Home › Blogs › Cahnman's blog ›

Economic Recovery: A Choice, Not An Echo

Submitted by Cahnman on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 19:33
in

Since none of our so-called leaders are going to present an alternative economic recovery package, I'll do it myself.  Items are in no particular order except the order in which they came to me.

1) Slash the Corporate Income Tax Rate to 15% - The United States currently has the Second Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World.  This puts our companies at a gigantic competitive disadvantage internationally and retards both job growth and the stock market here at home.  Cutting corporate taxes will spur a business led investment boom in the United States.

2) Make Bush Reductions in Capital Gains and Dividends Permanent - While I would love to slash these grossly counterproductive rates further, that's not feasible politically at the moment.  The next best thing would be to send a permanent signal to financial markets.

3) Abolish the Employer Half of the Payroll Tax - As liberals frequently point out, 80% of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.  They deserve a big tax cut.  This will also act as a major job creation mechanism.

4) Pass Colombia, South Korea, and Panama Free Trade Agreements - This move is more symbolic than substative, however, it is crucially important.  Passing these agreements would signal to our trading partners that the United States will not turn protectionist like we did in the 1930's.

Passing the Colombia agreement would also weaken an increasingly despotic Hugo Chavez.

5) Establish a 15% flat rate on All Income - This will leave Americans with more money to spend, invest, or do whatever the heck they want to do with it.  It will also do away with the deadweight loss from tax code complexity.  Many other Countries have done this successfully.

Should this prove politically unfeasable, we should still strive to do this for everyone except the top income tax bracket.

6) Create A National Market for Medical Insurance - Rising Medical Costs have been a major economic drag for the past decade.  While the reasons for this are worthy of their own blog post, creating a national market for Medical Insurance instead of 50 separate state markets is the easiest way to lower costs.

7) Drill, Baby, Drill - In addition to harming those nice guys in Tehran, Moscow, and Caracas, increased energy production at home will create oodles of jobs.  It might even make the auto bailout a moot point.

8) Immeadiate Expensing for Business Investment - This will also create a boom in business investment.

9) Boost Defense Spending - This is a policy I support for other reasons.  That said, defense spending has a higher Keynesian Multiplier than anything President Elect Obama is proposing.

10) Abolish the Alternative Maximum Tax - This wildly unfair tax should just be abolished.  I don't care about the rationale.

11) Abolish Sarbanes/Oxley - This onerous regulation, passed during the Enron panic, drives capital and businesses overseas without preventing fraud at home.  Repeal of SarBox would ignite a stock market boom!

12) Abolish Mark to Market - This obscure accounting rule forces companies unnecessarily to lower the value of their assets relative to what they could be sold for.  This was a major factor in the credit freeze.

13) Abolish the Death Tax - Any change in tax policy that both antagonizes liberals and hurts Warren Buffet must be a good idea.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Comments

 You have not talked about

Submitted by In between on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 20:27.

 You have not talked about all the factories closing and the loss of jobs. The pressure on wages, the loss of healthcare, and pensions. And the loss of revenue to the cities and states. 

Add to that we are in a recession. The private economy is not creating jobs. And what products can be made, when they can be made in China for cheap labor.

Bush has had 8 years of tax cuts, the factories are closing, and cities and states going broke. We have deficits and debt. And we are back into a recession. To get out of this recession the tax cuts have been overdone and are ineffective. The lower interest rates by the fed will create inflation in later years.

And boosting defense spending? Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex.

Now if you really want to compete globally then you need infrastructure spending (limited), energy independence, mandatory vocational training, deal with the 700,000 patents that are backed up, embryonic stem cell research, and all the research and development possible with  a collaboration of government and industry. We need a Manhattan project to make a battery that will go more than 100 miles to a charge. The country that does that will be the world leader in alternative energy for cars. Other countries have a cooperation with government and industry. The government can provide the billions of dollars in which industry can't.

As far as free trade. Every time Bush has talked of free trade, factories close up. Give me the proof that it create jobs. I haven't seen it. And if it does, what do those jobs pay, and do they have healthcare and pensions.

This "plan" is not serious

Submitted by johnson springs on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 23:11.

Let's just look at two examples:

1) Slash the Corporate Income Tax Rate to 15% - The United States currently has the Second Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World.  This puts our companies at a gigantic competitive disadvantage internationally and retards both job growth and the stock market here at home.  Cutting corporate taxes will spur a business led investment boom in the United States.

The U.S. has the most complicated, loop-hole ridden corporate tax system in the world, for sure. But as a result, US corporations do not in any reality pay the second highest taxes in the world. But more importantly, in this recession how is lowering taxes on income that doesn't accrue lead to investment into a recessionary economy? This is magical thinking at its worst.

13) Abolish the Death Tax - Any change in tax policy that both antagonizes liberals and hurts Warren Buffet must be a good idea.

These are not serious rationales for policy making during a crisis such as that we are facing.

Agreed

Submitted by banana on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 22:04.

For example, 50% of U.S.-registered corporations do not pay any taxes at all. Through a combination of loopholes - mostly stuff like moving 'losses' around subsidiaries etc - they offset everything.

http://www.thecourier.com/Iss

Submitted by In between on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 22:19.

http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2008/Dec/18/ar_news_121808_story3.asp?d...

 

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/pdf/TO51488727.PDF

 

They may not pay taxes or we give them millions to stay here and not move overseas. Sooner or later they will move overseas. Then what?

So much for your massive increase in drilling jobs

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 23:40.

Regarding your point #7:  The offshore drilling ban has already been lifted - and the oil comapnies also have 68 million on-shore acres under license. Seen a flood of new jobs being created? No??  Neither have I.

In fact, jobs are being eliminated: January 11, 2008

Job cuts that have afflicted almost every sector of the economy reached into the oil industry Thursday, as the biggest oilfield service providers said they were cutting employees.Schlumberger Ltd., the world's largest oilfield services company, will eliminate up to 1,000 jobs in North America, or about 5 percent of its work force, and is looking at cuts elsewhere globally.Halliburton Co. also said it would begin laying off workers but didn't say how many or when.Both companies have headquarters in Houston, a city that has boomed as oil prices soared. Schlumberger said up to 100 jobs would be cut in Houston, where it employs 5,000.During the fourth quarter, crude tumbled from $100 a barrel to $40. That was in sharp contrast to the rest of 2008, when oil prices soared and producers posted record profits.Oil and gas companies have since scrapped many exploration and production projects, reducing work for companies like Halliburton and Schlumberger.

Reality - it is a bitch.

 

Or we could just...

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 05:28.

... sit around and whip tired, old, worn-out ideas that have obviously been rejected. 

My thoughts on your economic proposal

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 21:46.

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. Yes.

7. Yes.

8. Yes.

9. No. Redirect existing defense spending to narrowly defined strategic interests.  But after Obama's done with the military, we'll have to increase defense spending again to regain our strength, so in practical terms it's a Yes.

10. Yes.

11. Yes.

12. Yes.

13. Yes.

Here is my point #14: Adopt all these tax cuts and then cut spending until the budget is balanced.

Good points

Submitted by theophilus 2 on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 10:31.

I like these points.  However, these are merely 13 steps.  The actual problem is the size of the Federal Gov.  We must transfer power and responsibility from the Fed to the states.  For instance, I propose that each state have a health care plan and negotiate with the medical communities concerning prices and have lengthy debates about coverage, price and taxes.  So, a state that wants to attract small businesses would be sure to have a good plan and supress frivolous lawsuits.  These lawsuits produce unnecessary upward pressure on all medical services.

There is no evidence that lawsuits push up healthcare costs.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 10:39.

There is no evidence that lawsuits push up healthcare costs.

Despite what you hear on Bill O'Reilly.

    • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has documented the minimal impact that increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums have on overall health care costs. A 2004 CBO report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save only 0.4 percent of the amount that's spent now" on health care. According to the report, "[M]alpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."

     

    • Defensive medicine: As FactCheck.org has noted, claims that "defensive medicine" drives up medical costs -- a principal Bush administration argument for tort reform -- have been dismissed as inconclusive by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the CBO. The CBO went further, declaring that there is "no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending."

 

I like that

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 20:16.

That's pretty much what I've been advocating. 

Odd, the mass exodus of

Submitted by theophilus 2 on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 11:31.

Odd, the mass exodus of doctors from the Rio Grande Valley would certainly disagree with you.  The few doctors with whom I have personally spoken have all lamented the opressive weight of medical insurance.  So, I would reccomend a little personal investigation into this matter.

I prefer to rely on the results of a carefully researched study

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 11:46.

You may be happy to base your decisions on "friend of a friend anecdotes", but I prefer the results of a carefully research study

Malpractice Situation Not Dire, Study FindsAnalysis of Texas Claims Finds 'Sea of Calm,' Overall Stability in Tort System

By Ceci Connolly

Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page A08

In his pitch for legislation imposing a "hard cap of $250,000" on medical malpractice awards for non-economic damages, President Bush points the finger at what he calls "a broken medical liability system." But a new analysis of malpractice claims filed over 15 years in his home state of Texas found no such crisis there.

"We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crisis that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states," a group of four legal scholars concluded in a report being released today

"What we found is a sea of calm" in Texas malpractice claim cases from 1988 to 2002, said co-author David A. Hyman, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Illinois. "So, at least in Texas, the tort system can't be the cause of spikes in malpractice premiums."

Texas was identified by the American Medical Association as one of more than a dozen states suffering from a malpractice "crisis."

The new study comes as the White House is touting its plan to limit non-economic damages as a critical step in reining in health care costs. Bush, the AMA and some conservative scholars argue that an onslaught of lawsuits -- and blockbuster jury awards -- have forced malpractice premiums to historically high levels.

"What's happening all across this country is that lawyers are filing baseless suits against hospitals and doctors," Bush said in a recent speech in Illinois. "So doctors end up paying tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of dollars to settle claims, out of court, even when they know they have done nothing wrong.

"When insurance premiums rise, doctors have no choice but to pass some of the costs on to their patients," Bush said. "If you're a patient, it means you're paying a higher cost to go see your doctor."

The Texas study found little to support those assertions. By virtually any measure -- from number of claims filed to damages paid out -- the data reflect amazing stability in the tort system, according to the peer-reviewed paper that will appear in the May issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/clcjm/preview). "The clear implication is that 'runaway medical malpractice litigation' makes a poor poster child for the cause of tort reform," the researchers wrote. "The malpractice litigation system has many flaws, but at least in Texas, sudden increases in claim frequencies and costs appear not to have been among them."

The team chose Texas because it is one of the few states with a publicly available, comprehensive database of legal claims filed against physicians, hospitals and other health care providers. Texas also is the second most populous state and the third largest in health care spending.

Malpractice insurance premiums in Texas rose an average of 135 percent from 1999 to 2002, prompting the state legislature to cap non-economic damages in 2003.

Analyzing claims data from 1988 to 2002, the team found little change in the number of claims filed or the total amount paid in damages, when adjusted for population growth and inflation. The total number of claims per physician actually declined from 1995 to 2002, and 80 percent of cases were resolved without payment by the physicians or hospital.

When adjusted for Texas's economic growth, "total payouts fell by $6 million annually," the analysis found. The $515 million in malpractice payouts in 2002 represented 0.6 percent of health care spending in Texas that year.

"It's very hard to take the position malpractice is a major factor in the increases in the cost of health care," Hyman said. "The actual cost of malpractice payouts is really quite modest."

Texas had its share of eye-poppingly large settlements. "But, contrary to conventional wisdom, they are not increasing," the report said. Settlements of more than $1 million have represented about 5 percent of the total number of claims, or about 53 cases each year. Legal defense costs also rose, but at a steady rate that can be easily managed by insurers, according to the report.

The study did not address whether doctors are practicing "defensive medicine" -- ordering extra tests and procedures -- to guard against future litigation.

"The fact that a lot of doctors are getting sued may be problematic, but it doesn't explain the premium increases" for malpractice or health insurance, Hyman said.

"Our point, which has been largely neglected in the furious battle over malpractice liability, is that attempts to avoid crises in malpractice insurance prices should focus on insurance, not litigation," wrote the group, which included two professors at the University of Texas Law School and William Sage, a physician and law professor at Columbia University.

Although he had not yet studied the report, Donald Palmisano, immediate past president of the AMA, said that in the 18 months since Texas enacted its caps, one major insurer reduced malpractice premiums 17 percent and new carriers have expressed interest in covering doctors in the state.

"The most important thing passed on to the patient is that physicians are available," he said.

Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, said the analysis provides fresh evidence that malpractice premiums "are not a particularly important driver" of overall health care costs.

 

 

I see your expert and raise you one

Submitted by theophilus 2 on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:24.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/malpractice_ge.html

A few notes.  Obviously there is a more diverse opinion than the staff writer acknowledged.  Secondly, malpractice insurance has risen 135%.  How do you propose we resolve that?       If litigatiion was not a problem, why have the caps in the first place?  Finally, "the fact that a lot of doctors are getting sued may be problematic"--exactly.  According to your source, doctors are being sued and insurace is rising but there is no correlation.  Ok, provide a stronger correlation.

The question is, do lawsuits drive up health care costs.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:42.

The question is, do lawsuits drive up health care costs?

I provided you with a report on an objective, detailed study published in a peer-reviewed journal that says no, malpractice litigation is not driving up costs.

You provided a link to a malpractice insurance provider saying that they reserve the right to raise their rates. The fact that it is in their self-interest to do so makes the report hardly surprising. In addition, it doesn't say anything about the question posed above.

However, your link DOES demonstrate another element of folly in your original demand for so called "tort reform". Read the end, where it lays out the fact that "tort reform" restricts the rights of injured patients to be compensated for the harm they suffered, but yet they do nothing to lower doctor's premiums.

This quote is from YOUR source:

"When the largest malpractice insurer in the nation tells a regulator that caps on damages don't work, every legislator, regulator and voter in the nation should listen," said Douglas Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights (FTCR).

"Medical Protective's rate increase and this smoking gun document prove that the insurance industry cannot be trusted on the issue of malpractice caps."

Medical Protective and other supporters of medical malpractice caps have repeatedly argued that damage awards are the primary reason for skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums. For example, in a March 2004 report. GE Medical Protective stated that capping non-economic damages is a "critical element [of reform] because in recent years we have seen non-economic damages spiraling out of control."

The Texas rate increase and the actuarial data submitted by the company contradicting the oft-stated importance of caps should lead policymakers to look to insurance regulation, rather than malpractice caps, as a solution to high premiums, according to FTCR.

"While medical malpractice caps limit the rights of injured patients, they do not lower doctors' premiums. If lawmakers and physicians want to reduce costs, they should start fighting to reform insurance companies rather than restrict patients' rights," said Heller.

reserving the right to increase rates...

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 13:41.

have you ever bought car insurance? *shakes head* most financial stuff has that in there, as a matter of course, wherever it is applicable (see credit cards)

fixated

Submitted by theophilus 2 on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 13:14.

Nando--for the sake of your argument, I'll ignore what the doctors say and go with you expets.  However, you are missing the picture all together.  The overarching question is, "What will drive down the cost of health care?"  I suggested tort reform but am unable to statistically back my claim, what do you suggest?

Single payer health insurance

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 13:33.

Single payer health insurance. The biggest problem in our current system is the health insurance companies.

Various estimates indicate that nearly 30%  of the health care dollar – goes towards health insurance company administrative costs, marketing, and profit instead of towards direct health care services.

We pay more and get less than other countries.

And did you know that medical costs trigger half of all bankruptcies, and of those, most had insurance at the time? link

 

and another 10% on top of that

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 13:42.

with hospitals and doctors needing to verify insurance before treatment.

According to the National

Submitted by theophilus 2 on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 14:11.

According to the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus, a single-payer system is:

An approach to health care financing with only one source of money for paying health care providers. The scope may be national (the Canadian System), state-wide, or community-based. The payer may be a governmental unit or other entity such as an insurance company. The proposed advantages include administrative simplicity for patients and providers, and resulting significant savings in overhead costs.[4]

 

Forgive me for again using an anecdote, but my brother-in-law is under such a system and hates it.  He would rather buy what he can without using his free system.  He is currently serving in Afganistan.

A single-payer system is no magic bullet. 

 

I'll see your anecdote and raise you one.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 14:56.

Well, I'm under the current system and I hate it, and would rather have the single payer system. So, which of these two anecdotes is controlling? The obvious answer is "neither". So go with was the masses of data demonstrate. Countries that have single payer systems spend less of their GDP on health care and get better health outcomes.

I'm simply saying a model of

Submitted by theophilus 2 on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 15:14.

I'm simply saying a model of American single payer system already has been implemented.  I'm sure you remember the reporting on the Reed medical facility a few years ago.  Is that what you really want?  What sort of a mechanism do you envision will keep this from happening again? 

oh, i don't know, CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 15:34.

geez. it's in everyone's best interest if the opposing party is busy looking in the closets for the skeletons.

for what it's worth, until the Republicans started saying "veterans benefits are the new welfare" the VA was a wonderfully working system.

no way to single payer

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 14:23.

Quite frankly I don't care if single payer lowers administrative costs or not.  It would be such a huge increase in government and a huge threat to our liberties that I'm not willing to consider it at all.

It enhances your liberty

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 14:59.

Perhaps you are fabulously rich and can afford to keep up with the rising costs of health care. For those of us who can't, doing something about run-away costs and lack of access is pretty important.

Moreover, the single payer system enhances liberty by freeing people who are tied to a particular job becasue of health benefits.

 I have an employer paid

Submitted by In between on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 16:18.

 I have an employer paid health insurance. Seems to be a dwindling thing. I feel fortunate. I just had a colonoscopy, because that is what they say you are supposed to do. The hospital wanted 3400 dollars, insurance paid 2800, and I don't have to pay anything. Five years ago the procedure costed 1200 dollars. Also, I asked the nurse how many have no insurance as they come into the hospital and she said about half. Now I know they are padding my insurance to make up loss revenue. I do have to pay for the visit to the doctor and he wanted 235 dollars for a 10 minute visit. Haven't gotten the actual bill yet. I don't plan to see him to hear the results. If anything was bad, they would let me know. I am sure they are waiting for me, but the price is outrageous. You just get disgusted with the whole mess. I feel like I am putting an extra burden on the insurance and employer.

So here is the deal. Those employers who pay for employees health insurance also pay for those on the street. Now, my question to anyone, is this fair for the employer to pay for someone who has not worked for them?

This is the system we have. There is no perfect system. I think it was 20/20 or one of those shows that spent one hour on our healthcare. They went to Japan, Hawaii, Canada, France, and Germany. I can't remember it all. But France had the best healthcare for the price. But the problem there is that the doctors are limited in pay. Each country had their own caveat. There is just no perfect system. 

liberty and single payer

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 16:29.

See, that's the thing.  You and I have a different definition of 'liberty'.  When I say 'liberty' I mean, broadly, the freedom to do what I please, constrained by my own talent and resources, so long as I don't violate other people's rights.  So when it comes to health insurance, I'd like the freedom to have lavish health insurance, or minimal health insurance, or no health insurance at all if that is what I so desire.  Single payer takes away this 'liberty'.  And opposing single payer is not the same as supporting the status quo, as I'm sure you already know.

not necessarily

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 17:37.

no reason big gov't couldn't ahve multiple plans. though i'd hope that the least one would be a "catastrophic problem" plan.

You miss the point

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 20:22.

I don't care if there's an infinite number of plans.  Single payer removes the liberty to 'take my own chances' and that is what I object to.

take your own chances is a fallacy

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 11:36.

what that does is to put undue weight on other people to finance your medical conditions.

ASSUMING you can pay $5,000 to the hospital when the police drag you to it because you collapsed on a sidewalk. (real life example, can you tell???)

liberal busybodies

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 00:14.

Look.  I would like the freedom to direct my life as I see fit.  Even if that direction is disagreeable to you in some way.  Is that really too much to ask?  See this is what conservatives complain about when they bring up the liberal nanny state.  You want people to have only the freedom that children do  when they are in the playground - they can do all the playing they want so long as they stay within the confines of the playground fences.  If you truly believed in individual liberty then you would support a person's individual liberty to do something that is totally outside what you would consider prudent.  I do.  You don't.

Misunderstanding

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:02.

I think RisingTide's point is that if you couldn't pay the emergency rooms, the Hippocratic Oath would mean that most doctors would (morally that is) have to fix you up, and then that cost would fall to someone else.

Old hat

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:04.

Most doctors don't take the Hippocratic Oath when they come out of medical school these days.

 

Really?

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:12.

Surprising. Then again, I'm not a doctor, or even have any friends who would be, so I'm not in a position to know. I assumed that's what RisingTide meant, though.

Not correct

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:40.

The oath has been slightly modified from the "classic" version, but it is still in use.

Talk to people about it

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 01:01.

This from wikipedia:

Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians.

 

Since when is 15 seconds on Wikipedia "talking to people"?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 10:41.

Since when did spending 15 seconds on Wikipedia constitute talking to people?

Schools administer an updated version of the oath, leaving out the arcane stuff, like "never taking up the knife, not even for sufferers of the stone". That made sense in the days before anethestia and germ theory, but not today.

But the "do no harm" concept is still there.

 

 

Explain to me

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 11:52.

... how I am to post conversations, and I will gladly do it. 

You could identify the schools you know that don't

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 12:09.

Well, for starters, you could identify the schools you know that don't adminster an oath.

 

You need to be willing to enforce the payments

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 10:59.

through indentured servitude or another form of "getting people to take responsiblity" for the unforseen.

I'd be curious to hear what you would suggest.

Also, your plan amounts to another bank bailout. which I'm sure you won't object to, just wanted to bring it up

Your exercise of your talents and resources

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 17:46.

Unless you are a backwoodsman, your exercise of your talents and resources depends upon a great deal of infrastructure provided by the government.

So?

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 20:21.

What, and that makes me a slave to government?

I find that you are saying

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 09:08.

I find that you are saying that the current menu of services provided by the government suits you fine becasue you can prosper in the current milieu; you do not want to change the status quo even though it would allow others to more fully exercise their talents and resources simply becasue you are satisfied with the way things are now.

I am all for lowering taxes. 

Submitted by LEM on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 13:45.

I am all for lowering taxes.  However we have lowered taxes for corporations under President Bush and the result was higher unemployment and quite frankly companies moving to other countries for cheaper labor.  By the way I voted for President Bush (2000, 2004) and  Sarah Palin in 2008.   I support parts 2,6,7,8,10, 11, 12 and 13.  Instead of boosting defense spending boost domestic spending to include increasing scholarship programs for kids to go to college and graduate school.  College is becoming too expensive most parents (myself included).   This is just a start.    

My gut says...

Submitted by TimW on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 14:44.

Prices for college will continue to rise as they are subsidized.  What could bring the price down is to comparison shop (including community colleges).

My comment is not directed as advice to you personally, because I don't know your families particulars.  It's only to refute that government funded scholarships (need based or academically based) are the only answer - or even the best answer - to rising college costs.

where is the money going?

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 15:37.

i guess I just have to say that the cheapest schools are the ones that get money paid for through the gov't... like community colleges, state schools, and state affiliated schools. Yes, prices do go up, but I think they have hardly been going up at the true rate of inflation (prove me wrong, eh?).

tiffany jewellery

Submitted by louis vuitton on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 02:26.

i guess I just have to say that the cheapest schools are the ones that get money paid for through the gov't...   tiffany jewellery  like community colleges, state schools

In any case, it should be

Submitted by tiffany and co on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 03:16.

In any case, it should be remembered that these sorts of reporting agencies and laws that brought such union funding  discount tiffany jewelry