- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,963
Figure 1).
And I say: What is the moral distinction that makes a 17.9 year old deserving of care and an 18 year old a national debt burden?
And you say: The 18 year old is an adult who has adult opportunities like the ability to work full-time.
I agree with "There's no reason for the richest most powerful country on earth to have kids without medical care." I would just change "kids" to "people" because I think that such a goal is 1. moral and 2. feasible with structural reforms to the healthcare system (i.e. stop wasting 30% of healthcare dollars on deny-stamping private insurance company administrative costs and stop letting 90 year olds ride out 6 futile weeks in the ICU after CABG).
I believe that we have to have a strategic long-term deficit reduction plan, but saying "MUST trump all" doesn't hold any water if we took it to an absurd conclusion (i.e. if a major war broke out or if the US was hit with a tsunami-style catastrophe we wouldn't give two ****s about the debt). Clearly debt doesn't trump all, so how do we go about deciding what exactly it does trump? Again, why doesn't debt trump the health care needs of children?
We need debt reduction, but we are not Greece.
What are you getting at here? You want to impose some nominal sum on those who can least afford it even if it won't make any significant dent in the deficit...for what....punishment?
Are you serious??? Show me a single crackhead mother of 3 that ISN'T on some form of government assistance??? And yes, when you state "we would not have survived without programs like WIC, foodstamps, and welfare," reading comprehension would lead any reasonable person to conclude you advocate these programs for others, including crackhead.
So all of your sidestepping aside, try answering the question, Why is the crackhead mother of 3 allowed to have a second and third child living off of other people's labor after she has already had one kid she can't take care of?.... Keep dancing.
the Roaring Twenties, an amazing period in American history of social, artistic, and economic dynamism
They're not; that was my point.
Here's a short exerpt from my 2008 tax return cut & pasted from Turbotax, when I was a resident.
Code:2008 | Adjusted Gross Income $ 83,748.00 Federal | Taxable Income $ 37,527.00 Tax | Total Tax $ 1,826.00 Return | Total Payments/Credits $ 5,621.00 Summary | Amount to be Refunded $ 3,795.00 | Effective Tax Rate 2.18%
You don't see anything WRONG with someone maing roughly 4x the official "poverty level" paying TWO PERCENT federal income tax?
No, I didn't cheat on my taxes. (I'm in the military so about $25K of our income was untaxed housing pay.)
I understand that.
The problem is when nothing is paid the benefits received are viewed as genuine entitlements. I see this all the time with the military patient population - abuse of medical resources is rampant in part because there is never ever any copay for anything, ever.
Those are important and necessary programs.
Remind me again how they're relevant to 1/2 ... wait, 1/3 ... of US households not paying any income tax?
Yes, yes that's it, I hate the thought of those lazy poor people having any money left over after they've gluttonously feasted on TWO packs of Ramen noodles each night.
OK you surprised me. I totally agree. Of course Liberals would be bashed for it, just as Republicans would be if they suggested it. We have 2 parties that have both bankrupted the country, but spend their time bashing all ideas from the other side, even when roughly one or 2 out of every 100 ideas brought up by the opposition are actually good ideas.
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.
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
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.
Bowles Simpson isn't perfect but these guys worked on it for months; overall, it is the best solution on the table.
This is how screwed we are; Bowles Simpson is the best option (hardly a solution) on the table, yet it still MASSIVELY increases debt. Someday all of these math whizzes running the country and those voting for them will get a serious wakeup call regarding living off of a credit card.
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.
Making capital gains and other "passive" income taxable as regular income would be another good step.
I am not a good liberal
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)
Don't be so hard on yourself. There are no good liberals.
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.
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 ECB is now said to be preparing another auction worth a trillion dollars this month. You can expect that to further de-clog the financial systems.
To put this into perspective, over the last two years Europe's governments have painstakingly put together a "stability fund" to convince markets that they are serious. Well, the ECB just conjured up three times the money - almost out of thin air.
And, no, I don't think inflation is a likely consequence - with unemployment at record highs in Europe, how can wages go up in that circumstance?
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.
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.
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.
HH