The New York Times > Log In

Quote:

---

The evidence, however, is hard to square with the theory. A recent study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, then economists at the University of California, Berkeley, finds that a dollar of tax cuts raises the G.D.P. by about $3. According to the Romers, the multiplier for tax cuts is more than twice what Professor Ramey finds for spending increases.

---

There seems to be two camps:

The Obama [ and one can rightly say the Bush admin ] camp that thinks the best use of money is to take it, I mean, tax people and "spread" it around as determined by the politicians.


For example:

Big Dig's red ink engulfs state - The Boston Globe



Or Medicare part D



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


The other camp believes that workers should keep as much of the money they earn and let the individual determine how their money is spent, without effecting other people.

Hey, was not the Boston tea party just about this issue?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For those who are in the Obama camp, can you give me examples of how the government spent your tax dollars better than you did? ;)

If you don't pay taxes or have not paid taxes - your answer is null and void.


















G&P

Very nice article, in the NY Times, no less. Thanks.

I may be smarter than a politician but not nearly as clever. I don't have enough smoke and mirrors to get away with what they manage to pull off.

Obama's 2% Illusion

Quote:

---

taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

---

But then with liberals good intentions are what matters. Soaking the "rich," providing cradle to grave care, talking about race, etc. accomplish little - and often just make things worse - but sure make them feel good about themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

There seems to be two camps

---

Hello in:

I count three.

There's the ones who think we should be giving away money that we don't have yet (spending)... And, there's the ones who think we should be giving away money that we'll never get (tax cuts)...

There's a third camp who thinks we shouldn't be giving away ANY money at all.

excon

Tax cuts aren't giving away money we'll never get, that's like saying what you earned never belonged to you, it all belongs to the government. Excuse me, but it's my money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tax cuts aren't giving away money we'll never get, that's like saying what you earned never belonged to you, it all belongs to the government. Excuse me, but it's my money.

---

"I consider all the ill as established which may be established. I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." --Thomas Jefferson to Uriah Forrest, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:477 Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Bill of Rights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tax cuts aren't giving away money we'll never get, that's like saying what you earned never belonged to you, it all belongs to the government. Excuse me, but it's my money.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Not really... It's only your money until the IOU comes due.

The government (YOU & ME) owes x. The government SPENDS more than it collects, and borrows (or prints) the difference. That's the deficit.

So, the government can increase the spending of money it doesn't have, thereby increasing the deficit by THAT amount.

Or, the government can forgo money it won't ever collect, thereby increasing the deficit by THAT amount.

Take your pick. One is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The other is robbing Paul to pay Peter. Either way, YOU and I, or our children are going to have to pay it back.

excon

I get how that works, ex, but it's still saying the same thing - what's mine is the government's - and that is precisely the problem, why YOU & ME "owes x." Thanks to the people you guys elected it's only going to get worse, and I resent having to take my earned income to bail out deadbeats. I paid for my house, I don't deserve the burden of someone else's mortgage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Thanks to the people you guys elected it's only going to get worse, and I resent having to take my earned income to bail out deadbeats.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Then, you never should have given Democrats the chance. I know you don't like to get beaten up by what the dufus did... I'm sorry. I feel your pain... But, YOU elected him, and it DID get worse.

If he hadn't been the dufus he was, the Democrats would NOT have a blank check today. So, in my view, YOU had MORE to do with Obama getting elected than I did. Your protestations are too little, too late.

You supported an administration that oversaw the looting of America. I'd be more pissed at THAT, than having to bail out your neighbors.

excon

I get it, either way it's my fault so I should just willingly and gratefully surrender. One thing though, since when did any party, administration or congress deserve a blank check? Before this election I just can't picture you giving anyone a blank check. My how things change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Before this election I just can't picture you giving anyone a blank check. My how things change.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Where do you see that I support the Obama bailout plan??

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Where do you see that I support the Obama bailout plan???

---

Well, that's not exactly what I said or meant. Perhaps "allowing for" would be better than "giving." You seem to be allowing for Democrats to have this blank check when ordinarily I'd think you would be raising hell about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You seem to be allowing for Democrats to have this blank check when ordinarily I'd think you would be raising hell about it.

---

Hello again, Steve,

Ordinarily, I would. But, I got to admit, I don't know what the correct thing to do is. My sense is to not spend a dime... But, I'm willing to defer to people who know more than me, and give this thing a chance to work.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

... But, I'm willing to defer to people who know more than me, and give this thing a chance to work.

excon

---

Cool; send 'em some of that gold as a down payment.

Giving this thing a chance?

How has the government spent your money better than you would?

That is the question for those who believe in the porkulus.

I waiting for examples.

Again, if you don't pay taxes, your answer is null and void.

If you don't believe that working earns you an income; that is, you believe that it is government's benevelonce that makes it possible to have anything left over for in your pay stub for yourself or after you have paid all the costs of running a business --- then your answer is null and void.


Diversionary tactics like blaming prior administrations don't count either.








G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

giving this thing a chance? How has the government spent your money better than you would?

---

Hello in:

Well, I NEVER like much how the government spends MY money, but they've been doing it for a LOOOOOOOONG time.

I think spending my money on creating a universal health care plan will save ME and my family money in the future. Plus it'll put a few health care workers to work, no?? And, it may prevent some child from going without needed health care in the future

But, it may not. I don't know. I admit I don't know. You don't know either. Obama doesn't know. His experts don't know. NOBODY knows. For sure, the dufus who's writing YOU the emails doesn't know either.

The economy runs on trust. The fix does too. You believe the emails. I don't believe anything, except in the gold market. It has NEVER let me down.

excon

What jobs in healthcare is the gov providing that are not already there?

Oh yeah more paper pushing obstructionist bureaucrats that will determine whether the gov will pay for a test or a procedure or how long your hospital stay will be.

Think about the current college age people considering a medical career.
Do I really want to go into further debt and spent 7 or more years of my life going into a field that has no autonomy, limits on income, and the more you make the greater the absolute amount of and greater percent of my income will be paid in taxes?


Average income is around 40,000. That is about 15% tax bracket. If it was lowered to 10%, about 1-2000 would be your to keep.
Put it in a pre tax health saving account and you determine ow your healthcare dollar is spent.

When something is paid for directly, price is much bigger issue. That will bring down costs.

When a third party [ gov or private health insurance ] pays for something price is not as great an isssue for the consumer, but due to more middlemen the overall costs go up.

Why do you think the costs of healthcare are rising? And those who don't have health insurance are the ones that really pay the inflated costs due to third parties.






G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

What jobs in healthcare is the gov providing that are not already there?

Oh yeah more paper pushing obstructionist bureaucrats that will determine whether the gov will pay for a test or a procedure or how long your hospital stay will be.

---

Hello again, in:

It seems to me that you've got a paper pushing obstructionist bureaucrat INSURANCE ADJUSTER, determining whether THEY'LL pay for a test or procedure, etc... That IS happening right now, no??

Seems to me further, that if we REMOVE the insurance industry from the equation, there'll be JILLIONS left over to pay for REAL health care, instead of some insurance company executive's retirement...

So, you're right. It may not MAKE jobs, but it'll save money. That ain't bad.

excon

BUt Daschle is right in a way.

People can't expect limited health care tax dollars to be spent on everyone, performing every test and every procedure known to keep them alive for 3-6 months extra. Especially when those health care tax dollars can be more effectively spent on preventative care.





G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, in:

It seems to me that you've got a paper pushing obstructionist bureaucrat INSURANCE ADJUSTER, determining whether THEY'LL pay for a test or procedure, etc...... That IS happening right now, no?????

Seems to me further, that if we REMOVE the insurance industry from the equation, there'll be JILLIONS left over to pay for REAL health care, instead of some insurance company executive's retirement.....

So, you're right. It may not MAKE jobs, but it'll save money. That ain't bad.

excon

---

Uh, 'scuse me, but can you show ANY example of when the government has run ANYTHING better than the private sector?
The Federal government was commissioned to run 3 things. Money, military, and mail.
We can't be certain about military, but even if we approve of how its run, the other 2 are examples of incompetence. (The Postal Service has had to privatisze parts of its operation to stay in competition).
And the money? Of course you know about the failure of govt to run THAT properly.

So what makes you believe that govt will run health care better than what we have now?
If money gets saved, Washington will find some way to blow it.