The Compromise

Clay has painted us as overfed pigs. Ouch,that hurts,but it beats another day of blather about Ms Sarah.

If they build the health care house of twigs, they better shop some insurance.

Gotcha comin' and goin'.

I can't wait until our good buddy Rolando and a few others log on to put names with the somewhat rotund faces above. I wonder, however, whose name (face) will be assigned to the "Big Bad Wolf" who is sure to show up eventually.

True, the house of twigs, of 'fable' fame, didn't stand up well to the aforementioned wolf, and yet if you ask a "Corps of Engineer" how much damage (good if you are a beaver) a few well-placed twigs and such can do, they might give you a whole new perspective to take into account.

Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

Let's build it out of IOUs? Social Security is broke. Medicare is broke. The House bill is supposed to cut $400 billion from Medicare. And we want the people who run those programs to run another huge program? We want the people whose deficits make President Bush look stingy to find new ways to spend tax money and IOUs? We trust a Treasury Secretary who couldn't even do his own taxes right? One advantage of private business over government is that business imposes some degree of realism, because businesses have to earn their money, but government takes and gets money whether earned or not. Another is diversity: government has to please 51% of the people (if that), but businesses can pursue little tiny niche markets, keeping everyone happy (well, keeping more people somewhat happy). Another is flexibility: we don't have to wait for the end of a Presidential term to do business with a different business. So shrink the government (especially the parts that subsidize businesses or protect them from competition and thus give us the worst of both worlds.) Businesses even police themselves to some extent: BBB, UL...And of course Jesus is libertarian, so so should we be.

So are the three little pigs going to take out a loan to build our new house? From what I understand, they don't handle money well, and they know we owe too much on the first house to afford a new home of any kind. Yet they are so focused on when to build the house rather then how or why they are building the house.

We don't need to be building a house at all. We need to focus on the one we already own and fix it up first. Sure it is run down and neglected, but with a little elbow grease we could turn it into something we can be proud of and not be in as nearly as much debt over the next few decades.

Or even better, how about we fire the pigs and hire... builders?

nucanuck - I don't know how you would even draw a pig that wasn't plump.

As the fable goes, though, its a perfect analogy- with privatized health care being the house made of straw), and the single-payer system being the house made with bricks.

So the compromise plan (a hybrid of the private and public health care) would be the house of twigs. It sounds like a good compromise until you remember that it wasn't sturdy enough to withstand the huffing and puffing.

I agree with Clay on this one- the single-payer system would be the best plan to employ. Unfortunately we have too many pigs who just don't want to pay for the bricks.

Andrew " We trust a Treasury Secretary who couldn't even do his own taxes right?"

If you can honestly tell me that you have not once in yoru life bounced a check, or messed up on your taxes, or overdrawn your bank account, or Spent more money than you had, or lost money.

Then your comment about the Secretary may be valid. I highly doubt that you can honestly say you have -not- made one of those mistakes.

Exusiai said "...mistakes" Mistake my a. He is a tax cheat and no more. Almost all taxpayers fudge (cheat) on their taxes(including me), we just haven't got caught. When we do, it was all just a mistake. Yea right. The mistake was getting caught. That is the biggest excuse used today. It was a mistake, bullst.

OllieH says "Unfortunately we have too many pigs who just don't want to pay for the bricks."

This says all we need to know about you, pal.

You are a statist, in need of some serious education.

I found the following excerpt on a blog this morning (not my words, but duly credited to someone else, who in my opintion nails it):

"This guy promised a transparent administration, well, anyone with any sense can see right thru him, he is a nothing who depends on the gullibility of his followers to get his point across. The sad truth of the matter is, in today's America, in like no other time period in history, many people are willing to be led around by their short hairs and are not troubled about giving up their independence. Thank the Lord that some of them are beginning to see the error of their ways and that the rest of us are ready to stand up to this clod and take back America."

Well said, man.

Walden: really? That's well-said? It doesn't actually say anything.

"Obviously the President is lying; people are sure gullible; everything we're dealing with now sure is unique ..." Those sentiments aren't information, they're generic cliches that get applied to every situation.

I know, I know, I shouldn't actually get drawn into a comment thread ...

Several concerns with this new house:

1. I'm not sure that we can afford a brick house that is so big.
2. The architects' plans are so convoluted that it's difficult to tell what this house will look like. Some of the architects from the same firm can't even seem to agree on the design. The blue prints, I hear, are over 2,000 pages--and smudged in spots.
3. Other brick houses that the contractor has built have suffered structural damages and are near collapse. I fear the same may happen with this one.
4. In the past, the contractor's bid has not matched the eventual price tag. (Point #1)
5. Selfishly, I may pay a higher rent than some of the house's tenants--some won't pay at all. And I foresee getting a smaller room than I have now and having to wait in lines to get into the bathroom.

ROFL!!! Well said dss. Hard to argue that.

I, like dss and walden, do not want to pay for someone elses bricks.

The government is like a person who can't pay all his credit card bills. He will take and move money around from one card to the next to try to make ends meet. However he just keeps getting deeper in debt. He will still go bankrupt, it will just take him longer while he plays his silly games.

Think about this: If you were a banker, would lend money to our government in the shape it is in to fund this healthcare? I doubt it. And if you would, then I don't know who is the bigger fool.

Speaking of pigs (great segway here) and getting things built efficiently:

11/19/09 AP IMPACT: Gripes about swine flu vaccine abound

_Health officials have been terrible at predicting when and how much vaccine would be available. Only about 44 million doses have been shipped so far. Initially, officials said more than three times that would be out by now.

_At times vaccine shipments have been inexplicably lopsided. For example, smaller counties in Illinois and California have received the same amount delivered to counties with seven times as many people.

_Health officials have stressed that people most at risk for swine flu complications should go to the head of the line, but they haven't tried to make sure that actually happened.

_And despite pledges that they would be transparent about the vaccine program, some health officials have refused to disclose where all the doses are going, and they have held back on public service announcements telling people who should be coming in for shots. Also, many states were slow to establish Web sites that give vaccination locations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_he_me/us_med_swine_flu_vaccine_mess

This is more screwed up than the administrative boondoggle called Cash-for-Clunkers.

Oh yeah, that's the same government that's going to eliminate billions and billions in waste, fraud and abuse from the system, but NOT until they get government run health care. Riiiiight. Wouldn't be prudent to eliminate the waste, faud and abuse first, then add a new entitlement program, would it?

Exactly how much will one brick cost each of us? I'm willing to substitute what they take out of my Soc. Sec. and instead, pay for some bricks.

Clara wrote: "I'm willing to substitute what they take out of my Soc. Sec. and instead, pay for some bricks."

Substitute? There's no substitution in government. Only multiplication.

Oh...and addition. Lots of addition.

I'm afraid Lightnup's right Miss Clara.

I know he is, Walden. Been there, experienced that, Hobson's Choice.

Hobson's Choice? That reference is lost on me. Please enlighten?

DSS-

That might just be the most comprehensive, easy to understand, and well said statements about the cartoon. Bravo to you! I was going to comment but I can't say it any better than that.

Hobson's Choice -- You are presented with a choice, jump off a cliff to your death or spend a wild night with [celebrity or other person of your choice]. No choice, really.

Here is the proposed Senate bill in its golden entirety, all 2.5 Megs worth.

Download it at democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf -- it is linked from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/19/health-bill-could-get-34-hour-reading-senate/

It will be read to the Senate in its entirety before discussion begins [Senate Rules]. It is estimated it will take 34.5 hours to read it aloud.

dss wrote: "Several concerns with this new house:

"1. I'm not sure that we can afford a brick house that is so big........"

Not only that, there's a rumor that a wall in one of the rooms in the basement might have a secret "panel."

:-) :-) :-) (Sorry, just couldn't resist.)

dss, Lightnup,

Just to play along..could there be the same sort of mandatory residence in this structure as we've seen in the house version?

"...relax, said the night man, We are programmed to receive. You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave!"

(With apologies to the Eagles)

The question is not whether one wishes to build a house out of bricks, straw, or twigs.

The question is whether or not some politician has the authority to force you to live in a house made of brick, or straw, or twigs.

The Constitution gives Congress no authority to force anyone to live in a brick, straw, or twig house. Sorry, alprova and OllieH. The Constitution does not authorize socialism.

Next!

Rescueing the banks was good socialism,rescueing the uninsured is bad socialism.

The poor should hire Lobbyists.

dss,

Perfect way to address the whole thing!! Who can argue with that?

nucanuck wrote: "The poor should hire Lobbyists."

Well, poor black people already have Jesse Jackson, who recently said, “You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man.” Pretty much says it all about where he's coming from.

The howls from the left would be unending if some Fox News pundit would have said, "You can't vote for health care and call yourself a white man."

well everyone knows that Jesse Jackson is the most prejudiced man in the country. But I digress.

Nucanuck, rescuing the banks was NOT good socialism.

Nurse,would the mortgage interest deduction on our Federal taxes be an example of good socialism? How do we decide the balance,the fine line,between the government we want and the government we need?

"good socialism"=oxymoron

supporter of socialism=regular moron

SCOTTYM,I'm going to start a new club,Morons for America. This could really be big considering the large number of fellow morons out there.

scottym you crack me up!!!

nucanuck, a mortgage interest deduction is not socialism. That is a very bad example.

And if you want to know what I really think about taxes, I will tell you. I think it should be a set percentage for everyone across the board. There should be no filing for tax returns. Too many loopholes. If the government kept the money we paid in taxes, then they might not be in the mess they are in now. I do not have a problem supporting the government with my taxes. I feel it is the duty of every citizen who has the privilege of living in the great US of A. Now I know that not very many people will agree with me but that is one of the great things about this post. It is an OPINION post.

Good one SCOTTYM.

Fair Tax works for me. But, since it removes from congress the power and ability to create the America they want by manipulating tax policies, it will never fly.

Nurse,the mortgage interest deduction is a government handout to mortgage holders that is not available to renters. Smells like blatant socialism to me.

The point,of course,is that we all benefit from government programs that we don't recognize as tax payer dollars while we complain about other government expendatures. We have benefited from an energy subsidy through TVA that other parts of the country might resent.

We know Somalia has too little government,but what countries are succeeding best among us on this planet? You tell me.

Nucanuck, all the government we need is provided for in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The federal government's jobs are national defense, diplomatic relations with other countries, delivering the mail, tracking patents and copyrights, coining (not printing) money ... and not a whole heck of a lot else.

Everything else is left to the states or the people, as reinforced in the Tenth Amendment.

In no way is the federal government empowered to have anything to do with health care, education, retirement plans, or most of the other myriad of socialist programs it spends our hard earned (and Federal Reserve printed) money on.

And that is why we are $12 trillion in debt (more like $60 trillion if you count future unfunded liabilities) and sinking deeper every day, with economic disaster staring us in the face. And I don't mean a puny little recession like what we are in now. I mean a disaster that will make the Great Depression look like a bad day at the racetrack.

All we had to do was follow the Constitution our founders gave us, and we screwed it up. And our children and grandchildren are going to pay the price.

Now there's a new spin. Paying taxes [and taking lawful deductions] supports socialism. Time to stop paying taxes [or taking deductions]??

nucnuck, I don't know what your definition of socialism is but here is what I understand it to be.

socialism - a political theory advocating state ownership of industry or an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Now you tell me how your example fits in. It doesn't. If I don't want to take the deduction for myself I don't have to. I seriously don't think the government is going to punish me for not taking more money from them if I were to chose to skip that deduction. They only care about them getting their money.

I repeat, That is not a good example.

nucanuck,

I think you may be making a fundamental error concerning tax deductions in general and mortgage interest deductions in particular.

Unless the deductions are refundable, (some are) they do not involve the government taking from one citizen and giving to another, they are merely a way of lowering one's tax exposure.

Letting individuals who are fiscally responsible enough to own a home(and pay property taxes, which renter do not do) keep a little more of the fruits of their own labor does not involve the government GIVING anything away. They are merely confiscating less.

Letting the citizen keep more of THEIR money is about as far from socialism as possible.

You seem to be under the impression that all the wealth belongs to the government and they are giving us some by collecting less. This is fundamentally wrong. Private wealth existed before any governments were ever conceived.

Most citizens do not mind handing over a portion of THEIR money to support institutions and infrastructure which benefits society as a whole. There is nothing socialist about this idea, it has existed since the first time a group of humans got together and all pitched their labor and materials in to build a bridge over some creek someplace.

When the government takes an ever larger percentage of the productive CITIZENS' money, by force, in order to hand it out to non-productive(but able) others in the form of foodstamps, housing, welfare checks(cash), transportation, cell phones and healthcare, then we're talking about socialism.

Don't try to conflate the two as they are very different.

A major international investment/risk managing bank [Swiss sounding name, as I recall; AP byline, though] was advising its customers to sell their flat money -- selling short if necessary -- and buy gold or other stable commodities. Most heavy commercial and private players have evidently been doing this for some time now. The bank forecast with some certainly that the world's flat money system would collapse throughout the world within TWO years. Most everyone is dumping US dollars -- except China, because IMO if they dumped their $2 Trillion it would cause a monumental crisis.

Sounds Chicken Little-ish, I know, but there it is.

I can recall my young'n days when a dollar could be redeemed for silver. That ended sometime in the 70s...all US dollars are now flat money, worth whatever the government decides they are worth -- right now, today, gold is at $1,148.00 per ounce of gold...up from the pre-1971 fixed gold-standard rate of $35.00 per ounce.

Another great post SCOTTYM.

OBAMA:

This Little Piggie Scares the market

ACORN:

This Little Piggie steals homes

CONGRESS:

This Little Piggie has roast pork

US TAXPAYER:

This Little Piggie gets none (and has to pay for everything)

BIG GOVERNMENT:

And this Little Piggie cries "Me, Me, Me!" then eats us out of house and home!

SCOTTYM,a tax deduction offered to some,not to all,is no different from foodstamps for some. It's the government allowing mortgage holders to pay less tax than renters.That's a handout,welfare for mortgage holders,call it what you want,but it is what it is. Nurse and others don't like to think of themselves as getting public assistance,but they are.

Renters actually pay more in property tax in Hamilton County because commercial properties (apartments) are taxed at a higher rate than single family homes and rents reflect and include the taxes.

Once conservatives think through this,I feel sure they will never claim a mortgage deduction again. N o public assistance for them.

nucanuck,

From whom is this "handout" being taken? The monies used by the government to reimburse the food retailers for the foodstamps are taken from other citizens in the form of taxes.

So again, if I claim a deduction on my taxes and lower my total tax bill, whose pocket is that extra money(of mine) coming from?

I'll agree that some of the monies paid by renters to the owners is confiscated by government.

SCOTTYM,If you and your neighbor both make the same income,both have houses of equal value,but his house is paid for and yours is mortgaged,you pay less in federal taxes because you get the mortgage interest deduction and your neighbor doesn't. Whether you pay in less than others or receive a government check the net result is the same. A government policy has favored you over others leaving/putting more money in your pocket. That's a subsidy or a handout even though you didn't actually get a check.

The mortgage interest deduction deprives the government of billions of dollars that it would otherwise have if everyone was treated the same as your neighbor. The policy also encourages debt by offering a better tax deal to the encumbered.

Again,my point is getting government fair and balanced...right sized...is between difficult and inpossible.

nucanuck, the debate you started over the mortgage interest deduction was not whether or not it was fair. It was wether or not it is socialist. I'll agree with you that it might not be fair. Our tax system is anything but fair. We all get double and triple taxed on most goods and we have to pay income tax. I, like Lightnup, am for Fair Tax. But you stated that the deduction was socialism, which it is not. As Nurse pointed out the correct definition of socialism; state ownership of capital. The state or government are taking no ownership in the housing or mortgage industries by offering tax deductions to those who have a mortgage. Clay's figurative house of bricks is representing a complete takeover of the healthcare industry. THAT is socialism. And to further make comment on the cartoon, a socialist healthcare reform would not be the "house of bricks" as Clay depicted. dss nailed it on his post earlier.

That is the most absurd line of reasoning I've read in while.

My neighbor would be more than welcome to take out a mortgage on his house and buy a Ferrari with the cash and then he could deduct the interest from his taxes as well. Should I then be upset at the unfairness of my neighbor doing so.

Good grief.

If it is really the "unfair" burden that gets to you, I would think that programs that involve actively removing money from one person's pocket and placing it in another person's pocket should send you into a rage. Why the intellectual inconsistency?

Speaking of the Ferrari, boats and RVs or anything else with a place to sleep, a galley/kitchen, and a PortaPotty/toilet in a separate roomette qualify as a second home for tax purposes. It's law. Used it for years.

[Just to muddy the water.]

SCOTTYM,if the government is involved in health care,that's socialism.If the government helps you buy a house,that's not socialism? Think about it. We are are talking about government involvement in the private sector. It's welfare for the middle class,no other way to describe it.

Yep SCOTTYM,you and I are a couple of socialists.

nucanuck said: Clay has painted us as overfed pigs......Maybe, overFED pigs?

Oink