Is Cash for Appliance Clunkers a PR Fiasco?
Submitted by advisor on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:36am.
Advisor Note: A new page has been opened specifically for discussion and comment on the Cash for Appliance Clunkers program. This new page is reserved for Appliance discussion on the subject. Unrelated comments will be deleted. Linked Here. The page below though will continue to be the wild west.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Cash for Appliance Clunkers is no longer a quiet conversation in a smoke filled room among fat appliance experts......such as us. Nope. Its on the AP, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, every magazine, every media outlet, every 2-bit corn-pone broadcast station with 2 watts of transmission power. Following up right behind the automotive Cash for Clunkers, our little program has been launched to wild acclaim. Any PR expert would be thrilled. Who wouldn't be?
Just look at these Google News clips
Well there is one small problem. While consumers may be informed of the program, and anxious to buy through the program, there isn't any program, and it will be months until there is a program. Any consumer ready to make an appliance purchase has now been convinced to wait to partipate in a Cash for Clunkers program that won't start for 1 to 3 months. How's that for a smashing PR success?
Further, many of the news reports are wildly speculative about the appliance categories which will be covered and the amounts of the rebates, again further depressing current sales.
Who was the brainchild of this smashing PR fiasco? Who knows......but AHAM's July 14 press release probably didn't help:
"DOE Initiates Appliance Rebate Program to Asssist Consumers With Purchase of Efficient Appliances"
This is our analysis. What are you seeing in the field?
RELATED NEWS
Thor Appliances, a distributor of Asian made compact laundry is hitching a ride on the Cash for Appliance Clunkers media swirl, releasing a statement today throwing quite a bit of disinformation onto the Cash for Appliance Clunkers discussion.
The statement said:
1) “..........while Washington, D.C. decides if and when they’ll provide their own incentives.”
Advisor Correction: Actually, Washington has already budgeted the money, it is now up to the states to define their individual programs. Most, and likely all states will have programs.
2) "Additionally, the DOE has not announced which appliance categories will be covered or the dollar amounts of the rebates."
Advisor Note: Actually the DOE has already restricted the program to Energy Star qualified appliances, boilers, air conditioners, etc, and has indicated to each state the allotment they are qualified for (basically $1/per citizen). It is up to each state to choose the particular categories from this list and incentive levels to apply. The DOE is not involved in managing state programs nor announcing its criteria.
Official company press releases should be accurate......or are we asking too much?
Let's Call it What it is !!!
For the record ... we do not have a "health care crisis" ... we have a "health coverage crisis" ...
We already have the best health care in the world, so there is no "health care crisis" ... what we need to do is figure out how to mete it out health care equitably, economically, and efficiently !!! We need to:
1. Stop providing primary health care in the Emergency Room, the most expensive place so to do ...
Regarding illegal aliens, what people in the least agrarian states do not understand is that our economy would crash in those agrarian states without their cheap labour, so what we need to do is solve this situation in a way where we can recognize those illegals and bring them into the mainstream and make them legal !!!
2. Eliminate frivolous malpractice suits by installing a "Loser Pays all Costs" policy, so if you do not have a good case and you lose, you pay the Defendant's costs !!!
3. Reduce the ridiculous awards given out in malpractice suits and install a set of "values" ... but ... keeping my #2 in mind !!!
4. Recognize people who live a healthy life style ... Forbes actually paid his employees a premium for staying healthy !!!
5. Establish is minimum coverage for every tax payor ... that's tax payor ... which is another reason for the Flat Tax ... you pay your faire share you get coverage ...
We need to take the handcuffs off of the medical community who is always concerned about legal reprisal ... look @ the substantial number of OB-GYN's who "retired" because their premiums were raising faster than they could deliver babies !!! This is because mothers who abused themselves prior to and during pregnancy were allowed to sue their OB-GYN because the Doc delivered a less-than-perfect child !!!
It time to get real, get right, and get on with harder things in this ball of mud to figure out !!!
Few questions for Bob and Mookie
Hi Bob,
Few questions:
1) Where do the uninsured get their medical care if not from the Emergency Room? By the way, are you sure uninsured folks are getting primary health care in the Emergency Room? Have you been in an Emergency Room recently..........ahhhh.......maybe this is the wrong question. Well, anyway, I have, and like all others its 5 hours sitting on my hands. More likely the Emergency Room is the place you go when you can't put it off.......emergency care.
2) "Loser Pay all Costs" eliminates the possibility for the poor OR middleclass to sue for malpractice.....ever. Managing awards in an environment of contingency legal fees will go far towards reducing suits anyway.
5) Are unemployed people uninsured in your plan per number 5? Does that include the children of the unemployed? Who takes care of the children of the uninsured unemployed who die for lack of health care, since they are banned from the only place they might haven gotten care, the Emergency Room.
Not sure about the problems of OB-GYN's, but infant mortality drops where pre-natal care is better. There needs to be more focus on prevention, on the time before we are sick. Some benefit for not smoking or reaching some health goals, providing health care for 15, 20 and 25 year olds with an eye to avoiding costs 50 or 60 years down the road.
Mookie suggested a change from the normal phrase, "At least I have my health", to "At least I have my freedom". One can't have freedom without health seemed obvious to me until he suggested otherwise.
There's been some research that you can't even have your health if those around you aren't healthy, no matter what your health care status is.
"Americans are now between two and six centimeters shorter than their European counterparts; the average Dutchman is six centimeters taller than the average American. In the mid-19th century, this figure was exactly the opposite." The research eliminated hispanic and asian immigration which could have reduced the average height. The author explained: "We surmise that the health systems and high degree of social security in Europe provide better conditions for growth than the American health system, despite the fact that the system costs twice as much."
The research is brilliant. Even rich well insured Americans are shorter than their European counterparts.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/05/23/why_are_americans_short
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,484168,00.html
Many of you guys are caught up in an idealism induced blindness. No money for the uninsured, no money for illegal immigrants, no government in health care, socialism this, and marxism that, and over my dead body the other thing. Nuts!
It is simply better for the country, the strength of its economy, and the competitiveness of its industries, if its citizens have an education, drink clean water and are healthy. There is no need to get bogged down in the sillyness of right wing or left wing idealism. Everyone gets healthcare, and we ALL benefit, and the country is better for it. On top of that, we should be paying HALF what we pay today.
The insurance companies are right. They would have no way to compete with a public option. It should not be optional. It should be required. Joining the other great services I already get as a member of the greatest club on earth.
Sweet Dutch Healthcare
I don't believe I am the one caught up in idealism. The tall Dutch just had to revamp their healthcare system. Here is an analysis from The Wall Street Jounal comparing the old and the new. Describing the old "hey look at us, were 2 1/2" taller but broke" system: “The country had four different coverage schemes. The wealthiest third of the population was required to get health insurance without government assistance. Some in this group received help from employers in paying premiums, while others paid the whole bill themselves. The bulk of the Dutch population was covered under a compulsory state-run health-insurance scheme financed by deductions from wages. Civil servants and older people were insured under two separate plans within this state-run scheme. The government closely regulated hospital budgets and doctors’ fees, but provided few incentives to cut costs. When hospitals lost money on a particular kind of care, they rationed it. Many patients ended up on waiting lists. People in line for heart transplants were particularly affected. In the mid-1990s, fewer than three Dutch people per million received such transplants. By comparison, a study of 12 European countries showed that only Greece had a lower rate of such operations. In the U.S., there were about nine heart transplants per million people.” Wow, sounds sweet, as long as your not sick! Highlights under the new system: All people are required to have health insurance. All individuals purchase health insurance on the open market. Employers can, but are not required to offer health insurance benifits to their employees. Insurance companies are free to charge what they want for insurance on the open market (market forces limit the price before those insured switch to another plan). The costs are more transparent because most people are actively paying for their own healthcare. The State subsidizes insurance for 30 major diseases (the sicker people then get more subsidies than the healthy). Repeat after me Un-sus-tain-able.
Responses ...
Addressing your comments seriatim, here goes:
1. I would not deny anyone attention, certainly not children ... to that end, each Health Care Provider (because some are not true hospitals) would/should have a "Triage Area" where non-life-threatening problems are assessed and directed to the proper avenue of care ... this is as opposed to each and every person thru the door is treated as an emergency !!!
I came across this during my time before my transplant ... My temperature had spiked and I was experiencing other problems as well ... my GI Doc told me to go to the Emergency Room for evaluation ... well, they did their thing and when I got the bill I was aghast @ what I was being billed for that I did not need ... all because I came thru the ER ... but it was the only way to see a Doc on the weekend !!! A Triage Area would have been much more economical and efficient to both the patient & hospital staff, and, of course, our insurance carrier !!!
2. Unfortunately, "Loser Pays All Costs" does affect the majority of the lower income population, but then that's what people like the ACLU are for, isn't it ??? If someone had such a good case, any Attorney would take the case, it's where the Attorney might lose is where it becomes inequitable for the Defendant ... in the end only the Attorneys win
5. I think my scheme outlined in #1 covers this ... besides, there is a reasonable chance that that child, if born on American soil, is, de facto, an American citizen which would make everything moot ...
All idealism aside, what we need is something which is equitable in all matters and flexible enough to adapt to the ever-changing landscape and domicile of the American people ... something as simple as the Flat Tax !!!
How does the government make it work?
Let's just assume for a minute that what you say is accurate. How is the government going to run it in a way that it works? Do you know of a country that is doing this and it is working? All you need to do is google "(Country of your choice) health care problems" and every single country with nationalized health care is going broke (OK, we are already broke so who cares?). Countries with the system "we" are attempting to establish here say that system is unsustainable. It does not make it a bad idea, it's just one of those good ideas that won't work.
I don't see the problem
We pay twice as much per person for health care, compared to any other industrialized country. 18% of Americans lack insurance. Seems like we have enough money sloshing around to insure the uninsured, to cover the uncovered and pre-existing and still have enough left over to build that bridge in Alaska....and the other 49 states.
Public programs are always on the edge, financially. They don't have a margin to eat into when costs rise. Services are defined, revenues are defined, but volume (number of sick folks) is not. Its the same problem the Post Office has. Services and revenues defined and out of their hands.....but we still have a great post office, the most efficient in the world.
Expect more Steady.
Bidding Problems Government Agencies
It is pretty much a given that no program initiated for the benefit of people , the military ,the space program nor any local bidding process has ever come in close to the forecasted budget. I believe this is a result of inferior analysis at the beginning of a project and delays which give rise to labor and material increases not originally forecasted. A very poor job by the people charged with that responsibility. Take note of your comment of "seems like we have enough money sloshing around" is a primary example of inflated costs vs projections. Everyone can take that fallback position. I have originally always thought that business can do a much better job of cost projections although the programs pale in size comparisons to most government programs. My concerns these days is that businesses have lost the trust of the public because of lost investments,pensions and the little stability most hard working people strive to achieve.Still , some on Wall Street and in banking continue to roll in the big bucks. The people responsible for the public wanting government intervention these days are the same people causing it. Those would be the greedy ones wanting no regulations. Same as the proponents of guns. They brazenly walk around creating a stir of emotions and eventually that will greatly reduce freedoms. Not enough responsible or pragmatic people left. That is precisely why government is having to intervene in the health care issue. No private enterprise has the public's trust. We reap what we sew. Bridges ? A result of pork barrel. We can and must begin to hold our represntatives responsible. We certainly can't touch the insurance companies,wall street or the banks. As a result ,socialism may be the best way until we can find some honor among those thieves. People need to be insured. Some people already are dying in bigger numbers because of the lack of a decent program. Most of us don't live in ghettos so we don't really see it. By the way , even if the post office raised their price of a stamp to $1.00 it is still cheaper and better than the alternative. Try mailing a letter for a dollar at UPS or Fed-Ex.
Ah Ha!!!!!
The key there is making it work. We like to bash America but really we do most things better than others.As much as we tear down and bitch about this and that ,most everyone given a choice would rather live here. So let's figure out a way to make it work. We have enough geniuses at this site for sure to help.Give them time to sort it out.
Advisor
Must have fallen on my head but I agree with about 90 % of what you say. The Europeans are getting taller because they are breeding more basketball players,probably with a Paul Bunyan type secret drug.
Only 90%
Which 10% were you "confused" about..........confusion is your only excuse for my pithy and brilliant summary of the health care issues.
Pithy ????
I reserve the right to disagree on the height of Americans vs. Europeans. Check them all for steroids.The case for health care is being made to the likes of me who were skeptical for a while. Now if you would just vote for Bloomberg.....May I nickname you Don Luis ?
Weighing in on The Flat Tax ...
This is one of my pet peeves ... I love the Flat Tax, and I believe we lost our last best opportunity to straighten this country out fiscally when GW was nominated instead of Steve Forbes ... as a matter of fact, my wife and I wrote him in the last election !!!
The problem with the Flat Tax is that, while the fairest way to assess tax, it essentially handcuffs the Congress from Pork Barrel spending because if you ain't got it, you can't spend it ...
However ... the Flat Tax is the smartest because it is equitable and does not penalize anyone for making more income ... and ... thusly the need to hire tax accountants !!!
Think of how simple life would be without any other taxes to Uncle except that yearly post card !?!?!?
Bermuda Bob for President
When will you announce your candidacy ?
Hmmmmmmmmm ...
I think you just did !!!
New Page for Cash for Clunkers Appliance Comment
Per user comment, a new mirror page was created which will be restricted to discussion on the Cash for Appliance Clunkers program. That page is linked above, or found on the News list, clearly marked.
Talk Show Copy. Hannity vs. Obermann
The Advisor group and a few others are probably right. We should limit our conversations to the appliance industry. We are beginning to sound like Hannity vs. Obermann.We generally have a better discussion concerning appliances. Advisor and I have differences in our politics and frankly that's ok. If I want to discuss that with them we do it with private e-mails. Let's agree that Cohiba and I are always right and move on from there back to appliances. That is what I plan to do ....hopefully. A good majority of us just want the economy ,healthcare and the war to get better and go away in that order. Like most of history , when we pull together we usually are successful. Anyone looking for a good deal on a high end kitchen ?
Cash for clunkers gone wild
Wow, AA started with an honest criticsm of the PR impact of a premature publication of an appliance stimulous program that he supports. I added my two cents (of criticsm), pointing out that each state has to develop its own program rules and that the program may end up being watered down in some states by the inclusion of too many products. Suddenly the discussion evolved into a McCarthyism attack on the left punctuated by boogiemen under ever rock influencing the decisions of a president who is apparently slightly left of Stalin. Personally, I'd be more interested in the views that some of you guys have on the program (and its potential impact on the industry) than reading a google-list of Who's Who of the dirty commies who (like six degrees of Kevin Bacon) have had some casual contact with a president that I as a Republican am proud to have voted for.
My view.
If you want my views read my very first post responding to his honest criticism. I don't have much else to add to that posting at this point. It is headlined "PR Fiasco". Sorry if you missed it. In addition, I am not a republican and did not vote for the president we have and am not happy with the way he is running things.. I was not happy with the way Bush and the Republicans ran things wild over the last 6 years. Frankly I agree with the majority of Americans that if we replace every politition in office today with ordinary Americans we would all be better off. Would you mind sharing 3 specific things with me that he has done since getting into office. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but yours is rather interesting. Here is an excerpt from Gallup Polling. "With 51% job approval, Barack Obama is now close to falling below the majority support level, and could do so at a faster rate than did all but two other post-World War II presidents." I'll look for you response of 3 things Obama has accomplished that make you proud. I am an open minded guy and follow pollitics closely so you must have something I missed.
Three things
AA answered this question already, but since you asked me, I'll answer.
1. Passage of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (which no Republican in the House voted for). As you know, among other things this bill expanded unemployment insurance coverage, which I think is pretty important to a vast number of unemployed Americans.
2. Passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program which expanded coverage to 4 MM children.
3. Reversing the damage done by the previous administration to our credibility around the globe.
4. Continuing to fight for Health Care Reform. Oops, that's four things.
My one thing
I do have one thing I must applaud the President for. You can call me narrow minded but I was ready to cheer him on for his campaign promise of not allowing lobyists in the White House and no more pork barrel spending. He left America down on those promises. That would have been two things I would have been behind him 100% on. He now has my "third" reason to applaud him, though some may question his motives. The tariff on Chinese tires is necessary and should be extended to Chinese electronics, appliances and automobiles. As for you reasons, I think its a little early to applaud the recover and reinvestment act (paving perfectly good roads at a huge expense to taxpayers), I don't know the details of the Children's Heath care thing other than Bush vetoed it and congress couldn't override the veto, The jury is still out on how our credibility has been restored, and it appears he is losing "his" fight on health care reform although reform is definatly needed. Texas and California found a way to drop premiums 35 - 45% through tort reform. That's huge. I'll give you one (Child Health care thing), add my one and between the two of us we got two things to be proud of I guess.
Before you give credit.......
You may ant to check out your one thing. There are plenty of lobbyists in the Obama administation. In fact the administration created a special loophole or waiver so that they could serve. While I don't personally have an issue with lobbyists serving, Mr. Obama did make a big deal this was broken quite early on with William Lynn, lobbyist for Ratheon now in the Defense dept., Mark Patterson, Cheif of Staff to Turbo Tax Geithner, he was a Goldman Sachs lobbyist. There are more as well. As for SCHIP, my main issues with this, like all government programs it strays so far from it's intent it is just out of control spending. In my state it covers all families up to my states median income. Some states have been so reckless with this program that 55% of those using it are adults. This program is funded by increasing the tax on cigarettes, a very regressive tax mostly on the poor (35% of those earning less than $12,000 a year smoke while only 13% of those over $90,000 a year do, but I guess there the ones using it, right) and in order to properly fund the Federal commitments to this program we only need to convince 22 million people to start smoking. Also note that NY is about to outlaw smoking in outdoor parks. Ahhh, the magic of Washington.
My one thing II
I would agree with you that all of the presidents, including Obama pray at the temple of free trade, and the math has never worked. Free trade is not good for us. Cheaper goods not made here raising the standard of living temporarily, putting our domestic suppliers out of business. Our higher end industries, which were to be growing to take up the slack are also under significant foreign pressure. There are no safe industries. That said, I don't believe we have the freedom to raise all these tariffs NOW (2009) without risking a trade war and the crash of the dollar. Obama is evidently trying to rope-a-dope, little here, little there, without across the board tariffs. At some point very soon, theUS
Lobbyists aren't the problem. Lobbyists with money are the problem. In fact lobbyists without campaign money, gifts, dinners, and golf outings are vital to keeping politicians informed. Keeping lobbyist off the White House payroll is nice for the sake of looking clean, but I can't imagine it has much effect one way or the other. There are a million biases in the naked city. Being a lobbyist is just one.
I applaud whatever was done that has kept unemployment at 10%, the dollar above junk status, and dogs from eating corpses in the streets. The shame was that the crisis was not used to re-regulate and dismember the super banks and investment houses.
Obama Actions
Has Obama repaired any
Has Obama repaired any relationships with people who wish to do us harm? Active bomb throwers, probably not. But reaching the direct supporters, the thousands who support terrorists with their silence and acceptance, and the pipeline of future terrorists, Obama's appearance on the scene with that middle name, and family background must certainly have helped. Speaking to citizens of the Middle East like adults, like partners, as he did from Cairo University certainly must have helped.
What's the best way to drain the swamp? First thing is to stop filling it with water.
Should we be preparing to survive a 100 year Jihad, or should we be working to solve the problems, or eliminate the drivers that might make a 100 year Jihad even possible.
Prepare for the Jihad....
I don't think the name Hussein is working, sorry to burst your bubble. AlQaeda has given us a video as a "gift" to commemorate 9/11. Believe it or not, MSNBC even thought this was newsworthy. It says, among other things:"America has come in a new, hypocritical face. Smiling at us, but stabbing us with the same dagger that Bush used," said Zawahri in the message."God willing, your end will be at the hands of the Muslim nation, so that the world and history will be free of your crimes and lies," he said addressing Obama at the end of the two-part video.If there were people at the Cairo University bent on "killing the infidel" I don't think Obama got through to them. The ones that were not going to kill us are probably still not going to kill us, but I don't view that as much of an accomplishment.
Let's try to avoid the Jihad
I hope that you aren't surprised that crazy megalomaniacs are likely to remain crazy megalomaniacs. The rumors not withstanding, Obama is not Christ. There are people you kill and there are people you convert.
Advisor
Hard for us to avoid the Jihad unless we are willing to give up Israel. This goes back to Ishmael and Isaac. Abraham should have kept it in his pants. Sorry Advisor , we have no control over the Jihad except to react to those moronic religious zealots. Fighting in Afghan by the way will only move them somewhere else. Then what ? I have never gone to war college but it is pretty simple that we cannot eliminate them altogether.Only nuclear weapons would do that and that would not be good.
An Elbow In
Steady.....that is a great question, and really hadn't thought much about it. Your question is directed at Cohiba, but if you don't mind, I'd like include mine. For all you know, you might find a few you like too.......but then, I'm not holding my breath.
Best
Walking on the world stage with the name Barack Hussein Obama and nearly wiping clean years of disasters in international relations
Continuing the Bush administration's recovery plan that evidently saved our collective hides
Deep focus on energy independence & carbon reduction (raising automobile fuel standards, and supports for Wind and Solar, and too many others to name)
Abolishing torture and timetables to close Guantanamo prison and leave Iraq
Return Funding Stem cell research and reproductive planning
Push for Universal Health Care
Speech at Cairo University to the Middle East
Speech to school children
Worst
Unlimited imprisonments without trial
Push for Universal Health Care without Single Payer
Cap and Trade (vs Carbon Tax)
Any malarkey about Clean Coal or Ethanol
Not yet raising taxes, or canceling the Bush cuts, or cutting military spending to pay for it all
TBD: Afghanistan
Cohiba
A few corrections to your
A few corrections to your comment above
1) Turkey has a democracy and is Islamic
2) Bill Mayer’s position is that there is no God, not "hatred of God".
3) Ayers: We did not defend Ayers. We defended Obama’s right not to know any background about a guy (Ayers) on the same community committee.
4) Van Jones: We did defend Jones except for his signature on the 9/11 petition. Van Jones looks pretty good outside of that.
5) Basic Logic: Yes, guilty as charged. Worship however you want, believe whatever you want, but the use of anything other than logic, facts, science, statistics, and common sense as an understanding of how the planets move or the natural world works is not rational.
6) Is Cash for Appliance Clunkers a program to over throw the United States? Seems unlikely but I guess we'll find out.
Economics
A good read is Ron Paul's book "End the Fed" This book talks of the Federal Reserve Bank and Keynesian economics which is a method of the money supply being turned from one consumer/worker to another or a circular motion of the money supply. When one part of the equation slows down the government then stimulates the process by adding money or some other stimulus to kick start the economy.Probably the safest way to keep from having a true capitalist system and the end game of only the strong survive thus helping the middle class. Can't argue with the overall philosophy for the good of all the people. This creation of the Federal Reserve bank is probably creating a monster that at some point will be difficult to control . It will become too big and already has too much influence. Remember the Federal Reserve Bank is privately held.All in all this system does give evidence of a controlled system in our country to a point. I am sure Warren Buffet or Bill Gates may not care for this and I am positive Wall Street loves it since it makes them infallible as we have seen.Just print more money. Who cares .Haven't read the book yet but learned people I trust have told me about it. Getting ready to purchase it soon.
Back at ya Stallion
Sorry Stallion, but I respect your opinion on appliance industry issues because I know you and know that you speak from a position of experience. But I for one am a lot more worried about folks with "secret sources" that fear that the "black helicopters" will swoop down and carry out the one world order, than I am about a few Muslims practicing their freedom of religion. And, as long as we're opening the discussion up to non-appliance issues, I'd have to say that I'm more than a little frustrated by right wingers that feel there is something democratic about allowing 46 million Americns to go without health care. Will taxes go up? Probably, at least for the top 2% of the country. But, why should 2% of the people be allowed to dictate our national policy? Will "illegals" get health care at our expense? They already do, in Emergency Rooms. Or should we just let them croak in the fields? Will there be death panels? According to Sarah ("I can see Russia from my house") Palin there will. Of course, I've been to Wasilla and that's not true either.
So if I understand......
You will sleep better if the uninsured people are covered with health insurance as long as someone other than you, who makes more money than you pays for it? That's mighty noble!
Know, you don't understand
Mookie ... I sleep quite well as it is thank you, and I don't buy Cohibas with food stamps. I am willing to pay more in taxes so that 46 Million other Americans can have health care too, and that is not nobility, it's just common decency. Your cheap shot missed the mark, but I'll explain my position anyway. Of the 30 wealthy nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) only the US, Mexico and Turkey do not come close to universal health care. 46 million Americans are uninsured and we are slightly below the median in life expectancy among OECD nations. Let's look at facts, not assumptions. The Top 1% of all earners in the US earned 22.8% of the total adjusted gross income (I'm not in this group by the way in case you're wondering). The top .1% (top 10% of the top 1%) comprised of 141,000 returns. These birds made 12% of our total adjusted gross income. Their income averaged $ 7.4 Million and they averaged $ 1.6 Million in taxes, for an average rate of 21.5%. Put all of this together and you have a very small number of people making a whole lot of money while the middle class is disappearing, 10% + of our feloow Americans are unemployed and 15%+ have no health insurance. Those numbers should disturb your sleep.
I understand just fine
There is much more than life expectency. The United States has so many quality of life benefits these other countries do not have. We have them because for most of our existence taxes have been low, regulation have been sensible and we are mostly free. Our poor people are some of the richest poor people on the face of the earth. I personally have existed in most income brackets. Not the top 1% yet, but I like my chances of getting there a lot more with lower taxes and less regulation. I personally had a situation where I was in the bottom 10% of earners, just above the poverty level. I had no health insurance for me or my family. In a 90 day period I had two trips to the emergency room for 2 of my children. I relied on a single payer system. Me. I paid in installments. The hospital gave me a break due to my lack of insurance and the lack of bureaucracy that they would have to deal with. This was in 2002 - 2003 and I was making about $23,000 for a family of 5. Most Americans are like me. They are not stuck at the bottom or the top, but throughout their lives move up and down the scale. There are many ways to help those who need it. I have personally seen doctors in my community donate their time, equipment and much more at local shelters in my community, providing free of charge hundreds of thousands of dollars of care at a time. Giving the government control over this is not the answer. It will reduce the quality of healthcare that we do have. Look at public schools. In my neighborhood they are failing. I tried to work within the system and move them to a better school where they have a better chance of learning. We were not able. There was nothing I could do. I now pay my taxes to support this failing system and send my kids to private school. Do you really think healthcare will be different? Why would you trust the government to run the system? If you give them an inch they will regulate the existing system out and then you will have no other options. That should disturb your sleep.
Gov't run?
Mook ... (can I call ya Mook now?)... Look, here's the deal... you started this by making assumptions about my income (which is nobody's business but Uncle Sam) and then accusing me of being somewhat ignoble because I felt that the top 2% of earners (income over $ 250K) could afford to pay a few more bucks to fix a broken system. Almost everybody agrees that our current system is broken. Most agree it will take a Trillion bucks to fix. The public option has nothing to do with our discussion. (Let the politcos hack out a deal on the public option...personally I think the Dems will drop it as a means of getting this thing moving again). Just make one more assumption, Mook. Assume that we actually have to reform healthcare if we are going to keep Medicare from going broke and to keep from falling even further behind other industrialized nations in the accepted categories that define adequate healthcare. Now, how would you pay for the fix, Mook? Where are you going to find a Trillion Bucks? Get it?
If the Government isn't running it, why do they need my $$$?
The Easiest reforms to make to reduce healthcare insurance costs are (1) Let insurance companies sell plans accross state lines. (2) Tort reform, caps on pain and suffering. Medicare is a train wreck. Rates of increase need to roll back. I believe medicare grows by 8% a year. We need to start by rolling that back to 4%. Why just take more money from people rich or poor if there has never been an effort to keep costs in line. The Bush prescription drug plan is a perfect example. $1.2 trillion of complex unfunded bureaucracy that has helped fewer than projected costing way more than expected. A good start with any addict is to stop giving them money.
Mookie's Good Points.
If we really take the time to reflect on all the good things we have in life as a country , most people are blessed.We have enough food , clothing and shelter to take care of all of our people.Many people starting with Warren Buffet ,Bill Gates and other philanthropists cannot do this all by themselves. Where once civility and spreading the good fortune worked ,something has happened to the mindset of many people. My guess it is the people who never wanted for anything ,never had to sacrifice or work hard for what they have. Therefore many people don't care about the poor. When I was a young guy we lived on welfare for about a year. It was very humbling and I never forgot the looks of despair on some of those folks. The government runs some good programs. The space program,the military ,even the post office. The trouble comes from the fraud created by greedy people taking advantage of government programs. The same thing probably happens with business but it gets covered up.Nothing wrong with assisting the poor and needy. They will always be there. This health care issue is right up there with jobs. If for the good of others ,I would give two dollars and someone abuses part of it ,so what ?. The important point is people are taken care of.
Mookie
Over the past several decades many tax cuts have been given to the very rich. None bigger than the tax cut on dividends on stock or investment earnings.A big black hole going unnoticed by many. One of the reasons jobs have been exported was that those earnings substantially increased by using cheap foreign labor. I believe I am in that 2% who would pay more taxes. I assume I know the category Cohiba is in but that is for him to acknowledge. Time for the privileged/fortunate to help pay for this needed reform. Without it and the public option ,insurance costs will skyrocket even more thus driving more business out that will not be competitive because the cost of employer insurance has risen from $5,500 per year to currently about $11,000 and is projected to go to $24,000 per employee per year in the next five years. You will pay one way or the other. How about we do what is right for a change ? I believe I can give up a steak dinner out once a month for this needed reform.How about you ?
Facts Not in Evidence
Not speaking for Cohiba, but I believe that you are making an assumption about which side of 2% Cohiba is on.
Your complaint is a deeper question about whether the rich should pay more tax than the poor, whether you believe in the flat tax or a progressive tax. We certainly aren't going to reach consensus here, except to say; to whom much is given, much is expected. Over the last 3 decades, no group was more richly rewarded by tax cuts. It's time to pay the piper.
Taxes.
I believe in a flat tax system. Those making $50,000 or less pay no federal taxes. 8% to $120,000 , 10% to $250,000 , 12% for those above $250,000. Too simple quite frankly for the politicians to absorb.State taxes would remain the same I guess.
Common Ground
I certainly support a flat, simple tax code. This will never happen with those that we have in the government now.
Flat Tax
Stallion .... once again we agree. I believe that a flat tax is both fair and practical. I supported Steve Forbes plan for a flat tax and I would support this as well. Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever happen. But, if it did pass, the IRS could be essentially eliminated, thereby further reducing government spending. The monsterous tax code could be boiled down to a simple one page EZ form. Everyone would benefit (except maybe employees of H&R Block). But, best of all would be an addendum that held legislators accountable to a spending stream than was no greater than the prior year income flow, eliminating deficit spending and supporting a strong dollar.
Cohiba & Our Flat Tax.
We agree on most things. This is probably way too practical though. A simplification of a costly process where that money could be funneled elsewhere for the good of all the people. Probably would pay for a good portion of the startup costs for healthcare reform..
Isn't the flat tax, the one
Isn't the flat tax, the one suggested by Forbes, the same rate across all incomes? Stallion's suggested Flat Tax is actually a progressive tax. This simplified system is fine (assuming your % are enough to cover the nut), but the complexity of the current tax code is driven by a system of incentives to reward or penalize tax payers for a million different actions, investments, that society evidently wants. Having children, buying machine tools, owning a home, giving to charity. Eliminate the complexity, and you will eliminate these incentives. Churches and non-profits will kill you. The business community will kill you. Home owners will kill you. The number of folks not lining up to kill you will be short indeed.
My Flat Tax
AA. The flat tax I propose is designed to make it easier on those folks who make less very simply.It progressively gets somewhat higher the more you make but not obscene. I find nothing wrong with calling it a flat tax based on income levels. Don't discount the idea.It is obviously a good one and well thought out. Doing the math more than covers our spending. Keeps a bit more money in the not so well off people's pocket.
Forbes & the flat tax
Right again, AA. Forbes proposed a flat tax that started at $ 36K income and was 17% for everyone else. His proposal included a provision that the amount spent could not exceed the amount collected, giving the people some accountability over Congress because if Congress overspent, the tax rat would have to be adjusted accordingly (which of course would end the bridges to nowhere). You're also correct about everybody having their favorite tax break, creating a long line of people who want to kill anyone proposing a flat tax. Which is why it will probably never pass and why I don't want to propose it. But, since my kids are grown, my house is paid for and I don't buy machine tools or own a farm, I would probably vote for it in a secret ballot. (very selfish of me, as I'm sure mookie will point out).
Who is making the larger assumption?
True, I am making an assumption as to which side of the 2% Cohiba is on. Odds are on my side here, but I could be wrong. Even still, Cohiba can do whatever he would like with his money. I am not proposing that any additional be taken from him. However, your assumption That Jesus Christ when he said "to whom much is given, much is expected" as quoted in Luke 12 is giving authority for the government to tax the rich is just totaly outlandish! Evidence suggests that over the last three decades no group has been more rewarded by tax cuts than the lower 50%. According to IRS.gov, in 1986 the bottom 50% of all income earners paid 6.46% of all taxes collected. In 2004 they paid 3.3%. The top 1% of wage earners paid a 36.9% share in 2004. This is up from 25.75% in 1986. The top 10% pay 66% of all taxes collected. This is up from 54.7% in 1986. Again, my only assumption was to which side of the 2% Cohiba is on. You assume to know what Jesus meant by his quote and that he certainly meant paying a higher proportion than they are currently. I believe your facts do not line up with the evidence.
Statistics
Mookie ... 2007 data is available on the IRS site. But, don't get too hung up on statistics. In 2007, the top .019% (top 2 tenths of a percent) of wage earners paid 8.35% of the taxes collected. Sounds terribly unfair, huh? However, all 18,349 of these folks had incomes in excess of $ 10 Million. Don't you think they could afford to pay a little bigger percentage of the total than the 22% of all tax payers who made less than $ 25,000. Even under the flat tax proposals, they give the little guys a break. I haven't a clue what Jesus meant in the quote you cited above, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to burden the poor, so the rich could keep more of their funds? Didn't I read something about a rich man has less chance of getting into Heaven than a camel does going through the eye of a needle.
Statistics
I get it. That is my point. One could say that the majority of low and now middle income earners benifit the most becaust they pay little, no or receive money back from the IRS. The top .019% can afford to do a lot of things with their money. That is up to them. I would like to see them buy more Appliances with it. My point is that it is their business what they do with their money. They earned it. It is theirs. I like it better in their hands than in that of a wasteful, inefficient government. Most of these people are very charitable and do plenty of good with their money. And if they don't, that is their business. As long as they are not doing anything illegal. as far as the Jesus quote, that was in response to Advisor. I refrain from quoting Jesus when it comes to tax policy.