President Obama's decision to push for student loan reform in the reconciliation health bill was a shrewd one. After compromising the public health care plan and tightening up the bill to make it more palatable for "moderates" (few of whom voted for it anyway), he included legislation reforming the student loan industry that was much more progressive than the health care bill. The medical industry is creating many more social and fiscal problems for health care in the United States than the student loan business, and Obama wisely used the public focus on the health care industry as a smokescreen. It was, in every sense of the term, a bait-and-switch.
The reforms in the education bill are very significant. Under this legislation loan payments after graduation cannot exceed 10% of the debtor's paycheck. Previously the cap was 15%, and for us soon-to-be graduates who have to pay back loans that could be the difference between struggling to get by after college and not having to constantly worry about our finances. Republicans were silent on this fact. Instead they chose to focus on the section of the bill that phased out the private loan industry from federally subsidized loans.
House Republican leader Jim Boehner criticized the bill on the same terms as the medical bill, which was not constructive. Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, whose state is the home of many private loan companies, argued more persuasively that the reform could result in jobs lost for his state. Considering the state of the economy, this argument resonates much more with most Americans, so it is important that we analyze this claim closely.
Let's be specific here. The contested provision is the abolition of fees paid by the national government to private loan companies, which were estimated to cost $68 billion over the next ten years. Under Obama's bill the national governnent will now grant subsidized loans directly to students without the private middleman. The savings from those fees, remember estimated at $68 billion over the next ten years, will go towards increases in Pell Grants for poor college students. Additionally the bill grants $2 billion in funding for community colleges, who have faced severe cuts from states strapped for resources and need a lot more help than Ivy Schools such as ours. There is no doubt this would be beneficial to Senator Alexander's state, especially considering Tennessee's median family income ranks 43rd in the country.
Equally important is the fact that these private lenders can be every bit as predatory as health insurance companies. Estimates on the net worth of the private student loan industry range from $70 to $85 billion per year, and their loans are subject to arbitrarily raised interest rates which only put us indebted students further in the red. Granting privileges to private loan companies can also lead to corruption in financial aid offices, and it happened here several years ago.
If the congressional Republicans were really worried about working people losing their jobs, they would provide viable and proven strategies to create them. Instead they continually rely on the conjecture of private companies who are griping about losing their sweetheart deals. It's sad that subsidizing working people directly is considered class warfare, but subsidizing private companies is viewed as patriotic. Obama needs to do more on jobs, there is no doubt about it. An education matters little if there are no jobs. Obama's "public plan" for education is a tremendous reform, but hopefully there's more to come.
Jobs for Working People (and the Attack of the Parentheticals)
As the bastard brat of a Scotch peddler, no wait that was Hamilton...
As the legitimate brat of a a half-Irish American (no hyphen, we don't need your identity politics, thank you very much) plumber I can claim that I know what the working man thinks (yes progs, the working class can think for themselves and they don't need your guidance). It appears that both parties have decided to rake the working class over the coals, tho' my father votes Democratic because that's what good union men do, even if he hates their politicians and the union bosses. One one hand, the Dems with their taxes and regulations that force factories into bankruptcy and on the other the GOP with their willingness to embrace trade with socialist nations that enforce tariffs up the wazoo (i.e. China). And even worse their myopic Sinophilia is infectious to liberals. In fact, there's nothing worse to American industry than an environmentalist, regulation advocating, man who probably prays before a shrine of Hu Jintao (yes I'm calling you out, Tom Friedman or Kowtow "please don't destroy us by holding all our debt" Obama). And to add insult to injury these guys treat the white working class' social views as if they troglodytes emerging from the depths to wreak the wrath of the Inquisition on modernity. It's rather sad that the people the working men votes for often sneer at them and then sell them out. Now here's the solution, drop the environmentalism, taxation, and regulation that forces jobs to go to China to bring back industry and tell the China to drop their tariffs. If China doesn't drop their tariffs we should revalue our currency, gold standard that is, and ruin their bond holdings. The reason China is beating America like a red-headed step-child is that they have the industry. Industry is the mother of Science and Invention, its not a coincidence that scientific revolution follows industrial revolution. We can't all be investment bankers and we need industry or we'll be looking at a very bleak future.
By the way, I more pro-Tibet than the hippie Pseudo-Buddhists that you probably are,
-Angry Drunken Gun Toting Paleo-Anarcho-Capitalist Ultramontane Columbian ("I don't believe in labels" READ THE DAMN LABEL!)
It is extremely ironic of
It is extremely ironic of upper middle class kids at a pretentious Ivy League school such as Columbia argue on the grounds of their own ideology what the lower classes need. That said... you're pleading the point that Congress is going to know how to manage finances that they have shown over and over again to mismanage to the point of ever growing, tremendous debts. And to make all this even better, Congress, or rather Democrats in Congress think of fixing this problem not by targeting the true source of our fiscal problems--- which is like the last poster said, waning industry but instead on spending more money we don't have to further discourage people from being industrious by having an European Socialist Welfare System. American people are dignified and don't want to have their lives handed to them... they want to work for their livelihood and see the fruits of their labors and know that that work is also going towards strengthening America and showing the rest of the world that hard work and big dreams are all that's really needed to grow the world's most powerful and successful country. Instead... liberals are trying to take that away from Americans and revert to an antiquated system of paternalism on the grounds that no one should be allowed to lose out on anything even if it means that no one gets to really win big when they work hard anymore either.
Cut the faux-conservative bullshit
So what, I guess you know better what's good for the lower classes? Let me guess, your solution is to leave them on their own to suffer even more than they've already done over the last decade of Republican rule. It is extremely ironic of an upper-middle class kid at Columbia (which I assume you are - and if you're not, an upper-middle class kid in general) to assume that he or she knows what's best for the working and lower-middle classes when you have no interest whatsoever in whether or not they are meeting an appropriate standard of living. It's easy for you to say we have to turn to free market, conservative economic values - you're not the one suffering. You have no idea what it likes to lack a job, the means to education, or safety. You've never had to live in an inner city neighborhood where chances for mobility are slim. You can't say shit until you know how the other half lives.
Progressive tactics of the kind outlined in this article might not be good for big business, big banks, or the wealthy, but there is ample evidence that they will do more to serve the working and lower-middle classes than any conservative idea out there. Let me guess, your idea for more fair college loans is to continue allowing banks to dole out loans while gouging both the people and the government. Do you even know about this issue, or are you just pulling conservative talking points out of your ass?
Nobody here is talking about a "European Socialist Welfare System", jackass. It's about providing people with fair loans and doing it more efficiently than the banks have been doing as the middle men between the government and citizens. These aren't handouts - they're loans, people will pay them back. Nobody's talking about taking away freedom in favor of paternalism. I agree that people must be allowed room for personal responsibility, growth, dignity, and industry. Nobody should be handed success. But when you use "freedom" as an excuse to leave the poor on their own to suffer, that's where I get off. "Freedom" gets you nowhere if you don't have the means to move up the socio-economic ladder.
You forget, in America, everybody is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. That is, we are all promised equal opportunity to be successful. Everybody deserves the same chances to pursue happiness, everybody deserves to stand at roughly equal starting points to achieve the American Dream. If the field is tilted towards the rich and already successful, then the American Dream is a lie. Only those who are already successful, a new nobility, is guaranteed success. Progressive ideals are about putting everyone at the same starting point, not getting everyone to the same goal. It's not about "no one should be allowed to lose out on anything" - it's about no one being denied the opportunity to win big. That's what the student reforms and health care reforms are about.
Lastly, the deficit isn't due to Democratic policies or social justice programs - it's due to idiotic Republican tax cuts for the wealthy that busted Democratic surpluses. It's also due to the two dumb wars we're fighting. Don't try to rewrite history. We're in the situation we're in now because of conservative policies. It's not that Democrats failed to manage the budget. They did it pretty well under Clinton. It's that Republicans failed to manage the budget. That's not a failure of Congress - it's a failure of conservative principles.
Ding Ding Dingbat - Angry Hippy Alarm Sounding!
I detect swearing ad-hominem attacks and going off topic. First typical straw men get their two minutes hate, you know those big bad "big business, banks, the wealthy." Then, from your rather quixotic perspective it appears that Obama can ruin America because Bush started it first! And apparently you confuse principles with practice
Just because Bush ruined the budget doesn't give Obama the right to continue its ruination. The health reform is an orgy of spending to be paid for by taxes, quite a great way to impose new costs when trying to recover. And these new taxes will be paid by the consumers of the companies that can't afford this mandate. And the people who already have health insurance, the vast majority of working Americans aren't going to get any substantial benefits from this Health Reform. Since it doesn't reform tort (a give away to those hard working Americans we call Trial Lawyers), malpractice insurance will continue to rise and raise costs.
Also, because insurance companies cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions this creates perverse incentives. For example, a person with HIV can buy a cheap plan and then switch to an expensive plan when he get full blown AIDS, the company will have to pay for him even though they can't make money. There will be no incentive for insurance companies to offer plans with coverage for expensive procedures, so these plans will either be phased out or their prices made ridiculous. This will cause medical costs to go higher or people to migrate to medicaid, which is more taxes on the back of the people. Even if its a tax on the wealthy, income tax is by nature inflationary and the poor will pay its price at the market.
Too poor to be bailed out, too rich to be on the dole, too honorable to accept either, thus the middle American bears the cross for the sins of the too rich care/ too poor to think classes.
An Honest Working Man's Son,
-Angry Drunken Gun Toting Paleo-Anarcho-Capitalist Ultramontane Columbian ("I don't believe in labels" READ THE DAMN LABEL!)
It's also possible that
It's also possible that America's middle classes aren't homogeneous enough that they can elect you spokesperson-for-life. You speak only for yourself and people who agree with you. You do not speak for me.
BR
Right ...
Right, banks and corporations are straw men. Because they aren't responsible for our economic meltdown.
I'm not saying Obama can ruin America. Healthcare reform will reduce the deficit, as the CBO has pointed out numerous times. You can complain about the problems of big government spending all you want, but none of your principles mean jack shit when people are suffering and states are going bankrupt. The federal government has a duty to support those who are suffering in this time, because they can't do it themselves and states can't deficit spend. And ever heard of a concept called Keynesian economics? Government spending is part of the solution to our problems. The idea of the deficit is the straw man conservatives trot out to scare people, when in reality, the deficit means little in the short term until we can get our economy back on track. Then we can focus on the deficit.
The only one confusing principles with practice are conservatives like you, who have witnessed the failure of your principles in practice, and yet continue to hold on to them. Move aside and let people with real solutions talk, you failures.
Most of your points on healthcare are nothing but conjecture and guesses. The CBO did its analysis, and according to the CBO, it will control costs. If you think otherwise, prove it. Anyway, the reforms actually include tax breaks to families and businesses who want to purchase healthcare. Bet you didn't know that. The taxes are only on high end plans and the wealthiest people. Let's see, we taxed the wealthy under Clinton and ... our economy did fine. We had budget surpluses. The CBO has already proven that tort reform would offer minimal savings at best. Stick to facts. Don't keep trotting out the same BS. And healthcare reform does offer something for people who already have healthcare. It's called a safety net. That benefits everybody, not just the poor.
also, the taxes are being
also, the taxes are being put off until like eight years from now. they're not being imposed immediately. and i would think that the amount of money insurance companies must spend to take care of those with pre-existing conditions, terminal illnesses, and those in need of expensive procedures will be more than offset by the fact that they're getting like 36 million new customers to make money off of.
Keynesian Malarkey
BR, you make me laugh. Spokesman for the middle class? Judging by my moniker I doubt that my views constitute a common perspective.
I only speak for myself, but the ramifications of this bill won't benefit the middle class, my father, a unionized democrat isn't going to benefit, and I bet your father won't benefit either( well maybe you will, you have that progressive administrative class air, I can smell it). The only winners in this bill are the trial lawyers and the uninsured.
-Now onto the Analysis.
You were a bit disingenuous in stating that it would certainly reduce the deficit.
First of all the CBO analysis states that it will reduce the deficit only if it generates enough taxes and fees. And even after that it would take about 10 years to actually save $138 billion, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit and its cost of $940 billion. Not to mention, CBO estimates are often wrong (weren't we have supposed to pay for Iraq by now and the deficit gone in 2010?) and costs for new entitlements often balloon out of control when people find they can take advantage of them. The bill isn't cutting costs (except with a small cut in medicare, so much for Grandma), mostly its imposing new taxes in the vain hope that we'll take the beating and hand over the money. Mr. Laffer would suggest otherwise. New taxes usually increase prices and discourage people from using the companies that will be taxed. Therefore, there will be less money to take. So either way, we'll be paying for it, either in a higher deficit, higher taxes, or higher prices.
-We're all Keynesians now (We're all paying for it later, just like an ARM) !
Keynesian economics merely serves to re-inflate the bubbles and then leaves us in stagflation. Remember the Keynesian consensus of the 70's. Keynesian economics throws money at broken companies and ideas, giving them a new lease on life. Unfortunately, this transfusion comes from the money of the people who were intelligent enough not to buy $500,000 homes on $25,000 incomes. And it is the implicit Keynesianism of the low-interest fed policy and government sponsored entities of Fannie and Freddie that created this mess in the first place. These polices created a misallocation of money in a sector that couldn't be profitable on its own, that is low income housing. So now the geniuses who helped create the mess, attempt to fix it by lower interest rates and more government sponsored housing schemes. re-inflating this bubble will only serve to create an even bigger crash in the future. And the mandarins will swoop in again to bail everything out and start the cycle all over, piling up more debt and sucking more money from the vast majority of responsible Americans. But they don't care about our debt laden future, because "in the long run we'll all be dead." Even Keynes himself realized that the stuff they were doing in his name was wrong, as he worried about inflation at the end of his life. Keynesianism is merely feeding out of the public trough while claiming it will help everyone.
If you dig a hole and I fill it in we'll both have a job!
-Angry Drunken Gun Toting Paleo-Anarcho-Capitalist Ultramontane Columbian ("I don't believe in labels" READ THE DAMN LABEL!)
my dad was in the army and
my dad was in the army and currently works for a union, organizing for worker and immigrant rights, actually. you're right in that this bill does not benefit us directly. you're wrong to judge me, because you don't know s**t about me. you're also wrong in that this bill affects many people that my dad works with. you see he and I (as well as the previous poster) actually care about people in our community, and want to see them happy and not dying from preventable causes, ranging from cancer to gun violence.
if you learn about the history of unions in this country, you'll probably find they are strongest when united among all the working professions and trades in organizing against the elite classes. i bet you didn't even know that many security guards at this school until recently received no health benefits and below-poverty level wages. they have benefits now because organizations such as lucha, which i am a member of, allied with them. if they had benefited from the health bill instead, they would have only been more freeloaders to you. nevermind they keep you safe from big bad Harlem.
if you learn about the history of racism in this country, you'll know the uglier side of unions too. my dad was beaten by unionized cops for speaking spanish in front of them, after two years in the military. you at least have the fortune to feel entitled to be outraged at the state of this country. a lot of people have always faced discrimination in this country, have an even harder time than you do, yet don't have people listening to them. so suck it up like we all have to, because that's just life. it ain't fair.
Two words: George Meany
You misrepresented the height of Union power as the point when they were radicalized in fighting against the wealthy. The height of union power came in the 1950's when we were an industrial nation where labor and capital collaborated, instead of playing the class war game. AFL-CIO president George Meany claimed that he was proud never to have crossed a picket line. He was an anti-communist who investigated radical unions. In fact, the most successful labor organizations advocated cooperation rather than confrontation, where's the IWW now? AFL is still here, even though membership has declined and nobody who's actually doing labor trusts the bosses (or that's what all the union men in my family believe.) A smart leader knows that the working man benefits when production and trade are encouraged rather than merely spreading the money about, which isn't going to improve the economy. The best way to support the workers is to bring back the factories that gave them jobs instead of crushing them with regulatory insanity.
Oh, nice distraction move, claiming union men are racist. Also, it's not like the Irish, Italians, the Poles or Catholics in general suffered discrimination. Oh whoops they did. Even the old Ulster Scots from the colonial era were discriminated against by the wealthy tidewater planters. Unless you were born a Virginian Planter at sometime or another everyone's ancestors were discriminated against. So please place your race card back in your wallet and get back to the issue.
Life isn't fair, but it doesn't help when the government uses the responsible people of America as private slush fund to help those who are less fortunate or merely stupid. My family won't end up paying higher taxes, but they will be paying higher insurance prices and higher prices to buy products from companies that have to insure their workers or pay the fees. Either way, the middle class will be squeezed by the alliance of the super rich and the super poor.
Since you claimed life ain't fair I would like to invite you to a new political party Levelers For The Unfairness of America.
Money for Nothing, Count Me In,
-Angry Drunken Gun Toting Paleo-Anarcho-Capitalist Ultramontane Columbian ("I don't believe in labels" READ THE DAMN LABEL!)
1) Don't belittle or
1) Don't belittle or pigeonhole my point about racism. Your ignoring what I wrote (if I believed all union men were racist, wouldn't that mean my Mexican father is also a racist? Don't like racism isn't a problem in pretty much every American institution to some extent. And of course I agree that ethnic Europeans have been victimized by racism. The largest lynching party in American history was committed against Italians.
2) Your really smart you know. You argue that unions were strongest during the height of America's economic prosperity. Real gutsy stand. Try the UAW during the Great Depression. During periods of economic downturns, it's harder to unionize and make demands because you're portrayed as unpatriotic. Better yet, look at the efforts to unionize during the second industrialization period post-Civil War, when the government and corporate owners united against labor in breaking strikes.
3) Your defense of McCarthyism is deplorable and un-American. Freedom of speech seems only important to you when you can exercise it. My grandfather was blacklisted by his union and people like Meany, couldn't get a job, and went to work in the mountains in a mill. Raised his kids (including my mother) dead broke, economically disfranchised. On the bright side my family got to live close to an Indian reservation and see what true poverty really looks like.
4) "AFL is still here, though membership has declined." And why is that? It's called neoliberalism. You're right that it isn't a partisan issue. Clinton signed NAFTA. And who did he sign it for? Who's making money? Poor people? No. Maybe it's those corporate bosses who don't really have your interests at heart. Keep hoping they'll come around and bail you out. Keep thinking the 1950's can come back (interesting period to valorize, by the way).
Again, don't reduce my point to "playing the race card." If you've truly been the victim of that kind of discrimination, you would find a way to disagree with my point without being offensive.
Why are we letting "Angry
Why are we letting "Angry Drunken" whatever his name is take this discussion off course? He's making idiotic points that should be refuted, but everyone here is playing into his game.
Anyway ... you say that what the health care reform bill saves from the deficit is a drop in the bucket. But that doesn't really matter. The point is that not only will it detract money from the deficit, it will be PAID FOR, unlike the wars and Republican tax cuts. The important thing is that it won't add to the deficit. It doesn't matter that you think it detracts too little. And yes, the CBO does often make mistakes in its estimates ... but research shows that it often UNDERESTIMATES savings. Also, the reform bill takes measures against people taking advantage of the system - it's called the mandate system. But I'm guessing you oppose that as "socialism", even though we do the same thing with car insurance under the constitutional idea that the federal government has the right to regulate those kinds of things.
How do you expect something to be paid for if the government doesn't collect taxes to pay for it? Your argument contradicts itself. You rail against the deficit, but hate taxes. If the deficit is EVER going to be reduced, taxes will have to raised, or at least the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans will have to expire. As Paul Volcker pointed out (hardly a liberal tax-spend Democrat) recently, Obama should consider instituting a value added tax to curb the deficit.
Otherwise, the only way to ever reduce the deficit is to cut back on every service we enjoy in America, and I bet you wouldn't be happy about that. It's not as simple as ending "hand outs" and "welfare". To really reduce the deficit through spending cuts, we would have to cut back on everything from school funding to local trash pick up. Imagine the turmoil California is going through (cutting school days, firing teachers, putting state employees on forced vacation, rationing water, releasing prisoners, not picking up trash frequently, closing homeless shelters) but on steroids. These cuts wouldn't just affect who you consider to be the weak, it would affect ALL Americans. Use your head, don't rely on typical conservative talking points.
Of course, we should cut back on spending in ways that matter. Reducing the military budget, cutting waste (like student loan policies that make private banks the middle man between government and citizens ... like a poster above me said, this reform will save LOTS of money and make student loans better for people), and bringing Medicare spending under control (which the healthcare bill tries to do, but I guess you're one of those people that hypocritically condemns that policy) are all ways to help. So yes, we should cut wasteful spending in ways that matter and can really help. But you can't just say taxes shouldn't be raised while wanting spending cuts, but decrying any change in government service. That's stupid. Of course, these taxes should probably be instituted when the economy has recovered, but eventually, it has to be done, and conservative talking points are making the necessary and rational appear evil. That's irresponsible.
I agree with you the bailouts were a bad idea, and we should work to recoup that money and prevent a similar situation from happening again. But I'm guessing that you take another hypocritical stand on this. You probably hate the bailouts, but think any regulation or taxation of the financial industry is "socialism".
Your analysis of Keynesian int he 70s is totally wrong. Stagflation occurred because of rising oil prices and conflict in the Middle East. You can read any history book and learn that. And there are two little Keynesian successes called the New Deal and WWII that proved the effectiveness of Keynesian policy. Again, read.
And to echo what the other posters have said, the health care bill offers a safety net for all citizens no matter what they're health care situation right now. Yeah, you might have health care now, but what if you lose your job and end up with no insurance. That's what a safety net is for. I'm betting a LOT of the unemployed right now are wishing that safety net was set up earlier so that they wouldn't be suffering right now. It amazes me how willing you conservatives are to ignore reality just to uphold delusional free market ideas.
I couldn't keep track of all of your arguments, but I think that addresses most of your points.
Cool down there Confused at Columbia.
Black Russian,
I agree, the neo-liberals are not true classical liberals. They would rather make money from foreign trade than ensure liberty and free markets through the elimination of tariffs by our trading partners. They persist in the delusion that if we trade with them, they will stop using their tariffs to shaft our manufacturers. Now it's time for me to have a good cry. You called me un-American, that hurts my feelings. But I'm a big boy and feelings don't matter. However, demeaning the legacy of a true patriot and leader is rather distasteful. Men like Meany who recognized that the communist presence in unions hurt their reputation and hampered efforts to collaborate in production with capital. I'm sorry that your family was hurt by these efforts but freedom is a double edged sword. People who take unpopular views often end up ostracized. Free speech is the right to say something and not have the government stop you. It doesn't protect you from being fired for saying something. If I made racial or sexual comments at works, I would be fired. I still have the right to free speech, the state didn't stop me from disseminating those views, I wouldn't be jailed or fined by the police. However, people don't like hearing that and they don't want to work with people who have those views. As you said, life isn't fair.
Now, this is directed at the previous commenter, not Black Russian. Black Russian is rather well spoken and understands my arguments. On the other hand, well, it was rather kind of you to admit you couldn't keep track of all my arguments because from your writing it is quite obvious. Apparently you've confused me with some sort of Republican shill. Or you're simply using that as a straw man. I like to think my opponents are disingenuous and intelligent and rather than uncomprehending so I will go for the straw man.
OK let's recap:
-What I support:
From my earlier posts I take a stand for industry, that is anti-regulation, anti-tax and against the hilariously misnamed free trade with countries like China who use tariffs, currency manipulation, and socialism to manipulate the market for their ends against liberty. What we need to do is reclaim our industry from China through the end of environmentalist lunacy that stops factories from setting up shop and then tell them to go to hell.
I support a true free trade, where there is no foreign government interfering with the flow of goods. Many of our current free trade agreements sacrifice true freedom for an opportunity to get wealthy of foreign enterprises while leaving our manufacturers behind by allowing our so-called partners to enforce tariffs on our goods.
Placing the economy behind tariff walls or enchaining with taxes and regulations are both evils to the American worker. The Gilded age was an age of tariffs acting a de facto handouts. The modern age is an age where we willingly force industry of out of country through environmental and regulatory nonsense. Both extremes end up harming our economy.
Industry is the mother of science and invention. Heavy industry requires an every increasing body of scientists and engineers. The reason we're falling behind educationally is because companies have little incentive to train American scientists and engineers.
-What I Oppose:
Keynesianism is an economic system that encourages failure and misallocation of wealth. The re-inflation of bubbles it supports will only encourage them to grow bigger for future crashes. The fiat currency system is an inflationary mechanism that encourages wealth to be put into risky ventures through government manipulation of interest rates.
Welfare state is a misbegotten ideal of Keynesianism. It assumes that the goverment can predict the economic impact of an action better than those involved in the actual production of wealth.
-Caveat
However, if the government makes an obligation to the people, like Social Security it better honor it. I would support phasing out Social Security, but I'd ensure that everyone who paid into the system got out what they paid and the interest on the money the government claims it's saving for them.
-Back to The Main Thrust
In reality, the Welfare state is the Servile State, because man becomes intimately linked to the government's power to hold his pay.
The health care bill will not benefit the majority of Americans but will become an entitlement as people who can't afford insurance will be absorbed by medicaid. And since it contains anti-competitive measures insurance will become progressively more expensive. The taxation it imposes will burden the economy and raise prices and the debt predictions are based on the idea that the taxes will not distort the economy in a way the leads to lower revenue. Inevitably the Laffer curve this will probably be untrue.
Also, the bill will only pay for itself after 10 years, which assumes that things will not have changed, that is no growth in the segment that would take up the public dole ,etc. Just as in the grandiose schemes of war, the cavaliers of government action often don rosy glasses.
Warfare State is merely the welfare state by different means. It gives handouts to companies to produce death. Apparently, you thought I was some sort of neo-con waving the banner to democratic revolution in the Mid-East. I am an isolationist in the tradition of Washington, Coolidge, Lindbergh, Taft, Sobran, Buchanan and Paul. If one opposes revolution and interference at home, they must also oppose it abroad.
Regulation of the financial industry will punish the companies that were responsible and did not harm the economy through a smorgasbord of paperwork such as Sarbanes-Oxley. The way to avoid such bubbles is not to inflate them through fiat currency with its inherently inflationary monetary policy. Also, the government should not sponsor entities like Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae to give out risky loans with taxpayer backing.
I believe my moniker explains my views,
-Angry Drunken Gun Toting Paleo-Anarcho-Capitalist Ultramontane Columbian ("I don't believe in labels" READ THE DAMN LABEL!)
Post new comment