Rand Paul on Reining in Entitlement Spending and Tax Reform


#1

Rand was on Cavuto last night and talked about his plans for reining in entitlement spending and how he doesn’t like the idea of “revenue neutral” tax reform, but instead wants to actually cut taxes and leave more money in the private sector. He says that all tax cuts shouldn’t add to the deficit, but the way to do that is cut spending by the same amount.


#2

He embraces the same flaw as all Liberals, that tax cuts will reduce revenue to the government.

Tax cuts increase revenue by inducing growth, tax increases decrease revenue by stalling growth.

The spending issue is a separate matter entirely, once the tax burden reaches the point where it is more beneficial to avoid risk further increases just make revenue more sparse.

Regulation is just another tax expense for all intents and purposes, regulations are the main burden driving our economic stagnation right now.


#3

I agree with you 100% after all, during the Reagan boom the wealthy only payed 30-40% in taxes. So it seems logical that all we need to do is lower taxes on the “job-creaters” and we will return to economic nurvana of the Reagan years. Also we can cut 20% of the wealthies tax burden from the extreme tax burden of 15% they are currently paying. but at least we will make up for it somehow by the closing of the wealthies undefined loop-holes. That should also cover the 1 trillion dollar increase in defense spending. I also agree we should reduce government spending as well that effect everyone below my “personal” tax bracket. Finally "God Bless Big Oil, heaven knows that without govt subsidies and tax breaks they would not be able to stand on thier own two feet and “compete” alone in the market-place without governement help.

Oh ya and we should decrease corperate-accountability (or from some marketing MBA’s spin (regulations). After all such a move might have prevented the banking, housing, and market crash. Banks and corperations need less not more regulations as has been claerly illustraited in the past few years.

I totally agree with you.


#4

No, he wants less revenue going into the government as well.


#5

Internal Revenue more than doubled after the Reagan tax cuts that were far larger than 20%

If by “Nirvana” you mean large, sustained growth and increased tax revenues then yes.
If by “Nirvana” you mean the Liberal version of massive, long term unemployment and evaporating tax revenues then no, Reagan’s prescription will not deliver.

That is a Liberal lie, the 15% is only the Capital Gains tax rate, that is paid on the earnings of dollars already taxed at the corporate and individual tax rates.

But Liberals never let truth get in the way of Communist Propaganda.

Capping personal deductions at 25 thousand dollars is not “undefined”.

Just because Liberals cannot understand economics does not render perfectly clear numbers “undefined”.

So…Not cutting defense spending equals an increase in defense spending to a Liberal?

Yes, tax cuts will compensate for all the defense spending we need to satisfy the Constitutional requirement to provide for a defense sufficient to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Who are you “agreeing with”?
I want all federal spending eradicated for all “groups” except for the specified enumerated powers and I want the progressive income tax system scrapped entirely.

Not excluding oil companies from the same deductions as any other business does not equal a “government subsidy”.

Just because Communist’s think that all wealth belongs to the State does not make it so, that means your narrative that any dollar not taxed is a “government subsidy” just reveals your evil agenda.

Government regulation caused the banking, housing and market crash’s of the past few years, if the Clinton and Bush eras had left the financial sector alone none of the issues that occurred would have been more than a small blip.

You do not have the capacity to even comprehend what I believe, much less “agree” with me.

You believe whatever your Propaganda Ministers tell you to believe, you never challenge them and you never give opposing views a hearing.


#6

Then he is a fool, we owe 16 Trillion dollars that will destroy our currency and the futures of our children and grandchildren if we do not reverse course.

Spending needs to be reduced but revenues MUST increase.
We demanded this mess be created and we are responsible to pay for it, not pass it onto those who did no evil worthy of such a sentence.

Tax rates and regulations must be dramatically reduced in order to net the needed revenue increases.


#7

I don’t see where you and Rand disagree. He wants massive cuts to spending and large tax cuts which will stimulate growth and balance the budget.

Lets be frank about one thing, the $16 trillion debt will never be repaid in full. The federal government is either going to default and creditors will not get the full thing, or the burden of the debt will be lessened through inflation. Either way, the real $16 trillion will not be paid back.


#8

Year in which the Feds had the largest tax revenues: 2007

There is a finite amount of money, if you take from ME, $1 dollar, ME has $1 dollar LESS to spend, $1 less to invest, $1 less to eat out on etc etc, which brings me to another aspect of money which is RARELY discussed:

“Economic Multiplier Effect”: This is how many times the aforementioned $1 dollar travels thru society (our economy). I get money from some source, I pay bills, (mortgage, electric, water, TV, fone, food etc) This is what it takes to live at the level to support the family unit or as dad said, to keep the doors open around this place. All the door open money goes to those in the door open business, mortgage company who pays it people who make the same payments to others and the process repeats until the money is exhausted by dividing it up so many times it literally becomes only $1 buck.

Over an above this money I get and keep open the doors is what they refer to as “disposable income”. Money NOT NEEDED, Di buys WANTS. Corvettes, guns, trips to Europe, boats, and all kinds of fun stuff for enjoying life. DI is what really is the icing on the cake of a countries economy and well being.

Nancy Pelosi, like many in GOVT such as 'bammy feel that the MORE folks on welfare, food stamps public housing etc the better society is and in fact welfare spending will bring about prosperity. Sadly its just the opposite. You can NOT grow a economy by bringing money in the middle or the bottom. The reason why is the money travels less due to a lower multiplier effect and as a result it depreciates faster.

The way to grow is thru TOP DOWN. Lets look at water craft. I like personal water craft (jet ski) it costs about $14k and its strictly a summer toy. I buy them at the Yamaha dealer, which unlike the mortgage company would not be in business unless guys like me with that much disposable income walked in the door. His business generates a lot of other business, lake operators, and a plethora of go fast parts etc.

My buddy, Ziggy Belcher is a partner at PAIN Capital and he makes MILLIONS. I meet Ziggy at the lake a lot. Ziggy has a custom built Chris Craft he paid $2.5 Million for, like my jet ski its just a summer toy. Where I put an extra $14k into the economy he dropped $2.5M and put a LOT of folk to work. In fact Ziggy has a full time live aboard Captain and his wife who cooks and cleans on board. The two of them are paid $98k per year. Zigg’s money is really moving some coin thru the economy.

He buys a Chris Craft and the helps another guy buy a a boat for a few 100k, and on down the line till you get to some guy buying a Sears jon boat.

Zig buys a Rolls Royce and the money keeps on multiplying till some guy buys a bicycle.

You will never grow the economy by giving some guy enough money to buy a bicycle, that will never turn into a Rolls, it don’t flow uphill…


#9

[quote=“RET423, post:6, topic:36690”]
Then he is a fool, we owe 16 Trillion dollars that will destroy our currency and the futures of our children and grandchildren if we do not reverse course.Spending needs to be reduced but revenues MUST increase.We demanded this mess be created and we are responsible to pay for it, not pass it onto those who did no evil worthy of such a sentence.Tax rates and regulations must be dramatically reduced in order to net the needed revenue increases.
[/quote] Yeah I may have been wrong on this one. Actually he may have been in agreement with you about lower tax rates creating more revenue, as opposed to Romney balancing rate cuts with loophole reductions.


#10

[quote=“RET423, post:5, topic:36690”]

Internal Revenue more than doubled after the Reagan tax cuts that were far larger than 20%

*That breaks my heart that the government was given the enforcement bandwidth to collect taxes already owed by those that owed taxes. Are you saying we should have a tax code but not hire enough people to actually enforce it? BTW Reagan signed into law a tax increase.
*

If by “Nirvana” you mean large, sustained growth and increased tax revenues then yes.
If by “Nirvana” you mean the Liberal version of massive, long term unemployment and evaporating tax revenues then no, Reagan’s prescription will not deliver.

*It seemed to deliver quite well under his watch as we experienced a sugnificant recovery during the Reagan years and unemployment went down sugnificantly during his time in office with the “job creaters” bringing in between 30-40% worth of income tax.
*

That is a Liberal lie, the 15% is only the Capital Gains tax rate, that is paid on the earnings of dollars already taxed at the corporate and individual tax rates.

I say all revenue streams a individual recieves should count as personal income including capital-gains. When my wife and I withdraw “income” from our investments that is “income.” Why should i only pay 15% on that revenue stream but if I work my tale off for my revenue stream 8-12 hours a day I should have to pay 30%+ just because that revenue is different then my income comming in from stocks and dividens from my income stock? income is income. Thats not communism its good common sence. Besides in communism I wouldn’t have the stocks to begin with…red haring argument.

But Liberals never let truth get in the way of Communist Propaganda.

*See above about communism. Such labels deminish your argument when you throw such extreme labels out there. Kind of like a sign i saw down town where there are anti Obama signs showing Obama as Hitler with the mustach but at the same time calls him a communist. I dont know how Obama can be both far right and far left at the same time.
*

Capping personal deductions at 25 thousand dollars is not “undefined
”.

*And are we to believe that that will be sugnificant enough to close the gap on our debt. Ya right. Besides that is a attack directed at the Job-creaters but of course that will be more then balanced out by thier 20% tax break. So again more pandering to the middle class.
*

Just because Liberals cannot understand economics does not render perfectly clear numbers “undefined”.

*I think I have made some valid economic points.
*

So…Not cutting defense spending equals an increase in defense spending to a Liberal?

*Yes not cutting a trillion dollars in defense spending is increasing defense spending when Obama will cut a trillion dollars in defense spending as that is the other big elephant in the room next to social security and medcare. you have to cut spending on all three of the major consumers of our GDP Social Security, Medcare, and Defense spending. *

Yes, tax cuts will compensate for all the defense spending we need to satisfy the Constitutional requirement to provide for a defense sufficient to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

*Lol if you are trillions in debt I don’t see how cutting your income (revenue stream) will bring you any closer to your objective to close the gap on our national debt. You claim such tax cuts will drive increased job creation yet we have had such tax cuts from the bush era for the past 6 years and we still shed lots of jobs at one point we were at 10% unemployment. The wealthy pay less in taxes then they have since WW2. We are still in this mess so I don’t see how further tax cuts to those who have all the money will improve anything. The wealthy payed much more in taxes in the 80’s and we still saw tremendous job creation. Hense, I see no credable link between tax cuts and job creation.
*

Who are you “agreeing with”?
I want all federal spending eradicated for all “groups” except for the specified enumerated powers and I want the progressive income tax system scrapped entirely.

*A progressive tax system works. You cant draw blood from a turnup anymore then you can draw blood from the shrinking middle class. the only ones who have the money to help us pay down this debt are those who have the money.
*

Not excluding oil companies from the same deductions as any other business does not equal a “government subsidy
”.

*Intresting point. I’ll give you that one.
*

Just because Communist’s think that all wealth belongs to the State does not make it so, that means your narrative that any dollar not taxed is a “government subsidy” just reveals your evil agenda.

Government regulation caused the banking, housing and market crash’s of the past few years, if the Clinton and Bush eras had left the financial sector alone none of the issues that occurred would have been more than a small blip.

*I see and most of the benifacters were the investers and CEO’s who were either put in jail, ran to south america, or were given a pass when they made millions off of these these terrible regulations.
*

You do not have the capacity to even comprehend what I believe, much less “agree” with me.

I* could also say that you believe what ever rush/beck or FOX tells you but I won’t lower myself to such a uncontructive argument.
*

You believe whatever your Propaganda Ministers tell you to believe, you never challenge them and you never give opposing views a hearing.

[/quote]Just so you know, I do not believe in Obama either. The choice we have as the middle class, is to vote for the rich guy who only cares about the job-creaters, people making enough money they no longer have to work. Or the other guy who only cares about the very poor. Either way we in the middle class lose and will ultimatly end up paying the tab like we always have because we actually have to "put-time in for a “wage”. and we dont have the money to take advantage in any sugnificant way, of the capital gains tax. Furthermore, we are too rich to qualify for the obama economic approach. I am voting for donald duck or a third party to give the big two lame parties some competition


#11

I was arguing the merits of tax cuts versus a class warfare fueled progressive tax code, I was not arguing for Romney as a President.

The argument is not “One view is for the rich and one view is for the poor”, the argument is whether a market based economy that allows for great wealth to be amassed serves all better by providing opportunity without guarantees or whether a government controlled market that forces a few to pay for all but restricts opportunity serves all better.

I don’t give a damn how rich anyone gets. I don’t resent them, despise them, condemn them, ridicule them or think they owe me one red cent. I don’t think that their success robs anyone of anything, in fact I know that their success opens up even more opportunity for others to achieve success.

I have ground a living out of this world since 1982, I come from a family with no money, education or connections political or industrial.

I have faced no greater enemy than government in that time.

No “Corporation” ever tried to shut me down
No “Corporation” ever tried to render my business activity criminal.
No “Corporation” ever invented new excuses every year to extort money and time from me.
No “Corporation” ever demonized me to the public.
No “Corporation” ever invented junk science to have an excuse to attack me.

I have contracted services to many Corporations over the years and all they ever did was pay me for my services and thank me for a job well done, then they promised to call me when they needed my service again and they did.

I have however been hunted like a criminal by the government in all those ways I listed before, 5 times since 1982 I have had my specific vocation outlawed and had all I had worked to obtain rendered useless or lost entirely. 5 times I have reinvented my business only to have the government shift its focus to the new industry and destroy it like the previous one.

The government has no business dividing up Americans, demonizing Americans or creating environments that prohibit Americans from marketing their ideas and talents to whatever degree they desire and have the capacity for.

The “Middle Class” is no more noble than “The Wealthy” and the vast majority of “The Poor” damn sure did not get that way in America because of strong character.

My tax views were offered strictly from the perspective of internal revenue, booming economies generate far more internal revenue than stagnant or shrinking economies regardless of the tax rate.

How those revenues are spent is an entirely different debate but I will never come down on the side of rewarding sloth and failure by punishing hard work and success.


#12

The point is, I dont see where tax cuts have proven effective in anyway in increasing job creation. We have had sugnificant tax cuts for the last 6 years and we still lost jobs. On the other hand we have had the wealthy pay 30-40% in income tax and we saw sugnificant job growth in past decades. I see tax cuts as incidentel either way.

It seems we are using taxes as a clamering symbol because we are trying to run a state economy in a new global environment with tools that worked in the 20th century before globalization and we are in uncharted territory. This is illustraited by the huge flux up and down in our economy. I don’t claim to have the answers to this delema but i detest pointless and fruitless attempts to solve this issue through means like :tax cuts rather then figurign out how to crack the code of globalization. Its distracting, unproductive and will not get us out of this cyclic mess.

An example of more preglobalization and useless thinking:

More drilling will solve our oil dependence on the middle east. Anyone who knows anything about how oil is traded on the globel-commodities market will tell you that even if we could double oil production or tripple it in North America we would still see our oil prices go up. The reason is in a globel oil trading environment, all oil is added to a general global pool that everyone draws from throughout the world. If we add to much oil into the pool and drive the market down, the middle east will lower their oil production and we will still pay more at the pump.

So our solution is dated and will not solve anything. This is a example of using a old “common-knowledge” state approach to solving a globle issue. Just like lowering taxes to create jobs hasn’t worked in the past, in the present (6 years of bush tax cuts) and i see no reason why it would work in the future.

I hate to say it but we could learn alot from the Chinese on how to adjust and grow our economy in the new global environmet. China is killing us and everyone else becasue they have developed a partnership between public govt. and the private chinese business secter.

  1. China requires that any foriegn company that wants to do business in China must agree to build a factory in china to put chinese people to work.
  2. China uses state money and and shared ownership with their major private corperations to giving china’s companies a edge over American and European corperations and businesses.
  3. China also buys up American and European bonds to shield thier companies from critisizm. We may hollar and yell about how unfair China is doing busness and winning but its working and with the exception of most recient temperary trends they are growing much faster then our economy is. If China continues this approach to the global market, they will eventually start killing off our “purely private corperations” over time as they will find that their federalized private corperations will be able to out bid our purely private corperations.

Our response: but that is so “unamerican” we need to shrink government not partner with it. So we lose because we really, really want to stick with the traditional and outdated methods of the pre-globalization period of the 20th century. China is simply laughing at us as they buy and own more and more of our and european nations. While at the same time provide jobs for their people and drive foriegn corperations out of business.

This is the reason I hate both political parties they are pandering on our ignorance rather then comming up with real solutions. Reminds me of how Nero happily played his harp up on a hill as he watched the burning of Rome.


Both parties are suffering from pre-globalization nostegia...
#13

RIGHT ON BROTHER, RIGHT ON!!!

My father spent nearly 30 years in the service of this country as a soldier, my father did NOT TRUST the federal govt at all, one of the primary reasons was he did not see the rest of the govt as patriots, but rather incompetents who came to work at 8, left at 5 whether the building was burning down or not, folks who took the attitude ‘that’s not my YOB!’ I too heard that many times over my years in the military from some high ranking civilian who had a party to go to, failed to complete the project he had been working on and walks over on Friday night, dumps it on my desk and tells me it due on Monday by 0700. I have seen so many times in the winter with a touch of snow on the ground and 100% of the civilians cannot come to work, but 100% of the military manages to make it in…for 2 weeks!!! the level I worked almost every civilian was a GS/GM 11, 12, 13 or 14 $85 - 115k per year, bonus and when they retire they get a $25,000 retirement bonus (how many here knew this???)

Govt has a SINGLE OBJECTIVE, ONLY 1!!!

  1. Control of its subjects

  2. There are no more


#14

We have not had a “significant tax cut” since post 9/11, those cuts resulted in over a 40 percent increase in tax revenue and full employment, this condition endured until the Demoncrat’s took Congress in 2006.

Income tax rates are irrelevant, ALL taxes are expenses so all have the same effect.

Singling out the income tax rate as if that is the extent of government imposed usury might sell in Liberal circles but anyone who runs a business knows that the income tax rate is the LAST tax paid, not the biggest or the only tax paid.

Times of economic prosperity coincide with times of low total tax and regulatory burden, times of stagnant economic conditions coincide with times of large tax and regulatory burdens.

My incomes tax rate has not changed in 10 years but I spend 4 times as much satisfying the government requirements to operate than I did 10 years ago, calling extortion by another name does not change what it is. Pretending that looking at the Federal Tax Brackets from any era is sufficient to determine the economic results of tax policy is nefarious.

the laws on economics and markets are universal and timeless.

Cheap labor is less efficient that skilled labor payed much more.
Cheap, stable energy costs are mandatory to sustain growth.
Competition breeds efficiency.
Tax Rates that encourage risk taking spur rapid growth,

Today we embrace;
Expensive labor that perform like cheap labor due to protectionism.
Expensive, unstable energy costs due to government intrusion into the energy market.
A regulatory monstrosity that prevents new businesses from forming to compete with existing entities and that outlaws innovation.
A Tax System that discourages risk and punishes success when it manages to occur.

If your desire was to destroy an economy you could not create a more effective structure or philosophy than we have implemented in America today to achieve that goal.

We do not have “Huge ups and downs”, we are stagnant.

Taxes and Regulations combined with labor protectionism and a corrupt judiciary are the cause of our struggles, Romney only has one of these four issues right and Obama has none of them right.

There is no “code” to crack, Socialism, oppression and Communism destroy economies while free markets, Liberty and rugged individualism grow economies.

Absolutely nothing has occurred in the last decade to alter those truths.

You think that is true because you do not understand market dynamics.

If the United States decided to publicly embrace a “Drill everywhere we have resources available today” energy policy the price of a barrel of oil would plummet before the first drill bit hit oil and before the first Dixie Cup of oil was extracted.

EVERY phase of oil energy production, distribution and retail sales is governed by market forces and competition EXCEPT for the supply of crude, governments control the lions share of the worlds crude oil supply.

The price of a barrel of oil is high because no significant threat to this monopoly exists, preserving this price guarantees enormous prosperity and political relevance for Nations that have no other means of being relevant in the affairs of the world.

If the U.S. was to convince the world that we were going to remove ALL the shackles from our domestic oil supply and go after every drop everywhere, the Nations that currently supply the world with crude oil would open the spigots and flood the world with oil cheap enough to make U.S. extraction unprofitable in most regions.

We would never even start punching holes in most places because it would be cost prohibitive but the resulting stabilization of cheap energy supplies would revive our domestic economy by redirecting the massive amount of American dollars now leaving our Nation into our domestic economy.

There is no supply limitation that is causing these prices, it is a monopoly on the side of the owners of the crude oil supply that limit the supply enough to keep prices artificially high. Trying to utilize percentages of oil added to the worldwide market to predict the effect on barrel price when everyone knows that market forces are not what is determining the supply side of the market is dubious.

If I had control of 80 percent of the worlds toilet paper and Enviro-Nazi Communist’s guaranteed that I would never face market competition from anyone else then I would charge 10 bucks a roll, that is what most of the Oil Dictators do with their supply monopoly.

Wrong, they will seek to protect their monopoly and relevance by cutting prices so low that nobody else bothers to extract their own.

This happened in the 1980’s by the way, the Texas oil industry was starving in the 1980’s because OPEC decided to put them under with cheap oil. Today our government is trying to eradicate domestic oil production so OPEC just smiles and stuffs American dollars in the bank while enjoying the butt kissing they receive from the whole world.

Our solution is not “dated”, anymore than the law of gravity is "dated"
Your excuse to ignore domestic supplies and the realities of a monopolized market will always destroy whatever market they are applied to.

The conclusions you are drawing in this paragraph are based upon the flawed premises you established earlier, if I accepted your premises I would draw these conclusions as well but your premises are flawed.

You have bought the same lie that the Liberals were selling during the Cold War, back then they said the Soviet Union was killing us and everyone else due to their superior government controlled economy.

China is a house of cards, their growth is entirely dependent upon the ability of foreign markets to buy their goods, foreign raw materials being shipped in and their currency manipulation lasting long enough to eradicate competition abroad before it crushes them under its own weight.

They are like two stores of the same type across the street from one another, one is owned by a wealthy man and the other has not been around long enough to amass a nest egg.

The wealthy owner decides to drop his prices below cost to put his competitor out of business so he can have the whole market to himself, this is called a “price war” and was common until the 1980’s when everyone realized it rarely works.

The wealthy owner always runs out of capital before the weaker owner runs out of capacity to endure as long as the weaker owner does not panic and try to play the same game as the wealthy owner.

You are advocating for the U.S. to join China in their flawed design that is destined for failure, you are trying to convince us to be like the weaker owner who panics and embraces a proved failed concept.

Just as the collapse of the Soviet Union surprised everyone except Supply Side Conservatives, the backslide of China will shock most on the Left side of the spectrum.

Nothing has “changed” in the era of “globalization” except enlarged markets, that just means that all the lessons we learned between 1820 and 1950 are being learned now by the new participants in the world market.

All the same laws of economics still apply.

This is call “Protectionism”, it is not “new” and it always fails by removing market forces from infrastructure decisions.

There is no “edge” gleaned by bringing government into business, the motivations and consequences to bad decisions are non existent to government so this just reduces efficiency and ads layers of bureaucracy. This is not “new” or innovative, it is a proved failure as a long term model.

No, they buy U.S. and European bonds because they can do nothing else with the money they get from trading with these Nations, this is a great evidence of their inevitable crash. Far to great a percentage of China’s economy is dependent upon the prosperity of other Nations, this will be their downfall.

I am not “hollering”, I am enjoying China’s stupidity by getting great prices along with the knowledge that a Communist model is collapsing under its own unwillingness to accept the lessons of history.

China’s current downturn is not an “exception”, it is the consequence of a flawed model that has never succeeded over time anywhere that it has been tried.

And it has been tried A LOT on multiple scales.

No, if China continues they will end up sucking hind teat just like every other time a derivative of Mercantilism has been embraced by a Nation.

It is “Un-American” and it is the reason America rose from nothing to the greatest power on earth in just 150 years while Nations like China still govern at gunpoint and force abortions while having to play market games doomed to collapse just to feed their impoverished and oppressed people.

History did not begin 15 years ago, this story is not new and the end is already written.
Unless we are more naive than ever before and decide to embrace the same failed concepts.

You have bought the tired hype and flawed premise, you are ready to embrace a proved failure of an economic model because China has managed a good run for one decade (2000 to 2010), there is a lot more information regarding economics than this 10 year period and NOTHING China is doing is new or innovative.

I hate both Parties as well but for different reasons, both Parties are trying to get Americans to accept much of your concepts.

A Party that embraces my view does NOT exist anymore, when it does America will come charging back.


#15

That is an affirmative, allow me to add:

We have gone from a govt that regulated to a govt that does (as in DO, not regulate. The reason why we have a govt in DO mode is they FAILED in regulating so to cover it up then have doubled down and increased regulations and are taking over the DO. Example" Obamacare, govt when from regulating healthcare in the US, screwed it up so badly, they took it over to cover up the stink and just wait till it goes into effect. The result will be extreme regulation + government healthcare, an you spell EPIC FAIL!

The govt primary role outside of defending these United States is regulation of a capitalist economy.

Lets look at the financial and manufacturing sector over the past 5 years: The buzz words on the lips of every poltiican and American were: “too big to fail”…REALLY? I have a degree in economics and business, I went to one of the top business schools in the US, yet I have NEVER heard too big to fail, in fact we talked about it as a question and the answer by my profs, “there is no such thing”, when it gets that big the role of govt is to divide it up. AT&T/MaBell, Std Oil of New Jersey and a host of others. One area few know much about was the meat industry. At one time it was corp owned ranches, shipping, packing, butchering, selling. In other words from start to finish and they control the prices in the VERTICAL market. Again the govt stepped in and regulated and stopped that.

Now we see in the too big to fail mentality the govt stepping in and exercising control, putting in their own hand picked people, firing those they do not want (CEO of GM) and telling them what and how they hire and produce (Chevy Volt, Unions). Do you see ANYTHING that can possible lead to success.

Healthcare. We have govt healthcare now and long term healthcare with exceptional recorded keeping and costs management. Do you know who and what they are? Have you heard of anyone in Congress or Obama tell us about his, call it a model to follow or even mention it. Better still how about looking at it in a cost per patient, cost of meds, cost of treatment in order to extract the data NEEDED to build a healthcare govt system…NO you have not.

  1. US Military healthcare, from top to bottom from building hospitals to providing all known care and trauma care not rivaled in the world

  2. Veterans Administration, now we have post military to senior care being provided.

I have spent my entire life in these institutions, I know them WELL.

So you want good healthcare, nothing could be easier. Other than military ALL healthcare is capitalist based, remove all the regs and turn it into for profit, limit the size of the corps and watch the costs drop out the bottom and quality go thru the roof.

Healthcare over state lines. This is a NIGHTMARE for companies, why??? Congress pass the regs to PREVENT competition and I can go on and on. Congress regulated healthcare until it all but collapsed under it own regulatory weight.

Take away: Unbridled capitalism leads to failure of the system as companies get too large, competition goes away, costs soar like in the meat industry. The govt has a role to basically keep companies from getting too big to fail, now they are in bed with that…'member Teddy Roosevelt? What was his nickname? “Trust Buster”, he broke up companies and we did so up until the 70’s with AT&T. Then it stopped and all can see the mess we are in as a result.

Take a look at AMTRAC or ANY govt effort and we only see a debris strewn path of failure…


#16

The main reason why healthcare and healthcare insurence went over the top is because of employer paid employee insurence. Once insurence companies started to get fed by the combined wealth of corperations rather then the limited resources of individuals, the cost of insurence sky rocketed. Once healthcare markets saw all the cost being underwriten by corperations and employers they jumped in the money pit too and its been a snowball effect ever sense.


#17

A factor, sure, major factor you bet, but the real problem is with CONGRESS and its rules and regulations of the HC industry.

Tell Congress to get out of the way and watch what happens to qualty of care and cost of care, quality goes up, cost goes down.

When you are my age you remember when you could not even buy car insurance outside the state you lived in, took an act of Congress to allow it. I remember when if you traveled out of state on business or vacation you MUST notify your ins company in order to be covered.

Those rules for insurance were put in place by well meaning Congress to PROTECT insurance companies located in each state and many of those rules still are in effect…That is the MAIN reason, NO FREE ENTERPRISE!!! Your comments are well founded however that is the RESULT of no free enterprise, corps were forced to provide HC in order to attract employees. I can assure you that corps never had any intention of getting in the HC business, they make widgets. Back in the 60’s it was near impossible to buy HC for an individual from a HC company.


#18

He is simply his fathers torch barrer. He has daddy issues. He will be marginalized like his father is today. He will simply take the same percentage of Paul supporters over when his father retires. Moving on…


#19

It sounds like you are talking about George W. Bush.


#20

We do NOT have a tax problem in the US, we have a SPENDING problem…