tcc3 says:

#86 MikeN

I see how it might be possible. Now we have 2 government bureaucracies who manage health care for the poor and the aged. Single payer could add a third, yet it wouldn’t need to. One org could manage all of it – universal coverage may cost more to cover more people, but there are also savings in not duplicating bureaucracy, less need for enforcement for who qualifies, having a larger pool with a better distribution of sick vs well (medicaid/care is very lopsided), having a stronger bargaining position with drug companies / health care providers, and not having to please stockholders by making a profit.

The Voice says:

#80,

tcc3,

End the wars, cut the military budget. its a huge chunk of our budget and its a sacred cow few are talking about. We can be safe without subsidizing the mil/ind complex.

I agree with this.

Put taxes back at 1990’s levels. Not a huge increase, and it was working fairly well before

Now we are getting somewhere.

Here is a historical chart showing the Effective Tax Rate vs % of the GDP the Budget consumed from 1993 through 2007. I can’t get effective tax rates after that (tax extensions and things like that prevent a final number from being calculated).

This comes from the government itself so if you want to argue with these numbers, take it up with them.

Year ETR %GDP Def $T Revenue GDP $T

1993 22.0 36.31 3.83 2.42 6.6674
1994 22.3 35.38 2.87 2.51 7.0852
1995 22.6 35.54 2.21 2.64 7.4147
1996 22.7 34.69 1.37 2.72 7.8385
1997 22.9 33.77 0.26 2.81 8.3324
1998 22.6 33.24 -0.79 2.92 8.7935
1999 22.9 32.65 -1.34 3.05 9.3535
2000 23.0 32.56 -2.37 3.24 9.9515
2001 21.4 33.38 -1.24 3.43 10.2862
2002 20.7 34.75 1.48 3.70 10.6423
2003 19.8 35.28 3.39 3.93 11.1421
2004 20.1 34.82 3.48 4.13 11.8678
2005 20.6 34.79 2.52 4.40 12.6384
2006 20.7 35.06 1.86 4.70 13.3989
2007 20.4 34.98 1.14 4.92 14.0776
2008 36.94 3.19 5.33 14.4414
2009 41.76 10.01 5.90 14.119
2010 39.97 8.92 5.80 14.5082
2011 10.91

Clinton Bush II
Average %GDP for Budget 34.3 34.5
Total Revenue as %GDP 34.1 34.9

As can be seen, during the Bush years, we were bringing in MORE than we did in the Clinton years as a percentage of GDP.

If we drop back to 1993 levels, we’ll take in less, percentage-wise (inflation affects the value of the dollar), then we are now.

It is hard to admit, I know, but Tax revenues increased under Bush more than they did under Clinton.

What made Clinton look good was he spent way less than Bush.

A chunk of the deficit is lost revenue from the economic downturn

I agree with you. Job creation is in the private sector, though. The government only spends money. It doesn’t make it. It think everybody can agree on that.

Raise or eliminate the payroll tax to fix the SociSec funds we raided to pay for shit the last few decades.

And that is a major part of why we are in such dire straits. I absolutely refuse to raise my or anybody’s taxes to help fund things that were never meant to be funded. Why should we give congress a pass on this fuck-up?

There is some logic to the idea that the retirement age should be higher

Mondo-logic. I recommend increasing the retirement age two years, every year, until the retirement age is one year older than average life expentancy in this country. That was how it was originally set up. Unfortunately, we never kept it up but people kept living longer. Hell, it won’t be long and people will be drawing on SS longer than they actually worked to pay into it.

Healthcare and Mr. Fusion’s comments on it, too.

If you look at the Clinton years, the taxes were never enough to pay for what the government wanted. We had to cut massively. We are bringing in roughly the same percentage of the GDP as we did then. We are just spending way more than we did then.

tcc3 says:

#90 “And that is a major part of why we are in such dire straits. I absolutely refuse to raise my or anybody’s taxes to help fund things that were never meant to be funded. Why should we give congress a pass on this fuck-up?”

How is that a pass? Not that the fund shouldn’t have been raided, but it was. Now it needs to be paid back. We avoided a tax increase in the past by using the SS money. Maybe we should have done without instead, but we didn’t and the money is owed.

You cant borrow money and then decide the debt is null once you decide borrowing it was a bad idea.

You think raising taxes to pay a debt is wrong. I think taking peoples money for a program that helps them, misusing it, promising to pay it back and then defaulting is worse.

bobbo, the pragmatic libertarian Existentialist says:

tcc3–you said: “universal coverage may cost more to cover more people”==which is wrong as even you know as you continued with: “but there are also savings in not duplicating bureaucracy, less need for enforcement for who qualifies, having a larger pool with a better distribution of sick vs well (medicaid/care is very lopsided), having a stronger bargaining position with drug companies / health care providers, and not having to please stockholders by making a profit.”

Don’t give Lyin’ Mike a chance. He only tells the truth when he’s lying for some other purpose. ((Thats a joke, Mike does post incongruously from time to time.))

Its not the profit of Insurance Companies that is relevant in cost savings: its the entire process–the advertising, the contracting, the claims, the client selection, the peer review==the entire function of all insurance companies is excessive cost NOT REQUIRED when single payer is adopted.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball.

MikeN says:

tcc3, then the government should start by merging the existing health care they do provide and show that savings, prove this theory correct.

foobar says:

I guess the tea party is also outraged that Exxon Mobil didn’t pay taxes. Or Citibank. And I agree about GE. In the 2010 election cycle their top political contributions were to GOP candidate Rob Portman who previously served in Bush’s cabinet.

foobar says:

Nope. Hmmm.

The Voice says:

#102,

foobar,

What were you saying 🙂

foobar says:

There’s a malformed italics tag in comment #90. The tags are now nested so deeply your browser can’t figure out how to fix it.

LibertyLover says:

#109, From the article:

The reform now needs to be reformed, of course, but it was a serious initiative.

Typical Politispeak for, “No government program is a failure, no matter how poorly it has performed.”

Guyver says:

51, Bobbo,

I said the Republicans, especially as demonstrated in Wisconsin, acted like Hitler in winning a Democratic election and then taking the country in ways that were not campaigned on.

The Republicans are doing the very thing their constituents wanted. The Dems lost power at the federal and state level in your particular scenario simply because voters put many Dems out of office due to shoving ObamaCare, Stimulus Plan, Cash for Clunkers, and other entitlements down the throat of taxpayers.

How’s that? Obama was pretty much TRAPPED by teh mess Bush left him. More meaningless rhetoric.

Strategy of the Obama Administration seems to be that the first two years will be Bush Administration’s fault. The next two years will be the fault of Republicans in the House for his failures. Bottom line is he won’t take responsibility for his failures because he will lay blame on others.

Having a majority of your party in congress does not give you “control.”

As opposed to what? What excuse or blame are the Dems trying to use so as to shirk any responsibilities for dereliction of duty? They did not pass a budget last year for the current fiscal year. But I’m sure you’re the kind of tool who will gladly defend their laying blame when they had nothing in their way (except for voter wrath).

When 80% of the voters want MediCare, want the Rich Taxed, and want out of Foreign Wars, and the Pukes push just the opposite, you are again spinning as fast as you can making the Hitler reference appropriate once again.

80% eh? Interesting how you seem to pull supposed facts from where the sun doesn’t shine.

Its the Pukes that are hoping for Memory Loss. This is the Pukes election to lose and they are well on their way to this outcome.

Maybe, maybe not. We’ll just have to see what hope and change combined with continued high unemployment will do for the current administration and their blame game.