Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by Charlyc

Actually, there is a huge difference between Reaganomics, or supply-side, and government cutting spending & waste.

Point is that the Tax revenue increase under Reagan was never enough, never enough actual real money, to compensate for the tax cuts. That's the central problem with supply side economics. Its currently a discredited macroeconomic theory because of that problem. It could only have worked if it was accompanied by major cuts in government spending, something Reagan didn't do. But there are many places online to explain this since I can't convince you.

Discredited by? Debated about perhaps. Did you live in America during the Reagan years? Never enough real money????? To compensate for tax cuts????? Your kidding right? You are correct in your assertion that it works in conjunction with a reduction in government spending and I wasn't defending Reagan, though I would take his economy over any since.

[anatess]

One problem with public option is it stifles competition. If you're going to introduce a public option, might as well make the entire healthcare system public. You can't have a mish-mash of the two unless you make public option work like welfare - only those who are eligible for welfare are eligible for public healthcare option.

Why do I say that public option stifles competition? That's because the government is not a business that requires it to be profitable. The government can provide as much as they want because they can operate on a loss year after year after year. On the other hand, private companies can only go a few years without profits, otherwise, they'll have to close the doors or get a government bail-out which would then turn them into public options. Heard of this company called GM?

So, a private company can never compete against the government.

[unixknight]

Originally Posted by anatess

One problem with public option is it stifles competition. If you're going to introduce a public option, might as well make the entire healthcare system public. You can't have a mish-mash of the two unless you make public option work like welfare - only those who are eligible for welfare are eligible for public healthcare option.

Why do I say that public option stifles competition? That's because the government is not a business that requires it to be profitable. The government can provide as much as they want because they can operate on a loss year after year after year. On the other hand, private companies can only go a few years without profits, otherwise, they'll have to close the doors or get a government bail-out which would then turn them into public options. Heard of this company called GM?

So, a private company can never compete against the government.

That, and quite frankly the idea of Government competing with private industry in the first place is a disgrace. Government is supposed to support and defend the private sector.

[Charlyc]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

I wasn't defending Reagan, though I would take his economy over any since.

He converted you into the worlds largest debtor -that's largest ever in history. You can't see that?

What you are missing here is the basic arithmetic that makes supply-side voodoo.

It goes something like this: a person gets a $100 tax cut, they spend it all (hence economic expansion) and the government gets about $30 back in new taxes from that $100 spent. The tax shortfall was made up of debt ie the $70. So for it too work Reagan would've needed to cut spending for that missing $70. Simple enough this explanation???

Problem though was that Reagan took out debt to cover that (theoretical here) $70 plus added more debt to actually expand the government, ie a 80's stimulus plan! So then he sold you economic expansion based on both tax cuts AND stimulus money. The man did have the gift of the gab AND he sold you a lemon since you still have to pay back his debt one day (plus both Bush I & II and now Obama's debt!). Really the only GOP man you ought to be remembering today is Gingrich who actually lead a deficit reduction.

Just in case: No I didn't live in US during Reagan years plus I'm too young anyway. Also there's a ton of textbooks and articles to explain why supply side is discredited -supply side as Reagan practiced- so you are free to go and study this anywhere. My comment to you is that A) GOP has never done much good and Reagan sold you a lemon.

[bytor2112]

Just in case: No I didn't live in US during Reagan years plus I'm too young anyway. Also there's a ton of textbooks and articles to explain why supply side is discredited -supply side as Reagan practiced- so you are free to go and study this anywhere. My comment to you is that A) GOP has never done much good and Reagan sold you a lemon.

Your view and understanding of history and economics is skewed.

Supply side hasn't been discredited...debated perhaps, but not discredited. Reagan was a great President and the economy soared under his leadership....spending was huge as well, BUT, we were involved in defeating an evil empire and ending the cold war.

Why you continue to explain supply side to me is a bit irritating. I own two businesses and understand economics very well. The problem that you state is correct and incorrect. The government, as I stated must cooperate by reducing spending....which rarely ever occurs. Secondly, your comments oversimplifies. The increase in revenues that occur has to do with job creation. Lowering taxes from 70% to 28% ( I believe) on the top marginal tax rate caused higher consumer spending and created more jobs.

The broader point is the government wastes money...Democrat and Republican. Reducing taxes ALWAYS benefits the economy and ALWAYS benefits the tax payer. The government doesn't create jobs....they stifle economic growth. More taxes just means more deficit spending....more waste and less prosperity. Raising taxes does not and cannot create jobs and stimulate the economy. If you want to talk about voodoo economics.......let's chat about what Obama is doing.

[Charlyc]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

Supply side hasn't been discredited...debated perhaps, but not discredited. Reagan was a great President and the economy soared under his leadership....spending was huge as well, BUT, we were involved in defeating an evil empire and ending the cold war..

Hmmmm....I'd say that's another myth the GOP thrives on. And Pt McKay and Benson would agree. Benson actually quoted McKay in general conference prophesying that THE PEOPLE of Russia would bring down communism, and so it happened. Had both Gorbachev and the russian people not changed you'd still be shadowing soviet subs in the Atlantic. (you'd probably have to go to Crowther's 'Prophecy, Key to the Future' because lds.org doesn't seem to go back that far; if you don't have it then I can wright it out here).

Now this is part of what I can't understand about US saints. They seem to be so involved with the right and so pro-GOP that they will completely forget or ignore a McKay prophesy concerning Communism and credit its downfall to Reagan.

the economy soared under his leadership

Sure when you grant tax cuts, add debt to replace those cuts, and then add more debt to grow government, off course the economy will grow, but who pays that debt? And Obama? well, he's in lala land with his deficit projections.

About that simple explanation, it was as simple as it could possibly be. But you see the expansion that results from tax cuts, but not the debt nor the flaw in its fundamental premise. So we need to agree to disagree cause we aren't getting anywhere with this debate and I don't want to irritate you anymore than was necessary

[bytor2112]

Sure when you grant tax cuts, add debt to replace those cuts, and then add more debt to grow government, off course the economy will grow, but who pays that debt? And Obama? well, he's in lala land with his deficit projections.

About that simple explanation, it was as simple as it could possibly be. But you see the expansion that results from tax cuts, but not the debt nor the flaw in its fundamental premise. So we need to agree to disagree cause we aren't getting anywhere with this debate and I don't want to irritate you anymore than was necessary

The flaw...the debt .....is from fiscally irresponsible politicians. I do see that...as I stated twice.....that the government must do their part. If you want to say that that supply side is iffy at best because of the unwillingness of politicians to reduce wasteful spending, then I concur. The best laid plans of mice and men.........

[bytebear]

The goal of the government should be to encourage as much competition as possible. Any legislation that regulates business should be about allowing other companies to compete. It should not be about moving from a private monopoly to a public one. All these issues of unfair business practices will iron themselves out naturally once competition exists. Routine medical care should be as common and routine as cell phone plans. Even the poorest of the poor can afford a cell phone.

If you are too old to remember Reagan then you are too old to remember Ma Bell. That was when the government ran the telephone service. We all had a big black phone that ran directly into the wall. No voice mail, no answering machines, caller ID, no call waiting, no three way calling. Just a big black box that rang and if you weren't home you didn't get the call, and if they were on the line, all you got was a busy signal. Yep, those were the good old days of government regulated monopolies.

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

Discredited by? Debated about perhaps. Did you live in America during the Reagan years? Never enough real money????? To compensate for tax cuts????? Your kidding right? You are correct in your assertion that it works in conjunction with a reduction in government spending and I wasn't defending Reagan, though I would take his economy over any since.

Plus, in Reagan's defense, the time that he was living in was very different. The economic collapse of the US manufacturing base in the 70s was reversed by the cold war expenditures. Sure, the national debt tripled in that time, but people no longer had to live in fear of nuclear holocaust.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm frankly grateful that Reagan was around at the time. Duck and cover is not something I would have wanted to grow up learning.

Although I'd have to point out that during Clinton's time, the economy was booming again. You might think it had nothing to do with him, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Charlyc

He converted you into the worlds largest debtor -that's largest ever in history. You can't see that?

What you are missing here is the basic arithmetic that makes supply-side voodoo.

Reagan's overall plan would have worked. What didn't work was that the Democrats and moderate Republicans refused to also do cuts in programming to match the tax cuts.

Reagan prioritized his battles, knowing that to defeat the USSR was more important than a temporary deficit. So he took the tax cuts, which fixed the economy and led to the longest quality growth economy in USA history (stretching about 20 years), and defeated the Eastern Bloc.

I recall him continually railing on Congress for giving him huge tax bills to sign. He brought the bills in on a couple occasions to display before the media. Yet, he knew he had to choose his battles if he wished to win any of them.

What would Reagan do today? He probably would fix the deficit and economy, as a bigger threat than anything else out there right now.

The problem with Republicans is they didn't grasp the Gipper's entire world view. They latched onto tax cuts and nothing else. Dubya's tax cuts with huge budget increases is an example of taking only a portion of the program and pretending it would fix everything, when frugal cuts were also needed.

The Gipper solved the Social Security problems of his day. Today's Republicans and Democrats keep kicking it down the road until it is now running a deficit. Reagan probably would have found quality free market methods to help the environment (he was an environmentalist) and health care that would not require a new government program.

Just because Reagan didn't get everything he wanted, doesn't mean he didn't do good. He wasn't king. He was a president who had to work with Congress, just as Obama is doing today.