Two Weeks To Go, A Pollster Answers a Few Questions

Sorry, but I just don't see a landslide.

He meant an electoral landslide.

Why am I shocked that everyone is so giddy about giving away more of their income. Give your own away. Leave mine alone.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/10/17/

(note the date)

It ain't over 'til it's over.

The fat lady has not sung.

Oh, ROC... No one cares about history.

Get on the Obamawagon!!

Hell, I had to push a few reporters and newsfolk out of the way to get on board.

But I did.

And jimmy, I'm shocked at your blatant, un-patriotic act: believing that keeping YOUR money is YOUR right.

Dumb.

We must 1) be patriotic and pay as much tax as Mr. Obama deems appropriate, and 2) Spread the wealth to those that don't even pay taxes.

That's Change you can believe in!!!

right on Prof.

To pitch in further for the cause, I will even vote the six times that Acorn has allowed for me.

Then there's this ROC-
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/poll.sunday/index.html

Note the date.

That about sums up the current state of the GOP. Republicans have gone from arguing that lower taxes will help the economy and the general welfare to "gimme mine."

You betcha! Darn tootin'! I'll be votin' fer 'bama.

Sorry McCain, but $5K health care credit does not even come close to covering my family's yearly health insurance costs. It's time to socialize the health care industry.

Also, what business do you have asking someone like Palin to be a VP? Talk about unqualified....the last thing we need is another ignorant idiot in the White House, especially one who will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, overturn Roe v Wade and take away the choice that all women need to have.

You want choice? Choose Obama.

"That about sums up the current state of the GOP"

That about sums it up for the walleroo branch of the Democratic Party - classifying keeping YOUR hard earned money as "gimme".

With any luck, hans, they'll use some of the tax money to make a nice, clear wait time for medical procedure website.

Maybe that's why Wally's having so much trouble with his campaign, no?

what business do you have asking someone like Palin to be a VP?

Whats your man's experience? He has done NOTHING. The ntire time he served in the senate, he was campaigning. He didnt even serve his constituents. He served himself.
Joe Biden is another peach. He thinks he is common Joe, but common Joe doesnt spend campaign funds to trim the hedges on his personal property.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Good points prof.

Yes, let us say that Democrats have higher taxes as a goal in itself.

Let us say that they want to "punish success".

Let us say they want to re-distribute income because they feel guilty that others may be needy (or some such). Let's focus on how "out of touch" they are.

For Democrats, paying taxes is how you show patriotism (not like, say, supporting our troops).

I am so glad that we have gotten to these core issues.

Its so refreshing to have these discussions at a higher level. Look, we are talking about principles and values!

Republicans have gone from arguing that lower taxes will help the economy and the general welfare to "gimme mine."

No, I think you confused me with another party.

I just dont care to give more of my had earned money away. I give plenty, thank you.

Im sure higher taxes will really get that economy going.

"...but common Joe doesnt spend campaign funds to trim the hedges on his personal property."

Now that's what I call a hedge fund.

Need an MRI to see if you have cancer?

come back in February!

(well at some locations, come back in April!)

jimmy, are you sure you have anything left to give away? After paying for the war, the upper class tax cuts, and the bank bailout I'd figured you would be running kind of low like the rest of us. My mistake - if you want McCain you must be one of those folks who makes more than $200K.

Yikes if you are unlucky enough to live in Champlain, you'll have to come back in August.

Nearly a year.

"jimmy, are you sure you have anything left to give away?"

Jimmy, you gonna believe us or your own lying bank statement!

Well ROC I'm afraid jimmy's bank statement won't show his part of the tab that the government has run up on all of us in the last few years. He'll pay for it eventually, or his kids will.

So you point is State that all his money from now on is spoken for? Might as well give it all in? What exactly did you mean by "re you sure you have anything left to give away?"

Other than rhetorical nonsense?

Ideology is out. Make it work better or get out of the way.

"Ideology is out."

Funny. So as to define what the democrats do once in power as non-ideological? You're very predictable, Mikey.

"Pollsters know to expect the unexpected."

ROC, have a nice day.

Ideology is out...mikey are you nutz? what do you call socialism?

The democrats take into account market pressures over the general welfare every day. I don't know what out are talking about. Today they are considering a retarded stimulus package so we buy more crap.

Ideology has been distorted or over-simplified (taken out of any context).

This approach to ideology has been used simply to oppose (a policy, a candidate).

Distorted ideology has been turned into motives and used to build character attacks (against a person or whole groups of people).

Part of politics involves simplification and slogans.

Nowadays, it has become too large a part.

It represents a disinclination to discuss real issues and real policies.

"Pollsters know to expect the unexpected."

Pollsters also seem to know exactly when you are about to sit down for dinner before calling. I for one would be suspect of any data collected by companies like SurveyUSA or their parent company, Hypotenuse. Telemarketers disguised as pollsters are probably going to end up with fairly unreliable date if the only people who respond to their automated pre-recorded "surveys" are a bunch of lonely people eager to have a conversation with anyone...even a pre-recorded voice.

I'm with hansmeier . Health insurance for my family of 4 runs close to $12K a year, and it isn't fancy insurance - there is a $2500 deductible per person. I've talked to dozens of insurance brokers and they all say I've got a "good deal." HA. $5,000 won't get us past May.

ROC: interesting links!

It is insane that people do not see the problems with socialized medicine when they happening right next to us in Canada. Are people that blinded by the chosen one?

I did it! I summoned ROC!

Who is talking about socialized medicine?Oh, must be Rush and Ann making up stories again.

I don't think the average American realizes how much money the Bush administration has spent on the Iraq War debacle, the bank bailout, etc. They are literally bankrupting our country, selling our future to China and other debtors, and ensuring that the only people who have it easy in the future are the super-rich, who are not coincidentally the same ones who benefitted the most by 8 years of Bush administration's policies.

We'll be lucky of an Obama administration can keep the country's finances solvent, something I highly doubt the cut-taxes-and-continue spending McCain administration will ever be able to do.

Nothing would please me more than putting a tax in place that make the religious nutjobs pay their fair share of taxes. The Catholic church is the largest land-owner in the world and collecting property taxes on their land in the U.S. would help pay down the national debt. The tax-haven that is Scientology would also get taxed through the roof and all these tax-evading celebrities who belong would no longer able to shelter their millions behind a fake religion created by a science fiction author.

Is Ann Coulter still around? I haven't heard much from her lately. I thought someone might have put a stake through her heart.

Amen hans.

She may have gotten caught in the rain without a brellie and melted monongahela.

Actually, wealth redistribution is a GOP idea. My taxes are now spread like fertilizer all over a wide range of Haliburton savings accounts.

They are also spread over AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and will soon fertilize the banking industry.

These links to Ontario's "wait times for medical services" website reminds me of something I read recently on a Wall Street Journal blog, which was to the effect that the GOP is the party of "no we can't," as in, no we can't fix healthcare. No we can't fix Social Security. No we can't fix government. The solution is to privatize or drown in a bathtub. Sort of the opposite of the moon launch or a Manhattan project, isn't it? I prefer a more optimistic view, which is that we actually have the intellectual wherewithal, not to mention the innovation and common sense, to do things that we or others have done poorly in the past better in the future.

I think that's part of what people embrace when they lean into the phrase "Yes we can."

It is insane that people do not see the problems with socialized medicine when they happening right next to us in Canada. Are people that blinded by the chosen one?

It is insane that people do not see the problems with the fragmented employer-based healthcare system happening right in this country.

The same people who vehemently spout mindless slogans like "Country First" and rail against "socialized medicine" are blind to what's happening in their own country, a country in which scores of people die every year simply because they lack money for access to basic healthcare. Where medical bills are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcy, and where child mortality lags many other industrialized nations with "socialized" medicine. All this in what many proponents of the status quo probably refer to as the "greatest country on earth".

Just don't get sick here without health insurance.

hansmeier -

You are doing too much of exactly what I am talking about.

You mash all your issues together. One "bad thing" causes another "bad thing".

Next you "prove your points" by projecting into "evil motives".

Let's malign religion in the name of balancing the budget while we are at it.

You actually sound just like Ann Coulter.

*****

Yes, some people think the Iraq war was "a debacle" (from the start). is that your point?

Yes, wars are expensive and we need to consider war as a "budget item" in some respects. Was that your pint?

Yes a poorly run war will cost more than a well run war. So maybe the running of the war is "the debacle." Is your point that that happened and we should be upset?

That's just the first half of your first sentence.

We are well on our way to making a case for blame and avoiding anything constructive.

"Just don't get sick here without health insurance."

Or don't ANYONE get sick in Champlain Canada. Because if you need an MRI you'll be dead or the Cancer will be incurable in the 273 days you will have to wait.

Obama is NOT planning to "socialize" medicine. There is a huge difference between having the government pay for health care with taxes and putting in place incentives and programs that enable people to have access to insurance. He is not a "socialist". Re-vamping the tax code to give breaks to middle income people instead of the tope 1% is not socialism anymore than giving tax deductions for children.

Outrage is real and people can be justified in feeling it.

I'm not against expressing outrage.

*****

Outrage can also be fabricated.

Bu outrage doesn't prove a point.

Building a case around outrage doesn't make it a better case.

The "liberal media bias" argument is being "proved" by "the fact" that the "liberal media" isn't "outraged enough" about the "truth about Obama."

Instead of discussing the facts the absence of outrage is the source of the new outrage.

Granted our health system is far from perfect (does a perfect system even exist?) but I would take it any day over a socialized form or health care. I takes me about 2 months to schedule my yearly mammogram now. I can just imagine the wait if we had Obamacized health care.

(I will hear now from some who say we can't debate the facts - the other side is hiding the facts.

The media bias, just to stay will that example, is further "proved" by all the "unknown facts" we haven't been told yet.)

Welcome to politics as an episode from "The X-files".

So what happens with McCain's 5K? Will people avoid preventative healthcare so as to avoid chipping away at their nut? What happens when you've spent it all? Are you then denied that follow up MRI, or do you pay out of pocket?

Oy Mrs. M. Obama is not going to nationalize health care. Period. Access to insurance is the talking point here. You really need to stop watching Rush.

Thousands of people in this country die because they cannot afford diagnostic testing, or the drugs and treatment for thier affliction. So in that respect we are already in Champlain, Canada.

Really, enough with the scare tactics. Whatever we wind up with in this country will not mirror Canada's healthcare system, nor the UK, nor other "socialized" systems for the same reason we will not have parliamentary democracy in the country: we are the USA, and whatever system we (hopefully) develop to relace what we have now will reflect the uniqueness of our national culture, values, and character.

But once again, our current system is untenable. Indeed, it is a strategic weakness, for how can we retain our economic and military strength if we cannot care for our own people?

I have a close relative who is a self-employed tradesman who cannot afford the premiums for an individual health insurance policy, and relies on free samples from his doctor to manage a chronic health problem. He is certainly not alone in his position. I am quite unswayed by other posters' attempts here to portray alternative systems as the boogeyman.

We need to come up with a better way, and yes, it should guarantee basic healthcare to all, it should not be employer based, and yes, it should "spread the wealth" by subsizing the cost of healthcare for those who cannot afford it by those who can, because in the long run we all pay the price when people are denied basic medical care. It is in our national interest to do better than this.

It's rather humorous how uninformed the people who claim Obama is socializing healthcare are, when he is doing nothing of the sort.

If you currently receive a policy through your employer, and are happy with it, nothing will change for you. Don't know how much clearer that can be made.

Actually, what might change is your premium, as Obama is seeking to decrease premiums on most policies by up to $2,500 a year.

If you don't have coverage or don't like your current policy, Obama is planning on giving you more choices.

How that translates in some minds to socialized healthcare is beyond me.

His plan is estimated to cost $50-$65 billion which will be paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on folks making over $250K a year and freezing the estate tax at $3.5 mil. The estate tax was scheduled to be repealed in 2010 which, if allowed to become permanent, would mean an estimated loss of $522 billion in lost tax revenue in the next decade. Obama's plan would exempt about 99.7% of estates from taxation.

Danny - people are "informed" by entertainers like Limbaugh and believe it is real news. Or they visit sites the freeper's. They seek information that will justify their own point of view which prevents them from learning the truth, which they clearly aren't interested in anyway. It's easier to say Obama is a "socialist" than to acknowledge, as many respected Republicans have, that he may actually have some good proposals.

Of course Obama is a socialist. Sarah Palin says so.

"OBAMA: I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim's talking about when he says, "Everybody in; nobody out." A single-payer health-care plan, a universal health-care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House." (Obama remarks at AFL-CIO, 6/30/03)

How does one "get there"? One lies until elected.

Hell, we're going to pay through the ass for all of the mistakes the Bush administration has made, so we might as well get some cheaper health care out of it.

I actually liked McCain back in 2000. He made a lot of sense back then. But I truly detest the McCain of 2008. He has basically turned himself and his campaign over to the GOP movers and shakers and they've chosen Palin as a way to pander to the religious nutjobs. Maverick, my ass. The guy is going to be dead in less than a year. He's pretty much destroyed any legacy he could have had.

I'd be very happy if we could convince all of the religious crazies that the Rapture is starting November 5 and they should all relocate to Alaska so they can be with their Chosen One. I would happily give up one state to save the other 49 from their pathetic brainwashed nonsense and attempts to legally dictate what we can and can't do when it comes to our bodies and who we can marry.

Pork, in regards to your relative, were you aware that Obama plans to lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries? So your relative may not have to rely on samples and may be able to afford generic drugs in a much more competitive market.

The idea is that doing so will increase the use of generic drugs in public programs and take on pharmaceutical conglomerates that block cheaper generic medicines from entering the market.

In addition, if his/her costs are still too much even with Obama's planned Small Business Health Tax Credit, your relative can choose to take the public policy which essentially is the same plan Obama, McCain and members of Congress have.

I'm not sure how large or small your family members' business is, but if he/she is looking for an individual policy, I'm assuming they are the only employee in their company. If that's the case, their business is too small and under Obama's plan they will be exempted from the obligation to pay into the system or require coverage to their employees.

"Most businesses would be required to offer coverage or pay into a fund for publicly subsidized benefits, and Obama would expand Medicaid and the State Children?s Health Insurance Program to cover more low-income people."

And the payment into the fund would be less than that pay for employee benefits. So, relieved of the necessity to provide this benefit to attract good employees what do you think "most businesses" would do? Pay less into the fund or pay more to insure employees.

Make no mistake this plan will result in time in a single payer system. That's the intention. And Obama and his followers as simply lying about it. (or are easily fooled).

Why do you assume I "watch" Limberger?" I don't. Any anyway, Limbaugh is listened to, not watched, unless you have eyes that can see through your radio.

Michael Savage is my pundit of choice.

and about pharmaceuticals. The US market is one of the only remaining profitable markets for pharmaceuticals. Hint: How many Sweedish, Japanese, or French developed drugs do you take?

So, in essence, the US marketplace subsidizes the world market.

So if you remove profitability where will new drugs and cures be developed?

Perhaps "government research" you say? The same class of people who can't get sidewalks fixed on the local level and whose idea of "good economics" is to buy up bad debt in a bailout.

Even better Mrs. - Savage calls "liberalism" a mental illness. Sometimes it's worth it to go to the candidate's sites and just read what they have to say without the filter of someone who has bias in either direction.

Git2itGal -

I like your post above and agree. I do have to add the "being against" is part of politics.

Obama is running against the Bush Administration to some degree (both in voters' minds and in how he defends or promotes some of his positions - especially in a settling such as a debate or a speech).

But we have moved more in that direction in recent years. Campaigns (and even recent Administrations) have worked to create more polarization around the issues.

If you take the view of your opponent and make it more extreme than it actually is you can argue against it in its entirety. Or, if you can shift the issue to a broader and more abstract framework you can argue against both the policy and the individual (or the entire Party).

In these regards we move away from debating real policy choices and away from finding a good balance in terms of implementing any policy.

DannyBoo: How will Obama reduce costs by $2,500 per person? Here is your answer from the Obama web site. My comments are in brackets. My summary, there is no "there there", it is all "faith and hope" if not smoke and mirrors.

Obama's plan:

* Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

[How does a mandate to increase coverage lead to lower costs?]

* Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

[Who will pay for this credit, or will it add to the Federal deficit?]

* Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.

[This would shift costs onto the taxpayer, who is that?]

* Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

[How do you prevent the insurers from overcharging? Is this price fixing? Centrally fixed prices is a feature of socialized systems. Love the passive in the second clause, is it another Federal spending program?]

* Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

[Maryland tried this to get Wal-Mart and how well did that work? And, besides Wal-Mart, just how many large employers do not offer health insurance anyway? What happens to companies that flout the law? Fines? Mandates on how you spend you money is a form of tax.]

* Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

[So if the government plan is cheaper than the private sector plans most small employers will move to the government plan. Now, will the pricing of the government plan be based on its costs, or will it be subsidized by taxpayers? This is potentially a gaping budget hole into which the entire health system could fall.]

* Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

[How do you define who "needs" it. That sounds live everyone, or perhaps 95% of us. Just who foots the bill for this tax credit?]

Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:

* Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market

[Drugs sold overseas are typically less costly because they are price controlled. So what is Obama doing, outsourcing our socialism? Why not just price control the drug supply directly? We will pay this costs in loss of new drugs, but not in hard dollars.]

* Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data

[If collecting this data would lead to lower costs, why are hospitals not doing it now?]

* Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.

[By waving the magic wand? This sounds like a five year old's statement. "Why? Because!"]

* Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

[What are the anticompetitive practices? Why do insurers not compete on price? Perhaps it is because they have limited options in crafting coverage -- most coverage is mandated -- they must file rate sheets with insurance commissioners and they are unable to compete across state lines?]

I just came from my yearly benefits meeting. While MRI's and cancer screenings are vital, there are several procedures that I would consider luxury procedures that are driving up the cost of my plan. By luxury I mean not life saving. I'd rather be able to have more options and choose which of the luxury packages I want to opt out of to lower my premiums. I'm willing to opt out of the part of my plan that allows me to reverse my vasectomy, as well as several other non life saving options listed before me.

I'm a pretty healthy sort, thank God. But if I was taking medication, I'd likely have a few from Hoffman LaRoche (Swiss), Astra Zeneca (British), Bayer (German), GlaxoSmith Kline (British), Novartis (French), or Sanofi (French).
All, I'm sure, unprofitable. And in business simply to serve the socialist and communist needs of the worldwide proletariat, soon to be presided over by Comrade Obama.

"Savage calls 'liberalism' a mental illness."

This is actually a book title of his as well, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

those "luxury" items are there to attract customers to the insurance company's "product".

Have no fear, under any kind of a government mandated "fix" those luxuries will vanish quite quickly. Also the "luxury" of having an MRI to check out a lump in the breast quicker than 273 days.

And eventually, when money gets tight, the "luxury" of care when it's is determined that your particular life is not so valuable to 'the people' as a whole.

The elephant in the room is that health care costs are taking up too much of the economy; medicine needs to be rationed. That's why we need the government to step in and restrict access to unnecessary procedures. You don't need an MRI to fix your tennis elbow, you should stop playing tennis. You don't need a CT scan to figure out if you should get a nose job; they should be eliminated for all except emergency procedures (except for certain Jewish entertainers). When all this money can no longer pour into the health care sector, it will find its way to the green sector, where it will do some good saving the plants and the animals while letting the humans fester in the cesspool they have made of this planet.

I'll be more specific cro. Without the US market what drugs would GSK produce?

Glaxo SmithKline's decision to increase its presence in the United States reflects an important industry-wide trend. The United States offers the largest and most lucrative unified market for drug sales. Its lack of price controls allows greater profit margins. Moreover, the US population is increasing in number, in age and in lifestyle expectations, stimulating the demand for new kinds of medicines. And in the US 'managed care' system, drugs are often promoted as a cost-effective alternative to other treatments.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6783/full/405257a0.html

The luxury items I mentioned ROC are required by state law to be provided by all healthcare carriers and are not a sales point or an added feature to draw in the masses. We are driving up costs ourselves by wanting everything possible covered. Every time there is a group who demand something new be covered by law our costs go up. My company plan is as barebones as you can get and again getting my vasectomy reversed is an option - dental care is not. This isn't a partisan issue as much as an issue of people not being aware of what they are paying for compared to what they use. As long as the rich can afford coverage no lifesaving procedures will go away. Instead premiums will become so high that the avergage family won't be able to afford any coverage and....oh wait....that's already happening.

Michael Savage is unhinged.

LINK

HRH: I thought you were female. Color me confused.

"Without the US market" they would likely produce the same drugs they're producing now. On a smaller scale, and geared to a smaller market. Perhaps you're just not expressing yourself clearly, but it certainly sounds as though you are suggesting that companies are in business simply to serve the US market and, without it, nothing would be developed, produced, or sold.
Have you thought about a career at the State Department? I think you'd do well as an ambassador.

"would likely produce the same drugs they're producing now. On a smaller scale, and geared to a smaller market"

yes, and Cro at the treasury department tells us the bulk of cost is in the number of pills manufactured not the R&D to develop drugs.

Without a profitable market less drugs will be developed.

I for one believe that all organized religion (except Buddhism) is a mental illness.

Sorry if I offend you and your religion but anyone who believes there is a man in the sky who controls all of our decisions and willpower is completely unhinged from reality.

There is nothing wrong with having faith -- it's a personal decision. But keep that shit to yourself and stop trying to change the laws so that I am forced to bend to your religious viewpoint on matters that clearly have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with enforcing a religious society and culture onto everyone. Get the fuck away from me, you freaks.

Again, those companies would be profitable with or without a US market. Like many Americans, you apparently believe that the world could not exist without you.
It did, you know, for many years.
Europe is full of profitable companies that do all of their business in Europe, just as the US has a great many businesses that have no presence in Europe at all.

hans, reading your post above I must say that I hope you'll forgive me for being so, well, CLOSE to you.
Please don't hurt me.

"Again, those companies would be profitable with or without a US market."

Baristanet is "profitable" cro. (I think)

That's not the question. The question is whether or not they'll put in $8 billion annually into R&D without a significantly profitable market.

Less profit means less R&D. Sorry that's how the market works.

croiagusanam: Certainly your comments show that you believe the drug makers receive substantial profits from their US sales -- if they did not there would be no need to reimport drugs under Obama'a plan.

I will even admit that they are profitable in overseas markets.

But, here is the logic:

1. Drug makers must have higher margins in the US, or it would be nonsensical to do the reimport dance.

2. While some profits are paid to investors, some portion of the profits are reinvested in R&D.

3. If the U.S. market becomes less profitable either investors or R&D must lose some of their share.

4. If drug makers cut R&D there will be fewer drugs developed.

5. If investors are offered lower returns there will be fewer investors willing to provide capital to new drug makers and therefore fewer drugs will be developed.

This is all common sense, or common cents.

lol

I am female Mrs. M, which is why some of the options of my current plan aren't so desirable to me. I'd rather have dental or vision.

ROC, it is wearying dealing with you.
Pharmeceutical companies are among THE MOST profitable in all industries. They make plenty of money, and they would do so with or without the US market. Less money, assuredly. But plenty nonetheless. You needn't hold a bake sale for the poor dears. I guess we can also assume that no oil company would drill for oil without the US market, no aircraft manufacturer would assemble planes without the US market, etc. etc. Your 'explanation" of the market is as facile as it is chauvinistic.
And of course your original question was "how many Swedish, Japanese, or French developed drugs do you take?"
The answer is -- plenty.
But now I guess you want to change the question to better suit the answer you've already formed.

Lets say the US market subsidizes all drug development and ensures profitability.

Other nations get the benefit of volume discounts - where they only allow the pharmas to profit at a small increment over actual production and distribution costs.

Why exactly are the American people carrying this burden for the entire world?

If it puts us at an economic disadvantage, in terms of competing with foreign businesses (in terms of the costs per individual through health care expenses paid for by employers), why do we allow it?

How does that make our system better?

That would be like automakers charging more for cars domestically because the domestic sales cover all the infrastructure and the the design work and the fixed employee expenses (things like pensions and health care). Then they sell additional cars overseas at just a small profit over materials and labor.

Add to that in the US we wouldn't allow competition between automakers for the new or high demand specialty items. Those cars are still on patent, sorry, not even available for import from overseas either. Maybe in a few years there will be a generic version.

This sounds like a trade issue to me.

croiagusanam:

I am not ROC, but I will help him out. Sure drug makers are profitable and would be profitable even under Obama's plan. That notwithstanding, lower their profits and you will get fewer new drugs (not no new drugs, just fewer). We would also keep all of our existing drugs.

Now, are you arguing that we have too many drugs today? Perhaps we have just the right number?

How much is a life saving drug worth? How much is too much too pay? And, most importantly, who should be answering those questions? You? me? Barack Obama?

Yes, I do want to pick out a better question. It's a better question. Because without a robust US market there would be far less development despite the nationality of the company.

45% of GSK's revenue is from the US market alone. 45%! (we're always told how small our population is when liberals chide us for our consumption) So a small country population wise accounts for nearly half of the market for a UK based fiim.

The Smith Kline part was a US company before merger with Glaxo, by the way. (Glaxo being founded in England by 2 Ameircans) And GSK has many more US employees in the US than the UK. So the "nationality" of a company is not really clear let alone germane.

So it's better to imagine the company and it's activities with dramatic reduction in profits in fully HALF it's world wide market.

I can understand your reluctance to really argue that argument though. That's how I know it's a better one.

dcpi, "common cents" would illustrate that drug companies, on average, spend 19% of profits on marketing, versus 12.5% on R & D. This can happen because the profit margins on the blockbuster drugs, like Lipitor and Viagra and the like, are astronomical. Like 22 cents on the dollar astronomical. This allows them to fund the less "popular" drugs, like ones for dengue fever and the like. Which, I might add, they are only now starting to do.
We've heard this argument before. The oil companies HAVE to make big profits because it costs so much to find and develop product. The drug companies HAVE to have big profits because it costs so much to develop new drugs. All well and good.
Just be honest about what it is, and stop the nonsense.

"The oil companies HAVE to make big profits because it costs so much to find and develop product."

It also happens to be true.

You really have an odd idea of the marketplace. Money spent on marketing is not a waste. It's the playing space of competition, which in a market is what helps the consumer get the best price.

mind you.

As I am surely about to be tarred as a free market extremist. I am not. I think there is a role for government R&D and regulation, etc. But I don't think shifting the balance is a good idea.

Lets say the US marker was the only market.

Yes, drug cost are going to cover all research and generate a profit.

Our drug prices would not be lower.

Saying that lower prices overseas means that others get a benefit but that we don't loose out doesn't actually work in the real world.

Jobs can go overseas because health costs are high here. Companies overseas can produce products for export at a lower cost. Japan has a competitive advantage over the US because their health care costs are lower.

Plus their people are healthier.

Healthy people are happy.

Do you oppose happiness, ROC ?

ROC, ideas that don't coincide with yours are invariably classed by you as "odd". That's fine.
The US is 5% of the world's population, but 45% of the market for Glaxo. This surprises you? With a population of about 400 million, the European market would likely account for the other 45% +. you think? Or would you expect all of those drugs to be snapped up with the disposable income available to sub-Saharan Africans? Or perhaps the Chinese?
There are so many good things to "tar" you as, ROC. A free market extremist is pretty far down the list. Now, all of this banter with you is making me need a good old American Merck pain reliever. I'm stocking up now because the socialist doctor that Obama assigns me to won't let me have any.

"Yes, drug cost are going to cover all research and generate a profit.

Our drug prices would not be lower."

I dont' know what you base that on.

If the US market was not as robustly profitable, we'd have less innovation and less new drugs. That's the burden rich countries must carry. If there was not a middle class, affluent market for cars the cars would not have come to be.

Marketing costs are the choice of the company.

If Doctors over-prescribe (or people over-request) due to marketing that's a seperate issue.

Insurers need to work with the Doctors to keep unnecessary use down, reasonably.

Doctors need to work with patients to make good choices (also with cost in mind).

No. the other 45%+ is the rest of the world put together.

So, 5% of the population funds about half the research. Bully for us, we're rich.

But without those rich people paying a fortune for drugs who will fund the research.

croiagusanam

One of my friends and a neighbor here in NJ is a marketer for Viagra (Pfizer). Should she lose her job and sell her house? That would hurt your houses price. My brother is a sales person for Amgen who was just reassigned as they downsized.

Take a look here:
http://www.pharmacy.org/company.html

Many of the emerging drug makers are in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. Higher taxes or controlled prices here would mean that the mix of drugs would shift to coming from these countries. Are you willing to sacrifice New Jersey jobs and send them to the subcontinent? If so, who will pay the taxes to support the rest of Obama's program.

A lot of those jobs that pay more than $250,000 are at Pfizer, Merk, J&J and the rest.

"Insurers need to work with the Doctors to keep unnecessary use down, reasonably.

Doctors need to work with patients to make good choices (also with cost in mind)"

Yes and people should be kind to one another and kiss babies more.

I thought medical care was a "right". I'm supposed to use my "right" sparingly?

Who decides necessity? Insurer's or the government, right? Not the silly ole doctor or his patient!

Wow, you're really on to something here! Are you Mikey's ghost writer?

Governance by platitude. I like it!

You say there is a utility to having new drugs (paying for R&D).

We benefit, here in the US, from those drugs.

Fine, but drugs are sold all over the world.

If prices are limited overseas we cover all the R&D costs and it puts us at an economic disadvantage.

Saying that R&D plus profit is necessary for new drug development is fine. No argument.

But you accept an attribute that makes our system more expensive by saying we have no choice regarding what restrictions other countries place on drug costs.

I disagree, and it may not be about limiting R&D or profit.

ROC -

This comment -

"Insurers need to work with the Doctors to keep unnecessary use down, reasonably.

Doctors need to work with patients to make good choices (also with cost in mind)"

applies to the "harm" of "excessive" marketing, a point that cro made to illustrating how pharma cos. spend to possibly create a market in the US.

Guess what, ROC, I am arguing you own point for you. If I'm not paying for those meds (my insurance co is) where is my incentive to keep my costs down (reasonably) ?

Where is the incentive of the Dr?

Yes, we both are looking out for my well-being, health wise. But who is watching the costs?

Don't you think that will be an issue in a "nationalized system" of some sort?

Isn't it an issue already?

Getting back to the pollster who was in fact the original topic of origin on this thread, the truth is that he sounds rather undistinguished. Even arrogantly undistinguished at that. (What, someone from Marist or Quinnipiac or even Gallup wasn't available?)

The item as written certainly tosses out several questionable points. "Fraud," for instance, is established via Leve's statements as a specifically Republican weapon and tactic. Obviously ACORN's over-eager employees would thus play no role. A curious assumption, this.

Leve also discounts the so-called "Bradley effect," partly because he seems to think that Obama (here comes the "chosen one" theory again!) is unquantifiable on a racial basis. But as an article by the head of the agency which aided Deukmejian in defeating Bradley in yesterday's WSJ pointed out, Bradley lost because voters rejected his way too liberal positions, not on the basis of race. (The same would apply, I'm sure, to David Dinkins, who for 4 years was a very bad mayor of NYC, more interested in collecting natty blue blazers and saying kind things abour race baiters than in good governance.) So the real "Bradley effect" may just have been the public exposure of several pollsters as completely wrong on that one because of their own preconceptions about the importance of race as an issue.

For all pollsters, as a means of espressing some cynicism re the real value of their services, I always think of Truman holding the famous newspaper headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman."

Interviewing a pollster before a national election is also not at all like talking to Santa on Christmas Eve. Instead, it's like interviewing a weatherman who seriously thinks his forecast for Christmas Eve will further or cancel Santa's appointed rounds. But Santa wouldn't be Santa if he listened to such naysayers, now would he?

"If I'm not paying for those meds (my insurance co is) where is my incentive to keep my costs down (reasonably) ?"

Copays and premiums. I'd be infavor of raising copays across the board. But then the socialists or quasi-socialists will weigh in. And we'll be back to where we started.

"But who is watching the costs?

Don't you think that will be an issue in a "nationalized system" of some sort?"

Yes. It will certainly be. Thus the need to "cut" people with less "desirable" lives as in the UK.

Government will "manage" our health care in the same fine, quality oriented fashion it manages everything it touches. In single payer system the pressure will always be to do less (because it's expensive). In a private system the pressure will be to do more - because there is profit in it.

273 day wait times and government 'ethicists' deciding which lives being saved are "cost effective" are precisely what we have to look forward to.

dcpi says - don't change health care, folks in NJ will loose jobs. Now we are subsidizing paharma to keep jobs. Well, debate it on those merits, not on others.

I don't see loosing jobs as a given.

ROC says that we may have an obligation to pay for drug development for the rest of the world.

Maybe. Do I have a say in that or did my Congressman decide for me?

Is that area excepted from endorsing free markets?

I argue in favor of controlling costs and I'm told (sarcastically ?) that I should be for a free system for everyone.

Ok, I'll think it over.

"ROC says that we may have an obligation to pay for drug development for the rest of the world."

No. It's up to the commercial pharmaceutical companies and their business decisions.

Say that if Coke a Cola wants to subsidize it's operations in China with profits from the US. To turn that into "an obligation to give the Chinese free Coke" is a misstatement.

Aren't you the guy always lecturing others on dishonest generalizations?

(interesting how a little sarcasm and Former Guy throws his high "ideals" out the window).

well, maybe the lecturing will abate a bit.

Getting back to the pollster who was in fact the original topic of origin on this thread, the truth is that he sounds rather undistinguished. - Cathar

C'mon Cathar, now that you have established yourself as a pollster maven, try some kindly words for a change.

We have drug costs - ok

We have the need for profits - ok

We have marketing, creating demand (in the economic sense - some of the new demand may be real - if I had an issue the med could address and the ad made me tell my doc, for example)- ok

We have insurance, sharing costs among many people (and companies). But competition keeps costs down - ok

Now, are the insurers watching out for me or for costs?

How much of a better job do they do than the gov. could, in terms of my needs and the need to keep costs down?

I can't accept some answer on that last question based on "free markets" or "government is always inefficient".

Didn't you already say that the doctor/patient relationship put my goals and my doctors' goals in alignment?

So now, if big brother wants to limit choice (against my better health outcomes) in terms of a new insurance program, we need to find ways to make sure that isn't happening.

"We have marketing, creating demand"

Also product differentiation and competition. So we have Cialis AND Viagra and we get a good price because both exist.

"Now, are the insurers watching out for me or for costs?How much of a better job do they do than the gov. could, in terms of my needs and the need to keep costs down?"

Insurance companies are watching out for both. If they screw you this "benefit" won't be much of a benefit and your employer would lose employees or switch insurer's.

If the government is in charge they will be much more concerned with costs than you. What are YOU going to do? Move to Sweden?

Think of it this way. When was the last time you felt like a customer at the DMV?

"Didn't you already say that the doctor/patient relationship put my goals and my doctors' goals in alignment?"

More than you and the Government but the Doctor's goals are not 100% aligned to yours.

He over prescribes tests to limit his liability. (and I feel sometimes, because he needs a new set of golf clubs).

Im all in favor of increasing copays so they bite a bit. Personally I think overall health would improve if people were literally invested in their health.

If the US market was not as robustly profitable, we'd have less innovation and less new drugs. That's the burden rich countries must carry. If there was not a middle class, affluent market for cars the cars would not have come to be.

Posted by Right of Center™ | October 21, 2008 4:14 PM

****

"ROC says that we may have an obligation to pay for drug development for the rest of the world."

No. It's up to the commercial pharmaceutical companies and their business decisions.
Aren't you the guy always lecturing others on dishonest generalizations?

Posted by Right of Center™ | October 21, 2008 5:00 PM

****

(interesting how a little sarcasm and Former Guy throws his high "ideals" out the window).

well, maybe the lecturing will abate a bit.

Posted by Right of Center™ | October 21, 2008 5:02 PM

****

I'm not lecturing. I'm addressing what you wrote.

And where did my high "ideals" actually get thrown out a window? I'm curious.

OK dcpi you've sold me. I want no changes in health care because I don't want your neighbor the Viagra seller to lose her house.

And I don't want any cutbacks in state employees because I don't want any teachers, policemen, inspectors, regulators, administrators, or consultants to lose their houses.

And I want EZPass scrapped so the toll collectors don't lose their houses.
And I don't want any county or municipal employees sacked because they have houses too.
It is, after all, OUR responsibility as consumers and taxpayers to make sure that NO ONE loses their house.

And ROC says "I" have odd ideas?

Futures market has Obama at buy of 84.3

ROC's math continues to impress.
Yes, the 5% funds half the research.
And, by your numbers, consumes half the product.
That's unfair? How?

And I love that the other 45% is the "rest of the world put together". After the European market, who else is buying all of these drugs. Besides the Japanese, of course.
Algerians? Congolese? Laotians?

BOSNIACS?

who said anything about "unfair" It's totally fair. I have no problem with it at all - as it should be.

croiagusanam:

To keep it short and sweet; life has trade offs. We can have low prices, universal access to all treatments, or innovation. But not all three at once.

My criticism of the Obama plan is he tells you he will provide all three at once. He can then join Canute is stopping the tides.

And, I thought most people here wanted good paying professional jobs and not minimum wage jobs. To fund the wages you need the higher prices. The economy in its entirety cannot skinflint its way to wealth.

dcpi

you'll have to excuse him. He're how he works. He takes a portion of your argument, adds a few words to your mouth, says things like "OUR responsibility as consumers and taxpayers to make sure that NO ONE loses their house." (which even Mikey would understand you weren't saying) Show's the obvious folly in such a ridiculous argument he put in your mouth and Voila! - you're an idiot.

Oh, maybe my mistake, ROC, was taking "rich countries" to read "our rich country".

I must have skimmed over that too quickly.

Then when I responded you may have thought I was re-phrasing what you had said, by changing it to be "we" (that is, "America") as an intention misrepresentation.

Could that be what got you all up in arms about a "dishonest generalization"?

But, if America is funding R&D (through high drug prices) - and Canada and France and England and Japan and so on aren't - how would you original sentence make sense?

dcpi
We disagree. I believe that we can most certainly have innovation, reasonable prices, and access for all.

Incidentally, when I was in the UK this summer visiting one of my kids, I was terribly injured. I tripped over one of those carts that goes through the streets, manned by toothless (lousy dental care) types calling for folks to bring out their dead.
Yes, people all over the UK are dropping dead, doomed to die because they cannot get decent medical care and are forced to wait.
Yes, yes. I know the life expectancy in western Europe in general is higher than it is here, and that evil health care systems are in place in those countries but damn it -- they still don't work no matter what the numbers say!

intention=intentional

you=your (at the very end there)

Since "wealth" has become a national goal we have skinflinted just about everything else that should also concern us as a society - like the health and well being of people, the economy, the infrastructure, the ability to supply our own food, the desire to own and use fuel efficient cars...and on and on. The main beneficiaries of this "wealth" have kept if for themselves. All that has trickled down is the debt we'll be forced to pay off.

ROC:

I will take note. It always amazes me that those who want to tax the rich to pay for social justice forget that they need the rich to exist for their plan to work.

That's it, dcpi. ROC has nailed me!
He knows all the tricks, our ROC. He's wise to me and my "associates".
My only hope is that he gfoes into one of his periodic snits and skulks away for a few months.
Or, and this is really what I hope for, Obama wins and sends his goons from the Bill Ayers Brigade to get him and lock him up!

We do not need the rich. The rich or wage disparity drags the economy down. We would do better if we had a flatter income curve. A progressive tax works to broaden the economic base.

So if you had the opportunity to be a millionaire, Laser, you would turn it down for the good of all mankind?

Of course dcpi's insightful comment gets a tad muddied when he reflects that Obama, Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, and the other folks who want to "tax the rich" are, in fact, RICH.
But hey, it sounds good!

I think what we need is a happiness war with Japan.

re my post at 4:09

--------

(That was a joke ROC, not snarkyness aimed at you. It was also a joke about the shifting discussion, but again, not aimed at you individually. I don't really think you took it wrong, but jersygurl gave me a chance to double back and I though the joke would be funny again but that you also might think I was being sarky again. Being misunderstood once is OK, but twice isn't.)

Mrs. Martta,
Individuals do not act like that but groups do.

Laser: Who do you think creates the bulk of all jobs? Poor people?

OK... I have some time and will bite Lasermike. Obama is promising that 95% of Americans will receive tax cuts. We currently run a deficit, a massive deficit.

Am I stupid for assuming that his plan to offer more subsidies and his promise to cut taxes for 95% of people must mean that he is relying on the rich earning more than $250,000 to pay all the bills?

When we run out of the rich thanks to the progressive taxes, who will pay the tax bill then?

Perhaps Obama plans to cut national defense to the bone, but his web site states nothing of the sort.

Basically, both Obama and McCain are trying to outdo each other by making promises that they cannot keep (par for the course). What is disturbing to me is how many of the Obama supporters appear to believe his promises. The McCain supporters I meet mostly know his promises are empty.

To bring the comment back around to the topic of the thread; I believe that Nate Silver, despite being a Red Sox fanatic, is correct in his reading of the polls. Obama is very likely to win the presidency in two weeks.

I would hope that his supporters have realistic expectations for what change is possible under the laws of this universe and I have the audacity to expect that, yes, those who support him can respect those that disagree.

Yes, it won't be long now ! (as the rabbi said).

January 2009! Tumbrils rolling through the streets of Baristaville, stopping before the doors of well-manicured estates like that belonging to ROC. T-shirted and beret-wearing thugs bursting through the doors, brushing past the servants and silencing the pedigreed dogs. Hauling ROC and his family from the 1000 count lisle sheeted four posters and dragging them into the street, cheered on by the thousands who've had no health care or free school lunch or prescription Viagra with no co-pay. Their jeers will ring in ROC's ears as he's driven to Party Headquarters, there to face the new commisar of Baristaville, lasermikey.
ROC will be forced to submit to a physical from a doctor NOT OF HIS OWN CHOOSING, and will then have to turn in his Hummer for a Smart Car. His collection of fine cigars and his secret stash of French cheeses will be distributed to the poor. Dear Leader Obama himself will preside over the burning of ROC's prized Brooks Brothers wardrobe.
Yes, its coming! Be warned ROC!

Perhaps it's time we embraced our humanity, by concerning ourselves with the common good, rather than alienating each other by pointing fingers..rich and poor alike.
Have we become so self absorbed we no longer see this. In terms of government control and free markets---where would the FDA, for example fit in ? Much of the present day infrastucture we enjoy and take for granted was a product of the WPA in the 1930s. Free market ? Hardly. Overt government intervention.

I have a simpler question. 30% of Americans pay no tax at all. How can 95 then get a cut?

Does the FDA keep our food safe or does the threat of a lawsuit?

Now THAT was funny cro!

> Laser: Who do you think creates the bulk of all jobs? Poor people?

The rich do not make jobs, the market does.

ROC,
The FDA keeps food safe. See China.

I'm supporting the Portman/Jones economic plan

See Taco Bell.

Laserlumpenprole, you sincerely believe that we don't need the rich? I mean, really?

There are occasionally statements so astoundingly dumb that one is forced to sit there in a sort of admiration. But how, laserfool, do you get through life on a daily basis? Can you even address letters and affix stamps to them.

(Also, if it has to come to this, have you ever heard of trickle-down economics? I mean, never?)

Croiagusanam, while your portrait of mikey as an apparatchik is pretty funny, I fear he'd also be much prone to exactly the sort of behavior you conjure up were he ever actually given the opportunity. He's a resentful dip, our mikey, and much enamored of totalitarian thrust, going by his posts. Be careful what you wish for....

Keeping food safe = national health care insurance program?

Suing and monetary damages = best way to ensure positive outcomes?

Taco Bell and all cases of food contamination is the rare exception, not the norm. The FDA and the NIH are much needed and good government organizations--of course ROC will highlight all the money misspent and wasted because it's such an easy thing to do from the sidelines.

Nobody wants big government...until they need. This all-consuming blanket mistrust of the gubmint (or however you anti-govt, libertarian, pay your own way people like to say it) is just so, I don't know....sorry, I lost my train of thought, I'm boring myself.

What would lasermike do with a million dollars?

If he doesn't give it away for the good of mankind he will become very busy - Creating Jobs!!

(I wonder how many jobs a million dollars creates)

"Taco Bell and all cases of food contamination is the rare exception, not the norm."

Always a rare exception...until it happens to you.

Someone can say that armed robberies in Montclair are a rare expection; however, the 3 poor guys from last night may have a different take on that.

It's all about perception.

I don't quite see how the rich create jobs.

Suppose Joe the Plumber has thirty employees and earns $200K (after taxes). If his taxes go up and he's now keeping $180K (after taxes) does he fire an employee?

Suppose he gets a tax cut and now has $220K (after taxes) does he hire more folks and expend his business?

Yes, you need capital to start and grow a business but why would Joe respond in either of the ways I illustrated, just because of taxes?

You hire people and grow your business when they bring in enough additional revenue to cover their salaries and associated costs (like health care). If the profits they generate that flow to you (the owner) are taxed more highly its still additional profit in your pocket.

The rich own corporations and businesses therefore, they need secretarial and administrative assistance, bookkeepers and accountants, HR folks, IT people and various other worker bees. Plus, they also use the services of vendors such as cleaning services, car services, package/mail delivery services, lunch service, etc. If the well dries up, everyone on that list is affected in some way.

What was your question again?

If all of Joe's employees get a tax cut he may not need to give them annual raises.

Maybe he can pass on a bit more of the share of his employee's health care premiums he's been paying (its not an entitlement, you know).

He may save enough to re-cap his extra taxes !!

Or he could turn those savings into new jobs.

Ah for sure I see mikey dipping his shirtsleeve in the blood of an "aristocrat" whose just had a radical haircut, if you follow me. He'd be howling with glee as Sanson ripped the bandage off old ROC/Robespierre!
He'd be selling baguettes (at cost) to the bloodthirsty mob.

But then one day, they'd start looking at him! And before you know it, he would be looking through le fenetre republicain.

My question was how does it matter if personal taxes go up or down to some degree?

How does money come out of "the well" and make jobs?

A business own makes a million dollars a year after taxes. If the tax rate changes and now that business owner keeps thirty thousand more (or thirty thousand less) what difference does it make in terms of the business or anything else?

Is that magic money?

I'm sure the wealthy save more than you or I ever could. What makes their savings turn into jobs?

If it even does, how many?

Really, if we think its an important issue, shouldn't we know more about it?

Joe the Plumber, if his business thrives, Former NJ Guy, eventually becomes Joe the major player among plumbing contractors. And as he becomes rich(-er), he expands to new locations, new warehouses, perhaps even becomes sole regional distributor of, say, several lines of European bathroom fixtures. In the process, new jobs are created all the way down the line, from salespeople to repairmen to tile installers.

It is ever thus. Surely this isn't too hard for you to understand? (It may be for laserboy, but what else is new?) Even Commodore Vanderbilt started out this way, basically.

And when the rich have almost too much money than they know what to do with it, they start giving it to charity, creating foundations, etc. (David Hume's ideas about the "rational egotist" comes into play here.) Without the rich, there'd probably be no charitable support on the current level in this country (a level which is significantly higher than in most European nations and especially compared to Japan).

Which also makes me wonder, laserloon, what is your own level of both job creation and charitable giving? Stupidity got your tongue on this one?

Given that approximately 40% of Americans already pay no or almost no taxes, by the way, I find Obama's vow to "cut" taxes for 95% of the taxpayers out there an exceptionally hollow, falsely premised "promise."

An interesting look at the rate of charitable giving, both privately by American citizens and as a percentage of GNI, can be found at
http://www.fair.org/index.php?.page.2676

I'm sure people like Paris Hilton do much to create job growth. Seriously. I'm in the $250 plus group. Unlike Joe, I run the NY office of a small company and share in the profits. If my taxes go up 3% when Obama wins, it will not have an impact at all upon staffing. It will not change my lifestyle, my world will not come to an end. What will matter is how many clients buy my goods and services. So if Joe the plumber has enough people in his neighborhood in Toledo who make $40k, as he does, and they suddenly have a few thousand more dollars a year in discretionary income they will be more likely to use Joe's services. His current business is likely to include some emergency repairs, but it won't grow much if people only need repairs. If they can save more for that bathroom or kitchen upgrade, Joe's business and income will grow. When Joe's income level reaches $250k plus, the extra 3% he pays in income tax won't keep him from expanding if there is demand for his service. So far trickle down economics and the Laffer curve have not only proven to create great disparity in income levels. When Joe CEO is making $50MM a year regardless of performance, that money is his personally and does not go back into the business and it most certainly does not all go back into the economy. Increasing the personal wealth of a few people at the top of each corporation does not create jobs. If the CEO of GM makes a ton of money it has no impact upon how many jobs GM creates. His own personal wealth does not go back into GM so that he can hire more people to build more cars that will sit there unsold because no one can afford to buy them.
Putting more money into the hands of middle and working class consumers will enable them to have more buying power and demand for goods and services is what ultimately creates jobs.

I agree that we should give corporations and the rich more tax cuts because I'm sure they have the middle class and poors' best interests in mind.

Shipping jobs overseas, I'm sure it's just because they want to spread the wealth to other countries.

Creating tax shelters on foreign soil really shows their commitment to 'Country First'.

Giving tax cuts to corporations and the rich and expecting them to do the right thing or pass on the wealth to the rest of us is delusional. They never have and never will. Trickle down economics is a farce.

As Robert Frank wrote in the Times,

With the median wage, adjusted for inflation, lower now than in 1980, most middle-class families cannot afford additional taxes. In contrast, the top tenth of 1 percent of earners today make about four times as much as in 1980, while those higher up have enjoyed even larger gains. Chief executives of large American companies, for example, earn more than 10 times what they did in 1980. In short, top earners are where the money is. Universal health coverage cannot happen unless they pay higher taxes.

Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth. In their familiar rhetorical flourish, they insist that a more progressive tax system would kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. On close examination, however, this claim is supported neither by economic theory nor by empirical evidence.

The surface plausibility of trickle-down theory owes much to the fact that it appears to follow from the time-honored belief that people respond to incentives. Because higher taxes on top earners reduce the reward for effort, it seems reasonable that they would induce people to work less, as trickle-down theorists claim. As every economics textbook makes clear, however, a decline in after-tax wages also exerts a second, opposing effect. By making people feel poorer, it provides them with an incentive to recoup their income loss by working harder than before. Economic theory says nothing about which of these offsetting effects may dominate.

If economic theory is unkind to trickle-down proponents, the lessons of experience are downright brutal. If lower real wages induce people to work shorter hours, then the opposite should be true when real wages increase. According to trickle-down theory, then, the cumulative effect of the last century?s sharp rise in real wages should have been a significant increase in hours worked. In fact, however, the workweek is much shorter now than in 1900.

Trickle-down theory also predicts shorter workweeks in countries with lower real after-tax pay rates. Yet here, too, the numbers tell a different story. For example, even though chief executives in Japan earn less than one-fifth what their American counterparts do and face substantially higher marginal tax rates, Japanese executives do not log shorter hours.

Trickle-down theory also predicts a positive correlation between inequality and economic growth, the idea being that income disparities strengthen motivation to get ahead. Yet when researchers track the data within individual countries over time, they find a negative correlation. In the decades immediately after World War II, for example, income inequality was low by historical standards, yet growth rates in most industrial countries were extremely high. In contrast, growth rates have been only about half as large in the years since 1973, a period in which inequality has been steadily rising.

The same pattern has been observed in cross-national data. For example, using data from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for a sample of 65 industrial nations, the economists Alberto Alesina and Dani Rodrick found lower growth rates in countries where higher shares of national income went to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent of earners. In contrast, larger shares for poor and middle-income groups were associated with higher growth rates. Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.

The trickle-down theorist?s view of the world is nicely captured by a Donald Reilly cartoon depicting two well-fed executives nursing cocktails on a summer afternoon as they lounge on flotation devices in a pool. Pointing to himself, one says angrily to the other, ?If those soak-the-rich birds get their way, I can tell you here?s one coolie who?ll stop? working so hard.

This portrait bears little resemblance to reality. In the 1950s, American executives earned far lower salaries and faced substantially higher marginal tax rates than they do today. Yet most of them competed energetically for higher rungs on the corporate ladder. The claim that slightly higher tax rates would cause today?s executives to abandon that quest is simply not credible.

In the United States, trickle-down theory?s insistence that a more progressive tax structure would compromise economic growth has long blocked attempts to provide valued public services. Thus, although every other industrial country provides universal health coverage, trickle-down theorists insist that the wealthiest country on earth cannot afford to do so. Elizabeth Edwards faces her battle with cancer with the full support of the world?s most advanced medical system, yet millions of other Americans face similar battles without even minimal access to that system.

Low- and middle-income families are not the only ones who have been harmed by our inability to provide valued public services. For example, rich and poor alike would benefit from an expansion of the Energy Department?s program to secure stockpiles of nuclear materials that remain poorly guarded in the former Soviet Union. Instead, the Bush administration has cut this program, even as terrorists actively seek to acquire nuclear weaponry.

The rich are where the money is. Many top earners would willingly pay higher taxes for public services that promise high value. Yet trickle-down theory, which is supported neither by theory nor evidence, continues to stand in the way. This theory is ripe for abandonment.

Also, I'm not sure if this is common knowledge yet, but Joe The Plumbers' name is actually Sam, who is a registered Republican and has planned to vote for McCain for months now, makes $42K a year, is in no position now or in the coming years to buy a $280,000 dollar business, and owes almost $2,000 in back taxes.

Oh yeah, and he's unlicensed as well.

Sounds like a bulletproof business plan Sam has.

My nephew runs around proclaiming that he's the King of Siam. However just because he says it doesn't make it so. A lesson Sam the Plumber's Gopher hasn't learned yet.

I remember when I was a kid and I went with my mom to vote. I asked her why there was a curtain in the voting booth and she told me it was because your choice of candidate was something that was private. My how things have changed. Thank goodness this election is over soon. Skimming through these posts is giving me the same kind of headache I got last spring when all those humorless, self-righteous yahoos were coming out of the woodwork to post here about the Montclair town council election. Thank goodness most of those people stopped posting after election day.

dannyboo, when will you learn to link? screen dumps of whole articles are a drag

Mr. Worzelbacher was previously registered with the Natural Law Party.

LINK

"I'm sure the wealthy save more than you or I ever could. What makes their savings turn into jobs?"

If your concoction of "wealthy" is Thurston Howell III, you're right.

But there are many "wealthy" people who own businesses. When they do well they grow their businesses (to make more money) and hire people.

Look at some of the wealthy in Monctlair. Graboswky rehabs commercial property and businesses move in and hire people. Plofker hires construction companies who employ workers.

Really, does any liberal understand how the economy work?

cathy, to debunk your assertion that 40% of American pay no or almost no taxes, here:

LINK

"Really, does any liberal understand how the economy work?"

No.

"how the economy work?" Perhaps not, but at least we knows our grammar.

Besides, we can all bask in the great job the republicans have done lately. Bravo!

looney, that link is w-e-a-k.
Do some real digging and you will find that about 40% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. The counterspin requires talking about social security/medicare and sales taxes, which on a percentage of total income basis are regressive. Bottom line: the so-called "rich" and upper middle class pay almost all the income taxes.

For a more careful post than a random Daily Kos link, try this, including the supporting sources available in the sidebar to that page.

ROC and Mrs M - the "wealthy" who own their own businesses expand their businesses to meet demand. If there is no demand, no business to expand. There is no sane business person who buys into the "build it and they will come" theory if there is no market. Also, the majority of the top wage earners do not own corporations, they work for them so their own personal wealth has no impact at all upon staffing.

I'll put it to you in as simple of terms as possible:

If people, be they rich (whether or not they own businesses), middle-class or low-income, have more disposable income to spend, they spend it on consumables, vacations, the service industry, etc. This demand creates jobs. Someone has to order, sell, package, inventory all the widgets. Whether someone vacations for two weeks in Gstaad or for 3 days at the Cocky-Locky Motel on Route 40 in Atlantic City, someone in the service industry is helping to make that happen.

"There is no sane business person who buys into the "build it and they will come" theory if there is no market. "

Ahh. I see. So then it would follow that the time to raise taxes the most would be in a recession. The worse the recession the less "effect" taxes on the "rich" will have so we should nail them now.

I Imagine you accurately state the Obama policy.

Also, the majority of the top wage earners do not own corporations, they work for them so their own personal wealth has no impact at all upon staffing.

This statistic comes from where?

Mrs. M is exactly right - which is why cutting taxes on the middle class is a better idea than keeping the Bush breaks on the upper most earners.

There is no good time to raise taxes ROC - but switching the cuts from the top to the middle will do more to increase demand for goods than keeping those cuts at the top end where they will wind up in offshore accounts.

"Also, the majority of the top wage earners do not own corporations, they work for them so their own personal wealth has no impact at all upon staffing."

Are you talkling about billionares? Or people with multiples of millions?

You're ignorance is staggering. The vast majority of people who make more that $250,000 own small or family businesses. They are car dealers, and Merchants (and crummy overpriced house painters in Montclair!).

Actually the $250,000 is inaccurate according to Paul Krugman in today's NY Times:

Well, Mr. Obama proposes raising rates on only the top two income tax brackets and the second-highest bracket for a head of household starts at an income, after deductions, of $182,400 a year.

So now you're rich if you make $183K.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opinion/20krugman.html?em

"So now you're rich if you make $183K"

Maybe if you live in Oshkosh by Gosh, but not here in B-ville. Nice income, yes, but not what I consider "rich" by any standard.

"but switching the cuts from the top to the middle will do more to increase demand for goods than keeping those cuts at the top end where they will wind up in offshore accounts."

huh? The rich buy more off shore than the middle class? Is that what you're saying?

Or the rich park their money offshore?

Raising taxes will INCREASE the flight of money.

How about everybody get the same tax cut which is the Bush tax cut. This whole discussion is dishonest because when liberals say "most of the tax cuts go to the rich" it is because THEY PAY MORE TAXES so any across the board cut or raise will impact them more in absolute dollar terms.

In government as in life, we should all take it from my grandmother, who used to sing this ditty to me when I was a young lad (to the tune of Camptown Races):

From each according to his abilities,
Doo dah, doo dah
To each according to his needs,
Oh the doo dah day!

commie bitch.

Ms M --
The Cocky-Locky is located in Pennsauken NJ, not Atlantic City.
I vacationed there last summer and let me tell you, the "service" was outstanding.

How can we trust any of your stats if you goof on something as obvious as this?

ROC - from the same article:
"Maybe there are plumbers out there who earn that much, or who would end up suffering from Mr. Obama?s proposed modest increases in taxes on dividends and capital gains ? America is a big country, and there?s probably a high-income plumber with a huge stock market portfolio out there somewhere. But the typical plumber would pay lower, not higher, taxes under an Obama administration, and would have a much better chance of getting health insurance.

I don?t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit.

But that?s the point. Whatever today?s G.O.P. is, it isn?t the party of working Americans."

Here's Steve Coll from The New Yorker:

LINK

(Excerpt)

McCain is right in detecting signs of growing class resentment; some of the angry are turning up at McCain-Palin rallies, where the mood has been not so much socialist as national-socialist. The cause of this resentment is not difficult to explain, and it has nothing to do with Obama?s modest tax proposals. Income inequality?the gap between the richest and the rest?increased dramatically during the Bush Administration. The main reason was that the rich became very, very rich, while middle- and working-class families saw their incomes stagnate or decline. Long before the Wall Street meltdown, rising gas prices and health-care bills pinched even those American households with incomes that rank squarely in the middle classes.

That is where the great majority of actual plumbers live, of course; they don?t make a quarter of a million dollars a year. In 2007, their average annual income was forty-seven thousand dollars, and that figure was buoyed by the recent housing boom. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes an income roll call of other occupations with which McCain, once a modestly paid military officer, has evidently lost touch: kindergarten teachers, $47,750; firefighters, $44,130; roofers, $36,340; dental assistants, $32,280; security guards, $24,480; home health aides, $20,850.

At the very bottom of the income ladder, the inflation-adjusted minimum wage?despite two increases in the past two years?remains essentially the same as it was when George W. Bush took office. That wage amounts to less than fifteen thousand dollars a year, before taxes?and, yes, there are taxes to be paid even at that level. The number of Americans living in poverty has grown by more than five million since 2000. And there?s no way to say that ain?t so.

We need a simple tax code. A tax code that is stupid in it's simplicity. At the same time we need taxes to be progressive. When there is a wealth disparity the general economy suffers.

The rich do not make jobs in the United States. The rich makes profit and that is the primary goal. All externalities are not only secondary but are not to be considered. This is the cold reality of Friedmanist corporatism.

"A tax code that is stupid in it's simplicity."

OK, we'll leave that up to you, Mikey.

I think we all know that if B. Hussein Obama is elected he'll tell us that we're in worse financial shape than he thought and that he needs to raise taxes for everyone. That is right out of the Democrat playbook...just what Florio did and I don't think Jersey has ever recovered.

Ice,

You're too nice a guy to play the Hussein card.

Ice, I thought that playbook was authored by George H.W. (Read My Lips) Bush, noted "democrat".

I like this question -

Also, the majority of the top wage earners do not own corporations, they work for them so their own personal wealth has no impact at all upon staffing.

This statistic comes from where?

Posted by appletony | October 22, 2008 10:11 AM

******

But it isn't about "most" vs. "only a few" and "having no impact" vs. "having a big impact" - it's about how it actually works and what the impact is.

People have argued this same issue regarding favoring tax cuts for the wealthy (of course, its almost the same issue) - that it promotes growth, creates jobs and even creates some tax revenue to off-set the tax cuts.

Economists say that can happen, but its a question of how much and under what conditions and for how long.

Can we really make a statement about this without having some more defined evidence?

If the point gets made as a truism we are left with no "benchmark".

Should we argue that the wealthy should pay almost no taxes, as they are the great benefactors of all?

Hey Ice - remember "Read my Lips" from pappy Bush?

"I'm sure the wealthy save more than you or I ever could. What makes their savings turn into jobs?"

Really, does any liberal understand how the economy work?

Posted by Right of Center™ | October 22, 2008 9:10 AM

It isn't about understanding how it works. It's about having facts (or at least estimations) that convert a general theory into something that we can look at in somewhat objective manner and use to make a policy decision.

From the SF Chronicle in 2005:

The favored treatment afforded hedge fund managers, several of whom are in their 30s and have untaxed, multibillion-dollar fortunes, is just the tip of a very costly iceberg. Vast amounts of untaxed income, collecting unseen beneath the surface of the news, helps explain why the administration proposes less spending on education, health care, basic scientific research and veterans. Even as our government borrows more than $50 billion each month, it lets many of the richest Americans defer and sometimes completely avoid taxes.

What few of us realize is that the United States has two income tax systems, separate and unequal.

One system is for wage earners. Congress requires that your employer report your pay so Internal Revenue Service computers can check up on your tax return. Banks report interest. Brokerages report dividends. You must provide a Social Security number for each child you claim as a dependent. Congress does not trust you.

The other system is for business owners, landlords and investors. Congress does not require such independent reporting, saying that would be a burden.

"Vast amounts of untaxed income, collecting unseen beneath the surface of the news, helps explain why the administration proposes less spending on education, health care, basic scientific research and veterans."

They mean there is potential uncollected revenue.

Makes it sound like the Congress is helping to hide money and cutting services instead.

Poorly written.

The tax code and our laws allow these things. If it is wrong change the laws.

Why frame is as "the rich" vs. "the rest of us" ?

correction - Why frame it is as "the rich" vs. "the rest of us"?

ha ha - no type good today

Maybe the answer is that if it isn't framed as "the rich vs. the rest of us" it would never even get looked at.

Maybe that's what's required to by-pass the power of a special interest group (rich money managers).

Seems like reason and common sense would be sufficient.

could always dispense with the labels and apply the same tax rate to everyone.

whether you like it or not, "us vs. them" is the nature of politics. How long have you been on Earth?

Former - I fear there is no reason nor common sense when it comes to either the tax code or the American electorate.

Spotty, while appletony has already correctly noted that the, uh, "link" you provided is pretty weak, the evidence that approximately 40% of Americans pay little or no income taxes (for a wide variety of reasons) is very strong.

I think it's time for your midday walk, Try not to soil the oak trees, there's a good Spots.

ROC - sure, I agree.

But hasn't it become a goal in itself these days - at least in terms of politics?

Taking positions that are far apart and making an argument that the other person is evil?

The tax code is built around numerous basic concepts that do represent fairness.

(Part of the agreed upon "fairness" is progressiveness - higher levels of income get taxed at higher rates. That may be inherently "unfair" but its an agreed upon principle shared by most. That is not to say that more progressiveness is automatically more fair, BTW. ROC, you are invited to build a better system. Please share the details when you are through.)

Anyway, yes the tax code gets distorted as some activities get "incentified" and others may get "disencentified". Over time more and more quirks and exception get made and the degree of standardization declines.

Some of these changes are actually made in the name of "fairness".

None-the-less, nearly everyone agrees that hedge fund managers receive unfairly favorable treatment. Even many money managers will say so themselves.

The significance of this has increased in the last ten years as the size of hedge fund assets has grown substantially. It also became much more significant when the Bush tax cuts reduced the tax rate on long term capital gains.

A bill to address some of these "loopholes" passed in the House but lost in the Senate. Some estimates are that these represent about $50 billion in tax revenue (over ten years).

Its a real issue but it isn't that polarizing.

Why should either side say its about "class warfare" (or "punishing success" or some other phony label)?

Good question Former.

John McCain (not to pick on him) endorses building a case that generally says Obama (may, probably, does?) hate America.

How does that ever get undone?

When he tells a crowd that, "no he's a good family man" what does that matter?

It isn't about hurting Obama's fellings (or mine). Its about being a nation of people that can actually work together.

Yes, an adversarial system is a good system. To a degree.

That adversarial a system (above) only works if all the "losers" are vanquished.

****

That is an extreme example, in a way. But I think the principle can be applied to how other issues are debated. Polarization is not a debate.

Getting away from campaigns (that are superficial and emotional), here is my constructive comment/lecture.

There is a tendency to alternate between the very broad and the very narrow in these discussions.

1 a) The very broad might be advocating "trickle down economics".

1 b) Or it might be promoting health care as an entitlement - "all that matters is making it available to everyone."

2 a) The very narrow might be looking at poor service at the DMV.

2 b)Or it might be talking about one person and their struggles to get medical treatment.

There is also a tendency to say that the person who disagrees with you "wants to punish success" or , conversely, that they are "selfish" or "greedy" (or maybe that they want to deny others good health).

I expect better from my politicians and editorial writers (even if they are biased they can make better arguments). I'm going to keep asking for it (from them but especially from my representatives).

I want policies that are justified and effective. I think that requires partisanship.

If we can't agree with goals we need to really talk about what are goals are (and not how bad the other persons goals are).

The Iraq War, Taxes, "A Social Safety Net", Education. Can't we talk about goals and objectives?

On a blog, anything goes. I guess a blog is like a campaign. But don't forget - your neighbors all live near you. You all have some common interests. I think it's better to talk about the real world and not some partial representation of it.