Originally Posted by pizal81

They need to raise the rich's capitol gains tax to levels that everyone else is paying.

I agree with this, though it may take a while.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I disagree, you're not going to reign in govt spending by allowing it to have more money (raising taxes) to spend. You reign in government spending by withholding money (lowering taxes) which results in less money available for it to spend.

Thank you Grover.
That's the trickle-down free market mantra, but it's false. It just assumes all government spending is bad, so starve the beast. It's long past time to get beyond this fixed ideology and look at government spending and taxes in a common sense and rational way. Spend for what we need, not for what we don't. That is not ideology.

This is common sense.

Yes, what I said is common sense, not what you said. What you said is right-wing ideology.

Sooner or later, the government will reach the point where it looses it credability and validity with the private sector taxpayers.

Trouble is, it has already lost credibility with conservatives such as yourself, mostly because you don't like paying taxes. But paying taxes is part of being a good citizen, and government works when it is allowed to work. Government is an essential part of an efficient mixed economy where everyone does their share and no group gets too much power.

At that point, you're dreams will come true and you will be able to live under a government that controls just about every aspect of your life. Me, I will be living free under a very limited government with a large army to keep your government at bay. You're a fool if you actually believe that history will not repeat itself.

I assume you are talking about the possible split in the USA between red and blue. Bring it on.
History shows that our "liberal" system works, and that you guys just decided to start tearing it down for no reason in 1980. Since then our economy and society has declined. History will repeat itself-- more of the same-- as long as you guys have power.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I do like your common sense approach to resolve health care issues. I'd have a problem keeping nicotine and alcohol out of my body. But other than that, I'd be able to comply to your health care plan.

Rani's health care plan is fine, and I mostly follow it... and it works.... until the end of life, or an accident, or if you can't keep up the regimen and/or a major disease strikes. Deb and Brian pointed out other factors like heredity and pollution.

That alcohol and nicotine part is a big one, Exile....

Originally Posted by The Rani

I did not propose a system. My comment was:

Nobody has Power over accidents, regardless of what kind of healthcare system we have.

... which brings us back to the need for a reformed system. Healthcare is still what we need when the Wellness stuff isn't enough. All those ideas are good, but inadequate.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Crime Drama is still really good, however. The re-imagined Hawaii Five-O is great, as are The Mentalist, Blue Bloods, Unforgettable and Person Of Interest. Even the CSI and NCIS franchises still have some life left.

All of which are just high stakes re-imaginings of Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, and Arthur Conan Doyle tropes--which are enjoyable but highly predictable. Leroy Jethro Gibbs is a more vigilante version of Holmes, with him sawing away at a boat instead of a violin. Grissom is a non-Belgian version of Poirot--with their mutual love of fine wine and peculiar attention to food. And the new Hawaii Five-O characters recall the attitudes of Lord Peter Wimsey and his cohorts, slightly devil-may-care, athletic, good looking, and yet they have brains...

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by radind

I would like to see a streamlined tax code with no loopholes for the wealthy (real persons or corporations) to exploit, a high personal deduction and the lowest rates possible to balance the budget. The current system is overly complex and leads to high employment of tax lawyers and accountants.

It's always nice to say let's have a tax plan with no loopholes. Politicians never carry it out, because it's always easier to promise a tax break for something you want people to do, then it is to impose a tax to pay for it. Forget it; it will never happen. Or if it does, it will not last very long. Let's just charge the progressive income tax rate that we need to pay for the government policies and services we decide to have. That's simple common sense, without misleading formulas and ideologies. Just removing the Bush tax cuts (and not getting into wars with Iran, etc.) would eventually balance the budget. Repeal all of them; let them expire next year after Obama is re-elected. Democrats know how to charge taxes for things we need, and to cut the things we don't-- if they get enough support to do what's right. They have done it before. Republicans of course have only one solution: cut taxes and starve the beast. Republicans are the only problem with our politics and economics today. Get them out of office, and America will do just fine.

Health care and social security is a separate and more complicated issue, and a separate tax. I've addressed that one before too. It will take a while before politicians can enact the solution: medicare for all with higher medicare taxes, perhaps balanced with lower payroll tax rates and removing the cap, and "payroll" taxes on unearned income.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My wife does all those things, in spades. 10 days ago, a young woman fell asleep at the wheel and hit three cars. One was my wife's. She came out of it with a fractured vertibrae. Explain how your system resolves that.

Oh my gosh, I hope she is okay. This period must have been a strain on you both!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Now Eric, you use the phrase "mostly follow," as has everyone else who responded to my post.
Nobody achieves all of those goals all of the time, myself included, and that's fine.
But let's (Royal We) be honest about our responsibility for the consequences, instead of trying to convince ourselves of the insignificance of our own transgressions.

I'm on board with that.

(now, can I get off this forum and do my exercize today??)

Voting needs to be looked at in the same way though. If you vote Republican (or for that matter, for a DINO), that to me is like taking a smoke! We are also responsible for the government we get.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My wife does all those things, in spades. 10 days ago, a young woman fell asleep at the wheel and hit three cars. One was my wife's. She came out of it with a fractured vertibrae. Explain how your system resolves that.

My sister did all of that, too, and died of colon cancer at age 44. She did drink coffee, though. About a cup a day.

I have my own theory about why we have high obesity, and a variety of other issues that weren't present a few generations ago. We suddenly have children with practically epidemic cases of things like asthma and autism, just to name a few. I believe a lot this has to do with our food supply. The livestock we eat is filled with hormones and which are also in our dairy products. The grains are grown using pesticides and herbicides which are made from oil. Now I ask you, would shoot your child with hormones and give them oil to drink? Don't you think that would probably harm them? But we are doing this everyday. It's pretty hard to say what this is doing to our population as a whole.

I think some of the problems we have with diseases in this country could be related to much more than just not getting enough exercise, drinking coffee or not eating your vegetables. I find it fascinating that whenever my husband goes to a different country for a month or so, he always drops at least 10 pounds while there and he swears he doesn't eat any less when he is there. As soon as he comes home he puts that weight right back on and I cook pretty healthy meals which are prepared in a non-fattening way. For example, I grill most of our meat and we eat a lot of green salads and fresh vegetables.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I have my own theory about why we have high obesity, and a variety of other issues that weren't present a few generations ago. We suddenly have children with practically epidemic cases of things like asthma and autism, just to name a few. I believe a lot this has to do with our food supply. The livestock we eat is filled with hormones and which are also in our dairy products. The grains are grown using pesticides and herbicides which are made from oil. Now I ask you, would shoot your child with hormones and give them oil to drink? Don't you think that would probably harm them? But we are doing this everyday. It's pretty hard to say what this is doing to our population as a whole.

I think some of the problems we have with diseases in this country could be related to much more than just not getting enough exercise, drinking coffee or not eating your vegetables. I find it fascinating that whenever my husband goes to a different country for a month or so, he always drops at least 10 pounds while there and he swears he doesn't eat any less when he is there. As soon as he comes home he puts that weight right back on and I cook pretty healthy meals which are prepared in a non-fattening way. For example, I grill most of our meat and we eat a lot of green salads and fresh vegetables.

Let's start with obesity. Kids are spending more time watching TV or using a computer or video game unit, and they have a snack in one hand and either a mouse or a remote control in the other. They are still eating like farm kids -- at least in caloric intake -- but they are not doing chores like farm kids.

Much of the inexpensive food comes with an insidious price. It is high in fat and sugar (especially corn sweeteners). Advertising makes people uncritical customers who ask no questions. Just look at the family and you will see which ones are 'addicted' to 'comfort foods' and 'convenience' foods. Supersize it!

Growth hormones cheapen food but also rush childhood growth -- and puberty.

As for your husband -- surely you don't fix all of his meals. What does he get at the company cafeteria or the nearby restaurant?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I tend to agree with you, the majority of the debt and wealth in this country will simply go away by pushing a few delete buttons. Black and white money looks impressive on paper but has no true value until it's turned into cash or is secured with cash. Black and white money can be used to exchange or replace or borrow against black and white money.

Now, I have a question for you, how much is black and white money going to be worth to me and how much black and white money would one need to trade me to get a few of my green backs or chips of gold to buy lunch during a credit crisis or crunch? Would you give me a million black and whites for a green after starving for a week or two? I mean, I would be a fool not to accept a million black and white dollars for one green back that I have thousands or millions of. One dollar would be worth the risk. The answer to question is that a person needs is whatever amount the federal govt will take to shift the debt, so to speak. What it's worth depend on the economic conditions that support the debt. It's not all that different than having mom co-sign a loan or an old equity loan.

BTW, this should all be familiar to you because something simular to all of this just happened not very long ago in the banking industry.

At least for me, your response is a little cryptic. Let me see if I can decipher it and respond accordingly.

I think that you actually get that the concern for federal deficits/debt is that it potentially reflects too much govt spending, and in turn, the constraint/concern for too much govt spending is its potential to cause inflation.

Your getting this is pretty impressive; most people don't. It was just last summer that people were near hysterical about the S and P Credit Rating Agency's downgrade of US debt. That if people really understood our monetary system would have known from the start how silly their action.

What I don't understand is your differentiation between "black and white money" and "green backs," but I think its a minor point. The difference between those and "chips of gold" does, however, tie-in to the inflation concern.

What's important to get from this is -

- the US federal govt cannot default on its debt; it will always be able to pay its debt issued in the dollars that only it can issue
- the US federal govt will always be able to sell its debt - it is actually just exchanging issued interest-bearing securities (i.e., Treasuries) for already-issued non-interest bearing securities ( i.e., dollars)
- the US federal govt debt's legacy for the future is interest payments; whether that is a good thing (i.e. counters deflation) or bad thing (adds to inflation) depends on the circumstances at the time of payment

It is also important to note that for the last 80 years plus, there has been no correlation between federal deficits and inflation. That's not to say federal spending can't be a cause of inflation, it is that inflation is too complex a phenomena to so easily attribute its comings and goings to any one thing.

It is also important to note that too-much govt spending is only one side of the coin. The other side of too little spending has at least as much potential for considerable harm to the economy in the form of deflation, recessions and possible depressions. The federal deficit hovers around $1T (each year). If we use a conservative multiplier of 1.5, then govt deficit spending actually provides $1.5T in aggregate demand, representing 10% of our economy. Imagine the recession resulting from taking that deficit spending out of the economy right now. Would a direct 10% contraction end there or, given the current vulnerability of our economy, it would trigger something much much worse.

It's well and good to worry about some potential inflation sometime in the speculative future, but one needs to understand that doing something about it doesn't come without potentially severe costs, and relatively immediately.

Don't you think it would be wise to really put that concern for inflation to the test given the costs of trying to mitigate it?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's always nice to say let's have a tax plan with no loopholes. Politicians never carry it out, because it's always easier to promise a tax break for something you want people to do, then it is to impose a tax to pay for it. Forget it; it will never happen. Or if it does, it will not last very long. Let's just charge the progressive income tax rate that we need to pay for the government policies and services we decide to have. That's simple common sense, without misleading formulas and ideologies. Just removing the Bush tax cuts (and not getting into wars with Iran, etc.) would eventually balance the budget. Repeal all of them; let them expire next year after Obama is re-elected. Democrats know how to charge taxes for things we need, and to cut the things we don't-- if they get enough support to do what's right. They have done it before. Republicans of course have only one solution: cut taxes and starve the beast. Republicans are the only problem with our politics and economics today. Get them out of office, and America will do just fine.

Health care and social security is a separate and more complicated issue, and a separate tax. I've addressed that one before too. It will take a while before politicians can enact the solution: medicare for all with higher medicare taxes, perhaps balanced with lower payroll tax rates and removing the cap, and "payroll" taxes on unearned income.

I agree that I am dreaming about tax reform, but I still do not agree that Republicans are the only problem . After the 2012 elections both parties will still be there(unless Gingrich is the candidate) and we will need to find solutions that include both parties.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Let's start with obesity. Kids are spending more time watching TV or using a computer or video game unit, and they have a snack in one hand and either a mouse or a remote control in the other. They are still eating like farm kids -- at least in caloric intake -- but they are not doing chores like farm kids.

Much of the inexpensive food comes with an insidious price. It is high in fat and sugar (especially corn sweeteners). Advertising makes people uncritical customers who ask no questions. Just look at the family and you will see which ones are 'addicted' to 'comfort foods' and 'convenience' foods. Supersize it!

Growth hormones cheapen food but also rush childhood growth -- and puberty.

As for your husband -- surely you don't fix all of his meals. What does he get at the company cafeteria or the nearby restaurant?

He works from home. So he generally eats a sandwich for lunch from our refrigerator. And we very rarely eat out when he is home, since he is generally gone for a month or two at time, he is pretty much sick out eating out by the time he gets home.

And I do think that kids still run around and play. There are always kids riding bikes or scooters and playing outside on our street. So I'm not so sure that is truly the explanation for the obesity in kids either. In some cases, perhaps, but you can't blame it totally on that.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In the interest of providing constructive information:


http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_...-from-bbq-meat

Everything causes cancer. Bibamus; moriendum est.

Come to think of it, I have some vinum in the kitchen; old Seneca had a good idea there. Excuse me while I pour a glass to go with the Chicken a la Pretender (not as fancy as Chicken a la King, but roughly the same idea.)

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't think that's quite right. Ideoloically, I think these folks are embarrassed to need the help, and sincerely wish to terminate the benefits. They see the economy as a zero-sum game, and feel it will hurt thier children. Of course, this is their pride speaking. If they win, and the benefits end, they will be happy for a brief day or two, until they realize that they are now good and truly screwed. They will hunker down, but that won't solve their problems, They will hunker down even further. Eventually, this irrighteous cycle will bring them to the point that they realize that this is not a viable course. I don't know where it goes from there. Losing their homes or not being able to feed their families may be enough to finally move them ... or not. Cognitive dissonance is very strong. Some may fail completely. I hope it's very few.

For those who survive, the answers they seek next may be righteous or scary. It can go either way.

The "zero-sum game" could be a better way to put it. It would certainly explain the argument for the rich Right ones that their taxes are going to go up as a result of federal deficit spending (which, they believe, is obviously going mostly to the have-nots). It could also explain the have-not Right who are convinced that sooner or later, they too will eventually pay, through increased taxes in some speculated future (to, as they believe, pay for have-nots).

It doesn't help that those on the Left pressing so hard for tax increases on the rich. Tax increases that will make absolutely no difference to the actual economy.

Imagine if people really grasped that federal taxes do not actually pay for federal spending; that such taxes are a tool to manage inflation (and deflation by lowering taxes). Imagine if federal tax rates were simply determined automatically depending on whether the economy was overheating or under preforming. I think within that framework, some social engineering would still be possible (e.g. rewarding companies for US, rather than foreign hiring), but perhaps it would not be a bad thing for a lot of that to go away.

This does not take away the perpetual argument of the size of government - at least in regard to scope. It also leaves the question of what govt spending is increased/decreased to respond to deflation/inflation, but there certainly is no shortage of spending need (e.g., infrastructure, education). A part of that would also be the ongoing concern for govt efficiency (or lack of).

All of those are healthy debates, but potentially made much more healthy when you get rid of that notion that peoples' taxes actually pay for federal spending - at least directly and specifically. There needs to be a minimum payment of taxes to support the currency use, and it may need to go higher should the economy heat up and harmful inflation start to emerge. What people need to understand is that to get to that point, the economy needs to be roaring along with full employment and money being made hand over fist. Is it really so bad to raise taxes under such circumstances when the alternative is inflation or keeping the economy in contraction?

Originally Posted by ASB65

I have my own theory about why we have high obesity, and a variety of other issues that weren't present a few generations ago. We suddenly have children with practically epidemic cases of things like asthma and autism, just to name a few. I believe a lot this has to do with our food supply. The livestock we eat is filled with hormones and which are also in our dairy products. The grains are grown using pesticides and herbicides which are made from oil. Now I ask you, would shoot your child with hormones and give them oil to drink? Don't you think that would probably harm them? But we are doing this everyday. It's pretty hard to say what this is doing to our population as a whole.

I think some of the problems we have with diseases in this country could be related to much more than just not getting enough exercise, drinking coffee or not eating your vegetables. I find it fascinating that whenever my husband goes to a different country for a month or so, he always drops at least 10 pounds while there and he swears he doesn't eat any less when he is there. As soon as he comes home he puts that weight right back on and I cook pretty healthy meals which are prepared in a non-fattening way. For example, I grill most of our meat and we eat a lot of green salads and fresh vegetables.

*RANT*
There is no "Autism Epidemic", more are just getting diagnosed and correctly diagnosed. In the past many autistics were misdiagnosed with mental retardation, "childhood schizophrenia", or a personality disorder.

Originally Posted by radind

I would like to see a streamlined tax code with no loopholes for the wealthy( real persons or corporations) to exploit, a high personal deduction and the lowest rates possible to balance the budget. The current system is overly complex and leads to high employment of tax lawyers and accountants.

Oh, I actually think a flat tax is a good idea. I still think there should be exception among the poorest of the poor though. Even if the tax rate is raised a little bit on lower middle class that isn't a problem as long as the system is working.

As I noted last week, Obama needs to have the unemployment rate trending down in the summer to assure re-election. To do that, he needs additional federal deficit spending to inject dollars into the economy sooner than later. Where that gets done is extending the payroll tax cuts, extending unemployment and perhaps raising payments to Medicare doctors.

The GOP not being dumb (and not, by the way, giving a flying F about the real economy) must prevent that net increase in deficit spending. Difficult to take on the payroll tax cut, however. They'll likely seek to have the additional spending for these things offset by cutting spending elsewhere (e.g. cut federal employees and their pay/benefits) so as to assure no net increase in federal deficit spending.

Given the massive ignorance in this country in regard to monetary operations, Democrats can't be seen as not being concerned about deficits. They will need to tell us that we will pay for the immediate spending increases with longer term deficit reduction measures.
Here's today's update -

After a few hours of thought, Democrats have decided the GOP’s blink on the payroll tax cut is an unvarnished good, not some devious trick.

Republicans have all but agreed to renew the payroll tax cut through the end of the year without paying for it — a huge tactical swing for them. But they’re still insisting that the other expiring measures — extended unemployment insurance (UI), and Medicare physician reimbursements (the “doc fix”) — are somehow offset with cuts elsewhere.

Having taken the most politically important, and most costly item off the table, are Republicans in the driver’s seat in negotiations over extending the other two items? Not necessarily.

A senior Senate Dem aide explains how Democrats might well proceed from here.

“We might amend it [the unpaid-for payroll tax cut] with UI and doc fix over here and…the amends would be hard for Republicans to vote against, because we have worked with Republicans to find pay-fors for those pieces that are attractive to them.”

The doc fix and UI extensions cost together about $60 billion — Dems think they can cover that cost over 10 years in ways that Republicans will have to accept. If that’s correct, the whole saga could end with a quick ping pong game between the House and the Senate.

Looks good for Obama so far. The 2012 elections could be over by the end of this month.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You (and others) fail to understand that More Power is not the same as Absolute Power, which is impossible. Besides which the "system" already includes accident coverage under auto policies.

We were discussing health, not insurance ... but since you brough it up. Yes, medical bills due to a car accident are paid by the auto insurance provider, regardless of your heath insurance status. We're waiting to see if the BC/BS pricing holds, or the bills are paid at full list.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Oh my gosh, I hope she is okay. This period must have been a strain on you both!

Thanks for being concerned. She's doing well under the circumstances. The odds of her avoiding back surgery are in our (well, her) favor. She has to wear a backbrace for a few weeks, and the xrays will tell the tale. So far, not terrible but obviously not good either.

Originally Posted by annla899

My sister did all of that, too, and died of colon cancer at age 44. She did drink coffee, though. About a cup a day.

I'm sorry to hear about your sister. No one deserves that short a life.

Agreed. Good is not the same as perfect. I'm also convinced that basic human variation guarantees that some people thrive on things that kill others, while others get deathly ill from things that should be healthy. The best plan is to do what seems to make you feel good and avoid the truly stupid. Many can tolerate cigarettes, but no one finds them healthy.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Another fine rationalization.
But again, it's entirely within one's Power to live that way, too.

Rani - what do I have to lose? ~7 more years of my life? Not that I want to exit it now; life's too interesting for that. But I'm already a bit too wrapped in cotton batting as it is, without trembling over every new revelation from the world of medicine. Remember, I came from the day when "Is there death in your medicine cabinet?" articles were the staple of women's magazines. Those plus, of course, the ongoing juxtaposition of the latest diet with the most garbage-laden recipes. Plus articles on how to catch a man, what to do with him when you've caught one (very complicated, rather like wire-walking, that art), and how to survive if he gets away. None, alas, on how to throw him back into the river.

Oh. And cigarettes are good for you (1950s-60s), chlorophyll in the toothpaste cures everything (~1960?), the best of all possible diets is one loaded with cheap starches (1980s) as opposed to the healthiest diet is one of meat and potatoes (early-to-mid-century), smoking pot turns decent kids into ravening dope fiends (followed by, teaches them all the mystical secrets of the universe), and so on and so on ....

You don't have to be an Xer to take a skeptical view of authoritative pronouncements on what's good or bad for you. You just have to have endured 7 decades of them, often at the top of their lungs.

The drink, BTW, was quite tasty.

http://thefrontrowseat.com/jon-hunts...andard-bearer/

Another piece on why Huntsman represents the future of the Republican party. I think in many ways he is similar to Wendell Willkie who would take the Republican Party from an isolationist to an internationalist direction.

Originally Posted by radind

I agree that I am dreaming about tax reform, but I still do not agree that Republicans are the only problem . After the 2012 elections both parties will still be there(unless Gingrich is the candidate) and we will need to find solutions that include both parties.

Anything proposed by the Republican Party of today is not a solution, but more of the problem.

The proof of that is merely to look at what they propose and what they stand for.

We will need to find solutions... the first requirement for any solution is to vote out the Republicans, who stand in the way of any and all solutions.