traderdave wrote:So what did y'all think about Christie's rant in California? Maybe it is me but I found it interesting that he made sure speak into his mic when he went after the guy; like he knew he was creating a great sound bite.

jerseyhoya wrote:The Vietnamese say it's the people's seat, Loretta. (People's in a non Commie usage)

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Huh? Do you think raising taxes on the top 2% or whatever 200k for singles, 250k for joint filers works out to, will cause an increase in jobs? Have no effect on jobs?

If you mean in real terms, almost none. Jobs data is quite possibly the least reliable, most politicized stuff on the planet. It's crap. Spongy, loosey-goosey, fudged every which way. Ask a noted liberal like Barrons' Gene Epstein what he thinks of its quality.

If you mean can your favored flavor of politicians make whiny noises about such practical impacts, masking the naked greed of their masters' demand to be relieved of financial burdens of the society that permits their station in the first place, oh sure - but not based on anything like incontrovertible facts.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Huh? Do you think raising taxes on the top 2% or whatever 200k for singles, 250k for joint filers works out to, will cause an increase in jobs? Have no effect on jobs?

If you mean in real terms, almost none. Jobs data is quite possibly the least reliable, most politicized stuff on the planet. It's crap. Spongy, loosey-goosey, fudged every which way. Ask a noted liberal like Barrons' Gene Epstein what he thinks of its quality.

If you mean can your favored flavor of politicians make whiny noises about such practical impacts, masking the naked greed of their masters' demand to be relieved of financial burdens of the society that permits their station in the first place, oh sure - but not based on anything like incontrovertible facts.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Huh? Do you think raising taxes on the top 2% or whatever 200k for singles, 250k for joint filers works out to, will cause an increase in jobs? Have no effect on jobs?

If you mean in real terms, almost none. Jobs data is quite possibly the least reliable, most politicized stuff on the planet. It's crap. Spongy, loosey-goosey, fudged every which way. Ask a noted liberal like Barrons' Gene Epstein what he thinks of its quality.

If you mean can your favored flavor of politicians make whiny noises about such practical impacts, masking the naked greed of their masters' demand to be relieved of financial burdens of the society that permits their station in the first place, oh sure - but not based on anything like incontrovertible facts.

You're usually better than that at dodging.

VoxOrion wrote:As someone who works for a small business, expiring tax cuts scares the crap out of me in regard to my company and what the owners will be willing to do in terms of hiring, staying the same, and laying off employees (and to a lesser degree, raises, training, etc). Textbooks aside, it seems as though people who work for mid-size to large corporations or a government agency have a much easier time being nonchalant about the risk compared to those people who work for small businesses. That stuff has an immediate impact on me and my family, despite the fact that I am not a "rich" person who makes more than $250K a year.

jerseyhoya wrote:Colbert is testifying before Congress on immigration today in character. When we look back at this mercifully short 4 year reign of Pelosi, this will be remembered as both a high and low point.

Colbert: "Maybe this bill would help. I'm not sure. Like most members of Congress, I haven't read it."

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Please realize that the "Bush tax cuts" were intended to expire. They were not meant to be a permanent tax policy, but a measure to aid a struggling economy through a tough stretch... ie, create jobs, generate substantial economic growth, etc. Didn't really live up to expectations, contrarily they contributed to massive explosion in federal debt (an indication they weren't meant to be permanent, but a temporary stopgap measure). If their expiry will have dire effect, it'll kinda be proof that they didn't succeed at what they were intended for.

jerseyhoya wrote:That Adler ad about Runyan not voting is pretty effective I think. The really scandalous part in there is Runyan had 37 opportunities to vote in the 9 years he's lived in the district. Why the $#@! do we vote on average 4 times a year?

TenuredVulture wrote:Regardless of motive, the Bush tax plan was a centerpiece of the Bush campaign. He was keeping a campaign promise, like politicians almost always do. If the people didn't want the tax cuts, they should have voted for Gore, and not Nader or Bush.

But on college, or health care, or schools, the problems are actually deeper. Here the president has talking points on things he's "done." But he doesn't really have answers.

To see why, think of America as a set of "industrial complexes."

The Medical Industrial Complex has pushed health costs to 17 percent of the gross domestic product when every other advanced nation is at 10 or 11 percent, with similar health outcomes. But every dollar of health care "waste" is somebody's dollar of income. It's impossible to cut costs when doctors, nurses, hospitals and drug companies conspire to make sure reform won't pinch their wallets.

Or take the Higher Education Industrial Complex. For years tuition has soared much faster than inflation and family income -- increases that are enabled by federal loans and subsidies. Yet college presidents and professors act offended and resist fiercely if asked how much student learning we're actually buying for these excess billions.

Then there's the K-12 Industrial Complex, which leaves us spending more than other wealthy nations, even as we're stuck in the middle (or worse) on international tests.

The late economist Mancur Olson, in his classic study "The Rise and Decline of Nations," warned that advanced democracies eventually grow encrusted with powerful interest groups that hijack government to serve their narrow economic ends. Inefficiency reigns. Growth languishes.

Seen in this light, Obama has been shooting the wrong ammunition.

Sprinkle a few more Pell grants, and colleges transform them into higher tuition.

Toss in new health-care subsidies, and hospital bills and insurance premiums rise.

More money for K-12 gets swallowed up by the "blob." And when rare leaders like Adrian Fenty and Michelle Rhee take on the status quo, voters turn them out -- fretting more about ineffective teachers who lose their jobs than poor children who lose their shot at an education.

Is there a way to break this fatal interest-group stranglehold? Olson said war or depression could wipe society's slate clean, but that's a bit grim as a strategy. The better path is to promote entrepreneurial innovation and harness capitalism's bottomless capacity for finding new ways to deliver more for less.

Two examples are suggestive. Straighterline, based in Baltimore, offers students their freshman year of college via online courses for $999; if models like this are given full scope to compete with brick-and-mortar campuses now protected by "accreditation" rules, the cost of a degree could plummet. Or consider Qliance, a Seattle firm that offers a "fitness club" subscription model for primary care for $44 to $84 a month. It cuts insurers, and the estimated 40 cents they take out of every dollar spent on primary care, out of the equation.