[paladin]

and how does he plan on funding universal health care? who is eligible? what happens to private healthcare? what about fixing social security instead?

as far as the rich, you tax them enough and they'll take their money elsewhere. considering they already pay way more than they use, that wouldnt be good.

[Optimus Prime]

Studies have shown that single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs.

The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. If we lowered these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

[paladin]

and when ever has history showed you that we can, especially with a liberal, significantly reduce cost in spending?

[Optimus Prime]

paladin;349394 said:

and when ever has history showed you that we can, especially with a liberal, significantly reduce cost in spending?

and when ever has history shown you that we can, especially with a conservative, not start a needless war, ruin our diplomatic standing in the world, or even speak correct English?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Paladin, you're clearly very conservative economically. Great. Problem is, it's a flawed methodology. Think back on recent presidents, and the state of the economy under their policies. W. Bush=shitty economy. Clinton=great economy. Bush SR=bad economy. Reagan=horrible economy.

Here's where you tell me that the reason things were good under Clinton is because we were finally feeling the effects of reagan, and the only reason things are bad under W is because we're finally feeling the effects of Clinton. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

We pay for medical care and high civil spending by repealing the tax breaks and cuts put in place by Bush. Bring back the death tax and capital gains taxes, give breaks to the people who need it. Rich people will whine, but it ultimately lead to a better economy which will help them in the long run.

[paladin]

reagans economy was fairly strong. came in after stagflation and cleaned up pretty well. take a look at the dow jones during his years.

gwb(and the fed) did a fairly poor job managing the second economic crisis, but i thought they did okay managing the internet bubble. we really came out of that in okay shape and you can look at what we're seeing now as confirmation of just how good we did.

george bush and clinton kind of go hand in hand.. there was instability during the late 80s and early 90s at times and bush raised taxes(which helped lose him office after he promised not to do so) and clinton continued with that while the fed rates went up year after year. having seperate congress/presidency parties in control definitely helped as well. overall it was a great climate for economic growth. oil was cheap, technology was booming, people were happy, etc.

the economy is cyclical and only partially influenced by the government.. we had a down time in the late 70s, up time in the mid 80s, down time in the late 80s/early 90s, up time until the bubble burst, down time for a few years, up time fueled by housing growth, down time now due to housing bubble and oil prices. sometime things will change and we'll reset. the government can help by adjusting fiscal policy, but ultimately is only one factor of many

[Optimus Prime]

paladin;349416 said:

reagans economy was fairly strong. came in after stagflation and cleaned up pretty well. take a look at the dow jones during his years.

gwb(and the fed) did a fairly poor job managing the second economic crisis, but i thought they did okay managing the internet bubble. we really came out of that in okay shape and you can look at what we're seeing now as confirmation of just how good we did.

george bush and clinton kind of go hand in hand.. there was instability during the late 80s and early 90s at times and bush raised taxes(which helped lose him office after he promised not to do so) and clinton continued with that while the fed rates went up year after year. having seperate congress/presidency parties in control definitely helped as well. overall it was a great climate for economic growth. oil was cheap, technology was booming, people were happy, etc.

the economy is cyclical and only partially influenced by the government.. we had a down time in the late 70s, up time in the mid 80s, down time in the late 80s/early 90s, up time until the bubble burst, down time for a few years, up time fueled by housing growth, down time now due to housing bubble and oil prices. sometime things will change and we'll reset. the government can help by adjusting fiscal policy, but ultimately is only one factor of many

Reagan also screwed the economy by raising the National Debt to highs it had never even sniffed before. Reagan gets credit for things he doesn't deserve, like "ending the Cold War". Bullshit.

[paladin]

well, the idea of economically bankrupting the russians through an arms race is fairly sound honestly. the military was also antiquated by then, so some spending needed to be done anyways. the result of the star wars type stuff he was promoting includes things like GPS as well, so we have benefitted as civilians from the things funded then

the debt definitely went up, the problem was we never followed through with a plan to pay it back down. deficit spending is a valid economic idea as long as you follow through and pay it off when times are good.

either way, he assisted in killing the poor economic conditions that he inherited from carter and we enjoyed a pretty good run during most of his office

[Optimus Prime]

We may just want to leave this argument alone. You're a staunch Neo Republican. Considering the guy had symptoms of Alzhiemers while he was President seems to hint to me that he wasn't really......a sound leader, to put it nicely.

[paladin]

neo-cons are generally not fiscally conservative.

no president is a jack of all trades, reagan had a very good set of advisors. he was just the figurehead(which is what the executive is in our system)

[Optimus Prime]

Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert were my true pick

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Reaganomics is not a sound economic strategy. The dow is not the only indicator of the economy, it best shows how the economy is affecting rich people. The average joe wasn't doing so hot during his presidency.

[Shinrei]

You're making the mistake in assuming that the president has full control over the state of the economy. For instance, Clinton worked during the time of a republican controlled congress. Not that congress has the control either mind you, but to say "the economy was XXXX during YYYY's presidency" doesn't paint anywhere near a complete picture.

And no one in their right mind would ever accuse Bush of being a fiscal conservative. I maintain that tax and spend democrats and borrow and spend republicans are two sides of the same coin.

And Xander, I'm sorry: "Tax the rich" is not an economic policy. Your trickle up policy is every bit as flawed as reagan's trickle down policy. You need balance. You need to reward the innovative and the entrepreneurs that make the economy run. I've posted figures before that show that the top percent already pay the lion's share of the taxes, and you want them to pay more.

Or are you ready to concede that the US is going to continue sinking into and remain a consumer economy beholden to China to keep our standards of living up? New business, industry and wealth production (the things that made america great) must now all be taxed into oblivion and the consumer product is king? What kind of economic policy is that?

"Tax the rich" sounds like nothing more than the politics of envy.

I'll give you an example that comes straight from me. I run a small ebay business. As of right now, I make enough money to be able to save a little and have more spending money. I know my own numbers well enough to realize that if Obama's proposed social security tax hike goes through, I will no longer make enough money in my ebay business for it to be worth the time I put into it. Already, the ENTIRE AMOUNT OF MONEY I made from January through April will go to the government. That means I get to keep May through December's money, but the first 4 months all leave my pocket.

So what happens when I, the tiny business holder closes up shop? The US Postal service loses all the money I spend every week shipping my items. The shops where I spend my extra pocket cash all lose my business. Multiply me by the thousands of other Americans who have similar circumstances and what have you got?

[Dolorous Menhir]

paladin;349376 said:

what about healthcare? i know that hillary had a specific plan. whats his?

and why tax the wealthy? what have they done? why do we need to? why not cut back spending instead?

Let's try a simple experiment.

Compare the last two presidents. Once Democratic, one Republican. One presided over a massive increase in domestic spending while the deficit ballooned. The other balanced the budget and produced budget surpluses by the end of his term.

Now which was which? And based on that, which party has the better economic record?

(Anticipating Paladin's objections: I said domestic spending, not including military. Both presidents had Republican congresses for the majority of their tenures.)

Lastly, which of the pair is McCain closer to in economic policy? (hint - it's not the Democrat)

edit:

paladin;349394 said:

and when ever has history showed you that we can, especially with a liberal, significantly reduce cost in spending?

Name any president who has reduced spending.

[paladin]

i think the fact that clinton had an opposite party in power in congress definitely helped. regardless of the fact that its a liberal or conservative, its hard to come to a concensus when that happens and that prevents a lot of things from being done. typically we're at our best as a nation when we are in that position. im always a fan of different parties when it comes to congress vs president because of it.

anyways, clinton did a great job, but you cant say that the economy probably wouldnt have exploded no matter who was in office. hes not al gore, he didnt "invent the internet". clinton, greenspan, bush, the technology sector, etc all played hands in that economic boom, and the surplus was from increased tax revenues due to it. clinton gets his due credit, but so should reagan and bush for get some for bringing the nation out of the terrible stagflation we were in and priming us for the big boom in the 90s. say what you will about reagans smarts, he was a strong executive who surrounded himself with great advisors. carter didnt come close to reagan as a public figure.

without 9/11 i think gwb was a one termer that didnt get much accomplished. 9/11 changed everything, including our economic future. that said, until we got bogged down in iraq things were "okay". like i said, deficit spending during a recession is sound economic policy, but when you come out of it you have to make up the deficit somehow and gwb didnt do that.

economic policy wise, obama has stated hes for the average consumer. mccain has stated hes for the entrepreneur. i side with mccain on that because those are the people that keep the economy rolling and bring innovation into our world. rather than push those out that become successful, we should keep them here because they are successful at what they do

[Optimus Prime]

Shinrei no Shintai;349620 said:

You're making the mistake in assuming that the president has full control over the state of the economy. For instance, Clinton worked during the time of a republican controlled congress. Not that congress has the control either mind you, but to say "the economy was XXXX during YYYY's presidency" doesn't paint anywhere near a complete picture.

And no one in their right mind would ever accuse Bush of being a fiscal conservative. I maintain that tax and spend democrats and borrow and spend republicans are two sides of the same coin.

And Xander, I'm sorry: "Tax the rich" is not an economic policy. Your trickle up policy is every bit as flawed as reagan's trickle down policy. You need balance. You need to reward the innovative and the entrepreneurs that make the economy run. I've posted figures before that show that the top percent already pay the lion's share of the taxes, and you want them to pay more.

Or are you ready to concede that the US is going to continue sinking into and remain a consumer economy beholden to China to keep our standards of living up? New business, industry and wealth production (the things that made america great) must now all be taxed into oblivion and the consumer product is king? What kind of economic policy is that?

"Tax the rich" sounds like nothing more than the politics of envy.

I'll give you an example that comes straight from me. I run a small ebay business. As of right now, I make enough money to be able to save a little and have more spending money. I know my own numbers well enough to realize that if Obama's proposed social security tax hike goes through, I will no longer make enough money in my ebay business for it to be worth the time I put into it. Already, the ENTIRE AMOUNT OF MONEY I made from January through April will go to the government. That means I get to keep May through December's money, but the first 4 months all leave my pocket.

So what happens when I, the tiny business holder closes up shop? The US Postal service loses all the money I spend every week shipping my items. The shops where I spend my extra pocket cash all lose my business. Multiply me by the thousands of other Americans who have similar circumstances and what have you got?

First, Shin you have no idea what type of family I grew up in or how much money I make. Let me educate you. I grew up being taxed more under Clinton's policies.....so I'm not fucking "envy" of the rich. My father was pulling in a lot of money when he was working. With my mother working as well, we got taxed more than the "average" joe.

[Shinrei]

And you recently told me not to take things personally....

I'm not saying you, personally, envy the rich. I'm saying that it's too easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to say that the rich are rich, so they should be taxed more. America's government squanders money left and right, and the rich should take care of that why? Because some see that as "well, they can afford it."

Obviously from MY OWN EXAMPLE I am finding myself highly taxed, and I would never claim to be upper middle class, much less rich.

In YOUR OWN EXAMPLE above, you make it clear that your family was doing all right monetarily but was getting taxed heavily. As I look to my own situation, and you look to your own situation, doesn't it make sense that it is there in your own circumstances your concern should be, rather than how the rich are taxed? Shouldn't you be calling for smarter government spending so that you, your parents, and shinrei no shintai should get a better tax break?
"Tax the rich more" almost seems like a non-sequitor, UNLESS you believe that "because they can afford it" it's ok. Better them than us. So maybe envy isn't the right word, but "better them than us."

I don't think it is fair the way ANYONE is taxed in the US. But I don't believe the call to fix this should be more taxes. It should be less taxes and better, more responsible government. That will help everyone.

Edited to add: I'm not for "no taxes", just less taxes, more fairly applied and for wise revenue use.

[Optimus Prime]

Shinrei no Shintai;349758 said:

And you recently told me not to take things personally....

I'm not saying you, personally, envy the rich. I'm saying that it's too easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to say that the rich are rich, so they should be taxed more. America's government squanders money left and right, and the rich should take care of that why? Because some see that as "well, they can afford it."

Obviously from MY OWN EXAMPLE I am finding myself highly taxed, and I would never claim to be upper middle class, much less rich.

In YOUR OWN EXAMPLE above, you make it clear that your family was doing all right monetarily but was getting taxed heavily. As I look to my own situation, and you look to your own situation, doesn't it make sense that it is there in your own circumstances your concern should be, rather than how the rich are taxed? Shouldn't you be calling for smarter government spending so that you, your parents, and shinrei no shintai should get a better tax break?
"Tax the rich more" almost seems like a non-sequitor, UNLESS you believe that "because they can afford it" it's ok. Better them than us. So maybe envy isn't the right word, but "better them than us."

I don't think it is fair the way ANYONE is taxed in the US. But I don't believe the call to fix this should be more taxes. It should be less taxes and better, more responsible government. That will help everyone.

Edited to add: I'm not for "no taxes", just less taxes, more fairly applied and for wise revenue use.

I don't take it personally until you use my name and address me specifically buck'o

I still love ya though :cool:

[Shinrei]

Well, I used the "politics of envy" phrase pretty losely. I wasn't trying to imply that you sit around hatching plots against the rich....

Or are you?

[Optimus Prime]

No. But I believe that rich people benefit (a lot do) from a healthy market supported by those in the lower and middle classes.

Sometimes you seem like a staunch conservative and other times you seem almost moderate....you sir, are an enigma wrapped in an eggroll