TNObamacare/tax the non-rich

[Mr. B]

The first thing I thought when I heard the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision regarding the individual mandate portion of the I-Really-See-No-Way-This-Will-Result-In Affordable Care Act was:

Great, so the fact that T. N. Obama's campaign promise of not raising taxes on anyone but the "rich" has now been certified by the US Supreme Court as a lie.


Later, I got to wondering: Since That Nitwit Obama says he doesn't want to tax the working class, and since the individual mandate portion of TNObamacare is a Supreme-Court-certified tax, will he say something like, "In order not to tax the non-rich, I hereby forgo implementing the individual mandate"?

(Just kidding in that last paragraph, folks. It's called Poke Fun at the President.)

[Wigmeister General]

"I never met a tax I didn't like" - typical democrat

[Abnormal]

Since it's now a tax, it's a revenue item, (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/john-roberts-surprising-decision/) so changes to it don't need cloture in the Senate, so that means they only need 50 votes in the Senate to get a repeal of that part through the Senate.

[Wigmeister General]

Since it's now a tax, it's a revenue item, (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/john-roberts-surprising-decision/) so changes to it don't need cloture in the Senate, so that means they only need 50 votes in the Senate to get a repeal of that part through the Senate.

... or 50 votes to increase it. And since TN Roberts didn't specify what the maximum tax could be before it was a "penalty" ...

[Jack]

My tax and those that aren't "freeriders" will inrease by zero.

[MightySchoop]

My tax and those that aren't "freeriders" will inrease by zero.

Unless they make over $200/250k per year.

[Mr. B]

My tax and those that aren't "freeriders" will inrease by zero.And nobody said it was a tax on everybody.

[ShebaPoe]

It seems to me that the "free rider" thing is inaccurate. Most people who don't have insurance, but who require medical care, will:

Receive care
Receive a big ass bill

Upon non payment of said bill, a whole series of collections efforts will follow. If they have assets, there's probably a negotiated resolution; they pay something. If they don't, then they're probably on medicaid, or should be.

Can someone explain the free rider concept to me? Aren't Medicaid recipients the REAL free riders? And doesn't this program increase the size of medicaid?

[Guerilla poster]

Does anyone here actually have any clue about how hospitals operate and deal with "free-riders"? I hate to waste my time on unknowledgable discussion. Anyone know any hospital managers?

All I know is hospital stocks surged.

[yoyo]

my alcoholic bil has been in and out of the intensive care unit any number of times. he has no assets, no job, on meidcare. i don't think he's ever paid anything.

[FormLetter]

Does anyone here actually have any clue about how hospitals operate and deal with "free-riders"? I hate to waste my time on unknowledgable discussion. Anyone know any hospital managers?

All I know is hospital stocks surged.

I can only give a general idea. The hospital will provide care, possibly attempt to negotiate a payment plan or some reduced accepted payment, and if it isn't collected, then it goes to a collections department or vendor for pursuit.

In general the hospital systems whose opinions of "consumerism" (high deductible plans) have been opposed to them because they dislike all the bad debt that results from the high deductible sitting in front of their hospital stay reimbursement. I never heard them quantify how much bad debt they actually experienced from high deductibles though.

[mathmajor]

I still don't understand why so many conservative types are dead-set against this law. It promotes personal responsibility and makes the insurance industry more competitive through exchanges and disclosure rules. In the 90's, when Republicans invented the Mandate in response to Hillarycare, it seemed to be okay. What's changed?

What's disturbing is this doom-and-gloom "government takeover" rhetoric. When Politifact names this line of thinking the 2010 Lie of the Year, and R's keep repeating it, something is very wrong.

The better attempt is the "broccoli argument" but it completely misses the point. Apples and Oranges. Broccoli and... Celery?

[mathmajor]

I should add - the ACA isn't a complete solution. I'd like to see malpractice reform and something done about primary care. But it's a start.

[JohnLocke]

I still don't understand why so many conservative types are dead-set against this law. It promotes personal responsibility and makes the insurance industry more competitive through exchanges and disclosure rules. In the 90's, when Republicans invented the Mandate in response to Hillarycare, it seemed to be okay. What's changed?

What's disturbing is this doom-and-gloom "government takeover" rhetoric. When Politifact names this line of thinking the 2010 Lie of the Year, and R's keep repeating it, something is very wrong.

The better attempt is the "broccoli argument" but it completely misses the point. Apples and Oranges. Broccoli and... Celery?

Taxing every fat person $1000/yr for each pound they are obese promotes personal responsibility too. Is that a good idea?

It's not really doom and gloom in my book, just slowly skating down the slippery slope.

[mathmajor]

Taxing every fat person $1000/yr for each pound they are obese promotes personal responsibility too. Is that a good idea?

It's not really doom and gloom in my book, just slowly skating down the slippery slope.

Proper weight is far too subjective for that solution to be practical. If that was your goal, I'd favor excess taxes on McDonald's. Little more direct. :)

I'm just looking for some rational, intellectual reasoning. The OP's childish nicknames for the President aren't helping.

[Eimon Gnome]

So what has changed? Why was this the conservative preference before, but not now?

[FormLetter]

Show me where someone deemed it to be both conservative and their preference. Otherwise it is just a strawman about R preference versus D preference, which is NOT the same thing as conservative preference versus liberal preference.

[yoyo]

Show me where someone deemed it to be both conservative and their preference. Otherwise it is just a strawman about R preference versus D preference, which is NOT the same thing as conservative preference versus liberal preference.+1

[Harry]

Show me where someone deemed it to be both conservative and their preference. Otherwise it is just a strawman about R preference versus D preference, which is NOT the same thing as conservative preference versus liberal preference.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/why-the-right-turned-its-back-on-the-individual-mandate.html


Nobody was saying that it was creeping socialism or unconstitutional at the time. A lot of conservatives were for it,” former GOP senator Bob Bennett told me yesterday, looking back to the 1993 fight against “Hillarycare.”

[BigBen]

The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation’s health-care expert, argued, “Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.” The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act—the Republicans’ alternative to President Clinton’s health-reform bill—which was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein

[FormLetter]

Before I get accused of it, I'll admit that my "Show me where..." request was rigged.

Because once you point them out, I now tell you "that was no conservative if they were advocating such a thing". Republican, yes. Conservative, no. And that means [fiscal] conservative.

[Eimon Gnome]

Before I get accused of it, I'll admit that my "Show me where..." request was rigged.

Because once you point them out, I now tell you "that was no conservative if they were advocating such a thing". Republican, yes. Conservative, no. And that means [fiscal] conservative.

So the change was...what it takes to be called a conservative. Sounds like a big move to the right, there.

I don't think it will be hard to show you that Ronnie Reagan felt pretty comfortable calling himself a Conservative at the time.

[Harry]

Before I get accused of it, I'll admit that my "Show me where..." request was rigged.

Because once you point them out, I now tell you "that was no conservative if they were advocating such a thing". Republican, yes. Conservative, no. And that means [fiscal] conservative.
The problem is that now, only Libertarians are considered conservative.

[FormLetter]

The problem is that now, only Libertarians are considered conservative.

:iatp:

(except I wouldn't call it a problem)

[FormLetter]

So the change was...what it takes to be called a conservative. Sounds like a big move to the right, there.

I don't think it will be hard to show you that Ronnie Reagan felt pretty comfortable calling himself a Conservative at the time.

I don't quite care if RR felt pretty comfortable calling himself a yeast infection. That wouldn't make him one.

[SirVLCIV]

The first thing I thought when I heard the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision regarding the individual mandate portion of the I-Really-See-No-Way-This-Will-Result-In Affordable Care Act was:

Great, so the fact that T. N. Obama's campaign promise of not raising taxes on anyone but the "rich" has now been certified by the US Supreme Court as a lie.


Later, I got to wondering: Since That Nitwit Obama says he doesn't want to tax the working class, and since the individual mandate portion of TNObamacare is a Supreme-Court-certified tax, will he say something like, "In order not to tax the non-rich, I hereby forgo implementing the individual mandate"?

(Just kidding in that last paragraph, folks. It's called Poke Fun at the President.)

I'd expect junior high schoolers to sound more intelligent than this post.

[Eimon Gnome]

I don't quite care if RR felt pretty comfortable calling himself a yeast infection. That wouldn't make him one.

I know. The weird part is the only fiscal conservative to occupy the WH in the past 50 years was Bill Clinton.

Oh, the irony!

[Heywood J]

And none were true Scotsmen.

[BigBen]

And none were true Scotsmen.

This

[FormLetter]

I know. The weird part is the only fiscal conservative to occupy the WH in the past 50 years was Bill Clinton.

Oh, the irony!

What is ironic?

[Harry]

I'd expect junior high schoolers to sound more intelligent than this post.
Tsk tsk, don't be so mean spirited.

[Eimon Gnome]

What is ironic?

That the fiscal conservative/libertarians would try and work with the Repubs, when their more natural partners were the Centrist Dems.

I think its amusing.

[mathmajor]

I'm just not a fan of today's Republican party. I like the idea of balance and different points of view. But simply denying everything is not helpful. It reminds me of the argument clinic on Monty Python. I came here looking for an argument. This is mere contradiction.

I never thought I'd see a day where advocating the market over single-payer is still considered super liberal.

[yoyo]

I'm just looking for some rational, intellectual reasoning. The OP's childish nicknames for the President aren't helping.ah, i see this is your first foray into internet political posting. you will not find what you seek here.

[yoyo]

I like the idea of balance and different points of view.i'm not sure i believe this

[ShebaPoe]

What's changed since 1993?

12 trillion more in debt? Nationalization of Fannie and freddie (so make it 17 trillion more in debt)? A protracted recession with a 1983-sized labor force and 8-percent plus structural employment? Two wars, which are the first and second longest wars in our nation's history? The rise of the BRICs as an economic powerhouse? The impending euro-doom?

Other than that, nothing, right?

[Loner]

So what has changed? Why was this the conservative preference before, but not now?

The letter after the name of the person supporting it, mostly.

[Eimon Gnome]

What's changed since 1993?

12 trillion more in debt? Nationalization of Fannie and freddie (so make it 17 trillion more in debt)? A protracted recession with a 1983-sized labor force and 8-percent plus structural employment? Two wars, which are the first and second longest wars in our nation's history? The rise of the BRICs as an economic powerhouse? The impending euro-doom?

Other than that, nothing, right?

So whats any of that got to do with it.

You left out Derek Jeter resigning with the Yankees, Spain wins the EuroCup, and the death of Steve Jobs.

[Mr. B]

The problem is that now, only Libertarians are considered conservative.I'm a radical libertarian, and I'd belt anyone who called me a "conservative".

[Mr. B]

I still don't understand why so many conservative types are dead-set against this law.Do you have the same problem with libertarians like me? It promotes personal responsibility and makes the insurance industry more competitive through exchanges and disclosure rules.I worked in the health industry. It was pretty damned competitive then. I doubt it's any less so now.In the 90's, when Republicans invented the Mandate in response to Hillarycare, it seemed to be okay. What's changed?I remember lots of folks in the insurance industry who were proposing their own rules/regulations as alternatives to the Democratic government takeover plan back then, including my boss. In fact, industry trade groups were doing the same. I expressed my displeasure to them all at the time.

[Mr. B]

The OP's childish nicknames for the President aren't helping.I'm sorry that such a silly little thing like that prevents you from coping. Maybe taking some classes, or reading some books might help you overcome your problem.

By the way, here are some tips:

If you read comments you disagree with, then respond to them, explaining your reasons for disagreement. If the comments you're responding to have silly little locutions that you don't like, then pointing out the poster's errors might be even more satisfying to you.

If you read comments containing silly little locutions, and because of them, you get hysterical and find that you've lost your ability to psychologically cope and to reason, then maybe you're not quite ready for the big leagues yet.

[E. Blackadder]

What's changed since 1993?

12 trillion more in debt? Nationalization of Fannie and freddie (so make it 17 trillion more in debt)? A protracted recession with a 1983-sized labor force and 8-percent plus structural employment? Two wars, which are the first and second longest wars in our nation's history? The rise of the BRICs as an economic powerhouse? The impending euro-doom?

Other than that, nothing, right?

No. Unfunded liabilities are now in the twelve-figure range. What can't continue, won't, as Glenn Reynolds has often stated. Of course he hasn't been proven right, yet...

[ShebaPoe]

So whats any of that got to do with it.

You left out Derek Jeter resigning with the Yankees, Spain wins the EuroCup, and the death of Steve Jobs.

Everything I noted pertains to the nation's "financial situation".

It's 1935 again.

[Rockhound]

hospital stay reimbursement. I never heard them quantify how much bad debt they actually experienced from high deductibles though.


Hospitals only collect about 50% of cost-sharing amounts. So even the insured are "free-riders".

[Harry]

ah, i see this is your first foray into internet political posting. you will not find what you seek here.
lol

[FormLetter]

I'm a radical libertarian, and I'd belt anyone who called me a "conservative".

What if they said [fiscal] conservative?

Because isn't a libertarian basically a [fiscal] conservative and a [social] liberal?

And I don't mean "conservative" like the R's that voted for Part D. I mean conservative.

[mathmajor]

I'm sorry that such a silly little thing like that prevents you from coping. Maybe taking some classes, or reading some books might help you overcome your problem.

By the way, here are some tips:

If you read comments you disagree with, then respond to them, explaining your reasons for disagreement. If the comments you're responding to have silly little locutions that you don't like, then pointing out the poster's errors might be even more satisfying to you.

If you read comments containing silly little locutions, and because of them, you get hysterical and find that you've lost your ability to psychologically cope and to reason, then maybe you're not quite ready for the big leagues yet.

Hysteria? Lost ability to cope and reason? What are you rambling about...?

[independent]

What if they said [fiscal] conservative?

Because isn't a libertarian basically a [fiscal] conservative and a [social] liberal?

And I don't mean "conservative" like the R's that voted for Part D. I mean conservative.
I'd define "fiscal conservative" as someone who wants a balanced budget.

That person may also think the gov't should spend more than most other countries, or he/she might also think the gov't should spend less than other countries, or he/she might have no particular thoughts on the general level of spending. The defining characteristic is "Whatever the general level of taxing and spending, the two should be equal."

Some people want a smaller government first, and then a balanced budget. I'd call them "small government" proponents.

[notreallyme]

I'd define "fiscal conservative" as someone who wants a balanced budget.

That person may also think the gov't should spend more than most other countries, or he/she might also think the gov't should spend less than other countries, or he/she might have no particular thoughts on the general level of spending. The defining characteristic is "Whatever the general level of taxing and spending, the two should be equal."


You'd be one of the few that uses your made up version of "fiscal conservative".

[independent]

You'd be one of the few that uses your made up version of "fiscal conservative".

I suppose the only way to know is to take a survey of the general public.

So you would define fiscal conservative as .... ?
And someone who wants to balance spending and taxes would be called ...?

[FormLetter]

Fiscal conservative: person who prefers less government involvement in economic issues

Social liberal: person who prefers less government involvement in social issues

I see that indepenendent is leaning more heavily on the term 'fiscal'.

[FormLetter]

So you'd consider someone that wants the government to tax every dollar of income there is and similarly spend those dollars, and not a penny more, as a fiscal conservative?

[independent]

So you'd consider someone that wants the government to tax every dollar of income there is and similarly spend those dollars, and not a penny more, as a fiscal conservative?
I'd define that person as an extreme version of "big government". So extreme that I can't imagine any modern gov't making that work.

But, such a government would still be living within a balanced budget amendment.

At those extremes, I think the definitions break down. It's like putting a number on the slope of a vertical line.

But, as you've probably guessed, I prioritize a balanced budget over any (likely) size of the federal gov't. I voted for RP because he's the only R that I think would really take the political heat that comes from balancing the budget solely on spending cuts.

But if I saw a D who I thought would really balance the budget with tax increases, I'd vote for him, too.

Either of them is better than an R who knows exactly which taxes he'd cut but gets really vague about spending cuts.
Or a D who's very explicit about not cutting any spending ever, but has only trivial tax increases to pay for them.

So I'm not a "fiscal conservative", because that label only goes to people like Romney? or ??

Is there a generic name for people like me, other than "dreamers"?
Or are we so rare that nobody has coined a phrase?

[SirVLCIV]

I'm sorry that such a silly little thing like that prevents you from coping. Maybe taking some classes, or reading some books might help you overcome your problem.

By the way, here are some tips:

If you read comments you disagree with, then respond to them, explaining your reasons for disagreement. If the comments you're responding to have silly little locutions that you don't like, then pointing out the poster's errors might be even more satisfying to you.

If you read comments containing silly little locutions, and because of them, you get hysterical and find that you've lost your ability to psychologically cope and to reason, then maybe you're not quite ready for the big leagues yet.

Your consistent name-calling (such as exhibited in the OP) is ridiculous and childish.

[notreallyme]

I'd define that person as an extreme version of "big government". So extreme that I can't imagine any modern gov't making that work.

But, such a government would still be living within a balanced budget amendment.

At those extremes, I think the definitions break down. It's like putting a number on the slope of a vertical line.

But, as you've probably guessed, I prioritize a balanced budget over any (likely) size of the federal gov't. I voted for RP because he's the only R that I think would really take the political heat that comes from balancing the budget solely on spending cuts.

But if I saw a D who I thought would really balance the budget with tax increases, I'd vote for him, too.

Either of them is better than an R who knows exactly which taxes he'd cut but gets really vague about spending cuts.
Or a D who's very explicit about not cutting any spending ever, but has only trivial tax increases to pay for them.

So I'm not a "fiscal conservative", because that label only goes to people like Romney? or ??

Is there a generic name for people like me, other than "dreamers"?
Or are we so rare that nobody has coined a phrase?

You are people who believe in a balanced budget.

Romney :lol: I guess we will see, but I would not consider any recent POTUS's to be fiscally conservative.

[SirVLCIV]

Fiscal conservative: person who prefers less government involvement in economic issues

Social liberal: person who prefers less government involvement in social issues

:iatp:

Unfortunately, too many (not saying -all-, just too many) 'tea partiers' and other purported 'libertarians' are weak on the social issues.

If you want the gov't to butt out, that means on all things, not just the things YOU think are important.

[SirVLCIV]

You are people who believe in a balanced budget.

Romney :lol: I guess we will see, but I would not consider any recent POTUS's to be fiscally conservative.

Romney won't be a fiscal conservative. I had hopes in his 2008 nomination campaign, but he lost me then.

[notreallyme]

:iatp:

Unfortunately, too many (not saying -all-, just too many) 'tea partiers' and other purported 'libertarians' are weak on the social issues.

If you want the gov't to butt out, that means on all things, not just the things YOU think are important.

I do not consider 'tea-partiers' to be fiscally conservative. I don't know what I consider them except wanna-be libertarians (in areas it's convenient for them).

[Guerilla poster]

:iatp:

Unfortunately, too many (not saying -all-, just too many) 'tea partiers' and other purported 'libertarians' are weak on the social issues.

If you want the gov't to butt out, that means on all things, not just the things YOU think are important.


This is true, tea-party movement has been take over by Michelle Bachman religious purity police types.

[ShebaPoe]

Please try to understand this:

balancing the budget would render the current financial system inoperative in less than a day.

Carry on.

[FormLetter]

Please try to understand this:

balancing the budget would render the current financial system inoperative in less than a day.

Carry on.

You know independent isn't going to let you post that without more explanation. May as well get a headstart.

[FormLetter]

I'd define that person as an extreme version of "big government". So extreme that I can't imagine any modern gov't making that work.

But, such a government would still be living within a balanced budget amendment.

At those extremes, I think the definitions break down. It's like putting a number on the slope of a vertical line.

But, as you've probably guessed, I prioritize a balanced budget over any (likely) size of the federal gov't. I voted for RP because he's the only R that I think would really take the political heat that comes from balancing the budget solely on spending cuts.

But if I saw a D who I thought would really balance the budget with tax increases, I'd vote for him, too.

Either of them is better than an R who knows exactly which taxes he'd cut but gets really vague about spending cuts.
Or a D who's very explicit about not cutting any spending ever, but has only trivial tax increases to pay for them.

So I'm not a "fiscal conservative", because that label only goes to people like Romney? or ??

Is there a generic name for people like me, other than "dreamers"?
Or are we so rare that nobody has coined a phrase?

Why do you have such a hard-on for a balanced budget?

Meaning - why do you value a balanced budget more than you value any particular size of the budget?

[Guerilla poster]

You know independent isn't going to let you post that without more explanation. May as well get a headstart.


I need more explaination also.....there is still mountains of debt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

I'd define that person as an extreme version of "big government". So extreme that I can't imagine any modern gov't making that work.

But, such a government would still be living within a balanced budget amendment.

At those extremes, I think the definitions break down. It's like putting a number on the slope of a vertical line.

But, as you've probably guessed, I prioritize a balanced budget over any (likely) size of the federal gov't. I voted for RP because he's the only R that I think would really take the political heat that comes from balancing the budget solely on spending cuts.

But if I saw a D who I thought would really balance the budget with tax increases, I'd vote for him, too.

Either of them is better than an R who knows exactly which taxes he'd cut but gets really vague about spending cuts.
Or a D who's very explicit about not cutting any spending ever, but has only trivial tax increases to pay for them.

So I'm not a "fiscal conservative", because that label only goes to people like Romney? or ??

Is there a generic name for people like me, other than "dreamers"?
Or are we so rare that nobody has coined a phrase?

Don't feel too bad. I don't fit any convenient labels either.
My problem with the PPACA is it either went too far or not far enough. Either go all the way to a one payer system with real cost controls or allow more competition between insurance companies and let people face the consequences of not having insurance. (Yes, I mean allow hospitals to say no.) The current system will face the same problems as SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid. It will run a deficit, when we already have unsustainable deficit levels.
IMO
Most libertarians take the idea of getting the government out of the way too far.
Most conservatives lack the strength of character to to fix the real economic problems and have too many social law hang-ups. (Yes I mean abortion among others.)
Most liberals have blinders on when it comes to govenment spending and push 'the Nanny state' way too much.

Good governing is a constant balancing act and the current level of partisan cr*p won't let that happen. The balance must include strong national defense, promotion of an economic situation that allows for personal success or failure based on merit, with protections in place to balance out the tendency of power/wealth to accumulate in too few hands which then become abusive and protectionist.

I tend to vote Republican because they cause the least structural damage to the economy.

[independent]

Why do you have such a hard-on for a balanced budget?

Meaning - why do you value a balanced budget more than you value any particular size of the budget?

Maybe you mean we don't need a perfectly balanced budget (using the current scorekeeping) as long as we have enough nominal growth in the economy to keep the debt constant or decreasing. If so, I can kind of go with that.

But, any deficits that seem likely with the pols we've got look like they will generate an exponentially growing debt, and that's not sustainable. I can't think of any marginal spending program or tax decrease that's more valuable to me than bending that curve down (Recognizing that we're still in the Lesser Depression and we've got to be smart about how fast we move. Some of our current deficit is just depression effects.)

At the basic level, I think we need the concept that if you want government, you should expect to pay for it. That's a mindset that takes time to learn and to unlearn. We've had so much Laffer curve nonsense and "somebody else will pay", that I think lots of voters really think the gov't has a magic wand. That's a long term problem even if we occasionally get a year with no deficit.

[FormLetter]

Government gets paid for. Just because it isn't done directly with tax dollars doesn't mean it isn't paid for.

[ShebaPoe]

You know independent isn't going to let you post that without more explanation. May as well get a headstart.

Ok.

The banking system runs on treasury debt. Retiring it (if the economy produced sufficient wealth, a big if) would constrain credit, leading to massive deflation. Banks would fail, businesses would collapse, asset prices would plunge, interbank lending would cease, in short: the monetary system would stop functioning.

We will have a "reset" before we have large scale retirement of treasury debt.

[E. Blackadder]

Ok.

The banking system runs on treasury debt. Retiring it (if the economy produced sufficient wealth, a big if) would constrain credit, leading to massive deflation. Banks would fail, businesses would collapse, asset prices would plunge, interbank lending would cease, cats and dogs sleeping together, in short: the monetary system would stop functioning.

We will have a "reset" before we have large scale retirement of treasury debt.

The economy ran like a bat out of hell - sometimes - when there was virtually no treasury debt by current standards. It can do so again.

[Guerilla poster]

Ok.

The banking system runs on treasury debt. Retiring it (if the economy produced sufficient wealth, a big if) would constrain credit, leading to massive deflation. Banks would fail, businesses would collapse, asset prices would plunge, interbank lending would cease, in short: the monetary system would stop functioning.

We will have a "reset" before we have large scale retirement of treasury debt.


Deficits matter then

[Heywood J]

The economy ran like a bat out of hell - sometimes - when there was virtually no treasury debt by current standards. It can do so again.
Define "virtually no treasury debt".

[independent]

Government gets paid for. Just because it isn't done directly with tax dollars doesn't mean it isn't paid for.

Yes, I know. I don't like the other options. I think if most people understood them, they wouldn't either.

[ubernerd]

Ok.

The banking system runs on treasury debt. Retiring it (if the economy produced sufficient wealth, a big if) would constrain credit, leading to massive deflation. Banks would fail, businesses would collapse, asset prices would plunge, interbank lending would cease, in short: the monetary system would stop functioning.

We will have a "reset" before we have large scale retirement of treasury debt.

Sorry to interrupt.

Sounds like you are talking about balancing past budgets. The current year budget could be balanced by creating lots of new money. This is why some people think a balanced budget amendment is useless until there is a sound banking system.

[ShebaPoe]

The economy ran like a bat out of hell - sometimes - when there was virtually no treasury debt by current standards. It can do so again.

Sure, if the private sector is willing to borrow like it did during those times when the economy ran "like a bat out of hell". With interest rates at record lows...it still ain't happening. And I see no reason for the private sector to borrow aggressively again in the next 36 months. You?

Remember "housing never goes down?" When people said this, they were implying something else, which most "analysts" and almost all Americans, simply don't know. Because housing, in aggregate, never went down, or at least never went and stayed down, mortgages were almost riskless assets for banks. Sure, John Q might lose his job and miss some payments, but he can probably sell the house and pay off the mortgage before he moves in with his sister, and if he can't, the 5 years of payments plus "chronological appreciation" will probably cover the outstanding balance. So while mortgage borrowers were certainly more likely to default than the USG is, being able to sell the underlying above face value of the mortgage eliminated most risks.

So there was a second pool of near riskless, asset-backed capital to fund the banking system. That is gone and will probably never return, in quantity or in risk profile.

That is the reason the government (a) nationalized F&F and (b) really stepped up their borrowing post housing collapse.

[ShebaPoe]

Sorry to interrupt.

Sounds like you are talking about balancing past budgets. The current year budget could be balanced by creating lots of new money. This is why some people think a balanced budget amendment is useless until there is a sound banking system.

This requires massive Treasury debt. (Private sector debt would do it, but that's not under the direct control of government policy).

[ubernerd]

Sounds reasonable.

[independent]

Ok.

The banking system runs on treasury debt. Retiring it (if the economy produced sufficient wealth, a big if) would constrain credit, leading to massive deflation. Banks would fail, businesses would collapse, asset prices would plunge, interbank lending would cease, in short: the monetary system would stop functioning.

We will have a "reset" before we have large scale retirement of treasury debt.

Simply balancing the budget doesn't retire any nominal debt. It just pays the interest that's due and rolls the maturities over.

Between 1946 and 1974, federal debt almost doubled in nominal terms (while the CPI was more than doubling). It dropped from 121% of GDP to 34%. The banking system seemed to function. That would be good enough for me.

[ShebaPoe]

Simply balancing the budget doesn't retire any nominal debt. It just pays the interest that's due and rolls the maturities over.

Between 1946 and 1974, federal debt almost doubled in nominal terms (while the CPI was more than doubling). It dropped from 121% of GDP to 34%. The banking system seemed to function. That would be good enough for me.

I'm sure it would be.

The years preceding this happy time were the period where, in all of human history more people were killed and more real assets destroyed than at any other time. Ever.

How do you feel about having to go through that to get what you want?

[independent]

I'm sure it would be.

The years preceding this happy time were the period where, in all of human history more people were killed and more real assets destroyed than at any other time. Ever.

How do you feel about having to go through that to get what you want?

I don't think WWII created the economic boom. But that's a tangent.

I thought the issue here was having a functioning banking system.
You said there would be a problem with "retiring [the debt]". I'll agree that if we cut it fast enough we'd have problems. Almost any big, sudden change can cause problems for our economy.

But, that's not what I'm suggesting. Balancing the budget <>retiring the debt.

[ShebaPoe]

You don't think WW2 created the boom from 1946 to 1974?

Ok.

Good luck advancing your other "ideas"

[E. Blackadder]

You don't think WW2 created the boom from 1946 to 1974? Ok. Good luck advancing your other "ideas"
Spending effort to build bombs, then dropping them on other people and infrastructure is not a wealth-building activity. At the end, one has neither people, infrastructure, or even bombs. Even the winning side -- while it still has people and infrastructure -- has no bombs and less money.

This is a worse idea than even digging holes and filling them up to promote economic activity.

Are you making the point that concluding hostilities is what causes a boom? Was there a boom following world war one?

Perhaps your point is that world war two greatly expanded the US workforce, and that permitted a US growth boom.

It's going to take something completely different to re-expand the US workforce.

[FormLetter]

Bomb everyone else then build everything here.

[independent]

You don't think WW2 created the boom from 1946 to 1974?

Ok.

Good luck advancing your other "ideas"
We could debate WWII endlessly, that looks like a red herring to me.

I noticed that you ignored the part of the post that was relevant to your original claim.

[ubernerd]

I don't think WWII created the economic boom.

Balancing the budget <>retiring the debt.

We agree. Twice. Gosh!

[ShebaPoe]

Was there a boom following world war one?

Roaring twenties mean anything to you?

I surrender. Carry on with ideas like "we can have a boom equal to that caused by post WW2 policies, but without the war.

Do any of you recall that the global monetary system became US-centric then? Is it possible that being the only victorious country that didn't fight the war on its home territory maybe helped? Does maybe it cross your minds that the broken window fallacy isn't a fallacy when you can hire people to break someone else's windows and sell them new windows at their expense built by your people?

Maybe I should find a new forum and most of you should stick to excel docs.

[Baron Von Raschke]

Wasn't there a massive contraction in GDP in 1920-21? My spreadsheet says there was.

[E. Blackadder]

[Does maybe it cross your minds that the broken window fallacy isn't a fallacy when you can hire people to break someone else's windows and sell them new windows at their expense built by your people?
:notworth: Why not cut out the middleman? :roll:

[SamCook]

Was there a boom following world war one?

Roaring twenties mean anything to you?

I surrender. Carry on with ideas like "we can have a boom equal to that caused by post WW2 policies, but without the war.

Do any of you recall that the global monetary system became US-centric then? Is it possible that being the only victorious country that didn't fight the war on its home territory maybe helped? Does maybe it cross your minds that the broken window fallacy isn't a fallacy when you can hire people to break someone else's windows and sell them new windows at their expense built by your people?

Maybe I should find a new forum and most of you should stick to excel docs.

Neither the roaring twenties or the boom period following ww2 had anything to do with war.

There is no evidence for this. There is a great deal of evidence regarding worker productivity and productivity growth simply due to an increase in population.

War has a negative impact on GDP or any other metric. To say otherwise is ... Poop!

[erosewater]

Please continue this exchange. A SamCook vs Sheba debate would be highly entertaining. I wonder if SamCook will ask any of his elderly relatives for their perspective

[SamCook]

Please continue this exchange. A SamCook vs Sheba debate would be highly entertaining. I wonder if SamCook will ask any of his elderly relatives for their perspective

Let's just get to the point...

Sheba was in the military and is bitter.

I'm not a psychologist but that is the inclining if intuition tells me.

Debate over!

[Dismal Science]

Wasn't growth in worker productivity partially attributable to new technology and inventions that only came about because of massive government investment in R&D to win the war?

Examples off the top of my head: radar, jet engines, synthetic rubber, jerrycans, nuclear power

Not to mention that it is easy to be more productive when the same amount of work has to get done with fewer people left alive to do it. And there was even more work to do because the entire European continent had to be rebuilt.

I'm with Sheba on this one.

[Mr. B]

Hysteria? Lost ability to cope and reason? What are you rambling about...?As I quoted:

The OP's childish nicknames for the President aren't helping.That comment indicates that my choice of words bothers you for some reason. As I said, silly little locutions don't bother me. If I disagree with a poster's arguments, I show where they're wrong. How his comments were framed would have no effect on me.

[SirVLCIV]

As I quoted:

That comment indicates that they bother you for some reason. As I said, silly little locutions don't bother me. If I disagree with a poster's arguments, I show where they're wrong. How his comments were framed would have no effect on me.

No rational individual is going to give your posts half a thought as long as you couch your opinions in childish language.

The only individuals who are going to read your posts already agree with you 100%.

[Mr. B]

What if they said [fiscal] conservative?

Because isn't a libertarian basically a [fiscal] conservative and a [social] liberal?

And I don't mean "conservative" like the R's that voted for Part D. I mean conservative.Because fiscal and social aren't the only dimensions. There's foreign policy, for example, which is a vary important dimension—and one on which conservatives and libertarians often have disagreements.

Additionally, libertarians tend to be quite anti-authoritarian. Not really the case with conservatives, most of whom love the military and police forces unquestioningly. And conservatives tend to rely on tradition, and, in the name of stability, they generally prefer acceding to tradition rather than questioning it and risk changing.

There may be other distinctions, but I think those are most of the major ones.

You might want to look at Freddy Hayek's "Why I Am Not a Conservative":

http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

[Andy The Clown]

Wasn't growth in worker productivity partially attributable to new technology and inventions that only came about because of massive government investment in R&D to win the war?

Examples off the top of my head: radar, jet engines, synthetic rubber, jerrycans, nuclear power

Not to mention that it is easy to be more productive when the same amount of work has to get done with fewer people left alive to do it. And there was even more work to do because the entire European continent had to be rebuilt.

I'm with Sheba on this one.

I have never heard of a jerrycan. I looked it up, it really does not fit with your other examples.

I don't think the items you listed were developed solely by the government and solely due to the war. Perhaps the use of the items on your list was sped up due to the war.

Also, we can pretty much thank the Germans for everything on your list.

[independent]

Wasn't growth in worker productivity partially attributable to new technology and inventions that only came about because of massive government investment in R&D to win the war?

Examples off the top of my head: radar, jet engines, synthetic rubber, jerrycans, nuclear power

Not to mention that it is easy to be more productive when the same amount of work has to get done with fewer people left alive to do it. And there was even more work to do because the entire European continent had to be rebuilt.

I'm with Sheba on this one.

I expect that if the federal gov't had taken some of the money it spent on bombs and directed it at additional R&D instead, we would have had even greater benefits from our spending.

And we could have spent some of the money that went to ships on getting a head start on the interstate road system. And money that went to tanks and planes could have subsidized durable goods like refrigerators and cars.

That is, we got some benefits from our war expenses, but not anywhere close the to benefits we would have gained if we had spent the money on traditional peacetime activities.

[Wigmeister General]

I expect that if the federal gov't had taken some of the money it spent on bombs and directed it at additional R&D instead, we would have had even greater benefits from our spending.

And we could have spent some of the money that went to ships on getting a head start on the interstate road system. And money that went to tanks and planes could have subsidized durable goods like refrigerators and cars.

That is, we got some benefits from our war expenses, but not anywhere close the to benefits we would have gained if we had spent the money on traditional peacetime activities.

Except, possibly, that the "missiles of October" might have decimated us 50 years ago.

[SamCook]

I expect that if the federal gov't had taken some of the money it spent on bombs and directed it at additional R&D instead, we would have had even greater benefits from our spending.

And we could have spent some of the money that went to ships on getting a head start on the interstate road system. And money that went to tanks and planes could have subsidized durable goods like refrigerators and cars.

That is, we got some benefits from our war expenses, but not anywhere close the to benefits we would have gained if we had spent the money on traditional peacetime activities.

I don't agree with this statement only because "we" refers to govt and govt spending. Progressives believe in massive spending just not in the military. If the govt spent money subsidizing refrigerators or any other goods it would be waste.

Here's what to do take all the money wasted on govt programs and use it to cut taxes. I want more apples microsofts and googles. Not govt subsidies on refrigerators.

[independent]

Except, possibly, that the "missiles of October" might have decimated us 50 years ago.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have fought WWII. Given the circumstances, I'll buy the conventional wisdom that it was the right thing to do to protect ourselves (and the rest of the world) from Hitler.

I'm saying that if there had never been a Hitler, but if the Great Depression had still happened, the gov't could have done more economic good with less money by spending it on things other than bombs, planes, etc. We would have had a greater increase in real incomes.

(The same goes for the Soviets. We probably needed to fight the cold war. But, if the gov't of Russia had been good neighbors, the gov't could have done more good with the money elsewhere.)

[independent]

I don't agree with this statement only because "we" refers to govt and govt spending. Progressives believe in massive spending just not in the military. If the govt spent money subsidizing refrigerators or any other goods it would be waste.

Here's what to do take all the money wasted on govt programs and use it to cut taxes. I want more apples microsofts and googles. Not govt subsidies on refrigerators.

The context I was thinking about was the US in 1940. In those days, refrigerators were the new technology. They were the smart phones of the day.

I was interested in the question: If there had never been a Hitler, would the US have had a steep rise in living standards in the 1950's and 1960's? Or, did it that increase require war driven R&D?

I'm thinking that an active gov't, dealing with the Depression, could have generated more long term economic growth in an alternate peaceful world than it actually did by fighting a war.

Maybe a big tax cut in 1940 would have also had more long term economic benefits than a war. I'm guessing the ordering would be
(peace and active gov't spending) > (peace and tax cuts) > (war and gov't spending),
but I'm not sure where to put the middle term.

[Wigmeister General]

(The same goes for the Soviets. We probably needed to fight the cold war. But, if the gov't of Russia had been good neighbors, the gov't could have done more good with the money elsewhere.)

And this is exactly the point. The conservative paradigm is that all government is evil and dangerous, especially our own. It needs to be super strong against wicked outsiders and super weak against its own citizens.

[independent]

And this is exactly the point. The conservative paradigm is that all government is evil and dangerous, especially our own. It needs to be super strong against wicked outsiders and super weak against its own citizens.

I wasn't intending to comment pro or con on that concept.

I was talking about the notion that the economic growth after WWII was caused by WWII.

[FormLetter]

more than one cause