Yes, many people don't see the connection between public safety and public health.
There are way more differences in those two than similarities. Hell, the fact they happen at different levels alone is a huge deal, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Continue with your libertarian bashing. I know it gets you through the day.
The US fails, because it has a HUGE middle man bureaucracy that skims 20% off the top called Insurance.
Bureaucracy is right, but the insurance companies aren't doing the skimming. They're lucky if their profit margins top 10%. The vast majority are below.
Healthcare, like the military, fire department, and the mail, is a classic market failure. Patients put their lives in the hands of their doctor. There is no time to haggle over price in an ambulance.
Sigh, one of the greatest lies ever spoken about US healthcare. Emergency care is a very small segment of total healthcare cost (http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=25902). Most of the time you do have time to choose your doctor or whatnot. More importantly, you have plenty of time to choose your insurer prior to something happening. Costs are high because we're a sick country that doesn't mind spending a metric fuckton of money to extend the life of a terminal patient a few extra months. 27% of Medicare's budget goes towards end-of-life coverage: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-18-end-of-life-costs_x.htm
And "Obamacare" does indeed address this issue, although nowhere near as much as it should, and that was even before it got neutered by the corporate henchmen we know as (mostly Republican) Congressmen.
Data? As far as I know, no serious Republican suggestion was included in Obamacare. All the neutering was done to appease Blue Dog Democrats -- and even then, it barely got enough votes to pass muster.
That being said the Democrats did about 1 bad thing for every 5 the Republicans did on crony capitalism.
That probably heavily depends on your brand of crony capitalism. The degree matters a bit too -- the bailout of the banks for instance was a massive crony expense that happened on the Democrat's watch. Hell, even TARP only made it through the Congress because the Democratic majority pushed it through. It never would have passed a Republican majority.
It's been growing, just not as fast as the rest of the budget. But I guess "slow growth" is a cut in your accounting.
"Slow growth" is a cut by all forms of accounting. Inflation and GDP growth make that an absolute certainty. All the matters is percentage of total spending. And in that light, defense is simply not the big money sink everyone paints it to be. The reason we're spending more than the rest of the world combined is because our GDP is ridiculous, not because we're overspending.
Still, it's over 20% of the budget.
It's a (if not the) primary function of the federal government -- I expect it to be a large chunk of the federal budget. It's one of very few things the states can't do themselves -- why the hell can't states start their own social programs?
Eliminate those, cut medical in half (while increasing services), and you get a balanced budget with lower taxes and better services.
You can't just "eliminate" defense. As aforementioned, it's a central role of the federal government. And we've already been reducing defense spending over the years, so it's hardly a runaway budget item. Entitlement spending on the other hand is a runaway spending element that continues to grow with downright scary projections if ignored. That's the reason entitlements are targeted by budget hawks whereas defense is somewhat glossed over.
How much is a fair amount to spend on social spending in your book?
In my book? In my book, the proper amount to spend is whatever your state wishes to spend. There's no reason social programs should be a federal issue. That being said, if I had to compromise at the federal level, I'd reform rather than simply picking an arbitrary spending cut number. Add means-testing to both social security and medicare. Put a hard cap on end-of-life spending for Medicare (harsh, but needed). Start transitioning out of social security and into something more sensible (like forced retirement accounts, invested in lifecycle funds). Whereever the dollars fall, they fall -- either way, it'll result in some level of cost savings. If the savings are not enough, we look for other ways to cut. But at the end of the day, entitlements should be our focus, rather than the red herring of defense spending everyone harps about.
I didn't want a cite, I wanted an empirical study -- you claimed that aggregate efficiency numbers were higher on average in government vs in the free market. You can't simply cherry pick examples to attempt to prove this. Hell, the obvious counter example is the defense sector in the government, which I assure you is terribly inefficient. It's also not the total picture. "Wasting money" isn't simply a matter of "efficiency". As you mention yourself, money is being "wasted" in social security T-bill investments (vs higher yielding alternatives). The resulting sum of money there being wasted (in comparison to what corporations are doing with their money) is far greater than a simple measure of efficiency.
Ever think that might have something to do with demographics? Like the large number of elderly Republicans vs large number of young Democrats? Old people never miss a chance to vote.
The Republicans are playing a two sided game - to their base, they promise the world. To the others, they work actively on discouraging them to vote, by proliferating the attitude that the Democrats are failures
lol, if you see this as a one-sided tactic, you truly have blinders on. "Promising the world?" Remember the "Change we can believe in" rhetoric? Remember the extensive laundry list of promises Democrats ate up that year? And proliferating the other side as failures? One word: "Bush" -- helllooooo? It's been 3 years and the Dems are STILL trying to use Bush to sum up the entire other side as failures.
Today:
Republicans -- blocking consumer protections
Democrats -- putting regulations into law
You mean like when Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act) with BOTH parties voting in favor of the deregulation? Sorry, but you're seeing what you want to see.
I doubt your claim that a passive system can't work. Decay heat can be used to passively power a cooling system. Hell, why doesn't this simple equation work: Heated water produces steam pressure, steam pressure can be used to pump in cool water -- this passive cooling cycle continues until heat decay is at a safe level.
Tax increases will have to be part of the package. The fact is that US tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are the lowest they have been since Harry Truman was President.
That's due to a crippling recession. And you want to risk further GDP losses by jacking taxes up?
The short-term dip in early 2000-2002 was erased by 2007. The revenue drop in 2009-2010 was caused by the recession, not the Bush tax cuts. Merely undoing them does not guarantee a revenue spike.
et the republicans are not willing to compromise and make social spending out to be the deficit boogeyman as if tax incentives, government subsidies, wasteful military spending, and unbalanced tax breaks aren't contributing to our debt.
Well I'm technically a republican/libertarian and I'm up for cutting all of that shit. Except for the tax hikes. Because you don't raise taxes during a recession.
Thus it may make more sense to pay some of that tax out of the profits and forgo the second yacht.
I think you overestimate the amount of people who own yachts vs people that own businesses. And they'd much more likely reduce employment or hire less to reduce cost rather than simply take it out of profits. That's exactly what happens at companies when margins get squeezed: layoffs.
I don't give a shit if you "created a company" or not. Why is that income any different than the income of the person who got paid to do the actual work?
Because it carries risk? And enormous time investments? And asset commitment? And quite often unique differentiation from competition? Have you ever even written or attempted a successful business plan or are you just talking out of your ass?
The closest we have today want to cut taxes- cut all social spending- but for some crazy reason, keep paying more for defense than the next 20 to 25 countries COMBINED.
Did you check to see what we're spending on social spending compared to the next 20 to 25 countries combined? Hint: not many countries have a trillion dollars a year to throw around on mandatory spending.
The rich get indirect benefits from the public service. It is, after all, the system of roads, railroads and ports that allow them to ship goods and move workers about. It is the clean air acts and environmental regulation that keeps their workers from dying. It is the education system, lame as it may be, that supplies a population with some baseline knowledge so that they can work for the rich. It is the military that protects the interests of those with the most property and is willing to go to war for oil so that industry can keep humming along. It is the massive amounts of publicly funded research that provide the seeds for new companies, new ideas, new industries. The big subsidies that brought us the internet and satellites. The list goes on and on. And while it's true that those things have improved lives for the average joe, they have also produced a MASSIVE improvement in the ability of the rich to get rich and stay rich. And that's all well and good. I have no problem with the government and public sector investing in the country so that there can be prosperity. But someone's gotta pay for it, and it seems to me that those who got rich off this peaceful, regulated, protected and educated country ought to pay for it.
You're acting like the rich don't pay taxes at all. Believe it or not, they pay for about 80% of the cost of all the shit you just mentioned (http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2002/0902dollar.html). Now using your same logic: shouldn't the leeches that are NOT paying a cent to use these public services and still continuing to fail society owe something? Or do they deserve more freebies for a lifetime of such stellar achievement?
Approaching the problem from BOTH SIDES (increasing revenue AND cutting spending) is the best way to go about the solution.
Mighty convenient view of "compromise" after spending about a trillion dollars per year in new spending for the past 3 years. Are we allowed to drop taxes to 0% and then "compromise" back up to the level they're currently at as well?
That's easy -- loopholes. Fix the loopholes rather than dicking with the rates and this problem goes away. Instead they want to jack taxes on a bunch of people who are nowhere near Romney's level (250k+) just to "stick it to them".
Slashdot Mirror
There are way more differences in those two than similarities. Hell, the fact they happen at different levels alone is a huge deal, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Continue with your libertarian bashing. I know it gets you through the day.
There's barely any profit in it now -- mission accomplished.
Bureaucracy is right, but the insurance companies aren't doing the skimming. They're lucky if their profit margins top 10%. The vast majority are below.
Sigh, one of the greatest lies ever spoken about US healthcare. Emergency care is a very small segment of total healthcare cost (http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=25902). Most of the time you do have time to choose your doctor or whatnot. More importantly, you have plenty of time to choose your insurer prior to something happening. Costs are high because we're a sick country that doesn't mind spending a metric fuckton of money to extend the life of a terminal patient a few extra months. 27% of Medicare's budget goes towards end-of-life coverage: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-18-end-of-life-costs_x.htm
Data? As far as I know, no serious Republican suggestion was included in Obamacare. All the neutering was done to appease Blue Dog Democrats -- and even then, it barely got enough votes to pass muster.
That probably heavily depends on your brand of crony capitalism. The degree matters a bit too -- the bailout of the banks for instance was a massive crony expense that happened on the Democrat's watch. Hell, even TARP only made it through the Congress because the Democratic majority pushed it through. It never would have passed a Republican majority.
"Slow growth" is a cut by all forms of accounting. Inflation and GDP growth make that an absolute certainty. All the matters is percentage of total spending. And in that light, defense is simply not the big money sink everyone paints it to be. The reason we're spending more than the rest of the world combined is because our GDP is ridiculous, not because we're overspending.
It's a (if not the) primary function of the federal government -- I expect it to be a large chunk of the federal budget. It's one of very few things the states can't do themselves -- why the hell can't states start their own social programs?
You can't just "eliminate" defense. As aforementioned, it's a central role of the federal government. And we've already been reducing defense spending over the years, so it's hardly a runaway budget item. Entitlement spending on the other hand is a runaway spending element that continues to grow with downright scary projections if ignored. That's the reason entitlements are targeted by budget hawks whereas defense is somewhat glossed over.
In my book? In my book, the proper amount to spend is whatever your state wishes to spend. There's no reason social programs should be a federal issue. That being said, if I had to compromise at the federal level, I'd reform rather than simply picking an arbitrary spending cut number. Add means-testing to both social security and medicare. Put a hard cap on end-of-life spending for Medicare (harsh, but needed). Start transitioning out of social security and into something more sensible (like forced retirement accounts, invested in lifecycle funds). Whereever the dollars fall, they fall -- either way, it'll result in some level of cost savings. If the savings are not enough, we look for other ways to cut. But at the end of the day, entitlements should be our focus, rather than the red herring of defense spending everyone harps about.
I didn't want a cite, I wanted an empirical study -- you claimed that aggregate efficiency numbers were higher on average in government vs in the free market. You can't simply cherry pick examples to attempt to prove this. Hell, the obvious counter example is the defense sector in the government, which I assure you is terribly inefficient. It's also not the total picture. "Wasting money" isn't simply a matter of "efficiency". As you mention yourself, money is being "wasted" in social security T-bill investments (vs higher yielding alternatives). The resulting sum of money there being wasted (in comparison to what corporations are doing with their money) is far greater than a simple measure of efficiency.
Ever think that might have something to do with demographics? Like the large number of elderly Republicans vs large number of young Democrats? Old people never miss a chance to vote.
lol, if you see this as a one-sided tactic, you truly have blinders on. "Promising the world?" Remember the "Change we can believe in" rhetoric? Remember the extensive laundry list of promises Democrats ate up that year? And proliferating the other side as failures? One word: "Bush" -- helllooooo? It's been 3 years and the Dems are STILL trying to use Bush to sum up the entire other side as failures.
You mean like when Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act) with BOTH parties voting in favor of the deregulation? Sorry, but you're seeing what you want to see.
I doubt your claim that a passive system can't work. Decay heat can be used to passively power a cooling system. Hell, why doesn't this simple equation work: Heated water produces steam pressure, steam pressure can be used to pump in cool water -- this passive cooling cycle continues until heat decay is at a safe level.
We have been cutting the military...for about 60 years running: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/aug/05/randy-forbes/forbes-says-us-defense-spending-measured-against-g/
Now whose numbers aren't working?
That's due to a crippling recession. And you want to risk further GDP losses by jacking taxes up?
Yeah, because this increasing slope isn't a big indicator of runaway spending or anything: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1990_2017USr_13s1li111mcn_F0t I guess you won't recognize the spending until we go truly hyperbolic, huh?
The Bush Tax Cuts expired in 2010 via sunset provisions. Now they're the Obama tax cuts. And regardless, they didn't appear to have that big an effect on total revenue: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2017USr_13s1li111mcn_F0t
The short-term dip in early 2000-2002 was erased by 2007. The revenue drop in 2009-2010 was caused by the recession, not the Bush tax cuts. Merely undoing them does not guarantee a revenue spike.
Well I'm technically a republican/libertarian and I'm up for cutting all of that shit. Except for the tax hikes. Because you don't raise taxes during a recession.
58% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I think you overestimate the amount of people who own yachts vs people that own businesses. And they'd much more likely reduce employment or hire less to reduce cost rather than simply take it out of profits. That's exactly what happens at companies when margins get squeezed: layoffs.
Define "fair" -- the top 20% already pay 80% of taxes.
Well then I guess it's a good thing they almost single-handedly paid for that entire infrastructure. By the numbers, of course.
Because it carries risk? And enormous time investments? And asset commitment? And quite often unique differentiation from competition? Have you ever even written or attempted a successful business plan or are you just talking out of your ass?
Did you check to see what we're spending on social spending compared to the next 20 to 25 countries combined? Hint: not many countries have a trillion dollars a year to throw around on mandatory spending.
You're acting like the rich don't pay taxes at all. Believe it or not, they pay for about 80% of the cost of all the shit you just mentioned (http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2002/0902dollar.html). Now using your same logic: shouldn't the leeches that are NOT paying a cent to use these public services and still continuing to fail society owe something? Or do they deserve more freebies for a lifetime of such stellar achievement?
Mighty convenient view of "compromise" after spending about a trillion dollars per year in new spending for the past 3 years. Are we allowed to drop taxes to 0% and then "compromise" back up to the level they're currently at as well?
That's easy -- loopholes. Fix the loopholes rather than dicking with the rates and this problem goes away. Instead they want to jack taxes on a bunch of people who are nowhere near Romney's level (250k+) just to "stick it to them".