Is One of the Two Major US Political Parties Dramatically More Fiscally Responsible - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-27-2006, 12:30 AM

If you decide to vote in the poll, please post a justification for the poll choice that you select. How do republicans jusitfy opinions that the democrats are the "party of big spenders"?

How do libertarians justify opinions that there is no clear difference between the two major parties, and that it is better to consistently vote for libertarian candidates, even if the result, as it clearly was in 2000, and in 2004, is that the party with the dramatically poorer record of budget management and growth containment of the government, retains power? How long do libertarians think that it will take, even if they somehow manage to elect a libertarian POTUS, and a one house congressional majority, to reverse the effect on the dramatic increase in US treasury debt, and in the growth of the federal government, that are the fallout from the "spoiler" effect of their 2000 and 2004 vote, against democrats?

I made the argument in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2143414#post2143414">"1st Phone Call"</a> thread, that one major party's elected officials, during times in the past three decades when they held the office of the US presidency, and at least one house of the congress, achieved dramatically superior control of federal debt accumulation and growth of federal employment, than the other party, during the times that it held power.....

My argument was met with this response:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...29#post2143829

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

....Wow. In seven years the federal debt increases (the amount that we pile on the debt) was lowered, and that is an accomplishment? Progress, perhaps, but not what we should be expecting from seven-plus years. Add to this the gross over-spending endorsed by both parties involved since 2000 and any temporary gain is negated completely.

Since when has our government employed the use of budget, taxation, and spending management? (Before you copy/paste, the previous was tongue-in-cheek.) You are missing the point completely, imo, that being that the government has overstepped its bounds and is no longer serving its primary need of defending its citizens from foreign invaders and criminals but is instead injecting itself into nearly every facet of our daily lives. Democrats AND Republicans encourage this, either "for our own good" or to embolden or justify the "American Way™." Both parties are ideologically antagonistic to the very principles this country was founded on, particularly individual rights, and have been for decades.

As for the "disaster" of leaving Republicans in office for two more years rather than voting Democrats into their place, that is laughable. I myself am prepared for a struggle of 20+ years to restore this country to what it should be -- a nation concerned with the safety and success of its free citizens, not emptying its pockets to foreign dictatorships or treating its people like cattle while granting political favors which lead those cattle to a slaughterhouse. The problem with this country goes far beyond the range of the moment, far beyond the last five to seven years or the next two years. Step back and take a look at what we have become and how terribly we have allowed our individual rights to be violated for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security.

seretogis.... since all lobbyist firms, beginning in 2001, had to hire only republicans, and dismiss democrats on their staffs, and since....beginning in 2001, all budgets were drawn up solely via the participation, in the house, of the republican caucas, after submission of a budget proposal by the republican POTUS, and with no democrat chairing and house committee, how do you support your claim:

Quote:

Add to this the gross over-spending endorsed by both parties involved since 2000 and any temporary gain is negated completely.

....and, while you wait for your libertarian third party to grow large enough to eclipse one of the other two parties, why do you concede to the folowing mismanagement? Haven't the debt accumulation and the federal government growth of the past six, years, set your libertarian agenda signifigantly farther back, than if you had managed to gain control of the government in 2001, or in 2005? Aren't many of the fiscal options for reversing the tide. gone, now that the deficit grows by more than $550 billion annually, compared to just $18 billion in 2000, and just $32 billion, in 2001, and now that the total treasury debt is $8500 billion, instead of 2001's $5764 billion?

Why do you favor leaving the control of the budget in the hands of a party that has no plan to reduce additional $500 billion deficits, or to end "wars of choice"? Isn't it much harder now, even if you were to gain power, to achieve swift and signifigant reversal of the current course, than if you did not serve as "spoilers" in the 2000 and 2004 elections? Why do you not consider voting "defensively" for democrats, especially if your goal is smaller government and dramatically less spending? Won't the debt service burden...hundreds of billions of addtional budget dollars spent on annual interest payments resulting from nearly $3,000 billion in recent new debt, hamper your plan to swiftly implement "reforms" on some (possibly distant), future date?

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...34/ai_96644869
All the presidents' employees - Data - federal employment growth or shrinkage by president - Brief Article
Reason, Feb, 2003 by Brian Doherty

It's often said there isn't a dime's worth of difference between today's two major political parties. But Democrats and Republicans still try to cast themselves as cats and dogs. For example, Republicans label their adversary the party of big government, while Democrats count the GOP as a tool of the military-industrial complex.

Does the rhetoric reflect reality? When considering statistics about civilian employment by the federal government, the answer is clearly no. During the last 40 years, Democratic administrations added to the federal government's payroll 31,000 civilian defense employees (Defense Department employees who aren't soldiers), and 49,000 nondefense employees--some growth in both categories. But Republican administrations have on balance subtracted 426,000 civilian defense jobs--and added 320,000 nondefense employees. That adds up to bureaucratic bloat more than six times that of the Democrats. The biggest slasher of federal nondefense payrolls was Bill Clinton.

Government Employees Added or (Subtracted)

Civilian Defense Non-Defense

Kennedy (12,000) 73,000
Johnson 312,000 105,000
Nixon/Ford (333,000) 213,000
Carter (25,000) (14,000)
Reagan 91,000 3,000
George H.W. Bush (184,000) 104,000
Clinton (244,000) (115,000)

Source: Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 Historical Table 17.1, "Total
Executive Branch Civilian Employees: 1940-2001"

COPYRIGHT 2003 Reason Foundation

Quote:

1981....A 12 year period of Republican Control Begins...
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091981.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1981
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $997,855
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 607
Unamortized Discount .............................................. (*)
Federal Financing Bank..............................................
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 997,248
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 435
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 998,818
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 999,800
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 982

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091989.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1989
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $2,857,431
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 597
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 12,360
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 2,829,474
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 296
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 2,829,770
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 2,870,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 40,230

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091993.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $4,411,489
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 592
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 80,539
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 4,315,358
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 213
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 4,315,471
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 4,900,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 584,429

1993, A 12 Year period of Republican Control Ends, an 8 Year Period of Democratic control, Begins:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdmss09.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $5,413,146
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 536
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 70,054
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 5,327,556
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 68
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 5,327,624
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 622,376

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds091999.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
(Amount in millions of dollars)
Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding......................................... $5,656,271
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt.................................... 529
Unamortized Discount ......................................... 73,154
Federal Financing Bank......................................... 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 5,567,588
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies............ 106
Total Debt Subject to limit...................................... 5,567,694
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................... 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit ................................ 382,306

2000: Budget Data indicates that, after 7 budget years, Democratic budget oversight and tax policy yields a cessation of treasury debt accumulation, the first time that this has occurred in 25 years:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds092000.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
(Amount in millions of dollars)
Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding............................... $5,674,178
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt.................................... 526
Unamortized Discount ......................................... 67,246
Federal Financing Bank......................................... 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit.......................... 5,591,407
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies............ 218
Total Debt Subject to limit...................................... 5,591,625
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................... 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit ................................ 358,375
2002 Budget, ending on Sept. 30, 2002, marks end of first year of new period of Republican control of federal government......<>
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm092006.prn
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 2006

Debt Subject to Limit: 19
Public Debt Outstanding............................................ 8,506,974
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit...................................... 506
Unamortized Discount 3............................................ 72,286
Federal Financing Bank 1 ..................................... 14,000
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit................................. 8,420,183
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies 4 ......................... 96
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit.................................. 8,420,278
Statutory Debt Limit 5............................................. 8,965,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit.........................................544,722
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
www.publicdebt.treas.gov

2006: Budget Data indicates that, after 5 budget years, Republican budget oversight and tax policy yields a resumption of treasury debt accumulation, at a record annual pace, to a record level.... as total US treasury Debt increases by more than $2,800 billion, an increase greater than 50 percent, compared to the Sept. 30, 2001 debt total of $5706 billion.

lewk · 10-27-2006, 04:06 AM

Outside of Reagan, there hasn't been an economically conservative Republican to get the nominee for quite some time. The current Republican party is not the party of Reagan. They're out of the race.

You point to the Clinton Administration as a time when democrats reduced the rate of accumulating debt? You're joking, right? The only reason things went so well then was because the House was controlled by Republicans and nothing significant was let through.

One can argue that the deadlock is a positive thing, or that Republicans need to be taken out of power at all costs (as Peikoff did), and therefore one should vote for a Democrat for no other reason than to throw wrenches into the system in order to make it stall or break down. Seems nice, but it's not a truly viable solution, asyou eventually get a government made out of wrenches.

If fiscal responsibility is at all important to you, neither major party even considerable.

NCB · 10-27-2006, 04:12 AM

Fiscal responsibilty is gone, regardless of party

samcol · 10-27-2006, 04:24 AM

Libertarian.

There is just no way I could vote for the Republicans, and the Democrats have blown their chances too many times. If you include a libertarian platform on a spectrum of political parties, then the two major parties really are the same. If you fail to include them, then the two major parties are very different in your small world view.

I'm not worried about how long it will take. It's the right vote. I've read all the platforms and found the best one. I'm voting FOR a party, not against the most evil party.

Sorry Host, I refuse the vote for the limp-wristed democratic party. I'm not only voting on economic issues though, they have voted for an over welming amount of Bush's constitution destroying legislation as well.

Superbelt · 10-27-2006, 04:46 AM

No such thing as a fiscally responsible party. And Reagan wasn't fiscally responsible either. He spent money like a drunken sailor just like everyone else. He just did it building more nukes than we could ever conceivably use and SDI. Basically welfare for defense contractors.
Fiscally responsible is not cutting taxes and running up deficits.

Libertarians wouldn't be either if they got any control. Everyone finds a way to spend money when it's not theirs.

Only way to pay down the debt is to have conflict in the purse strings.

Divided chambers and/or branches of government is how to be fiscally responsible.

highthief · 10-27-2006, 09:58 AM

Obviously the current admin is not.

The Libertarians can talk about being fiscally responsible all they want but given they have no chance of being in power any time soon, they aren't even candidates.

Clinton was better, but was is theoperative word. The Dems will soon likely taste power again and we will see.

filtherton · 10-27-2006, 10:25 AM

I voted libertarian without really thinking about it. I guess it really depends on your definition of fiscal responsibility.

host · 10-27-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Obviously the current admin is not.

The Libertarians can talk about being fiscally responsible all they want but given they have no chance of being in power any time soon, they aren't even candidates.

Clinton was better, but was is theoperative word. The Dems will soon likely taste power again and we will see.

Quote:

http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html
Study published by Bush's Treasury Department contradicts Bush's campaign.

April 16, 2004

Modified: April 16, 2004

In speeches and fundraising appeals the Bush campaign keeps making a distorted claim that Clinton 's 1993 tax increase -- supported by Kerry -- was "the biggest in history."

Republicans have been repeating this gross overstatement for more than a decade, but now there's less justification for it than ever. The GOP claim is contradicted by a study published last year by the Office of Tax Analysis of Bush's own Treasury Department....

.....But that bit of political puffery has always been based on a simplistic tally of the number of dollars the Clinton tax bill yielded, without regard for population growth, rising incomes, or inflation.

Now comes a thorough study of every tax bill enacted since 1940, showing that the Clinton tax increase was indeed large, but not the largest.

A tax increase in 1942 boosted federal revenues by 71%, for example, as the US geared up for war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Measured in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars, Roosevelt's wartime increase amounted to $73 billion a year, while Clinton's increase averaged $35 billion a year (average for the first two years.)

The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 4.6% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 2.7%....

The popular misconception is that Reagan accomplished some sort of fiscal miracle....and the truth is....he came into office and immediately enacted budget busting tax cuts that he quickly had to do a massive retreat from, in order to rescue the revenue stream, to avoid even bigger new federal deficits, as is documented in the percentage of GDP comparisons of Reagan and Clinton tax increased. GW Bush came into office and immediately enacted tax cuts that set the budget on a reversed course to escalating deficits, and then refused to do anything other than....propose and enact even more tax cuts, increasing annual debt accumulation from $18 billion when he took office, to $550 billion annually, now.

Clinton successfully pushed for moderate tax increases to reverse the $360 billion in debt accumulation for the year ended Sept.30, 1993, and presided over debt reduction that dropped annual treasury debt accumulation to just $18 billion in the year ended Sept. 30, 2000, while at the same time, he was presiding over an unprecedented reduction in the size of federal government employment, even during an economic boom period that critics will give Clinton and his tax increases no credit for influencing, but will relexively cite the economic boom as the primary reason that the debt accumulation receded so dramatically from the years 1981 to 1993.

That doesn't seem like a coherent argument, and it seems overly fair to Mr. Reagan's tenure, at the expense of Mr. Clinton's. Reagan set federal debt accumulation in a runaway course....from just $1000 billion total, when he took office, to $2500 billion when he left. In the inflated dollars of the 1990's, total debt accumulation during the Clinton years was a smaller dollar total than during the Reagan years. Reagan inherited only a $75 billion annual debt increase rate, and Clinton inherited a $360 billion billion annual debt increase rate. Mr. Clinton presided over a period of reduction in the rate of debt accumulation, until it disappeared by the time he left office.

Even, so....some folks are so confident of the Reagan "economic miracle", that they will post about it here as if it was fact, and compared to the Clinton period, the Reagan record was one of out of control spending and an "about face" on tax policy that resulted in a much larger tax increase.

I liken the responses from libertarians, against voting strategically to restore some checks and balances in the federal government, and instead, voting only for libertarian candidates, and electing republicans, by default, with a scenario where your house is on fire, but you have a grudge against the local fire department. You won't call them to put out the fire, because you're involved in a petition drive to reform the fire department, and you won't let anything, even a call to the fire department that you have organized against, stand in the way, even temporarily of your reform efforts....

So....you let your house burn..... $3000 billion in new treasury debt, and more than doubling of the defense budget, in just 7 years, and growth in federal spending that is more than twice the official inflation rate, and nearly double GDP growth, and tax cuts that wrecked the balance that the previous democratic administration had adroitly assembled to balance the federal budget, are the net result, and there seems to be a denial that the damage that has taken place to the federal budget and the accelerated debt accumulation, will destroy the libertarian "plan", or at least make it much more difficult to implement if libertarians had voted fiscally defensively in 2000 and 2004.

I suspect that some libertarians think that the bankruptcy of the federal government will play to their advantage. Last I looked these folks have the same exposure to a catastrophic drop in the exchange rate of the US dollar, as the rest of us have.... so, why the lack of concern? Why the willingness to let republicans continue to run up out of control deficits and military spending?

seretogis · 10-27-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I voted libertarian without really thinking about it. I guess it really depends on your definition of fiscal responsibility.

Agreed. "Fiscal responsibility" to a Libertarian means the government not taking money from people in order to provide for others. Nationalized healthcare is not fiscally responsible from a Libertarian's point of view, and neither is welfare or publicly funded transportation. Neither Democrats or Republicans, to a Libertarian -- someone who wants government involvement to be at a minimum -- appear to be fiscally responsible, or have been for decades. So, to cast a vote for either would be to cast a vote against our ideology. It is not morally responsible for a Libertarian to vote either Democrat or Republican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Libertarians wouldn't be either if they got any control. Everyone finds a way to spend money when it's not theirs.

I strongly disagree. Libertarians (and Libertarian-minded people who don't necessarily belong to the LP) have a chief philosophical difference with most Americans -- we believe that a man's property should not be taken for the benefit of another. To be a fiscally irresponsible Libertarian, one would have to betray their most core beliefs on every level.

As far as "defensively" voting, the same as I said above applies. The only "defensive" vote a Libertarian in good conscience can cast is for a Libertarian or equally Libertarian-minded candidate. Neo-con Republicans and Democrats do not fit the bill. If you want to rail about Libertarian and Libertarian-minded people "letting Republicans win" by not voting Democrat, you need to start a dime-a-dozen "vote-wasting" thread which seems to always pop up at around this time. In my opinion, voting for the candidate who best fits your ideology is never a wasted vote, even if he has a miniscule chance of winning. If Republicans (or Democrats) want to burn the house down around us, so be it. I and other Libertarian-minded people will be here to help rebuild it with the principles and values that we never sold out.

Infinite_Loser · 10-27-2006, 11:07 AM

The only reason that the deficit ceased to exist during the Clinton administration was because neither Clinton (Democrat) nor the house (Republicans) could agree on anything, so spending stalled drastically. For as long as the presidency and house are split between Democrats and Republicans, then spending will be done at a reasonable rate (And the deficit will all but disappear).

Of course, in a scenario when the presidency and the house is controlled by the same party, I'd have to say that Democrats are more fiscally responsible. Contrary to popular belief, Replublicans are usually the big spenders and run up a huge deficit while Democrats tend to be a bit more lax on their spending. Therefore, my vote goes to Democrats.

Edit: How can the libertarians be more fiscally responsible? They've never even held a public office (Unless I'm mistaken).

host · 10-27-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

Agreed. "Fiscal responsibility" to a Libertarian means the government not taking money from people in order to provide for others. Nationalized healthcare is not fiscally responsible from a Libertarian's point of view, and neither is welfare or publicly funded transportation. Neither Democrats or Republicans, to a Libertarian -- someone who wants government involvement to be at a minimum -- appear to be fiscally responsible, or have been for decades. So, to cast a vote for either would be to cast a vote against our ideology. It is not morally responsible for a Libertarian to vote either Democrat or Republican.

As far as "defensively" voting, the same as I said above applies. The only "defensive" vote a Libertarian in good conscience can cast is for a Libertarian or equally Libertarian-minded candidate. Neo-con Republicans and Democrats do not fit the bill. If you want to rail about Libertarian and Libertarian-minded people "letting Republicans win" by not voting Democrat, you need to start a dime-a-dozen "vote-wasting" thread which seems to always pop up at around this time. In my opinion, voting for the candidate who best fits your ideology is never a wasted vote, even if he has a miniscule chance of winning. If Republicans (or Democrats) want to burn the house down around us, so be it. I and other Libertarian-minded people will be here to help rebuild it with the principles and values that we never sold out.

seretogis, more than once you have posted negatively about "Nationalize Healthcare"

I would like to know how you think that it is....with more than 40 million Americans currently without healthcare insurance coverage, that there are no uninsured working poor or middle class folks turned away from acute medical care. I see no one dying on the hospital or the clinic steps, so I assume that the government, by default, and those with private health insurance are paying for the care of the uninured in an uncontrolled, unbudgeted, and an unmanaged manner.

Who will pay to avoid the denial of care by hospitals and clinics, of the unisured, in a future scenario of a libertarian controlled federal government?

Superbelt · 10-27-2006, 11:21 AM

Sorry seretogis, but I disagree.

Individually, Libertarians may be 'good'.
But the larger the group of people, the lower collective intelligence.
And, power corrupts, etc.

I have no more faith that a Libertarian run government would be any more responsible or ethical than any other group who gains controlling power for any significant amount of time.

ASU2003 · 10-27-2006, 07:30 PM

Here is my idea for the Healthcare System that could be implemented by the Libertarians. It is very similar to what I have currently.

*Look into the HSA and HRA health insurance plans that allow people to use the first $500-$1000 without having to pay anything but the premium, if they don't get sick, they keep this money to use next year or more in the future when they do get sick. I have to pay the next $700. And then 10% after that until I pay $3500. Then the insurance covers everything after that, but this is rarely going to happen. The saving of money from one year to the next gives them incentive to only go to the doctor when they really are ill.

*Encourage healthy lifestyles by giving financial incentives to promote it (lower taxes, prizes to people who lose a lot of weight, lower premiums if you don’t smoke).

We want everyone to have access to the healthcare they need, but we don't want there to be a free-for-all where everyone can flood the healthcare system and get whatever they want. If they only limit it to extreme cases where it was an accident that caused the major injury, then I think you should be able to get catastrophic coverage for free or a very low amount each month.

But, I'll agree that the Libertarian platform on this issue is pretty sparse on the details.

pan6467 · 10-27-2006, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Here is my idea for the Healthcare System that could be implemented by the Libertarians. It is very similar to what I have currently.

*Encourage healthy lifestyles by giving financial incentives to promote it (lower taxes, prizes to people who lose a lot of weight, lower premiums if you don’t smoke).

I had to laugh at this because it's so hypocritical. On one hand you say Libertarians "want fewer taxes and government interference" then in the next breath "government needs to..... and reward with....."

Wait a minute, less control over people's lives, but "encourage healthier lifestyles"? Which is it and how do you "encourage" such a thing?

Now, if you are taxing the bare minimum, which you say true Libertarians want..... then how do you "lower" taxes for someone living an "encouraged lifestyle"? And what if they are doing so because they chose to not because government "encouraged" them to.

Who pays for the lower taxes? the "prizes"? etc.? I see those who do not live by what the government "encourages". So if the Butter lobbyists came in spread big money and the government decided Butter was healthy again and margerine was evil and caused death but I didn't buy into that and want to stay with my "Country Crock margerine". I would get taxed to Hell because I chose to live my life the way I wanted to.

Thank God you aren't in control. I admit the Dems and the GOP are warped at times and are huge hypocrites. But damn, if what you describe is libertarianism and I am even half way right in my assessment.... I'd rather have 2 more years of BushCo and GOP scandals.

And trust me 2 more years of Bushco and GOP scandals scares me but not nearly half as much as what I see coming out of Libertarians mouths.

I voted for Democrats. Under Dems, yes, social services spending goes up, but education flourishes, jobs are more abundant, and people, believe it or not are freer to do what they want.

Under GOP rules, military spending skyrockets with the attitude everything else will either catch up or die out, the people don't matter in the grand scheme of things it's all about control.

seretogis · 10-27-2006, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Thank God you aren't in control. I admit the Dems and the GOP are warped at times and are huge hypocrites. But damn, if what you describe is libertarianism and I am even half way right in my assessment.... I'd rather have 2 more years of BushCo and GOP scandals.

What he describes is not in any way Libertarian policy, or anything a respectable LP member would suggest as a Libertarian-minded alternative.

samcol · 10-28-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

What he describes is not in any way Libertarian policy, or anything a respectable LP member would suggest as a Libertarian-minded alternative.

Ya, that's not even in the same ballpark as a Libertarian policy.

dc_dux · 10-28-2006, 06:55 AM

From what I have seen of the National Libertarian Party policy, it's no more than "stay out of our lives"

They have no economic or trade policy, no health policy, no environmental/energy policy, no foreign policy.....

I am all for more limited government, particularly regarding privacy and personal liberties.....but these guys have no real thoughtful policy.

roachboy · 10-28-2006, 09:01 AM

this notion of "fiscal responsibility" is obviously not a free-standing idea: it makes sense only in relation to prior assumptions about, say, the role of the state in regulating dysfunctions within the capitalist system--dysfunctions that market systems tend to produce on a almost continuous basis. but even that last statement falls under the same--it presupposes a prior analytic or political relation toward capitalism.

anyway, what exactly is fiscal responsibility?

if folk were keynesian, a state deficit would not in itself be a problem simply because the state was understood to play a wide range of roles in shaping/prompting economic activity. there would be limits to this non-problem status, but in the main deficits are not in themselves an index of anything within this ideology.
where do folk position themselves in order to make the evaluation that x or y is an index of "fiscal responsibility"?

for example, i looked into the libertarian party platform---because it seems to me that evaluations concerning fiscal responsibility articulated from that position require a concurrent discussion of that position.
seretogis does not speak from nowhere.

i have to say that after reading the lp platform and a bunch of related materials (instead of doing work i have to do of course) my more anarchist side would frankly love to be living somewhere else at the time the lp came to power because it would be an interesting spectator sport to be somewhere else and watch american capitalism implode. their position has more to do with the writings of arthur darby nock ("our enemy the state") and a one-dimensional reading of hayek than it does anything that is happening in the 3-d world in anything like real time.

the structuring illusion seems to be that you can take elements of the 18th century documents that put the american system into motion and treat them as rabbitholes down which you can disappear--and on the other side, there is a kind of jeffersonian democracy---and because there is 3-d reality and that which you can derive by going down the rabbithole can exist simultaneously in the minds of members of the libertarian party, it follows that for them this yeoman democracy image is a viable alternative for the present period.

if theirs is a coherent politics of anything, it is of nostalgia, and in that they are not terribly far from very old types of left anarchism, the types you saw arising amongst skilled workers that opposed all forms of collective organization simply because, from their viewpoints, such organization was unnecessary because they assumed that the world was like themselves. the problem with this was that they occupied positions within a division of labor that capitalism was already wiping out (think the clockmakers of the jura of the middle 19th century)---and their politics were wholly reactive in that respect--but they did not understand themselves as reactive, and so ended up outlining a politics that effectively argued the distant past is the future.

in this, the lp has not even caught up with the marx of 1848 who opposed guild socialism and saint-simonian socialisms because both were effectively politics of nostalgia as well.

what the lp platform is made up of seems to be two main elements:

john locke's second treatise on government
a smattering of "free market" mythology

most of the propositions the shape the lp platform are straight locke.
that means that they actually believe locke.
have you read the second treatise on government?
do you believe it? do you believe the state of nature actually existed?
at the time it was written, the state of nature was already an ideological construct, an ideal-type, that locke made up based on information he had about america--one that existed in his mind, not the one that people actually lived in--an imagined america of the very end of the 17th century is not a viable alternative for social organization in 2006.
it was obviously an important text for jefferson. it is the underpinning for his vision of an agarian democracy made up of yeomen farmers.
this is precapitalist fantasy.

capitalism enters the picture through the phrase "free markets" and that's it. there is nothing even approaching a coherent analysis of actually existing capitalism in the lp platform--instead, you have a series of banalities about free markets that indicates that the folk who wrote the platform were unable to distinguish between the constructs outlined in political economy books and reality--which never matched up with those constructs--the former were regulative or normative visions of ideal-typical markets, not descriptions of actually existing markets--they have nothing to say about actually existing markets. the lp position appears to be based on introducing "free markets"--which indicates that they really cant distinguish normative from actual, fantasy from reality, past from present, nostalgia from engagement with real-time phemonena.

same problems obtain when you look at this extreme right viewpoint relative to the state, which exists as an abstract principle of Evil, the cause of any and all distortions in the social order capitalism has generated. it is only from this reductive viewpoint that absurd arguments like fascism and socialism are the same even begin to make sense--and if you read libertarian websites, there is a way in which this is the case--on these websites, there is only the crudest imaginable understanding of each, and any understanding, if crude enough, can make anything equal to anything else.

so it would follows that if you remove the state, we would all live in shangri-la.

i dunno, folks. this stuff is pretty loopy.
generally speaking, i think of left anarchists that the lights are on but onbody's home: but compared with this right anarchist stuff, i'd take the left anarchists in a second. at least they are honestly incoherent.

pan6467 · 10-28-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

What he describes is not in any way Libertarian policy, or anything a respectable LP member would suggest as a Libertarian-minded alternative.

I was just going by what he had said. I was not trying to attack your party.

I hoped not Seretogis and Samcol. But I truly am interested in what your party's healthcare platform is..

ASU2003 · 10-29-2006, 08:32 AM

http://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare.shtml

Quote:

As recently as the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America - including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days' pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare.

Since then the federal government has increasingly intervened through Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act and tens of thousands of regulations on doctors, hospitals and health-insurance companies.

Today, more than 50 percent of all healthcare dollars are spent by the government.

Health insurance costs are skyrocketing. Government health programs are heading for bankruptcy. Politicians continue to pile on the regulations.

The Libertarian Party knows the only healthcare reforms that will make a real difference are those that are draw on the strength of the free market.

The Libertarian Party will work towards the following:

1. Establish Medical Saving Accounts.

Under this program, you could deposit tax-free money into a Medical Savings Account (MSA). Whenever you need the money to pay medical bills, you will be able to withdraw it. For individuals without an MSA, the Libertarian Party will work to make all healthcare expenditures 100 percent tax deductible.

2. Deregulate the healthcare industry.

We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases. These laws reduce consumer choice and increase the cost of health insurance. By making insurance more expensive, mandated benefits increase the number of uninsured American workers.

3. Remove barriers to safe, affordable medicines.

We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.

Here is plan from the LP website. They don't talk about private health insurance companies or why this plan would be better than the current system. Just that taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for people to get medical treatment, just it should be done by private charity hospitals, and you can pay for healthcare with money that is tax deductible.

And the MSA they are talking about would but 100% of the cost of health care onto the patient. There is no way the American people would ever go for that. Without the insurance component, you could easily face tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills (that they want to reduce in price somehow).

In step two they talk about deregulating the healthcare insurance groups. This would allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines, and remove benefits or add benefits as the insurance companies want. The consumers would be in control of picking what health insurance level they need and want they want covered. Health insurance companies would be free to raise rates on unhealthy people just like the car insurance drivers do on bad drivers. The companies can offer incentives to get people healthy (mine right now offers to pay 10% of my gym membership). And HRAs and HSAs are the smart way to allow consumers a choice in how they spend their health care dollars, or you can save them and use them later. If things get really bad for you and the health care bills rack up, it is the health insurance company that would be responsible for the bill (not the patient or government). The MSA I had two years ago went to $0 after each year, even if I didn't spend the money, but I would hope they would get rid of that limitation.

The third point is right, the FDA is blocking doctors and patients from making the decisions that might work for them. Drug companies would still want to get independent drug testing done to remove the experimental label from their drug. But instead of having a government body monitor it, the drug companies could pay universities that have set up competing drug testing and approval bodies. The companies wouldn't want to receive any bad press from selling counterfeit drugs (or allowing anyone else to sell them to their pharmacies), or drugs that didn't work as advertised.

But they really need to come up with a full health insurance plan that is fair and can be understood by the American people. The problem is that no one has come up with a perfect health care system yet.

dc_dux · 10-29-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

2. Deregulate the healthcare industry.
We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases.

What concerns me most about this is the impact it would have on those persons with pre-exisitng conditions, leaving them potentially with no insurance options (other than the MSAs under this scenario) and recurring medical bills that would likely bankrupt them in short order.

ASU2003 · 10-29-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What concerns me most about this is the impact it would have on those persons with pre-exisitng conditions, leaving them potentially with no insurance options (other than the MSAs under this scenario) and recurring medical bills that would likely bankrupt them in short order.

I would worry about that too. There are people that have such bad driving records that no insurance company will touch them either. Or they have to pay so much for car insurance that they can't afford it. If you are young and healthy, your rates will be very low, but if you get sick, they will go up (maybe too much for you to afford).

Under the Libertarian plan, they say there should be charity hospitals to help those people out.

The other thing I wonder about is what they would do about undocumented people in the country who go to the ER, and then skip on the bill. The government (taxpayers) currently picks up the tab. But would you really need to show proof of insurance or a credit card before they will treat you in the ER?

pan6467 · 10-29-2006, 10:20 AM

Thank you ASU for the info. Haven't processed it yet but I truly appreciate it.

1010011010 · 10-29-2006, 10:25 AM

The solution is to vote for a mix of candidates from multiple party affiliations so they're all too busy squabbling amongst themselves to chuck the tax dollars down some black hole project or another.

Willravel · 10-29-2006, 10:32 AM

Green Candidates for Federal office becuase...they are flexable and able to admit any mistakes and change course, something exceedingly rare in politics. They are fiscally responsible in that they vocally oppose the privitization of SS, and they have aranged a collection of policies that would support all people.

From gp.org:

Quote:

1. All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, jobs that pay a living wage, education, and support in times of hardship.

2. Work performed outside the monetary system has inherent social and economic value, and is essential to a healthy, sustainable economy and peaceful communities. Such work includes: child and elder care; homemaking; voluntary community service; continuing education; participating in government; and the arts.

3. We call for restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits. This program should be funded through the existing welfare budget, reductions in military spending and corporate subsidies, and a fair, progressive income tax.

4. We call for a graduated supplemental income, or negative income tax, that would maintain all individual adult incomes above the poverty level, regardless of employment or marital status.

5. We advocate reinvesting a significant portion of the military budget into family support, living-wage job development, and work training programs. Publicly funded work training and education programs should have a goal of increasing employment options at finding living-wage jobs.

6. We support public funding for the development of living-wage jobs in community and environmental service. For example, environmental clean-up, recycling, sustainable agriculture and food production, sustainable forest management, repair and maintenance of public facilities, neighborhood-based public safety, aides in schools, libraries and childcare centers, and construction and renovation of energy-efficient housing. We oppose enterprise zone give-aways which benefit corporations more than inner-city communities

7. The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics." We must take aggressive steps to restore a fair distribution of income. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distribution standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth.

8. Forcing welfare recipients to accept jobs that pay wages below a living wage drives wages down and exploits workers for private profit at public expense. We reject workfare as being a form of indentured servitude.

9. Corporations receiving public subsidies must provide jobs that pay a living wage, observe basic workers' rights, and agree to affirmative action policies.

host · 10-29-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1010011010

The solution is to vote for a mix of candidates from multiple party affiliations so they're all too busy squabbling amongst themselves to chuck the tax dollars down some black hole project or another.

Indeed....the exact opposite of your "solution", is what ended up happening in 1993:

Quote:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=IS...z7Ztt96ktooU1w
Beyond Gridlock?: Prospects of Governance for the Clinton-Years- And After

In 1981 and in 2001, new majorities took over in the executive branch and in the House, and began programs of radical tax reduction that heavily favored reduction in taxes for the richest ten per cent. Both periods of tax "reform" were followed by massive federal budget deficits of long duration. In 1993, democrats took the presidency and enjoyed a majority in both houses of congress. Without this one party control, there was no chance to pass the drastic tax increases that reversed the 12 years of favorable tax treatment of the rich. The results speak for themselves. Radical reduction of the progressive taxation formula, in 1981, led to immediate reduction in federal revenue that triggered huge tax increases, just one year later. The 2001 abandonment of the Clinton era restoration of progressive taxation caused the treasury debt to increase from a 2001, surplus of nearly $50 billion, to new debt accumualtion of $2699 billion, as of Sept. 30, 2006.

This is what Clinton inherited:

Quote:

Bush to Paint Darker Picture Of U.S. Deficit --- Gap in 1997 May Exceed $300 Billion; Clinton Advisers Are Gloomier
By David Wessel. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jan 5, 1993. pg. PAGEA.2

Dow Jones & Company Inc Jan 5, 1993

WASHINGTON -- President Bush will report tomorrow that the outlook for the federal budget deficit is growing worse, and that it will probably exceed $300 billion in fiscal 1997 unless there are substantial changes in federal policy.

President-elect Clinton's advisers say Mr. Bush and his budget director, Richard Darman, are understating the problem.

Estimates circulating inside the Clinton transition team, based on information from the White House budget office, say the deficit in fiscal 1997 (which begins Oct. 1, 1996) would hit $384 billion -- if the government were to maintain the current level of services and defense spending.

The Clinton camp has an interest in making the deficit look as bad as possible so it can blame the pain of reducing it on 12 years of Republican presidencies. And some Clinton advisers are urging the president-elect to use the worsening deficit outlook to explain why he must retreat from some of his costly campaign promises -- or propose tax increases or spending cuts beyond those he described before the election.

The abbreviated Bush budget due tomorrow won't give Mr. Clinton much advice on how to reduce the deficit. It will include alternative deficit projections based on different economic forecasts and different caps on federal spending. But the $384 billion forecast for 1997 that is circulating in the Clinton camp won't be among those scenarios.

The Bush administration's economic forecast, to be released along with the budget, predicts the economy will grow by 2.9% between the fourth quarters of calendar 1992 and 1993 and that the unemployment rate will gradually decline to average 6.9% this year, administration officials said. The administration expects interest rates on three-month Treasury bills to average 3.5% and on 10-year Treasury securities to average 6.5% during calendar 1993.

The budget will show deficit projections based on this economic forecast, among others.

Even the most pessimistic of Mr. Darman's scenarios assume -- as both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office have in the past -- that the government sticks to the spending ceilings for fiscal 1994 and 1995 that were written into law back in 1990.

For fiscal years 1996 through 1999, Mr. Darman assumes that total discretionary spending (which includes domestic and defense spending that is appropriated annually) is frozen without any increase for inflation. In other words, any increase in domestic spending, even an increase to keep up with inflation, would be matched by a cut in defense.

But some Clinton aides complain that this approach understates the deficit problem that Mr. Clinton faces. Without ever saying so explicitly, Clinton aides say, the projections assume that the current level of services won't be maintained. This dispute doesn't involve spending on health and other government benefit programs, which are a far more vexing budget issue.

Although the deficit outlook grew progressively worse during the campaign -- partly because spending on health care has been rising faster than anticipated and revenues fell short of expectations -- Mr. Clinton never revised his economic plan. Since the election, however, the president-elect himself has called attention to the fact that the deficit now looks far worse than it did when his plan was assembled.

Mr. Clinton's communications director, George Stephanopoulos, said yesterday that recent deficit projections "make our attempts to address the deficit more urgent and more necessary at the same time, and that's what we intend to do."

The deficit for fiscal 1992, which ended Sept. 30, was $290 billion. This year's deficit will be larger, partly because Congress postponed some spending on the savings-and-loan cleanup.

Credit: Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

This is what Clinton and the democratic congressional majority did to reverse what they inherited:

Quote:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N19/budget.19w.html
Clinton Sends Congress Detailed $1.5 Trillion Budget
By Ann Devroy
and Steven Mufson

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON

.....The next step is for congressional appropriations committees to come up with their own versions of spending plans and for key committees to draw up tax plans. With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the Clinton budget is expected to carry far more weight in that process than in the years of divided government........

Quote:

And Progressing in the House; [FINAL Edition]
The Washington Post . Washington, D.C.: May 16, 1993. pg. C.06
EDITORIAL

IN THE hospitably Democratic House last week, the president's program made steady progress. The legislative committees cleared and sent to the floor for a likely vote by the end of the month not just the main ingredients of his deficit reduction plan; the so-called reconciliation bill would advance much of his broader agenda as well.....

.....The tax provisions are the bill's main engines. The increases make it possible to get at the deficit in a way that spending cuts alone will never do; 12 years of borrow-and-spend and the piling-up of national debt attest to that. The proposals would also reverse distributional policy, restoring some of the progressive edge that the tax code lost in the 1980s and early 1990s; the Democrats would resharpen the ax. The administration says that about two-thirds of the burden in the bill would fall on upper-income families; theirs was the burden most reduced in the Reagan-Bush years. The legislation would also continue to increase the earned-income tax credit that serves as a wage supplement for the working poor with children. That is the predicate to welfare reform; the supplements are meant to help produce a society in which no child of a full-time year-round worker need be poor. The broad-based energy tax in the bill, in addition to raising revenues, would help discourage energy consumption. And the Ways and Means Committee Democrats who did the week's heavy lifting accepted the president's proposal to subject a larger share of Social Security benefits to the income tax. Social Security is a fifth of the budget. As a matter of fairness, its recipients ought to contribute to deficit reduction, and this is the fairest way to exact the contribution, since the poor won't pay; they don't owe income taxes.

The House is thought to be prepared to pass the bill, as well it should. The Senate is expected to be the harder case. But the reconciliation bill is no more than a carrying-out of the terms of the budget outline or resolution that Congress already adopted as a first step at the president's behest last month. The Senate is obliged to meet those terms no less than is the House; if not these tax increases, which? Nor can the Republicans filibuster a reconciliation bill, which under the rules is exempt.

Mr. Clinton won't win it all, and perhaps attention will continue to be focused on the ground he is forced to give instead of the ground he gains. It's a strange phenomenon. He is tackling fiscal and social problems from which the political establishment largely fled for 12 years - and in the process it is he who is being accused of fiscal irresponsibility and lack of resolve. He was asked the other day why he thought he had fallen in a recent poll. "For one thing, I'm trying to do hard things," he said. So he is - he is trying to bring down a runaway budget deficit in a weak economy without suspending social policy - and on the basics, so far he continues mostly to win. The House committees did well.

Quote:

The Tax and Budget Debate: Deficit-Cutting Bill Bears a Resemblance To 1990 Predecessor --- But Differences May Be Crucial; Realistic Economic View, Increase in Taxes Are Cited
By David Wessel. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Aug 3, 1993. pg. PAGEA.3

Aug 3, 1993

WASHINGTON -- Is it really 1990 all over again?

The deficit-reduction bill emerging from the House-Senate conference committee bears a surprising resemblance to the 1990 deficit-reduction bill that Congress finally passed -- and George Bush, to his later regret, signed.

Both raise income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans and make them lay out more in Medicare payroll taxes. Both rely heavily on money-saving changes to the Medicare program. Both reward the working poor by sweetening the earned-income tax credit. Both set strict ceilings on congressional appropriations, but not on spending for federal benefits. Both claim to reduce the deficit over the next five years by nearly $500 billion.

And then there is the gasoline tax. After rejecting a bigger energy tax than Mr. Bush and congressional leaders negotiated, Congress ended up raising gasoline taxes by only a nickel a gallon in 1990. This time, President Clinton's big broad-based energy tax gave way to an increase of 4.3 cents a gallon.

"There are at least some superficial similarities," says Allen Schick, a University of Maryland political scientist and a student of the federal budget. "A bunch of Clinton's spending initiatives have gone by the wayside, and that was the main difference with the '90 deal."

But the differences between the 1993 plan and its 1990 ancestor may be much more significant, both economically and politically.

First, this year's all-Democratic deficit-reduction program relies far more on tax increases, particularly on upper-income Americans, than the bipartisan 1990 version.

Second, Mr. Clinton seems to have been more successful than Mr. Bush was in convincing Congress to couple deficit reduction with tax breaks to encourage investment, including a capital-gains tax cut for investors in certain small firms and the creation of tax-favored "empowerment zones" to lure jobs to pockets of poverty.

And, because the 1993 plan is built on more realistic economic assumptions and occurs at a moment when the economy appears to be strengthening, there is some reason to believe that it is more likely to achieve its stated deficit goals than the 1990 plan, which ran smack into recession.

But then the goals are more modest: While the 1990 plan promised to get the deficit down to $29 billion by the fifth year, the 1993 plan aims at getting it to about $210 billion by the fifth year. (This year's deficit is estimated to be $285 billion.)

"I think you can factually prove that this is more credible," says Clinton aide Gene Sperling. Clinton deficit projections rest on an economic forecast closer to the consensus of private forecasts than the outdated one that was used when the 1990 plan came to a vote. This time, there isn't any recession on the horsome Clinton's advisers expect the economy to do better over the next five years than the budget forecast.

Republican critics say the Achilles's heel of the Clinton-backed plan is its tax increases on the rich. If the rich have more success in ferreting out tax shelters than the Treasury expects, then tax receipts may fall short of projections. "The inducement to shelter -- and the likelihood of not getting all the revenue they think they're going to get -- is greater because they have much higher marginal tax rate increases," says Michael Boskin, who was Mr. Bush's economic adviser.

And tax receipts are crucial. By Congressional Budget Office calculations, the 1990 plan raised taxes by about $158 billion over five years. A comparable tally of the 1993 plan shows roughly $245 billion in tax increases. While the upper-bracket taxpayers were to come up with about $40 billion in higher income taxes under the 1990 plan, which took the top marginal income tax rate to 31%, they are supposed to come up with $116 billion under the new plan, which takes the top rate to 39.6%.

The latest Internal Revenue Service data show that the 1990 income tax rate increases did, as intended, produce higher revenues from the richest 850,000 taxpayers. Those taxpayers with incomes above $210,000 or so reported less income overall and paid less in taxes in 1991 than in 1990, a fact that has fueled the argument that higher tax rates are counterproductive. But recently updated IRS data show that all of the decline in their tax payments reflects a steep drop in capital-gains income -- and the capital-gains tax rate didn't change in 1990. Taxes paid on ordinary income, the income subject to higher tax rates, actually rose by almost $2 billion even though the total amount of income other than capital gains dropped by $15 billion.

The recession wasn't the only reason the 1990 plan fell short of the mark. A change in Treasury estimates of overall tax receipts in 1991 added about $114 billion to the five-year deficit tally, the sort of unanticipated technicality that could recur.

More importantly, federal health-care spending grew far greater than anyone was predicting back in 1990. "The 1990 plan didn't work because it didn't contain entitlement programs. This one doesn't either," complains Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, senior Republican on the Budget Committee. But this year's deficit plan does rely on more pessimistic projections of health-care costs -- so pessimistic that economist Gail Foster of the Conference Board speculates that the administration has built in the possibility of a "positive surprise."

Architects of this year's attack on the deficit deliberately borrowed one feature from the 1990 plan that seems to have worked: the ceilings on the total sum Congress can appropriate for what's known as discretionary spending -- everything from paying salaries to buying bullets. Over the past three years Congress has kept relatively close to the caps, appropriating only 2.5% more than the caps allowed over that period.

But last time, the White House and Congress agreed to boost domestic spending authority by a hefty 12% before imposing the caps. Unfortunately for Mr. Clinton's ambitious investment spending agenda, the new caps, which extend through 1998, don't provide for such a surge in spending. If congressional appropriation committees agree to every spending cut that Mr. Clinton has proposed, Mr. Sperling says, "about 60% of the proposed investments can still be funded under the caps."

....and the this Heritage Foundation, John Olin Fellow, back in 1996, certainly wasn't hesitant to lay all of the "blame" on Clinton and the democrats, for voting in the 1993 tax increase:

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/FYI92.cfm
No. 92 March 29, 1996 WHY CLINTON SHOULD NOT GET. CREDIT FOR REDUCING THE DEFICIT

By Joe Cobb John M. Olin Senior Fellow in Economics

......CBO's September 1993 estimate of new tax revenues from Clinton's economic program might have been too large, but such an error would hardly be to the credit of the political leadership that pushed through the largest tax increase in history on a strictly party-line vote. The Heritage Foundation will soon release a report analyzing the impact of the Clinton Admini- stration's tax and spending policies from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA- 93) on the nation's economic performance. Using one of the nation's leading models of the U.S. economy, this study will examine how the economy would be performing today had the Clinton Ad- ministration and Congress not raised taxes as the U.S. was coming out of the 1990-1991 recession. This analysis will show that President Clinton's 1993 economic plan actually has deprived Ameri- cans of a higher standard of living by cutting the economy's growth potential.

.....and the 1993 tax increase certainly wasn't "the largest tax increase in history".... that distinction belongs to Reagan's 1982 tax increases, after the consequences of his 1981 tax cuts cause him to "flip-flop", according to this factcheck.org excerpt:

Quote:

http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html
Study published by Bush's Treasury Department contradicts Bush's campaign.

April 16, 2004

Modified: April 16, 2004

........The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 4.6% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 2.7%....

djtestudo · 10-29-2006, 07:55 PM

Sorry Will, I got this far:

Quote:

1. All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, jobs that pay a living wage, education, and support in times of hardship.

Nobody has a "right" to any of that.

If someone has the "right" to those things, what if they do not want to work for it? Should they still get it anyway, because it is their "right".

I don't consider myself enough of a conservative to be Libertarian, but that is insanity.

Or socialism.

Willravel · 10-29-2006, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Sorry Will, I got this far:

Nobody has a "right" to any of that.

If someone has the "right" to those things, what if they do not want to work for it? Should they still get it anyway, because it is their "right".

I don't consider myself enough of a conservative to be Libertarian, but that is insanity.

Or socialism.

You need to understand the context of this. The green party does not support giving people free rides. We do, however, feel responsible when we see a homeless person starving. I didn't fire the homeless person from his or her job, or make him or her become an alcoholic, but I do recognize that, socialist or not, society as a whole is responsible for itself as a whole. The "right" that is spoken of is the opportunity for everyone to earn the right to food, medical care, jobs that pat a living wage, education, and etc. support. The idea is that if someone is given the opportunity to and makes a contribution to society, they will be rewarded with safety and reasonable confort. In a green America (now I sound like I'm giving a speech, try not to take it that way), someone being homeless means that we've failed. We must do what we can to allow them all the opportunity to work. That opportunity is not presently given to everyone. Unemployment in the US is currently 4.6%. That's intollerable. Those people, all of them, should be given the opportunity to contribute to our country, and thus gain a safe place in this country for themselves.

Those refuse to work will fall into debt and eventually find their way to the penal system. They won't live on the street, but they'll not live in any sort of reasonable comfort. Thsoe who are unable to work will get case by case consideration.

roachboy · 10-30-2006, 06:29 AM

i still do not understand what is meant by "fiscal responsibility"
when it comes to the state.

everyone seems to be quite sure that it means something: i am not.

i do not think "i dont like taxes"--which is the central driver behind most of the liberatarian positions above--amounts to a theory of fiscal responsibility in general--and it would seem that the social consequences of a libertarian regime would run in the opposite direction of anything like social responsibility...

you see a very different conception of what the role of government could be in the green platform--but again, it is tied to a series of particular arguments about what is desirable within a capitalist set up and the notion of responsibility is a gloss, a way of categorizing, relations between state actions and desired outcomes.

so it seems always to be: it is not an independent matter, but more a function of a general political position.

so in a way it is not surprising to see this thread turn into "which political organization do you like" rather than "which is more fiscally responsible"....

djtestudo · 10-30-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You need to understand the context of this. The green party does not support giving people free rides. We do, however, feel responsible when we see a homeless person starving. I didn't fire the homeless person from his or her job, or make him or her become an alcoholic, but I do recognize that, socialist or not, society as a whole is responsible for itself as a whole. The "right" that is spoken of is the opportunity for everyone to earn the right to food, medical care, jobs that pat a living wage, education, and etc. support. The idea is that if someone is given the opportunity to and makes a contribution to society, they will be rewarded with safety and reasonable confort. In a green America (now I sound like I'm giving a speech, try not to take it that way), someone being homeless means that we've failed. We must do what we can to allow them all the opportunity to work. That opportunity is not presently given to everyone. Unemployment in the US is currently 4.6%. That's intollerable. Those people, all of them, should be given the opportunity to contribute to our country, and thus gain a safe place in this country for themselves.

Those refuse to work will fall into debt and eventually find their way to the penal system. They won't live on the street, but they'll not live in any sort of reasonable comfort. Thsoe who are unable to work will get case by case consideration.

That part of that I agree with (and I doubt there are many who wouldn't

) is that people have the right to EARN those things.

However, I don't think there is anything in there that should be given.

I'm not the kind of person that thinks every homeless person (using the example) is lazy or a complete failure. I do think there should be some "assistance" available, as well as some economic encouragement to expand business and therefore the job market (part of why I don't consider myself a libertarian), but I think both that there is a point where there can be to much available and that we have reached that point in this county.

That's why I couldn't, in general, vote Green; I believe in reforming what we have now, not adding more.

As for fiscal responsibility, I think it ties in political organizations because it ties in with our personal views on what fiscal responsibility IS.

Willravel · 10-30-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

That part of that I agree with (and I doubt there are many who wouldn't

) is that people have the right to EARN those things.

Exactly, it's not about handouts, it's about opportinuty. In the green world, one always has the oppostunity to contribute to society, and when one contributes, one earny a place in that society.

Also, Green isn't necessarily suggesting that the government be the one to give that opportunity. In reality it has to be a cooperation between business and government and even the individual to make the opportunities available for the less fortunate.

flstf · 10-30-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Also, Green isn't necessarily suggesting that the government be the one to give that opportunity. In reality it has to be a cooperation between business and government and even the individual to make the opportunities available for the less fortunate.

It is interesting to speculate whether humankind is capable of this kind of cooperation. It seems like the relationship between business and government so far benefits mostly the cooperating business people and our polititians re-election campaigns.

I think in the future we may evolve to the point where we all work together to benefit everyone but until then it seems like the Libertarian philosophy may be best suited to current human nature.

Also there may have to be a way to distribute the wealth if there are not enough jobs to go around due to rapidly increasing productivity.

samcol · 10-31-2006, 11:12 AM

Host, you'll be happy to know I'm voting a Democrat for house. Unfortunetly there is no Libertarian running in that spot. As much as I don't like Democrats, I wouldn't mind seeing the 12 year incumbent Republican lose.

View Poll Results: Is the Surest Way to Relieve the US Treasury Debt Crisis, to vote for
Libertarian Candidates for federal office... because:	8	50.00%
Republican Candidates for federal office... because:	1	6.25%
Democratic Candidates for federal office... because:	7	43.75%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

10-27-2006, 09:58 AM	#6 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Obviously the current admin is not. The Libertarians can talk about being fiscally responsible all they want but given they have no chance of being in power any time soon, they aren't even candidates. Clinton was better, but was is theoperative word. The Dems will soon likely taste power again and we will see. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

10-27-2006, 11:07 AM	#10 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	The only reason that the deficit ceased to exist during the Clinton administration was because neither Clinton (Democrat) nor the house (Republicans) could agree on anything, so spending stalled drastically. For as long as the presidency and house are split between Democrats and Republicans, then spending will be done at a reasonable rate (And the deficit will all but disappear). Of course, in a scenario when the presidency and the house is controlled by the same party, I'd have to say that Democrats are more fiscally responsible. Contrary to popular belief, Replublicans are usually the big spenders and run up a huge deficit while Democrats tend to be a bit more lax on their spending. Therefore, my vote goes to Democrats. Edit: How can the libertarians be more fiscally responsible? They've never even held a public office (Unless I'm mistaken). __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

10-28-2006, 06:55 AM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	From what I have seen of the National Libertarian Party policy, it's no more than "stay out of our lives" They have no economic or trade policy, no health policy, no environmental/energy policy, no foreign policy..... I am all for more limited government, particularly regarding privacy and personal liberties.....but these guys have no real thoughtful policy. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2006 at 06:58 AM..

10-28-2006, 09:01 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this notion of "fiscal responsibility" is obviously not a free-standing idea: it makes sense only in relation to prior assumptions about, say, the role of the state in regulating dysfunctions within the capitalist system--dysfunctions that market systems tend to produce on a almost continuous basis. but even that last statement falls under the same--it presupposes a prior analytic or political relation toward capitalism. anyway, what exactly is fiscal responsibility? if folk were keynesian, a state deficit would not in itself be a problem simply because the state was understood to play a wide range of roles in shaping/prompting economic activity. there would be limits to this non-problem status, but in the main deficits are not in themselves an index of anything within this ideology. where do folk position themselves in order to make the evaluation that x or y is an index of "fiscal responsibility"? for example, i looked into the libertarian party platform---because it seems to me that evaluations concerning fiscal responsibility articulated from that position require a concurrent discussion of that position. seretogis does not speak from nowhere. i have to say that after reading the lp platform and a bunch of related materials (instead of doing work i have to do of course) my more anarchist side would frankly love to be living somewhere else at the time the lp came to power because it would be an interesting spectator sport to be somewhere else and watch american capitalism implode. their position has more to do with the writings of arthur darby nock ("our enemy the state") and a one-dimensional reading of hayek than it does anything that is happening in the 3-d world in anything like real time. the structuring illusion seems to be that you can take elements of the 18th century documents that put the american system into motion and treat them as rabbitholes down which you can disappear--and on the other side, there is a kind of jeffersonian democracy---and because there is 3-d reality and that which you can derive by going down the rabbithole can exist simultaneously in the minds of members of the libertarian party, it follows that for them this yeoman democracy image is a viable alternative for the present period. if theirs is a coherent politics of anything, it is of nostalgia, and in that they are not terribly far from very old types of left anarchism, the types you saw arising amongst skilled workers that opposed all forms of collective organization simply because, from their viewpoints, such organization was unnecessary because they assumed that the world was like themselves. the problem with this was that they occupied positions within a division of labor that capitalism was already wiping out (think the clockmakers of the jura of the middle 19th century)---and their politics were wholly reactive in that respect--but they did not understand themselves as reactive, and so ended up outlining a politics that effectively argued the distant past is the future. in this, the lp has not even caught up with the marx of 1848 who opposed guild socialism and saint-simonian socialisms because both were effectively politics of nostalgia as well. what the lp platform is made up of seems to be two main elements: john locke's second treatise on government a smattering of "free market" mythology most of the propositions the shape the lp platform are straight locke. that means that they actually believe locke. have you read the second treatise on government? do you believe it? do you believe the state of nature actually existed? at the time it was written, the state of nature was already an ideological construct, an ideal-type, that locke made up based on information he had about america--one that existed in his mind, not the one that people actually lived in--an imagined america of the very end of the 17th century is not a viable alternative for social organization in 2006. it was obviously an important text for jefferson. it is the underpinning for his vision of an agarian democracy made up of yeomen farmers. this is precapitalist fantasy. capitalism enters the picture through the phrase "free markets" and that's it. there is nothing even approaching a coherent analysis of actually existing capitalism in the lp platform--instead, you have a series of banalities about free markets that indicates that the folk who wrote the platform were unable to distinguish between the constructs outlined in political economy books and reality--which never matched up with those constructs--the former were regulative or normative visions of ideal-typical markets, not descriptions of actually existing markets--they have nothing to say about actually existing markets. the lp position appears to be based on introducing "free markets"--which indicates that they really cant distinguish normative from actual, fantasy from reality, past from present, nostalgia from engagement with real-time phemonena. same problems obtain when you look at this extreme right viewpoint relative to the state, which exists as an abstract principle of Evil, the cause of any and all distortions in the social order capitalism has generated. it is only from this reductive viewpoint that absurd arguments like fascism and socialism are the same even begin to make sense--and if you read libertarian websites, there is a way in which this is the case--on these websites, there is only the crudest imaginable understanding of each, and any understanding, if crude enough, can make anything equal to anything else. so it would follows that if you remove the state, we would all live in shangri-la. i dunno, folks. this stuff is pretty loopy. generally speaking, i think of left anarchists that the lights are on but onbody's home: but compared with this right anarchist stuff, i'd take the left anarchists in a second. at least they are honestly incoherent. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-27-2006, 04:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
lewk Upright	Outside of Reagan, there hasn't been an economically conservative Republican to get the nominee for quite some time. The current Republican party is not the party of Reagan. They're out of the race. You point to the Clinton Administration as a time when democrats reduced the rate of accumulating debt? You're joking, right? The only reason things went so well then was because the House was controlled by Republicans and nothing significant was let through. One can argue that the deadlock is a positive thing, or that Republicans need to be taken out of power at all costs (as Peikoff did), and therefore one should vote for a Democrat for no other reason than to throw wrenches into the system in order to make it stall or break down. Seems nice, but it's not a truly viable solution, asyou eventually get a government made out of wrenches. If fiscal responsibility is at all important to you, neither major party even considerable.

10-27-2006, 04:24 AM	#4 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Libertarian. There is just no way I could vote for the Republicans, and the Democrats have blown their chances too many times. If you include a libertarian platform on a spectrum of political parties, then the two major parties really are the same. If you fail to include them, then the two major parties are very different in your small world view. I'm not worried about how long it will take. It's the right vote. I've read all the platforms and found the best one. I'm voting FOR a party, not against the most evil party. Sorry Host, I refuse the vote for the limp-wristed democratic party. I'm not only voting on economic issues though, they have voted for an over welming amount of Bush's constitution destroying legislation as well.

10-27-2006, 04:46 AM	#5 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No such thing as a fiscally responsible party. And Reagan wasn't fiscally responsible either. He spent money like a drunken sailor just like everyone else. He just did it building more nukes than we could ever conceivably use and SDI. Basically welfare for defense contractors. Fiscally responsible is not cutting taxes and running up deficits. Libertarians wouldn't be either if they got any control. Everyone finds a way to spend money when it's not theirs. Only way to pay down the debt is to have conflict in the purse strings. Divided chambers and/or branches of government is how to be fiscally responsible.

10-27-2006, 10:25 AM	#7 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I voted libertarian without really thinking about it. I guess it really depends on your definition of fiscal responsibility.

10-27-2006, 11:21 AM	#12 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Sorry seretogis, but I disagree. Individually, Libertarians may be 'good'. But the larger the group of people, the lower collective intelligence. And, power corrupts, etc. I have no more faith that a Libertarian run government would be any more responsible or ethical than any other group who gains controlling power for any significant amount of time.

10-27-2006, 07:30 PM	#13 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Here is my idea for the Healthcare System that could be implemented by the Libertarians. It is very similar to what I have currently. Look into the HSA and HRA health insurance plans that allow people to use the first $500-$1000 without having to pay anything but the premium, if they don't get sick, they keep this money to use next year or more in the future when they do get sick. I have to pay the next $700. And then 10% after that until I pay $3500. Then the insurance covers everything after that, but this is rarely going to happen. The saving of money from one year to the next gives them incentive to only go to the doctor when they really are ill. Encourage healthy lifestyles by giving financial incentives to promote it (lower taxes, prizes to people who lose a lot of weight, lower premiums if you don’t smoke). We want everyone to have access to the healthcare they need, but we don't want there to be a free-for-all where everyone can flood the healthcare system and get whatever they want. If they only limit it to extreme cases where it was an accident that caused the major injury, then I think you should be able to get catastrophic coverage for free or a very low amount each month. But, I'll agree that the Libertarian platform on this issue is pretty sparse on the details.

10-29-2006, 10:20 AM	#23 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Thank you ASU for the info. Haven't processed it yet but I truly appreciate it. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-29-2006, 10:25 AM	#24 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	The solution is to vote for a mix of candidates from multiple party affiliations so they're all too busy squabbling amongst themselves to chuck the tax dollars down some black hole project or another. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

10-30-2006, 06:29 AM	#29 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i still do not understand what is meant by "fiscal responsibility" when it comes to the state. everyone seems to be quite sure that it means something: i am not. i do not think "i dont like taxes"--which is the central driver behind most of the liberatarian positions above--amounts to a theory of fiscal responsibility in general--and it would seem that the social consequences of a libertarian regime would run in the opposite direction of anything like social responsibility... you see a very different conception of what the role of government could be in the green platform--but again, it is tied to a series of particular arguments about what is desirable within a capitalist set up and the notion of responsibility is a gloss, a way of categorizing, relations between state actions and desired outcomes. so it seems always to be: it is not an independent matter, but more a function of a general political position. so in a way it is not surprising to see this thread turn into "which political organization do you like" rather than "which is more fiscally responsible".... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-31-2006, 11:12 AM	#33 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Host, you'll be happy to know I'm voting a Democrat for house. Unfortunetly there is no Libertarian running in that spot. As much as I don't like Democrats, I wouldn't mind seeing the 12 year incumbent Republican lose.