___________________________(1996=13.6)_
>===========================================
>Canada________________________9.3_
>France________________________8.8_
>Sweden________________________8.6_
>Germany_______________________8.1_
>Switzerland_____________________7.7_
>Italy___________________________7.7_
>Norway________________________7.4_
>Japan__________________________6.5_
>United_Kingdom__________________6.2_
As you can see, nearly TWICE the amount of GDP than the UK spent on Healthcare. Your population is 6 times as great, your economy is much MORE than 6 times as great as the UK's.... You actually spent THREE times as much per capita in 1990 than the UK did.
On top of this, you paid Health Insurance...
They do tend to have prettier teeth tho ... :ph34r:
Rat Faced
12-12-2004, 10:09 PM
Little bit of a difference in the teeth of a Hollywood Heartthrob and a HillBilly I would think... :ph34r:
Biggles
12-12-2004, 10:49 PM
Little bit of a difference in the teeth of a Hollywood Heartthrob and a HillBilly I would think... :ph34r:
:ph34r: I don't want to find out
*cue Deliverance music*
Comic_Peddler
12-12-2004, 10:52 PM
So if you are not a Hollywood heartthrob you are a hillbilly? sheesh....
vidcc
12-12-2004, 10:53 PM
Rat has a point. It's good to be a rich or at least well off American, But not so on minimum wage or in a job that doesn't subsidise your health insurance....those people would see their standard of living rise if they lived under the UK system.
The wealthy or comfortable would see little difference.
Biggles
12-12-2004, 10:58 PM
So if you are not a Hollywood heartthrob you are a hillbilly? sheesh....
:lol:
You are being most literal and contrary tonight CP.
( :ph34r: sorry, afternoon)
Comic_Peddler
12-12-2004, 10:59 PM
Rat has a point. It's good to be a rich or at least well off American, But not so on minimum wage or in a job that doesn't subsidise your health insurance....those people would see their standard of living rise if they lived under the UK system.
The wealthy or comfortable would see little difference.
If you are working for minimum wage, there are other problems you need to work out first. Such as finishing high school.
vidcc
12-12-2004, 11:05 PM
I reiterate, I CAN go elsewhere to get items at a cheaper price, nothing is stopping me from doing that..
although it is technically a federal offense importing your drugs from outside is it not ?
vidcc
12-12-2004, 11:47 PM
So: that the term "liberal" is one a Democrat candidate shuns is due to the blandishments of a "conservative" President?
perhaps because he had his own indepentdent agenda that does't fit with what most call liberal politics.
That's only appropriate...
...but what does the fact of the successful "demonization" of the term (especially in light of our left-leaning media) tell you, vid?
Only demonised in the eyes of the right, a scare tactic, you know as well as i that many believe what they are told and don't bother checking facts for themselves
Howard dean who you mention later pointed out a few things that show how the demonising propaganda works.
the dems are not the party that supports gay marriage...they are the party that supports equal rights.
the dems are not the party that supports abortion... they are the party that supports the rights of Americans to make their own choice free from government interference
It tells me the truth will out-if the message can cross that particular threshold intact, it must really sting, huh? :D
why would it sting ?
Once upon a time, Liberalism was a worthy cause/aspiration; it has become that which it purports to abhor, and intolerant into the bargain.
if it has become that which it abhors then it is not liberalism. In which case what is your problem with it?
intollerant how?
If nothing else was proven in this election, it is that the libs better get their shit together as to their assessment of what America is, rather than what they (in all their anointed elitism) think it ought to be, or the current implosion will continue unabated.
What would the point be of changing to suit that which is not ones beliefs?....wouldn't that make us a one party dictatorship? (but voted for)
So as you voted republican you agree with everything they are doing...after all you gave them a mandate to spend spend spend without having the money to pay pay pay
If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and support Howard Dean or his like for DNC chair-keep thinking that 51% of Americans are too stupid or "unenlightened" for words...
I'm afraid to say that's just paranoyer
...and voila!-you'll be in the same situation as now 2-4-8 years down the road, only your minority will be commensurately smaller.
I'll give you a hint as to the problem:
Conservatives don't think liberals are bad people, just somewhat mis-informed.
Liberals believe conservatives are black-hearted, evil, spawn-of-the-Devil.
and just how would you know that? been taken in by propoganda ?
Now, being possessed of a passing familiarity with your humble correspondent, you cannot possibly believe this is true, as I am the prototype conservative, wouldn't you agree? :)
I certainly don't think republicans are as you suggest....you however .....:whistling :lol:
Notice one difference, though:
A Dem deficit will garner no Dem dissent;
rubbish
See?
We Republicans welcome dissent, and regard it as healthy.
substitue "welcome" with "ignore" :whistling
it just seems to me that it's the republicans that run up the defecits, then the "liberals" have to be the "margret thatcher" spooning the medicine.
That last is a refreshing thought; perhaps you've fingered a "winning" issue for your team, huh? :D
I have to write something here for it to let me submit reply
vidcc
12-13-2004, 12:16 AM
If you are working for minimum wage, there are other problems you need to work out first. Such as finishing high school.
so no high school or college graduate works for minimum wage?????? I am reminded of Reagan when he didn't believe we have homeless in the USA
Comic_Peddler
12-13-2004, 12:24 AM
so no high school or college graduate works for minimum wage?????? I am reminded of Reagan when he didn't believe we have homeless in the USA
To be honest, there is something seriously work if you make minimum wage. Hell in this town even Taco Bell pays $8 an hour.
Everose
12-13-2004, 12:42 AM
I have to agree with RF on a few points here. If I were of average or below average income I would much rather live here in Canada. Canada also has government sponsored health care. For a middle income family in the US, which doesn't have the luxury of healh care benefits from work, or can't afford private insurance, the cost is astronomical. I may have to wait a little longer to see the right doctor here, but I don't have to mortgage my house to do it. Education is more affordable here, although not as cheap as in the UK.
If I were above average income and health care wasn't an issue for me, and education costs were nothing, I would rather live in the US, where citizens are not as penalized for earning money. Here, the more you make the more you pay - in everything. You pay health taxes so those who make less than you can get free health care. You pay higher income taxes so those who make less than you don't have to. You pay higher unemployment benefits, even though most who make good wages are less likely to claim unemployment, you pay more in Canada Pension benefits, even though by the time you retire, there probably won't be any benefits left to give. So yes, if I were rich, I'd rather live in the US where I get to keep a little more of my hard earned money.
We actually pay more taxes to fund government health programs such as these, NikkiD. Insure Kids Now (http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/)
In my state I have seen American families and immigrant families receive really great health care for around twenty dollars a month per family. From what I have seen of this insurance, in my state, it enables families superior health coverage than I was able to obtain for my children through my work provided insurance policy. So sometimes, health care wise, you are not really penalized for being lower income. :)
vidcc
12-13-2004, 12:55 AM
To be honest, there is something seriously work if you make minimum wage. Hell in this town even Taco Bell pays $8 an hour.
you need to get out of town a bit more often then.
Rat Faced
12-13-2004, 01:00 AM
Just a tad... I know a couple that would kill for $8 an hour, and one of them has a Degree :rolleyes:
:vidcc
the dems are not the party that supports gay marriage...they are the party that supports equal rights.
I beg to differ-the democrat political party does indeed support gay marriage; it is the democrat voter who does not, at least in the eleven states where referenda were tested.
Is it your contention that conservatives do not support equal rights? :huh:
vidcc
12-13-2004, 01:42 AM
I beg to differ-the democrat political party does indeed support gay marriage; it is the democrat voter who does not, at least in the eleven states where referenda were tested.
Is it your contention that conservatives do not support equal rights? :huh:
you see the demonisation spin works on you. They support gay marriage because they support equal rights.
If you wish to not support equal rights for ALL then you do not support equal rights....it's that simple. One can't be a champion of equality if one only wants some to be equal
Aw, vid, you forgot the republican principle - everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Hang on though, wasn't that the communist viewpoint too. :blink:
you see the demonisation spin works on you. They support gay marriage because they support equal rights.
If you wish to not support equal rights for ALL then you do not support equal rights....it's that simple. One can't be a champion of equality if one only wants some to be equal
Then you obviously support equal rights for pedophiles; NAMBLA and the whole ball-of-wax, right?
Of course I don't support equal rights for all, and neither do you, vid.
"ALL" is a pretty big blanket, wouldn't you say?
Another example of liberal policy sloppiness borne of inexact usage of language and rhetoric.
I've noticed that about the like of Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton; when they are slobbering into the microphone, spouting the liberal line, they are loathe to use words like "except", or "but", and love to use the word "all", and here's why (you can try this yourself):
It is extremely difficult to say the words "except" and "but" forcefully, and at full volume, without spitting on the first two or three rows of your audience, however, the word "all" is not possessed of the harsh consonants that lead to spittle spray.
That's why the libs often say stuff they don't really mean, at least when a microphone is at hand.
vidcc
12-13-2004, 03:05 AM
Then you obviously support equal rights for pedophiles; NAMBLA and the whole ball-of-wax, right?
Of course I don't support equal rights for all, and neither do you, vid.
.
Ahh straight away...equal rights for homosexuals brings out the "what next pedophiles?"....an often used tactic of lumping homosexuals in with an evil group as if they go hand in hand.
We are talking equal rights for consenting adults.... your arguement is quite frankly weak.
i had to Google that group to find out who they are...thanks for that
Google.com
12-13-2004, 03:15 AM
You had to google to find out who the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes were?!?!?!
Sid Hartha
12-13-2004, 05:15 PM
When liberals in the media or in politics...
Any article that starts like that isn't worth reading.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/federal-debt-GDP.gif
I was wondering if anyone knew why debt increased so much (as a percentage of gdp) during bush (1) and reagan's years. At first i assumed it was defence spending during cold war years, but defence spending only increased by about 1% of gdp (compared to pre bush years). So was it just a product of the 80's recession?
Rat Faced
12-13-2004, 06:28 PM
Health Spending increased by about 1% GDP too.
The rest were the Tax Cuts and the recession I think.
spinningfreemanny
12-13-2004, 08:16 PM
Rat has a point. It's good to be a rich or at least well off American, But not so on minimum wage or in a job that doesn't subsidise your health insurance....those people would see their standard of living rise if they lived under the UK system.
The wealthy or comfortable would see little difference.
Isn't that what medicaid (or medicare, in this state) is for?
vidcc
12-13-2004, 11:18 PM
Isn't that what medicaid (or medicare, in this state) is for? Do you think i ignored those?
Manny this is another of those theory not being the same as life examples.
not everyone is eligable for that plus not everything is covered.
In the Uk those under 18, over 65 and on social security all get full coverage and free prescription drugs as well..... (because it's already paid for)
All this coverage for every man woman and child at a cost a lot lower than we pay for medicare/aid for just those that qualify. The NHS have no co-payments either... the full cost is covered.
If one wishes one can take out private coverage as well.
Those that have to pay for prescription drugs only pay a set fee no matter what the cost of the drug...i believe its about $9 at todays rate. Then if the drugs can be sold over the counter cheaper the pharmacy does so thus saving the customer money.
Addenda to the thread:
Restraints on U.S. private purchase of drugs from Canadian sources are lifted.
Is this good/bad for Canada/Canadians?
For America/Americans?
For the drug companies?
NikkiD
12-14-2004, 03:36 AM
Addenda to the thread:
Restraints on U.S. private purchase of drugs from Canadian sources are lifted.
Is this good/bad for Canada/Canadians?
For America/Americans?
For the drug companies?
First, I think that the sale of drugs will mean less drugs available for Canadians, and thus an increase in price to Canadians. That which is more scarce is also more valuable.
On the good side, it brings American dollars into Canada. Americans coming into Canada for drugs will quite possibly buy other things as well, making it good for businesses here.
I won't comment on how it will affect Americans, as, being honest, I'm not sure. Americans living in border cities are more likely buy their drugs here, Americans living away from the border might not, unless they are able to order them from internet sources.
The effect on the drug companies will almost inevitably be negative. They will probably lose money - by losing money I don't necessarily mean they will not show a profit, but their profits will definitely be less than what they would be otherwise. This could mean price hikes, cuts in research and development, even the loss of jobs.
vidcc
12-14-2004, 03:47 AM
Addenda to the thread:
Restraints on U.S. private purchase of drugs from Canadian sources are lifted.
Is this good/bad for Canada/Canadians?
problem is the american drug companies are deliberately short supplying Canada so if Americans get their drugs from there Canadians will be short of drugs for themselves
For America/Americans?
For America?..not sure what you mean ... job losses in drug production wouldn't be affected as they are produced here and sold to canada..then sold back...so demand will keep those jobs.
pharmacy jobs? well they need to adapt and buy their supplies and sell them competetively
for American consumers it is a good thing....that said why stop at just Canada? open the world markets up
For the drug companies?
I have little sympathy for them, there is nothing wrong with profit but there is with profiteering. They abused their closed market monopolies and ignored the growing discontent from their customers arrogantly spending money on political lobbying to keep the gravy train running
On the subject of political cosyness, I am not one for conspiracy theories but the timing of taking Vioxx of the shelves with the tort reform policy seems a little too cosy for my liking
This is not an anti big business post, it is about market forces and the need for an open market, not a closed one.... If there is only one store in town one is forced to pay uncompetative prices... Open another close by and prices will start to fall if they wish to keep their customers.
Vid-
Does it occur to you that prices in Canada (on drugs produced by American concerns) are artificially low owing to "subsidization", i.e., over-charging in the U.S.?
It's not exactly a dirty little secret.
Open the Canadian market to the American purchaser, and the cost to Canadians will go up, and in the end, the benefit to the American consumer will be infinitesimal.
Still sound like a good idea?
BTW-Nikki: On-line shoppers won't make very good tourists. :(
vidcc
12-14-2004, 09:26 PM
J2
has it ever occured to you that the Canadian government uses its buying power to deal on price ? Something our current administration refuses to do.
The ONLY reason for shortages in Canada is a purposely made one where the drug companies limit the supply.
there is no competition in the US market so prices are artifically high.
Edit: Is there any time when you feel that the consumer is important?
What about my post gives you the idea I am unimpressed with the consumer?
Between my wife and I, about $500 gets spent on drugs every month here-we have no health coverage; I'm talking out-of-pocket expense, and you think I'm not concerned with the consumer!??!! :blink:
vidcc
12-15-2004, 03:07 AM
What about my post gives you the idea I am unimpressed with the consumer?
Between my wife and I, about $500 gets spent on drugs every month here-we have no health coverage; I'm talking out-of-pocket expense, and you think I'm not concerned with the consumer!??!! :blink:
i get the idea from your post being, or at least appearing, anti competition when it comes to the cost of drugs.
Drugs are a commodity like everything else...cars TVs computers etc. and they should be subject to open market forces. However the drug companies have a few advantages.
1. At present they have a monopoly because legally we have no other source.
2. We will always need drugs, unless illness miraculously suddenly ends. It is an infinite market.
you menioned your lack of insurance before....perhaps you could explain life realities to our young conservative friend manny... he seems to think everyone is covered.
do you forsee your expenses reducing in ......the "next 4 more years"?...assuming you stay on the same meds.
Busyman
12-15-2004, 04:53 AM
What about my post gives you the idea I am unimpressed with the consumer?
Between my wife and I, about $500 gets spent on drugs every month here-we have no health coverage; I'm talking out-of-pocket expense, and you think I'm not concerned with the consumer!??!! :blink:
Yet, do you still support the current admin's way of doing business with drug companies? :blink:
Not dealing on price was the dumbest piece of shit verbage put into law.
Ass-backward I say and defies logic.
"Yea, yea GlaxoSmithKlineBeechamWelcom what price are you going sell the drugs for!!!!!.....I've already signed it, write-it down on the check." :dry:
Yet, do you still support the current admin's way of doing business with drug companies? :blink:
What do you mean, "Yet, do you still support..."?
When did I say I supported the Bush administration's dealings with drug companies?
Is it your contention that, if I support Bush, I support the policy?
Or that if I didn't support the policy, my support should have logically defaulted to Kerry, as vid also seems to think?
While I'm on the subject of "thinking", do either of the two of you ever engage in that particular activity?
You both need to start looking before you make such absurd leaps. :dry:
vidcc
12-16-2004, 03:06 AM
What do you mean, "Yet, do you still support..."?
When did I say I supported the Bush administration's dealings with drug companies?
Is it your contention that, if I support Bush, I support the policy?
Not my question to answer however even if you don't support all his policies HE (bush) is of the opinion that he has a mandate from you (as a voter) Even you yourself said the majority have spoken...well 2% more than the minority
Or that if I didn't support the policy, my support should have logically defaulted to Kerry, as vid also seems to think?
When did i say that ?....
but then if you don't support his policies why vote for him? you could have chosen to not vote if the other candidate was so unacceptable.
While I'm on the subject of "thinking", do either of the two of you ever engage in that particular activity?
come now you can do better than that
You both need to start looking before you make such absurd leaps. :dry:
At what exactly?
For myself i can only go on what is written, i wouldn't want to try to second guess. I have to take what you say as being what you believe. If you feel you are harshly judged on what you have said please re-phrase it.
..
So then, according to vidcc, with only the slightest extrapolation:
If I blindly agree with Bush's policies 100%, he is worthy of my vote, and I am worthy of vid's scorn.
If my level of agreement is any less than the required 100% figure, I must either cast my precious vote for John Kerry, or, finding that abhorrent, not vote at all?
Vid, however, may pronounce John Kerry at best a marginal candidate, but vote for him anyway, for no compelling reason other than a hatred of Bush.
I am well aware of the phenomenon of lib-logic, vid, but that you are tone-deaf to the utter foolishness you propose is symptomatic and regrettful in the extreme.
Biggles
12-17-2004, 02:35 PM
Is it just me or have we drifted a tad from the benefits (or otherwise) of maintaining a large deficit for a protracted period?
:blink:
Busyman
12-17-2004, 04:20 PM
What do you mean, "Yet, do you still support..."?
When did I say I supported the Bush administration's dealings with drug companies?
Is it your contention that, if I support Bush, I support the policy?
Or that if I didn't support the policy, my support should have logically defaulted to Kerry, as vid also seems to think?
While I'm on the subject of "thinking", do either of the two of you ever engage in that particular activity?
You both need to start looking before you make such absurd leaps. :dry:
Oh do get me wrong.
First off it's not an absurd leap when one is not critical of the President's policies they don't like but only praise the policies that they do.
He's the most ass backwards U.S. President I have seen or heard of so a Bush supporter such as yourself does paint a picture of support
While I'm on the subject of "thinking", does the President engage in that particular activity?
What does that say of you who supports him? Where do you stand on the issues or will you, like many other conservatives on this board, play mum while making unrelated quips? Sometimes....there comes a time....of step up or shut-up
I recall a thread "The Accomplishments Of Bush" which was very unbiased.
Conservatives steered clear of it like a car wreck.
Had there been a liberal or independent President in office and a similar thread made, liberal minded folk would had the thread to three pages in 10 minutes.
I could give a shit about some egocentric crap mindset of making a thread that goes x number of pages.
I purposely wanted smart-ass remarks like "He managed to get U.S. soldiers killed" gone from the thread to pave the way for some real accomplishments.
I heard frogs burping
Crickets chirping
Tumbleweed blowing in a wild western town. :dry:
I smell bullshit. :shit:
vidcc
12-18-2004, 12:08 AM
So then, according to vidcc, with only the slightest extrapolation:
If I blindly agree with Bush's policies 100%, he is worthy of my vote, and I am worthy of vid's scorn.
where did i scorn you?...i simpley asked why vote for someone if you disagree with them...is asking questions scorning?..... For my own set of issues, healthcare is high up on my list of priorities... so for you there must be other more important things if you can let this one slip. I wonder what they are, especailly as it is an issue that should be very close to your heart.
If my level of agreement is any less than the required 100% figure, I must either cast my precious vote for John Kerry, or, finding that abhorrent, not vote at all?
No, i just gave other options after you wrongly accused me of saying you have to default to kerry
Vid, however, may pronounce John Kerry at best a marginal candidate, but vote for him anyway, for no compelling reason other than a hatred of Bush.
He was BETTER than Bush on EVERY issue that is important to me.... unlike some i don't vote far unacceptable candidates because i don't like the other...the manifesto has to be there. You seem very keen on accusing me of things yet you seem also very at home suggesting anyone that voted Kerry did so purely because it was an "anyone but Bush" vote.... Is it so inconcievable that those 49%...nearly half of America actually thought Kerry did have a better manifesto?
I am well aware of the phenomenon of lib-logic, vid, but that you are tone-deaf to the utter foolishness you propose is symptomatic and regrettful in the extreme.
No you have decided what i propose, and then made the (yawn) "lib-logic" comment....
...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.