Ted's Daily Thoughts

[Ted S]

I respectfully disagree.  I believe the tax burden is high enough, and the scope of government ought to be shrunk to fit the available revenue.

I agree completely.  Compromise or moderation is not always the right answer.  If you doctor told you your body was riddled with cancer you certainly wouldn't want to find some middle-ground and agree to removing 50% of it.

Take a look at the past 100 years of government spending.  There has been no compromise there.  It has gone up every single year.  Even the great fiscal conservative Ronald Reagan didn't cut overall spending, he simply changed spending priorities and slowed the rate of increase.  If there were true moderation and compromise the graph would have ups and downs but the trend line would be flat.  The trend line is not flat, not even close.

That said, I could sign-on to a tax increase but it would have to be accompanied by real true spending cuts but the tax increase would have to affect all Americans equally.  No targeting the few (wealthy) just because it's popular with the many.   That ain't liberty.

In my opinion the USA is headed toward a financial cliff and instead of driving over the edge at 60 MPH we compromise and plunge into despair at 30 MPH isn't a sufficient improvement.

[wbcoleman]

I respectfully disagree.  I believe the tax burden is high enough, and the scope of government ought to be shrunk to fit the available revenue.

I agree completely.  Compromise or moderation is not always the right answer.  If you doctor told you your body was riddled with cancer you certainly wouldn't want to find some middle-ground and agree to removing 50% of it.

Take a look at the past 100 years of government spending.  There has been no compromise there.  It has gone up every single year.  Even the great fiscal conservative Ronald Reagan didn't cut overall spending, he simply changed spending priorities and slowed the rate of increase.  If there were true moderation and compromise the graph would have ups and downs but the trend line would be flat.  The trend line is not flat, not even close.

That said, I could sign-on to a tax increase but it would have to be accompanied by real true spending cuts but the tax increase would have to affect all Americans equally.  No targeting the few (wealthy) just because it's popular with the many.   That ain't liberty.

In my opinion the USA is headed toward a financial cliff and instead of driving over the edge at 60 MPH we compromise and plunge into despair at 30 MPH isn't a sufficient improvement.

I would favor tax reform a la 1986 in which deductions and exemptions were eliminated in exchanged for lowering the marginal rates.  Of course, that's actually an instructive lesson in that the marginal rates have gone back up, as have the deductions and exemptions.

[Ted S]

Today's thought: The smartest conversation on the web.

I, of course, am not familiar with every site on the web.  But I am familiar with Ricochet and it hosts the most intelligent, thought provoking, yet civil conversations I've ever seen.  This one is hot right now and is a perfect example:

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Dennis-Prager-s-Taxi-Drivers-and-Mailmen

[Ted S]

Today's thought:

The left like to highlight the fact that Romney was for the healthcare mandate (Mass) before he was against it (USA).  The left also like to tell us about how Mass was 47th in job creation during Romney's term as governor.

But how about looking at these two facts together:

Romney did indeed successfully implement healthcare in Mass, but it was followed by very lackluster job growth numbers.  Obama also successfully implemented healthcare at the national level and he too produced dismal, Romney like, employment numbers but on a nationwide scale.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  But lets also consider the fact that Bill Clinton tried to implement healthcare early in his term but failed miserably.  What happened to the economy after Clinton's failed attempt; IT BOOMED.

There is a lesson to be learned here.  When you shift gigantic sums of money from the private sector to the government, the private sector suffers.  It seems so obvious that even a child could understand and yet the political left, well.......

[Ted S]

After that last post I realized that this sentence is wrong:

When you shift gigantic sums of money from the private sector to the government, the private sector suffers.

The government isn't RECEIVING tons of cash as a result of Obamacare, it is DECIDING how to spend tons of cash as a result of Obamacare.  A subtle yet important difference.

[wbcoleman]

After that last post I realized that this sentence is wrong:

When you shift gigantic sums of money from the private sector to the government, the private sector suffers.

The government isn't RECEIVING tons of cash as a result of Obamacare, it is DECIDING how to spend tons of cash as a result of Obamacare.  A subtle yet important difference.

So you don't believe the Obamacare tax increases will raise as much revenue as advertised?

[clistensprechen]

If it doesn't raise revenue, then it's not as big a burden ("biggest tax increase in American history") as advertised either.

[wbcoleman]

If it doesn't raise revenue, then it's not as big a burden ("biggest tax increase in American history") as advertised either.

Gee, clara, you want to have it both ways!

You should know, however, that tax avoidance -- this is, tax-altered behavior -- imposes a high cost, too.

[clistensprechen]

Umm, that wasn't me who wanted it both ways.  Everything including just living has a cost. So? There's a cost to dying, too. Human beings are the only animals on the planet who have to pay to live on their planet.

[Ted S]

If it doesn't raise revenue, then it's not as big a burden ("biggest tax increase in American history") as advertised either.

At 2,700+ pages Obamacare is an ultra complicated law.  I listened to a webcast from Cato over the weekend and it sounds like there were 20 new embedded taxes in the law and with the SCOTUS decision two weeks ago, there are now 21.

My post only concerned the "must purchase" portion of Obamacare that I don't believe brings any dollars directly into the treasury.  It simply makes citizens purchase government approved insurance policies from private companies whether they want to or not.  I don't believe there is any way to opt out unless you have political connections.  It is my understanding that waivers-a-plenty have been granted in the districts of powerful politicians.  So while the mandate brings no direct money to the government, it doesn't get to stay with the person who earned it either.  It's politicians deciding how you must spend your money.

No, I'm sure that there is/will be a world of intended/unintended costs and consequences that will be ushered in when Obamacare really kicks-in.

[kentay]

How do "social issues" fit into this paradigm?

I'm not sure.  I'm only addressing the simple notion that if the USA were to revert back to the tax rates of the Clinton years, we'd be on the path to prosperity according to some on the left.  I'm simply countering with the obvious idea that one needs to consider the spending side of the equation too.

Both sides need to see the other side.  We have both a spending and revenue problem.  They go hand in hand.  Failure to acknowledge one with out the other is only going to solve half the problem.  Meaning we still have a problem

I respectfully disagree.  I believe the tax burden is high enough, and the scope of government ought to be shrunk to fit the available revenue.

Would you feel the same way if you were not being taken care by the US Government are you going to refuse  SS and Medicare? kentay 

[wbcoleman]

How do "social issues" fit into this paradigm?

I'm not sure.  I'm only addressing the simple notion that if the USA were to revert back to the tax rates of the Clinton years, we'd be on the path to prosperity according to some on the left.  I'm simply countering with the obvious idea that one needs to consider the spending side of the equation too.

Both sides need to see the other side.  We have both a spending and revenue problem.  They go hand in hand.  Failure to acknowledge one with out the other is only going to solve half the problem.  Meaning we still have a problem

I respectfully disagree.  I believe the tax burden is high enough, and the scope of government ought to be shrunk to fit the available revenue.

Would you feel the same way if you were not being taken care by the US Government are you going to refuse  SS and Medicare? kentay 

kentay, neither social security nor medicare are sustainable past the next decade or two.

[Ted S]

Would you feel the same way if you were not being taken care by the US Government are you going to refuse  SS and Medicare? kentay 

Why would Mr. Coleman refuse to take SS and Medicare since he has been on the paying side of the equation for his entire life?

Folks on the left like to view conservatives as hypocrites because they take the benefits when their time comes.  Sorry Kentay, but no hypocrisy here.  If conservatives never paid a dime yet eagerly took the cash then they would be hypocrites but since they are forced under the threat of imprisonment to contribute, then they have every right to take from it when they qualify.

If you stop forcing us conservatives to contribute and let us invest our money as we see fit, then you won't see us hanging around the trough in the golden years.

[wbcoleman]

Would you feel the same way if you were not being taken care by the US Government are you going to refuse  SS and Medicare? kentay 

Why would Mr. Coleman refuse to take SS and Medicare since he has been on the paying side of the equation for his entire life?

Folks on the left like to view conservatives as hypocrites because they take the benefits when their time comes.  Sorry Kentay, but no hypocrisy here.  If conservatives never paid a dime yet eagerly took the cash then they would be hypocrites but since they are forced under the threat of imprisonment to contribute, then they have every right to take from it when they qualify.

If you stop forcing us conservatives to contribute and let us invest our money as we see fit, then you won't see us hanging around the trough in the golden years.

I would have been happy to forego social security had I been allowed to reinvest the taxes I paid.

Here's a real question for you, kentay.  My birthday was last week; I just turned 61.  In fifty-one weeks I can, if I so choose, take reduced SS benefits.  Every year I wait, up to age 70, the benefit increases.  The conventional wisdom is that one should wait as long as possible unless you either need the money immediately or expect to die young.  Thank G-d, neither applies to me, but there's another consideration, is there not?  Sometime in the next 20-30 years Congress will have no choice to screw the retirees and cut back on benefits, right?  So is the best decision to take as much money up front, before the government reneges???

[Ted S]

Today's thought:

I've been hearing for a very long time that the test scores for public school children are flat.  They're just not getting better despite how much taxpayers spend.

Yesterday on my ride home from work I heard on the Michael Medved show some statistics that I hadn't heard before.  Here goes:

Since 1970 test scores have been flat - no improvement.
Since 1970 public school enrollment has gone up 8 percent.
Since 1970 public school employment (teachers, administrators, staff) has gone up 11 fold.

Let's just mull that over for a while.