Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[georgephillip]

I'm starting to think capitalism is incapable of producing enough jobs to meet its populations' demands. Maybe it's time for a new economic system predicated on maximizing employment instead of profits?

How exactly would you expect such a system to work.

It would work just like most everything else the government does, POORLY!

Like teaching the overwhelming majority of its citizens how to read?

Who taught you to read?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem confused about how much those "hard working" rich folk depend on the US government.

Take banking, for example:

"The federal government, in ways explicit and implicit, profoundly subsidizes and shelters the banking industry. True since the 1930s, it is much more so today. And that makes Mr. Dimon no capitalist colossus astride the Isle of Manhattan, but one of the great welfare queens in America.

"The protection is so well established that we barely notice it anymore.

"The government supervises bank activities and guarantees deposits...

Ummmmmm....deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC which is funded by the banks.

"Banks are also the mechanism through which we express economic policy, especially as fiscal stimulus has been eliminated as an option. The result is that the government pays a 'vig' to banks in order to reach its policy goals.

"When the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to help buoy the economy during a slowdown, banks are the first beneficiaries.

"As the Fed lowers short-term rates, banks borrow cheaply and lend out for a lot more, making any new lending highly profitable (assuming the banks make good loans). This is classic monetary policy, and supported nearly universally. But let's not pretend that it isn't a boon to banks.

"Some think bolstering banks' fortunes is a major goal, not a side effect."

Do you think those who are doing "rather well" require "their" government to socialize cost while privatizing profit? Obama is no different (so far) in his commitment to Wall Street and the expense of Main Street, AND it won't get better with a Republican (or another Democrat) in the White House.

Socializing cost and privatizing profit is terrible. So I'm wondering why the people who did that, like Franklin Raines and James Johnson, aren't facing criminal charges?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How exactly would you expect such a system to work.

It would work just like most everything else the government does, POORLY!

Like teaching the overwhelming majority of its citizens how to read?

Who taught you to read?

My parents taught me to read. How're those public schools doing lately?

 

[georgephillip]

I'm starting to think capitalism is incapable of producing enough jobs to meet its populations' demands. Maybe it's time for a new economic system predicated on maximizing employment instead of profits?

How exactly would you expect such a system to work.

"The era of transition that we are entering will be disruptive—but it may bring a world where markets are servants, not masters."

After capitalism | Prospect Magazine

 

[Neotrotsky]

How exactly would you expect such a system to work.

It would work just like most everything else the government does, POORLY!

Like teaching the overwhelming majority of its citizens how to read?

Who taught you to read?

It might not have been public schools; odds are his parents played a bigger role

Other Countries’ Students Surpass U.S.’s on Tests


If it makes you feel any better, the US spends more than other countries on education and gets some of the worst results


U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores

Good thing the Public school system is almost all "socialist"

 

[Neotrotsky]

I'm starting to think capitalism is incapable of producing enough jobs to meet its populations' demands. Maybe it's time for a new economic system predicated on maximizing employment instead of profits?

How exactly would you expect such a system to work.

"The era of transition that we are entering will be disruptive—but it may bring a world where markets are servants, not masters."

After capitalism | Prospect Magazine

More of the same leftist drivel

Yeah sure, it worked great before. I know; we will get it correct, this time



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKH4GHiihg]YouTube - ‪Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik‬‏[/ame]

 

[Greenbeard]

No not at all- pointing out that reform will be required is the truth.

The point is the hyperbole of the Left; knowing that it needs to be reformed and wanting to reform it, is not destroying it.

Reforming Medicare with the intent of preserving and improving it is obviously not destroying it; "the left" already embraced the first round of Medicare reforms over a year ago.

Ending public health insurance for the elderly, however, is indeed destroying Medicare.

 

[Neotrotsky]

No not at all- pointing out that reform will be required is the truth.

The point is the hyperbole of the Left; knowing that it needs to be reformed and wanting to reform it, is not destroying it.

Reforming Medicare with the intent of preserving and improving it is obviously not destroying it; "the left" already embraced the first round of Medicare reforms over a year ago.

Ending public health insurance for the elderly, however, is indeed destroying Medicare.

Well reforming is not ending; I suppose we can agree to disagree.

Attempts to introduce more market forces back into a failing socialist system, is always a good thing.


Do you mean Papa Obama Care?

Adding floors to a bad foundation is not helping anything

CBO: Obamacare = at least $109 Billion in Deficit Spending Over 10 Years; UPDATE: Former CBO Director: Obamacare Deficit will be $562 Billion over 10 years

Sadly, the Dems had a chance for real reform. Instead Papa ObamaCare was nothing more than a way for the gov't to get their "foot" in the door even more and to give Papa Obama some kind of faux legacy.

The majority does not want it and we saw the price Democrats paid last election for it.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm starting to think capitalism is incapable of producing enough jobs to meet its populations' demands. Maybe it's time for a new economic system predicated on maximizing employment instead of profits?

How exactly would you expect such a system to work.

The majority of the Left has no idea

They think is just sounds good. Again very few think of or understand the means

"Yet the lesson of capitalism itself is that nothing is permanent—'all that is solid melts into air' as Marx put it.

"Within capitalism there are as many forces that undermine it as there are forces that carry it forward.

"In this essay I look at what capitalism might become on the other side of the slump.
"I predict neither resurgence nor collapse.

"Instead I suggest an analogy with other systems that once seemed equally immutable. In the early decades of the 19th century the monarchies of Europe appeared to have seen off their revolutionary challengers, whose dreams were buried in the mud of Waterloo.

"Monarchs and emperors dominated the world and had proven extraordinarily adaptable.

"Just like the advocates of capitalism today, their supporters then could plausibly argue that monarchies were rooted in nature.

"Then it was hierarchy which was natural; today it is individual acquisitiveness..."

After capitalism | Prospect Magazine

There is no shortage of thinkers on the left pondering this question.

Can you find one on the right?

 

[georgephillip]

It must bother the Left when only certain monies go overseas
Funny how that works



Report: TARP funds ended up overseas

Ten percent of the money, $70 billion, went to American International Group to keep the insurance giant from collapse, the report said. AIG received twice what France spent on its entire program and half the money Germany put into the financial system, with much of the U.S. money going to AIG's partners in Europe.​

"'The point we make forcefully in this report is that there were no data about where this money was going, no information about where this money was going,' Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School who chaired the panel."

Report: TARP funds ended up overseas - UPI.com

Elizabeth probably wasn't being completely honest about her confusion over where the money was going. It was going to the richest 1% of citizens regardless of what flag they live under. Maybe you are legitimately perplexed about the existence of the class war: however, families like Bush and Kennedy have no doubt about its primacy to their lifestyles.

Actually the point was...the Lefts poor talking points

The poor attempts on the Left to play class warfare is not working.
Perhaps, if Papa Obama could actually run on his record then the Left
would have a better time of it.

God knows, they would sound less disingenuous on their talking points

Was TARP a talking point of class war?

 

[Neotrotsky]

How exactly would you expect such a system to work.

The majority of the Left has no idea

They think is just sounds good. Again very few think of or understand the means

"Yet the lesson of capitalism itself is that nothing is permanent—'all that is solid melts into air' as Marx put it.

"Within capitalism there are as many forces that undermine it as there are forces that carry it forward.

"In this essay I look at what capitalism might become on the other side of the slump.
"I predict neither resurgence nor collapse.

"Instead I suggest an analogy with other systems that once seemed equally immutable. In the early decades of the 19th century the monarchies of Europe appeared to have seen off their revolutionary challengers, whose dreams were buried in the mud of Waterloo.

"Monarchs and emperors dominated the world and had proven extraordinarily adaptable.

"Just like the advocates of capitalism today, their supporters then could plausibly argue that monarchies were rooted in nature.

"Then it was hierarchy which was natural; today it is individual acquisitiveness..."

After capitalism | Prospect Magazine

There is no shortage of thinkers on the left pondering this question.

Can you find one on the right?

You do know the argument that Marx's Labour Theory of Value is flawed?
Of course, you may not know that since it is apparent that the means to achieve this Socialist Utopia escapes many.

How many attempts now, historically, to build this Utopia?

Thinkers on the right- see most Founding Fathers


No shortage of "thinkers" on the Left? Makes sense, no doubt due to the large influx from when communism fell
No shortage, hmmm, little demand, sounds like a price deal to me
Hmm, that could be the source of many of our problems...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg[/ame]

 

[Greenbeard]

Do you mean Papa Obama Care?

I'm talking about hospital value-based purchasing, physician quality reporting, risk-adjusted physician feedback, value-based payment modifiers for physician reimbursements, payment adjustments for hospital-acquired conditions, launching and supporting innovative payment and delivery models, the shared savings program, bundling of payments, payment adjustments for preventable hospital readmissions, evidence-based transitions into the community from hospitals, extending Special Needs Plans, creating the IPAB, technical assistance for providers struggling with quality improvement, medication management for chronic disease, supporting the patient-centered medical home, coverage and payment coordination for expensive dual eligibles, incentives and technical assistance for electronic health record implementation, and dozens of more targeted reforms.

The key feature of these reforms is they're aimed at altering and improving the way Medicare operates, not ending Medicare as a public health insurance package for the elderly. A proposal to reform Medicare will look something like the pieces above--improvements in programmatic elements (particularly in how the program pays for medical services), or in benefit design, or in cost-sharing, etc. A proposal to destroy Medicare won't have any of that because under it Medicare will no longer be an insurer with a benefit package, or cost-sharing requirements, or programmatic elements around paying for medical services or being concerned with high-quality service delivery. We have a very recent example of just such a proposal to destroy Medicare.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Do you mean Papa Obama Care?

I'm talking about hospital value-based purchasing, physician quality reporting, risk-adjusted physician feedback, value-based payment modifiers for physician reimbursements, payment adjustments for hospital-acquired conditions, launching and supporting innovative payment and delivery models, the shared savings program, bundling of payments, payment adjustments for preventable hospital readmissions, evidence-based transitions into the community from hospitals, extending Special Needs Plans, creating the IPAB, technical assistance for providers struggling with quality improvement, medication management for chronic disease, supporting the patient-centered medical home, coverage and payment coordination for expensive dual eligibles, incentives and technical assistance for electronic health record implementation, and dozens of more targeted reforms.

The key feature of these reforms is they're aimed at altering and improving the way Medicare operates, not ending Medicare as a public health insurance package for the elderly. A proposal to reform Medicare will look something like the pieces above--improvements in programmatic elements (particularly in how the program pays for medical services), or in benefit design, or in cost-sharing, etc. A proposal to destroy Medicare won't have any of that because under it Medicare will no longer be an insurer with a benefit package, or cost-sharing requirements, or programmatic elements around paying for medical services or being concerned with high-quality service delivery. We have a very recent example of just such a proposal to destroy Medicare.

Oh so you don't mean where PapaObama care takes 500 million from Medicare and rations Medicare to pay for his boondoggle ...



Sadly, any "good" things you can cherry pick out of Papa Obama Care does not make up for the unnecessary burden it will place upon the US in its' totality .


CBO: Obamacare = at least $109 Billion in Deficit Spending Over 10 Years; UPDATE: Former CBO Director: Obamacare Deficit will be $562 Billion over 10 years

Sadly, the Dems had a chance for real reform. Instead Papa ObamaCare was nothing more than a way for the gov't to get their "foot" in the door even more and to give Papa Obama some kind of faux legacy.

The majority does not want it and we saw the price Democrats paid last election for it.

 

[georgephillip]

Oh shut it. No one is suggesting Medicare be destroyed.

This seems to be a growing myth among folks on the right.

There are proposals out there that significantly reform Medicare without destroying it (e.g. the ACA on the payment and delivery side, Lieberman-Coburn on the cost-sharing structure).

There is, however, also a proposal that eliminates Medicare (understood to be a public health insurance program that pays the medical bills of the elderly). The fact that the Republican majority hasn't abandoned in their replacement proposal the concept that the federal government bears some responsibility for the health of the elderly doesn't mean they aren't advocating the destruction of Medicare.

Actually, it is more Medicare, as is, will destroy the US

Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America

Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.​

Truth is hard for the Left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

Reforming entitlements begins with questioning some commonly held assumptions.

Starting with whether our current market system is efficient, something your source didn't question when he pointed out Medicare's future shortfall.

Since 1970 the share of American income going to healthcare has gone from 7% to 17%, and some projections show our entire economy could be absorbed by health care in the 2050s.

Is this shortfall because too many people are receiving healthcare, or is it because of a private, for-profit insurance system?

Profit is hard for the Right; in truth, it is their worst enemy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems 2008: These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2011: These two entities—Medicare and Social Security—are not facing any kind of financial crisis.

 

[georgephillip]

Only the Left thinks that when one keeps their own money- it is a subsidy

For that to be true, one would have to believe that all money belongs to the government

Again, so few think of or understand the means

How much of your money would you keep in the absence of government?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only the Left thinks that when one keeps their own money- it is a subsidy

For that to be true, one would have to believe that all money belongs to the government

Again, so few think of or understand the means

How much of your money would you keep in the absence of government?

Are you an idiot or a moron?

 

[daveman]

Only the Left thinks that when one keeps their own money- it is a subsidy

For that to be true, one would have to believe that all money belongs to the government

Again, so few think of or understand the means

How much of your money would you keep in the absence of government?

Are you an idiot or a moron?

Note: The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[georgephillip]

You seem confused about how much those "hard working" rich folk depend on the US government.

Take banking, for example:

"The federal government, in ways explicit and implicit, profoundly subsidizes and shelters the banking industry. True since the 1930s, it is much more so today. And that makes Mr. Dimon no capitalist colossus astride the Isle of Manhattan, but one of the great welfare queens in America.

"The protection is so well established that we barely notice it anymore.

"The government supervises bank activities and guarantees deposits...

Ummmmmm....deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC which is funded by the banks.

"Banks are also the mechanism through which we express economic policy, especially as fiscal stimulus has been eliminated as an option. The result is that the government pays a 'vig' to banks in order to reach its policy goals.

"When the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to help buoy the economy during a slowdown, banks are the first beneficiaries.

"As the Fed lowers short-term rates, banks borrow cheaply and lend out for a lot more, making any new lending highly profitable (assuming the banks make good loans). This is classic monetary policy, and supported nearly universally. But let's not pretend that it isn't a boon to banks.

"Some think bolstering banks' fortunes is a major goal, not a side effect."

Do you think those who are doing "rather well" require "their" government to socialize cost while privatizing profit? Obama is no different (so far) in his commitment to Wall Street and the expense of Main Street, AND it won't get better with a Republican (or another Democrat) in the White House.

Socializing cost and privatizing profit is terrible. So I'm wondering why the people who did that, like Franklin Raines and James Johnson, aren't facing criminal charges?

Not to mention Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

Can you name any government that hasn't socialized risk and privatized the spoils?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem confused about how much those "hard working" rich folk depend on the US government.

Take banking, for example:

"The federal government, in ways explicit and implicit, profoundly subsidizes and shelters the banking industry. True since the 1930s, it is much more so today. And that makes Mr. Dimon no capitalist colossus astride the Isle of Manhattan, but one of the great welfare queens in America.

"The protection is so well established that we barely notice it anymore.

"The government supervises bank activities and guarantees deposits...

Ummmmmm....deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC which is funded by the banks.

"Banks are also the mechanism through which we express economic policy, especially as fiscal stimulus has been eliminated as an option. The result is that the government pays a 'vig' to banks in order to reach its policy goals.

"When the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to help buoy the economy during a slowdown, banks are the first beneficiaries.

"As the Fed lowers short-term rates, banks borrow cheaply and lend out for a lot more, making any new lending highly profitable (assuming the banks make good loans). This is classic monetary policy, and supported nearly universally. But let's not pretend that it isn't a boon to banks.

"Some think bolstering banks' fortunes is a major goal, not a side effect."

Do you think those who are doing "rather well" require "their" government to socialize cost while privatizing profit? Obama is no different (so far) in his commitment to Wall Street and the expense of Main Street, AND it won't get better with a Republican (or another Democrat) in the White House.

Socializing cost and privatizing profit is terrible. So I'm wondering why the people who did that, like Franklin Raines and James Johnson, aren't facing criminal charges?

Not to mention Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

Can you name any government that hasn't socialized risk and privatized the spoils?

I know that Raines falsified earnings to inflate his bonuses and with Johnson helped increase the size of Fannie's balance sheet to the point where we're on the hook for a couple hundred billion in losses.
Please explain what Paulson or Bernanke did that was equivalent. Thanks.