The Problem with Health Care in the US is....

[LittleFuzzy]

Is anyone saying that?

Outright? No. In effect, yes, some people are. Including Minx, Choobs, and GGT *though GGT is absolutely convinced all the programs she likes and wants to see preserved or expanded can be done in a way that's revenue-neutral, by just reducing the defense budget. She's wrong*

What I have heard is decrease spending and raise taxes, this isn't an "or" scenario. So your point that raising taxes only would not bridge the gap is irrelevant. The question is, would it decrease it?

But while a number of people are saying "I want to reduce spending" they're also saying "I want expansions in these areas, even if it means massively increased spending" And the latter is plainly more important to them than the former.

[Ziggy Stardust]

@ Enouch: How should I know?

And I have seen cuts proposed, and could even name them. But you wieghted it with "begin to balance the budget" (Which I find odd. I think you meant "are close to balancing the budget") Not a clue either. Luckily I was not claiming that knowledge

@ Fuzzy, then I missunderstood and thought Dread was talking about people who bumble about in and around government.

[Dreadnaught]

Is anyone saying that?

What I have heard is decrease spending and raise taxes, this isn't an "or" scenario. So your point that raising taxes only would not bridge the gap is irrelevant. The question is, would it decrease it?

Obama gave a very grumpy speech last week which included a very clear message that he fully expects taxing "the rich" to pay for social programs and spending. My point is that there isn't a chance in hell that even "the rich" can afford to effectively bail-out the US government.

[Nessus]

I believe that's what our president is basically suggesting. Obama gave a very grumpy speech last week which included a very clear message that he fully expects taxing "the rich" to pay for social programs and spending. My point is that there isn't a chance in hell that even "the rich" can afford to effectively bail-out the US government.

They choose not to, whereas they easily could. The difference, of course, on the moral playing ground of the New Right, is nigh.

[Dreadnaught]

My point is that they can't. Even if you tax them at 100%, there isn't enough money there.

[Nessus]

I don't suppose you'd have a citation?

[Dreadnaught]

Scroll up/back one page.

http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post76872

That's how we got on this tangent...

[Nessus]

That's income

[Dreadnaught]

Yes. And to squeeze out the amount we need from both individuals and corporations, we would need significantly higher taxes on both. We buy a lot of guns after all.

But the tax rates required are beyond what the American social compact is probably willing to tolerate. Not to mention those kinds of tax increases would cripple the economy. If we want to raise more government revenue, we have to focus on growing our economy.

[Aimless]

The total amount and proportion of total income tax paid by the wealthy is actually larger than it has been in decades.

I must be misunderstanding the rants out there then, because they're telling me the rich are paying about 6% less in income tax today compared to the early '90s.

On the corporate and personal side, there is a strong argument that we could reduce all the loopholes and lower the rates, but get more.

Yes, that's one of the things we've been saying ie. you clearly have the possibility to collect more $$$

...

The idea that we can keep having the poor pay no income tax and raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for our projected $10-13 trillion in deficits is not workable. Even the rich don't make that kind of money.

1.1 trillion a year in tax breaks and the like amount to 11 trillion over ten years. Congratulations

Not to mention those kinds of tax increases would cripple the economy.

Yes, you'd have a lot of unemployed accountants

If we want to raise more government revenue, we have to focus on growing our economy.

but your economy will continue to grow

of course, the more your economy grows the more you'll pay for healthcare and you'll therefore continue to say that you can't afford it blah blah

[Dreadnaught]

As I've said before, I don't do the slice and dice Minxie.

The tax breaks didn't cost us $1.1 trillion a year. The amount of tax paid by "the rich" increased significantly after the tax breaks. As I've said before, tax cuts and increases don't have a linear effect on revenues.

Raising the corporate tax hasn't been seriously proposed because our corporate tax rate that's the second-highest of any developed economy (even yours! Not including loopholes). It's clear it needs to be restructured, but there isn't much room to go up from a competitive standpoint. We also have a very nasty problem in the US of trying to collect taxes our companies make abroad.

If healthcare cost 5-7% of our GDP without the cost trajectory we've seen, I would likely be taking a very different position on this. The discussion on universal health care here is only getting traction because of the skyrocketing costs here. This is a serious issue that the government can constructively help with, but the solution isn't "just make the government pay for it" because we can't afford it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Obama gave a very grumpy speech last week which included a very clear message that he fully expects taxing "the rich" to pay for social programs and spending. My point is that there isn't a chance in hell that even "the rich" can afford to effectively bail-out the US government.

So, the Bamster didn't talk about cutting spending. You must be talking about a different speech then.

[Aimless]

The tax breaks didn't cost us $1.1 trillion a year.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...233959,00.html

These tax breaks (known as “tax expenditures”) now total $1.1 trillion a year.

Raising the corporate tax hasn't been seriously proposed because our corporate tax rate that's the second-highest of any developed economy (even yours! Not including loopholes).

Why not including loopholes? Effectively your corporations pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do those in most other developed countries. It doesn't matter if you have a 90% tax on income if you never manage to actually collect more than 10%. It's like bragging about having the best healthcare in the world when only a tiny fraction of your population has access to the very best healthcare.

[Dreadnaught]

So, the Bamster didn't talk about cutting spending. You must be talking about a different speech then.

He basically couched his rhetoric about cutting spending with rhetoric saying no one would notice the spending cuts. He's also just using words; the budget he submitted just a few months ago contained massive expenditures.

In short, he's not being consistent on anything except his desire to raise taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...233959,00.html

Why not including loopholes? Effectively your corporations pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do those in most other developed countries. It doesn't matter if you have a 90% tax on income if you never manage to actually collect more than 10%. It's like bragging about having the best healthcare in the world when only a tiny fraction of your population has access to the very best healthcare.

Deductions have nothing to do with the 2003 tax breaks that Obama is railing about. As I and others have said, I support reducing deductions in exchange for lower rates and a simpler code.

But I also believe that it doesn't matter if you have a 90% income tax if no one will pay. We've seen this in places like Italy and Greece. Tax rates go up and larger segments of the economy go underground.

The US has been able to collect taxes on an average of 18% of GDP since the end of WWII, even though our tax rates have fluctuated quite a bit. It's pretty clear that we can't just push the rates up because people's tolerance for tax expenditures ultimately revolves around how much they are actually spending on their taxes.

We'll save the "who has better healthcare/penile length" for another time...

[Ziggy Stardust]

He basically couched his rhetoric about cutting spending with rhetoric saying no one would notice the spending cuts. He's also just using words; the budget he submitted just a few months ago contained massive expenditures.

In short, he's not being consistent on anything except his desire to raise taxes.

You're not very consistent yourself. This is twice now I called you out on a claim which you just sidestep. This time, first you're talking about the content of his speech "Obama gave a very grumpy speech last week which included a very clear message that he fully expects taxing "the rich" to pay for social programs and spending.", now you're saying "those are just words, you should look at his budget". But you pointed me to his words. So, it seems you enjoy making the odd frivolous ranty anti-Obama claim. And it seems it's main purpose just you getting stuff out of your system instead of making points. I think it'd be a waste of our time for me to respond to your partisan hissy fits.

I just hope they bring you relieve. You clearly need it. And seeing the Rep's choices for candidate for '12, you might need it for quite a while.

[GGT]

Outright? No. In effect, yes, some people are. Including Minx, Choobs, and GGT *though GGT is absolutely convinced all the programs she likes and wants to see preserved or expanded can be done in a way that's revenue-neutral, by just reducing the defense budget. She's wrong*

Preserved and expanded are different things, as I've acknowledged. As far as I can tell, no one's keen to join me on dissecting the rational rationing subject. In fact, I don't recall you contributing much to these discussions beyond critiquing what other people post.

I also never claimed less military spending would be "revenue neutral", but that we spend too much, more than 29 other nations combined. Finding revenue AND cutting spending are things Simpson-Bowles recommended, including paring down our defense budget.

Programs like Medicare can be cost-efficient if we stop spending 80-85% of it on 25% of enrollees in their last year of life.

But while a number of people are saying "I want to reduce spending" they're also saying "I want expansions in these areas, even if it means massively increased spending" And the latter is plainly more important to them than the former.

Disingenuous characterization. Expanding preventative care and primary care IS more cost effective over the long term. Healthy longevity is cheaper than sick longevity.

Why not including loopholes? Effectively your corporations pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do those in most other developed countries. It doesn't matter if you have a 90% tax on income if you never manage to actually collect more than 10%. It's like bragging about having the best healthcare in the world when only a tiny fraction of your population has access to the very best healthcare.

[GGT]

We'll save the "who has better healthcare/penile length" for another time...

You mean who has the biggest tits, for those sucking off the Nanny State vs Lady Liberty?

[Dreadnaught]

You're not very consistent yourself. This is twice now I called you out on a claim which you just sidestep. This time, first you're talking about the content of his speech "Obama gave a very grumpy speech last week which included a very clear message that he fully expects taxing "the rich" to pay for social programs and spending.", now you're saying "those are just words, you should look at his budget". But you pointed me to his words. So, it seems you enjoy making the odd frivolous ranty anti-Obama claim. And it seems it's main purpose just you getting stuff out of your system instead of making points. I think it'd be a waste of our time for me to respond to your partisan hissy fits.

I just hope they bring you relieve. You clearly need it. And seeing the Rep's choices for candidate for '12, you might need it for quite a while.

Eh? I'm pointing out the areas where Obama has been consistent and inconsistent. In December he pushed hard to raise taxes and lost, compromising with keeping them lower for the next two years. So when he says he wants to raise taxes, he's credible.

A few months ago, Obama submitted a 2012 budget that contained a ton of spending. This is on top of previous budgets that also contained a lot of spending. So when he gives a speech a few weeks later under political pressure and claims that he wants to cut spending, he's not credible.

It's not frivolous at all to claim that Obama is seeking to tax more and continue high levels of spending.

And for the 100th time, I am a Democrat.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Eh? Am I accidentally posting in Spanish again?

Obama gave a very grumpy speech last week which included a very clear message that he fully expects taxing "the rich" to pay for social programs and spending. My point is that there isn't a chance in hell that even "the rich" can afford to effectively bail-out the US government.

Do you remember posting this? Are you here as you say: pointing out the areas where Obama has been consistent and inconsistent? I didn't think so either.

A post about about inconsitency of about any politician wouldn't have sparked a reply from me. Neither would a post about the wetnes of water. I reacted to a particular statement. You are smart enough to figure this out, so stop fucking about.

And for the 100th time, I am a Democrat.

But it sounds to me you'd be happier with a republican president. In any case, happier than you're with Obama. Or is that a foolish assumption based on your recent posts?

[Aimless]

Deductions have nothing to do with the 2003 tax breaks that Obama is railing about. As I and others have said, I support reducing deductions in exchange for lower rates and a simpler code.

Was I talking about Obama? In this thread? What the hell

[GGT]

Besides, corporate American loves their deductions and loopholes. If we simplified the tax code and got rid of deductions, they'd whine about actually paying taxes at lower rates, because it'd be more than zero. (GM) They complain now about the cost of employer contributions to health insurance, but would hate to lose that tax deduction. And they get some pretty sweet deals with development grants and tax breaks for bringing business to an area, promising jobs and growth. (Walmart, Toyota)

ie, They like stimulus spending, and bail-outs, as long as their special interest groups benefit.

Obama campaigned on letting Bush tax cuts expire, but congress disagreed. He campaigned on preserving things like Medicaid and Medicare, while spending smarter and increasing revenue. The HCA wasn't much different than what the Republicans wanted (Romney)....before they didn't want it, if presented by Democrats.

[Dreadnaught]

Eh? Am I accidentally posting in Spanish again?
Do you remember posting this? Are you here as you say: pointing out the areas where Obama has been consistent and inconsistent? I didn't think so either.

A post about about inconsitency of about any politician wouldn't have sparked a reply from me. Neither would a post about the wetnes of water. I reacted to a particular statement. You are smart enough to figure this out, so stop fucking about.
But it sounds to me you'd be happier with a republican president. In any case, happier than you're with Obama. Or is that a foolish assumption based on your recent posts?

There is no discrepancy. In that earlier post I am pointing out an area where Obama is credible (raising taxes) and criticizing his message that we can raise taxes to fix our fiscal problems. You aren't clarifying at all what is so objectionable about that.

I would have been happy with Hillary.

Was I talking about Obama? In this thread? What the hell

GGT and Chaloobs were circling around one of Obama's messages (raising taxes) so it all got intertwined.

[GGT]

GGT and Chaloobs were circling around one of Obama's messages (raising taxes) so it all got intertwined.

Circling? What? Where are you getting the crazy idea that Obama ONLY wants to raise taxes to fix our problems?

We need to raise revenue AND cut spending. Mine it or make it? I agreed with letting Bush tax cuts expire and removing tax breaks via creative exploitation of IRS loopholes. That's effectively "raising" taxes paid for some groups. Mostly corporations and top quintile/wealthy. That's why Bush cuts got another reprieve, instilling the Fear Factor of "don't raise taxes during a recession or the whole economy will go down the drain!" Along with, "don't tax the rich because they're already taxed enough and they're the ones who create the jobs!"