Mitt Romney said in his first debate with Obama that he wasn't going to reduce taxes. Obama seemed surprised. We thought he was running on this platform. I suppose what he meant was, yeah, he'll reduce tax rates. But since the economy will grow so much now that investors have additional money they can use to purchase capital, this will stimulate the economy. Everyone will get so much richer that the net effect will be additional tax revenues.
Back in the Reagan days maybe it made sense to believe that kind of thing. We didn't have a lot of data to evaluate it. Seems sort of plausible. But the data are now in. As I've discussed before the data make it pretty clear that the "have your cake and eat it to" theory just doesn't hold up. Economic growth is lower in the periods of our history that correspond with lower tax rates on the rich. Tax revenue increases also decline. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts show that there isn't good reason to buy what Romney is selling. Like Bush and Reagan we should probably expect not only poorer economic performance, but an explosion of the federal debt.
A recent study by the Congressional Research Service confirms this, as if it wasn't already obvious. Not only do lower taxes on the wealthy correlate to poorer economic performance, it also correlates to expanded inequality and all of its associated problems.
What was frustrating to me about watching the first presidential debate (I haven't yet watched the others) is that Romney is saying the kind of thing that only a paid stooge of a right wing think tank could believe. And yet Obama just let it go unchallenged, as if it wasn't a huge steaming pile of crap. Romney's assertions on how tax cuts spur the economy are not unlike his beliefs about magic underwear. In polite company we pretend that this isn't outlandish. Magic underwear I can understand. He's not hurting anybody with that. But tax policy affects people, and these myths Romney is peddling will affect the poor negatively if they are implemented.
51 comments:
Damn Jon, I know we have a completely different vision on most things and I also know you enjoy the fight, but if you think that taxing the rich or upper income bracket of people will result in a better business environment, more growth, will lower our national debt and will somehow also help the poor is absolutely mind blowing.
You do realize that since the 1960's our government has spent nearly $20 Trillion dollars in its fight against poverty since Lydon B and all of the 79 means tested programs today account for just about a Trillion bucks a year annually. Hell my man - the cost for all wars from the revolutionary war up to and including the Afghan war totals under $7 Trillion bucks - we've dumped almost 3 times the money into fighting poverty and what has happened? It has risen under Obama by 19%. So what does that mean - we have 15.1% of people living in poverty according to the Census Bureau. A nice round figure is that 50 million folks are in poverty and we supply those 50 million people and average of $20,000 per year today in assistance.
The curve is going in the opposite direction in a dangerous and unhealthy direction frankly in my opinion. The only thing that MIGHT and I empasize MIGHT help reduce that poverty number is to embrace and help lower the cost of doing business via the tax burden. Obama has absolutely no plans to lower the unemployment/under employment issue and making this country less business friendly will only make the problem worse for everyone.
Devils advocate - lets pretend for a moment that a tax hike on the rich does not result in business fleeing the country or it does not cause any more money from being put on the sideline - status quo. The result of the increase will be simply passed directly onto the consumers thus making the issue even worse. What might have cost $2 will now cost $2.50 - all costs are passed on to the consumer and it will be re-couped by business. If you raise minimum wage - you only increase the cost of that particular good or service, if you force business to pay more those costs will be passed on and the cycle will not stop. Make minimum wage $20 - hell make it $50 an hour if you want - it will result in higher unemployment and will increase the cost on everything.
Invite competition, lower business taxes, make the EPA a helpful organization to small businesses and not a hindererence, champion more businesses here in the US with more tax breaks and let business work. That is what he is offering - he knows that Gov't doesn't and can't create business, but he recognizes that it can stop growth.
If you just could spend one week on the road with me - talking to the real businesses, the small to mid size companies I deal with I really think it would be an eye opening experience for you. Expansion plans are sitting on people's desk, ideas about hiring are on the table, there is excitement in the air about Romney being President. Then my meetings always end the same with a huge BUT - BUT if Obama is re-elected we will not grow and we will not be hiring in this environment.
That is the decision sir - the rest of this is just smoked filled coffee house crap. Get unemployment under 5% then lets sit down and have this discussion, but until then there should not be one decision made by gov't to cost one single job.
Chad, why do you think the most prosperous time in our nation's history corresponded with the highest rates of taxation on the richest?
Is it mind blowing to you that I think what is worked in the past is what would probably work again and what has failed in the past is probably what would fail again? Is that really so surprising?
I'm asking you to just look at history a little. They said Clinton's tax hikes would collapse the economy, causing the rich to flee. They said the Bush tax cuts would usher in enormous prosperity. Do you have any plans to ever look at the historical facts?
Did you know that during the 1950/60, a time when arguably these were the most halcyon days of growth the top marginal tax rate was .....90%? Now with the top marginal tax rate the lowest growth has stalled and yet the 10-1% are getting richer and the middle class and poor are getting poorer. Did I mention that Romney pays 14% net? and that most of his income comes from overseas?
BTW the trickle down effect was suggested at a time when it was thought (see 'the wealth of nations' Adam Smith... the bible of capitalism) that capitalists WOULDN'T source manufacturing to cheaper markets O/S because for nationalistic reasons.
Odd isn't it that the most overtly nationalistic tend to be the right wing and capitalists yet they're among the first to go O/S for sourcing. Chad you really should watch that vid I recommended.... for the FACTS
CHEERS
PEOPLES
where's the money coming from Mr. Romney?
you're about $3 trillion light.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/the-undisclosed-mitt-romney/
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-70-tax-rates-wont-work
I am surprised your hanging your hat on this arguement. You know that not a single person in America actually paid 90% - in fact I have read that the super rich actually paid only about 26% so your idea would be cutting them a break!
Just the thought, just the idea that you think it is fine to actually discuss stealing 90% of anyone's earnings for any reason is disgusting.
A question Mike Church routinely asks the dumb ass Liberals calling his show I will ask you. Out of $1 that I earn tomorrow - how much of that dollar will you allow me to keep? What is "fair" in your mind that I should be able to keep?
Your answer should now be applied across the board regardless of the number of dollars a person earns. You want to take more from the top and I want 51% not paying a dime to pay the exact amount that I do.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/the_real_tax_rates_on_top_earners.html
"Regardless of how high your income is, when government takes 50 percent of it, you're halfway to slavery. A rational people wouldn't allow government (at all levels combined) to take more than 50 percent of a citizen's income."
A-Men.
"If "rich" folks actually had to pay their federal income taxes at the top statutory rate -- it was 94 percent in 1945 -- they'd have long ago left these shores."
Yes sir.
http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/dynamics-of-tax-policy-during-1920s-through-1940s/
"It must be emphasized that tax increases or decreases affect economic behavior, a concept that democrats/liberals cannot seem to grasp. When tax rates increase, the rich look for tax shelters and tax-free havens. They put their money in, for example, tax exempt bonds, because taxpayers change their behavior according to what the tax rates are. To illustrate, when one of the Rockefeller’s died, his estate included $44 million in tax-exempt bonds. This example proves that huge amounts of money were diverted to avoid tax and not being invested in productive capacity, such as manufacturing but was instead being made available for local political pet projects, because this money was put into tax-exempt state and local bonds. So, it would behoove the democrats and liberals to examine history a little bit closer see that tax increases did not help the Depressions, but exacerbated the problem along with the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and legislation like NRIA and AAA."
As I have pointed out many times before Jon - the rich, smart people will always find ways to lower their tax burden to the smallest number possible inside the law. We have an aggressive accountant and I smile every year when I see our tax rate - each year a loophole is closed, but another is open and until I die I will pay as little as legally possible even if it stretched the rules. I do this without an army of lawyers and accountants paid to make sure money is tax exempt/untouchable.
Been this way from the very beginning and I suspect it will be this way long after we are gone.
The rates were 90% and you're right that people didn't pay that much. The richest paid about 70%. I have the data here.
http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2011/07/tax-facts.html
To answer Mike Church, first tell me what you think the right answer is. What is a fair amount?
Because I don't think there is such a thing. You can just arbitrarily throw a number out there, but why is that the correct answer? Is 1% fair? Why should the government take anything that was earned by another? You tell me.
My answer is that since I don't think there is a right answer to the question of fairness we use a different criteria. Here's mine. What works? Use that. If our current rates which led to the collapsed economy, expanding inequality with all of it's associated problems like crime and disease, and a host of other issues then I say let's change. Go back to rates that worked. That's my answer. What's yours?
51% not paying a dime? It apparently doesn't bother you to repeatedly say false things. I find that strange.
Notice I answer your questions. You don't answer mine. You quote someone that says everyone would leave if we made rates as they were in the past. But they didn't leave then. In fact we had the best economic performance in our nation's history. So why think they would leave when in the past they didn't? And why do you think our economy performed so spectacularly during times for which the exact opposite of the policies you recommend was implemented?
When Clinton raised the tax rates revenues went up. You can assert that people find ways to hide money when rates are higher. I'm not denying that. But on net revenues go up. People don't flee in droves. It just doesn't happen. You tell yourself these stories about what rich smart people will do but you never think to look at history and consider what rich smart people have actually done in the past and use that to inform what you think they would do in the future. Again I ask, when do the historical facts enter the discussion? When do you consider them instead of these stories that are invented that have little to do with the real world.
Jon,
We are talking about marginal tax rates aren't we?
i.e. a sliding rate of tax *not actual rates.*
e.g. 0-20k nil
from 20001- 70k - 25% = $12000
* effective tax rate approx 6% on $70K
from 70001- 100k - 28% etc.
Chad ,
That wasn't my figures. it was in the Moyers video. I wasn't there then.
Business fleeing the country to where? Would you take your children to Asia?
Businesses can and do off shore wages and profits NOW to reduce the rate.
The argument is based on incomplete information.In reality tax is near as damn it optional to the 1% anyway. ...you really need to read CCH tax law code books...or get a better tax accountant.
One Billionaire I know of paid tax on a declared taxable income of $30k.
Correct, Ex regarding marginal tax rates. And as far as the rich fleeing, Chad, do you know foreigners? I know people from all over the world, some of whom say they could make more money in their native country. But you think they want to go there? There's only one reason they would go back. To be closer to family. Nobody that I know wants to move back to their native land because it's nicer there. The more money they could make does not offset the negatives. We have clean skies, wide roads, low crime. Wherever you go the toilets flush. What country with lower tax rates can compare with us? When you are worth millions, are you really going to go live in the Philippines or Haiti and be a little more rich rich and be surrounded by the kind of poverty and desperation you always find in these free market liberterian utopias?
Again, for you Chad it's all about concocting stories. I just bet people would flee. Makes sense to me. I just bet the economy would grow like crazy if we cut tax rates. Makes sense to me. There's no willingness to look at history and try to determine the effects of these policies based on data. The right wing prefers stories to data because the data always contradicts them.
Jon - I assumed that you understood that I was speaking in terms of income taxes when referencing the 51% since we have crossed this bridge before, but if not that is what was being referenced.
I thought this link
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-70-tax-rates-wont-work
outlined clearly that the revenue by GDP actually decreased when taxes went up including under Bubba.
I am missing the direct question your asking - what are you asking me to answer again?
The Mike Church question does not have an answer - that is the purpose because it brings the discussion down to the elementary level. The answers vary dependent on the caller and Mike is quick to point out - if a caller says I want to keep 95% - that would result in anarchy since federal, state and local gov't may not function. When folks say it depends on the persons income well that falls right into his narrative. If someone says you should keep just 40% - again that kick starts another well thought out arguement he has to offer to freedome at that point - it is setup and a good one.
Talk about the 70% rate of years past - first there was no internet and there certainly was no real recourse at that time - no airplanes, no technology to up and move a business or family. Hell - in most cases back then one town had no idea what the next town was doing let alone the next state over. I think you also are under estimating the amount of tax fraud that was taking place - you know that money was being withheld, hidden, gold was being bought and stored and the gov't couldn't track and find all that money.
While we are on the subject - if we are going back to the tax codes of the yester-years should we go back to the social programs of the time as well?
Point is for me anyhow - we live in a world today that is real time and people have the ability to move quickly - you can buy a house in Florida from your computer in hours so it is a very different world.
My proof - France - I have already share articles with you that you of course dismissed and that is fine. The gov't has singled out about 3,000 citizens with their latest tax hike idea and a great majority of those folks are or will take action. Whether they up and leave the country - we'll see, but they are not going to roll over and say - you got me. When this is done - I suspect that gov't revenue will be down in France. I suspect that if you look it up you find economists saying that very thing.
Here in the USA - it is happening, but on a smaller scale that is being overlooked. When Illinois raised taxes again and fell further under democrat controll - we left the state. Our company is also looking to move HQ from Illinois to Indiana (will be done in 6 months) and the exodus from New York and New Jersey is well documented. Will people move their families to another country - probably not - I will agree with you there, but they are leaving those states which frankly support your kind of heavy tax, big government ideas for states with lower business and personal taxes so it is happening right now. These states are finding that the earners are leaving yet their social program burdens are increasing.
I've tossed you a softball from time to time saying that your group with their ideas should take 25 states and leave my group with their ideas with 25 states and we'll engage in beneficial transactions, but we can not tax one another or force our ways on one another - it is a stupid, but fun game. Problem is that the country is slowly dividing itself in that way through basic cause and affect.
Why do you want to maximize revenue as a % of GDP? Why not just maximize revenue? The take away from your CATO link is that the economy grew so fast during the higher tax years that while revenue as a share of GDP was down actual revenue was up huge. Given this, why do you pretend that higher taxes is bad for the economy? There's no evidence to support that claim. The evidence points in the opposite direction.
So my question to you, which you haven't answered, is this. Why do you think the most prosperous time in our nation's history corresponded with the highest rates of taxation on the rich? OK, they didn't produce the highest amount of **income tax** revenue as a share of GDP, as if income taxes are the only taxes that matter or as if taxation as a share of GDP mattered. They did produce excellent economic growth. The best we've seen. Why do you think that is?
The next question I'd like you to answer is to tell us what the fair amount is for the government to take from the person that earned it? You asked me, so I'm asking you. You say there is no answer, but the answer depends on the person. OK, you are a person so your answer depends on you. Tell us what your answer is.
The rich were unable to move out of country when they didn't have the internet? Why should that matter? Again, where would a millionaire want to move if our tax rates went back to the Clinton era levels? The only places that are remotely as nice as us have even higher taxation rates (Western Europe). Low tax places are the worst places in the world to live. What does that say about your continued calls for low taxation? When do real world facts inform your views? The lowest taxation places are Haiti, the Congo, Chad, Ethiopia. You know, the worst places in the world to live. Is that where you would want to go if you were one of the millionaires that was faced with an income tax hike?
A country doesn't count as proof until it actually follows the course you describe will happen. You can't just say "My proof is what I expect will happen in France." We have to wait and see what happens in France. In the mean time, take a look at various places in the world that have implemented higher taxation in the past. What happened there? Did it affect the US negatively when we had extremely high taxation on the rich? I suppose some people moved, but the net effect was our economy grew like gangbusters.
You're right that there is some inter-state movement. Which states are the poorest in the country? The low taxation red states. Again, when do the facts about the world inform your view? Yeah, you're right. Within country we are doing an experiment. Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama. These are all following your ideas, whereas Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Deleware, and California follow more liberal prescriptions. Which are the poor states? Which are the rich?
in truth Chad your argument has more holes than a spaghetti strainer.
I repeat Romney pays 14% not 51% . and neither do the very rich.
Most of his wealth is invested over seas NOW. Capital does what capital does.
The key point you fail to understand is that one of the reasons the USA is suffering the way it is because much of it's capital is either in non productive instruments (as in actually building things),takeovers leveraged buy outs and or is borrowed from overseas...where did the money come for the toxic mortgage bubble borrowed from (hint China).
In fact a huge proportion of wealth today is made by making notional wealth which is based on more notional worth. (put simply it's a humongous sophisticated Ponzi scheme.
Ex, what Chad is saying is that the 51% of the population that doesn't pay income taxes are somehow leeches or something. He's not saying anybody is paying a 51% rate. So he's talking about people like veterans fighting foreign wars, disabled veterans at home, retirees drawing very meager pensions. Chad is very hostile to such people and likes to pretend they are somehow bad people that should be paying more even though in a lot of cases they actually pay more OVERALL in terms of their tax rate than Romney does.
It's a very strange attitude in my view. Hostility to the disabled, retired, or active veterans even though they actually pay a higher rate. For some reason arbitrarily Chad singles out a specific tax for they don't pay and demonizes them for it. Romney, who pays a lower rate than some of these people overall, makes more money, and didn't even work for it, he's somehow the one that deserves respect. The guy in the wheel chair that was disabled fighting one of these wars Romney has advocated (though doesn't want to personally fight of course) is somehow the leech.
A pretty strange morality I'd say. It's morality flipped on its head. Romney destroys companies and makes millions in the process and he's the one we should honor. The guy that went off to war and was injured is the guy that should be despised. It's not the kind of conclusion I think anybody that was thinking rationally would come to, but when you consider the US propaganda system you understand why otherwise rational people can come to believe such terrible things.
Not talking about veterans of course and not the elderly either, but you know that.
Thank you for mentioning those growing red states of which Tennessee has the lowest cost of living in the country! All and I mean all of the states you mentioned as Libtardia states are bsolutely on the highest end of the cost of living scale. Most if not all are heading toward bankruptcy so good point I guess.
What is interesting is that your attempting to say that the tax code had something to do with the economic boom. One could argue that the economy was so strong and opportunity so abundent that it prospered despite any tax policy. Who is to say what might have happened if the rates were less?
You obviously know how slanted and somewhat ridiculous your claims are here right? I mean your a really smart guy - your picking moments in our history where things were so dog gone good that essentially no tax policy would run off people. The return on investment despite the tax codes was so enourmous that it essentially was a non issue to a degreee. So history tells us that during economic booms taxing people more money does not have as much of a negative affect. Now the question today is - and France may be our sample here - what happens when you go after high tax rates in very slow growth times like now.
I am interested in learning more now than ever - part of the reason I come out to your site - you do help me there so kudos. When reading about that time it importaant to point out that unemployment actually dipped to 2.5% nationally - hell Jon if that was the unemployment today I think it could be possible to get the tax code changed and no one would leave the country so your right about that - I concede that point, but again we are not in a growth spurt or a boom of any kind.
I also want to concede another point to show you that I am open minded and willing to learn. As I studied with more focus the overall tax burden for all people it is true that by percentage of income we all pay roughly the same percentage of taxes from top to the bottom. About 30-32% regardless of what income taxes are collected from what I found out so I pleasantly surprised about that. I guess that I was anticipating that the upper income would pay significantly less by percentage because the tax burden on gas against a million dollars of earning is obviously far less than it is for someone who makes $250 a week by percentage. At the same time however they buy and own more things that get taxed generally speaking and it will eventually add up. I suspect if you found a frugal millionare out there the percentage of taxes paid against overall income could get to under 10%.
With that said - it doesn't change my thought process much, taxing peoples income soley based on earnings or how successfull they might be is not something I will ever support.
What is strange too me a little bit is that the tax policies on consumables is really what is killing the lower and middle class then. We've established that 51% do not pay income tax and in order to boost their tax burden it is soley on the purchase of consumables - things required to live. Armed with the knowledge I am a little miffed why the poor in this country are not huge supporters of the Republican party or should I say more supporters of the tea party. We want to shrink gov't, increase competition in the market for goods/services, lower the cost of living and put people back to work. The more taxes you take the more regulations the more burden put on business the fewer jobs, the higher the cost the bigger the government then makes living on the lower end that much more difficult.
I guess you could say I am really confused now that the poor vote Democrat consistently. Every time they vote for these things the less they actually get.
Odd, but interesting.
Thanks for opening my brain a little more although I suspect your not completely happy with what I took from this.
Jon,
Thanks for that. The republican and libertarian arguments tend to be predicated on a number of false assumptions one being that the tax rate is an issue....utter rubbish as I indicated. Tax is almost optional if you are rich enough.
Secondly Social security sponges.... again utter rubbish in reality if he bothered he'd discover that by far the biggest take of the social Security purse is in fact in this order Old age, ex service pensions , ex service medical and rehab, disabled ....and a long way behind is the unemployed ....etc.
The final myth is that manufacturing is the prime driver of the US economy! If one excludes the death industries (military) it simply isn't. The finance sector and service sectors are, then comes manufacturing and agriculture.
Again I'd point out that that the finance sector actually makes money from O/S ventures where the local rules are well hmmmm. Wages are Hmmm . how many US cits would work for less than $1 and hour, 12 hr/6 days a week ?
Which US citizen would work in mines where the *accident death rates are orders of magnitude higher * than US mines? And safety is at best optional to the owners, and in reality often the first casualty of the battle for ever higher profit.... Health care.... medical insurance (what are they ?) and on their wages who could afford it anyway ?
And where the government shoots people who object to the above. That's not the corporates' concern … the logical extension is that if the US wanted to attract manufacturing then all of the above *would have to be the template *.
Then we can look at the non productive leverage buy outs as per Bain and Co et al. Did I mention the Ponzi schemes like the ones that caused the GFC. Did I point out also that the money for these schemes are borrowed from ….other countries. The schemes fail and it's the government (the tax payers that have to pay for the it).
Shall we now look at who are actually the biggest users of public facilities?
Consider this In Aus a few years back their govt shelled out 21 million in one season, rescuing yachties in multi million $ boats ( clearly not the average middle class earner) who were engaged in ocean racing races.
Do they pay their share of insurance? No they get cheaper rates by piggy backing on the average home owner small boatie.
FYI there is way more average boaties than yachties who do you think picks up the losses? The pension funds etc....who are ...yup the average small home owner . Consider this insurance doesn't specify or charge true market costs they amortise it across the bulk of boaties. In the above instance average boaties fees went up By 17% to compensate for the losses or damage to the yachts est to be better than $190 million. That one set of losses was 14 years of average losses on the small boats.
Who pays for the airports that service the private jets ...they are govt subsidised.
Who gets the biggest $ beneficiaries from subsidising electrical power ?
Biggest cost beneficiaries of diplomatic embassy services (trade support). Who do you think does much of the background work for O/S investments?
THE LIST GOES ON & ON.
Put simply they do not follow user pays
Frankly I tire of their arguments in that they all use the same dodgy techniques . Namely too short a focus, reduction to the ridiculous by selectively choice the facts, and when losing the argument on facts simply change the topic.
Chad, think about this point. You say unemployment was down around 2.5% during the period for which we had extremely high taxes on the rich and you say no matter what the tax rate you will have a good economy under those conditions. But how did it get to 2.5%? What was going on just prior to the start of the war? The Great Depression. A period preceded by extremely low tax rates for the rich and extreme inequality, just like we have today. What ended it is very clear. Huge government stimulus. Huge debt. Something you might call a government jobs program. A war.
Government stimulus ended the extremely high unemployment rates and ushered in the most prosperous time in our nation's history. How does that fit in to your whole worldview.?
Now, when you talk about how fewer regulations and lower taxes will stimulate the economy you do what Republicans always do. They never present data. They just tell stories. This is what will happen. How do we know this? We just believe it as an article of faith. Where is the evidence that it works? There isn't any. So they don't refer to it.
The reality is we already have a whole world of experience. Take a look at the entire third world. Places like Haiti and Guatemala have taken steps in a leftist direction and whenever they do they are met with violence coming from the US and the imposition by force of what economic conditions? Conditions favored by US investors. Low taxes, low regulation, weak governments. Instead of just telling stories, why won't you look at what happened when these places were subjected to the policies you recocmmend?
S Korea was precisely where Haiti was in 1950. Just as poor. But S Korea did exactly the opposite of what conservatives today recommend. Huge government regulation, huge tariffs. It was practically a government run economy. They had a market, but the government told business what they would produce and prevented people from investing where they would prefer. Haiti went with Republican recommendations right down the line. They had no choice. Through violence they were compelled to keep taxes and regulations low, allow foreign investors easy access.
And we don't have to go back too far in history either. Spain and Ireland were following precisely what conservatives recommend. Everybody knows that their economic crisis was met with austerity. You know what austerity is. It's exactly what the right wing wants to do in this country. I watched the 1st presidential debate in frustration as Romney said "I don't want to be like Spain, with 30% unemployment and all their other problems." Obama sat there like an idiot instead of informing him that Spain has done precisely what Romney is suggesting we do. Cut taxes to stimulate growth, cut government jobs to balance the budget, ease back the regulatory apparatus.
Just for the record, since you are saying you don't want to tax hard work and innovation, are you saying we should have zero taxes in this country? Is that your personal fair rate? I'd like to get a clear answer on this.
But your finidngs agree with mine on taxes. Rates overall are basically flat. The extremely wealthy pay the smallest %. We're talking about the top .01%. People making like $10 million and above. Then the rates go up a bit. So people that make $1 million generally pay a pretty high rate. Upper middle class is very high. It falls off a bit from there. Nobody pays less than Romney and those that make the kind of money he makes. He wants to reduce his personal tax burden, increase military spending a co uple of trillion, and supposedly this is how he balances the budget.
By the way, cost of living is very low in Africa, Haiti, Guatemala. If your goal is to get cost of living down these are the places to be. And it's not surprising. They've been implementing Republican economic prescriptions for the last 40 years. They are poor like the red states are poor, but they've been doing it for longer and with more free market intensity. Cost of living is higher in Japan, S Korea, Britain, France. Places that have had a lot more government intervention through the years. So if your goal is a low cost of living, do you think Niger is a good place to live?
I found it increasingly odd that you continue referencing other countries as if they are an equal to the United States in any way. These are countries many many decades behind the roads we've already traveled. Many are still 3rd world countries with little to nothing to offer the world.
I am not a historian nor I am really interested in diving into the every move of the first through the what is it now - the sixth version of the Republic of Korea since the 1940's to throw a come back at you, but to say that their model would work in free America is like saying that Wilt Chamberlin would have been the best golfer in the world only if he was a golfer.
I was reading a bit some time ago that outlined that South Korea is the 2nd most unhappy people in the world of some 35 "rich" nations and the kids are the most unhappy. I think they are also #1 in the world in suicides as well.
Same with Spain - the only thing I know about Spain today is that their social agenda crippled their country damn near to the point of complete collapse and it is possible it may still happen.
About the Depression - I have never heard anyone blame the depression on low taxation - never. I subscribe to the Austrian School of thought when it comes to the cause - GOV'T - ie the monetary policies of the federal reserve.
Jon,
Chad just doesn't want to believe hence his arguments are at best full of half truth programmed misassumptions (lies to the rest of us). This is no offence to Chad he's simply defending his part of the pie...which is to some degree normal .
He himself has said categorically that he'll NEVER accept the idea of higher taxes. He's gleeful in that his accountant uses the letter of the law rather than the 'spirit'.
Clearly he doesn't care that those that can't afford his 'aggressive' accountant are losing out. Seems to me his 'rich' already have their tax advantage.
He says he hasn't heard anyone say that the 1929-39 depression didn't cause the lower tax rates ?
as for what was going on before 1929? Clearly he has no idea what caused that depression or the 1889 one before it! Both depressions in fact all crises are business speculative caused bubbles. A moderate amount of actual economics and some objective reasoning would show that
given the biggest recurrent expense a business has is wages ...therefore unless the West wants 3rd world wages Tax levels for individuals or firms are simply irrelevant.
Oh yes one of the reasoning that the right want to eliminate Social Security is so the people would be forced to take the lowest paid jobs. Forgetting that IF these jobs existed, which they don't. The conditions they force the people to exist in is largely 3rd world... one where they , regardless of competence can run the system unimpeded.
One thing is clear beyond doubt despite his position he would not be competent to be secretary of treasury or any financial role...neither would I.
I wonder if Chad's children were to not succeed in a 1st rate school and had to look elsewhere, what his attitude to the system.
He talks about the EPA in derisive terms. Who created it ? ...Reagan !
The problem with all bureaucracies is that they are captives of their controlling legislation. What's the problem with the legislation? It's like the tax codes, they have gotten too complex/cumbersome, restrictive (?) why? Because of all the amendments. If he actually read the history of the tax code he'd discover two things.
MOST of the amendments aren't new initiatives .They are to patch up unintended loop-holes which allow SOME to avoid tax and others that give unintended burdens/problems for others.
The second is special pleading and they too create unintended beneficiaries and victims.
Again it's not hard to sit down and track the amendments and why CCH is a good starting point. There are ALWAYS explanatory note for each amendment. But hell let's not get the facts in the way of self interest.
It's easier and wrong to simply bag a department, legislators so long as it's someone else.
Then again the intellectual air is board-rooms is so much more informed (be buggered it is) it's simply more focused on IT'S own navel, Not what is good for the country.
One could be equally nasty as Chad and suggest that a corporate board room where everyone gets high on each other's (intellectual) farts. If one is objective with a bent towards behavioural analysis board rooms are more often than not case studies on group dynamics and group thinking.
As the discussion I posted showed how the Board rooms are suffering from acute of reality air they are hallucinating themselves as being the the saviours of America (USA) and the world ....
Part 2
"forget about Columbia and Haiti they're 3rd world countries (Sth America, Africa,Asia ?) because they have nothing to offer the world!" He says. Really? Who does he think hollowed them out.... that's it the USA and the western world!
Again the lack of interest ( for many reasons, often fear of what might be revealed) in reading the truth and superficial reasoning makes most right wing inclined irreducibly bound to the programmatic thinking of the corporates . I'd suggest that if Chad is genuine about his desire to learn he should Read up on the Banana /Coffee/ chocolate/ Beef/ gem/ gold/ rare earth and oil wars.
Oh yes don't forget the Chicago School that forced the sell of of infrastructure in those 3rd world countries and the consequences. Corporate funded Corruption, and backing of Totalitarian regimes ...
Like I said when losing a debate on facts the right wing minded change the focus hoping to obfuscate and thus avoid the reality that their selfish myopic focus IS THE PROBLEM regardless of the “Political” side.
It the evolved culture of entitlement of more ad infinitum and regardless of the cost so long as someone else pays it even if that is by force.
I usually scan Ex's posts without reading - today no different, but I noticed a reference to Reagan so I back tracked that section real quick. Reagan did not create the EPA - Nixon did and if I am not mistaken Reagan practically gutted the program - my hero!
Chad, what would you think of a surgeon that wouldn't wash his hands and when you told him he should consider our past experience with failure to wash hands he says "I'm not interested in that. Let's proceed with surgery without hand washing." You aren't interested in history and neither are your intellectual mentors on the right. The whole Republican apparatus. Democrat as well insofar as they are right wing. History reveals that what they are offering is nothing new, and we know what it does. Funnels money from the poor to the rich and causes societal break down.
You say what S Korea has tried wouldn't work here. It already has worked here. How do you think the US became rich? Free trade? Free markets? Lack of government intervention? Of course not. The very things S Korea did is what we did. When we were behind Britain in terms of our technological advancement we imposed heavy tariffs on imports. Internal demand is what led to development. The British, like the US today, didn't want foreign nations to limit their exports, so they prevented them from doing that by force. Many nations, like India, suffered immensely, but the US was able to kick the British out and immediately imposed enormous tariffs on their products. This violation of the free market is what propelled our growth.
And as I've mentioned before pretty much every single modern day technological advancement that is important to our economy was developed with public funds, once again violating Republican policy recommendations. Computers, the internet, commercial aviation, satellite communication, GPS, lasers, automation, interstate shipping.
What's going on in Haiti is simply your policy recommendations. If you aren't going to take a look at the effects then you should expect to repeat the same mistakes done there.
Still interested to know what you think a fair rate of taxation would be.
Jon,
as far as the "right" (sic) is concerned there is no 'fair rate of taxation' at which they would abandon their tax minimisation/avoidance activities , period!
Chad etc just don't want engage in detail as instinctively they know they'll get caned i.e. thrashed by the fact.
They simply don't accept that they take advantage of the poorer people. their whole stance is based on myopic self delusional hypocrisy (lies).
The classic example are the 'the rich's' past times hobbies etc.
e.g as a professional friend actuarial mine pointed out that the profits in insurance come from the average consumer not either the rich or the excessively poor.
I cited their racing yachts if insured for their real cost and risk separately they would be virtually either uninsureable or the premiums would need to be as much as 30-40% of their value each year.
To make them insurable the insurance companies use a concept called 'whole of community cover reinsurance packaging" simply put the insurance company packages a bunch of policies to sell to investors. To make them any chance of profitable they bury the expensive toys amid a heap of profitable average person polices.
He pointed out that the extra premiums really don't cover the the real risk . This also applies to houses, works of art et sec.
In short the rich peoples toys etc are subsidised by the poorer.
This same principal permeates almost all business.
Remember the Pareto effect? in transport the real profit margins are in the smaller freight. In fact they subsidise the bigger freight loads.
All this clearly demonstrate how the richer ACTUALLY gain greater benefits from the community.
In context to your comment about a fair rate of tax logic clearly shows they want their unfair benefit from their society but don't want to even up the score even a little
Ergo the notion that the rich 'user pays' or is prepared to be fair is utter Bull Sh!t.
I'd challenge any right winger to ..as you put it Prove me wrong...they can't and won't even try a'la Chad dismiss what doesn't suit their BS argument.
Jon,
Something for you to read
http://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-america-acts-it-owns-world-while-endangering-planet-nuclear-war-and-climate-change
This says it all why the USA (aka the right (rich)) are deluding the nearly rich and easily are liars about being bastions of Democracy.
Federal income tax - everyone start @25%.
Lower 3rd - allowable deductions to bring down to 1%
Up to $250k - allowable deduction to bring down to 10%
Above 250k - allowable deductions to bring down or 20%
Corporate business taxes - everyone start @ 25%
Startup up to 3yrs - allowable deductions to bring down to 0%
Small biz - allowable deductions to bring down to 10%
Med biz - allowable deductions to bring down to 15%
Big biz - allowable deductions to bring down to 20%
Super size - no deductions for companies earning the highest margin by percentage.
Size determined by profit percentage - hiring/expansion goes directly to lower %.
Capital gains taxes start @ 15%
Investment deductions to bring down to 10%
State and local - determined by state and local to fight for business.
OK, great. So the question for you now is this. You've called taxation theft. Why is it OK for the federal government to steal 20% of the earnings of the hard working job creators? You are now advocating theft. How can theft be fair?
Chad
Are you serious?
States fight for business how?
The outcome of your proposal would mean the richer states would get richer and the poor states would get poorer. You know as well as I do the larger states have more contributors to their state coffers and as such have better infrastructures.
You are also opening up state legislatures to even more dominance black mail by corporations.
Where else have we seen this practice
Oh yes....THIRD world Countries.
So much for the democratic USA hello
pocket nation states.
Again your knowledge of multi national Corporation structures appears very light on.
C'mon my friend - 200 plus years of tearing away at the Constitution from the Right and Left who create all these programs that never are allowed to die. If it were me in charge (God help us all LOL). I would hit the redo button and Congress would have to justify - sighting the Constitution why program A is the responsibility of the Federal Gov't. if it does not reach the benchmarks to be a Federal Program then it's gone immediately or plans to end the program in x years begins that day. I could go on and on, but bottom line is that my goal would be to lower the federal burden on the people as low as possible. Whatever the dollar amount to run gov't is, that number would be dumped into my 'general' idea and a number would be spit out. Maybe every American gets a 10% immediate gov't reduction because we are lean, mean and efficient. Theft is knowing that my tax dollars go to PBS, to Planned Parent Hood and the countless number of programs that should never have been born under gov't.
Then the states would have to pick up the programs if they choose to do so and would tax their citizens to pay for their programs.
Gosh I sound like a loon or maybe I sound like a group of men who some hundreds of years ago fought and then protected our freedoms with a thing called the Constitution. You know what amazes me - these were flawed men of course, but they were also brilliant. They were able to construct a document that has done a pretty damn good job at limiting gov't. It has been nearly destroyed there is no doubt about that, but I think it is going to make a come back over the next couple of decades.
That's not far from what I would say. I don't know if you think I just like high taxes for the sake of being a jerk or what, but I'm not at all a fan of the system we have. What I say is we have to deal with reality. I can't just impose my fantasy system like waving a magic wand. So for now we have to do what works since ideal is not an option.
So when you start talking about what works you recognize that yes, we do have to tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor, like you suggest. So the system we have today, which gives people like Romney the lowest rate of all, doesn't make sense. We have to look at what has worked well in the past.
If you agree with me that we have to do what works since it's not as if you can just impose your fantasy solution immediately, then I think you have to take the next step. Look historically at what has worked. The tax rates we have today are super low historically. The other time it was this low historically was prior to the Great Depression. Bush's tax cuts have caused a massive economic downturn. They are part of the problem, though there are other factors.
Now, in my view the government should not be as big as it is. But neither should corporations exist. Corporations in their never ending quest to maximize profits will sacrifice our environment and the future of our children for that never ending need for higher profits. So in this condition there's no other means of checking their destructive influence than government. If you have a different means of checking BP's ability to dump oil in the Gulf (they do it routinely in other countries where government is much weaker, and they would do more here if our government was weaker) then let's hear it.
See, all this talk of getting back to the Constitution the existence of these enormous concentrations of power. The founding fathers didn't have to deal with that. So when you talk of weakening government today you ignore the fact that now you're removed the only conceivable check on corporate destruction. This is standard Republican politics. Government is bad, they say. But they only want to shrink it where it helps people. They grow it where it helps corporations. That's why Romney demonizes government and then wants $2 trillion more in military spending that the military has even requested. We have M1 Abrams tanks by the hundreds, or maybe thousands, sitting and rusting in large parking lots, not all that useful any more to the military. Romney wants to buy more, even though the military doesn't want them. But then SS and Medicare are horrible things in Romney's world. Why? Too costly. So why does he want to waste money on military expenditures? Why did Republican presidents grow our government more than Democrats have done? Because they like big government when it's a system that funnels money into the pockets of the rich and takes it from the poor.
Your small government talk always ignores this. What you are advocating will lead to bigger government. Romney will produce bigger government like Reagan and Bush before him. It's just that it will be bigger for them, smaller for the poor.
Free markets are for the poor and weak. For the rich it's nanny state. I think you need to recognize that and work within it if you ever want to really reduce the power and size of our federal government. The rich want it big. They want surveillance, and limitations on speech. If you fight only to reduce the influence of regular people in government you lead to conditions where the rich control it even more, and they will continue to grow it.
Jon
Look at this
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/29/nuclear_plants_from_virginia_to_vermont
Nuke power not that safe after all!
the problem is the related issues.
Less for the likes of Chad!
Things just aren't that simplistic.
Jon
Well said you are spot on......Chad and his fellow so called 'conservatives' have a tendency to fixate on some ethereal should -a- be (been) and half baked philosophic fantasies. As I've said before they either don't want to or don't know how to argue objectively. By that I mean with any sense of reality i.e. acknowledgement/ factoring in
what exists now and that determining surrounding factors that DICTATE the current reality i.e. my favourite term 'context'.
How their would-a , should – a be, could be done.
Perhaps Chad can explain how his idea of going back to what existed in 1776 and starting again would be possible?
His view is absolute dogmatic fantasy worthy of an LSD trip.
As in your ideal state Corporations wouldn't exist ...if Chad goes back to 1776 he would note, if he was so inclined he'd find that the newly formed USA didn't invent the legal system, laws, precedents , case law ...historic principals... in fact they simply adopted the British law changing some minor procedural facets.
Most dear to his heart and not mentioned by Adam smith in the philosophic basis for Capitalism, is the concept of 'limited liability law' . This didn't happen until the mid 1800's and was copied by the US.
Also if he was to go back to the original constitution he would be sanctioning things like slavery ...good luck with that one. The list goes on and on. They have no idea what would be involved merely reading all that accumulated law and the consequences of trying to untangle it .
Legal 'experts' specialise in ever smaller facets of a single topic of law and even then can't agree ...multiply that exponentially and you have a task that is way too big . In fact there are constant calls from within most Western countries for a complete rewrite of their tax codes and even that one segment is beyond feasibility.
Any questions go to your tax accountant's office and Look at the binders they are enormous and growing daily with new case law etc.
Strewth The USA legislature has real problems passing a budget!
So I'd ask the obvious question what is the point of wallowing in the half baked notions of they do?
What we the public need is pragmatic real in context ideas of what to do now.
It is also a nonsense to suggest given the stifling powers of the corporations and the 10%ers to see real changes by either side ….simply put the tragedy is that the system is so corrupted with runaway self interests that real change is only possible through increasingly smaller increments. It is utter nonsense to say that Obama or Romney can or will have a free enough hand to manage any more.
The blame? It's the public by allowing political parties to polarise. Not so much either left or right but to consolidate the power between them so that it can be indirectly bought or manipulated.
Yes Jon you are correct the system is broken beyond repair.
off topic but well worth the look
http://planet3.org/
Then watch the under grad 15 min lecture on
Sandi links to global warming?
What is interesting is that I think your taking history out of context or at least your seeing history through a keyhole to frame your arguement. Your taking historical credit for policies (tax policies specifically) that might take decades before the full effects are felt fully and so how can you with any conviction claim your right? Putting aside for a moment the million other factors that effect the economy, but to argue that history is clear one way or the other is very interesting.
What history tells me that in most cases a Democrat President or D controlled Congress is always handing over the reins of the country in shambles or on the verge of shambles. The Rep's take the lead to reverse the direction and right about the time the country starts feeling pretty good they toss another Democrat group back in to screw it all up again. I think your cycles are off minus the last Bush who was essentially a Democrat who had an R in front of is name.
This election cycle is slightly different for a lot of reasons, but what is odd to me is that the Democrats are setting up the next Republican President to be one of those "great" leaders of that time. Romney is in that slot and he certainly will not deserve it, but I am predicting that if he's elected that is what will happen. Obama and the Dems have done very little right except for showing the right path for the next President.
What is interesting and great for most of us on the Right is that if Obama is re-elected he will be facing a divided congress best case for the Dems, but most likely a Repulican controlled congress. I think he realizes that if he doesn't want to be labeled the worst Prez in history he's going to have to play ball. He'll take all the credit of course, but he'll cave to the right and things will pick up some.
If Romney is elected - shoot we will see economic growth start nearly ASAP. All the coal fire plants shut down will start their boilers and money will come off the sidelines by the trillions. This is one of those unique times when we might see economic growth almost overnite.
The truth however is far more complicated. Even though I choose to look at it that way (Dems destruction) the real truth is that both sides are equally responsible for bad policies, expanding gov't and the big mess. I guess I should clarify to say that I put the blame on 'Progressives' rather than a party.
Chad
You got it at last the truth IS far more complex that most polarised commenters even factor in to their missives i.e. absolutes are BS.
You are correct also that YOU CHOOSE to look at it(the causes and the outcomes) that way (regardless of the evidence/facts).
You may note that the my Sandy isn't like a lot of pro AGW hype it puts it in the scientific context of 'Maybe'... and 'yeesss....there are consistencies.
Again I'm not saying that the Dems/ progressives have it absolutely correct that IMHO would be inane.
What I can say with a fair amount of surety is that Romney's polices hasn't worked in the past and that there is no reason to conclude they would work in the future (note my precise words).
definition of insanity repeating an experiment over and over simply because one knows it and expecting a different result this time.
As for progressive policies, well,it depends on which one you are referring to some are self evident other well the best things one can say is that they look 'objectively' promising and that they haven't been tried before.
Will they work?...some will and some well.... no one knows for *sure*
until they're tried.
Having said that, the one Truth about life is that Change comes with a guilt edged guarantee! ergo we either change or disappear. What seemed to work before won't work now... different CONTEXT.
Chad, I think I agree with you and Ex here in saying that the truth isn't as simple as "Higher taxes in the 60's made all the difference." There were a variety of factors. On the other hand I do think you should consider what the tax rates were when the economy did well. What happened when they were cut.
Here's an additional thought. What country or state has tax cut and deregulated themselves into prosperity? You take a look at the third world. Every time they even remotely attempted to move leftward economically (higher taxes on the rich, worker protections, welfare state measures) they were violently resisted by the US. And the US would say it was for their own good. Where did it work out to their good? We can see where certain tiny rich sectors got very rich, but right down the line it has been a disaster. If this strategy of tax cuts and deregulation is the answer, where has this worked in the past. We can see where it has failed. Africa, Haiti, Latin America, the Philippines. Where has it worked?
You mentioned and continue to mention countries that are complete wrecks. These countries are not a baseline for practically anything - they have never been and most likely never will be a world power. They are not rich countries with a history of freedom and prosperity, they are not countries of intelligence or innovation so why continue putting them on the table where they do not belong? The people in those countries need to rise up and take over if they don't like what is going on.
How about here in America - can we focus on that slice of heaven since we live here?
http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011
Watch the video and listen to the commentary.
It is absolutely no surprise to me that only 3 blue states show up in the top 25 most free states in the USA.
I do have a question JC. When you say where has it worked? What is the metric your using to gauge success or failure exactly?
Well I watched your video. If countries were included in the study I'll tell you how they'd rank. The lowest taxes in the world are African countries. Also the least regulated. Also with tiny government expenditures as a % of GDP. Same with Haiti and Latin America. These would easily be the "freest" countries in the study.
Now let's talk about the so called "unfree" states. Hawaii. Happiest state in the union. Highest life expectancy. Lowest per capita health care expenditures (Hawaii mandates all businesses provide health care for employees that work at least 20 hours a week). In a state where things are generally more expensive due to the isolation their health care costs are the lowest in the country. What a piece of crap state.
Numbers 2, 3,4,5, and 6 in terms of life expectancy are Minnesota, California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. All "unfree".
What these people want to do is enact policies that make the presently rich even richer, and that will have the effect of making the poor even poorer. They are prepared to turn the US into Haiti because in terms of short term profits it works. They label it "free". Go see how free they are in Nigeria as they swim in pollution and low taxes.
But as far as mentioning countries that are complete wrecks, what I'm saying is look at the countries that started as wrecks and moved to prosperity. It's happened many times. How did they do it?
If you look at Haiti and S Korea they both started at precisely the same place. Totally poor. Total wrecks. Haiti followed right wing suggestions. Low taxes, limited government, freedom of investment, low worker protections and safety. S Korea followed a Keynsian path. Exactly the opposite of what Republicans suggest. Their growth is among the most impressive in the world ever.
So yeah, the countries I mentioned are wrecks. They've implemented Republican policies. You act like they will always be wrecks and nothing could save them, but that's not true. We see countries that formerly were wrecks change, like S Korea, Japan, China. I mean, China's growth over the last 30 years has been incredible. They do it with HEAVY government intervention. Where to they slash government regulation, as you suggest, and see themselves go from poverty to wealth? The answer..never. It doesn't happen.
That's why I refer to this study, and I read recently that Republicans have compelled the nonpartisan Congressional Research Bureau to withdraw the paper. Not that Republicans refuted it. They say the tone is bad. Bottom line the conclusions don't align with their prior dogmatic commitments. They refuse to look at history. They refuse to face facts. They serve their owners, and the facts can't be considered.
As far as a metric for success, median income is good. Life expectancy is great. It's a broad, overall measure.
GDP is OK, but it's a little tricky. For instance if GDP went up but millionaires only reaped the gains, then that really isn't making life better for anybody. We know millionaires are no happier when they get more money. We know the very poor would get a lot happier if they could feed themselves, get a doctor to look at their child, or maybe provide an education for their child.
By these measures things were amazing in S Korea from 1950 on. Also Japan. What did they do? Government sponsored auto companies. A strong government hand in investment options. Things Republicans hate. They hate the things that lead to success because it doesn't make their owners wealthier in the short term.
Your helping my point - Gov't has the ability to take over anything it wants Jon and given the opportunity it probably will. Japan and others did just that - they entered into an already established market - in your example automobile market place, they stole intellectual property, mirrored what already had been done, made the same vehicles cheaper by controlling wages and raw materials. Your hatred for Capitalist/Corporatism just got magnified 100% by gov't - but apparently that is okay.
It is an interesting discussion that really does show just how far we've fallen. My group is trying to embrace freedom, to promote our American values (God, Family and Country with limited gov't) and your in the group that is looking to Gov't without God to run as much as possible.
Very interesting.
So in your world Japan is a very unfree nation and Haiti or Tanzania would be more like a nation you think we should copy. You would prefer to live in a free nation like Tanzania rather than an unfree nation like Japan or South Korea? Cost of living is nice and low in Haiti and Tanzania. Do you think these are better societies.
Chad, Chad, Chad,
You still don't get it do you?
THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET!
There simply is any one idea fits ALL CONTEXTS.
Simply put that which works in one place probably won't work as well or at all somewhere or some time else.
Reagan policies were in a time and space (context) of their own. e.g. he didn't have to deal with lobbyists nor super pacs nor derivatives and the list goes on and on.
Demanding Jon give you time and place is a bit like the republicans claiming they are the true Capitalists! not according to the man (Smith) who wrote the book that started the term and concepts.
Jon off topic but the USA is facing a deadly epidemic of XRD TB...amongst it's poor which when fully formed can and does infect healthy rich folks too.
In short TB has acquired drug resistance (TB DR) this needs $1000's of drugs to cure it. the root cause is that the poor can't get the drugs or can afford to keep them up. But now there are cases of where there are NO KNOWN way to stop (XRD TB)this can cost $1million per patient and even then not cure.
There used to be 16 companies making new Antibiotics but now there are 4 not enough profit!
I repeat there are cases in US and simply walking down the street past some infected person can be a death sentence.
Capitalism and myopic user pays medical care are to blame.
Chad, Chad, Chad,
You still don't get it do you?
THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET!
There simply is any one idea fits ALL CONTEXTS.
Simply put that which works in one place probably won't work as well or at all somewhere or some time else.
Reagan policies were in a time and space (context) of their own. e.g. he didn't have to deal with lobbyists nor super pacs nor derivatives and the list goes on and on.
Demanding Jon give you time and place is a bit like the republicans claiming they are the true Capitalists! not according to the man (Smith) who wrote the book that started the term and concepts.
Post a Comment