114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
We are having a hard time competing with other nations in producing goods and services. Some of the reasons include:

High business and corporate taxes. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. We should eliminate all corporate and business taxes, and institute a higher personal income tax, higher marginal rates, if necessary, or go to the national retail sales tax. I favor the latter, but give it slim to no chance whatsoever, given the political landscape of today.

Another problem is high wage and benefit overhead for certain sectors of the economy, such as the auto industry where labor unions have been awarded unsustainable contracts. Union monopolies should be broken, and minimum wage laws need to be reformed.

Health insurance costs have gone sky high for employers, and this should be separated as a part of compensation, taxed as part of the compensation. The laws need to be changed, such that this is no longer required or expected from employers and instead generally picked up by people individually, apart from their employment. The entire health care policy needs reform, such as radical tort reform, and I think the best path is to tweak and fix what we have rather than embarking upon a nationalized system that will break the country.

Long term, the educational system is failing and needs drastic reform. The teachers union should not prevail. Competition should be injected in place of a monopolistic government system that is failing us. Federal intervention into education needs to terminated. We are not turning out enough math and science students.

Energy policy, we need a realistic energy policy that would realistically improve our self sufficiency. Currently, our policy is a joke, not realistic, and will continue to cost us dearly in energy costs. Affordable and abundant energy is a basic building block to a healthy economy, and has been crucial to making the country what it was to this point.

These are a few for starters, ci. Under this administration, I see little chance that any of these issues will be confronted, or treated with the appropriate cure, in fact I expect the opposite on almost all fronts.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 04:38 pm
@okie,
okie, Tax rates by themselves have no meaning; it's what they actually pay. Some corporations pay zero taxes. High wages and benefits in of itself is not the problem; it's about quality and "reasonable wages and benefits" for everybody who works at the company. Multimillion dollar salaries and benefits for CEOs are out of whack with what the workers in the company makes. Health insurance costs have indeed continued to increase at much higher rates than the CPI or most other things consumers pay for. The fact of the matter is that the US pays the most for health care, but insures less percentage of our population while more people become uninsured from job loss and higher cost. Conservatives love to decry that government run health insurance plans will deteriorate our quality, but has not proven this claim. Nobody has suggested a one-payer system, but conservatives love to shout that rhetoric to scare people. Bush's No Child Left Behind was a failure from the very beginning, because he failed to fund his federal mandate on education. Not only has many schools closed, but the dropout rates of blacks and Hispanics have skyrocketed. Energy has always been an issue for our country, but nobody took the effort or time to find solutions - except Obama. All you are able to do is tell us Obama's ten year plan will not work before anything is even implemented to improve other energy sources. Your crystal must be better than all the energy experts now working on solutions in the Obama administration.

All these complaints from you when Obama's been in office for less than 100 days. You are an ignorant, stupid dork.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 04:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Conservatives love to decry that government run health insurance plans will deteriorate our quality, but has not proven this claim


Its easy to prove, just look at the VA hospitals and how poorly they are managed and run.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 05:27 pm
@mysteryman,
When Bush underfunded those hospitals, what did you expect? Miracles? .

Quote:

Bush Administration underfunded veterans' health care by $2 billion. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget underfunded veterans' health care by nearly $2 billion. ("Vets Health Low on Bush's Priority List," The Hill, September 17, 2003; "Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003; U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, September 2002)

Bush Administration budget cuts force more than 200,000 veterans to wait for health care. Over 200,000 United States veterans have to wait more than six months for a medical visit because of health care shortages. ("VA Health Care Funding Alert," Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Press Release, January 31, 2003)

Bush Administration cuts $1.5 billion from military family housing. The Bush Administration cut $1.5 billion for military family housing, despite Department of Defense statistics showing that in 83,000 barracks and 128,860 family housing units across the country are below standard. ("Nothing But Lip Service," Army Times, June 30, 2003; "House Appropriations Committee Approves $59.2 Million for Ft. Hood," U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards Press Release, June 17, 2003)


Bush Republicans support millionaires instead of military veterans. Bush allies in Congress stopped efforts to scale back the tax cut for the nation's millionaires by just five percent - a loss of just $4,780 for the year - in order to restore this funding for military family housing. ("The Tax Debate Nobody Hears About," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)

For all of the military member's and staff out there. Let's not continue to listen to political redoric from party members that claim they are the party of the military. Read the facts and see what they have done for you lately.


Bush Administration proposal would end health care benefits for 173,000 veterans. More than 173,000 veterans across the country would be cut off from health care because of Bush Administration proposed budget cuts and its plan requiring enrollment fees and higher out-of-pocket costs. ("Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)

Bush Administration cuts $172 million allotted for educating the children of military personnel. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget cut $172 million of impact aid funding. Impact aid funding assists school districts by making up for lost local tax revenue from tax-exempt property, such as military bases. These education cuts will especially affect school-age children of troops serving in Iraq who reside on military bases. ("Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)



Bush Administration tax cut denies military families increase in child tax credit. The families of 262,000 children of military personnel do not receive the child tax credit increase because the plan fails to cover taxpaying families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625. According to The Washington Post, the House version of the Bush Administration plan "wouldn't help many of those serving in Iraq." One solider who will not benefit is Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, the soldier and single mother who was wounded twice in the same convoy as Jessica Lynch. ("Ex-POW's Family Accuses Army of Double Standard on Benefit," Washington Post, October 24, 2003; "The New Senate Child Credit Legislation - What It Does and Does Not Do," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 25, 2003; "Whose Child Is Left Behind," Children's Defense Fund, July 23, 2003





Bush Administration opposed plan to give National Guard and Reserve Members access to health insurance. Despite the war efforts of America's National Guard and Reserve Members, the Bush Administration announced in October 2003 its formal opposition to give the 1.2 million Guard and Reserve members the right to buy health care coverage through the Pentagon's health plan. One out of every five Guard members lacks health insurance. ("Bush Opposes Health Plan for National Guard," Gannett News Service, October 23, 2003)
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 05:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Dont blame Bush alone.
I have been dealing with the VA for years, even when Clinton was President.
The VA system was no better when Clinton was President.

You blind hatred for Bush wont let you see that, but all you need to do is ask anyone that has dealt with the VA.

BTW, you dont deny that the VA system proves how bad govt run healthcare can be.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 05:45 pm
@mysteryman,
CI ingored this the first time I posted it and he'll probably ignore it now. But just to keep the record straight - again. . . .
Quote:

Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut
February 18, 2004

Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.
Summary

In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.”
It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.

Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

Analysis
Funding for veterans benefits has accelerated in the Bush administration, as seen in the following table.

http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq289/LindaBee_2008/VABudget.gif?t=1239839249
Fiscal years ending Sept. 30
Source: US Budget: Table 5.2 - Budget Authority by Agency

In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%

Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.

By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.

One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.

According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills. And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush's budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent.

And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million).

But They Keep Repeating: "It's a Cut"

That's just the opposite of the impression one might get from listening to Democratic presidential candidates debate each other over the past several months. One thing they seem to agree on is the false idea that Bush is cutting funding for veterans.

Examples:

Oct 9, 2003:

Sharpton: As this president waved the flag, he cut the budget for veterans, which dishonored people that had given their lives to this country, while he sent people like you to war.

October 27:

Dean: I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops . . . unlike President Bush who tried to cut -- who successfully cut 164,000 veterans off their health-care benefits.

Jan 4, 2004:

Kucinich: Look what's happened with this budget the administration has just submitted. They're cutting funds for job programs, for veterans . . .

Jan 22, 2004 :

Kerry: And while we're at it, this president is breaking faith with veterans all across the country. They've cut the VA budget by $1.8 billion.

Feb 15, 2004 :

Kerry: And most importantly, I think he's cut the VA budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.

And even the Democratic National Committee Web site proclaims, "Bush Cuts Funds for Veterans' Health Care," despite what the numbers show.

Veterans Groups Want More

While it's false to say the veterans budget has been cut, and false to say that any veteran getting benefits has been cut off, it is true that funding is not growing as rapidly as demand for benefits, or as rapidly as veterans groups would like.

Veterans groups are unanimous in calling for more money than the administration or Congress have provided. Four groups -- AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States -- have joined to ask for $3.7 billion more than the administration is requesting for next year.

Even Bush's own Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi -- in a rare break with administration protocol -- told a House committee Feb. 4 that had asked for more money than Bush was willing to seek from Congress. "I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received," he said, referring to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Some Denied Benefits; A Cut Proposed

In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that -- because the increase in funds couldn't meet the rising demand -- it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits.

That led to accusations that Bush was denying benefits to veterans. " We have 400,000 veterans in this country who have been denied access in a whole category to the VA," Kerry declared during a debate Oct. 9, 2003. The VA's estimates of the number who might be denied benefits is much lower, and in fact nobody can say with certainty how many middle-income veterans might have signed up for medical benefits if they had been allowed.

Meanwhile the VA continues to add hundreds of thousands of disabled and lower-income veterans to those already receiving benefits, and has kept paying benefits to all veterans who were already receiving them.

The middle-income veterans who currently aren't being allowed to sign up are those generally with incomes above 80% of the mid-point for their locality. The means test cut-off for benefits ranges up to $40,000 a year in many cities. And any veteran with income less than $25,162 still qualifies no matter where they live. Those figures are for single veterans. The income cut-off is higher for those with a spouse or children.

Veterans groups have called for "mandatory funding" of medical benefits, which would automatically appropriate whatever funds are required to meet demand. Kerry has endorsed mandatory funding, which would allow middle-income veterans with no service-connected disability to resume signing up.

The administration also has proposed to make the VA's prescription drug benefit less generous. Currently many veterans pay $7 for each one-month supply of medication. The administration proposes to increase that to $15, and require a $250 annual fee as well. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year. The proposal wouldn't affect those -- such as veterans with a disability rated at 50% or more -- who currently aren't required to make any co-payments.

And it should be noted that the administration is proposing to increase some benefits, including ending pharmacy co-payments for some very low-income veterans, and paying for emergency-room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals.

All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.

(Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we've received no response.)
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 05:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%


I would probably argue that Clinton did not only produce a smaller increase in funding for the VA, he also produced less veterans than the Bush administration....
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 05:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
I won't ignore anything when I see stupid posts like yours. What you conveniently forget is that the Iraq war started in 2003. Just an "increase" in the budget means nothing, if it doesn't meet the demand of veterans that need care.

It's really a simple concept, but it takes a little bit of brains to see it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 05:52 pm
@Foxfyre,
I won't ignore anything when I see stupid posts like yours. What you conveniently forget is that the Iraq war started in 2003. Just an "increase" in the budget means nothing, if it doesn't meet the demand of veterans that need care.

It's really a simple concept, but it takes a little bit of brains to see it.

BTW, since you seem to have forgotten, both the administration and congress were controlled by the republicans. Who cut what?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 06:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From Truthout:

Quote:


*
*
*
*

News
Facebook DIGG
Bush to Cut Veterans' Benefits to Pay for Credit Monitoring

by: | Visit article original @

Senators Criticize Payment Plan for Monitoring Veterans' Credit
By Kate Zernike
The New York Times

Thursday 29 June 2006

Washington - Two Senate Democrats on Wednesday criticized a White House plan to cut money intended for food stamps, student loans and farmers to pay for credit monitoring for veterans whose personal and financial data was stolen last month.

"The Bush-Cheney administration has no qualms about coming up here and twisting our arms for funding for Iraq, but when it comes to needs here at home for veterans and other ordinary Americans, it's rob Peter to pay Paul," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, said, "It's outrageous to first expose millions of Americans to credit fraud and identity theft, and then try to cut food stamps, student loans and youth programs to pay for it."

"This is about taking responsibility when you mess up," Ms. Murray added. "That's something even little kids understand."

Personal data on about 17.5 million veterans, including their birthdates and Social Security numbers, was stolen last month when a burglar took a laptop containing the information from the home of an analyst for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The analyst was not authorized to take the data home but had been doing so for several years.


The Veterans Affairs Department offered to pay for a year of free credit monitoring for the veterans, which it said would cost about $160.5 million. Last week, the department said it would cover most of that cost by taking money from accounts that pay health and other benefits for veterans.

The department withdrew that idea after Democrats protested. In a letter on Wednesday, Rob Portman, director of the White House Office of Management, recommended paying for the monitoring by taking about $130 million from a food stamp employment and training program, a farmers' assistance program, student loans and a program for young people released from prison.

Senator Murray said, "This administration doesn't get it."

Mr. Leahy called the theft and the response to it "the most amazing incompetence" he had seen in 30 years in Congress.

The White House has said it did not want to raise new money to pay for the program, but rather to take money from other areas of the White House budget.

Ms. Murray said the problem was "a new disaster" and "deserves new money." She added, "This is truly an emergency."

The data theft has provoked outrage among veterans' groups; several have joined a class-action lawsuit over the theft. Ms. Murray warned that the credit monitoring will alert veterans only if someone tries to use their stolen information.

The costs of dealing with the theft will rise, she said, if veterans end up being the victims of credit fraud.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 06:03 pm
@old europe,
That graph shows budgets that were passed well before the invasion of Iraq. Make of it what you will. The fact is those who accuse Bush of cutting veterans' benefits in ANY year are speaking of what they don't have a clue.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 06:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here's a earful of veterans being denied benefits from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040700938

0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 06:16 pm
@Foxfyre,
Call it nitpicking, but didn't the War On Terror start with the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001?

Also, isn't the only real way to make sense of those numbers to list them on a per capita basis - money spent on VA divided by number of veterans?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 06:29 pm
@old europe,
And there are plenty of articles about unserved and underserved veterans.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 06:35 pm
@old europe,
No, I wouldn't call it nitpicking. Calling a significant budget increase a cut and denying the truth of those budget increases is something quite different again. As is trying to divert that discussion to something else entirely.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 07:24 pm
@old europe,
oe, You are correct; demand increased substantially after Bush started his war in Iraq in 2003, and he failed to fund the increased demand for veteran's benefits. You are spot on!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 07:28 pm
Quote:
Bush to Cut Veterans' Benefits

Bush plans to cut funding for veterans’ health care over the next few years, yes this is while an increasing number of troops are returning home wounded from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President is pushing these cuts to fulfill his pledge to “balance the budget by 2012,” which is a shell game in itself.

“Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly " by more than 10 percent in many years " White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter,” according to a report by the AP.

No, tax cuts are unthinkable. Pork barrel spending that spun out of control during Republican rule in Congress could simply NOT be vetoed. But funding for veterans wounded while serving in Bush’s war? **** that, they should get better jobs with decent benefits!
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 07:56 pm
Moving right along...
Today, 4/15/2009, is tax day. Big day, right? Two of my employees called in to ask if they could have the day off to file or mis-file their returns. They would get them done and then race to the crowded post office to mail them. I said, "Do it all on 4/16, your scheduled day off. Do your really believe the IRS looks at post marks and penalizes people who are a day or a few late?" Neither of them listened to me. Like Pavlov's dogs. Trained to behave in a certain way. And they lost a day's wages in the process.
Damn, I haven't even started and I digressed.
So today was the Tea Party thing. Lots of gatherings of folks opposed to, um, all kinds of things, sort of connected to the belief that the government is too big. There did not seem to be much about what to cut in order to reduce taxes.
Meanwhile, President Obama put forth a bold idea: simplify the tax code. What a novel idea...except every politician since 1913 (when the income tax was established) has advocated that and failed.
rjb
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 09:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

All these complaints from you when Obama's been in office for less than 100 days. You are an ignorant, stupid dork.

You asked for suggestions, I gave them to you, but predictably you respond with this. I guarantee you that if we would institute the policies I outlined, this economy would be picking up steam as we speak.

By the way what person is going to start a business now, if that person believes Obama will likely confiscate most of his profits? You might understand a few things, but one thing is clear, you either never owned a business or you don't understand human nature.

They say, give Obama a chance, but who wants to give a man a chance that is waving everybody to jump off a cliff? More and more people will wake up, I hope, and see this man and his policies for what they are.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 09:32 pm
@okie,
Okay, let's take a non-scientific poll right here; how many of you believe okie's plan
Quote:
would be picking up steam as we speak?[/quote]




0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 10:46:37