If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Mitt Romney's tax plan might actually make sense   (slate.com) divider line 349
    More: Interesting, Mitt Romney, American conservatives  
•       •       •

6695 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Aug 2012 at 1:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



349 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-10 11:12:56 AM

Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ


MA has medical on the ballot this November
 
2012-08-10 11:14:25 AM

palladiate: But they if they declared bankruptcy, it proves why they're poor and classless. That's why I'm all for taxing them to pay for all the government assistance they'll be demanding now that their income is lower.


Wait, wait, wait. There's a catch-22 here. We need to get the money out of them before they start using the services, or the project won't be revenue neutral. After the jumpstart, we can tax their benefits (it's income, right? why should they be exempt from paying their fair share?), but we're going to need something up front or it's just going to turn into another ponzi scheme like social 'security'.

Maybe a waiting period of 30-90 days before taxation begins and benefits can start? That way we'll see if they really need the government assistance or if they're just whinging. Obviously, if they can make it the length of the delay, they probably didn't need the assistance that much, so they'll qualify for reduced benefits, and we can use the savings for further tax cuts for job creators.
 
2012-08-10 11:15:50 AM
Romney's plan makes perfect sense if you just remember that he lies.

Romney has denied that he plans to raise taxes on the middle class. The tax analysis of his campaign promises says that is the inevitable result of what he has already promised. Nobody expects a president to be able to keep all of his campaign promises but Romney has essentially contradicted himself to the point that his proposed tax plan cannot exist.

Because Romney is lying about at least some of the things he has promised.
 
2012-08-10 11:16:33 AM

whidbey: it leaves middle class families with less money in their pockets (so a pro-growth income effect) while also lowering the tax rate they pay on a marginal dollar of additional earnings (so a pro-growth incentive effect). Basically it's a huge win

Suuuuure it is.

 
2012-08-10 11:19:08 AM

Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November


Which proves we don't need a once size fits all program imposed by the Federal Government This is a state issue not a Federal one except for removing insurance companies anti-trust exemptions.

Oregon voters rejected single payer (measure 23) in 2002
 
2012-08-10 11:20:43 AM

mainstreet62: Lame. 0.5/10. Needs more chicken farking.


Meh, I'm not really trolling as much as I'm satrizing. I'm not looking for reaction, I'm just trying to state over and over again that Mitt Romney's tax plan involves raising taxes on the middle class. Which is does.

A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for higher taxes on the Middle Class.

If that's something you support, you should vote for the guy. If it's something you don't, then you probably shouldn't. But it is certainly part of his plan.
 
2012-08-10 11:22:17 AM

Hobodeluxe: Headso: palladiate: consider how much lower and middle income families eat out regularly, or own TV, or pay for satellite, or choose to live in suburbs that require thousands a year in auto maintenance

+

palladiate: The lower classes do not create jobs

= lol wut?

doublethink or cognitive dissonance


Look, facts have no place in this discussion. We've already thrown on the table the idea the economy is infinitely scalable in the short-term, excise taxes are efficient in producing outcomes and cause no externalities, the investment class is 100% responsible for not only capitalization to increase supply but can give invisible handies to the economy to create demand, and that we live in what is primarily an economy, not a democratically-driven country.

When you take these as established truths, this is the economics you end up with.
 
2012-08-10 11:24:16 AM

hasty ambush: Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November

Which proves we don't need a once size fits all program imposed by the Federal Government This is a state issue not a Federal one except for removing insurance companies anti-trust exemptions.

Oregon voters rejected single payer (measure 23) in 2002


1 size fits all for social services avoids race to the bottom policies where the states that uphold their obligation to the poor and infirm and the unemployed are burdened by the states that shirk those responsibilities.
 
2012-08-10 11:31:45 AM

Headso: 1 size fits all for social services avoids race to the bottom policies where the states that uphold their obligation to the poor and infirm and the unemployed are burdened by the states that shirk those responsibilities.


While I'm in agreement with you, we also need to start really defining our obligation to the poor and infirm. We also need to define our universal (all citizens) obligations and define when and why some folks are going to get a greater benefit. And beyond that, we also need to define the obligation the beneficiaries are going to have to society. I'm all for helping people out, but it's a two-way street. No one has nothing to offer (and if they do, yes, we'll take care of them anyway because a) it's morally right, b) it's beneficial to society, or c) I don't want their unsightly refuse piling up on the sidewalk, take your pick).
 
2012-08-10 11:36:14 AM

DamnYankees: RexTalionis: This is stupid because:
1) Premise 1 assumes that the job market is a perfect market - anyone who seeks work will be able to find a job with which they can work harder and earn more money. I think it's pretty obvious how flawed this premise is looking at the last 4 years.

This doesn't follow. The income effect has to be take ceterus parabus. This isn't a rebuttal to it at all.

RexTalionis: 2) Premise 2 is hinged on the fact that each marginal dollar will be taxed less - however, this is also flawed because this completely ignores how tax structures work. For the average middle-class individual (let's say someone earning $50,000 a year), each additional dollar he earns isn't going to be taxed at a lower rate because we have tax brackets. In fact, under Romney's plan, only if you make more than $249,999 dollars a year would each additional dollar earned be taxed at a lower rate - this is essentially a benefit only to maybe 2 percent of the population.

But doesn't Romney's plan lower the rate on everyone?


You best be trolling.
 
2012-08-10 11:38:07 AM
Serious question from someone willing to accept the premise:

Please describe how "middle class families with less money in their pockets" creates a "pro-growth income effect".

Honestly curious how that works.
 
2012-08-10 11:40:31 AM

Muk_Man: You best be trolling.


Romney's plan is deflationary. By reducing the disposable income of the middle class the prices of goods and services will come down. Quality of life won't change much for anyone except the wealthy who will A) have more money and B) their money will have greater value.
 
2012-08-10 11:42:40 AM

MacEnvy: GAT_00: MacEnvy: If you ignore that there are actual people involved and just pretend you're looking at numbers on a page, and throw out the benefits of lower income inequality, then if you squint really hard you can almost rationalize it.

Congratulations. I hope you have a dental pick or something to get that knot out of your logic.

Honestly, we do need to raise taxes some on the middle class. Can't close the deficit realistically with only taxes on the rich.

But there's no reason to raise taxes on the middle class to give the rich another tax cut.

I'm not denying that. But there's absolutely no coherent message in this piece that even remotely justifies Romney's plan.


I can haz editing?

OK, I know I'm the old man yelling at a cloud, but in the days of print media, most reputable publications would at least attempt to form a coherent article before going to press.

Of course, this is giving credit to the author that he didn't actually write the derp that got printed.
 
2012-08-10 11:43:51 AM

palelizard: Headso: 1 size fits all for social services avoids race to the bottom policies where the states that uphold their obligation to the poor and infirm and the unemployed are burdened by the states that shirk those responsibilities.

While I'm in agreement with you, we also need to start really defining our obligation to the poor and infirm. We also need to define our universal (all citizens) obligations and define when and why some folks are going to get a greater benefit. And beyond that, we also need to define the obligation the beneficiaries are going to have to society. I'm all for helping people out, but it's a two-way street. No one has nothing to offer (and if they do, yes, we'll take care of them anyway because a) it's morally right, b) it's beneficial to society, or c) I don't want their unsightly refuse piling up on the sidewalk, take your pick).


If you live in a state such as MS, which receives far more money than it pays in, the benefits you get will be cut proportionately. That way you can get really bootstrappy like you always wanted!
 
2012-08-10 11:46:47 AM
Tax the middle class more so they'll have less money so they'll work harder, and overall make more money....

Dumb premise is dumb. Let's just put aside the fact that in the current job market it isn't easy to just 'work harder' and make more money.

And let's not forget that the problem in this economy isn't lack of supply, it's lack of aggregate demand because the middle class can't afford to buy shiat.

Anyway. I'm going to pretend I didn't read this article for my sanity.
 
2012-08-10 11:52:42 AM

Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November


I like how the ballot questions became convoluted they have to send out notifications explaining what will actually occur if you vote "Yes" or "No".
 
2012-08-10 11:54:18 AM

nyseattitude: Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November

I like how the ballot questions became convoluted they have to send out notifications explaining what will actually occur if you vote "Yes" or "No".


became so convoluted
 
2012-08-10 11:57:08 AM

burndtdan: So let me get this straight. The logic here is that if you tax the middle class more while keeping taxes lower on the higher brackets, you are creating a double incentive for them to go out and do economically valuable things to make more money?

I guess that makes sense, because everyone I know has ample opportunity to make more money and they just choose not to. God, I'm really sick of all those people who just don't want to make more money.


Rich people don't need to spend really so you have to give them so much that it accidentally spills over and little bits get dropped by accident.

Middle-class need to spend on stuff like reasonable food and shelter so they will work harder for that (growth incentive). The ideal situation is most people working incredibly hard not to starve to death with a much smaller class of people with so much super wealth that they will spend on interesting new consumer markets like game shows where contestants try to kill each other.
 
2012-08-10 11:59:34 AM

the_geek: Serious question from someone willing to accept the premise:

Please describe how "middle class families with less money in their pockets" creates a "pro-growth income effect".

Honestly curious how that works.


The idea is that reducing someone's income incentivizes them to work harder/find a more economically profitable job (and thereby stimulate the economy)--because now they need to work harder to maintain the same lifestyle--unless they're already making a certain amount, in which come the idea is that reducing their tax burden incentivizes them to work harder/find a more economically profitable job (and thereby stimulate the economy) because now they'll get more from every dollar they make.

It's a fundamentally flawed premise on a number of levels, and that's before even taking into account reality has time and again demonstrated it to be false.
 
2012-08-10 12:00:48 PM

the_geek: Please describe how "middle class families with less money in their pockets" creates a "pro-growth income effect".


Think of a person treading water and the small waves/currents they make in water as the economic effect. Put a heavy weight around their neck and you will see alot more thrashing and splashing. That's your economic growth right there. Rich people can make huge wakes and enormous waves the bigger and more powerful their boats are.
 
2012-08-10 12:06:12 PM

mrshowrules: the_geek: Please describe how "middle class families with less money in their pockets" creates a "pro-growth income effect".

Think of a person treading water and the small waves/currents they make in water as the economic effect. Put a heavy weight around their neck and you will see alot more thrashing and splashing. That's your economic growth right there. Rich people can make huge wakes and enormous waves the bigger and more powerful their boats are.


www.vanityfair.com

As seen in this picture.
 
2012-08-10 12:27:43 PM

Nadie_AZ: But since Romney won't defend this on the merits, I will. The good thing about taxes is they raise revenue, which can be used to do useful things. The bad thing about taxes is they may be a drag on economic growth. But here there are two considerations. One is the "incentive effect" of taxes-higher taxes mean less incentive to do economically valuable things. The other is the "income effect"-less money in your pocket means more incentive to do economically valuable things. The genius of Romney's plan is that by eliminating deductions it leaves middle class families with less money in their pockets (so a pro-growth income effect) while also lowering the tax rate they pay on a marginal dollar of additional earnings (so a pro-growth incentive effect). Basically it's a huge win. You get a bunch of revenue in a way that bolsters the country's growth prospects. The voters don't want to hear that this is a good idea, but it's a good idea.

Uh .. what? Am I going mad here?


LOL. That's exactly what I was thinking.
 
2012-08-10 12:31:51 PM

the_geek: Serious question from someone willing to accept the premise:

Please describe how "middle class families with less money in their pockets" creates a "pro-growth income effect".

Honestly curious how that works.


Duh. You'd just get another job. You know, just strap on your job helmet, and squeeze into a job cannon and fire off into job land, where jobs grow on jobbies.
 
2012-08-10 12:38:47 PM
www.slate.com
And He Who Walks Behind The Rows did say, "I will send outlanders amongst you: a man and a woman. And these outlanders will be unbelievers and profaners of the holy. And the man will sorely test you, for he has great power, even greater than that of the Blue Man!
 
2012-08-10 12:39:58 PM
Mitt Romney telling me that I need to work harder is kind of like Richard Simmons telling me I need to exercise more.
 
2012-08-10 12:42:22 PM

hasty ambush: Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November

Which proves we don't need a once size fits all program imposed by the Federal Government This is a state issue not a Federal one except for removing insurance companies anti-trust exemptions


Why is it a state issue? Because some old farts over 200 years ago didn't predict the incredible rise of health care technology and availability or the fact that people would eventually double their life expectancy?
 
2012-08-10 12:46:11 PM

Serious Black: hasty ambush: Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November

Which proves we don't need a once size fits all program imposed by the Federal Government This is a state issue not a Federal one except for removing insurance companies anti-trust exemptions

Why is it a state issue? Because some old farts over 200 years ago didn't predict the incredible rise of health care technology and availability or the fact that people would eventually double their life expectancy?


The only thing that cOncermse about it being a federal program is the mind numbing bureaucracy that comes with that. Not south costs (which are a concern), but the people you'll have to deal with. Look at the TSA.
 
2012-08-10 12:49:24 PM

Jekylman: Mitt Romney telling me that I need to work harder is kind of like Richard Simmons telling me I need to exercise more.


Richard Simmons probably honestly wants you to be healthier, would actually be pleased if you did exercise more, and probably has a sincere if minor benevolent interest in your well-being independent of the benefit it brings to him.
 
2012-08-10 12:49:50 PM

Spazmojack: The only thing that cOncermse about it being a federal program is the mind numbing bureaucracy that comes with that. Not south costs (which are a concern), but the people you'll have to deal with. Look at the TSA.


There is already a ton of mind numbing bureaucracy involved in dealing with insurance companies. A federal program would actually cut down on it because you only have one entity to deal with.
 
2012-08-10 12:56:37 PM

odinsposse: Spazmojack: The only thing that cOncermse about it being a federal program is the mind numbing bureaucracy that comes with that. Not south costs (which are a concern), but the people you'll have to deal with. Look at the TSA.

There is already a ton of mind numbing bureaucracy involved in dealing with insurance companies. A federal program would actually cut down on it because you only have one entity to deal with.


Oh I know. It's annoying any way you slice it. I am a universal health care supporter, and I will be glad when the insurance leaches are finally ripped from their cozy existence.
 
2012-08-10 12:57:43 PM

odinsposse: Spazmojack: The only thing that cOncermse about it being a federal program is the mind numbing bureaucracy that comes with that. Not south costs (which are a concern), but the people you'll have to deal with. Look at the TSA.

There is already a ton of mind numbing bureaucracy involved in dealing with insurance companies. A federal program would actually cut down on it because you only have one entity to deal with.


Bingo. Take a look at hospital administration costs between America and Canada (or really any other country with universal health care of some form). Their costs are all at least half as much as ours, if not lower still. Our payment system is so ludicrously fragmented that hospitals have to hire tons of nurses just to handle billing. Wouldn't it be nice if we could let them, you know, be nurses instead?
 
2012-08-10 01:01:14 PM
I have never understood the theory that taxes on investment gains wilk deter people from investing. If there is money to be made people will look to make. If I make $100 on an investment and pay 30% instead of 15% I still have $70 I didnt have before.
 
2012-08-10 01:05:59 PM

Epoch_Zero: mrshowrules: the_geek: Please describe how "middle class families with less money in their pockets" creates a "pro-growth income effect".

Think of a person treading water and the small waves/currents they make in water as the economic effect. Put a heavy weight around their neck and you will see alot more thrashing and splashing. That's your economic growth right there. Rich people can make huge wakes and enormous waves the bigger and more powerful their boats are.

[www.vanityfair.com image 640x434]

As seen in this picture.


This is the dump he parks his boat at in NH:
img.photobucket.com

This is Mitts shark impression:
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-10 01:10:54 PM

thebadmitton: I have never understood the theory that taxes on investment gains wilk deter people from investing. If there is money to be made people will look to make. If I make $100 on an investment and pay 30% instead of 15% I still have $70 I didnt have before.


High taxes on rich people create a disincentive for them to work harder, but high taxes on poor people create an incentive for them to work harder.
 
2012-08-10 01:23:27 PM

Satanic_Hamster: hasty

Serious Black: hasty ambush: Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November

Which proves we don't need a once size fits all program imposed by the Federal Government This is a state issue not a Federal one except for removing insurance companies anti-trust exemptions

Why is it a state issue? Because some old farts over 200 years ago didn't predict the incredible rise of health care technology and availability or the fact that people would eventually double their life expectancy?


How about on the basis of common sense? Nobody, not even Western Europe, tries to impose a one size fits all health care plan on a very diverse population over 300 million people spread out across 3 million square miles

Even some of the smaller Western European countries have varying degrees of what might be called local control to deal with their own regional and cultural differences.

Those "old fart" did not predict rapid transportation, near instant communication and international terrorism so I am guessing you have no problem with things like warrant less wiretaps and indefinite detention despite what those "old farts" said about privacy and due process.

Old Farts FDR and LBJ didn't predict the incredible rise of health care technology and availability or the fact that people would eventually double their life expectancy so that means we can reform Social Security and MEDICARE -right?

Those "old farts" did predict the need for change so they happen to include this process called Amending the Constitution which makes more sense than allowing government to creatively reinterpret it to fit their agenda. Unless of course you have some problem with government obtaining the consent of the governed before assuming more power.
 
2012-08-10 01:30:36 PM
Things completely unaffected by small changes in tax rates:
How hard a middle class worker works.
How much money an upper-middle or higher class person spends on goods and services.
How many employees a major corporation hires.
How hard unemployed people look for jobs.

If your economic plan assumes otherwise, it will fail.
 
2012-08-10 01:34:49 PM

hasty ambush: Satanic_Hamster: hasty
Serious Black: hasty ambush: Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November

Which proves we don't need a once size fits all program imposed by the Federal Government This is a state issue not a Federal one except for removing insurance companies anti-trust exemptions

Why is it a state issue? Because some old farts over 200 years ago didn't predict the incredible rise of health care technology and availability or the fact that people would eventually double their life expectancy?

How about on the basis of common sense? Nobody, not even Western Europe, tries to impose a one size fits all health care plan on a very diverse population over 300 million people spread out across 3 million square miles

Even some of the smaller Western European countries have varying degrees of what might be called local control to deal with their own regional and cultural differences.

Those "old fart" did not predict rapid transportation, near instant communication and international terrorism so I am guessing you have no problem with things like warrant less wiretaps and indefinite detention despite what those "old farts" said about privacy and due process.

Old Farts FDR and LBJ didn't predict the incredible rise of health care technology and availability or the fact that people would eventually double their life expectancy so that means we can reform Social Security and MEDICARE -right?

Those "old farts" did predict the need for change so they happen to include this process called Amending the Constitution which makes more sense than allowing government to creatively reinterpret it to fit their agenda. Unless of course you have some problem with government obtaining the consent of the governed before assuming more power.


The federal plan gives quite a bit of flexibility to the states. Which it should. States understand their position better than the feds. That doesn't mean a federal framework is a bad thing. Obamacare has many issues, but it's better than what existed.

And yes SS needs to be reformed and possibly medicare. The hard part is getting a balanced plan that includes revenue from the GOP. That and doing the cuts and revenue increases in a slow enough manner it doesn't retard the economy.
 
2012-08-10 01:46:51 PM

Headso: hasty ambush: Headso: Hobodeluxe: Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ

MA has medical on the ballot this November

Which proves we don't need a once size fits all program imposed by the Federal Government This is a state issue not a Federal one except for removing insurance companies anti-trust exemptions.

Oregon voters rejected single payer (measure 23) in 2002

1 size fits all for social services avoids race to the bottom policies where the states that uphold their obligation to the poor and infirm and the unemployed are burdened by the states that shirk those responsibilities.


You do not already have that with members of the professional dependency class migrating to states with better welfare benefits? I thought progressives believed in open borders
With the advent of the Federal welfare system (TANF, MEDICAID, Food stamps etc) and the evil of revenue sharing you already have some states carrying the welfare load of the others. Absent the Federal system those states depending on others to carry the load will have to develop their own systems.

You have not seen a mass migration of the sick to places like Vermont, Hawaii or Massachusetts with their allegedly superior Health insurance systems.

The solution is to make social welfare programs a state responsibility to finance and administer . They can the establish length of residency requirements to control those who move to the state to bilk the system. Federal oversight would be limited to civil right /discrimination concerns.

img706.imageshack.us

img835.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-10 02:12:42 PM
i5.photobucket.com

i5.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-10 02:56:32 PM

thebadmitton: I have never understood the theory that taxes on investment gains wilk deter people from investing. If there is money to be made people will look to make. If I make $100 on an investment and pay 30% instead of 15% I still have $70 I didnt have before.


It is a deterrent if you can get a better return elsewhere. I could invest in France and get to keep only 25% of my return or I could invest somewhere else and keep 85%. Where would you invest?
I take the risks government takes none but they want a cut. If I take a loss is government going assume 15% of the loss while take a hit on 85% or do I take the full 100%. That is assuming I did not invest in something government sponsored Solyndra where the tax payers take in the shorts before the private investors.


Speaking of a bad investments:

People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire.
 
2012-08-10 03:46:53 PM

palladiate: indylaw: palladiate: The poor use the biggest portion of government services,

I know you must be trolling.

I'm as serious as the WSJ Op-Ed page.


Fark. At least you have a handle attached to what you say. At some point, WSJ OpEd became more anonymous than 4chan.

Their review and outlook section is less credible than most blogs.

If you can identify an author for any of those atrocities, you're a better man than I. Because that would make you clairvoyant.

/What I mean to say, is that you're probably more serious than the WSJ op ed page, but not for a lack of trying.
//What I'm actually saying is that the WSJ OpEd page is such a joke, that REAL jokes pale in comparison.
 
2012-08-10 03:57:52 PM
The article is based the broad assumption that President Romney would have to raise taxes, somehow, on the non-rich to make up for his tax cuts on the rich. That assumption has two premises: (1) Romney wants his tax plan to be deficit neutral and (2) Romney won't be able to make meaningful and immediate cuts to spending. (2) is much more likely to be true than (1).

Furthermore, we simply don't have enough information about how Romney might raise taxes on the middle class. He might bring the payroll tax back to 2008 levels. He might reduce or eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, or the child tax credit. He might eliminate deductions for employer-provided health insurance, as McCain proposed in 2008. There are pros and cons to each move, and each possible move deserves a separate analysis.

Finally, let us not be upset at the possibility of taxes being raised on the middle class. Bush's tax cuts for the middle class were 3x more generous than what the wealthiest got. Eliminating more of Bush's tax cuts will reduce deficit spending. This way we can lower the fraction of the federal budget devoted to interest payments later. Obama's policy of sparing "the lower 98%" from tax increases certainly helped him get elected, but it's bad policy nonetheless.
 
2012-08-10 04:49:25 PM

nyseattitude: Epoch_Zero: mrshowrules: the_geek: Please describe how "middle class families with less money in their pockets" creates a "pro-growth income effect".

Think of a person treading water and the small waves/currents they make in water as the economic effect. Put a heavy weight around their neck and you will see alot more thrashing and splashing. That's your economic growth right there. Rich people can make huge wakes and enormous waves the bigger and more powerful their boats are.

[www.vanityfair.com image 640x434]

As seen in this picture.

This is the dump he parks his boat at in NH:
[img.photobucket.com image 610x406]

This is Mitts shark impression:
[img.photobucket.com image 610x406]


That's Lake Winnipesaukee I believe. That is an 11 acre lake which (being over 10 acres in New Hampshire) means it is public access right up to the shoreline. Might be a nice place to fish or just hang out in your Speedos. Just saying.
 
2012-08-10 04:57:56 PM

KarmicDisaster: palelizard: Tenga: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

"You use a red one, then a white one to see if you need another red one".

? You lost me there.

Puppy uppers and doggy downers?


How many corn cobs does it take to wipe your arse? Two red ones and a white one....

/corn field humor
 
2012-08-10 05:15:55 PM

hasty ambush: The solution is to make social welfare programs a state responsibility to finance and administer .


No, that's not a solution, that's passing the buck. If you want to wrap it up in fancy synergies of bullshiat, say we're going to turn the states into experiments where the best implementation wins or something. Calling it a solution just reveals the fact you lack a vocabulary.
 
2012-08-10 06:04:32 PM

MachineHead: hasty ambush: The solution is to make social welfare programs a state responsibility to finance and administer .

No, that's not a solution, that's passing the buck. If you want to wrap it up in fancy synergies of bullshiat, say we're going to turn the states into experiments where the best implementation wins or something. Calling it a solution just reveals the fact you lack a vocabulary.


The States with a stronger social net would be punished by people moving there.
 
2012-08-10 06:22:02 PM

MachineHead: hasty ambush: The solution is to make social welfare programs a state responsibility to finance and administer .

No, that's not a solution, that's passing the buck. If you want to wrap it up in fancy synergies of bullshiat, say we're going to turn the states into experiments where the best implementation wins or something. Calling it a solution just reveals the fact you lack a vocabulary.


Not if you

1 Believe that there is no one best implementation for the nation as a whole. Certainly the social/welfare/education/healthcare needs of Vermont differ from Arizona (For example). What works best for one state mayprobably will not work so well for another. Centralized planning does not have a great track record be it growing wheat or social programs. Five year plans or Great leap forward ring a bell?

"We were directed from Washington, when to sow and when to reap. We should soon want for bread." ~Thomas Jefferson

2. It is hard for a voter or taxpayer in Wyoming or Idaho to hold accountable politicians thousands of miles a way who impose programs on them when they are members of a congressional delegation from another state whom they cannot even vote for or against Another reason stuff like this belongs at the lowest level of government possible.

3.. It is not passing the buck but placing the responsibility where it belongs. There are things the states are supposed to take care of (or not as the voters decide) and things the Feds are suppose to take care of.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" James Madison Federalist 45
 
2012-08-10 07:01:19 PM

hasty ambush: MachineHead: hasty ambush: The solution is to make social welfare programs a state responsibility to finance and administer .

No, that's not a solution, that's passing the buck. If you want to wrap it up in fancy synergies of bullshiat, say we're going to turn the states into experiments where the best implementation wins or something. Calling it a solution just reveals the fact you lack a vocabulary.

Not if you

1 Believe that there is no one best implementation for the nation as a whole. Certainly the social/welfare/education/healthcare needs of Vermont differ from Arizona (For example). What works best for one state mayprobably will not work so well for another. Centralized planning does not have a great track record be it growing wheat or social programs. Five year plans or Great leap forward ring a bell?

"We were directed from Washington, when to sow and when to reap. We should soon want for bread." ~Thomas Jefferson

2. It is hard for a voter or taxpayer in Wyoming or Idaho to hold accountable politicians thousands of miles a way who impose programs on them when they are members of a congressional delegation from another state whom they cannot even vote for or against Another reason stuff like this belongs at the lowest level of government possible.

3.. It is not passing the buck but placing the responsibility where it belongs. There are things the states are supposed to take care of (or not as the voters decide) and things the Feds are suppose to take care of.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, i ...


Otherwise known as the "Fark the citizens of poor states hard" plan.
 
2012-08-11 10:20:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Otherwise known as the "Fark the citizens of poor states hard" plan


And just how much better off are the "poor" in the "rich" states as it is now? We do have people who actual choose to live in states based on the welfare benefits they can get. Even with revenue sharing and the Federal Welfare State look at Connecticut vs Louisiana. Where would you rather be poor?

Even with highly centralized governments some regions fair better than others. Look at China with its enterprise zones in the east compared to the rural west.

Exactly how much sense does it make to take money from the states send it all the way to Washington DC so they can finance a large bureaucracy and then send what remains back to the states in one size fits all programs?

What if we ended most all Federal Social Welfare programs and cut Federal taxes by that much? That would leave a lot of potential revenue for each state to access and finance its own social welfare programs as it sees fit with out the burden of also financing a large federal bureaucracy.
How much of of the HHS budget is taken up by administrative and regulatory costs as oppose to actual funding reaching the intended recipients?

Look at the European Union. About equal to the US in population size and cultural diversification.
All their heath care systems differ. France's is different form Norway 's which is different from Spain.
They also differ in quality. and where they put the emphasis on care.

Or look at Canada. There are some basic federal standards but they do not have a big bureaucracy collecting patient information and handling the finances, that is province based. Each province runs its own an they differ . Quebec's is different from British Columbia for example. I would add that
back in 2005 Quebec's ban on private health insurance was declared unconstitutional by the Canadian Supreme Court because the government system could not provided timely treatment , which had resulted in deaths
 
Displayed 49 of 349 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report