Yeah, I'd like a specific example of a family "ripped apart" by a negative tone regarding "class warfare," because I'd bet almost anything that's a gigantic exaggeration if not outright bullshit.
Over any long term period 17% is about all a federal government can successfully collect before black markets and tax evasion bring things into balance. The tech bubble resulted in huge capital gains that boosted tax revenues to levels that can not be repeated outside of economic boom conditions. Our current economic problems are responsible for the 15% collection rate (the tax rate cuts serve to reduce revenues but are not the primary cause). The military spending went up due the two wars we fought / are fighting. While 2000 may have been a historic low, failure to bring military spending below 4.5% of GDP at the conclusion of these wars would be an excessive use of government resources. Even so, the military spending is a red herring and not the primary source of the problem. During economic good times the government should be running a surplus (or at least a smaller deficit) to save for a rainy day when the economy is weaker. Since we spent like drunken sailors before, during, and after the good times the cupboard is bare when we need to boost the economy. The more we debt have, the more of our future economic activity that will be diverted away from productive uses to pay interest and principal on the debt. The debt must be repaid. The sooner we make efforts to bring it down the better off we will be in the future. Getting deeper and deeper in debt while waiting until 2024 for things to get better is the path to poverty for all of us. Much like a snake that has swallowed an animal much to big for it, our entitlement programs are trying to accommodate the benefits promised to a large population of baby boomers. For a long time the government spent the excess contributed to social security and medicare over the benefit payments reducing the need to raise taxes or to cut spending elsewhere blissfully ignoring the need to repay these funds later. Now that both programs are paying out more than they are taking in, the government has increased debt rather than taking the steps necessary to offset this increase in expenditures. The rest of the social safety net (medicare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) has also increased as the economy has continued to falter. In 2000, government spending represented 18% of GDP, now it is 24% of GDP. The recession is not to blame for this complete regard for fiscal restraint. Entitlements are the primary driver of this increase and as more baby boomers retire, the problem will get worse before it gets better. Tax increases and defense spending cuts will do little to help. The combination of social security, medicare, and welfare as a percent of GDP has increased from 7.78% in 2001 to 8.01% in 2006 to 10.73% in 2011. That is a 38% increase in that 10 year period. As baby boomers continue to retire the shortfall between revenues and expenditures for these programs will continue to increase their cost further. The longer we kick the can down the road and fail to get entitlement costs under control, the worse the outcome will be later when we no longer have a choice.
You are using the terms republican and fiscal conservative interchangeably. This is a mistake. Just like democrats, not all republicans have the same priorities. While I think it is a fair argument that most republicans would prefer to cut spending in other areas over cutting spending on defense I would agree with you. However, calling someone who puts increases in defense spending above cuts in overall government spending a fiscal conservative is just not correct. The sad fact is that government spending is the currency used to gain votes for legislation and funds for re-election. To cut government spending directly reduces the power of government and indirectly reduces the power of politicians. Self interest and short term thinking often lead to detrimental outcomes for the economy and country as a whole. While statistics can be manipulated to mislead others, the facts are what they are. Measurement of anything as a percentage of GDP sheds a very clear light on the problems that some would prefer to sweep under the carpet. The economy has reduced revenues collected by the government and increased the needs of those that benefit from various welfare programs but the spike in recent government spending can not be hidden by these excused. One could easily make the point that spending is "out of control under some runaway Kensian.
sorry u feel that way but its no BS. the continued badgering from the white house towards the higher salaried folks is causing a social rift amongst neighborhoods, friends, and even families. these days u cant go one day without someone chirping about the rich and them paying there fair share. as i have posted before - i fully agree with the attack on corporations and individuals like romney that use the tax holes and barely pay 10% on their money. i do NOT agree with the attacks on well deserving individuals that already pay their fair share, do not use tax loopholes, and follow the rules. i consider myself in the latter category and i might as well have a kick me sign on my back. the scrutiny regarding compensation is palpable and it has affected some of my personal relationships with fellow employees, friends, and relatives. i do not consider that a healthy social structure.
Okay. It's "no BS" according to you and yet you fail to provide a specific example. Simply put, I do not believe you. Or, rather, I think you feel that way, and tried to use a figure of speech to support your feelings... which is fine, but has little to do with whether your feeling are accurately aligned with reality. Please, tell me about these families that have been "ripped apart" by this negative tone and class warfare. You continue to dodge the point, which is that your initial claim about "who wants what" is not a conservative/liberal dichotomy. "Oh, liberals do this! Conservatives do that!" Hogwash. You're just telling yourself a bunch of BS to make yourself feel better. You probably don't like to hear that, but then, most people don't. The world would be a better place if people were better able to critically self-evaluate. Alas, this is not the case. So statistics can be manipulated, but facts are what they are? And presumably, your facts are airtight and irrefutable, with zero statistical interpretation required? Good to know. Not likely to be true, but good to know that that is how you feel. If there's not a possibility for an agreed-upon set of data to be discussed, there is no point in having a discussion. The "spike in spending" that you referred to is almost exclusively due to the recession and the wars. There is a very real longer-term problem with Medicare (and less so with Social Security), but that is not the issue RIGHT NOW and it is not due to some outrageous spending on the part of the current administration. Show me you can put these facts you pretend to value above your partisan leanings, and maybe there's a discussion to be had. Until then, consider me unimpressed.
Quote from Cappy: "Oh, liberals do this! Conservatives do that!" Hogwash. You're just telling yourself a bunch of BS to make yourself feel better. You probably don't like to hear that, but then, most people don't. The world would be a better place if people were better able to critically self-evaluate. Alas, this is not the case. ----------- You want to talk about republicans having problems with actually cutting spending despite their rhetoric to the contrary that is fine. For all of their bluster, the republicans in congress have had as much trouble restraining themselves from spending as their counterparts across the aisle in the democratic party. All you know of me is from what I have posted here. You are clearly making assumptions about me that are inconsitant with my actions and beliefs. Just because some windbag in congress calls himself a republcan, a conservative, or a fiscal conservative does not mean that he represents me or my views on similar topics. ------------ Quote from Cappy: So statistics can be manipulated, but facts are what they are? And presumably, your facts are airtight and irrefutable, with zero statistical interpretation required? Good to know. Not likely to be true, but good to know that that is how you feel. If there's not a possibility for an agreed-upon set of data to be discussed, there is no point in having a discussion. The "spike in spending" that you referred to is almost exclusively due to the recession and the wars. There is a very real longer-term problem with Medicare (and less so with Social Security), but that is not the issue RIGHT NOW and it is not due to some outrageous spending on the part of the current administration. Show me you can put these facts you pretend to value above your partisan leanings, and maybe there's a discussion to be had. Until then, consider me unimpressed. ------------------ We can debate about what actions that have been taken in the past or will be taken in the future. Disagreement on such things is fine since there is uncertainty involved. What we can not do is have a debate about the facts as they are absolute. If you can not accept reality than any argument you make based upon made up data will be wrong. The following web site contains the spending, revenue, deficit, and debt data for the US Federal government for at least the last 20 years. If you can not accept this data as fact, then we can not have an intelligent conversation about what is or is not causing our debt to spiral out of control. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html
Every person in this countries health care costs are going up the collective cost of this is growing much faster then inflation or the economy. You can shift this cost anywhere you want, back to the States, to local governments, businesses or to individuals you still have the same problem. The rest of the economy is going to sufer and there will be less taxes collected if health care expenses remain deductible. Fiscal conservatives approach to health care cost rising is to allow big insurance companies to move their operations to low or no regulation States and basically kill people as they see fit. The same guys who are worrying about death panels by a National health care system are advocating just that as a solution. Sorry to say it but take a look at the premium increases that are going through for next year. Until we have a national approach that rations care in a sensible way and gets costs under control there is simply no reasonable approach to fiscal stability.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/payroll-tax-takes-bite-041300823.html i am sure everyone by now has received a paycheck of sorts with the new, or should i say old, payroll tax. i was flamed for bitching about this by the board regulars but it looks like others agree with the negative effect this will have - especially on those making less than 6 figures whose house budgets are razor thin to start with. i fully understand the entitlememt edge to this BUT a 2% jack for many lower and middle income families is tough nut to swallow - especially considering their other bills are alot higher then they were just 2 years ago. sure the 450K crowd justs winks at it but the sub 250K crowd was told their taxes wouldn't go up. oops i guess that wasn't clarified fully. wait until the flood, home, and car insurance bills start arriving for the devastated folks along the tri-state area shoreline.
I would argue that corporate cronyism (lack of regulation regarding the insurance companies) and fiscal conservatism are two completely different things. You are talking about the republican party (and its members in general) and not specifically fiscal conservatives. Some fiscal conservatives may also be advocates for the insurance industry but you are still talking apples and oranges. I am also not sure what your point is. You start by criticising republicans for advocating policies with the goal of killing people and conclude that rationing (killing people) is necessary to get costs under control. I do agree that the health care system is an absolute mess. Costs must be brought under control and a reduction of services provided will be one result of any measure that will reduce cost. While insurance companies may not hold all of the answers, they are not the entirety of the problem either. There are three ways to get the problem under control. The first is to shift more of the costs to the older people using the bulk of the care (and away from jobless, underemplyed, and relatively healthy younger people) so that there is a financial disincentive to use / abuse the services available. The second is to ration the amount of services used for end of life care (this is where most of the money is being spent). The third way is to more effectively identify and prosecute fraud.
It is worse than that. You still get to pay income tax on any amount used to pay the payroll tax (the 2% jack comes out of your after tax income).
Rationing health care based on science is not killing people for profit. Health Insurance companies kill people for profit.
A "new bite?" In what sense? The payroll tax cut was temporary. As in "it isn't going to last forever, however much you may have deluded yourself into believing you are entitled to it." Kind of like taxes in general. Today's rates are temporary. They eventually have to get to a place where they generate enough revenue to cover the expenditures. Unless you are advocating monetizing the debt. Which I think a lot of conservatives unwittingly do.
Republicans specifically fiscal conservative tea party Republicans aren't going to deal with health care costs in any way that's relevant to providing quality health care at a reasonable percentage of GDP. They have simply defended a private system that is beholden to shareholders.
It's time for people to suffer for their voting choices. They wanted a GOP House. They get what they deserve. Just wait until the GOP House wants entitlement cuts...Guess which two groups of people will suffer the most...Seniors and the South...How do these two groups mainly vote? GOP! They wanted welfare cuts by how they voted and I hope they are ready for it. Just like here in Florida, people vote for the GOP and guess what happens...They let the electric companies and insurance companies get large increases in the rates they can charge...And then people bitch and moan about the increases...I just laugh.
Democrats generally believe that more government control and spending are beneficial as the government can use this power to solve problems. Republicans generally believe that less regulation and spending (which is ultimately future taxation) are harmful as they take resources away from those who can solve problems more efficiently themselves. Just as government run programs are often rife with inefficiency and corruption, private hospitals and insurers often put the needs of shareholders and management ahead of the needs of patients. What we have now is neither a private system nor a governement system. What we have now seems to be the worst of both rolled up into one. While you prefer to point fingers at the insurance companies, the federal government (currently controlled by democrats) bears a large share of the blame for our current mess. Either the quality of healthcare goes down or the cost continues to go up unless you can improve efficiency or reduce fraud. Everyone wants lower premiums and taxes but no one wants to have their care rationed. You can't have it both ways and blaming the republicans or the insurance companies will not stop it from being the truth.
Oh come on...you are comparing the Clinton times to raising taxes under these conditions? Give me a break guys. And to Cappys post too responding to mine..anyone that feels that rich business owners will not lay off people if their taxes are hiked are living in a bubble. My company, during the past 2 years of a poor economy, showed a major profit...and layoffs are hitting left and right. Whether perception of a shitty ecomony or it is a shitty economy...you open the door, they cut. Period. Cappy..you can say it sounds like a nice story to sell but Im not sure what world you guys are living in. Raise taxes on the rich and take from them and they will find their profit somewhere else.
They made a legitimate attempt at a balanced budget law, though. Reagan signed it. It was even pretty well bi-partisan.
I did not say today is just like 1993. But for those who say raising taxes on teh wealthy is ALWAYS bad for the economy, the facts are otherwise. Now if you want to admit that is not the case, and say how today is different from 1993 in a specific way that will mean an increase in taxes for the wealthy is bad for the economy, go for it. One of three basic things has to happen when it comes to taxes for the wealthy. The first is their taxes go up. The second is other income levels have their taxes go up or government outlays are cut (in either case the economy will be hurt). Or the deficit continues to stay where it is or go up. Those are the choices.
