US Democratic program

**Red Harvest** · 06-23-2005, 08:01

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Clinton vetoed it or am I making that up?

Yes, you are. Those things didn't balance the budget.

Or one could ask...if they require a balanced budget...why has the current president been unable to do so? No need to answer, it is a rhetorical question.

**Xiahou** · 06-23-2005, 08:58

It isn't govt. regulation adding to the cost structure. It is the way billing and insurance is done. You want to improve efficiency? Develop a standardized federal system for this, cut out 90% of the useless crap in the middle.

Medicare/Medicaid are hardly models of efficiency- Id wager those programs are regularly gouged as much or more than insurance. I'd be hard pressed to think of any area where expanded federal control/beaurocracy made something more efficient.

At least when I go to a network doctor for my insurance, prices are pre-negotiated. If they try to overbill (gouge) me, I don't have to pay it.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 06-23-2005, 14:12

Yes, you are.

Would you like to place a wager on that? Better be careful before calling someone a liar.

Those things didn't balance the budget.

Yopu do realise who authorizes the Budget dont you or did we have a democratic led congress when these budgets were passed. Again Clinton ran out of vetoes. He said it couldnt be done.

In 1995, the House Republicans pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 followed by passage by the Senate Republicans. On November 13, Bill Clinton closes the government with the stroke of his veto pen to avoid agreeing to a balanced budget—costing taxpayers an estimated $750 million over the next six days. Clinton finally says he agrees to seven-year balanced budget using the most recent CBO numbers, re-opening the government on November 19th.

**doc_bean** · 06-23-2005, 14:56

Wasn't the balanced budget and the surplus of the late 90s mostly due to the economic boom ?

Don't forget that the republican wanted tax cuts, if they had passed the US would have run an even larger deficit after the .com stockmarket crash.
I really don't understand why Bush is handing out tax cuts to individuals when the budget is far from balanced and you are running a record deficit, why does Congress (and the Republicans in it) approve this ?

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Cadillac prices for Yugo care.

A worldwide problem, check the evolution of doctors' income and compare it to the average workers' income, they rise much much faster. It will get even worse with the rising average age. There doesn't seem to be anyway to stop this. I'd suggest creating more scholarships for people studying medicine, but I doubt it will be sufficient.

The government here tried to do something about the gap and the doctors went on strike

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

My family's company got a large tax break directly due to Bush and weve expanded into several different cities and have been able to hire more people than we did during all the Clinton years because many of the taxes associated with expansion have been reduced or lifted.

Different presidents concentrate on different sectors, I don't think you can take one company as a way to judge an Administration.

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And if health care is really and truly your #1 issue, do what the doctors and hospitals, never mind the insurance companies are telling you to do. Stop the predatory, destructive practices of the American Trial Lawyers association. It's a get rich quick scheme that drives health care costs up so that lawyers and the occassional unfortunate get rich off.

We're just starting to be able to break 'medical secret'. I almost died because of a doctors negligence and had to spent a month in the hospital. There was nothing I could do about it. Now this might have been an honest mistake, but some doctors just make too many of them. Cap the amounts patient can demand/receive, but don't destroy the system entirely.

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

They dont have a coherent agenda or and organized party.

Well, the republican party has the same problem to a degree doesn't it ? There seem to be 3 big subparties: the libertarians (no taxes !), the neo-cons (no dictators !) and Christian right (no fun!). I'd say the interest of the libertarians go against the interest of the other two. A strong foreign policy takes up a lot of money, and enforcing a christian morality (or enforcing anything) requires government action, which doesn't fit well with the 'minimal government' principle imho. Republicans also seem to have a thing for states rights, but I don't see this as a separate, major group.

The Democrats seem to have similar but opposite groups, the socialists (no poverty !), the environmentalists (no pollution !) and the liberals (no limits !). The interests also collide. socialism requires a strong economic backing, which doesn't go well with the environmentalists, the ideology (work together) is also completely different from the liberals (live for yourself). I was actually hesitant to include the environmentalists as a separate group, I think most of them probably left with Nader. There's also the idea of 'worker rights' but i'm not sure how powerful it is, and whether it should be considered separate from the socialists.

Both parties seem to get dragged down by their ideologic extremists, the Christian Right and the radical liberals. Although the Christian right might have a bigger support base nowadays, mostly because you can get away with anything these days, except for marrying someone of the same sex, and really, that's just symbolic, so the extreme liberals that are left are just that, scary extremists. Not too different from the Christian Right people from the American Taliban website (or their quotes at least).

What surprise me is that their is no 'moderate' liberal-libertarian party around. Both ideologies support the rights and duties of the individual. By moderate I mean that they don't need to push a liberal agenda even further, they just protect the freedoms that exist now. Okay, I'd just like to see the Republicans without the Christian Right I guess. Of course a moderate party, certainly in a two-party system, is probably just a nice dream...

**PanzerJaeger** · 06-23-2005, 15:14

Well, the republican party has the same problem to a degree doesn't it ? There seem to be 3 big subparties: the libertarians (no taxes !), the neo-cons (no dictators !) and Christian right (no fun!). I'd say the interest of the libertarians go against the interest of the other two. A strong foreign policy takes up a lot of money, and enforcing a christian morality (or enforcing anything) requires government action, which doesn't fit well with the 'minimal government' principle imho. Republicans also seem to have a thing for states rights, but I don't see this as a separate, major group.

No, the Republicans are much more unified. Policy disagreements are hashed out behind closed doors for the most part as the 3 distinct groups you talk about arent really that distinct.

Most Republicans like low taxes, are for a strong defense policy, and are Christians. So while there are small disagreements - there is no huge ideological split.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 06-23-2005, 15:15

Wasn't the balanced budget and the surplus of the late 90s mostly due to the economic boom ?

No again Clinton said it couldnt be done. It was a direct result of te republicans budget.

Don't forget that the republican wanted tax cuts, if they had passed the US would have run an even larger deficit after the .com stockmarket crash.

This has been proven false once again. Reducing taxes actually increases federal tax income. You get a smaller piece but of a much bigger pie.

I really don't understand why Bush is handing out tax cuts to individuals when the budget is far from balanced and you are running a record deficit, why does Congress (and the Republicans in it) approve this ?

Again it stimulates the economy and actually increases revenue.

**doc_bean** · 06-23-2005, 15:26

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

This has been proven false once again. Reducing taxes actually increases federal tax income. You get a smaller piece but of a much bigger pie.

Again it stimulates the economy and actually increases revenue.

.

Well, I have two problems with his tax policiy. The First is actually not about cuts but about the refund he did, this has proven to be ineffective when it comes to stimulating the economy. I saw it as nothing but a publicity stunt.

The problem with the tax cuts is that they are targeted at the rich (you' re welcome to disprove this if you can). Wouldn't tax cuts for the middle class stimulate the economy more ? Or even better, tax cuts for companies ?

**Taffy_is_a_Taff** · 06-23-2005, 15:45

three letters to prove that government run health services descend into expensive, inefficient piles of poo:
NHS

**Red Harvest** · 06-23-2005, 19:37

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

This has been proven false once again. Reducing taxes actually increases federal tax income. You get a smaller piece but of a much bigger pie.

Again it stimulates the economy and actually increases revenue.

Ah yes, more bogus economic theory stated as proven fact. These fantasies haven't worked. Take a look at the budget deficit. Did it shrink? No, it took off. Economic growth has remained weak. There are ~2 trillion reasons the theory has proven wrong, far more than enough evidence for me.

You stimulate an economy by encouraging wise investment. Encourage growth into new markets, research and development. This isn't done by cutting taxes. Simply throwing money at the consumer and hoping for the best doesn't work. Far better to use the taxes to actually build something or to support research etc. It is 100% certain that money put into those two will actually produce more jobs, and economic growth. Which would you rather have, a new job? or a pink slip and tax rebate?

At the same time another conflicting theory that I've seen touted (and often by the same folks, lol) is that when there is recession and govt. receipts fall, federal spending should pull back as well. Fortunately, that is not what we typically do. Oh sure it sounds entirely logical and has an easy to understand appeal, but what does cutting govt spending do in the middle of a recession? It tanks the economy. Why? Because govt spending serves as somewhat of a moderator to dampen the economic cycles. When business gets soft, the layoffs hit hard, hiring ends, major equipment investment ends. It is often very abrupt. Now By the same token, in an economic boom it is bad if the govt. goes on a spending spree...or decides it has room to cut taxes dramatically counting on future growth...

What should you really want the govt to focus on during a recession? Govt spending on projects that produce things that we will use in the future is one. Encouraging targeted investment is another. Spend the money while the labor is cheaper, you get more for less. It creates jobs when they are needed most and it puts infrastructure in place for when the recovery occurs. One thing is certain, employees have to pay taxes. Companies don't if they are not making a profit, but employees provide steady Federal revenue.

**Xiahou** · 06-23-2005, 20:10

Ah yes, more bogus economic theory stated as proven fact. These fantasies haven't worked. Take a look at the budget deficit. Did it shrink? No, it took off. Economic growth has remained weak. There are ~2 trillion reasons the theory has proven wrong, far more than enough evidence for me.

Talk about fantasy...

Google for any legitimate news story on the subject. Even in light of unusually high energy prices, economists predict steady, sustainable economic growth will continue. I can't understand for the life of me how the Dems have been able to perpetuate the myth that the economy is in bad shape- lots of help from the media helps I guess.

**Red Harvest** · 06-23-2005, 17:51

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Would you like to place a wager on that? Better be careful before calling someone a liar.

I realize from your posts that you have difficulty with reading comprehension at times. If you actually read what I wrote you will find I didn't call you a liar. Let me spell it out more clearly: your idea of how the budget was balanced is fantasy.

I leave the namecalling to my Republican friends, they are so much better at it than I am--practice I suppose.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 06-23-2005, 18:41

Let me spell it out more clearly: your idea of how the budget was balanced is fantasy.

I dont think so. Accusssing someone of making things up is calling them a liar in my book. Bush has been called a liar for far less. It is you who need to study reading comprehension. Are you still denying Clinton vetoed the bill?

**Red Harvest** · 06-23-2005, 20:37

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I dont think so. Accusssing someone of making things up is calling them a liar in my book. Bush has been called a liar for far less. It is you who need to study reading comprehension. Are you still denying Clinton vetoed the bill?

Well if you insist on calling yourself a liar, I can't stop you, but leave me out of it. I don't think you are a liar, delusional perhaps. I don't care what Clinton did with the Contract on America. That didn't balance the budget.

The whole idea the Republicans had (and have) is that we cut out any social programs. The Contract on America was one of the weapons with which to try to achieve it.

It's no surprise really, these same corporate minded types are the ones busily eliminating health care plans and pension plans from business. The old 3 legged stool of work pensions, social security, and private savings/investment is missing a few legs...or at least they keep getting sawed off shorter.