Discussion in 'Anesthesiology' started by Narcotized, Feb 7, 2012.
SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)
But, the tax cuts only worked for Harding because he cut govt. spending as well. Bush didn't learn this lesson. He cut taxes and boosted govt. spending dramatically.
The answer today is a careful revision of the tax code to raise some additional revenue while cutting govt. spending gradually over time. I'd rather have the full Harding model but the Democrats won't go for it. Ron Paul himself doesn't propose any tax cuts.
Our tax system needs an overhaul but govt. spending is way out of control and must be curtailed or our GDP will suffer along with our way of life.
You've got to draw line somewhere. Unless you think everyone is entitled to unlimited health care, forever, under all circumstances. Which is one school of thought, but not one that I share.
I didn't say that; you said that. But what you said I would say is factually correct.
Any healthy 18 year old who's healthy can support himself.
Fine, show me exactly how it's affordable in a day with $trillion budget deficits and $15 trillion of existing debt.
Then what? Food? Is it moral and feasible to provide 2000 calories/day to every citizen of the United States, because they're "people" and they deserve it regardless of their ability or willingness to work?
Then what? Housing? Is it moral and feasible to provide at least 200 square feet of heated and/or air conditioned living space to every citizen of the United States, because they're "people" and they deserve it regardless of their ability or willingness to work?
Then what? Clothing?
Then what? Are you willing to draw a line anywhere?
Ask the Greeks?
No, we're not. My tag line of the left referring to my California residence as the "Greece of North America" is mostly joking. I'm not building a compound and stocking it with freeze dried ice cream and chili.
We do have options. The problem is that there's absolutely no sign of us taking advantage of the time we have and yes even the current foreign crises which are giving us more time as the world props us up because we're a "safer" refuge for capital.
There is broad and deep risk in our financial system right now, and risk is not just a word.
History teaches us, over and over again, that nobody believes economic collapse can happen to them until it does. How many 1990 Argentines thought their 1st world country would become what it is today? And yet people think such things can't happen here because we're Americans and we're special.
Meanwhile, lots of Americans seem to think it's a good time to create and expand expensive new programs, despite running $trillion deficits while the Fed buys US Treasuries. It's difficult to understand.
Read the excerpt from my 2008 federal tax return above, and tell me if you still think there's not a problem with too many people paying little or nothing.
The late witney Houston. Yes I advocate these programs but its not what I was talking about with the crackhead example.
As for your question, I don't know why we don't have population control or at least some kinda rules on having kids. If liberals suggest anything of the sort they would be using more government to control peoples lives.
I dislike Obama as much as anybody, but the the Roaring 20's was an extravagant bubble bound for a collapse.
Yes there's a problem with the 2% effective rate for someone making 80k a year. My point was and is that the people that need those programs are using their income for basic living expenses and barely getting by. They are paying higher % in taxes just in payroll and sales tax than the wealthy pay total. Almost everyone I know lives pay check to
pay check. Having these folks pay even another few % in income tax can be the difference between paying rent and groceries or having to choose.
33% will never equal 50% and even those numbers are used to make it sound like that many people contribute $0 in any form which just isn't true.
Correct. Though I do think you are over estimating the frequency of good ideas out of either party. My point is both parties have a roll to fill, in a sort of yinyang kinda way. Neither is doing their job.
Compromise at a halfway has lost to hyperbole. Most of my democrat friends and family agree that taking half of someone's income is not ok on a moral or fairness basis. The problem I see is that the really rich whine about the deficit and the debt while arguing the only way to fix it must be cutting programs that the really poor depend on, but of course nothing that effects their bottom line in any way.
The rich say let the poor deal with it, the poor don't have any money because thats the definiton of being goddam poor so the middle class get hit up for it.
There has to be better solutions out there, but without a hybrid third party or an end to this ridiculous partisanship, we're all C.T.D.
1. Bowles-Simpson plan
2. Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment
3. Federal taxes limited to 1/3 of a person's income (max by law). I'd like to see an amendment for that one as well
If you live in California or NYC the govt will be taking more than half your income earned over $250K. The total tax burden will be around 54 percent (federal, state, local, Medicare)
Obama wants his fair share from as many people as possible
The problems of B/S plan are: 1. It eliminates the earned income tax credit which hurts the working more and that money is used almost exclusivley (greater than 90%) for lowering other taxes, not doing anything about the deficit. This IS supposed to be a deficit reduction plan right?
2. Since Obama took office government employees have been reduced by over 250,000. Some numbers call it more like half a mill, but they are counting distortions like census workers being cut. S/B cuts another 10% of gment employees, Obama had already put a salary freeze and their is little left to cut and S/B takes on faith the conservative assumption that the government is doing too much. Both parties have cut away at
Domestic spending and their is little left to trim. Fed law enforcement, med research, roads and bridges...?
3. SS needs some reform sure, 2011 is the first time SS ran a deficit but it has been historically, tremendously successful, has kept millions of our eldest out of poverty and I dont think an accross the board raising of the retirment age is necessary or ok.
Balanced budget amendment? Sure once we get out of this recession. I can't beluve I'm putting this in print but Ok I would even go along with an amendment for less than 1/3 fed income tax. My concern would be raising sales tax or more cuts to welfare, SS, Medicare to offset the difference.
Sorry, I don't the see the problem. Your problem is my solution. Waste is rampant in the system. Laziness and greed both in govt and on Wall Street.
Bowles Simpson isn't perfect but these guys worked on it for months; overall, it is the best solution on the table.
We have always had the poor among us and always will. We can't bankrupt the country or stop economic growth (the engine of our success which takes care of the poor) in order to further some utopian fantasy.
Less govt. means more private charities must fill the gap. By the way, I know private charities can do with a dollar what the govt. spends $2.00 to accomplish.
I won't even bother responding to the waste in our govt. as we can could cut half the employee rolls and it may still not be enough.
SS age must be increased for full benefits, or, benefits received at age 62/65 slashed. I would also freeze SS increases to 1/2 of CPI for 10 years.
Medicare must become a voucher system for unlimited care or a Federal Govt. Medicare HMO with rationed care is created. (I doubt that 92 year old in England is getting his third bypass/AVR)
This is how bad off we are; Bowles Simpson is the best option (hardly a solution) on the table, yet it still MASSIVELY increases debt. Someday all of the politicians running the country and those voting for them will get a serious wakeup call regarding living off of a credit card.
Bowles Simpson is still the best plan out there except for Ron Paul's. Obama's budget has zero percent chance of passing and it is full of smoke and mirrors.
These long term projected decreases in deficits (while still increasing debt btw) are inaccurate. Obama has trillion dollar deficits projected for as far as the eye and see and clearly not represented by the graph.
Take a look below in 08 what they projected for 12. Both the White House and the CBO weren't even remotely close. When someone comes along and talks about some rosey projected balance budget 20-30 years from now, just remember it has no credibility.
Making capital gains and other "passive" income taxable as regular income would be another good step.
I can't quite make out all of the fine print on that image, so forgive me if this question is answered there - exactly what kind of GDP growth does this graph assume?
I bet that assumption is ridiculously optimistic.
Is Narcotized the only other person here who's the slightest bit concerned that the great "promise" of ALL of these plans is simply a reduction in the deficit?
IE, continued borrowing and debt growth, just at a slower rate than before?
It's like running up a credit card bill, making your minimum $40 payment each month, and then declaring victory when you "sacrifice" your channel selection by reducing the $119/month DirecTV autocharge to just $89/month.
I agree with new and earned income. I am not a good liberal when it comes to interest income tax though. I don't agree with taxing (at anything more than a couple %)someones interest earned from just leaving their money alone for the year. and I only justify the couple % by arguing that they could have put more of that money to work in the economy. But taxing 15-20% of what $20k-ish interst on somebody who has $1 mill. In the bank who doesn't work or sell anything and sits on their money all year, I think they should get to keep the interst they earn.
You don't see my problems because we have a fundamental difference in perspective on the role of government. My problems are your solutions because you don't need these programs to get by, so we could end all these programs and all it would do for your is save you money.
The charities argument is bunk. Sure some charities are more efficient than some government programs, but to think that any charity would be funded to deal with the bulk of the unemployed, retired, and disabled is wishful thinking at best.
SS has hit a perfect ****storm this year of 10,000 people a day turning 65 (baby boomers are here) plus the baby bust generation after leaving us with a smaller working popultaion and to top it off a recession that has hurt payroll funding of SS with euven less people working to pay into it. SS has been a great program for decades its just hitting a rough patch. I know the age has to rise eventually, but if/when we raise the age it should be because of higher life expectancy combined with a generations ability to continue working at a certain age.
The medicare voucher program is an all out loser. Doesn't fix anything , won't lower costs wotnt improve healthcare ;it will though pad the pockets of the insurance industry and keep overhead costs high. It is in your face privatisation of our social contract with seniors and a way to funnel money from our paychecks more directly to insurance companies.
The late Whitney Houston? Lmao...
I don't know any self described liberals that line up with 100% of the lib/prog/democratic ideology. I know a few conservatives that do 100% support the religious-right on every single issue, and while its impressive faith based unity, that's not a compliment to those conservatives or especially their rational/critical thinking abilities.
A flat 15% tax on capital gains has a very regressive effect on taxation, as most of that income goes to wealthy people. (Who absolutely own and deserve to profit from their assets and investments, don't get me wrong - I'm just pointing out how regressive it is.)
Also, as an aside, these days some of the middle class is getting screwed here in a different way - they have passive losses from renting underwater houses they can't sell, but they can't deduct those losses from their earned income. I see this happening a LOT amongst military families who bought houses, then were moved on orders, and are renting those houses at a monthly loss. Because they don't have taxable profitable passive investments to offset that loss, their negative cash flow can't be deducted from their income.
And of course, to beat a dead horse, inflation is the most regressive tax of all. If there's one thing that either party's marginally different plans both absolutely guarantee, it's inflation, and probably lots of it, and probably sooner rather than later, and surely not to be accompanied by commensurate increases in wages.
US life expectancy from birth HAS increased, by about 10 years, since Social Security was conceived and implemented. People ARE living longer, healthier lives.
Dontcha know, 75 is the new 65.
It's halftime in Europe too, but Fareed Zakaria assures us that Europe has been saved.
Two of my favorite quotes from his latest bit of opinion :
Almost out of thin air? Almost?
He thinks wages drive or enable inflation, and if wages are stagnant there can't be inflation?
What this is, I don't even
The Medicare vlucher isn't a loser at all; it saves the system for future seniors. By the way, I advocate a basic Medicare HMO (govt,. run) for the poor and a voucher system for those seniors wanting unlimited care on demand. What we have now is simply unrealistic for much longer: seniors demaning unlimited, expensive, elective care no matter the cost to society.
Medicare HMO would have a gate keeper, IPAB, etc. and I expect 2/3 of seniors to enroll in this plan. 1/3 will choose the voucher system at least for a time. At age 85 why does society need to foot the bill for elective or unproven medical procedures? Why does an 85 year old get to consume millions of dollars of health care and still leave his/her Estate to the children? Shouldn't the tax payer get the entire estate as reimbursement?
What socialized system spends as much much as we do in the last 6 months of a person's life? Shouldn't the govt. run Medicare HMO control those expenses?
THe fact is you can't have a massive social program like Medicare without price control and rationing. Obama ana Ryan both know this is true but they have different methods of dealing with the problem.
As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.
Based on the original program it is quite reasonable and prudent to increase the SS age by 2-3 years in 2012. Look up the facts and see for yourself.
The facts on Medicare are crystal clear. Bill Clinton knows the program "as is" can't be sustained for more than about ten years. An Overhaul is needed as described by Paul Ryan. Obamacare will need to severely ration care and limit Physician payments to keep this dying horse alive. Even then he won't be able to keep it going in a severely rationed version forever.
Paul Ryan knows we need vouchers so people like me doen the road can buy real health insurance; alternatively, Obama wants a social health system like Canada or England so only the rich like him can afford unlimited, unrationed care.
Isn't that the point?
I would argue that is exactly what we need: a two-tier system. (we've had something like it in the past)
A public (county hospitals and such) system where people don't need to pay or don't pay much, but wait, don't have access to everything, wait, wait, and wait....and a private system, where the people who can pay get whatever they can afford and are willing to pay.
Of course, how much is promised in the public system and how long people are willing to wait is a big debate.
I prefer the Paul Ryan plan. At least I get back some of my Medicare tax money towards a plan of my choosing. Obama leaves me no choice but his crappy Medicare or I buy my own plan 100% paid for by me. In Canada its the Social system or cash on the barrrel. Paul Ryan is offering at least a voucher toward's premium health care.
Once the public is educated about the future of Medicare and its financial problems a majority support the Ryan plan. However, the liberals refuse to tell the truth and this means the public will likely not support the Ryan plan in the near future.
Separate names with a comma.