Pro-Life Republicans Vote to Kill Poison Control Centers

If you want a Republican to care about you, remain a fetus

PoliticsMarch 2011 • Views: 35,937

In the past couple of months, the Republican Party has launched an all-out assault on women’s reproductive rights:

Trying to defund Planned Parenthood
Trying to redefine rape to deny abortion funding
Trying to pass laws that would require investigations of all miscarriages
Trying to pass laws that would legalize killing abortion providers
Trying to define ‘human life’ to begin with a fetal heartbeat
Calling two fetuses as ‘witnesses’ to anti-abortion hearings
Trying to pass laws to outlaw federal funds for contraceptives
Trying to pass laws that would allow hospital ERs to let women die rather than provide abortions

And that sad list is just off the top of my head; there’s much more.

Clearly, the Republican Party is extremely concerned about protecting the life of every single fetus, and willing to spend large amounts of time and money for the cause.

Once those little brats are out of the womb, though, they’re on their own.

Eliminating nearly all the money for poison control centers would save $27 million — not even a rounding error when it comes to the deficit. Yet it is so foolish that it perfectly illustrates the thoughtlessness of the House Republican bill to cut $61 billion from the budget over the next seven months.

The nation’s network of 57 poison control centers takes four million calls a year about people who may have been exposed to a toxic substance. In three-quarters of all cases, the centers are able to provide treatment advice that does not require a visit to a hospital or a doctor, saving tens of millions of dollars in medical costs.

While a single visit to an emergency room can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars (often paid for by the government), a call to a poison center costs the government only $30 or $40. A study in the Journal of Medical Toxicology estimated that the poison centers saved the State of Arizona alone $33 million a year. Louisiana eliminated its centers in the 1980s but restored them when it realized how much money they saved.

The centers, which collect poison reports, can also act as an early warning system for pandemics or large toxic exposures, allowing a quick response.

The federal government pays about 20 percent of the cost of the centers, with states, cities and philanthropy picking up the rest. Many strapped state and local governments have cut back their financing, and experts say that the virtual elimination of federal money would force many centers to close and sharply damage the effectiveness of the national network.

Jump to bottom

372 comments

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:20:53pm

They had to. The whole GOP is toxic, and the calls flooding in would have exposed them.

Eclectic Cyborg Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:22:12pm

This is the same logic that is sometimes used in a corporate environment: It doesn’t matter how damaging the cuts might be in the LONG term, anything that cuts costs in the short term is a good thing.

I also get the feeling they are trying to force the States to start covering the lions share of the costs for these control centers.

Wouldn’t it be great if it were illegal to cut certain things from the budget?

austin_blue Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:25:53pm

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Surprising?

Hell no.

researchok Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:27:24pm

How about we move to eliminate waste and fraud before we eliminate programs?

We can go from there.

Targetpractice Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:28:23pm

re: #2 dragonfire1981

This is the same logic that is sometimes used in a corporate environment: It doesn’t matter how damaging the cuts might be in the LONG term, anything that cuts costs in the short term is a good thing.

I also get the feeling they are trying to force the States to start covering the lions share of the costs for these control centers.

Wouldn’t it be great if it were illegal to cut certain things from the budget?

According to the Tea Party (read: Libertarian) logic that has grabbed the GOP by the huevos, it’s not the Fed’s responsibility to pay for what the state’s should pay for. But they also think the states shouldn’t be paying for this stuff anyway, because if it’s “important” enough, then the private sector will address it. Sounds great…right up until you realize that such things sprang up in the first place because the private sector didn’t consider them worthy of their “generosity.”

jc717 Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:29:24pm

We should put “pro life” in quotes when describing these folks. They’re anything but.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:30:37pm

Poisoned children is simply collateral damage in a free market.

//Wingnut

Targetpractice Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:31:10pm

re: #4 researchok

How about we move to eliminate waste and fraud before we eliminate programs?

We can go from there.

The problem is, waste and fraud are protected in D.C. What you and I consider waste and fraud, some guy on Capital Hill considers “sound investment” or “much-needed funding.”

Film At 11 Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:31:21pm

re: #3 austin_blue

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Surprising?

Hell no.

Step on a dollar to pick up a dime.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:31:38pm

“And that sad list is just off the top of my head; there’s much more.”

Charles, here’s another:

Gov. Goodhair in Texas declaring an abortion bill an “emergency.” This bill would (or soon will) force women to listen to the heartbeat and watch a sonogram.

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:33:13pm

re: #10 Kid A

“And that sad list is just off the top of my head; there’s much more.”

Charles, here’s another:

Gov. Goodhair in Texas declaring an abortion bill an “emergency.” This bill would (or soon will) force women to listen to the heartbeat and watch a sonogram.

Because women who choose an abortion might have misunderstood how it worked, and thought they were getting an appendectomy instead.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:34:21pm

I’m going to take the fun position of agreeing with the Repubs here. As Charles quoted from the article, the federal funding supports 20% of the costs of these centers.

I agree with the assertion that the poison centers save money and lives. But why can’t the states determine how to fund them? If 80% of their funding is not from the federal government, then is it the states that fund the other 80%? If they save on medical costs, couldn’t the states get some funding from the insurance companies in their states, including perhaps a tax on them to replace that 20%?

zora Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:34:34pm

only liberals would want to control poison. why can’t the market decide.

Romantic Heretic Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:35:40pm

re: #3 austin_blue

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Surprising?

Hell no.

I suspect they think the same way James Watt did. “Why look after our planet or ourselves since we don’t know when God will end the world?”

As if God will forgive them for being evil, short sighted wingnuts.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:36:36pm

re: #12 BryanS

I’m going to take the fun position of agreeing with the Repubs here. As Charles quoted from the article, the federal funding supports 20% of the costs of these centers.

I agree with the assertion that the poison centers save money and lives. But why can’t the states determine how to fund them? If 80% of their funding is not from the federal government, then is it the states that fund the other 80%? If they save on medical costs, couldn’t the states get some funding from the insurance companies in their states, including perhaps a tax on them to replace that 20%?

Note:

While a single visit to an emergency room can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars (often paid for by the government), a call to a poison center costs the government only $30 or $40. A study in the Journal of Medical Toxicology estimated that the poison centers saved the State of Arizona alone $33 million a year. Louisiana eliminated its centers in the 1980s but restored them when it realized how much money they saved.

BishopX Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:38:02pm

re: #15 Gus 802

I think he’s questioning why the feds are paying for them? Do the feds pay hospital bills (aside from medicare/medicaid)?

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:38:54pm

re: #15 Gus 802

Note:

While a single visit to an emergency room can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars (often paid for by the government), a call to a poison center costs the government only $30 or $40. A study in the Journal of Medical Toxicology estimated that the poison centers saved the State of Arizona alone $33 million a year. Louisiana eliminated its centers in the 1980s but restored them when it realized how much money they saved.

Right…I agree. So isn’t it in the insurance company’s interest to fund them? I stated in my post I agreed they save money and lives. Since the federal level is only funding 20% of them, why can’t states figure out how to pick the rest up, even, as I suggested, by taxing insurance companies.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:39:00pm

re: #11 SanFranciscoZionist

Because women who choose an abortion might have misunderstood how it worked, and thought they were getting an appendectomy instead.

You’re not that far off.

Your text to link…

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:39:49pm

re: #16 BishopX

I think he’s questioning why the feds are paying for them? Do the feds pay hospital bills (aside from medicare/medicaid)?

If you’re looking poor people, yes, the Fed usually picks up the tab. Or emergency non-insured care which poisoning sometimes requires for treatment.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:40:21pm

23,000,000 / 57 = 403508.77 or approximately 404,000 a year per center. When you look at a 10 year budget the final tally is upwards of 4 million dollars.

zora Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:40:36pm

re: #18 Kid A

You’re not that far off.

Your text to link…

from the link:

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, challenged him about pushing so hard for this bill, but sometimes opposing funding for early childhood care, school programs and health insurance for children because of budget concerns.
“We seem to worship what we cannot see, but once it’s here” there is little support to keep the child healthy, educated and protected, Van de Putte said.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:41:01pm

Looks like the party of common sense has lost rational thought.

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:41:07pm

re: #17 BryanS

Right…I agree. So isn’t it in the insurance company’s interest to fund them? I stated in my post I agreed they save money and lives. Since the federal level is only funding 20% of them, why can’t states figure out how to pick the rest up, even, as I suggested, by taxing insurance companies.

The federal government pays about 20 percent of the cost of the centers, with states, cities and philanthropy picking up the rest. Many strapped state and local governments have cut back their financing, and experts say that the virtual elimination of federal money would force many centers to close and sharply damage the effectiveness of the national network.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:41:11pm

I think we can make up the shortfall by adding a 5 dollar tax on each box of ammo.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:41:12pm

re: #20 Gus 802

23,000,000 / 57 = 403508.77 or approximately 404,000 a year per center. When you look at a 10 year budget the final tally is upwards of 4 million dollars.

There you go again, using that librul mathematic thing.
//

Charles Johnson Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:41:47pm

re: #17 BryanS

Right…I agree. So isn’t it in the insurance company’s interest to fund them? I stated in my post I agreed they save money and lives. Since the federal level is only funding 20% of them, why can’t states figure out how to pick the rest up, even, as I suggested, by taxing insurance companies.

It would be hard to find a better example of a federal program that should NOT be cut. It indisputably saves lives, and also saves enormous amounts of money.

It’s bullshit. An easy target for Republicans that they can add to their bogus list of cuts, while doing immeasurable harm and wasting big money in the long term.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:43:29pm

re: #26 Charles

It would be hard to find a better example of a federal program that should NOT be cut. It indisputably saves lives, and also saves enormous amounts of money.

It’s bullshit. An easy target for Republicans that they can add to their bogus list of cuts, while doing immeasurable harm and wasting big money in the long term.

Looks like they’re throwing shit into the fan and hoping some of it sticks to a wall somewhere.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:44:06pm

re: #26 Charles

It would be hard to find a better example of a federal program that should NOT be cut. It indisputably saves lives, and also saves enormous amounts of money.

It’s bullshit. An easy target for Republicans that they can add to their bogus list of cuts, while doing immeasurable harm and wasting big money in the long term.

Cutting poison control center funding targets the poor. It’s part of the class war that the Republicans are waging against the poor and lower middle class.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:44:06pm

re: #23 recusancy

The federal government pays about 20 percent of the cost of the centers, with states, cities and philanthropy picking up the rest. Many strapped state and local governments have cut back their financing, and experts say that the virtual elimination of federal money would force many centers to close and sharply damage the effectiveness of the national network.

Right…their closing assumes nobody can figure out any other way to replace that 20%. I would assume, as was the case in Louisiana where they learned the hard way it was foolish to close them, that states will find a way to fund them. What about the idea I suggested for states to impose a tax on insurance companies operating in their boundaries to make up that gap? It’s not as if funneling money through the federal level is the only way to pay for things.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:44:48pm

And from the other side of the aisle on The Texas abortion issue, I offer you this. The author’s photo alone will let you know which way this will go.

Your text to link…

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:45:20pm

re: #29 BryanS

Right…their closing assumes nobody can figure out any other way to replace that 20%. I would assume, as was the case in Louisiana where they learned the hard way it was foolish to close them, that states will find a way to fund them. What about the idea I suggested for states to impose a tax on insurance companies operating in their boundaries to make up that gap? It’s not as if funneling money through the federal level is the only way to pay for things.

I think a 100 dollar tax on each handgun purchase would me more appropriate.

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:45:26pm

re: #4 researchok

How about we move to eliminate waste and fraud before we eliminate programs?

We can go from there.

The problem with that is, contrary to most people’s perception, there is not much sizable “fraud” and “waste” in the government. Almost everything is funded on a shoestring budget (minus defense) and helps citizens in some way. There are just not many cuts that can be made without losing a needed service. The focus should be on revenue.

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:46:10pm

re: #29 BryanS

Right…their closing assumes nobody can figure out any other way to replace that 20%. I would assume, as was the case in Louisiana where they learned the hard way it was foolish to close them, that states will find a way to fund them. What about the idea I suggested for states to impose a tax on insurance companies operating in their boundaries to make up that gap? It’s not as if funneling money through the federal level is the only way to pay for things.

Good luck with that.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:46:52pm

re: #26 Charles

It would be hard to find a better example of a federal program that should NOT be cut. It indisputably saves lives, and also saves enormous amounts of money.

It’s bullshit. An easy target for Republicans that they can add to their bogus list of cuts, while doing immeasurable harm and wasting big money in the long term.

Not disagreeing with the bolded part. It isn’t bullshit if there are other ways to fund them, and 80% of their costs are already funded by other means. What value add does the federal level offer by funneling some money through their distribution channel? If there was something the feds did other than just pass the money around, I could see the point of it being a federal program. Otherwise, it seems unnecessary for the feds to do.

FreedomMoon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:46:56pm

So the next time your toddler takes a shot of Scrubbing Bubbles bathroom cleaner to the eyes, you’re on your own—because I’m sure the 911 operator isn’t going to be thrilled taking the call when people are calling to report rapists, burglars and murderers. Poison Control fills a VERY MUCH needed niche, I hope and pray this goes nothing beyond a headline.

AlexRogan Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:48:02pm

re: #12 BryanS

I’m going to take the fun position of agreeing with the Repubs here. As Charles quoted from the article, the federal funding supports 20% of the costs of these centers.

I agree with the assertion that the poison centers save money and lives. But why can’t the states determine how to fund them? If 80% of their funding is not from the federal government, then is it the states that fund the other 80%? If they save on medical costs, couldn’t the states get some funding from the insurance companies in their states, including perhaps a tax on them to replace that 20%?

It’s a public health issue, period. Poison control centers save more money than takes to run them; the TPGOP says they want to cut waste, but the approaches they’re taking make no sense and are akin to swatting flies with a sledgehammer.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:48:07pm

This is pathetic. They’d rather cut things like funding for poison control centers rather than end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent earners in this country. I hope those top 2 percent earners are happy with this and the direction the Republican Party is going. They should be ashamed of themselves.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:48:15pm

re: #31 Gus 802

I think a 100 dollar tax on each handgun purchase would me more appropriate.

Whatever floats your boat…I wouldn’t have a problem with that as a concept. I might pick taxing insurance companies since they obviously benefit financially from the existence of the poison centers.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:48:29pm

re: #30 Kid A

And from the other side of the aisle on The Texas abortion issue, I offer you this. The author’s photo alone will let you know which way this will go.

Your text to link…

This bill is more about informed consent which seems perfectly normal when any other procedure is being contemplated

I guess the author can’t tell the difference between informed consent and emotional manipulation.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:48:54pm

re: #35 tacuba14

So the next time your toddler takes a shot of Scrubbing Bubbles bathroom cleaner to the eyes, you’re on your own—because I’m sure the 911 operator isn’t going to be thrilled taking the call when people are calling to report rapists, burglars and murderers. Poison Control fills a VERY MUCH needed niche, I hope and pray this goes nothing beyond a headline.

911 Operator: “This is 911, what’s the nature of your emergency?”

Caller: “Oh my God! My toddler got glass cleaner in his eyes! Send help!”

911 Opeartor: *click*

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:50:18pm

re: #39 b_sharp

I guess the author can’t tell the difference between informed consent and emotional manipulation.

They think if you consent, you must not be informed, so they’ll do it again. Please come back in 72 hours.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:50:52pm

re: #40 Kid A

911 Operator: “This is 911, what’s the nature of your emergency?”

Caller: “Oh my God! My toddler got glass cleaner in his eyes! Send help!”

911 Opeartor: *click*

Then if you call for an ambulance they’ll have you call a PRIVATE ambulance company or one that you subscribe to. No subscription, no ambulance. Just like the fire department.

Ron Paul’s privatized dream.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:51:55pm

While a single visit to an emergency room can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars (often paid for by the government), a call to a poison center costs the government only $30 or $40. A study in the Journal of Medical Toxicology estimated that the poison centers saved the State of Arizona alone $33 million a year. Louisiana eliminated its centers in the 1980s but restored them when it realized how much money they saved.

Again republicans are pushing blind ideology over verifiable reality.

Poison control centers actually save the government money in hospital visits. How does this reconcile with their claim to be about fiscal responsibility? Who the hell knows, but if I had to guess they would probably say something like the government shouldn’t pay for emergency room visits either. Even though emergency room visits are the crux of their healthcare platform.

Pro-life? Bullshit.

AlexRogan Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:52:00pm

re: #26 Charles

It would be hard to find a better example of a federal program that should NOT be cut. It indisputably saves lives, and also saves enormous amounts of money.

It’s bullshit. An easy target for Republicans that they can add to their bogus list of cuts, while doing immeasurable harm and wasting big money in the long term.

Exactly…I seriously doubt there’s a huge lobbying contingent for the poison control centers, so the TPGOP feels confident they can cut them without drawing undue attention on themselves. It’s just another notch in their gun, consequences be damned.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:52:10pm

re: #41 wrenchwench

They think if you consent, you must not be informed, so they’ll do it again. Please come back in 72 hours.

Everybody must think just like they do. It’s an unwritten law or something.

FreedomMoon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:52:18pm

re: #34 BryanS

Not disagreeing with the bolded part. It isn’t bullshit if there are other ways to fund them, and 80% of their costs are already funded by other means. What value add does the federal level offer by funneling some money through their distribution channel? If there was something the feds did other than just pass the money around, I could see the point of it being a federal program. Otherwise, it seems unnecessary for the feds to do.

Many times that Federal Government steps in to provide essential programs that are deemed fundamentally vital (public health being a top priority), that it personally wants to see carried out. If left to the states I could see many right-wing states in the name of budget cutting axing a state funded poison control. That is why the government decides to intervene.

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:52:39pm

re: #38 BryanS

Whatever floats your boat…I wouldn’t have a problem with that as a concept. I might pick taxing insurance companies since they obviously benefit financially from the existence of the poison centers.

There isn’t a center in each state. It’s a federal agency. aapcc.org

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:54:32pm

No matter where you are in the U.S., you have a poison center. Some centers serve several states, and some states have several centers, but all areas across the country are covered. No matter where you are, call [no phone numbers allowed] to talk to medical experts for free, private poison help 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:56:11pm

re: #47 recusancy

There isn’t a center in each state. It’s a federal agency. [Link: www.aapcc.org…]

That’s the first argument anyone posed on this discussion that would support a role for the federal government. If there isn’t a provision in the proposal to cut funding to provide support to the states without one, I would oppose the idea of cutting the funding entirely.

I figured with 57 centers, there was one in every state…/ducks :)

AlexRogan Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:57:09pm

re: #37 Gus 802

This is pathetic. They’d rather cut things like funding for poison control centers rather than end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent earners in this country. I hope those top 2 percent earners are happy with this and the direction the Republican Party is going. They should be ashamed of themselves.

This…a million times, this.

moderatelyradicalliberal Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:57:57pm

re: #29 BryanS

Right…their closing assumes nobody can figure out any other way to replace that 20%. I would assume, as was the case in Louisiana where they learned the hard way it was foolish to close them, that states will find a way to fund them. What about the idea I suggested for states to impose a tax on insurance companies operating in their boundaries to make up that gap? It’s not as if funneling money through the federal level is the only way to pay for things.

This may be true, but will they? A lot of what the Federal government does it does because the states can’t or won’t do it even if there is a real need. My concern about many of these cuts is that states, especially the poor and usually red states, won’t find ways to make up the difference. They either won’t have the money or be not ideologically inclined to raise it.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:58:17pm

Ideal insurance scenario.

- Everyone over the age of -9 months pays insurance premiums.
- Every cause of death is considered an act of god and is uninsured.
- Every disease is considered a result of a negative life style and every negative life style is uninsured.

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:58:18pm

re: #47 recusancy

There isn’t a center in each state. It’s a federal agency. [Link: www.aapcc.org…]

I shouldn’t say it’s a federal agency. It’s a national non profit.

Renaissance_Man Sat, Mar 5, 2011 1:58:49pm

re: #29 BryanS

Right…their closing assumes nobody can figure out any other way to replace that 20%. I would assume, as was the case in Louisiana where they learned the hard way it was foolish to close them, that states will find a way to fund them. What about the idea I suggested for states to impose a tax on insurance companies operating in their boundaries to make up that gap? It’s not as if funneling money through the federal level is the only way to pay for things.

Do you think that raising a tax on one of the most well-funded and protected lobbying interests in the nation is even remotely likely?

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:00:53pm

re: #53 recusancy

I shouldn’t say it’s a federal agency. It’s a national non profit.

I clicked on the ‘look up your state’ area of the site and looked up Wyoming. Their poison center is a regional one in Nebraska. I’d guess those states without sites located in their boundaries could still fund the existing regional ones.

AlexRogan Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:01:25pm

re: #42 Gus 802

Then if you call for an ambulance they’ll have you call a PRIVATE ambulance company or one that you subscribe to. No subscription, no ambulance. Just like the fire department.

Ron Paul’s privatized dream.

Works so well for Obion County and South Fulton, TN…

/dripping

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:01:47pm

re: #51 moderatelyradicalliberal

This may be true, but will they? A lot of what the Federal government does it does because the states can’t or won’t do it even if there is a real need. My concern about many of these cuts is that states, especially the poor and usually red states, won’t find ways to make up the difference. They either won’t have the money or be not ideologically inclined to raise it.

It would be in their own self interest to. Presumably they already do to the tun of 80% of their funding.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:02:11pm

re: #50 talon_262

This…a million times, this.

It’s ridiculous. They kept claiming that those tax cuts would hamper job growth. Well, they’ve had those tax cuts for years. And since it was extended those tax cuts have resulted in little job growth. The corporations do not really want to hire American workers and instead prefer to create jobs in China with near slave labor wages. It’s a fact that all US job growth during the past year has gone primarily overseas. In the mean time wage growth has been flat for working people while earnings for the top 2 percent has skyrocketed.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:03:34pm

re: #54 Renaissance_Man

Do you think that raising a tax on one of the most well-funded and protected lobbying interests in the nation is even remotely likely?

Sure…it happens all the time. If it became a political argument, it would be easy to demonize the insurance companies. If the alternative is to close down the centers and raise the cost of the health services the insurance companies pay for, I’d guess they wouldn’t fight that proposal tooth and nail.

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:04:06pm

re: #57 BryanS

It would be in their own self interest to. Presumably they already do to the tun of 80% of their funding.

The federal government pays about 20 percent of the cost of the centers, with states, cities and philanthropy picking up the rest.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:05:12pm

re: #34 BryanS

Not disagreeing with the bolded part. It isn’t bullshit if there are other ways to fund them, and 80% of their costs are already funded by other means. What value add does the federal level offer by funneling some money through their distribution channel? If there was something the feds did other than just pass the money around, I could see the point of it being a federal program. Otherwise, it seems unnecessary for the feds to do.

Sure, it could be funded in any number of ways. What’s wrong with the way it is funded right now? It works, and is effective.

IMO, what’s bullshit is defunding without simultaneously presenting a plan to make up for the shortfall. Are we just supposed to hope that “someone will think of something”? What’s the point of that if the program works as it is now, isn’t particularly wasteful, and actually saves lives and money? What is to be gained by this?

Mentis Fugit Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:06:59pm

re: #43 prononymous

Poison control centers actually ~~save the government money in hospital visits~~deprive private health providers of profit.

FTFY.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:07:21pm

re: #2 dragonfire1981

This is the same logic that is sometimes used in a corporate environment: It doesn’t matter how damaging the cuts might be in the LONG term, anything that cuts costs in the short term is a good thing.

I also get the feeling they are trying to force the States to start covering the lions share of the costs for these control centers.

Wouldn’t it be great if it were illegal to cut certain things from the budget?

This cut is the government equivalent of Franks saying about the Very Big Stupid.

jaunte Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:08:31pm

Once those little brats are out of the womb, though, they’re on their own.

From NPR:

State Budget Cuts Threaten Child Welfare Programs
Well more than 1,000 children die in the U.S. each year from abuse and neglect. Hundreds of thousands more are affected. And a flagging economy hasn’t helped.
States facing big deficits are cutting programs to prevent abuse and protect children. This comes at a time when many on the front lines say they’re seeing a growing need.

Oklahoma, for example, is facing a $1.3 billion budget deficit. State programs to prevent child abuse have already been cut, and more cuts are expected. The state is also reducing its child welfare workforce by 100 positions.

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:08:58pm

Congratulations, teatards, you’ve just cut federal expenditures by 0.0004%, on paper at least. This just proves that the House Republicans have no plan for getting the budget under control.

Renaissance_Man Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:09:40pm

re: #58 Gus 802

It’s ridiculous. They kept claiming that those tax cuts would hamper job growth. Well, they’ve had those tax cuts for years. And since it was extended those tax cuts have resulted in little job growth. The corporations do not really want to hire American workers and instead prefer to create jobs in China with near slave labor wages. It’s a fact that all US job growth during the past year has gone primarily overseas. In the mean time wage growth has been flat for working people while earnings for the top 2 percent has skyrocketed.

Americans are expensive to hire. The cost of living is higher, they need things like health insurance and the like. It’s not in the financial interests of companies to hire locally when they can outsource.

Fortunately for the free market, they have discovered that Americans don’t actually need jobs. Or, more accurately, jobs and money are only one way to satisfy them. Pablum about trickle-down economics, patriotic words, and demonising other people is actually just as satisfying, and a lot cheaper.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:09:41pm

Remember the last WWI vet that died last week? Well, if you thought a ceremony to honor this hero would be a great idea, you’re wrong.

Your text to link…

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:10:32pm

re: #62 Mentis Fugit

FTFY.

Your correction has that wrong, I think. Poison centers lower medical costs—if anything, their existence saves insurance companies medical costs.

jaunte Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:11:41pm

re: #67 Kid A

Does anyone know why Boehner blocked it?

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:12:07pm

re: #69 jaunte

Does anyone know why Boehner blocked it?

Cause Dems proposed it.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:12:27pm

re: #67 Kid A

Remember the last WWI vet that died last week? Well, if you thought a ceremony to honor this hero would be a great idea, you’re wrong.

Your text to link…

WTF?

Capitol ceremony for WWI vet blocked in Congress
(AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — West Virginia’s two Democratic senators blamed House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday after their hopes of having the remains of World War I veteran Frank Buckles honored in the Capitol Rotunda were dashed, at least for now.

Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin III both released statements saying the Ohio Republican had blocked the Capitol honor. Asked if that were true, Boehner spokesman Mike Steel said the speaker and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would seek Defense Department permission for a ceremony for Buckles at Arlington National Cemetery.

Buckles died Sunday on his farm in Charles Town, W.Va., at the age of 110. He had been the last surviving American veteran of World War I…

jaunte Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:13:08pm

re: #70 recusancy

Petty.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:13:19pm

re: #71 Gus 802

WTF?

Yep. I sent you the link on Twitter as well.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:13:47pm

re: #73 Kid A

I saw that. Retweeted.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:13:59pm

re: #58 Gus 802

IMO, this point can’t be stressed enough. More people should be talking about it. Everyone should go to the 2012 ballot with the real historical effect of tax cuts upon the economy on their minds, and have heard the truth about it at least once.

The sign/button I’m going to carry/wear at the next political event I attend:

Tax cuts in America create jobs overseas.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:15:26pm

Goodnight folks.

Mrs. S and I are going out to play a little mini-golf, grab a bite to eat and then go watch The Arrogant Worms.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:15:42pm

re: #73 Kid A

Just Tweeted this…

@Gus_802

Republican John Boehner Says NO Capitol Ceremony For Last World War I Vet nationaljournal.com/daily/boehner-… #LGF #vfw #tcot #tlot #p2 #veterans #gop

PhillyPretzel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:16:29pm

I just posted a page on Gabrielle Giffords improvement. I pray that she continues to improve.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:17:40pm

re: #78 PhillyPretzel

I just posted a page on Gabrielle Giffords improvement. I pray that she continues to improve.

Read the other day that she was singing. After what happened to her, I would consider that enormous progress.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:18:13pm

re: #75 prononymous

IMO, this point can’t be stressed enough. More people should be talking about it. Everyone should go to the 2012 ballot with the real historical effect of tax cuts upon the economy on their minds, and have heard the truth about it at least once.

The sign/button I’m going to carry/wear at the next political event I attend:

Tax cuts in America create jobs overseas.

So you are saying jobs are created state-side with tax increases in America? That’s the logical equivalent of your claim.

PhillyPretzel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:18:28pm

re: #79 Kid A
That is mentioned in this article too.

Killgore Trout Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:18:30pm

Uh oh
Rightist Marine Le Pen now tops French opinion poll

Rightist politician Marine Le Pen, head of the extreme Front National (FN) party, would gain a first-round election victory iin France if voting were held now, the daily Le Parisien reports.

reine.de.tout Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:18:31pm

re: #28 Gus 802

Cutting poison control center funding targets the poor. It’s part of the class war that the Republicans are waging against the poor and lower middle class.

Actually, it targets anyone with a young child.
I’ve made a call or two to the poison control center, when daughter was a toddler. Sheesh.
An absolute lifesaver.

Jeff In Ohio Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:18:47pm

The Gre: #71 Gus 802

Got’s to pay for those DOMA lawyers somehow.

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:19:26pm

re: #84 Jeff In Ohio

The G

Got’s to pay for those DOMA lawyers somehow.

And more orange skin.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:21:02pm

re: #82 Killgore Trout

Uh oh
Rightist Marine Le Pen now tops French opinion poll

In an opinion survey which the paper is to report in its Sunday edition, the 42-year-old Le Pen would get 23 per cent of the vote.

That would eclipse the 21 per cent which incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist Party leader Martine Aubrey would each receive, the Le Parisien survey showed.

The best possible argument against multi-party politics.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:21:33pm

Boehner’s excuse is that it will be in an Arlington National Cemetery ceremony. But that’s SOP. It’s not a Capitol ceremony.

palomino Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:22:05pm

re: #37 Gus 802

This is pathetic. They’d rather cut things like funding for poison control centers rather than end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent earners in this country. I hope those top 2 percent earners are happy with this and the direction the Republican Party is going. They should be ashamed of themselves.

It’s the current triumph of rigid ideology (bordering on religious certainty) over pragmatic problem solving bipartisan politics.

Taxes are no longer just something to be avoided in most cases to the gop, they are evil and can never be raised. Rational debate is thus closed off. If you mention a tax—any tax—then the gop/tp puts its fingers in their ears and screams, “I can’t hear you.” And they used to be the responsible “daddy party.”

Mentis Fugit Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:22:13pm

re: #71 Gus 802

Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin III both released statements saying the Ohio Republican had blocked the Capitol honor. Asked if that were true, Boehner spokesman Mike Steel said the speaker and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would seek Defense Department permission for a ceremony for Buckles at Arlington National Cemetery.

Then Boehner can block that too.

What does Boehnerspokesmanmikesteel’s response have to do with the fucking question? And more importantly, why don’t these “journalists” call Boehnerspokesmanmikesteel out on it?

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:22:13pm

re: #80 BryanS

So you are saying jobs are created state-side with tax increases in America? That’s the logical equivalent of your claim.

How do you get there? The corollary of my statement would be that tax increases in America create unemployment overseas.

However if there is anything to be made of your question I will post it in a page later. I have a few page ideas cooking.

Gus Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:24:00pm

BRB

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:24:06pm

re: #90 prononymous

How do you get there? The corollary of my statement would be that tax increases in America create unemployment overseas.

However if there is anything to be made of your question I will post it in a page later. I have a few page ideas cooking.

If P then Q ==> If !Q then !P.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:25:45pm

re: #92 BryanS

Well sure. Not cutting taxes doesn’t create jobs overseas. ;)

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:26:05pm

re: #88 palomino

It’s the current triumph of rigid ideology (bordering on religious certainty) over pragmatic problem solving bipartisan politics.

Taxes are no longer just something to be avoided in most cases to the gop, they are evil and can never be raised. Rational debate is thus closed off. If you mention a tax—any tax—then the gop/tp puts its fingers in their ears and screams, “I can’t hear you.” And they used to be the responsible “daddy party.”

i used to think that the clear cut empirical demonstration that it is possible to raise taxes and have a robust economic boom - 1993 - 1999 - and that cutting taxes will not necessarily cause the economy to rebound - 2002 - 2008 - would make some impression on people

i guess i’m naive

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:28:28pm

re: #80 BryanS

So you are saying jobs are created state-side with tax increases in America? That’s the logical equivalent of your claim.

Logic fail. The contrapositive of prononymous’ claim is not what you’ve asserted.

Ojoe Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:28:50pm

The poison hotline is 1-800 222 - 1222

It is the 911 for poisoning.

celticdragon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:29:58pm

re: #37 Gus 802

This is pathetic. They’d rather cut things like funding for poison control centers rather than end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent earners in this country. I hope those top 2 percent earners are happy with this and the direction the Republican Party is going. They should be ashamed of themselves.

According to the lead story in this months The Atlantic, the top 2 percenters think the middle class needs to take it on the chin with a pay cut…because they don;t deserve middle class wages and benefits.

I am not fucking kidding.

If Americans make ten times more than somebody in India, they need to deliver ten times the value, according to sources for the story.

They feel no shame for paying themselves billions while sinking the banks and our 401k,s. The fell entitled.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:30:13pm

re: #94 engineer dog

i used to think that the clear cut empirical demonstration that it is possible to raise taxes and have a robust economic boom - 1993 - 1999 - and that cutting taxes will not necessarily cause the economy to rebound - 2002 - 2008 - would make some impression on people

i guess i’m naive

I’d say the 90’s expansion was a classic boom to bust scenario. If anything, taxes during the Clinton years should have been higher to give us bigger surpluses, an hopefully could have cut short the irrational exuberance. The tax cuts of the naughts did cause the economy to rebound, most definitely. But they only helped contribute to the next bubble in real estate. Oh, and Greenspan went along for the ride all along.

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:31:42pm

re: #93 prononymous

Well sure. Not cutting taxes doesn’t create jobs overseas. ;)

Were you just arguing that tax cuts increase jobs overseas or that tax cuts contributed to exporting jobs overseas?

100

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:32:00pm

re: #98 BryanS

The tax cuts of the naughts did cause the economy to rebound, most definitely.

if the economy was ‘rebounding’ in the naughts, i missed it

growth was anemic from 2000 - 2008. and then something else happened

101

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:32:08pm

re: #78 PhillyPretzel

I just posted a page on Gabrielle Giffords improvement. I pray that she continues to improve.

If you put the link to your Pages in your profile where your web page would go, then when you make a comment like this one, I can click your nic and be taken there automagically.

_{I need all the automagic I can get sometimes…}

102

Simply Sarah Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:32:26pm

re: #82 Killgore Trout

Uh oh
Rightist Marine Le Pen now tops French opinion poll

The article there is worded in a somewhat misleading fashion. It says she’d win 23 percent of the vote in the first round of voting, which would be enough to move her to the next round, but would be far short of the majority she would need to actually win outright.

If that were happen I’d think (Or, at least, hope) that the result would be similar to what occurred when her father shockingly advanced to the second round against Chirac in 2002. Basically, the entire French political establishment (outside the National Front, of course), as well as much of the French population, united around Chirac against Le Pen and, in the end, Chirac won in an absolute landslide, with over 80% of the vote.

That said, it is certainly concerning to see her polling that high.

103

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:32:46pm

re: #98 BryanS

I’d say the 90’s expansion was a classic boom to bust scenario. If anything, taxes during the Clinton years should have been higher to give us bigger surpluses, an hopefully could have cut short the irrational exuberance. The tax cuts of the naughts did cause the economy to rebound, most definitely. But they only helped contribute to the next bubble in real estate. Oh, and Greenspan went along for the ride all along.

The economy only rebounded in the naughts for the top earners. Wages for middle and lower income were stagnant or deflationary during the last decade. It was only a rebound for the rich.

104

Simply Sarah Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:33:43pm

re: #97 celticdragon

According to the lead story in this months The Atlantic, the top 2 percenters think the middle class needs to take it on the chin with a pay cut…because they don;t deserve middle class wages and benefits.

I am not fucking kidding.

If Americans make ten times more than somebody in India, they need to deliver ten times the value, according to sources for the story.

They feel no shame for paying themselves billions while sinking the banks and our 401k,s. The fell entitled.

Well hey, most of us aren’t *getting* middle class wages and benefits, so I guess that all works out, now doesn’t it?

105

PhillyPretzel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:33:46pm

re: #101 wrenchwench
Thanks. I did not know about that. Keep in mind this is only the second time I have posted.

106

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:34:31pm

re: #105 PhillyPretzel

Thanks. I did not know about that. Keep in mind this is only the second time I have posted.

Keep it up!

I’ll go find the Giffords post the “hard” way…

107

Killgore Trout Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:35:30pm

re: #102 Simply Sarah

The article there is worded in a somewhat misleading fashion. It says she’d win 23 percent of the vote in the first round of voting, which would be enough to move her to the next round, but would be far short of the majority she would need to actually win outright.

If that were happen I’d think (Or, at least, hope) that the result would be similar to what occurred when her father shockingly advanced to the second round against Chirac in 2002. Basically, the entire French political establishment (outside the National Front, of course), as well as much of the French population, united around Chirac against Le Pen and, in the end, Chirac won in an absolute landslide, with over 80% of the vote.

That said, it is certainly concerning to see her polling that high.

Ah, thanks. Still pretty bad but not as alarming as I first thought.

108

Simply Sarah Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:35:39pm

re: #106 wrenchwench

Keep it up!

I’ll go find the Giffords post the “hard” way…

Entering random article IDs and hoping you hit upon the right one?

109

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:36:03pm

re: #100 engineer dog

if the economy was ‘rebounding’ in the naughts, i missed it

growth was anemic from 2000 - 2008. and then something else happened

2002-2008 was the year range we were talking about, but yes, the economy grew because of tax cuts. I think the worst of the 2000 bust was never allowed to happen by policies that quickly created a newer, bigger, and more costly bubble.

110

palomino Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:36:30pm

re: #94 engineer dog

i used to think that the clear cut empirical demonstration that it is possible to raise taxes and have a robust economic boom - 1993 - 1999 - and that cutting taxes will not necessarily cause the economy to rebound - 2002 - 2008 - would make some impression on people

i guess i’m naive

Polls show something like 70-80% of Americans support progressive taxation that has the top few percent paying a slightly higher rate.

But to the gop/tp base, there’s a cultural (not just economic) dimension to taxes. They see them as federal intrusion into their states’ sovereignty; it’s almost like a states’ rights issue to them.

111

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:37:18pm

re: #109 BryanS

2002-2008 was the year range we were talking about, but yes, the economy grew because of tax cuts.

And we know this how? Faith in power of tax cuts?

112

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:39:31pm

re: #111 MinisterO

And we know this how? Faith in power of tax cuts?

indexmundi.com

113

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:39:42pm

re: #108 Simply Sarah

Entering random article IDs and hoping you hit upon the right one?

OK, it’s not that hard…

But I don’t see Philly’s previous one. It should come up when I click her nic on her Giffords Page.

114

palomino Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:39:53pm

re: #103 recusancy

The economy only rebounded in the naughts for the top earners. Wages for middle and lower income were stagnant or deflationary during the last decade. It was only a rebound for the rich.

Hey, you just need to be patient. We’ve only tried trickle down for 30 years. It will work eventually. Or so some hack at NRO claims.

115

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:40:10pm

re: #109 BryanS

2002-2008 was the year range we were talking about, but yes, the economy grew because of tax cuts. I think the worst of the 2000 bust was never allowed to happen by policies that quickly created a newer, bigger, and more costly bubble.

if the economy grew because of tax cuts, why did the economy grow so much more robustly in the 90s after the clinton tax increases? your assertion doesn’t make sense

(set the start date on this graph to 1980 and compare gdp growth in the 90s and the 00s)

116

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:40:14pm

re: #99 BryanS

Were you just arguing that tax cuts increase jobs overseas or that tax cuts contributed to exporting jobs overseas?

I haven’t pinned down my own argument yet. I’ll do that later in a different mental state.

My basic thought is something like: because labor overseas is cheaper, that is what has mainly contributed to exporting jobs overseas. If you cut taxes on the rich and corporations then that money, should they choose to invest some or all of it on hiring employees, will create a higher ratio jobs overseas than here. It is the logical to maximize the purchasing power of your money.

117

PhillyPretzel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:40:53pm

re: #113 wrenchwench
I think it was about Icelandic translators. It was quite a while ago.

118

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:42:33pm

re: #112 BryanS

[Link: www.indexmundi.com…]

Fail again. What evidence do you have to prove that the growth in GDP was caused by a tax cut?

119

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:42:54pm

re: #28 Gus 802

Cutting poison control center funding targets the poor. It’s part of the class war that the Republicans are waging against the poor and lower middle class.

Exactly.

This is all about making life better for the rich at the expense of the poor. It’s another perfect example of why they’re not a serious political party at all. They’re more interested in this sort of bullshit than they are in any sort of actual governance.

I’ve said it before and it bears repeating— anyone who makes under $250k that votes Republican is nothing more than a useful idiot for the party. You’re voting against your own interests, and you’re enabling this sort of nonsense.

120

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:42:59pm

re: #112 BryanS

[Link: www.indexmundi.com…]

bryan, the economy grows every year that there is not a recession, by definition

the fact that there is no recession in some range of years after tax cuts is not proof that tax cuts cause growth

i’m trying to get it through your head that the economy grew much more robustly in the 90s, after large tax INCREASES, but you don’t seem to want to see this

121

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:42:59pm

re: #115 engineer dog

if the economy grew because of tax cuts, why did the economy grow so much more robustly in the 90s after the clinton tax increases? your assertion doesn’t make sense

(set the start date on this graph to 1980 and compare gdp growth in the 90s and the 00s)

I stated what I though about the 90’s and made it very clear that I believed it was a classic boom to bust scenario, having nothing to do with tax rates. In fact I argued above that tax rates probably should have been higher.

Are you claiming there is a clear inverse relationship between tax rates and economic growth?

122

Interesting Times Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:43:57pm

re: #90 prononymous

However if there is anything to be made of your question I will post it in a page later. I have a few page ideas cooking.

Speaking of pages, I’d be interested in one expanding on what you say in your profile quote, i.e. “preserving reefs through intelligent capitalism.”

123

PhillyPretzel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:44:35pm

re: #113 wrenchwench
Click on the title and it will come up at the bottom.

124

Simply Sarah Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:45:14pm

re: #107 Killgore Trout

Ah, thanks. Still pretty bad but not as alarming as I first thought.

Her numbers have gone up in the last few years, but it’s unclear to me how much of it is because Marine has just recently taken over for her father as head of the National Front (And, therefore, she’s near a ceiling of support) and how much is from increased anti-immigrant nationalist feelings.

Also, the poll mentions using Martine Aubrey as the Socialist candidate. I wonder how it looks with Dominique Strauss-Kahn listed as the one running under the Socialist party, as most polling I’ve seen shows Strauss-Kahn ahead in first (and second) round balloting by fairly strong margins if he is the one running. Of course, that’s assuming the French left doesn’t do what it’s so skill at doing and shooting itself in both feet and the head.

125

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:46:00pm

re: #122 publicityStunted

Speaking of pages, I’d be interested in one expanding on what you say in your profile quote, i.e. “preserving reefs through intelligent capitalism.”

That is definitely an upcoming page. Though that might wait until I have a camera to make it more interesting.

126

Interesting Times Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:46:06pm

re: #119 Lidane

I’ve said it before and it bears repeating— anyone who makes under $250k that votes Republican is nothing more than a useful idiot for the party. You’re voting against your own interests, and you’re enabling this sort of nonsense.

Image: reaganomics.jpg

127

Killgore Trout Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:46:24pm

re: #121 BryanS

I stated what I though about the 90’s and made it very clear that I believed it was a classic boom to bust scenario, having nothing to do with tax rates. In fact I argued above that tax rates probably should have been higher.

Are you claiming there is a clear inverse relationship between tax rates and economic growth?

I also suspect that period of growth was also due to the fed keeping interest rates lower than they should have been. It made the economic meltdown worse and helped fuel the housing/banking bubble. I think no matter how you parse it, the period from 2002-2008 was just waiting for the inevitable collapse.

128

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:47:17pm

re: #121 BryanS

I stated what I though about the 90’s and made it very clear that I believed it was a classic boom to bust scenario, having nothing to do with tax rates. In fact I argued above that tax rates probably should have been higher.

Are you claiming there is a clear inverse relationship between tax rates and economic growth?

so when taxes are raised and there’s an ecomomic boom, you claim that tax increases had no effect, but when taxes are cut and growth is average to low, then a lack of an actual recession is evidence that tax cuts lead to growth? can’t you see that this is illogical?

and as for your second question, no, i am only trying to point out that, counter to conservative ideology, it is not true that tax increases always lead to poor growth and that tax cuts always lead to robust growth

129

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:47:21pm

re: #123 PhillyPretzel

Click on the title and it will come up at the bottom.

Oh, duh. “Recent Pages”! I am search-challenged, to say the least.

130

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:48:34pm

Since we’re talking taxes, here are 2008 federal income taxes as a percentage of taxable income, grouped by adjusted gross income. Sorry about the formatting. There’s lots of other great stuff on the IRS site.

irs.gov

$1 under $5,000 11.20%
$5,000 under $10,000 10.20%
$10,000 under $15,000 9.00%
$15,000 under $20,000 8.40%
$20,000 under $25,000 10.40%
$25,000 under $30,000 11.10%
$30,000 under $40,000 11.20%
$40,000 under $50,000 11.90%
$50,000 under $75,000 12.90%
$75,000 under $100,000 13.50%
$100,000 under $200,000 17.40%
$200,000 under $500,000 24.60%
$500,000 under $1,000,000 28.30%
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 28.60%
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 28.60%
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 28.20%
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 27.10%
$10,000,000 or more 24.10%

131

Interesting Times Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:50:01pm

re: #114 palomino

Hey, you just need to be patient. We’ve only tried trickle down for 30 years. It will work eventually.

Just like this.

132

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:50:04pm

re: #116 prononymous

I haven’t pinned down my own argument yet. I’ll do that later in a different mental state.

My basic thought is something like: because labor overseas is cheaper, that is what has mainly contributed to exporting jobs overseas. If you cut taxes on the rich and corporations then that money, should they choose to invest some or all of it on hiring employees, will create a higher ratio jobs overseas than here. It is the logical to maximize the purchasing power of your money.

First rule of economics is to buy what you need at the lowest cost because that is the most efficient way to use resources and maximizes return on investment, even if that means buying exports. Sometimes that is labor overseas, but sometimes that overseas labor is more expensive than it first seems because of lower productivity, education, communication barriers, etc. In phone tech support, for instance, there has been some back tracking on the outsource craze around the tech bubble.

133

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:50:29pm

re: #130 MinisterO

Looks like I’m in the sweet spot there:

$15,000 under $20,000 8.40%

///

134

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:51:05pm

Martian Michelle: Defund Planned Parenthood, or the government gets the axe.

#lgf #tcot">#lgf #tcot“>Your text to link…

135

Jeff In Ohio Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:51:57pm

re: #128 engineer dog

But, wouldn’t you agree, since the Bushco taxes were extended in 2010, that the warming trend we are now experiencing in the midwest is a direct result and not just a pleasant coincidence?

136

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:52:21pm

re: #127 Killgore Trout

I also suspect that period of growth was also due to the fed keeping interest rates lower than they should have been. It made the economic meltdown worse and helped fuel the housing/banking bubble. I think no matter how you parse it, the period from 2002-2008 was just waiting for the inevitable collapse.

Agreed. Greenspan helped inflate the bubble. I seriously wonder if we are doing the same thing now with near 0% interest rates.

137

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:53:25pm

re: #128 engineer dog

so when taxes are raised and there’s an ecomomic boom, you claim that tax increases had no effect, but when taxes are cut and growth is average to low, then a lack of an actual recession is evidence that tax cuts lead to growth? can’t you see that this is illogical?

and as for your second question, no, i am only trying to point out that, counter to conservative ideology, it is not true that tax increases always lead to poor growth and that tax cuts always lead to robust growth

What exactly then is the point you’re trying to make? Is your point that taxes have no effect on economic growth?

138

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:53:56pm

re: #134 Kid A

Your text to link…

Fixed the link for you.

139

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:55:33pm

re: #137 BryanS

What exactly then is the point you’re trying to make? Is your point that taxes have no effect on economic growth?

please see my last comment:

counter to conservative ideology, it is not true that tax increases always lead to poor growth and that tax cuts always lead to robust growth

140

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:56:01pm

re: #109 BryanS

2002-2008 was the year range we were talking about, but yes, the economy grew because of tax cuts.

Not everyone agrees with that analysis.

141

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:56:10pm

re: #138 Lidane

Fixed the link for you.

Thanks. How’d you do that?

142

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:57:01pm

re: #135 Jeff In Ohio

But, wouldn’t you agree, since the Bushco taxes were extended in 2010, that the warming trend we are now experiencing in the midwest is a direct result and not just a pleasant coincidence?

It is so obvious in fact that one may reasonably make this assertion with no citation.

143

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:57:22pm

re: #141 Kid A

Thanks. How’d you do that?

I just quoted your post and took out all the extra stuff from the HTML. Easy peasy.

144

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 2:58:35pm

Hoops, thanks for the ding. How are you?

145

Killgore Trout Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:00:47pm

re: #133 wrenchwench

Looks like I’m in the sweet spot there:

///

I know how you feel. I made over $30,000 only once in my life. Just before the economic collapse. I’m getting very tired of being poor. The novelty and romance of the starving artist thing wore off long ago.

146

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:01:50pm

re: #133 wrenchwench

Looks like I’m in the sweet spot there:

///

I spent many years in that group and the one below it. I never felt poor.

147

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:02:21pm

re: #140 prononymous

Not everyone agrees with that analysis.

Progressives are entitled to their view

representing nonpartisan but progressive EPI

the EPI as characterized by this writer in Slate
slate.com

148

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:02:42pm

REPORT: In 22 Statehouses Across the Country, Conservatives Move to Disenfranchise Voters

In statehouses across the country, Republican lawmakers are raising the specter of “voter fraud” to push through legislation that would dramatically restrict the voting rights of college students, rural voters, senior citizens, the disabled and the homeless. As part of their larger effort to silence Main Street, conservatives are pushing through new photo identification laws that would exclude millions from voting, depress Hispanic voter turnout by as much as 10 percent, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In the next few months, a new set of election laws could make going to the polls and registering to vote significantly more difficult — in some cases even barring groups of citizens from voting in the communities where they live.

149

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:04:39pm

re: #139 engineer dog

please see my last comment:

counter to conservative ideology, it is not true that tax increases always lead to poor growth and that tax cuts always lead to robust growth

I wouldn’t disagree with that. In fact if you look at the claims I’ve made, in particular to the 90s, that’s consistent with my point of view. But taxes do have an affect on growth rate.

150

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:04:48pm

re: #132 BryanS

First rule of economics is to buy what you need at the lowest cost because that is the most efficient way to use resources and maximizes return on investment, even if that means buying exports. Sometimes that is labor overseas, but sometimes that overseas labor is more expensive than it first seems because of lower productivity, education, communication barriers, etc. In phone tech support, for instance, there has been some back tracking on the outsource craze around the tech bubble.

I agree. It is logical to maximize your investment. So if the government is letting you keep more of your own money, and you need employees, where do you think most major corporations will source those employees if Americans aren’t absolutely necessary for some reason?

Sure, there are quite a few specific situations where using outsourced/overseas help isn’t the right choice. Many jobs in service sectors, for example. But much of our production could easily be shipped overseas. Technical jobs aren’t safe. Etc.

151

Kid A Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:05:29pm

re: #148 Lidane

REPORT: In 22 Statehouses Across the Country, Conservatives Move to Disenfranchise Voters

2012 GOP slogan: You’re going to hurt, and you’re going to like it.

152

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:05:43pm

re: #147 BryanS

Progressives are entitled to their view

the EPI as characterized by this writer in Slate
[Link: www.slate.com…]

Ad Hominems an argument do not make. [/yoda]

153

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:06:06pm

re: #150 prononymous

Sure, there are quite a few specific situations where using outsourced/overseas help isn’t the right choice. Many jobs in service sectors, for example. But much of our production could easily be shipped overseas. Technical jobs aren’t safe. Etc.

A lot of service jobs aren’t safe either. Reading and interpreting MRI and CT scans can easily be sent overseas. So can accounting services and tax preparation.

154

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:06:25pm

re: #145 Killgore Trout

I know how you feel. I made over $30,000 only once in my life. Just before the economic collapse. I’m getting very tired of being poor. The novelty and romance of the starving artist thing wore off long ago.

well my cycle has taken me from riches to rags again…I have severely limited income, one leg, and no prospects for the future…but I’ve been here before and survived, so will you

155

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:06:38pm

re: #147 BryanS

Progressives are entitled to their view

the EPI as characterized by this writer in Slate
[Link: www.slate.com…]

trying to produce economic growth by lowering taxes on upper income earners is merely a variation on keynsian pump priming. it has long since been shown that the effectiveness of this approach is limited

both david stockman and allan greenspan, iirc, have explicitly stated recently that tax increases are sorely needed at this point

156

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:07:32pm

re: #145 Killgore Trout

I know how you feel. I made over $30,000 only once in my life. Just before the economic collapse. I’m getting very tired of being poor. The novelty and romance of the starving artist thing wore off long ago.

re: #146 MinisterO

I spent many years in that group and the one below it. I never felt poor.

I’ve taken a 50% cut in pay the last three times I changed jobs. The first one was the transition from restaurants to bikes. WORTH IT.

The second one was the transition from Washington state to New Mexico. WORTH IT.

The third one was the transition from employee to self employed. WORTH IT.

And fortunately my income rose in between those transitions. But I was making more in 1995 than I am now. I like what I do and where I live, but I may go back to working for someone else in the Northwest. Mr. w wants to go back, for one thing.

157

Jeff In Ohio Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:07:33pm

re: #132 BryanS

First rule of economics is to buy what you need at the lowest cost because that is the most efficient way to use resources and maximizes return on investment, even if that means buying exports. Sometimes that is labor overseas, but sometimes that overseas labor is more expensive than it first seems because of lower productivity, education, communication barriers, etc. In phone tech support, for instance, there has been some back tracking on the outsource craze around the tech bubble.

That might be the first rule (although I thought it was there are no free lunches) but the second rule is (since we’re just making shit up) blindly adhere to the first rule at your own peril. Many large corporations (the kind that you might want to invest in for the long haul, not the ones you day trade), are not embracing unfettered capitalism driven by the micro parsing of the bottom line, but viewing the world as an integrated market place where issues of resources are as much local as they are global and sustainability are no longer buzzwords for green jobs, but future jobs.

Many, and I mean MANY progressive ideals are being embraced within the upstream marketing R&D of Fortune 50 companies. The wagon train your wagon is in is heading for the river crossing while everyone else is going over the pass. It’s a higher climb, but the rewards are greater. Hope you can swim.

Dinner time.

158

HoosierHoops Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:08:07pm

re: #144 wrenchwench

Hoops, thanks for the ding. How are you?

Hi You..I’m doing better…I embarrassed myself last night here after drinking beer and feeling sorry for myself, missing my friends and family in California…I guess being alone in Oklahoma just got to me…I paid the price this morning..I’m so stupid..I’m a very lucky guy
Thanks

159

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:08:36pm

re: #148 Lidane

REPORT: In 22 Statehouses Across the Country, Conservatives Move to Disenfranchise Voters

Is there a better method for curbing voter fraud than the requirement to present an ID? I’ve personally witnessed voter fraud, and while my own anecdote on what I observed is probably not typical, it does in fact occur. It was disconcerting when the person standing in front of me lied about their address, and both I and the poll worker across from this individual knew that the person voting did not love where they claimed to live but were still allowed to vote.

160

Simply Sarah Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:08:39pm

re: #148 Lidane

REPORT: In 22 Statehouses Across the Country, Conservatives Move to Disenfranchise Voters

Well, this is nothing new, especially from the right. Bring up the specter of voter fraud (Of which, based on everything I’ve ever seen, there is little to no evidence of occurring at pretty much any level in any real amount anywhere in the U.S. in recent memory) and use it to make it harder to vote, with groups that tend to vote for Democrats being hit hardest.

What *really* gets me is this:

New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien (R- Hillsborough 4) also stated his support, saying residency laws need to be tightened because students “are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience.”

I don’t really have words to respond to that.

161

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:09:32pm

re: #158 HoosierHoops

Hi You..I’m doing better…I embarrassed myself last night here after drinking beer and feeling sorry for myself, missing my friends and family in California…I guess being alone in Oklahoma just got to me…I paid the price this morning..I’m so stupid..I’m a very lucky guy
Thanks

{{{Hoops}}}

I’m glad it was a short episode.

162

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:10:00pm

re: #153 Lidane

A lot of service jobs aren’t safe either. Reading and interpreting MRI and CT scans can easily be sent overseas. So can accounting services and tax preparation.

radiologists, even at the smallest hospitals, have been sending pictures overseas for years…I’ve taken x-rays late in the day and a few hours later they were read by docs in New Zealand or India

163

Simply Sarah Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:10:42pm

re: #159 BryanS

Is there a better method for curbing voter fraud than the requirement to present an ID? I’ve personally witnessed voter fraud, and while my own anecdote on what I observed is probably not typical, it does in fact occur. It was disconcerting when the person standing in front of me lied about their address, and both I and the poll worker across from this individual knew that the person voting did not love where they claimed to live but were still allowed to vote.

Hard to say what would curb voter fraud, especially since it largely doesn’t appear to exist outside of extremely small and isolated incidents.

164

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:11:05pm

re: #149 BryanS

I wouldn’t disagree with that. In fact if you look at the claims I’ve made, in particular to the 90s, that’s consistent with my point of view. But taxes do have an affect on growth rate.

see my #155

do you agree that it is not a foregone conclusion that rolling back that bush era tax cuts on earners making over $250k/yr will damage economic growth?

every republican politician i see on teevee asserts it as irrefutable gospel

165

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:12:40pm

re: #150 prononymous

I agree. It is logical to maximize your investment. So if the government is letting you keep more of your own money, and you need employees, where do you think most major corporations will source those employees if Americans aren’t absolutely necessary for some reason?

Sure, there are quite a few specific situations where using outsourced/overseas help isn’t the right choice. Many jobs in service sectors, for example. But much of our production could easily be shipped overseas. Technical jobs aren’t safe. Etc.

Very true, it is easy to ship jobs overseas for some things. But think of it this way—if a corporation does expand by hiring more employees overseas, if that corporation is still taxed in the US, both in terms of taxes paid and wealth generated, they increase for the US. If however that company is somehow prevented from hiring those workers, a firm in that company instead will gain the cost advantage and the US firm will not be able to sell their product at a competitive price—thereby reducing income and taxes paid.

166

Eclectic Infidel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:12:41pm

It’s probably more appropriate to address Republicans as being pro-birth; they’re not really pro-life, it’s just a term they use to be divisive.

167

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:13:14pm

re: #160 Simply Sarah

Well, this is nothing new, especially from the right. Bring up the specter of voter fraud (Of which, based on everything I’ve ever seen, there is little to no evidence of occurring at pretty much any level in any real amount anywhere in the U.S. in recent memory) and use it to make it harder to vote, with groups that tend to vote for Democrats being hit hardest.

What *really* gets me is this:

New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien (R- Hillsborough 4) also stated his support, saying residency laws need to be tightened because students “are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience.”

I don’t really have words to respond to that.

Yeah that’s kinda what I figured this voter fraud canard was all about. It’s only surprising that he admits it.

168

sod Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:13:21pm

I suppose it’s an over simplification but I always thought they should just figure out the percentages of the overall budget that each department or program gets and then calculate those percentages against last years’ actual tax revenue to determine the number of dollars each department or program has to work with. That way you’re not axing any program, each program has to work with what they get. And basing the budget off the previous years’ revenue seems like a quick, easy, and conservative number to start from.

169

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:13:35pm

re: #132 BryanS

First rule of economics is to buy what you need at the lowest cost because that is the most efficient way to use resources and maximizes return on investment, even if that means buying exports. Sometimes that is labor overseas, but sometimes that overseas labor is more expensive than it first seems because of lower productivity, education, communication barriers, etc. In phone tech support, for instance, there has been some back tracking on the outsource craze around the tech bubble.

it is unfortunate that hiring americans has become so ‘inefficient’

170

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:14:27pm

re: #155 engineer dog

trying to produce economic growth by lowering taxes on upper income earners is merely a variation on keynsian pump priming. it has long since been shown that the effectiveness of this approach is limited

both david stockman and allan greenspan, iirc, have explicitly stated recently that tax increases are sorely needed at this point

I’d agree with them—and in combination with entitlement reforms. Taxes alone aren’t going to be enough.

171

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:16:52pm

re: #157 Jeff In Ohio

Many, and I mean MANY progressive ideals are being embraced within the upstream marketing R&D of Fortune 50 companies.

This is true. A lot of the management and organizational motivation books I’ve read lately have decidedly progressive views for how to embrace change and how to make your company faster, more flexible, more environmentally conscious, more aware of cultural diversity, and more adaptable to the future.

The wagon train your wagon is in is heading for the river crossing while everyone else is going over the pass. It’s a higher climb, but the rewards are greater. Hope you can swim.

Oh, and try not to die of dysentery or lose any oxen while fording the river. It’s a bitch to recover from that.

/Oregon Trail

172

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:18:48pm

re: #170 BryanS

I’d agree with them—and in combination with entitlement reforms. Taxes alone aren’t going to be enough.

Lots of assertions, few facts. I’d like to see what we could do with a combination of increased taxes and decreased military spending.

173

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:19:30pm

re: #163 Simply Sarah

Hard to say what would curb voter fraud, especially since it largely doesn’t appear to exist outside of extremely small and isolated incidents.

It has been a big deal in Milwaukee, and the reason Repubs are pushing the issue in this state:

www3.jsonline.com

Nonetheless, it is likely that many - perhaps most - of those who committed fraud won’t face prosecution because city records are so sloppy that it will be difficult to establish cases that will stand up in court.

And even now, three months after the investigation, officials have not been able to close a gap of 7,000 votes, with more ballots cast than voters listed. Officials said the gap remains at 4,609.

U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic likened it to trying to prove “a bank embezzlement if the bank cannot tell how much money was there in the first place.”

Biskupic announced the preliminary findings at a news conference, along with Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann, who is also overseeing the joint inquiry.

Tuesday’s announcement comes after a Journal Sentinel investigation that found widespread problems with the election in the city, including that the election totals themselves were not double-checked by city and county panels charged with doing so.

174

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:19:39pm

re: #166 eclectic infidel

It’s probably more appropriate to address Republicans as being pro-birth; they’re not really pro-life, it’s just a term they use to be divisive.

They’re not even pro-birth, given their efforts to make it harder for poor and middle class women to get proper prenatal care or OB/GYN services they can afford.

They’re anti-choice. They don’t want anyone to think for themselves or make the right choices for themselves. They want to dictate what your options about your life are.

175

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:20:21pm

re: #157 Jeff In Ohio

That might be the first rule (although I thought it was there are no free lunches) but the second rule is (since we’re just making shit up) blindly adhere to the first rule at your own peril. Many large corporations (the kind that you might want to invest in for the long haul, not the ones you day trade), are not embracing unfettered capitalism driven by the micro parsing of the bottom line, but viewing the world as an integrated market place where issues of resources are as much local as they are global and sustainability are no longer buzzwords for green jobs, but future jobs.

Many, and I mean MANY progressive ideals are being embraced within the upstream marketing R&D of Fortune 50 companies. The wagon train your wagon is in is heading for the river crossing while everyone else is going over the pass. It’s a higher climb, but the rewards are greater. Hope you can swim.

Dinner time.

Very good point. Not everything can be described in terms of dollars. Some responsible companies actively seek to mitigate the negative externalities.

IMO, if we are going to consider corporations legal persons then why shouldn’t we start expecting them to act responsibly, as we do for real people?

re: #165 BryanS

Very true, it is easy to ship jobs overseas for some things. But think of it this way—if a corporation does expand by hiring more employees overseas, if that corporation is still taxed in the US, both in terms of taxes paid and wealth generated, they increase for the US. If however that company is somehow prevented from hiring those workers, a firm in that company instead will gain the cost advantage and the US firm will not be able to sell their product at a competitive price—thereby reducing income and taxes paid.

Sure. But don’t forget that, among other things, customers within the US market would subsequently have less purchasing power because their jobs were shipped overseas.

176

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:20:34pm

re: #170 BryanS

I’d agree with them—and in combination with entitlement reforms. Taxes alone aren’t going to be enough.

as for ‘entitlement reform’ i don’t know about medicare or whatever else you might have in mind, but as far as social security is concerned, it’s clear that its problems can easily be taken care of by raising the cap of $106,500 on the amount of income that is subject to ss tax

the social security trustees have calculated that the shortfall in social security revenues for the next 75 years - the ‘unfunded liability’ - amounts to about $5.6 trillion

75 years is a long time…

177

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:21:15pm

re: #164 engineer dog

see my #155

do you agree that it is not a foregone conclusion that rolling back that bush era tax cuts on earners making over $250k/yr will damage economic growth?

every republican politician i see on teevee asserts it as irrefutable gospel

Any increase in taxes can decrease economic activity, however that has to be weighed against the damage done to the economy by unsustainable debts, that both left and right are responsible for.

178

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:22:00pm

re: #173 BryanS

It has been a big deal in Milwaukee, and the reason Repubs are pushing the issue in this state:

[Link: www3.jsonline.com…]

This is 6 years old and has been thoroughly debunked.

179

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:22:26pm

re: #177 BryanS

Any increase in taxes can decrease economic activity

and here we are back to the question of why this didn’t happen in the 90s

180

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:23:02pm

In God We Trust
and don’t forget it

181

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:23:16pm

re: #177 BryanS

Any increase in taxes can decrease economic activity, however that has to be weighed against the damage done to the economy by unsustainable debts, that both left and right are responsible for.

So - a penny on the top rate of tax for the highest earners will prevent them hiring that extra illegal phillipino pool boy or buying the upgrade pack for the new ferrari?

182

Eclectic Infidel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:25:43pm

re: #180 albusteve

In God We Trust
and don’t forget it

At least brookly would agree with you.

183

Simply Sarah Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:25:44pm

re: #173 BryanS

It has been a big deal in Milwaukee, and the reason Repubs are pushing the issue in this state:

[Link: www3.jsonline.com…]

That is from almost 6 years ago.

And I counter with this NY Times article from a few years back, which seems to suggest there isn’t/wasn’t much to it.

184

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:26:14pm

re: #175 prononymous

Very good point. Not everything can be described in terms of dollars. Some responsible companies actively seek to mitigate the negative externalities.

IMO, if we are going to consider corporations legal persons then why shouldn’t we start expecting them to act responsibly, as we do for real people?

re: #165 BryanS

Sure. But don’t forget that, among other things, customers within the US market would subsequently have less purchasing power because their jobs were shipped overseas.

For the individual who loses a job, yes. But for everyone else, the result is a less expensive product. We all benefit from outsourced jobs for instance to countries who product inexpensive electronics. Exporting jobs is a big reason that whole classes of products continue to get less expensive and inflation as a whole has gone down.

185

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:26:29pm

re: #181 wozzablog

So - a penny on the top rate of tax for the highest earners will prevent them hiring that extra illegal phillipino pool boy or buying the upgrade pack for the new ferrari?

There is no logical reason that a tax must decrease economic activity. It’s simply an article of faith. If you have the faith you don’t need evidence.

186

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:26:58pm

re: #176 engineer dog

as for ‘entitlement reform’ i don’t know about medicare or whatever else you might have in mind, but as far as social security is concerned, it’s clear that its problems can easily be taken care of by raising the cap of $106,500 on the amount of income that is subject to ss tax

the social security trustees have calculated that the shortfall in social security revenues for the next 75 years - the ‘unfunded liability’ - amounts to about $5.6 trillion

75 years is a long time…

Raising the cap is one option, as is means testing for benefits.

187

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:27:55pm

re: #179 engineer dog

and here we are back to the question of why this didn’t happen in the 90s

This brings us to the fact that tax cuts don’t necessarily always lead to economic growth nor do tax hikes always lead to economic stagnation. Though they can in either case. Hence the need for pragmatically driven government economic policy instead of a ideologically driven one.

188

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:29:03pm

re: #169 engineer dog

it is unfortunate that hiring americans has become so ‘inefficient’

It’s the consequence of a global market. When education standards overseas are comparable to or even higher than ours and the same jobs can be done by equally skilled workers for less money and at greater efficiency, you make the choice to either offshore or outsource.

Workers now have to be better educated, more tech savvy, and more flexible. We’re either going to have to adapt to globalization, or we’re going to get left behind.

189

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:29:23pm

i would like to repeat and bold this statement since there has been a lot of prominent lying on this subject recently:

the social security trustees have calculated that the shortfall in social security revenues for the next 75 years - the ‘unfunded liability’ - amounts to about $5.6 trillion

Trustees Report: “For the 75-year projection period, the actuarial deficit is 2.00 percent of taxable payroll, 0.30 percentage point larger than in last year’s report. The open group unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is $5.3 trillion in present value, and is $0.9 trillion more than the measured level of a year ago.”

report from the board of trustees

for comparison, the total federal outlays per year these days is about $3.5 trillion

190

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:29:35pm

re: #187 prononymous

This brings us to the fact that tax cuts don’t necessarily always lead to economic growth nor do tax hikes always lead to economic stagnation. Though they can in either case. Hence the need for pragmatically driven government economic policy instead of a ideologically driven one.

The solution to every crisis usually involves a mixture of tactics to combat it. Anyone who tells you different is a gibbering idiot or a shill for the Club For Growth.

191

recusancy Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:29:47pm

A progressive approach to strengthening social security.

192

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:30:07pm

re: #187 prononymous

This brings us to the fact that tax cuts don’t necessarily always lead to economic growth nor do tax hikes always lead to economic stagnation. Though they can in either case. Hence the need for pragmatically driven government economic policy instead of a ideologically driven one.

finally….I can’t believe it took so long to see this posted…the tax argument is circular and never ends…results are not always the same

193

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:30:41pm

re: #181 wozzablog

So - a penny on the top rate of tax for the highest earners will prevent them hiring that extra illegal phillipino pool boy or buying the upgrade pack for the new ferrari?

heh

republicans habitually talk as if tax rates on individual incomes are somehow directly connected to the ability of businesses to hire new workers

194

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:31:02pm

re: #186 BryanS

Raising the cap is one option, as is means testing for benefits.

Means testing won’t get us very far. Social security is very progressive - the vast majority of the money goes to people who really need it.

195

Stanghazi Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:32:20pm

re: #144 wrenchwench

Hoops, thanks for the ding. How are you?

Me too. Hoops how are ya?

196

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:32:25pm

re: #194 MinisterO

Means testing won’t get us very far. Social security is very progressive - the vast majority of the money goes to people who really need it.

Means testing involves creating a massive new bureaucracy - highly efficient.

(forgive me while i die in a corner laughing waiting for the claims to be processed)

197

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:32:50pm

re: #178 MinisterO

This is 6 years old and has been thoroughly debunked.

Really? Thoroughly debunked? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is still talking about it from time to time…here’s a story about that election cycle and ongoing investigations from July, and in the context of renewed concerns in 2008.

198

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:33:38pm

re: #181 wozzablog

So - a penny on the top rate of tax for the highest earners will prevent them hiring that extra illegal phillipino pool boy or buying the upgrade pack for the new ferrari?

I do have to give you points for snark…made me laugh too

199

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:35:27pm

re: #183 Simply Sarah

That is from almost 6 years ago.

And I counter with this NY Times article from a few years back, which seems to suggest there isn’t/wasn’t much to it.

There’s actually some university research on voter fraud that covered this and several other incidences. Basically they found nothing. The stories don’t die though.

200

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:36:02pm

re: #194 MinisterO

Means testing won’t get us very far. Social security is very progressive - the vast majority of the money goes to people who really need it.

indeed

i’m willing to bet that not one person here has accumulated or will accumulate enough money in saving or 401ks to sustain them through 20 years of retirement

some people try to tell me about an “average return of 8% over the long term” of stock market investments, but this is highly unrealistic. brokers will tell you that if you average 4% over 30 years, you are doing well

201

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:36:29pm

re: #197 BryanS

Really? Thoroughly debunked? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is still talking about it from time to time…here’s a story about that election cycle and ongoing investigations from July, and in the context of renewed concerns in 2008.

Yes, really thoroughly debunked. God forbid a right-wing talking point should die quietly.

202

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:38:03pm

re: #198 BryanS

I do have to give you points for snark…made me laugh too

Sorry, i had to ;-)

The people at the top end of the top end of the top end believe they aren’t paying enough tax (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc).
They won’t miss a couple of million out of their billions upon billions, just wouldn’t happen.
When you get to the lower end - a few hundred going missing from a family who’s joint income is in the low twenties is a whole other matter.

It’s all a matter of degrees and sweeping statements help no one.

203

Stanghazi Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:38:19pm

re: #158 HoosierHoops

Got your back. Cyber wise.

204

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:38:30pm

re: #194 MinisterO

Means testing won’t get us very far. Social security is very progressive - the vast majority of the money goes to people who really need it.

So we should continue to give social security benefits to people who can afford not to have them for what reason?

205

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:38:46pm

re: #184 BryanS

For the individual who loses a job, yes. But for everyone else, the result is a less expensive product. We all benefit from outsourced jobs for instance to countries who product inexpensive electronics. Exporting jobs is a big reason that whole classes of products continue to get less expensive and inflation as a whole has gone down.

But it isn’t just an individual. Large numbers of people are losing their jobs. And new jobs in other sectors aren’t being created to replace them or aren’t safe from outsourcing either. This puts a greater burden on the public safety nets that offsets potential increased tax revenue from the company.

When unemployment goes up consumer confidence goes down. The products might cost less. But some people can’t afford them because they don’t have a job anymore. Others are more reluctant to spend money, even if there is a perceptible change in the price.

206

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:39:20pm

Also, this discussion is killing my trip. BBL.

207

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:39:49pm

re: #200 engineer dog

indeed

i’m willing to bet that not one person here has accumulated or will accumulate enough money in saving or 401ks to sustain them through 20 years of retirement

some people try to tell me about an “average return of 8% over the long term” of stock market investments, but this is highly unrealistic. brokers will tell you that if you average 4% over 30 years, you are doing well

Quite possibly not, but perhaps in their first few years they will be just fine. I’d say let them live off savings and have social security kick in if and when it’s actually needed.

208

freetoken Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:41:20pm

re: #200 engineer dog

Indeed. This whole issue is colored by unrealistic expectations about the future.

209

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:42:17pm

re: #204 BryanS

So we should continue to give social security benefits to people who can afford not to have them for what reason?

The cost of creating a new agency to test the claims could outweigh what you are losing to the moderately affluent.

Depends if anyone’s done any studies yet. Means testing is also proven to reduce take up of benefits by those at the very very bottom who have a distrust of dealing with the systems.

210

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:44:01pm

re: #204 BryanS

So we should continue to give social security benefits to people who can afford not to have them for what reason?

Well I guess if we can save another 0.0004% by screwing over some retirees then we ought to do it.

I don’t really care but it would be a meaningless gesture.

211

freetoken Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:46:02pm

Sigh…

Texas Nationalists rally for secession at Capitol in Austin

The Texas Nationalist Movement marked Texas Independence Day with a rally Saturday at the Capitol urging Texans to save the state by seceding from the United States.

A small but enthusiastic group of Texas patriots gathered on the steps of the Capitol, as an assortment of massive Texas flags blew above them in the chilly afternoon breeze.

Outrage was spread evenly toward Democrats and Republicans as leaders of the movement expressed their disgust for the growing national debt and the federal government’s treatment of Texas.

“Texas can take better care of itself than Washington,” said Lauren Savage, vice president of the movement. “We are here to raise interest in the Legislature of the possibility of secession to cure the ills of America.”
Members are demanding that state lawmakers introduce a bill that would allow Texans to vote on whether to declare independence.

Fed up with federal mandates, the burden of unsustainable taxes and disregarded votes, members say secession has been a long time coming.

“This is a cake that’s been baking for 85 years,” said Cary Wise, membership director of the Texas Nationalist Movement. “All this administration has done is light the candles.” […]

So, what happened in 1926 to precipitate all of this?

212

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:47:39pm

re: #209 wozzablog

The cost of creating a new agency to test the claims could outweigh what you are losing to the moderately affluent.

Depends if anyone’s done any studies yet. Means testing is also proven to reduce take up of benefits by those at the very very bottom who have a distrust of dealing with the systems.

IRAs anyway are already tracked by the IRS. The IRS already tracks 401k contributions—not sure if they track balances of accounts through employers like they do for individuals reporting IRA balances. I would agree that costs should be taken into account when deciding whether we should consider the idea.

213

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:48:41pm

re: #211 freetoken

Sigh…

Texas Nationalists rally for secession at Capitol in Austin

So, what happened in 1926 to precipitate all of this?

That state has gone bat-shit crazy since I left. If it were up to me I’d let them secede.

214

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:48:44pm

re: #212 BryanS

IRAs anyway are already tracked by the IRS. The IRS already tracks 401k contributions—not sure if they track balances of accounts through employers like they do for individuals reporting IRA balances. I would agree that costs should be taken into account when deciding whether we should consider the idea.

trust me, we have means testing in the UK. it will not work out that way.

215

BryanS Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:51:00pm

Going to check out…you all have a good evening.

216

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:52:58pm

waste in govt itself…this is the starting point
aolnews.com

who can argue with the CBO?

217

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:53:36pm

re: #211 freetoken

Sigh…

Texas Nationalists rally for secession at Capitol in Austin

If I’d known about this, I would have gone and taken a Texas History book with me to smack some sense into those idiots.

So, what happened in 1926 to precipitate all of this?

Nothing that I can think of. I’ve looked at a bunch of Texas history timelines and there’s no hint of what the hell they’re talking about. The only thing that might be of relevance is Ma Ferguson becoming the state’s first female governor, but that was a year earlier, in 1925.

218

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:56:34pm

My sister is hysterical.

Dear Doctor - I’ve had one tube of Thin Mints each day for a week now, but am not getting thinner. Should I increase the dose? (PS: had the same problem with all the Smarties at Halloween). Please advise!

219

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:57:40pm

re: #216 albusteve

waste in govt itself…this is the starting point
[Link: www.aolnews.com…]

who can argue with the CBO?

this article doesn’t give one single dollar figure

of course there is waste and redundancy in the government - but how much could we save? how much would we spend in the course of eliminating the waste?

220

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:58:24pm

re: #217 Lidane

If I’d known about this, I would have gone and taken a Texas History book with me to smack some sense into those idiots.

Nothing that I can think of. I’ve looked at a bunch of Texas history timelines and there’s no hint of what the hell they’re talking about. The only thing that might be of relevance is Ma Ferguson becoming the state’s first female governor, but that was a year earlier, in 1925.

just more crackpots…there are millions of them
yawn

221

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:58:38pm

Every day brings new wonders!

222

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 3:59:33pm

re: #219 engineer dog

this article doesn’t give one single dollar figure

of course there is waste and redundancy in the government - but how much could we save? how much would we spend in the course of eliminating the waste?

there are tons of stuff out there…govt needs to be reined in
hoguenews.com

223

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:00:06pm

OK. Reading more about this secessionist rally garbage, I came across this:

Texas Birther Rep. Sponsors Secession Rally

It’s Leo Berman, who’s made a career out of being a racist redneck asshole and concern troll. He’s a birther and he’s trying to push an anti-Sharia law around here. No surprise that he’s involved with this shit.

What’s really hilarious in all this is that the secessionist yahoos have Sam Houston on their posters. The real Sam Houston argued against Texas seceding during the run up to the Civil War. These secessionist assholes can’t even get their own history right.

224

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:02:53pm

re: #211 freetoken

Secessionists are great, they’re like the political equivalent of acid burnouts, they’ve just fed their own delusions for their own lives that such a thing is A) possible and B) wouldn’t result in Texas collapsing in on itself

Hey dipshit rednecks, you lost the civil war, go home to your dull lives, you’re not going to secede any more than you’re going to win powerball

225

Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:03:08pm

re: #92 BryanS

If P then Q ==> If !Q then !P.

That’s not logically congruent with what was said, though.

If tax cuts create jobs overseas, then not having tax cuts doesn’t promote jobs overseas. It doesn’t mean that tax cuts, which is not “not Q”, do anything in particular.

“Not” in logic does not mean ‘the opposite of’. It means the absence of.

226

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:03:51pm

re: #223 Lidane

OK. Reading more about this secessionist rally garbage, I came across this:

Texas Birther Rep. Sponsors Secession Rally

It’s Leo Berman, who’s made a career out of being a racist redneck asshole and concern troll. He’s a birther and he’s trying to push an anti-Sharia law around here. No surprise that he’s involved with this shit.

What’s really hilarious in all this is that the secessionist yahoos have Sam Houston on their posters. The real Sam Houston argued against Texas seceding during the run up to the Civil War. These secessionist assholes can’t even get their own history right.

Oh Texas education, lol

227

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:04:03pm

few people here look to the feds to clean up their spending act and will give all sorts of apologist excuses for rampant waste…there are two kinds of people, those that worship and trust the feds and those that surely don’t….I am of the latter

228

Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:04:57pm

re: #197 BryanS

The Bush era department of Justice investigated voter fraud and found basically nothing. Very few prosecutable cases. Nothing organized at all.

229

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:05:09pm

re: #222 albusteve

there are tons of stuff out there…govt needs to be reined in
[Link: hoguenews.com…]

well, i like these items:

Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security

A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns

More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for

Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse

i wonder why republican politicians fail to be outraged at these multi billion dollar boondoggles?

instead, we’re all hearing about “greedy” grade school teachers…

230

Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:05:49pm

re: #225 Obdicut

Er, by my second ‘tax cuts’ I mean ‘tax raises.

If tax cuts create jobs overseas, then not having tax cuts doesn’t promote jobs overseas. It doesn’t mean that tax ~~cuts~~ raises, which is not “not Q”, do anything in particular.

231

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:06:36pm

re: #229 engineer dog

well, i like these items:

Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security

A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns

More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for

Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse

i wonder why republican politicians fail to be outraged at these multi billion dollar boondoggles?

instead, we’re all hearing about “greedy” grade school teachers…

not from me….politicians are greedy, the people who write the rules

232

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:07:00pm

re: #229 engineer dog

i wonder why republican politicians fail to be outraged at these multi billion dollar boondoggles?

instead, we’re all hearing about “greedy” grade school teachers…

Because the teachers union tends to endorse Democrats. Defense contractors? Not so much.

233

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:07:46pm

re: #227 albusteve

few people here look to the feds to clean up their spending act and will give all sorts of apologist excuses for rampant waste…there are two kinds of people, those that worship and trust the feds and those that surely don’t…I am of the latter

i can’t tell you how incorrect the idea is that hippies like me are somehow ‘worship and trust the feds’

btw can we repeal the “patriot” act, please?

234

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:07:57pm

re: #228 Obdicut

The Bush era department of Justice investigated voter fraud and found basically nothing. Very few prosecutable cases. Nothing organized at all.

the DoJ?…no!
they’d eat their own grandmother if it served their interests
bwahahaha!

235

PhillyPretzel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:08:30pm

re: #232 Lidane
In general most if not all unions support Democrats.

236

Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:08:50pm

re: #234 albusteve

What are you talking about Steve? You think the DOJ is somehow completely corrupt?

How would reporting a lack of voter fraud have helped the Bush DOJ’s interests?

237

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:09:20pm

re: #227 albusteve

few people here look to the feds to clean up their spending act and will give all sorts of apologist excuses for rampant waste…there are two kinds of people, those that worship and trust the feds and those that surely don’t…I am of the latter

One of the biggest reasons I’m for single payer health care is it cuts out a titanic amount of federal waste, we spend way more than comparative countries for comparable care

Also, demos have pointed to my generation likely living to our 90’s, and that’s going to get real interesting if health care doesn’t start making a lot more sense than the disaster it’s been in the last decade or so

238

Killgore Trout Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:09:23pm

re: #222 albusteve

there are tons of stuff out there…govt needs to be reined in
[Link: hoguenews.com…]

Well, I think a large part of the problem is these critics and “fiscal responsibility” types are dishonest. From your link….

Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

It’s just hard to take criticism like this seriously. It’s like Palin’s Fruit Fly research gaffe. Once you scratch the surface it becomes clear that they are not serious about cutting wasteful spending.

239

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:09:39pm

re: #236 Obdicut

What are you talking about Steve? You think the DOJ is somehow completely corrupt?

How would reporting a lack of voter fraud have helped the Bush DOJ’s interests?

quit asking me what I’m talking about…scroll on

240

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:09:53pm

re: #232 Lidane

Because the teachers union tends to endorse Democrats. Defense contractors? Not so much.

Bingo. Am I the only one concerned by the apparent Republican intention of sticking it to the groups that don’t vote R and taking away their right to vote?

241

Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:10:47pm

re: #239 albusteve

quit asking me what I’m talking about…scroll on

Then maybe try not replying to my comments, if you don’t want me replying to yours? Seriously, dude, what the hell?

242

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:11:36pm

re: #235 PhillyPretzel

In general most if not all unions support Democrats.

Wonder why.

243

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:12:55pm

re: #238 Killgore Trout

Well, I think a large part of the problem is these critics and “fiscal responsibility” types are dishonest. From your link…

It’s just hard to take criticism like this seriously. It’s like Palin’s Fruit Fly research gaffe. Once you scratch the surface it becomes clear that they are not serious about cutting wasteful spending.

LOL…you got me
one thing for sure…elected officials will do nothing to undo the security of their job, but there is monumental waste in govt even so

244

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:13:16pm

re: #240 MinisterO

Bingo. Am I the only one concerned by the apparent Republican intention of sticking it to the groups that don’t vote R and taking away their right to vote?

It’s not just apparent. That’s been their MO for decades. They go after the poor, minorities, college students, the elderly, and people in Democratic districts to try and disenfranchise as many voters as possible.

245

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:14:23pm

re: #237 WindUpBird

It amazes me as people stay healthy much longer, work later in life, plan on a long retirement 25 maybe 30 years-there is little to no support to start s/s later, even a couple years is somehow out of the question. What was the average lifespan when they started s/s?

I read that if you have no major ailments at 65 you have a very good chance to make it well into your 90’s, even live to be 100. Soon that will be common. Especially if obesity & smoking rates are reduced.

246

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:15:07pm

Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security

A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns

if we eliminated corporate welfare and pentagon weapons systems cost overruns we could cut the deficit by 25%?

and republican politicians who think that balancing the budget is the most important thing in the world never talk about it?

really?

247

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:16:46pm

re: #243 albusteve

LOL…you got me
one thing for sure…elected officials will do nothing to undo the security of their job, but there is monumental waste in govt even so

If you want to see it go away, pay government manager bonuses, a percentage of a pool of money set aside from reductions from last year’s budget.

248

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:17:13pm

it’s too big
it’s too complicated
it’s too hard
nobody knows the cost
nobody knows the savings
nobody knows so nobody tries

249

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:18:02pm

re: #247 Decatur Deb

If you want to see it go away, pay government manager bonuses, a percentage of a pool of money set aside from reductions from last year’s budget.

run the govt like a business?
UNPOSSIBLE!

250

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:18:52pm

re: #246 engineer dog

if we eliminated corporate welfare and pentagon weapons systems cost overruns we could cut the deficit by 25%?

and republican politicians who think that balancing the budget is the most important thing in the world never talk about it?

really?

The top military brass would kill to be able to get rid of all the bloated, outdated, inefficient weapons systems that waste billions of dollars and have no practical use. However, they can’t because Congress spends all their time sucking up to defense contractors for campaign contributions, and it looks good for them to bring a big project home to their districts.

There’s plenty of money to be saved with deep, knowledgeable defense cuts undertaken by the respective branches if they were truly given free reign on their budgets.

251

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:19:13pm

re: #232 Lidane

Because the teachers union tends to endorse Democrats. Defense contractors? Not so much.

Well, defense contractors are part of the American ideal of KICKING ASS and BLOWING STUFF UP and BRAGGING ABOUT WEAPONRY and MAKING EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE WEAPONRY because PLANES AND TANKS ARE AWESOME! and so are HELMETS with those little RADIOS where you get to shoot a CRUISE MISSILE like a VIDEO GAME and YAY PATRIOTIC and GOD GUNS and GUTS AND APPLE PIE

Whereas taking care of our health? With infrastructure? That doesn’t play with America’s power fantasies. Not sexy. Because that doesn’t have a toy soldier you grew up with, or a toy plane, or a bunch of glamorous movies about war, or a bunch of glamorous books about war.

How many in America fantasize about being a doctor? or a scientist? or a nurse prac? How many people talk about being a part of a health care family versus being part of a military family? How many fantasize about LITERALLY saving lives, versus how many fantasize about beating the bad guys in iraq, in ‘taking out” iran, about bombing and invading and conquering and revenge and destruction

252

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:20:21pm

re: #245 Rightwingconspirator

It amazes me as people stay healthy much longer, work later in life, plan on a long retirement 25 maybe 30 years-there is little to no support to start s/s later, even a couple years is somehow out of the question. What was the average lifespan when they started s/s?

I read that if you have no major ailments at 65 you have a very good chance to make it well into your 90’s, even live to be 100. Soon that will be common. Especially if obesity & smoking rates are reduced.

Because the s/s cut off is really low.

You know that, right? Why not raise the s/s cut off? It’s proportional to your income if you don’t make much money. it’s not proportional to your income if you do. That’s what I like to call completely fucked up.

253

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:20:36pm

re: #251 WindUpBird

Well, defense contractors are part of the American ideal of KICKING ASS and BLOWING STUFF UP and BRAGGING ABOUT WEAPONRY and MAKING EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE WEAPONRY because PLANES AND TANKS ARE AWESOME! and so are HELMETS with those little RADIOS where you get to shoot a CRUISE MISSILE like a VIDEO GAME and YAY PATRIOTIC and GOD GUNS and GUTS AND APPLE PIE

Whereas taking care of our health? With infrastructure? That doesn’t play with America’s power fantasies. Not sexy. Because that doesn’t have a toy soldier you grew up with, or a toy plane, or a bunch of glamorous movies about war, or a bunch of glamorous books about war.

How many in America fantasize about being a doctor? or a scientist? or a nurse prac? How many people talk about being a part of a health care family versus being part of a military family? How many fantasize about LITERALLY saving lives, versus how many fantasize about beating the bad guys in iraq, in ‘taking out” iran, about bombing and invading and conquering and revenge and destruction

Are you proposing CDC Action Figures?

254

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:21:55pm

I just saw this on a friend’s FB. Love it.

If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights?

255

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:22:23pm

re: #245 Rightwingconspirator

basically, if you like s/s as it is now, then you support a hit on those who can least afford it (under $106,000) and an easy ride for those who can

Let’s stop pretending that people who make $300,000 a year are somehow going to collapse the economy John Galt style because of a S/S cuttoff raise

256

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:22:55pm

re: #251 WindUpBird

Well, defense contractors are part of the American ideal of KICKING ASS and BLOWING STUFF UP and BRAGGING ABOUT WEAPONRY and MAKING EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE WEAPONRY because PLANES AND TANKS ARE AWESOME! and so are HELMETS with those little RADIOS where you get to shoot a CRUISE MISSILE like a VIDEO GAME and YAY PATRIOTIC and GOD GUNS and GUTS AND APPLE PIE

Whereas taking care of our health? With infrastructure? That doesn’t play with America’s power fantasies. Not sexy. Because that doesn’t have a toy soldier you grew up with, or a toy plane, or a bunch of glamorous movies about war, or a bunch of glamorous books about war.

How many in America fantasize about being a doctor? or a scientist? or a nurse prac? How many people talk about being a part of a health care family versus being part of a military family? How many fantasize about LITERALLY saving lives, versus how many fantasize about beating the bad guys in iraq, in ‘taking out” iran, about bombing and invading and conquering and revenge and destruction

I want to be a pirate…just…take what I want and leave them howling their lamentations

257

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:24:46pm

all the women are gone!
CRY
SOB
WAIL
Albu The Pirate was here to party

258

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:25:43pm

re: #253 Decatur Deb

Are you proposing CDC Action Figures?

I’m proposing more of what I had as a kid, which were the nifty lego sets with all the ambulances and stretchers and the EMTs and so forth

Now I want a CDC quaratine action playset, I wonder if there are lego men with hazmat suits

259

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:26:21pm

re: #245 Rightwingconspirator

It amazes me as people stay healthy much longer, work later in life, plan on a long retirement 25 maybe 30 years-there is little to no support to start s/s later, even a couple years is somehow out of the question. What was the average lifespan when they started s/s?

I read that if you have no major ailments at 65 you have a very good chance to make it well into your 90’s, even live to be 100. Soon that will be common. Especially if obesity & smoking rates are reduced.

what age do you figure on retiring at?

260

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:26:22pm

re: #256 albusteve

I want to be a pirate…just…take what I want and leave them howling their lamentations

They have their own soiree around here: portlandpiratefestival.com

261

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:26:53pm

re: #259 engineer dog

what age do you figure on retiring at?

I’m not retiring, artists don’t retire

I would like however to be at a point where I don’t have to work so much :D

262

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:27:02pm

re: #254 Lidane

I just saw this on a friend’s FB. Love it.

If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights?

Pfft. Fetuses can’t be gay. What are they going to do? Bump tails?

263

albusteve Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:27:45pm

gonna go gouge one eye out
bbiab

264

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:28:11pm

re: #245 Rightwingconspirator

It amazes me as people stay healthy much longer, work later in life, plan on a long retirement 25 maybe 30 years-there is little to no support to start s/s later, even a couple years is somehow out of the question. What was the average lifespan when they started s/s?

I read that if you have no major ailments at 65 you have a very good chance to make it well into your 90’s, even live to be 100. Soon that will be common. Especially if obesity & smoking rates are reduced.

The Social Security Administration publishes actuarial tables. Check out the life table:

ssa.gov

A 65-year old woman has a life expectancy of 19.7 years and has about a 30.5% chance of making it to 90, assuming Y2006 mortality rates. If we throw out the sickly ones well I’m sure it’s as you say.

265

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:29:33pm

re: #263 albusteve

gonna go gouge one eye out
bbiab

Might I recommend a Scarlet Macaw?

266

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:29:56pm

re: #245 Rightwingconspirator

It amazes me as people stay healthy much longer, work later in life, plan on a long retirement 25 maybe 30 years-there is little to no support to start s/s later, even a couple years is somehow out of the question. What was the average lifespan when they started s/s?

I read that if you have no major ailments at 65 you have a very good chance to make it well into your 90’s, even live to be 100. Soon that will be common. Especially if obesity & smoking rates are reduced.

Also, if you start SS later, that’s literally money out of someone’s pocket, that was promised them, because they’re paying into SS. They won’t live any longer. They just have a couple years of their SS income magically taken from them.

So your solution is essentially taking money out of near-retiree’s (and really, everyone who isn’t already getting SS) pockets outright, rather than raising the cutoff.

267

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:30:50pm

re: #255 WindUpBird

basically, if you like s/s as it is now, then you support a hit on those who can least afford it (under $106,000) and an easy ride for those who can

Let’s stop pretending that people who make $300,000 a year are somehow going to collapse the economy John Galt style because of a S/S cuttoff raise

There are actually a lot of rates to play with—the max taxable is fixed (and slides back against inflation), the max payout calculation is also fixed at 100K. The yearly rate of the tax is variable by law. At least the max taxable should be inflation-corrected.

268

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:33:19pm

re: #264 MinisterO

The Social Security Administration publishes actuarial tables. Check out the life table:

[Link: www.ssa.gov…]

A 65-year old woman has a life expectancy of 19.7 years and has about a 30.5% chance of making it to 90, assuming Y2006 mortality rates. If we throw out the sickly ones well I’m sure it’s as you say.

You don’t need to be sickly, or even all that old, to be incapicitated and done with your career

Think of anyone who has a physical job, their bodies are fucked up long before retirement age

Someone like me who sits behind a desk and makes stuff? I don’t need tor etire. A guy who cuts lumber? People in construction? Not the same thing. We live longer, because we know how the body works more than we used to (40 years ago, mental health was essentially in the middle ages here) but that doesn’t mean we magically have changed our skeletons and our tendons and our back muscles and our spines to allow us to work longer

269

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:33:47pm

re: #267 Decatur Deb

There are actually a lot of rates to play with—the max taxable is fixed (and slides back against inflation), the max payout calculation is also fixed at 100K. The yearly rate of the tax is variable by law. At least the max taxable should be inflation-corrected.

That’d be nice *_*

270

MinisterO Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:35:22pm

re: #252 WindUpBird

Because the s/s cut off is really low.

You know that, right? Why not raise the s/s cut off? It’s proportional to your income if you don’t make much money. it’s not proportional to your income if you do. That’s what I like to call completely fucked up.

I agree. I posted in #130 the actual tax rates that people pay. Those don’t include the 6.2% social security tax on income up to $106800. If you add that in you’ll see that actual tax rates peak somewhere around $200k at somewhere around 35% and decrease for higher incomes.

271

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:35:57pm

re: #268 WindUpBird

You don’t need to be sickly, or even all that old, to be incapicitated and done with your career

Think of anyone who has a physical job, their bodies are fucked up long before retirement age

Someone like me who sits behind a desk and makes stuff? I don’t need tor etire. A guy who cuts lumber? People in construction? Not the same thing. We live longer, because we know how the body works more than we used to (40 years ago, mental health was essentially in the middle ages here) but that doesn’t mean we magically have changed our skeletons and our tendons and our back muscles and our spines to allow us to work longer

Even desk jockeys need to retire, as a public-safety issue. As people get closer to death, the threat of a life-sentence is diminished, and their threat to young assholes in the workplace thus increases.

272

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:39:23pm

re: #268 WindUpBird

You don’t need to be sickly, or even all that old, to be incapicitated and done with your career

Think of anyone who has a physical job, their bodies are fucked up long before retirement age

Someone like me who sits behind a desk and makes stuff? I don’t need tor etire. A guy who cuts lumber? People in construction? Not the same thing. We live longer, because we know how the body works more than we used to (40 years ago, mental health was essentially in the middle ages here) but that doesn’t mean we magically have changed our skeletons and our tendons and our back muscles and our spines to allow us to work longer

In 1986, Mr. w and I went to the place he grew up in Pennsylvania. We got a tour of the steel mill he worked at after high school. His brother in law showed us around, and Mr. w pointed out the jobs he used to do. Later, his bro-in-law was asked by some of the guys, “Who was that kid you were showing around?” They were shocked to hear it was someone who worked with them decades ago. They all looked like old men, while Mr. w, who got out of there by joining the Navy and then doing other, non-steel mill work, looked like a “kid” to them.

273

wrenchwench Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:42:14pm

re: #271 Decatur Deb

Even desk jockeys need to retire, as a public-safety issue. As people get closer to death, the threat of a life-sentence is diminished, and their threat to young assholes in the workplace thus increases.

You are wise.

And funny.

274

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:42:25pm

re: #255 WindUpBird

I would support a “means test” for s/s. But why ignore my point about aging and length of career changes? Pushing s/s out just two years would make a big difference in the deficit. And it might be easier to pass.

275

Killgore Trout Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:44:10pm

I’ve been watching some of the videos out of Libya posted on Liveleak. Nothing terribly newsworthy and too gory to repost here but lots of heavy fighting and lots of videos of imported black African mercenaries.

276

goddamnedfrank Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:56:17pm

re: #274 Rightwingconspirator

I would support a “means test” for s/s. But why ignore my point about aging and length of career changes? Pushing s/s out just two years would make a big difference in the deficit. And it might be easier to pass.

Why not lift the salary cap instead? That would fund Social Security in perpetuity.

277

Varek Raith Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:57:49pm

re: #276 goddamnedfrank

Why not lift the salary cap instead? That would fund Social Security in perpetuity.

BECAUSE POISON CONTROL CENTERS NEED TO GO!

278

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:00:18pm

re: #277 Varek Raith

BECAUSE POISON CONTROL CENTERS NEED TO GO!

“The Borgia Act of 2011”

279

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:01:28pm

Didn’t Rand Paul want to gut the CDC in his fantasy budget? This garbage about killing the Poison Control centers seems like something he’d think up.

280

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:01:34pm

re: #2 dragonfire1981

This is the same logic that is sometimes used in a corporate environment: It doesn’t matter how damaging the cuts might be in the LONG term, anything that cuts costs in the short term is a good thing.

I also get the feeling they are trying to force the States to start covering the lions share of the costs for these control centers.

Wouldn’t it be great if it were illegal to cut certain things from the budget?

No, it wouldn’t. In fact, it would not be constitutional. Congress should be able to cut funding to whatever it wants, subject to the president’s signature (unless they have 2/3rds to override a veto) and the Constitution.

That having been said, this item is an extremely bad budget cutting idea.

281

Varek Raith Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:02:28pm

Hey, HH!
Feeling a bit better?

282

First As Tragedy, Then As Farce Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:02:37pm

re: #277 Varek Raith

BECAUSE POISON CONTROL CENTERS NEED TO GO!

It’s our right to ingest lethal toxic substances in the privacy of our own home. What’s next? They’ll tell us we can’t dump benzene and mercury in the water supply? That we can’t sell meat off diseased cattle? THIS IS TYRANNY. At least we can still drink and drive.

283

HoosierHoops Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:03:43pm

re: #281 Varek Raith

Hey, HH!
Feeling a bit better?

yes..Thank you

284

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:03:48pm

re: #279 Lidane

Didn’t Rand Paul want to gut the CDC in his fantasy budget? This garbage about killing the Poison Control centers seems like something he’d think up.

The Luap father and son team and currently sitting in the corner pouting because John Boener refused to let them cut even more. The fact that such a budget would’ve been DOA in the Senate makes no difference to those two.

285

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:04:57pm

re: #284 Dark_Falcon

The Luap father and son team are currently sitting in the corner pouting because John Boener refused to let them cut even more. The fact that such a budget would’ve been DOA in the Senate makes no difference to those two.

PIMF

286

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:07:04pm

re: #280 Dark_Falcon

That having been said, this item is an extremely bad budget cutting idea.

It’s stupid, short-sighted and ultimately pointless. Poison Control centers save money. They save lives. The benefits of having them around far outweigh the costs.

If the GOP were serious about actual budget cuts, they’d give the top military brass free reign over their budget and let them kill off obsolete and/or useless military projects and bloated weapons systems that serve no purpose except to make the defense contractors happy. We’d immediately save billions.

287

Varek Raith Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:08:50pm

re: #286 Lidane

It’s stupid, short-sighted and ultimately pointless. Poison Control centers save money. They save lives. The benefits of having them around far outweigh the costs.

If the GOP were serious about actual budget cuts, they’d give the top military brass free reign over their budget and let them kill off obsolete and/or useless military projects and bloated weapons systems that serve no purpose except to make the defense contractors happy. We’d immediately save billions.

Fine. Don’t buy my super laser.
Maybe the Canadians would be interested…

288

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:09:38pm

re: #276 goddamnedfrank

Why not lift the salary cap instead? That would fund Social Security in perpetuity.

I like it! Time to dispense with the 3rd rail crap.

289

PhillyPretzel Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:10:22pm

re: #287 Varek Raith
Super Laser? Hmm sounds interesting. :)

290

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:11:50pm

re: #286 Lidane

It’s stupid, short-sighted and ultimately pointless. Poison Control centers save money. They save lives. The benefits of having them around far outweigh the costs.

Republicans just call their private physicians. They have no need of it.

291

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:12:17pm

re: #288 Rightwingconspirator

I like it! Time to dispense with the 3rd rail crap.

The third rail powers Varek’s space laser.

292

prairiefire Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:13:04pm

re: #274 Rightwingconspirator

I would support a “means test” for s/s. But why ignore my point about aging and length of career changes? Pushing s/s out just two years would make a big difference in the deficit. And it might be easier to pass.

I agree with you. I think it would be a good idea. Perhaps with some sort of adjusted payments to those affected by the change for the first two years.

293

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:13:30pm

re: #286 Lidane

It’s stupid, short-sighted and ultimately pointless. Poison Control centers save money. They save lives. The benefits of having them around far outweigh the costs.

If the GOP were serious about actual budget cuts, they’d give the top military brass free reign over their budget and let them kill off obsolete and/or useless military projects and bloated weapons systems that serve no purpose except to make the defense contractors happy. We’d immediately save billions.

Killing projects would actually than Congress incorporating realistic looks at contractor bids for systems (to prevent “cost overruns” that retrospectively are clearly the contractor lying about costs) and providing better oversight,

BBL, dinner

294

engineer cat Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:13:48pm

re: #276 goddamnedfrank

Why not lift the salary cap instead? That would fund Social Security in perpetuity.

fortunately, the administration is backing this explicitly

295

Varek Raith Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:13:51pm

re: #291 wozzablog

The third rail powers Varek’s space laser.

Yeah, well, at least I still have the fifth column…
Jerks.
:P

296

Wozza Matter? Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:14:52pm

re: #295 Varek Raith

Yeah, well, at least I still have the fifth column…
Jerks.
:P

No 4th estate?

297

Varek Raith Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:16:04pm

re: #296 wozzablog

No 4th estate?

Nope. Too subtle.

298

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:26:32pm

re: #259 engineer dog

From my day job? 65. But my photography is intended to be an income earner as long as I can do it. Just cause I love it, and I actually like the less artistic commercial side of it as well as loving the beautiful areas one visits for landscapes.

299

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:28:05pm

re: #291 wozzablog
We’ll find him an alternative energy source. Dark matter energy conversion!

re: #292 prairiefire
Yes ease it in so everything and everyone can adjust.

300

goddamnedfrank Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:28:50pm

re: #282 negativ

It’s our right to ingest lethal toxic substances in the privacy of our own home. What’s next? They’ll tell us we can’t dump benzene and mercury in the water supply? That we can’t sell meat off diseased cattle? THIS IS TYRANNY. At least we can still drink and drive.

“A tumor in every pot, a toxin in every beverage.”
Urien Rakarth for President.

301

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:31:15pm

I know I am jumping in late, but these poison control centers are just phone banks. You don’t walk in and see a doctor and they don’t send people out. How many are needed? Sounds like they could be consolidated into one or two.

302

Amory Blaine Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:34:18pm

The republican party is going all in with their assault on Americans.

303

Achilles Tang Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:34:28pm

Off topic, but I am finding it interesting how Ron Paul, Newsmax and the like are supporting LGF with so many premium ads.

304

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:35:36pm

re: #300 goddamnedfrank

Speaking of toxins I got a story…
The wife and I have inadvertently made ourselves sick for 2 months. At least I think so. An ultrasonic humidifier for her indoor orchids has been efficiently dispersing excess minerals and mold/bacteria in our air since we got it despite good maintenance. The cold weather has had the place all closed up making this worse. The fix? Get a steam humidifier instead, which is better for us, better for the orchids and less expensive to buy. Sheesh. More than two months sick, and we accidentally did it to ourselves. I had no idea till I started digging online, what with a couple vexed doctors, clean lung xrays etc etc. BTW thank you EPA for having the paper I found to figure this out.

305

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:36:42pm

re: #271 Decatur Deb

Even desk jockeys need to retire, as a public-safety issue. As people get closer to death, the threat of a life-sentence is diminished, and their threat to young assholes in the workplace thus increases.

hahahahah :D

I work alone! No worries there

306

Single-handed sailor Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:37:41pm

re: #304 Rightwingconspirator

The EPA won’t be there for you next time if the Republicans have their way.

307

goddamnedfrank Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:38:51pm

re: #301 compound idaho

I know I am jumping in late, but these poison control centers are just phone banks. You don’t walk in and see a doctor and they don’t send people out. How many are needed? Sounds like they could be consolidated into one or two.

Maybe we could offshore them while we’re at it. That way China can sell us the poison and India can sell us the recipe for the antidote.

308

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:39:02pm

re: #301 compound idaho

I know I am jumping in late, but these poison control centers are just phone banks. You don’t walk in and see a doctor and they don’t send people out. How many are needed? Sounds like they could be consolidated into one or two.

One or two? For the entire country?

You can’t possibly be serious.

309

prairiefire Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:40:29pm

re: #304 Rightwingconspirator

Is the new one a cold mist, or the old one is? I won’t use cold steam humidifiers for the kids because of the risks.

310

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:40:57pm

re: #306 mracb

That’s why I mentioned them. And BTW that is a fight they will lose.

311

ThomasLite Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:41:39pm

re: #301 compound idaho

economy of scale arguments do work… to a point. after that it’s just increased phone costs, trouble with people from one state using slang terms for substances the “national” PCC folks have no clue about and aside from that, having a single point of failure is not good.

I cannot envision that idea really saving money - it might even be more expensive…

312

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:42:10pm

re: #309 prairiefire

The EPA link I included shows all the details. There is a kind sold at Babies R Us that might be the best. We will be talking to the doctors about this of course.

313

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:42:31pm

re: #120 engineer dog

bryan, the economy grows every year that there is not a recession, by definition

the fact that there is no recession in some range of years after tax cuts is not proof that tax cuts cause growth

i’m trying to get it through your head that the economy grew much more robustly in the 90s, after large tax INCREASES, but you don’t seem to want to see this

Le sigh!

314

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:44:02pm

re: #306 mracb

The EPA won’t be there for you next time if the Republicans have their way.

Now that you mention that I’ll be writing the EPA a detailed thank you note, and sending copies to some Republicans that shot their mouths off. Not that they will listen, but I’ll take a tiny grain of satisfaction out of it.

315

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:47:16pm

re: #308 Lidane

One or two? For the entire country?

You can’t possibly be serious.

Yes I am. What does it matter where they are? Just as long as their are enough qualified people to pick up.

316

jaunte Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:48:01pm

Some work by Poison Control Centers:

U.S. Poison Centers Raise Alarm About Toxic Substance Marketed as Bath Salts
Doctors and clinicians at U.S. poison centers are increasingly concerned about products marketed as bath salts that are causing increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, agitation, hallucinations, extreme paranoia and delusions.

(from the pdf:
products labeled as bath salts and laced with a dangerous chemical are eliciting extreme adverse events among those who use them looking for a high.
The products have been sold on the Internet and, in some states, are being sold at gas stations and head shops. They’re known by a variety of names, including “Red Dove,” “Blue Silk,” “Zoom,” “Bloom,” “Cloud Nine,” “Ocean Snow,” “Lunar Wave,” “Vanilla Sky,” “Ivory Wave,” “White Lightning,” “Scarface” and “Hurricane Charlie.”)
Study: Poison Centers See Increase In Calls Regarding Insulin
Annual calls to poison centers regarding insulin have skyrocketed by 279 percent over the past 10 years, according to a new study authored by medical professionals at four U.S. poison centers. The study, published in the January edition of The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, finds that the mean annual increase in insulin overdoses and other calls to poison centers regarding insulin was 18 percent, and that the majority of the increase was caused by unintentional errors in dosing. Unintentional dosing errors rose by 495 percent during the same 10-year period.

aapcc.org

317

jaunte Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:49:03pm

re: #308 Lidane

From the link in 316:

U.S. poison centers took more than 4.2 million calls in 2009.

318

prairiefire Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:50:36pm

re: #312 Rightwingconspirator

The EPA link I included shows all the details. There is a kind sold at Babies R Us that might be the best. We will be talking to the doctors about this of course.

We initially bought a cold mist for the kids because of concern for burns. The treatment product to put in the water had so many warnings, it made my hair curl. Now we use the $15 warm steam Vick’s humidifiers and there is no worry about mold.
Of course, you have a different situation with the flowers.

319

Political Atheist Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:53:11pm

re: #318 prairiefire

Yeah, warm is better than cool mist. Especially for orchids like we have.

320

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 5:57:24pm

re: #315 compound idaho

Yes I am. What does it matter where they are? Just as long as their are enough qualified people to pick up.

There is some proper level of geographic distribution, but that’s not what this action is about. We called PCC on a kid’s medication error, and we had a houseful of firemen and EMTs in 7 minutes. You won’t get that kind of commo from current-tech national centers.

321

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:04:29pm

re: #320 Decatur Deb

There is some proper level of geographic distribution, but that’s not what this action is about. We called PCC on a kid’s medication error, and we had a houseful of firemen and EMTs in 7 minutes. You won’t get that kind of commo from current-tech national centers.

I’ll bet they tapped into the local 911. Maybe even went to the head of the line. It doesn’t matter where the expert is sitting.

322

Killgore Trout Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:11:10pm

GOP: Islamic Rally Videotape Doctored

In the midst of those shots, Pauly points to the side and says “I know quite a few Marines who would be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise.” The video is apparently edited to imply she is referring to the people inside the fundraiser, but she maintains she was referring to violent jihadists in the Middle East.

Possibly but she should have thought about the rally she was speaking at. 9-12, Pam Geller, etc.

323

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:22:05pm

re: #321 compound idaho

I’ll bet they tapped into the local 911. Maybe even went to the head of the line. It doesn’t matter where the expert is sitting.

That’s correct in theory, but I’m thinking of the local United Fund 211 service. They provide 24/7 service during nights and weekends by handing off to 211 in the state’s largest city. That keeps the phones manned, but the service provided is somewhat degraded. If the commo, language and organization are optimized, all such services could come from Dublin or Mumbai.

324

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:32:37pm

re: #323 Decatur Deb

That’s correct in theory, but I’m thinking of the local United Fund 211 service. They provide 24/7 service during nights and weekends by handing off to 211 in the state’s largest city. That keeps the phones manned, but the service provided is somewhat degraded. If the commo, language and organization are optimized, all such services could come from Dublin or Mumbai.

As is often the case, we are likely not far apart. But all cuts are not inherently bad. The goal is to do things better and cheaper if we can. Keeping a phone center open in Pocatello Idaho is not necessarily the best choice if I can talk to someone at CDC in Atlanta.

325

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:37:18pm

re: #315 compound idaho

Yes I am. What does it matter where they are? Just as long as their are enough qualified people to pick up.

So you’re seriously telling me that one or two places can handle a call volume of millions of people across the country?

Please never, ever get involved in doing any kind of business planning. You’d fail miserably.

326

Interesting Times Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:47:45pm

re: #325 Lidane

So you’re seriously telling me that one or two places can handle a call volume of millions of people across the country?

Pffft. Stick the call center in China or India. Or better still, use IVR:

“For a burning sensation in your throat, press 1. For dizziness and nausea, press 2. For sudden blindness…”

327

First As Tragedy, Then As Farce Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:53:49pm

The most interesting Republican you’ve never heard of

Gary Johnson supports abortion rights, gay unions and legalized pot. And he’s probably running for president

… and if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Still, it’s an amusing idea, and I’d give a kidney (not one of my own, mind you) to see THAT primary debate.

328

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:05:04pm

re: #325 Lidane

So you’re seriously telling me that one or two places can handle a call volume of millions of people across the country?

Please never, ever get involved in doing any kind of business planning. You’d fail miserably.

Really. I have run my own business for 16 years. I do OK. Last year was our best. This year is looking better. End of personal BS

You do not need 60 call centers scattered around the country staffed hopefully by very skilled people waiting for the phone to ring.

4,200,000 calls/ 365 days/ 60 centers/ 24 hours is 8 calls per hour per center. That is not overwhelming. I also makes no difference if you are sitting in 50 different States or in the next cubical. It does not require 60 offices staff and equipment that could easily be anywhere in the country. I’ll grant you we probably do not want to outsource this to India.

329

First As Tragedy, Then As Farce Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:07:49pm

re: #328 compound idaho

Really. I have run my own business for 16 years. I do OK. Last year was our best. This year is looking better. End of personal BS

You do not need 60 call centers scattered around the country staffed hopefully by very skilled people waiting for the phone to ring.

4,200,000 calls/ 365 days/ 60 centers/ 24 hours is 8 calls per hour per center. That is not overwhelming. I also makes no difference if you are sitting in 50 different States or in the next cubical. It does not require 60 offices staff and equipment that could easily be anywhere in the country. I’ll grant you we probably do not want to outsource this to India.

Guess how I can tell you’ve never run a business.

330

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:08:56pm

re: #329 negativ

Guess how I can tell you’ve never run a business.

Tell me. Please. Because you are wrong.

331

First As Tragedy, Then As Farce Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:19:07pm

re: #330 compound idaho

4,200,000 calls/ 365 days/ 60 centers/ 24 hours is 8 calls per hour per center.

Well, I concede that you might be in manufacturing.

This type of math is completely divorced from the reality we’re talking about, because poison control centers — like police departments, emergency rooms, fire ladders, et al. — have absolutely no control over their workload. There’s no realistic reason to think that those 4,200,000 calls are going to be evenly distributed.

332

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:25:22pm

re: #331 negativ

Well, I concede that you might be in manufacturing.

This type of math is completely divorced from the reality we’re talking about, because poison control centers — like police departments, emergency rooms, fire ladders, et al. — have absolutely no control over their workload. There’s no realistic reason to think that those 4,200,000 calls are going to be evenly distributed.

That is a good point.

333

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:25:32pm

re: #331 negativ

Well, I concede that you might be in manufacturing.

This type of math is completely divorced from the reality we’re talking about, because poison control centers — like police departments, emergency rooms, fire ladders, et al. — have absolutely no control over their workload. There’s no realistic reason to think that those 4,200,000 calls are going to be evenly distributed.

I provide professional services.

Your argument, is even more reason not to spread it out to 60 different locations requiring very highly trained professionals.

334

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:29:30pm

re: #333 compound idaho

I provide professional services.

Your argument, is even more reason not to spread it out to 60 different locations requiring very highly trained professionals.

What consolidation would you propose?

335

Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:33:57pm

re: #333 compound idaho

A) You haven’t shown that consolidation would save anything.

B) Consolidation is completely fucking irrelevant to the topic at hand. We’re talking about the level of funding.

336

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:37:09pm

re: #328 compound idaho

4,200,000 calls/ 365 days/ 60 centers/ 24 hours is 8 calls per hour per center. That is not overwhelming.

Because we all know that an emergency can be completely handled in 7 1/2 minutes while a parent is freaking out that their child might die from whatever they’ve ingested. Phone calls to a poison center never, ever run over or take longer.

Also, if you think that it can be quantified that simply, you’re delusional.

The poison control centers are valuable. We need them. They save millions in health care costs and can help to avoid trips to the ER. The benefits far outweigh the costs. Arguing for their closure or defunding is asinine.

337

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:37:55pm

re: #332 Dark_Falcon

That is a good point.

No it is not. It is exactly backwards.re: #334 Dark_Falcon

What consolidation would you propose?

Drop all local and regional poison control organizations. Replace with one industry funded (such as Chem-Trek) organization or a Federally funded org. They could have their own unique number (666?) and train all 911 operators to alert local responders and transfer poisoning issues to the experts until the responders arrive.

338

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:39:33pm

Consolidation can save funds by eliminating duplicated and redundant equipment/administration/buildings/etc. It is also easier to manage and be on the lookout for corruption/waste/etc if it is centralized.

It also becomes a single point of failure, should something go wrong. Hire a dipshit for manager? Lightning strike your building frying your equipment? Etc? Your whole nationwide poison control system becomes ineffective.

339

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:40:14pm

re: #337 compound idaho

Drop all local and regional poison control organizations.

Right away, this is stupid. Having local responders and people from the area is key to an emergency service. You don’t want to talk to someone in Colorado when you’re in Kentucky and your kid is having an allergic reaction to something they swallowed.

340

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:42:12pm

re: #339 Lidane

Right away, this is stupid. Having local responders and people from the area is key to an emergency service. You don’t want to talk to someone in Colorado when you’re in Kentucky and your kid is having an allergic reaction to something they swallowed.

Most poison control centers are not local now.

341

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:42:46pm

re: #340 compound idaho

Most poison control centers are not local now.

They’re far more local than having just one or two serving the entire goddamn country.

342

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:43:09pm

re: #339 Lidane

Right away, this is stupid. Having local responders and people from the area is key to an emergency service. You don’t want to talk to someone in Colorado when you’re in Kentucky and your kid is having an allergic reaction to something they swallowed.

They could still alert police or paramedics via phone. I think prononymous had the best, point about the dangers of consolidation. So maybe you consolidate into 12 or so larger centers. That still provides redundancy.

343

Interesting Times Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:44:35pm

re: #339 Lidane

Here’s a pretty clear example of a local center’s benefit:

Gulf Coast Poison Centers Respond to Oil Spill

the Gulf region poison centers are providing data to federal agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health.
…
“Poison centers are perfectly poised to be a go-to health care resource during a disaster,” said Jim Hirt, executive director of the American Association of Poison Control Centers. “There’s a reason that state and federal health agencies are relying on information from Gulf region poison centers – these centers provide an invaluable public health service.”

344

Decatur Deb Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:45:27pm

re: #342 Dark_Falcon

They could still alert police or paramedics via phone. I think prononymous had the best, point about the dangers of consolidation. So maybe you consolidate into 12 or so larger centers. That still provides redundancy.

That might be the right distribution, but 12 regionals=Fed. Most money now is not Fed, only a (critical) 20% or so.

345

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:46:04pm

re: #339 Lidane

Right away, this is stupid. Having local responders and people from the area is key to an emergency service. You don’t want to talk to someone in Colorado when you’re in Kentucky and your kid is having an allergic reaction to something they swallowed.

Interesting point. A local operator is more likely to know more about local poisonous flora, for example.

346

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:46:37pm

re: #342 Dark_Falcon

They could still alert police or paramedics via phone. I think prononymous had the best, point about the dangers of consolidation. So maybe you consolidate into 12 or so larger centers. That still provides redundancy.

I am sure you are right. They call 911 if they need a local responder.

347

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:48:36pm

re: #342 Dark_Falcon

They could still alert police or paramedics via phone. I think prononymous had the best, point about the dangers of consolidation. So maybe you consolidate into 12 or so larger centers. That still provides redundancy.

Larger centers = larger call volume = less time for calls and a higher risk of mistakes.

It’s better to have a larger distribution of poison centers spread across the country. This allows what is an emergency service to better serve people by giving them responders in a more localized area, and by spreading the call volume farther to allow for better, more thorough responses.

It’s an EMERGENCY SERVICE. You don’t outsource that or have someone call three or four states away to get help when they need it. It has to be much closer to people.

348

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:50:28pm

re: #345 prononymous

Interesting point. A local operator is more likely to know more about local poisonous flora, for example.

Not only that, a local operator will know the area you’re in and be able to give more accurate directions to emergency services that might be needed than just some phone jockey who patches you through to 911.

349

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:50:54pm

re: #347 Lidane

Larger centers = larger call volume = less time for calls and a higher risk of mistakes.

Not necessarily. They could hire more operators to reduce the load per individual.

However, I agree in principle because that is how it usually works out in the real world.

350

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:53:17pm

re: #349 prononymous

Not necessarily. They could hire more operators to reduce the load per individual.

However, I agree in principle because that is how it usually works out in the real world.

I’m trying to look at this realistically. We can pull out all the bullshit math we want about how many calls can be handled in an hour, but let’s face it— we’re talking about an emergency service. It’s not that simple.

Emergency services need to be tied to the area they serve. Period. You wouldn’t want to call some regional police clearinghouse when someone’s in your home so that some phone jockey four states away can patch you through to 911. Why would you want to go through that if your kid has swallowed God knows what and is on the floor having a seizure?

351

Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts Sat, Mar 5, 2011 7:53:26pm

re: #348 Lidane

Imagine the nightmare of a guy from Boston trying to decode an Appalachian accent and give poison control advice.

And again:

All this consolidation nonsense has jack shit to do with the actual topic at hand. There’s no reason to suppose consolidation would actually save money. It might. It might not. It has zero to do with cutting funding. If we wanted to try consolidation, we could, but you don’t just assume shit will cost less and adjust your budget accordingly. That’s crazypants with pockets full of dumb.

352

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 8:02:54pm

re: #350 Lidane

I’m trying to look at this realistically. We can pull out all the bullshit math we want about how many calls can be handled in an hour, but let’s face it— we’re talking about an emergency service. It’s not that simple.

Emergency services need to be tied to the area they serve. Period. You wouldn’t want to call some regional police clearinghouse when someone’s in your home so that some phone jockey four states away can patch you through to 911. Why would you want to go through that if your kid has swallowed God knows what and is on the floor having a seizure?

I’m not sure. I imagine it could work ok either way. The specific details of the implementation being the key to success. But I can definitely see advantages and disadvantages to either approach.

However, to step back from the theoretical math and broad ideological points brings us back to the real question. What’s to be gained from changing the structure/funding/etc of the poison control centers? It is an effective program. It helps save money, eyes, and lives. And it hasn’t been demonstrated that there is anything wrong with the program as it is now.

So why would we abandon a program that is effective and hope that someone will think of something better? For ideology?

353

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 8:04:54pm

re: #352 prononymous

So why would we abandon a program that is effective and hope that someone will think of something better? For ideology?

Because once you’re out of the womb, you’re on your own. That’s why.

At least that seems to be the only reason why the Republicans would want to effectively destroy what is a valuable and cost effective emergency service. They’re being idiots. Again.

354

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 8:08:33pm

re: #352 prononymous

I’m not sure. I imagine it could work ok either way. The specific details of the implementation being the key to success. But I can definitely see advantages and disadvantages to either approach.

However, to step back from the theoretical math and broad ideological points brings us back to the real question. What’s to be gained from changing the structure/funding/etc of the poison control centers? It is an effective program. It helps save money, eyes, and lives. And it hasn’t been demonstrated that there is anything wrong with the program as it is now.

So why would we abandon a program that is effective and hope that someone will think of something better? For ideology?

Because we have a serious money problem and a well-planned reorg might reduce costs without reducing capacity.

355

compound idaho Sat, Mar 5, 2011 8:19:08pm

re: #354 Dark_Falcon

Because we have a serious money problem and a well-planned reorg might reduce costs without reducing capacity.

Are you suggesting can improve quality and reduce costs?

356

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 8:19:43pm

re: #354 Dark_Falcon

Because we have a serious money problem and a well-planned reorg might reduce costs without reducing capacity.

Except there’s nothing well planned about these cuts. They’re just arbitrary.

357

Dark_Falcon Sat, Mar 5, 2011 8:20:59pm

re: #356 Lidane

Except there’s nothing well planned about these cuts. They’re just arbitrary.

Which is why I’m trying to find a way to alter this cut in such a way as to preserve capacity and still reduce spending. Budget compromises are made in such ways.

358

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sat, Mar 5, 2011 8:24:09pm

re: #353 Lidane

Because once you’re out of the womb, you’re on your own. That’s why.

At least that seems to be the only reason why the Republicans would want to effectively destroy what is a valuable and cost effective emergency service. They’re being idiots. Again.

I don’t think being in the womb has anything to do with it, it is just a convenient way to control female sexuality. If it did they would be all over laws to ban smoking and drinking while pregnant.

re: #354 Dark_Falcon

Because we have a serious money problem and a well-planned reorg might reduce costs without reducing capacity.

Key word: might. Demonstrate that is the case and we might have a discussion point. But it might lead to the typical kludge of businesses and politicians all seeing an opportunity and trying to stick their finger into the pie at the same time.

359

Lidane Sat, Mar 5, 2011 8:25:44pm

re: #357 Dark_Falcon

Which is why I’m trying to find a way to alter this cut in such a way as to preserve capacity and still reduce spending. Budget compromises are made in such ways.

That’s just it, though. There’s plenty of actual waste and graft to go after in order to cut spending that something as valuable and cost effective as poison control centers shouldn’t even be on the radar for cuts at all.

Reform oil and farm subsidies. Cut some pointless weapons systems or obsolete crap that serves no purpose except to get some congress critter a few extra bucks from their campaign donors. There’s no reason to go after something that provides an actual public service and which reduces health care costs at all.

360

Querent Sat, Mar 5, 2011 9:10:30pm

re: #9 nines09

Step on a dollar to pick up a dime.

ooh, shiny!

361

tnguitarist Sun, Mar 6, 2011 12:06:04am

re: #355 compound idaho

Are you suggesting can improve quality and reduce costs?

This has been a pretty interesting read watching someone from your side of the aisle argue for centralized anything.

362

RogueOne Sun, Mar 6, 2011 5:52:00am

Poison Control Centers are not exactly “local”, there is 1 in Indiana, and they are not “emergency” centers since they are not tied into your local 911. If you call on a cell phone (a national 800 number) you’ll be routed to the first available center nationwide and not your local center. According to their professional association:

Annually, of all the calls to a poison center about a potential poisoning, more than 70 percent of calls are managed on site and outside of a health care facility, meaning that the caller got the help they needed over the phone and didn’t have to go to a hospital or a health care provider. This makes poison centers a key resource to safely reduce costly emergency room visits and lighten the load on an overtaxed health care system.

Most of the remaining 30 percent of potential poisoning calls each year are calls from a health care facility. Doctors and nurses frequently use poison centers to be in touch with specialists on poisoning cases.

There isn’t any reason why this cannot be consolidated into much fewer centers. I’m not sure I’m understanding the other argument that switching from 57 (AAPCC says there are 61) to 1 “might not” save money.

363

Jeff In Ohio Sun, Mar 6, 2011 7:00:03am

re: #351 Obdicut

Imagine the nightmare of a guy from Boston trying to decode an Appalachian accent and give poison control advice.

I grew up in Nj and was born in Ky and most of my relatives are from Tennessee. Unless poison control is staffing toothless mechanics from the local Black Gnat auto garage, some mom from Southie is not going to have issues understanding a PC staffer from Lexington, Ky.

364

RogueOne Sun, Mar 6, 2011 7:09:53am

re: #35 tacuba14

So the next time your toddler takes a shot of Scrubbing Bubbles bathroom cleaner to the eyes, you’re on your own—because I’m sure the 911 operator isn’t going to be thrilled taking the call when people are calling to report rapists, burglars and murderers. Poison Control fills a VERY MUCH needed niche, I hope and pray this goes nothing beyond a headline.

automaticshowercleaner.com
FIRST AID:
If eye contact with cleaner occurs, rinse eyes with plenty of water. If skin contact occurs, rinse with soap and water.

No charge.

365

Lidane Sun, Mar 6, 2011 7:10:45am

re: #362 RogueOne

. I’m not sure I’m understanding the other argument that switching from 57 (AAPCC says there are 61) to 1 “might not” save money.

It’s answered for you in the paragraph you quote:

…more than 70 percent of calls are managed on site and outside of a health care facility, meaning that the caller got the help they needed over the phone and didn’t have to go to a hospital or a health care provider. This makes poison centers a key resource to safely reduce costly emergency room visits and lighten the load on an overtaxed health care system.

Having that many poison control centers saves money on health care costs, since they are able to provide services that can prevent a trip to the ER. Consolidate them down to 1 center and you risk health care costs going UP because of overwhelmed phone jockeys who make a mistake when time is valuable.

366

RogueOne Sun, Mar 6, 2011 7:32:53am

re: #365 Lidane

A.)This is a typical scare tactic. B.) This money is minuscule, if losing this funding (20% of their total) has the affect of closing half of these centers is there any evidence that 27-30 centers couldn’t handle 4 million non-emergency calls? (70% are told not to call 911 and the other 30% is for information from health professionals). C.) If this is how hard people fight over cutting spending on Poison Info I can imagine what it’s going to get like when someone suggests people who are currently 2 are going to have to wait until they’re 69 to retire.

367

Cardio (formerly JRCMYP) Sun, Mar 6, 2011 8:02:39am

re: #29 BryanS

Right…their closing assumes nobody can figure out any other way to replace that 20%. I would assume, as was the case in Louisiana where they learned the hard way it was foolish to close them, that states will find a way to fund them. What about the idea I suggested for states to impose a tax on insurance companies operating in their boundaries to make up that gap? It’s not as if funneling money through the federal level is the only way to pay for things.

Right. And an additional tax on insurance companies would fall under the “hindering the economy” headline. Are you kidding me? Not going to happen.

368

Lidane Sun, Mar 6, 2011 8:21:59am

re: #366 RogueOne

The point is, the money is minuscule for the benefits that poison control centers provide, so going after them is just punitive and stupid.

If the GOP were serious about actual budget cuts, they’d give the military branches free reign over their budgets and allow the Joint Chiefs to kill every obsolete weapons system and bloated defense contract that doesn’t do anything but waste valuable resources. Or they’d go after farm and oil subsidies to reform them.

Going after small number programs like poison control is just idiocy and grandstanding for no good reason.

369

MinisterO Sun, Mar 6, 2011 9:14:47am

re: #368 Lidane

The point is, the money is minuscule for the benefits that poison control centers provide, so going after them is just punitive and stupid.

If the GOP were serious about actual budget cuts, they’d give the military branches free reign over their budgets and allow the Joint Chiefs to kill every obsolete weapons system and bloated defense contract that doesn’t do anything but waste valuable resources. Or they’d go after farm and oil subsidies to reform them.

Going after small number programs like poison control is just idiocy and grandstanding for no good reason.

Ten thousand cuts like this would barely make a dent in the deficit. Arguing in favor of this only makes sense to a troll, an idiot or a true believer.

370

Lidane Sun, Mar 6, 2011 9:43:40am

re: #369 MinisterO

Ten thousand cuts like this would barely make a dent in the deficit. Arguing in favor of this only makes sense to a troll, an idiot or a true believer.

Seriously. Especially when you consider the fact that most of the calls going into poison control centers about human exposure to a toxin of some sort are from parents of children under 6 years old.

Anything that can ease the fears of a parent of a child that young, and keep them from having to make a frantic trip to the emergency room is a GOOD thing. Defunding it or trying to kill or “consolidate” the program is just stupid. As it is, it provides a valuable, cost effective service that helps to lower health care costs in this country and to ease the burden on already overwhelmed ER’s.

371

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Mon, Mar 7, 2011 1:35:45am

re: #364 RogueOne

[Link: www.automaticshowercleaner.com…]
FIRST AID:
If eye contact with cleaner occurs, rinse eyes with plenty of water. If skin contact occurs, rinse with soap and water.

No charge.

What a trollish statement. Not every product will have the same instructions. Just try doing a google search while you have a dangerous substance in your eyes. Dialing the phone is going to be hard enough and you don’t even have to read anything.

372

Killgore Trout Tue, Mar 8, 2011 9:05:58am

test

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Pro-Life Republicans Vote to Kill Poison Control Centers

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud