Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But, the cost is somewhere around a trillion dollars - over 12 years. And half of that will be payed by employers, not the taxpayer themselves. So that's pretty false; to use a gigantic figure, extrapolated into the future, as a scare tactic. I've seen it before.

Fair enough. Consider me outraged. Are you happy? No, I'm outraged too!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Clinton has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which would directly raise taxes by around 200 billion a year. Now, Obama has as well; but you don't see him claiming that she's proposing a 2 trillion dollar tax increase. Dishonest.

Obama wants to lift the cap on payroll taxes. As far as I can tell he is vague about whether he wants to elminate it completely or whether he just wants to shift the threshold towards higher incomes. According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, eliminating the cap completely would raise payroll taxes by about $400 billion a year. That's not the trillion Clinton is talking about, and I'm not defending the flyer, but it's within the same order of magnitude.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

On the other issue, what it should tell you is that there has been no sustained swell of enthusiasm amongst Hillary supporters on A2K. People choose her because she is known, not because she inspires them in any real way. Just my opinion, of course.

That's fine. I get enough inspiration from music, paintings, and literature, maybe science and technology. I don't want my inspiration from politicians any more than I want it from janitors and housekeepers.

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't know about other countries, but here the systems you mention are paid for by taxes, more or less. Yes, they're broken out on your pay stub, but they are further enforced during filing. People who are self-employed must pay additional social security when they file, for example. But this isn't something you can do if you are going to use private insurance to implement universal health care.

Why can't you? For example, I would have said you can ask people on their tax form who their health insurer is. If they don't give an answer, you automatically enroll them in the government plan, and charge the premium to their tax bill.

Or you break health insurance premiums out of the pay stub, just as you do with the payroll tax, and send them on to the employee's health insurance company, just as you send the payroll tax on to the SSA. (That's how they do it in Germany.)

Just two suggestions, which I hope answer O'Bill's questions too.

According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, eliminating the cap completely would raise payroll taxes by about $400 billion a year. That's not the trillion Clinton is talking about, and I'm not defending the flyer, but it's within the same order of magnitude.

Thomas wrote:

According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, eliminating the cap completely would raise payroll taxes by about $400 billion a year. That's not the trillion Clinton is talking about, and I'm not defending the flyer, but it's within the same order of magnitude.

I thought I ought to be more specific on this, and look up a few relevant numbers and percentages. Here is the bottom of the envelope calculation:

• According to the BEA, America's national income is about 14 trillion dollars.
  
• About 70 percent of the national income -- call it 10 trillion to have a round number -- is paid out in wages. The rest is various forms of return on various forms of capital.
  
• The top 10 percent of wage earners get about a half of the wage income, or about $5 trillion. Coincidentally, the top 10 percent begin at about $100,000 of annual income, which is also where the payroll tax is capped.
  
• Employers and employees together pay about 13 percent in Social security taxes.
  
• therefore, if the cap on Social Security taxes was lifted, that would raise the social security tax by 13 percent of $5 trillion, or $650 billion.

The Clinton flyer's figure, then, is what you get by making the worst case assumption that Obama will eliminate the payroll tax cutoff, and rounding to the next trillion. Granted, this is spin, and spin is dishonest. But the extent of the dishonesty only rises to the level of a very moderate outrage. An annoyed raise of one eyebrow, perhaps.

PS: If you're into fiction, I recommend Graham Greene's Silent American for a brilliantly written cautionary tale about political idealism, inspiration, and enthusiasm. It's about the French Vietnam War of the 50s, written between the France's and America's Vietnam war. In retrospect, the book seems prophetic in the way it foreshadows the America's Vietnam war, and how the way to hell is paved with good intentions. (America's Vietnam war, of course, was started by the inspiring and idealistic JFK, whom Obama is frequently compared to.)

What if it becomes 50% of GDP? And averages an extra 20 years on Earth?

Obama speaking right now on CNN.

He says people asked him, 'why now? Why not wait until you are more experienced?'

He sez it's not because it's owed to him, or because of some long-held ambition, but the 'fierce urgency of now.' And because there's such a thing as being too late.

And I agree with him. I don't want the opportunity that the Dems have right now to be wasted on a candidate who is deep in bed with the lobbyists and the Washington DC machine.

Cycloptichorn

Better raise both eyebrows.

You folks who say 'young folks just won't sign up' are nuts! NOBODY I know in their 20's doesn't think about health care, nobody.

But, the cost is somewhere around a trillion dollars - over 12 years. And half of that will be payed by employers, not the taxpayer themselves.

Finn:

I remember the days on Abuzz where many of us couldn't fathom the support of those who thought George W. Bush was an "inspired choice."

We have had all the "experience" we need to lead a country over a cliff.

"nuff said."

Yeah, I think I'd rather see a single payer system too. The problem is that there is no way the insurance industry would give up the ghost. I've been trying to figure out how we could pull it off, and I have no idea.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Obama speaking right now on CNN.

He says people asked him, 'why now? Why not wait until you are more experienced?'

He sez it's not because it's owed to him, or because of some long-held ambition, but the 'fierce urgency of now.' And because there's such a thing as being too late.

And I agree with him. I don't want the opportunity that the Dems have right now to be wasted on a candidate who is deep in bed with the lobbyists and the Washington DC machine.

Cycloptichorn

He gave the "fierce urgency of now" speech last week when he was speaking in Phoenix. It seems to be his best response when people point out his inexperience.

Obama sez he's happy that most Americans aren't buying the argument that seasoning in Washington necessarily makes a better candidate.

Quite a claim considering half of the Democratic electorate believes Clinton has more experience than Obama and they prefer her over him. Thats without even considering that Republicans are Americans.

I appreciate that he needs to counter charges that he is not experienced enough to be president, and don't blame him for trying to make it an issue of experience in the Establishment, but that's not the full extent of the concern some have for his relative inexperience.

Sez that 'oh, you have to be afraid of the Republicans, they are mean and Obama is too nice, not tough enough.' Says he's tired of fear and he's not going to quake b/c the big bad Republican machine is coming. Says he's ready for them to attack every aspect of his life. And for them to say 'no, you can't.' And that he'll fight against that anytime.

More clever positioning; not to be begrudged, but there is more to the issue of his inexperience than whether or not he can withstand the Big Bad Republicans.

Says he won't say anything to win like others in the race.

So what truth has he spoken that might cost him the election

"I'm not as experienced as most of the other candidates?"

"We cannot pay for Universal Healthcare by just raising taxes on the "rich?"

"I am prepared to let Iraq devolve into a chaos of death and destruction in order to end the war and withdraw our troops right away?"


Cycloptichorn

To be fair, Obama has said that this is 'one possible option' and not part of his formal economic plan. So it's disingenuous for people on one hand to criticize him for not formally enumerating everything in his Health Care plan, as some have done, yet attack him for other off-hand comments in the way Clinton has done in this mailer.

But, the cost is somewhere around a trillion dollars - over 12 years. And half of that will be payed by employers, not the taxpayer themselves. So that's pretty false; to use a gigantic figure, extrapolated into the future, as a scare tactic. I've seen it before.

Clinton has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which would directly raise taxes by around 200 billion a year. Now, Obama has as well; but you don't see him claiming that she's proposing a 2 trillion dollar tax increase. Dishonest.

On the other issue, what it should tell you is that there has been no sustained swell of enthusiasm amongst Hillary supporters on A2K. People choose her because she is known, not because she inspires them in any real way. Just my opinion, of course.

.

PS: If you're into fiction, I recommend Graham Greene's Silent American for a brilliantly written cautionary tale about political idealism, inspiration, and enthusiasm. It's about the French Vietnam War of the 50s, written between the France's and America's Vietnam war. In retrospect, the book seems prophetic in the way it foreshadows the America's Vietnam war, and how the way to hell is paved with good intentions. (America's Vietnam war, of course, was started by the inspiring and idealistic JFK, whom Obama is frequently compared to.)

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You folks who say 'young folks just won't sign up' are nuts! NOBODY I know in their 20's doesn't think about health care, nobody.

If you knew that you would get the same health care whether you signed up and paid, or whether you didn't .....................would you sign up and pay?

You might, but you must recognize that many will not.