(09-11-2012 12:37 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  What happens when no one wants to be a doctor?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

We can worry about that when medical schools don't have an acceptance rate of about 15%

(09-11-2012 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 12:37 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  What happens when no one wants to be a doctor?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

We can worry about that when medical schools don't have an acceptance rate of about 15%

Awesome, so we'll have just as many doctors, but the quality of doctors will suffer.

Forgive me if that prospect doesn't fill me with joy.

(09-11-2012 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 12:37 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  What happens when no one wants to be a doctor?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

We can worry about that when medical schools don't have an acceptance rate of about 15%

Awesome, so we'll have just as many doctors, but the quality of doctors will suffer.

Forgive me if that prospect doesn't fill me with joy.

That argument might fly if our 'private' health care system wasn't subtituting nurse practicioners for doctors.

(09-10-2012 09:05 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 08:59 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 08:30 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 08:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 08:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Consider his audience, a group of people looking for the easy way out of their problems.....and he will sell it to them again.

I don't think he is down in Florida to tell the seniors about euthanasia. But I suspect he will talk about Paul "lyin" Ryan's Medicare/medicaid plans.

Obama is the one that RAPED medicare to the tune of $700billion sure benefits to participants don't change, they just have to find providers who will give them service at a GREATLY reduced rate.

Lie.

Fact check Bubba, Obama owns up to the 700 billion cut, but says the cuts are to service providers not fee increases to medicare participants. The population is aging, thus increasing participant numbers, while reducing the payment amount for services. The best case for service providers see MORE medicare patients to get the same money. How many Highly Educated people want to work more to earn less pay. That goes against the very concept of CAPITALISM, but then again so does OBAMA.

Obamacare.... medicare patients If you like your doctor you can continue with them as your doctor, assuming your doctor will accept medicare patients.

So the doctors are just going to quit and become construction workers? Mimes?

Granted, some older ones may retire. What we can do to combat that is lift the licensing and immigration restrictions on doctors in the US to increase competition. (You guys still like competition, right?) There are countless foreign doctors more qualified than many we have here, who make far less than what doctors do here, who would love to replace your beloved family doc with the long malpractice record who graduated last in his Caribbean med school. Health care in the US costs twice as much as it does in western Europe just because of these restrictions alone. We can even force them to participate in Medicare as part of the licensing deal.

Quote:That's what tax cuts do. Ask your local politicians who offer tax incentives to businesses to relocate or expand their operations there.

But not as well as spending increases. Spending increases almost across the board are more stimulative.



And yes there are more multiplier estimates than this one, and they generally find similar results.

Quote:90% of "spending cuts" by either party are merely reductions in future increases. The other 10% is ususally elimination of programs that didn't do what they expected them to do or are no longer viable/necessary. How does reducing increases in the future shrink the economy today? False choice intended to scare the weak minded.

That's irrelevant. Spending less than you would otherwise, in this economy at least, will leave the economy smaller than it would be otherwise.

Just use Pollster.com to look at the polls in aggregate.

(09-11-2012 01:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 12:37 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  What happens when no one wants to be a doctor?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

We can worry about that when medical schools don't have an acceptance rate of about 15%

Awesome, so we'll have just as many doctors, but the quality of doctors will suffer.

Forgive me if that prospect doesn't fill me with joy.

That argument might fly if our 'private' health care system wasn't subtituting nurse practicioners for doctors.

What is the option? Further, what has Obama proposed to address this?

a) tax doctors more
b) pay them less

ftr, Obamacare ALSO utilizes NP's and PA's for cost savings. How else are you going to do it?

(09-11-2012 04:45 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:That's what tax cuts do. Ask your local politicians who offer tax incentives to businesses to relocate or expand their operations there.

But not as well as spending increases. Spending increases almost across the board are more stimulative.



And yes there are more multiplier estimates than this one, and they generally find similar results.

No, they really don't. This is a cut and paste from a blog, and not a "report" out of moody's. Your claim doesn't make it so, or more importantly, doesn't make it pertinent to the discussion. The simple facts that we've already done an awful lot of spending, and businesses are sitting on record amounts of cash make a 2008 analysis immaterial by changing the math. You can only push on a string for so long. at SOME point, you have to pull from the other end.

Quote:

Quote:90% of "spending cuts" by either party are merely reductions in future increases. The other 10% is ususally elimination of programs that didn't do what they expected them to do or are no longer viable/necessary. How does reducing increases in the future shrink the economy today? False choice intended to scare the weak minded.

That's irrelevant. Spending less than you would otherwise, in this economy at least, will leave the economy smaller than it would be otherwise.

Wrong. It merely doesn't GROW as fast as it might have otherwise. However, as I've stated before... by simply clearing up the uncertainty and eliminating the incentives to shelter income, you MORE than offset those losses, while continuing to be stimulative.

Seriously... see if you can follow me here...

WIth income taxes at 40% and cap gains at 15, how much LESS growth of my money, pre-tax, am I willing to accept to shelter the income? Understanding that sheltering income OFTEN comes at a cost. If the opportunity cost is less than the tax differential, I will report the income.

Quick hint...
Capital gains must be held for a year... so if offered a choice between taking $1mm in cash, taxed at 40% (600k after tax), or 750,000 taxed at 15% in a year (612k after tax), I am basically indifferent, right? However.... What does the GOVERNMENT get?

Option 1, 400k at the end of the year
Option 2, 112k at the end of NEXT year (1yr holding period makes it 2013 income)

I am indifferent, and the government is out $288k

What if taxes were say 30% rather than 40, but my options were the same? Clearly I am better off paying 30%, right? 700k today as opposed to 612k in a year? And the government gets 300k in a year rather than 112k in two.

I've made it simple so many can follow... the point is that there are fixed AND opportunity costs associated with sheltering income. Judging by the reported effective tax rates of the wealthy, we currently aren't getting ANY reported income taxes from them. How is raising the rate on something they aren't reporting going to help? The BETTER solution, just like your local government, is to encourage them to report more income/discourage the use of shelters. I realize you'd like to merely legislate them out of existence, and that SOUNDS good... but the big winners in THAT scenario are the lawyers. You can't legislate what you can't control. It's the same argument in the "war on drugs".

(09-11-2012 05:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 04:45 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Spending increases almost across the board are more stimulative.

And yes there are more multiplier estimates than this one, and they generally find similar results.

No, they really don't. This is a cut and paste from a blog, and not a "report" out of moody's. Your claim doesn't make it so, or more importantly, doesn't make it pertinent to the discussion. The simple facts that we've already done an awful lot of spending, and businesses are sitting on record amounts of cash make a 2008 analysis immaterial by changing the math. You can only push on a string for so long. at SOME point, you have to pull from the other end.

To Hambone's comments I would add that there are two problems with this analysis:

1. ALL of those multipliers are way too small to be worth doing. There are negative impacts to going deeper in debt that are not considered here, and getting a multiplier of under 2.00 doesn't justify taking on the negative impacts.

2. Without the underlying methodology and assumptions being laid out (as usual, Max, you love to post a graph without support or attribution, except to claim it is from "Moody's" and Hambone has already called you out on that), it is impossible to say for sure, but as you note these results are generally in line with other studies, and I am familiar enough with some of the studies to make this point--if spending and tax cuts have the SAME impact on the economy, then spending SHOULD produce a multiplier that is higher by the amount of 1.00 because of definitional issues, not impactfulness. Since we are seeing a difference on the order of 1.00, that means what we are seeing is a mathematical quirk, not a measure of impact. This is one of thse "lies, damned lies, and statistics" deals.

One other note, food stamps generally produce the highest multipliers in analyses like this. Anybody care to guess why? It's actually pretty simple, if you think about it.