TandemBear;842301182 said:

---

....Given all this information, how can ANYONE (other than the ultra wealthy protecting their riches) support the SCOTUS decision?

---

You forget about the middle class and lower class chumps who are fooled into voting against their own best interests by the three pronged bait of Religion, Fear, and Patriotism. If you are middle class or lower class and share the same political views as 90% of the people who are members of country clubs, you have to ask yourself two questions:

1. Is it just a coincidence that wealthy people happen to know what the best path is for our country to follow? and

2. Why am I not a member of the country club?

sycasey;842301142 said:

---

Perhaps there is a middle ground to be found here? Federal tax rates are the lowest they have been in more than a century, and we are having trouble funding our government. Perhaps there is room for raising taxes to help pay for things? It doesn't have to go back to 1940s levels, but when people who have been enjoying the lowest tax rates in more than a generation start to complain about raising taxes it starts to look selfish to me.

California is not the nation; the state probably could stand to cut spending on various programs (though this would include all programs, not just the liberal ones -- our prison system is pretty bloated, for example). But Krugman was not making an argument about California, rather about the United States as a whole.

---

Re-read TandemBear's original post that I responded to. In it, he cites Krugman and Reich's assertion that expenses (i.e., public employee benefits) aren't too high, but taxes aren't too low. The growth of public employee benefits has occurred at the state level, not federal, so I presume Krugman is speaking to that issue.

I agree there is a middle ground. I think most people would be willing to pay more if they felt the money was spent efficiently and to reduce debt. However the fact of the matter is that US federal tax revenue has always been around 20% of gdp - regardless of tax rates. When tax rates have been higher, the loopholes were bigger (the Regan/O'Neil tax reform deal in the 1980's lowered rates but eliminated loopholes). You can't focus only on the marginal rate, which was my original point.

The problem is that spending has outstripped revenue. Krugman and Reich start with the presumption that all government expenses are "good" ("stimulus") and pretend that raising taxes has no bad effects. No one else budgets buy setting their expenses first.

And for the record, I agree with you that California's prison expenditures are bloated.

TandemBear;842301180 said:

---

No, there's less money for UC because it's receiving 10%, yes, TEN PERCENT (approximately) of its revenue from the state! The state of CA used to actually fully fund UC. Now a tiny percentage of its funding is from the state. Really, do you want to make that rediculous claim? It's actually a false equivalency because UC could actually receive full public funding AND have most of it go to pensions. But it doesn't. And they don't. Specious argument.

And yes, the rich did pay high marginal tax rates. That's right, when their income went through the roof, the vast majority of it went to taxes. That's what the founding fathers indended - to PREVENT concentration of wealth. Again, I'm referring to David Cay Johnston's works, specifically "Perfectly Legal." Look it up.

Before you contradict the economists I mention, perhaps you might want to back it up with more than unsubstantiated "pure silliness" statements. Anyone can make any assertion they want without actually backing them up.

I brought my sources. Why don't you provide a few?

---

Actually, you have't brought a single source. You have not linked to an article in any of your posts. No support for Krugman/Reich's supposed statements and no evidence for your subsequent claim that CA taxes are "regressive". Have no idea what you mean by that.

That being said, I'm happy to support my arguments.

When the tax rates where higher, the rich did not pay more given all of the loopholes. For example, in 1986, marginal tax rates were lowered but loopholes closed, all of which was intended to be revenue neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986.

When rates have been higher, the actual amount of taxes collected has always been around 20% of gdp (give or take). http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952

UC only gets 10% funding because it has been crowded out of the CA budget by other expenses, most notably public employee expenses. It is also more expensive to operate UC because UC’s expenses (again salaries and benefits) have grown exponentially (lots of extra and unnecessary overhead). Let's look at what has happened:

In 1990, California's state budget was $51.4B. Ten years later, it had nearly doubled to $99.4 (doesn't sound like a revenue problem). That number continued to increase until 2008-9, when the financial crash caused deep revenue declines and resulting cuts. The reason revenue declined was because the tax base was too narrow (not regressive enough) and too dependent on taxing the earnings of high earners. http://www.newamerica.net/files/Nellen_CA_Tax_System.pdf and http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_610TGR.pdf (also noting that "California spends more than the average state, and it collects more in revenues").

Between 1990-91 and 2008-9, revenue increased 166.9% or 5.61 percent per year (far in excess of inflation). During that same period, there was a large increase in the number of state employees (36.7%).

http://reason.org/files/a2ec7caccc5d660e870c4a21526ef5f8.pdf

Recent CA year by year budget break downs can be found here: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/ and here http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/2014-15/ You need to google for earlier years.

The bottom line is that California’s revenue has grown faster than inflation and California has spent more and more of its budget dollars on public employee salary and benefits due to the political power of the unions - the same unions the Krugman and Reich claim are irrelevant. This, incidentally, includes excessive compensation to prison guards and other public employees who were given absurdly generous salaries and retirement packages. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-will-pay-dearly-for-Davis-prison-deal-2788877.php

California is symptomatic (and perhaps along with Illinois the worst example) of excessive spending on public employees that occurs nationwide and at the Federal level to a varying degree. Contrary to what Krugman and Reich contend, the problem is not a lack of revenue. The problem is the growth of expenses and the inefficiency of government.

Incidentally, Krugman and Reich are not making an argument based upon "economics" or other scientific data. They are simply saying that they would rather raise taxes than cut expenses - reallocate wealth. That is opinion - not social science.

Go!Bears;842301137 said:

---

Not to give you homework, but as an articulate spokesperson for a view which runs counter to my own, i'd love to know what you think of this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_corporate_personhood_here_s_the_real_history_of_corporate.html

---

Chartered corporations (generally British) did business through out the colonies, and the statues of the original states provided for corporate charters. In 1780, about 20% of the American work force worked for corporations. See History of the Corporation, Harvard Law Review, Gareth Morgan’s Images of Organization and Dan Pink’s Free Agent Nation (so you can read some left and right thinkers on corporations). I don't know why you concluded corporations didn't exist until much later.

There is a major issue with corporate personage that is being avoided, which is federalism. The states charter corporations and control there governance and personage to a large degree. The federal role is somewhat limited to determine what state rights other states have to recognize, and to address what federal rights and obligations the corporation has vis-i-vis federal law. I hope you understand and appreciate the narrow context of federal power being discussed in the article you posted. When you have Roger Taney (of Dred Scott fame or should I say infamy) being quoted about corporations only having "legal boundaries of the sovereignty by which it is created", he is talking about state law (or another country's law) under which the corporation is created, and which the federal courts may not intrude. (When you read magazines like Slade, you get your quotes made to order for whatever the authors are selling, rather than dealing with the complexities of the Constitution). So those 9 yahoos as you call them really have a somewhat limited scope in terms of personage. Further, Congress and the Executive branch and provided corporations with enumerated federal rights, obligations (regulation) and personage in legislation, treaties and regulations, where they clearly are persons, and to call them non-persons would invalidate much of the regulation the way it is drafted. Most of the things posters object to regarding corporate personage (and you in particular) really are not looking at federal issues, but rights determined under state law, which is fairly uniform, and has been that way for a long time. As for the criminal issue, there seems a major reluctance to prosecute individual officers that break the law and rely on criminal action and fines against the corporation. I would argue a greater deterrent occurs when the government prosecutes individual officers, instead allowing executives to fork over shareholder dollars in fines to protect themselves. But that is the actions of the regulator/prosecutor, not the courts.

In my opinion, the easiest way to destroy the American economy is to destroy corporate personage. Capital will not flow to these entities, people will not work or invest in these entities, investors will not buy stock in these entities in order to avoid liability, third parties will not deal with these entities, people will not join corporate boards, and so on and so forth. If a rather measured law such as Sarbanes-Oxley made London the world financial center and creamed New York, the removal of corporate personage (if that was possible since the SCOTUS can't really change state law in this area) would simply eliminate this country from the global business community.


I don't pretend to be an expert on the Hobby Lobby case, but it seems to me that Hobby Lobby's shareholders want it both ways. They want the protections of their corporate status being separate, except when it comes to providing certain Obamacare requirements for employers providing insurance benefits to employees which the shareholders of the corporation say violate their [U]individual [/U]practice of religion under the Constitution. From this standpoint, they want the opposite of corporate personage. They want to say we shareholders are not separate from the corporation and we want our individual constitutional rights protected. What I understand from the discussion of oral arguments is that the majority of justices seem inclined to provide these individual rights in the case of a closely held corporation. If this is SCOTUS' decision, it sounds on the surface to be a rather results-oriented decision. I have not read the briefs, so if anyone wants to challenge my understanding of the case, which admittedly is based on what I have read in my law school's synopsis of the case, please do. In that regard, if I have it wrong, its Buh's fault.

Edit: You do understand that US corprorations are creatures of state law, not federal law?

dajo9;842301100 said:

---

Yes, let's use my quote. Where in that quote does it say anything about equal outcomes? Where does it say "same"?

And when I say limits for "all" parties, which I said above, how does that mean I want to exclude unions to you?

You are so invested in your dogmas about what the liberal side believes that you refuse to actually comprehend new data even when you type it down with your hand.

---

Hey Dajo9 - I found a liberal who gets it. Michael Kinsley

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-kinsley-the-solution-to-money-in-politics/2014/04/04/5ac0b412-bb8c-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

We're so fooked. I hate the majority of this court with a passion.

BearGoggles;842301186 said:

---

I you can't see that advocating for equal "quantity" of speech by force of law is equivalent to advocating for an equal outcomes, I can't help you.

I'm not invested in "dogma" - I get my news and opinion from both sides of the aisle. I'm quite confident that I spend much more time watching MSNBC and reading Mother Jones, Slate, Huff Po, etc., then you do watching/reading conservative sources.

What I am doing is commenting on what I see, which is the left repeatedly trying to limit speech and expression of those they disagree with. Brendan Eich is only the latest example of the thought police (and yes, I realize his circumstances do not present a First Amendment issue).

Interestingly, you have not responded to my question about what will happened under your approach when Republicans are in power? When the right can use the power of government to decide what quantity of speech is equal and fair. That will happen at some point - and when it does I will oppose it. You however, seem to ignore the risks to freedom and liberty when we cede that power to government (or majorities). The First Amendment is supposed to protect all of us from that.

---

But at no point did I say "equal quantity" so you are just wrong when you say I support "equal outcomes". You are making things up in your head because you just "know" what liberals want. But you are wrong.

BearGoggles;842301194 said:

---

Re-read TandemBear's original post that I responded to. In it, he cites Krugman and Reich's assertion that expenses (i.e., public employee benefits) aren't too high, but taxes aren't too low. The growth of public employee benefits has occurred at the state level, not federal, so I presume Krugman is speaking to that issue.

I agree there is a middle ground. I think most people would be willing to pay more if they felt the money was spent efficiently and to reduce debt. However the fact of the matter is that US federal tax revenue has always been around 20% of gdp - regardless of tax rates. When tax rates have been higher, the loopholes were bigger (the Regan/O'Neil tax reform deal in the 1980's lowered rates but eliminated loopholes). You can't focus only on the marginal rate, which was my original point.

The problem is that spending has outstripped revenue. Krugman and Reich start with the presumption that all government expenses are "good" ("stimulus") and pretend that raising taxes has no bad effects. No one else budgets buy setting their expenses first.

And for the record, I agree with you that California's prison expenditures are bloated.

---

Federal taxes have never reached 20% of US GDP. It was as low as 14.6% in 2010 and as high as 19.9% in 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts). A 5% swing is about $750 billion every year.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Tax rates do matter. My view on the current problem with taxes? Dividends and capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as labor. Dividends and capital gains are currently taxed at 15% generally. Why are taxes paid by the rich lower than taxes paid by working stiffs? Because money gives the rich undue power and influence in our political system (specious arguments about incentivizing capital aside). Those rates are why the Mitt Romney's of the world only pay an effective 15% tax rate. Additionally, estate taxes should be beefed up.

On the cost side, Obamacare is proving to be the biggest cost cutting legislation ever enacted aside from downsizing after war. The long term medical spending cost curve is going down dramatically. If we can get our medical costs consistent with the rest of the advanced world we wouldn't have a long term deficit problem at all. In my opinion, the best way to do that would be to enact a Medicare for all system. Obamacare is not as good as that, but it is still a great step forward.

Pensions don't really exist in the private sector so I don't think they should exist in the public sector. I think we should all have the same systems. Give people 401k's and beef up social security by reducing the payroll tax caps on the wealthy.

I think this discussion much like the player union debate is arguing at the wrong place. Everything seems focused on the wrong part of the transaction. I think the solution is not more money in the system (should players get some too & what are the limits of contribution to elections) it is less. You have to limit the take.

Why in the world have we effectively legalized bribes in our political system? We do not need elected officials taking money and campaigning for years at a time. Political campaigns do not need to be branded marketing plans. Those in office should do their job not be out on the trail or pleasing their donors to assure their stay in office. I would put severe limits to hoe much a candidate can spend on a campaign, have the cost of election by subsidized by the state, limit campaigns to very short windows, and eliminate lobbyists and the ability to donate to anyone in office.

Preface: 1st, granted, my sources Thom Hartman and Ted Nace - Gangs of America) are not exactly straight up the middle. I understand Slate has a perspective, but Yale and Michigan are not chopped liver. The point they all make is that it is the US Supreme Court that has allowed the power of corporations to grow. The Court as an institution is uniquely beyond democratic control. Corporations have captured it and are now using it to do their will. I am against that, both philosophically and practically.

2nd, it is not corporate personhood, per se which is the problem. It is extending a device created as a convenience to include the full panoply of rights afforded a human being. The former does not necessitate the later. That is a choice - made for us by people (yahoos) we did not elect and who are sadly, beyond the people's control.

wifeisafurd;842301282 said:

---

Edit: You do understand that US corprorations are creatures of state law, not federal law?

---

wifeisafurd;842301282 said:

---

The federal role is somewhat limited to determine what state rights other states have to recognize, and to address what federal rights and obligations the corporation has vis-i-vis federal law. I hope you understand and appreciate the narrow context of federal power being discussed in the article you posted...

---

Yes, I do and it is a big part of the problem of constraining corporations. They play the states off against each other and hide in the most permissive environment. Think Delaware. It is what makes the issue of Constitutional rights for corporations so dangerous in my view. If a state is permissive and the national government is powerless, corporations have too much liberty.

wifeisafurd;842301282 said:

---

If a rather measured law such as Sarbanes-Oxley made London the world financial center and creamed New York, the removal of corporate personage ... would simply eliminate this country from the global business community.

---

Bon Voyage! They can let London defend their global interests. Corporations pursue their self-interest. They will not pursue America's interest unless you make them. If they have the liberty the court wants to provide them they will naturally use it to enrich themselves. You may buy trickle-down. I don't. Rich global corporations do not make a wealthy America. The growth of income inequality over the last couple decades provides plenty of evidence of that. By freeing corporations the Court has put us at the mercy of "persons" who are not merciful and now they are moving in for the kill - They will use their money to gain control of the parts of government that can still threaten them - the elected parts. Why has ALEC pursued passage of laws which would constrain the vote (Voter ID)? They fear democracy (BearGoggles "undue influence")

wifeisafurd;842301282 said:

---

I don't pretend to be an expert on the Hobby Lobby case, but it seems to me that Hobby Lobby's shareholders want it both ways.

---

And I fear that their friends (I really want to say lackeys, but that just sounds so marxist) on the Court are prepared to give it to them. In any case, it should not be a court's to give. That power rests with the people. BTW, really want your mind blown? I agree with Jefferson about Marbury v Madison.

blungld;842301303 said:

---

I think the solution is not more money in the system

---

But that is the problem. The Court has said money is speech. Unless you want to limit speech, you cannot limit money. And so begins the arms race. Any bets on who will win it?

I think the answer is to diminish the value of money in determining electoral success. Today it is the whole ball-game. "Money is the mother's milk of politics"

That is what needs to change. But will the people who presently hold the key ($$) give it up? Not likely. It explains why the party of money (R) cheers rulings like McCutcheon. They will not willingly give up their advantage.

So what do you do? I have always thought the only way to reduce the value of money is make it cheaper to campaign.

Shortening campaigns would be great start. Many countries campaign just 6 weeks in 5 years. Compare that to our legislative election routine of two primaries and two generals in a four year period. Arguably (in California) they are campaigning 16 months out of 48 (I got my first campaign phone call weeks ago). A two stage election like in France accomplishes both primary & general in weeks, not months.

Use resources the public already owns to allow candidates to make their case to voters. Allow candidates to mail campaign materials for free (Incumbents already can). Provide free airtime on the public airwaves (broadcast radio & TV) as the cost of licensing. Provide tax incentives to other media outlets to encourage them to make their resources available to candidates. Provide tax penalties to those who don't to make the system revenue neutral.

This will, of course, never happen. Why not? Because the people with the gold make the rules and the current rules see them winning. They will spend their money, now more and more unlimited, to convince voters change would be a bad idea. They will capture the political system and use it to return those funds they spent through favorable government policy. It is all very convenient.

Newt on the Sunday morning political talkies:

Gingrich added, "The next step is the one Justice Clarence Thomas cited -- candidates should be allowed to take unlimited amounts of money from anybody. And you would, overnight, equalize the middle class and the rich."

He then proclaimed that 2 + 2 = 5 and that he was offering some swamp land in Florida for sale.

BearGoggles;842301202 said:

---

Actually, you have't brought a single source. You have not linked to an article in any of your posts. No support for Krugman/Reich's supposed statements and no evidence for your subsequent claim that CA taxes are "regressive". Have no idea what you mean by that.

That being said, I'm happy to support my arguments.

When the tax rates where higher, the rich did not pay more given all of the loopholes. For example, in 1986, marginal tax rates were lowered but loopholes closed, all of which was intended to be revenue neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986.

When rates have been higher, the actual amount of taxes collected has always been around 20% of gdp (give or take). http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952

UC only gets 10% funding because it has been crowded out of the CA budget by other expenses, most notably public employee expenses. It is also more expensive to operate UC because UC's expenses (again salaries and benefits) have grown exponentially (lots of extra and unnecessary overhead). Let's look at what has happened:

In 1990, California's state budget was $51.4B. Ten years later, it had nearly doubled to $99.4 (doesn't sound like a revenue problem). That number continued to increase until 2008-9, when the financial crash caused deep revenue declines and resulting cuts. The reason revenue declined was because the tax base was too narrow (not regressive enough) and too dependent on taxing the earnings of high earners. http://www.newamerica.net/files/Nellen_CA_Tax_System.pdf and http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_610TGR.pdf (also noting that "California spends more than the average state, and it collects more in revenues").

Between 1990-91 and 2008-9, revenue increased 166.9% or 5.61 percent per year (far in excess of inflation). During that same period, there was a large increase in the number of state employees (36.7%).

http://reason.org/files/a2ec7caccc5d660e870c4a21526ef5f8.pdf

Recent CA year by year budget break downs can be found here: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/ and here http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/2014-15/ You need to google for earlier years.

The bottom line is that California's revenue has grown faster than inflation and California has spent more and more of its budget dollars on public employee salary and benefits due to the political power of the unions - the same unions the Krugman and Reich claim are irrelevant. This, incidentally, includes excessive compensation to prison guards and other public employees who were given absurdly generous salaries and retirement packages. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-will-pay-dearly-for-Davis-prison-deal-2788877.php

California is symptomatic (and perhaps along with Illinois the worst example) of excessive spending on public employees that occurs nationwide and at the Federal level to a varying degree. Contrary to what Krugman and Reich contend, the problem is not a lack of revenue. The problem is the growth of expenses and the inefficiency of government.

Incidentally, Krugman and Reich are not making an argument based upon "economics" or other scientific data. They are simply saying that they would rather raise taxes than cut expenses - reallocate wealth. That is opinion - not social science.

---

Just want to say that I do appreciate you bringing evidence (in the form of links) to help support your argument . . . all too often when political discussions start around here such evidence is nearly absent. It's a lot to take in, so I have not read it all yet, but I appreciate the effort.

dajo9;842301299 said:

---

But at no point did I say "equal quantity" so you are just wrong when you say I support "equal outcomes". You are making things up in your head because you just "know" what liberals want. But you are wrong.

---

You are now splitting hairs and avoiding the clear implications of your argument. Limiting the expenditure of money to a fixed amount by definition equalizes permitted per person expenditures. I don't claim to know what liberals want - as your arguments evidence, their minds are probably very confused. I can, however, point to what liberals do, which is to attempt to limit speech they disagree with.

sycasey;842301383 said:

---

Just want to say that I do appreciate you bringing evidence (in the form of links) to help support your argument . . . all too often when political discussions start around here such evidence is nearly absent. It's a lot to take in, so I have not read it all yet, but I appreciate the effort.

---

Happy to do it. I appreciate your willingness to consider other points of view and to test/counter my positions. I'm always willing to learn and try to understand other viewpoints.

dajo9;842301301 said:

---

Federal taxes have never reached 20% of US GDP. It was as low as 14.6% in 2010 and as high as 19.9% in 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts). A 5% swing is about $750 billion every year.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Tax rates do matter. My view on the current problem with taxes? Dividends and capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as labor. Dividends and capital gains are currently taxed at 15% generally. Why are taxes paid by the rich lower than taxes paid by working stiffs? Because money gives the rich undue power and influence in our political system (specious arguments about incentivizing capital aside). Those rates are why the Mitt Romney's of the world only pay an effective 15% tax rate. Additionally, estate taxes should be beefed up.

On the cost side, Obamacare is proving to be the biggest cost cutting legislation ever enacted aside from downsizing after war. The long term medical spending cost curve is going down dramatically. If we can get our medical costs consistent with the rest of the advanced world we wouldn't have a long term deficit problem at all. In my opinion, the best way to do that would be to enact a Medicare for all system. Obamacare is not as good as that, but it is still a great step forward.

Pensions don't really exist in the private sector so I don't think they should exist in the public sector. I think we should all have the same systems. Give people 401k's and beef up social security by reducing the payroll tax caps on the wealthy.

---

The reason capital gains rates are lower is to incentivize investment. That is not specious - it is economics 101. If you tax something, there will be less of it. If you don't (or subsidize it), there will be more. Putting aside arguments of sticky demand, etc., the bottom line is that if you raise capital gains rates, there will be less investment (or more realistically, investment will shift to other countries that provide lower taxes). Less investment = lower US growth = higher unemployement = less prosperity for all.

That being said, I agree that certain types of income should be taxed as ordinary income. There is no reason that hedge funds managers' carried interest should be afforded capital gains treatment.

When it comes to income taxes, the "little guy" is getting a pretty good deal. 43% of people pay no federal income tax and the top 10 percenters pay over 70%. The top 1% pay 35%. Some of the 43% do pay payroll taxes (around 3% I believe), but that pays for social security, medi-care, and other benefits they will receive.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/

In my opinion, estate taxes - which tax you for money you've already paid taxes on - are unfair. There is no logic behind taxing death, other than the redistribution of wealth. Opinions can vary on that, but I don't see why society would punish people who work hard, save their money, and save. At the end of the day, its just a way for one group of people to take other peoples money.

In terms of your claim that Obamacare is a cost savings statute and is bending the cost curve, that is . . . . interesting! Most significantly, that is very revealing of your point of view - you seem to be drinking the Kool Aid and not terribly concerned with the facts/reality.

First of all, you provide no citation for this claim (and a citation to talking points will not do). The truth of the matter, it is WAY TOO EARLY for either side to know what the long term effect will be on health care costs. At this time, there are only short term evidence and projections, both of which are discussed below.

During the recession, the growth of health costs did slow, but that was before Obamacare took effect and most believe that was simply a byproduct of the recession. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/02/obamacare-fact-check-who-bent-the-cost-curve/

What we do know at this point is:

(1) there is pretty clear evidence costs have gone up in the short run.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/30/health-care-spending/7007987/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/17980-study-shows-obamacare-will-dramatically-increase-healthcare-costs-for-businesses

(2) The estimated cost of Obamacare has grown dramatically. The original non-partisan CBO 10 year estimate was $848B. That has grown to over $2 trillion.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-s-10-year-costs-will-now-eclipse-2-trillion_778723.html

(3) Over the past 20 years, Federal spending has grown 63% faster than inflation. Houston: We have spending problem (not a revenue problem). http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

(4) Per the link above, Obamacare is only a part of the federal budget. Until there is reform in entitlements (45% of the budget), defense (19%), and federal payroll (19%), we have a significant long term deficit problem. Incidentally, I'm in favor of means testing for social security, something we probably can agree on.

I am reserving my right to call bullsh# t on any argument, regardless of how intellectual and seemingly fact based, that has an end result of accelerating the gap between the top and the bottom .

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

BearGoggles;842301393 said:

---

You are now splitting hairs and avoiding the clear implications of your argument. Limiting the expenditure of money to a fixed amount by definition equalizes permitted per person expenditures. I don't claim to know what liberals want - as your arguments evidence, their minds are probably very confused. I can, however, point to what liberals do, which is to attempt to limit speech they disagree with.

---

I'm not splitting hairs. It doesn't equalize the outcome because most people can't afford to spend much money on campaign donations. Your argument is like saying everybody has the same house because they legislated a $900k cap on housing purchases.

You are very confused.

BearGoggles;842301410 said:

---

(2) The estimated cost of Obamacare has grown dramatically. The original non-partisan CBO 10 year estimate was $848B. That has grown to over $2 trillion. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-s-10-year-costs-will-now-eclipse-2-trillion_778723.html

---

I'm going to start with this because you have a big problem. You don't know when you are being misled. The estimated cost of Obamacare has NOT grown dramatically. It was estimated to cost $848B from 2010-2019 and is estimated to cost $2 trillion from 2015 - 2024. These are the expected costs for these time periods all along, but your "sources" just cite the 10 year cost, without pointing out they are covering 2 different 10 year periods and the 1st 10 year period was pre-Obamacare for much of it. You've basically blown all your credibility with this citation alone. But I'll hit a couple more of your comments.

BearGoggles;842301410 said:

---

(4) Per the link above, Obamacare is only a part of the federal budget. Until there is reform in entitlements (45% of the budget), defense (19%), and federal payroll (19%), we have a significant long term deficit problem. Incidentally, I'm in favor of means testing for social security, something we probably can agree on.

---

As I mentioned before, if we can get our health care costs to equal what other advanced countries pay then we have no long term deficit problem (entitlements = medicare = health care costs). The solution is an efficient medicare for all type system. If conservatives insist on blocking that then the wealthy will be asked to pony up the taxes for an inefficient system they are foisting on the country. Also, I'm opposed to means testing.

BearGoggles;842301410 said:

---

When it comes to income taxes, the "little guy" is getting a pretty good deal. 43% of people pay no federal income tax and the top 10 percenters pay over 70%. The top 1% pay 35%. Some of the 43% do pay payroll taxes (around 3% I believe), but that pays for social security, medi-care, and other benefits they will receive.

---

Please provide a citation for your claim that only 3% of those that don't pay federal income taxes pay payroll taxes. I checked your links and I didn't see it. I think you are full of **** again. As far as the wealthy paying an inordinate amount of federal taxes - well yes, that's what happens they receive an inordinate amount of the income.

BearGoggles;842301410 said:

---

In terms of your claim that Obamacare is a cost savings statute and is bending the cost curve, that is . . . . interesting! Most significantly, that is very revealing of your point of view - you seem to be drinking the Kool Aid and not terribly concerned with the facts/reality.

---

I'll let the conservative magazine Forbes handle this one. I would never expect you to actually concede you are wrong about Obamacare.
"While we can expect the Obamacare bashers to pour cold water on this good news, there is no denying that the law is paying some dividends in the critically important effort to bend the cost curve in healthcare delivery"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/

bearister;842301426 said:

---

I am reserving my right to call bullsh# t on any argument, regardless of how intellectual and seemingly fact based, that has an end result of accelerating the gap between the top and the bottom .

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

---

To paraphrase Thatcher: You'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were even less rich?

Go!Bears;842301364 said:

---

Preface: 1st, granted, my sources Thom Hartman and Ted Nace - Gangs of America) are not exactly straight up the middle. I understand Slate has a perspective, but Yale and Michigan are not chopped liver. The point they all make is that it is the US Supreme Court that has allowed the power of corporations to grow. The Court as an institution is uniquely beyond democratic control. Corporations have captured it and are now using it to do their will. I am against that, both philosophically and practically.

2nd, it is not corporate personhood, per se which is the problem. It is extending a device created as a convenience to include the full panoply of rights afforded a human being. The former does not necessitate the later. That is a choice - made for us by people (yahoos) we did not elect and who are sadly, beyond the people's control.





Yes, I do and it is a big part of the problem of constraining corporations. They play the states off against each other and hide in the most permissive environment. Think Delaware. It is what makes the issue of Constitutional rights for corporations so dangerous in my view. If a state is permissive and the national government is powerless, corporations have too much liberty.



Bon Voyage! They can let London defend their global interests. Corporations pursue their self-interest. They will not pursue America's interest unless you make them. If they have the liberty the court wants to provide them they will naturally use it to enrich themselves. You may buy trickle-down. I don't. Rich global corporations do not make a wealthy America. The growth of income inequality over the last couple decades provides plenty of evidence of that. By freeing corporations the Court has put us at the mercy of "persons" who are not merciful and now they are moving in for the kill - They will use their money to gain control of the parts of government that can still threaten them - the elected parts. Why has ALEC pursued passage of laws which would constrain the vote (Voter ID)? They fear democracy (BearGoggles "undue influence")



And I fear that their friends (I really want to say lackeys, but that just sounds so marxist) on the Court are prepared to give it to them. In any case, it should not be a court's to give. That power rests with the people. BTW, really want your mind blown? I agree with Jefferson about Marbury v Madison.

---

But a catastrophic loss of business. At the start of this century around 80% of this country is (was?) employed by corporations or similar entities such as LLCs (see the original quoted sources) and if they do business elsewhere, the job loss also will be catastrophic and take down this economy. Its a matter of being practical, not trickle down. And its just not London. You can have all corporate action being regulated by a treaty with Bermuda in case you haven't been following post-SOX securities market activity. Its the classic race to the bottom for those that took a corporations class in law school. Delaware? Your a couple decades behind.

bearister;842301426 said:

---

I am reserving my right to call bullsh# t on any argument, regardless of how intellectual and seemingly fact based, that has an end result of accelerating the gap between the top and the bottom .

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

---

Some things idealists may not want to hear:

Was wealth more concentrated in eras of national prosperity, or less concentrated then now? You may not like the answer to this (the nation has had far greater concentrations of wealth in the past during certain periods), but that may not matter in any event.

Stiegler is a legit economist, and thanks for posting the article. Stiegler makes good points about anti-trust, etc. but also fails to realize we no longer operate in an economy where this nation is insular, and, for example, our economy controls prices or wages. This is not a Dem or Rep viewpoint, as both parties have controlled the government while economic forces have become globalized. This country can't control (but can influence) wages, because employees can be outsourced to other countries. This country can't control (it can influence) oil or other energy prices because the rest of world has emerging economies. We have domestic corporations that hold huge amounts of cash and investment off shore, to the benefit of other countries due to domestic tax rates, or regulatory issues. And do we really control our own interest rates, when such a large portion of our short term debt is owned by another country? Capital, investment and labor can not move internationally, and this country must compete like any other country for same. I could go on with examples, but the point should be made.

The concept, for better or worse, has been to allow concentration of business so our domestic companies can be stronger to compete on the world market, and as a result, there is a greater concentration of wealth in this country (see Stiegler's article). This has been true regardless of who controls the White House. To bring this close to home to Cal grads (and its touched upon by Stiegler) is particularly true in the high tech business, where market domination (he calls them monopolies) by companies like Microsoft and Oracle has been favored by the government as a means for a domestic competitive advantage. You have a Democratic President who right now wants to drop corporate tax rates to be more competitive (for a fuller discussion of this issue, Google Robert Reich). Everyone on the right and left seems to like to bash our current and past Presidents, but things are a lot more complicated now, and tied into geo-political global concerns as well. [U]Put another way, the President (or the federal government) may no longer be able to control concentration of wealth in this nation or elsewhere in a global economy.[/U]

One last salvo about our tax structure since it is discussed by Stiegler. We tax income, rather than wealth. Why? We also reward certain types of income over other types of income (I get that if you hold an asset over a long time you should not be taxed on inflation, but the capital gains tax break goes beyond mere indexing typically). We give tax credits to corporations and individuals, often for what turns out to be questionable or counter-productive behavior. We are rewarding certain types of behavior over others. Is this wise? Shouldn't are tax code by more behavior neutral? Okay, lets have some good treatise on the tax law.

dajo9;842301465 said:

---

I'll let the conservative magazine Forbes handle this one. I would never expect you to actually concede you are wrong about Obamacare.
"While we can expect the Obamacare bashers to pour cold water on this good news, there is no denying that the law is paying some dividends in the critically important effort to bend the cost curve in healthcare delivery"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/

---

Price stabilization helps everyone, including businesses. Forbes covers business, so they're interested. This might be case where a political block (business) usually votes one way but benefits from legislation and enactment engineered by the opposition Dems (but stolen from the GOP in the first place). From a practical political perspective, this is why the GOP fought Obamacare tooth and nail and are still fighting it...because if it works and people like it (or don't notice it), GOP lose.

wifeisafurd;842301588 said:

---

Some things idealists may not want to hear:

Was wealth more concentrated in eras of national prosperity, or less concentrated then now? You may not like the answer to this (the nation has had far greater concentrations of wealth in the past during certain periods), but that may not matter in any event.

Stiegler is a legit economist, and thanks for posting the article. Stiegler makes good points about anti-trust, etc. but also fails to realize we no longer operate in an economy where this nation is insular, and, for example, our economy controls prices or wages. This is not a Dem or Rep viewpoint, as both parties have controlled the government while economic forces have become globalized. This country can't control (but can influence) wages, because employees can be outsourced to other countries. This country can't control (it can influence) oil or other energy prices because the rest of world has emerging economies. We have domestic corporations that hold huge amounts of cash and investment off shore, to the benefit of other countries due to domestic tax rates, or regulatory issues. And do we really control our own interest rates, when such a large portion of our short term debt is owned by another country? Capital, investment and labor can not move internationally, and this country must compete like any other country for same. I could go on with examples, but the point should be made.

The concept, for better or worse, has been to allow concentration of business so our domestic companies can be stronger to compete on the world market, and as a result, there is a greater concentration of wealth in this country (see Stiegler's article). This has been true regardless of who controls the White House. To bring this close to home to Cal grads (and its touched upon by Stiegler) is particularly true in the high tech business, where market domination (he calls them monopolies) by companies like Microsoft and Oracle has been favored by the government as a means for a domestic competitive advantage. You have a Democratic President who right now wants to drop corporate tax rates to be more competitive (for a fuller discussion of this issue, Google Robert Reich). Everyone on the right and left seems to like to bash our current and past Presidents, but things are a lot more complicated now, and tied into geo-political global concerns as well. [U]Put another way, the President (or the federal government) may no longer be able to control concentration of wealth in this nation or elsewhere in a global economy.[/U]

One last salvo about our tax structure since it is discussed by Stiegler. We tax income, rather than wealth. Why? We also reward certain types of income over other types of income (I get that if you hold an asset over a long time you should not be taxed on inflation, but the capital gains tax break goes beyond mere indexing typically). We give tax credits to corporations and individuals, often for what turns out to be questionable or counter-productive behavior. We are rewarding certain types of behavior over others. Is this wise? Shouldn't are tax code by more behavior neutral? Okay, lets have some good treatise on the tax law.

---

I always appreciate your learned take on things--and when you disagree you do it like a gentleman. I am no expert on this stuff. If I try to figure it out I will undoubtedly pull a muscle.

CalAlumnus13;842301525 said:

---

To paraphrase Thatcher: You'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were even less rich?

---

I have a formula response to any reference to Thatcher:

wifeisafurd, what is your take on this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5757367/

wifeisafurd;842301588 said:

---

Was wealth more concentrated in eras of national prosperity, or less concentrated then now? You may not like the answer to this (the nation has had far greater concentrations of wealth in the past during certain periods),

---

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression we're getting close to gilded age income inequality levels.

wifeisafurd;842301588 said:

---

Everyone on the right and left seems to like to bash our current and past Presidents, but things are a lot more complicated now, and tied into geo-political global concerns as well. [U]Put another way, the President (or the federal government) may no longer be able to control concentration of wealth in this nation or elsewhere in a global economy.[/U]

---

You're right of course. Globalization and technology, the primary drivers of income inequality aren't going anywhere. And according to this new study from the French economist Thomas Piketty: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/01/inequality
capital's share of income will probably continue to grow against labor's.

Which is why some people are so dismayed by SCOTUS's relentless assault on campaign finance laws.

wifeisafurd;842301588 said:

---

Was wealth more concentrated in eras of national prosperity, or less concentrated then now? You may not like the answer to this (the nation has had far greater concentrations of wealth in the past during certain periods), but that may not matter in any event.

---

Wealth was possibly more concentrated in the Gilded Age (though stats are hard to get) and equally concentrated around the Great Depression. Wealth was far less concentrated during the 1950's and 1960's when America's middle class prospered greatly. I like the answer for my point of view.

wifeisafurd;842301588 said:

---

This country can't control (but can influence) wages, because employees can be outsourced to other countries.

---

Service sector employees to a large extent can't be outsourced, including retail workers, waiters, etc. These folks will benefit greatly from raising the minimum wage. They will spend most of their increased earnings and put it right back into the economy rising the tide for all socio-economic classes.

wifeisafurd;842301588 said:

---

And do we really control our own interest rates, when such a large portion of our short term debt is owned by another country?

---

We have more control than most people understand. For another country to unload US debt they have to then sell dollars. Selling dollars lowers its value, making US business more competitive on a global scale. So our debtholders are not in a position to punish us by ditching Treasuries. It would be closer to murder-suicide.

wifeisafurd;842301588 said:

---

Stiegler.

---

It's Stiglitz, not Stiegler

wifeisafurd;842301588 said:

---

One last salvo about our tax structure since it is discussed by Stiegler. We tax income, rather than wealth. Why? We also reward certain types of income over other types of income (I get that if you hold an asset over a long time you should not be taxed on inflation, but the capital gains tax break goes beyond mere indexing typically). We give tax credits to corporations and individuals, often for what turns out to be questionable or counter-productive behavior. We are rewarding certain types of behavior over others. Is this wise? Shouldn't are tax code by more behavior neutral? Okay, lets have some good treatise on the tax law.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment, though it is unlikely to happen as long as we allow the wealthy to use their money to achieve undue influence and power over our political system.

bearister;842301634 said:

---

wifeisafurd, what is your take on this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5757367/

---

This article is about successful private parties who want to distribute their wealth, and in one case, through government (one guys calls for higher taxes on his wealth). Since my wife and I are leaving most of our money to colleges/research, I guess I agree with the basic tenure of the story. I also tend to think one item that does allow mobility is education. Its my money, so I want to give to the best causes, and that is what I think the Buffett's of the world are saying. In general (and subject to a lot of assumptions), regarding the guy that wants to increase wages, I think companies that take a higher wage approach tend to attract the better employees and enjoy greater success (Costco model vs. KMart model). I may be misstating what the guy who wants more taxes thinks, but I think he opposes all the tax loopholes and I think he favors a tax on wealth versus income or income based taxes would allow greater productivity and provide public policy advantages (or as one of my partners put it, today in SoCal we have a largely Hispanic work force paying for the benefits of white, old people). So I guess I generally agree with the article.

Edit: Opps, I forgot executive salaries. That is a tougher one. On one hand, I think you need market forces to attract the top management. OTOH, some salaries clearly are absurd, and I question the governance of the BOD. In a closely held company, its hard to distinguish return on capital vs salary, and salary provides a tax deduction, so once again the tax code artificially increase salaries. I think you end up looking at each situation on a case by case basis.

dajo9;842301460 said:

---

I'm not splitting hairs. It doesn't equalize the outcome because most people can't afford to spend much money on campaign donations. Your argument is like saying everybody has the same house because they legislated a $900k cap on housing purchases.

You are very confused.

---

And you accuse me making straw man and confused arguments? Equating a house - a tangible good to an intangible right (speech) is bizarre. Not everyone has the ability to buy a house, the production of a house costs money (speech does not necessarily), and there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to own a house.

Your poor analogy does inadvertently make one important point. If the government enacted a law imposing a $900k cap, people would be outraged by the infringement on liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most likely, proponents of such a law would be called fascists or collectivists. In any event, the vast majority would find such a cap to be totally unacceptable and inconsistent with our country's values. It is no less outrageous to limit speech, but somehow that is lost on you.

Keep digging.

bearister;842301630 said:

---

I have a formula response to any reference to Thatcher:

---

Bobby Sands. Hunger strike. Suicide. He at least got to choose his way out. His pals took that choice from others.

dajo9;842301465 said:

---

I'm going to start with this because you have a big problem. You don't know when you are being misled. The estimated cost of Obamacare has NOT grown dramatically. It was estimated to cost $848B from 2010-2019 and is estimated to cost $2 trillion from 2015 - 2024. These are the expected costs for these time periods all along, but your "sources" just cite the 10 year cost, without pointing out they are covering 2 different 10 year periods and the 1st 10 year period was pre-Obamacare for much of it. You've basically blown all your credibility with this citation alone. But I'll hit a couple more of your comments.



As I mentioned before, if we can get our health care costs to equal what other advanced countries pay then we have no long term deficit problem (entitlements = medicare = health care costs). The solution is an efficient medicare for all type system. If conservatives insist on blocking that then the wealthy will be asked to pony up the taxes for an inefficient system they are foisting on the country. Also, I'm opposed to means testing.



Please provide a citation for your claim that only 3% of those that don't pay federal income taxes pay payroll taxes. I checked your links and I didn't see it. I think you are full of **** again. As far as the wealthy paying an inordinate amount of federal taxes - well yes, that's what happens they receive an inordinate amount of the income.



I'll let the conservative magazine Forbes handle this one. I would never expect you to actually concede you are wrong about Obamacare.
"While we can expect the Obamacare bashers to pour cold water on this good news, there is no denying that the law is paying some dividends in the critically important effort to bend the cost curve in healthcare delivery"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/

---

The cost of Obamacare was hidden intentionally. The 10 year cost for 2010-19 more than doubled for 2015-24. If that was "expected" all along, why was that not disclosed? Why was the program sold using the lower number that didn't include several years of actual coverage? Part of the answer is that the democrats did not want the number to be above one trillion and great lengths were taken to fudge the numbers (not to mention hide the taxes). Another part of the answer is that the Obama administration adopted regulations that drastically increased costs (mandatory coverage and limiting the grandfathering of prior health plans so that people would be forced to pay higher premiums for the new plans). Cost (premium dollars, copays and deductibles) have gone up for everyone not on a grandfathered plan, other than those receiving direct subsidies or Medicaid. President Obama is again trying to hide this reality by illegally and cynically delaying implementation of the mandates on large businesses until after the 2014 elections (i.e., these company's can continue to use their grandfathered plans offering lower benefits and lower costs until after the election). The number of people covered by these plans is 8-10 times higher than those who had their individual plans cancelled. All of these people will lose their plans, see higher rates and/or lose their doctors.


Please provide a citation to a responsible publication indicating that bending the medical cost curve will balance the budget. I'm very skeptical of that - even if the most optimistic projections of cost savings are achieved. In terms of equalizing our health care costs to other nations, we will also see the corresponding decline in the availability of treatment and quality of care. Look no further than the provider networks for the various exchanges - many doctors and hospitals are opting out because of the horrible reimbursements.

I'm very surprised you are not in favor of means testing for entitlements, given your desire to take from the wealthy. Why should wealthy seniors receive the same amount as the poor? The reason I support this is the fact that the social security and medi-care benefits paid to the current generation of seniors far outweigh what they paid in. I feel no moral obligation to over pay wealthy seniors so that my children will inherit an even larger debt.

Your citation to the forbes article from 14 months ago - before any of the new Obamacare expenses hit the market - is directly contradicted by the article I cited from 4/1/14 (last week). http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/30/health-care-spending/7007987/

The Obamacare regulations mandated coverage in many areas that were not previously universally covered (e.g., ambulatory care, lab services, maternity, mental health, prescription drugs, etc.). Putting aside the fact that this was adopted by executive fiat, this has resulted in (at least a short term) increase in the total dollars spent - people are using more services. Premiums (or deductibles/copayments) are skyrocketing as a result which is what the USA today article confirms. The [U]hope [/U]is that in the long term, costs will be reduced due to the increased preventative care and the [U]hope [/U]that people will make efficient use of the new found coverage (i.e., office visits, not emergency rooms). That remains to be seen - particularly because to this point a relatively small percentage of the uninsured have received coverage.

My reference to "3% was a reference to the amount of the payroll tax, not the % of people who pay that tax. I was going off of memory it turns out that I was incorrect. Low earning employees pay 7.65% combined payroll taxes for social security and medi-care with their employers paying a like amount. People earning more than $117,000 pay more. Self employed people pay twice that.

bearister;842301634 said:

---

wifeisafurd, what is your take on this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5757367/

---

One of the biggest ironies of the "wealthy people" who want to close the wealth gap and have the wealthy "pay more" is that they are giving away their fortunes to charitable foundations. In effect, they are avoiding paying billions in taxes. Also, any of these people are welcome to right checks to the treasury, but they don't. They want "other" rich people to pay more.

Obviously, they feel they will spend their money more wisely than the government. I feel the same way - I just wish they'd allow me the same privilege.

Responding more directly to your point, I am more concerned about median income, employment, and poverty levels than wealth disparity. I don't care how rich other people are as long as I (and other people) are in lower-middle class or better. Immigrants want to come to the USA because they perceive that more than any other country, there is opportunity here if you work hard, get an education, and make wise choices (i.e., avoiding drugs, out of wedlock pregnancy and other self destructive behavior).

BearGoggles;842301668 said:

---

It is no less outrageous to limit speech, but somehow that is lost on you.

---

This case has nothing to do with speech. It was about limiting how much money a person could spend to attempt to influence our politics. The court's brilliant decision in Citizens United removed any limits on money/speech. Until McCutcheon you just could not give your money/speech directly to the politicians you were trying to bribe. Now you can. Woo Hoo! :woohoo

Some of us think this might harm our democracy (if one can still use that term to describe what we have). But what do we know? Chief Justice Roberts is sure there is a bright line between contributions and bribes.

You raised the federalism issue. Delaware is just one example among many of a permissive state regulatory environment. I am aware that there are even more permissive foreign environments, but there's a catch - you have to trust those governments. There's a reason Russian money is in London.

I think you overestimate the impact greater control would have. We allow corporations to park off shore and still enjoy the benefits of access to the American economy (Uh, maybe this is because we let them buy influence in our political system?) We don't have to do that.

We are always told here in California we'd better not ask anything of our businesses or they will all flee to Nevada, or Texas. Last time I checked there were plenty of them still here. There are even greater reasons for businesses to stay in the US, especially if we started exercising our ability to limit their access to our economy. You want to play in our park, play by our rules. Don't like our rules, leave - try to sell your stuff to Bahamians.