• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama's Deficit Lies

Originally Posted by WildCat
Taxes do.

That's not what he asked. He asked if government spending removes money from the economy. As BAC loves to point out, the government is running at a deficit, which means there is drawing less in taxes than it is sending out in spending.

Wrong as usual. Just because something is paid for by deficit spending doesn't mean someone won't have to pay for it at some point ... through increased taxation ... which will remove money from the economy then. What Obama is making our children and their children do is pay for the health care (and all the other freebies that he is now going to offer) of his constituents the next 4 years. Is that really fair? Isn't his administration supposed to be about *fairness*? I heard that word spouted by him again and again during the election. I guess he didn't mean *intergenerational* fairness. :D

Also, you forget that not everything he's proposing will be purchased through deficit spending. He is raising taxes on many people NOW ... particularly the people who have historically been the big investors in the economy. If he is taking wealth from them and using a portion of it (20-30%??) to support the government itself (regardless of what he does with the rest and government is notoriously inefficient with the rest), then obviously he is taking money out of the portion of the economy that actually produces wealth. That isn't rocket science, Upchurch. :D
 
I don't know what "increased taxes on businesses" you are referring to, but it irrelevant. Taxes are part of the cost of doing business. You don't hire or fire employees based on the amount of taxes you have to pay. That cost is past along to the client.

Are you absolutely sure that YOU have "run a business"? :D

Tell us, do you sell a product that is also made internationally? Or in other states with different tax rates? Or even a different city with a different tax rate? Hmmmmmm?
 
You seem to be implying that Krugman does not think we should be running a deficit right now. This is patently false.

I never implied or suggested that. I simply pointed out that on other occasions Krugman has been against the sort of deficits that Obama will be creating over the next 10 years ... $8.5 trillion dollars in new debt with deficits running at over $700 billion a year by the end of that period.

Krugman clearly thinks the government should run a massive deficit for the next several years. Is that not the topic of the OP?

No, clearly the topic of the OP concerns that $8.5 trillion dollars in deficits, not JUST the $1 trillion that you insist on trying to ONLY discuss. That makes YOU the cherry picker, gdnp. :D
 
Let's see what Wikipedia says about "redistribution of wealth": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth .

Feel free.

That sure looks to me like redistribution of wealth is not an argument that proponents of capitalism use to *justify* their system.

And that sure looks to me like you're moving the goalposts.

Again, I don't see mention of capitalism requiring redistribution of wealth.

Again, goalpost moving.

Any form of taxation that involves a public service is inherently going to involve "redistributing the wealth" to some degree.

Calling that indicative of socialism is stupid.

ROTFLOL! What nonsense.

Wrong.

That's clearly not socialism. That's capitalism.

Correct, grasshopper. Reagan redistributed wealth, by lowering the tax burden on the rich. He was not a socialist. That was my point.

I'm glad you've finally realized your error.

More nonsense (is that all you can spout, Cleon?).

*yawn*

First, Obama's plan is socialist because the government would take control of about 1/7th of the US economy.

No.

Individuals will no longer have the freedom they now have where health care choices are concerned.

No.

Doctors will lose the power to make decisions.


No.

It will be politicians and bureaucrats in Washington who decide who gets treated for what, where, when and to a great extent by who.

No.

Do you have anything correct to say? At all?

Second, some 45 million people are claimed (true or not) by Obama to be without proper healthcare and the stated intent of his agenda is to provide them with as good a coverage as he and Biden got as Senators in Congress. Since Obama also claims they are without healthcare because they can't afford it, obviously someone else will have to pay for their healthcare. That implies a redistribution of wealth, with the "wealthy" paying for the health care of those 45 million people through government seizure of some of their wealth. That makes it socialist. Why else do you think they call it "socialized medicine"? :rolleyes:

No. This is completely wrong. Completely.


Care to try again?
 
Such as the Alaskan model of re-distribution of wealth then?

Can you be more specific ... so we can actually discuss whatever it is you are claiming?

Well it ain't that way in Canada. My doctor , the doctor I choose, determines what measures I may need.

Good for you but that's not the way it is going to be in Obama's America. Apparently, a stimulus bill provision means that "our doctors" no longer get to make healthcare decisions for us (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTE1YWYwZTgzOTIyOWQwNTEzZTg4N2U1MTc2NTE4YTI= ) with Dashill's "rationing board" being the goal.

Now perhaps you'd like to list all of the developed countries in the world in which a strictly Capatalist health care system exists.

I never suggested a strictly capitalist system exists in any country. But you certainly can't deny that prior to Obama, we've had a significantly less socialistic system than say Canada, the UK and many other European nations. Or China, Cuba ... or the old USSR.

After all it will be shorter than the list of developed countries with a universal health care system.

And are they actually getting better health coverage than we are? Are the new drugs being developed in those countries ... or in the US?
 
And that sure looks to me like you're moving the goalposts.

Not at all. I've been quite consistent with my arguments on this thread. I've even been the one providing definitions of socialism and links to articles on socialism. So far I've see squat from you and your friends ... other than unsupported assertions.

Any form of taxation that involves a public service is inherently going to involve "redistributing the wealth" to some degree.

True, and conservatives have been complaining about that for a long time. But now you folks have truly crossed the line. Your demands have become totally unreasonable. You best remember that the Boston Tea Party was over a 2% tax.

Calling that indicative of socialism is stupid.

Well, take your complaint to Wikipedia ... and a thousand other sources defining socialism that I could cite. Frankly, I think pretending that Obama isn't leading this nation to outright socialism is what's stupid.

Quote:
ROTFLOL! What nonsense.

Wrong.

Like I said, unsupported claims. I linked you to a definition of "trickle down economics" that has NOTHING to do with forced redistribution of wealth ... which is what we are talking about. And in response you offer an unsupported assertion. :rolleyes:

Reagan redistributed wealth, by lowering the tax burden on the rich.

:rolleyes: Allowing someone to KEEP what they MADE is NOT redistribution of wealth. Your statement is as silly as the claim that by handing people who paid no taxes a check for $500, Obama is lowering their taxes. Do you get my point?

Quote:
First, Obama's plan is socialist because the government would take control of about 1/7th of the US economy.

No.

No, what? Are you claiming that Obama isn't trying to assume control of 1/7th of the US economy. If you are, you are wrong.

Quote:
Individuals will no longer have the freedom they now have where health care choices are concerned.

No.

No, what? Are you claiming that we will have just as much freedom to make our health care choices under Obama's plan?

Quote:
Doctors will lose the power to make decisions.

No.

I already proved you wrong above. Are you trying to make yourself look uninformed or foolish, Cleon?

Quote:
It will be politicians and bureaucrats in Washington who decide who gets treated for what, where, when and to a great extent by who.

No.

But that's exactly what is going to happen. What do you think a ration board is? All you are succeeding in doing with this tactic is prove how uninformed you are, Cleon.

Quote:
Second, some 45 million people are claimed (true or not) by Obama to be without proper healthcare and the stated intent of his agenda is to provide them with as good a coverage as he and Biden got as Senators in Congress. Since Obama also claims they are without healthcare because they can't afford it, obviously someone else will have to pay for their healthcare. That implies a redistribution of wealth, with the "wealthy" paying for the health care of those 45 million people through government seizure of some of their wealth. That makes it socialist. Why else do you think they call it "socialized medicine"?

No. This is completely wrong. Completely.

Really? Completely? So you don't think I can prove that Obama has claimed 45 million people are without proper healthcare? You don't think I can prove he said they should get the same healthcare as Biden and him? You don't think I can prove he said the reason they lack healthcare is because they can't afford it? You don't think I can prove that to pay for their healthcare we will have to take money away from someone else by seizing it? What would you like to bet, Cleon? Your continued presence on this forum? :D
 
Can you be more specific ... so we can actually discuss whatever it is you are claiming?

The Palin sponsored process of having the oil companies distribute some of the profit from their oil ventures to the people of Alaska. Even those who, Gawd forbid, had nothing at all to do with creating that wealth



Good for you but that's not the way it is going to be in Obama's America. Apparently, a stimulus bill provision means that "our doctors" no longer get to make healthcare decisions for us (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTE1YWYwZTgzOTIyOWQwNTEzZTg4N2U1MTc2NTE4YTI= ) with Dashill's "rationing board" being the goal.

Somehow I just don't see it going down that way in the States.



I never suggested a strictly capitalist system exists in any country. But you certainly can't deny that prior to Obama, we've had a significantly less socialistic system than say Canada, the UK and many other European nations. Or China, Cuba ... or the old USSR.

Nope can't deny that. In fact of all developed nations I daresay that the USA has a less "Socialistic" health system that all the others.



And are they actually getting better health coverage than we are? Are the new drugs being developed in those countries ... or in the US?

I get as good basic health care as anyone in the USA. I get as good, or better, health care for serious disease as the majority of US citizens.
In the USA it depends on who you are and how much care you can afford. While I may not get the best of the best top tier Mayo Clinic $200,000 care if I need cancer treatment, neither would the vast majority of US citizens.

So all in all, yes , I get as good health coverage as in the USA.

As for drugs, what difference does it make where the research takes place? At the University of Manitoba not far from here, at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, researchers are developing drugs. My wife's cousin helped develop a drug to aid preterm babies develop their lungs, in Ontario.(sorry the name escapes me). In Europe drug companies do develop new drugs as well.
But again , what does that have to do with the health care system in any country. The drugs developed anywhere will be tested in each country and allowed for use or not.

"Sicko" is a typical Moore film and personally I wish someone else had covered the topic. Perhaps you'd like a more real, personal description of what health care is in Canada.

In Canada , drugs are not paid for by the provincial health care systems(at least not in Ontario) except for hospital care.
I have a drug plan at work, a private drug plan. Same goes for dental and vision care and hospital coverage that ensures I get a private or semi-private hospital room.
In fact I have availed myself of my gov't health care in the case of a very serious condition. What would have cost me easily a quarter of a million dollars in the USA cost me only lost wages (above what unemployment insurance paid) for 8 months. I was out of pocket, in total, the equivalent to perhaps a months pay.That was in 2001, I'm still here, the treatment was apparently of good quality.

In the USA, without insurance I would be dead or passing a debt to my relatives. In fact even with a lot of plans in the USA I'd be in debt and I would have no say as to where or who I got my care from. I was offered two choices, one a hospital in my own province that is a 5 hour drive. The other in the neighbouring province but only a two hour drive but still paid for by my provincial health insurance. Had I requested it I also could have gone to Toronto ( a 24 hour drive). I chose the closer option. I got a $50 grant for travel costs that did not quite cover gas let alone a hotel room for my wife.
If I wish to I could even go to the Mayo Clinic and be reimbured by OHIP an amount that OHIP would have paid a Canadian hospital for the same treatment and I would have to come up with the rest. How much for 10 days in hospital after major surgery in decent hospital for you Chooser? Ever been an issue for you or a relative?
Was it a financial hardship? To some extent yes. Was it a crushing financial hardship? No, not even close. I wonder how the stress of having to pay for your life (sometimes called extortion) affects the outcome of one's fight with illness?

oh, and BTW, the food in that hospital was good, though I admit that's most certainly not the general case.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. I've been quite consistent with my arguments on this thread. I've even been the one providing definitions of socialism and links to articles on socialism. So far I've see squat from you and your friends ... other than unsupported assertions.



True, and conservatives have been complaining about that for a long time. But now you folks have truly crossed the line. Your demands have become totally unreasonable. You best remember that the Boston Tea Party was over a 2% tax.



Well, take your complaint to Wikipedia ... and a thousand other sources defining socialism that I could cite. Frankly, I think pretending that Obama isn't leading this nation to outright socialism is what's stupid.



Like I said, unsupported claims. I linked you to a definition of "trickle down economics" that has NOTHING to do with forced redistribution of wealth ... which is what we are talking about. And in response you offer an unsupported assertion. :rolleyes:



:rolleyes: Allowing someone to KEEP what they MADE is NOT redistribution of wealth. Your statement is as silly as the claim that by handing people who paid no taxes a check for $500, Obama is lowering their taxes. Do you get my point?



No, what? Are you claiming that Obama isn't trying to assume control of 1/7th of the US economy. If you are, you are wrong.



No, what? Are you claiming that we will have just as much freedom to make our health care choices under Obama's plan?



I already proved you wrong above. Are you trying to make yourself look uninformed or foolish, Cleon?



But that's exactly what is going to happen. What do you think a ration board is? All you are succeeding in doing with this tactic is prove how uninformed you are, Cleon.



Really? Completely? So you don't think I can prove that Obama has claimed 45 million people are without proper healthcare? You don't think I can prove he said they should get the same healthcare as Biden and him? You don't think I can prove he said the reason they lack healthcare is because they can't afford it? You don't think I can prove that to pay for their healthcare we will have to take money away from someone else by seizing it? What would you like to bet, Cleon? Your continued presence on this forum? :D

No. Again, you are completely and totally wrong, and have been proven so repeatedly.

That you refuse to acknowledge it, and try to compensate with bluster, is immaterial.

You lose.
 
Wrong as usual. Just because something is paid for by deficit spending doesn't mean someone won't have to pay for it at some point ... through increased taxation ... which will remove money from the economy then.
But it isn't being taken out of the economy now during the recession as Wildcat implied, which is the point.


Tell us, do you sell a product that is also made internationally?
We have very little competition in the form of other businesses. Our main competition are groups internal to the client that think they can do the job themselves. (They often can, but not nearly as well, quickly, or cheaply.)

Although we do occasionally use overseas vendors.

Or in other states with different tax rates? Or even a different city with a different tax rate? Hmmmmmm?
But we're talking about Federal taxes which do not vary from state to state or city to city. Even if we were, the only time I can remember having to compete with another company out of state was several years ago with a group from New York. We smoked 'em because we operate out of a place that has a much lower cost of living.

Regardless, both companies pay the same in Federal tax, which is what Obama and Congress can control.

Are you absolutely sure that YOU have "run a business"? :D
Absolutely sure.
 
Wrong as usual. Just because something is paid for by deficit spending doesn't mean someone won't have to pay for it at some point ... through increased taxation ...
Well that's just silly.

If we do nothing and allow the systems to collapse, then there will be definite decrease in GDP, and therefore in tax revenue. That will increase the debt even faster.

however, if we can generate new technologies to stimulate the economy, we can grow the GDP (rather than shrink) and not need to raise taxes to pay off the deficit.
 
Well that's just silly.
....
however, if we can generate new technologies to stimulate the economy, we can grow the GDP (rather than shrink) and not need to raise taxes to pay off the deficit.


Leaving aside the question of whether or not the stimulus is a good idea, let's look at its effect on the deficit.

Obama says it will create or save 3.5 million jobs. Let's take that at face value and assume he's correct. If each one of those jobs generates $8,000 of tax revenue, that's 28 billion dollars per year of increased tax revenue. To my way of thinking, that doesn't cover the cost of the plan.

I think the debt goes up.
 
You've never actually been a part of running a business, have you?
Yes, I have. And when business costs go up the potential market goes down. And a down market doesn't scream "hire more workers!".
 
But it isn't being taken out of the economy now during the recession as Wildcat implied, which is the point.
Pardon me. Obama has promised to take it out of the economy in his next budget, after everything is all hunky-dory.

Business decisions are based on future expectations, and businesses don't share Obama's vision of what will happoen in the next few years. Except, of course, his promise to raise their taxes. You can take that promise to the bank.

Has Caterpillar re-hired the 20,000 workers yet Obama said they would if his budget passed?
 
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the stimulus is a good idea, let's look at its effect on the deficit.

Obama says it will create or save 3.5 million jobs. Let's take that at face value and assume he's correct. If each one of those jobs generates $8,000 of tax revenue, that's 28 billion dollars per year of increased tax revenue. To my way of thinking, that doesn't cover the cost of the plan.

I think the debt goes up.
But that's not the only source of tax revenue from an improved economy. the increase in business profits would also increase tax revenue....without needing to raise taxes.
 
...snip...

How about redistribution of wealth? Would you not agree that's a hallmark characteristic of socialist (and communist) systems?

...snip...

No.

How about Universal Health Care? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism defines socialism as "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." That sounds a lot like what Obama is proposing for healthcare.

...snip...

No it doesn't.
 
Has Caterpillar re-hired the 20,000 workers yet Obama said they would if his budget passed?
Has heavy construction started already?

As a note (on the research side), money is just starting to trickle from the package. I just got the notice yesterday regarding the NIH's first round of grant proposals being asked for as a result of the stimulus. The dead line of the full proposal is April 27th. Typical review time is 4-6months, so I'd expect at the earliest for the money to be recevied by the investigators in November.
 
Yes, I have. And when business costs go up the potential market goes down. And a down market doesn't scream "hire more workers!".
The market also goes down when there is no money flowing around. So, once again, how do you propose we solve that?

Pardon me. Obama has promised to take it out of the economy in his next budget, after everything is all hunky-dory.
Indeed.

Business decisions are based on future expectations
And, with current situation of nobody spending, no one can project their budgets. What do you suggest we do?

and businesses don't share Obama's vision of what will happoen in the next few years. Except, of course, his promise to raise their taxes.
Evidence?
 

Back
Top Bottom