Cynical Nation

Hey,
I am glad we agree on this one, even for different reasons. By the way, I now expect that Laura Bush will also start visiting my blog to complain that I am not being fair to her husband. My blog is apparently getting national attention. LOL.

No, I'm afraid I won't be visiting your blog Mr. Wind, as I've heard you've compared George to Satan! (I'll pray for you)

As to the war in Iraq, I can only say this, all those who're now campaigning on "ending the war in Iraq," are campaigning on doing something the current administration is trying to accomplish before it leaves office.

We stand with the government of Jawad al-Malaki in the hopes of stablizing that country and keeping it from becoming both a beach-head for terrorists and the means by which Iran expands its pernicious sphere of influence over that region.

President Malaki is well aware that if the Iraqi government and its armed forces and police can't put aside their ethnic differences aside and help the U.S. troops restore order there, especially in and around Baghdad, then we'll begin a major redeployment, before the end of this year.

In any event, the President is determined to make Iraq a non-issue by November 2008.

I'm still in favor of an Edwards presidency. I'm convinced he'd keep the idea of universal health care (of which I am a big proponent) front and center.

As far as tax increases go, he's only recommending them for the rich folk, and that's always going to be OK with me. As long as he keeps the tax increases out of the middle and lower classes, we'll be fine.

Hmmmm, and I always thought a two income family earning $200K to $300K in places like LA or NY was middle class....actually toward the lower end of the middle class, in places like that.

You're certainly not going to live very well in Manhattan on that amount!

But hey, go figure.

Beyond that, I have no will to punish those who earn decidedly more income than I do, especially when that tax system demands so little from those who are truly wealthy - the likes of Tom Keane Jr and Teresa Heinz-Kerry (and other very wealthy people) have paid as little as 4% on their total overall income.

Most folks I know cough up about half their paychecks.

Call me crazy, but somehow that doesn't seem right.

It's certainly not "taxing the rich," at least not the truly rich.

JMK and I agree on at least one thing: there are some uber-wealthy that don't pay enough in taxes, and the middle class often has to cover that slack. I know one of Edwards' big ideas is to get more aggressive on Capital Gains collections. That will help. I wish there were other ways to accurately tax "wealth" instead of income.

And I certainly wish there were ways to help "level the playing field" with regards to taxing income. I certainly understand that here in eastern TN you can live like a king on $200K, while in Manhattan or San Francisco you're just barely in the middle class.

I certainly agree with that principle Tracy, just not the “Edwards solution.”

Edwards seems to believe that the current tax system isn’t broken, but just needs some tweaking.

In that regard, he couldn’t be more wrong.

The current system isn’t designed to tax the truly wealthy, it’s designed specifically and expressly to keep those with the most valuable skills (those that are most rare &/or difficult to master) from accruing significant wealth.

For instance, there are few, if ANY of those earning the top 1% of incomes in America among the top 1% of “wealthiest Americans” in terms of real assets or actual wealth.

Supply-Side economics is based on the “common sense” principle that “Higher tax RATES result in lower tax REVENUES or receipts.”

How is that “common sense?”

In the same way that the “common sense” dictum, “People respond to incentives,” is common sense.

Higher tax rates create a huge incentive for people to defer more of their income tax deferred.

Who can best afford to defer a larger share of their income?

Those with the highest incomes, of course and once the cost (in higher taxes) outweighs the benefits (of that tax deferred interest) that decision becomes a no-brainer and when they defer that income, tax revenues fall.

Edwards claims that tinkering around the edges with Cap Gains rates and perhaps a return to the Dividend tax will generate more revenues, but that flies in the face of logic too!

Why would anyone continue to go with a riskier investment (the kind that spurs new businesses and introduces new products to market) when the government is just going to move in and take more of the rewards, reducing the risk/reward ratio and making safer, slower moving vehicles like tax-free bonds look more appealing?

No such tinkering reduces investment far more than it generates tax revenues.

What Edwards is saying, in effect, is that the Supply-Side (tax cut) policies favored by G W Bush, Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan are wrong and the Keynesians were right.

Is there a flat-out dumber position to hold?

I don’t think so!

Over the past 25 years, the legacy of Supply-Side economics is clear. In 1980, the last year of the Carter administration (Carter was the last Keynesian to inhabit the WH) a mere 35% of Americans earned $50,000/year or more in 2003 dollars (adjusted for inflation), by 1990, 40% of Americans earned $50,000/year or more in 2003 dollars (adj for inflation) and in 2003, 44% of Americans earned $50,000/year or more in those same 2003 dollars!

During that same period American households with earners between the ages of 25 and 59 (their peak earning years) saw a 13% increase in households earning over $100,000/year and a 14% decrease in such households earning less than $75,000/year.

THAT is the legacy of Supply-Side economics, Tracy.

That and the current economy with a 2.2% inflation rate, a 4.6% unemployment rate, very low interest rates (making borrowing and “leveraging wealth” easier for average people), rising personal income (see above), very strong GDP growth and a rollicking Dow (over 12,000) thanks to spurred investment, which has, in turn, created over 7.5 million new jobs over the last six years and huge tax revenue increases.

The current tax system isn’t merely “grossly unfair,” and indeed “broken,” but it’s dysfunctional as well.

It not only allows the wealthiest Americans (those folks who don’t rely on the slowest, weakest form of wealth creation, income, as a primary source of their wealth) to skate, it also allows millions of Americans in “the black market” (those working “off the books,” or “for cash”) to skate as well.

There is a tax system that addresses those issues, but it’s been largely ignored because the wealthiest and most influential people oppose it – they WANT to continue to skate. They WANT you and I to continue to pay their way.

That tax system is a Consumption Tax (a national retail sales tax) or what’s been called “The Fair Tax.” http://www.fairtax.org/

John Edwards is claiming that Supply-Side policies have failed and that a return to Keynesian policies (“government spending, especially social spending, is GOOD for the economy”) is in order.

I believe I’ve shown above, in less than 425 words, that Supply Side policies work and Keynesian policies don’t.

Is Edwards merely economically ignorant or is he proposing a plan that’ll benefit the wealthiest Americans (like himself) at the expense of those he’s promising to “help?”

Well, he made tens of millions of dollars fleecing insurance companies with “junk science,” (cesarean sections do not reduce the number of babies born with CP) and in the process put many, many Ob-Gyn’s out of business. Those doctors either went into teaching or other specialties, leaving John Edwards with a vast fortune and the communities impacted with a shortage of Ob-Gyn’s in the process, so it’s not like it would be the first time that a John Edwards tried to fleece the gullible.

"Those doctors either went into teaching or other specialties, leaving John Edwards with a vast fortune and the communities impacted with a shortage of Ob-Gyn’s in the process, so it’s not like it would be the first time that a John Edwards tried to fleece the gullible.

JMK,
You write things that can not be substantiated and are far out from reality. There is no question that Edwards was a trial lawyer and he made money in trials against some Ob/Gyn doctors. But to say that "communities were impacted" from shortage of Ob/Gyns because of Edwards is ridiculous and there is no proof. Oh, and please dont quote some right wing blog or magazine. That would not give credibility to your unsubstantiated claim.

Actually BW, that in fact, is very well documented.

"Yet as...Walter Olson (Manhattan Institute) has documented in the Wall Street Journal and on his website overlawyered.com, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a comprehensive study released last year, determined that delivery problems were not to blame for cerebral palsy in the "vast majority" of cases. Cerebral palsy is instead typically caused by factors beyond the doctor's control, such as maternal thyroid problems, genetic abnormalities, or prenatal infection...

"...Meanwhile, suits like Edwards's have driven up malpractice-insurance rates exponentially, over 400 percent in his home state of North Carolina in the last three years. In 2002, the St. Paul Companies, then the largest medical-malpractice insurer, exited the business entirely after toting up nearly $1 billion in losses. And faced with potential bogus "botched delivery" suits, many obstetricians are limiting their practices to gynecology, forcing women in some areas to travel hours for prenatal care and delivery."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200401260836.asp

And it's not just North Carolina, "The Kentucky Medical Association reviewed state and hospital records and found that only 426 doctors in Kentucky delivered babies last year (2005) in Kentucky – down 79 doctors from the year before. Expectant mothers that are deemed “high risk” face further difficulty because nearly one-third of Kentucky’s OB/GYN’s – 31 percent – have limited the number they will see, for liability reasons.

“Kentucky is facing a medical liability crisis,” said Senator McConnell. “Fewer OB/GYN’s are practicing in the Commonwealth because of the high premiums they are made to pay which in turn has forced women to make tough choices about their medical care.”

From "Senator McConnell Calls On Senate To Support The Medical Care Access Protection Act"

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/print_record.cfm?id=255308

There are no Liberal or Conservative facts.

In short, there's not going to be any articles decrying "the myth of the vanishing Ob-Gyn."

When you claim things like, "You write things that can not be substantiated and are far out from reality," about me (I always back my views up with sources) you kind of set yourself up like this.


In this case, I was surprised that you chose to argue this well-documented fact (Edwards' use of junk science and the resulting dirth of Ob-Gyn's), rather than challenge my Supply-Side positions.

As far as the dirth of Ob-Gyn's go, even in the absence of the above documentation it's completely intuitive, given that people (and that includes physicians) respond to incentives.

When malpractice premiums go up, physicians clearly take in less in compensation.

It would be counter-intuitive to think that physicians faced with a heavy workload and tremendous responsibility would continue to work in that field as their insurance premiums go up, forcing their incomes down, when other alternatives are vailable to them.

That Edwards relied entirely on "junk science" isn't in dispute.

The fact that "The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a comprehensive study released last year, determined that delivery problems were not to blame for cerebral palsy in the "vast majority" of cases," is more than enough evidence for me.



On the other hand, I do commend you for not trying to argue against Supply-Side policies, or the very strong state of the current economy, as those arguments would be even more futile.

You know, I do belive it's true! "We're ALL Supply-Siders now."

I love the Elizabeth Edwards comment to Blue Wind's post. She blames the Clintons for convincing John Edwards to vote for the war. Coincidently (ha ha), Hillary is the frontrunner for the nomination, hence John's main rival in the primary.

Gotta love politics.

You are right about Edwards, unfortunately Neocons have also politicized science, so that instead of facts we have competing camps of paid off "experts" giving contradictory testimony on everything from evolution to climate change. Rove pioneered the idea of "If you don't agree with a fact, pay to have it changed!"

Americans want true conservatism, not what Bush has to offer, and certainly not what John Edwards promotes.

"Americans want true conservatism"

No they dont. Sorry, but conservatism sucks. It was appropriate 200 years ago, but not know.

> Sorry, but conservatism sucks.

Ah well, there you have it. Hard to argue with such a compelling, erudite argument. ;-)

It was appropriate 200 years ago, but not know.

So what does that mean? That you'd have us still be British subjects?

Correction:

I should have written 100 (and not 200) years ago. And I am glad that you find my argument that "conservatism sucks" compelling :)

Well, BW, EVERY single one of America's Founders was, what would be called a "paleo-Libertarian" today.

That is, they were socially Conservative, while Libertarian - they realized (it wasn't opinion, it was FACT) that government is ALWAYS the oppressor, always the enemy of freedom loving people.

Conservatives, like myself, see few "necessary tasks" of government - the Military (YES), law enforcement (Again YES), some regulatory functions (YES), but "helping people solve their problems," doling out commodities like food, clothing, housing and health care - those cannot be argued to be legitimate functions of the government founded by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al.

The direct ideological descendants of America's Founders today support LESS government social intervention, a stronger, but streamlined law enforcement & Military and harhser penalties instead of "therapy" for violent offenders (ie. the death penalty for pedarists), things like that.



P.S. I do appreciate your graciousness vis-a-vis the documentation of the negative effects of John Edwards' "junk scinece" based lawsuits...and again for having the good sense to not challenge the Supply-Side policies that have brought us out of the Stagflation of the Carter years to the prosperity of the last quarter century.

Discretion is indeed very often the better part of valor.