Know what? Expenses aren’t unlimited either.
Which part? That taxing primarily the rich yields little revenue? That medical costs are growing faster than the economy and squeezing the rest of the budget?
That’s known as reality. Consider your ignorance fought.
With the richest 1% pulling down ~20% of the income, how does that make any sense?
This part. The economy does better with higher marginal tax rates. When the economy does better, all revenues go up.
The “Democrats won’t tax the middle class” part. The part about tax revenue from the rich being small. The part about running out of “other people’s money”.
Pretty much the whole post.
For the amount of anger and irritation caused by the ACA, the Democrats might as well have tried to pass single-payer universal health care.
If you’re going to pay a high political price either way, why not go the whole nine yards?
They didn’t quite have the votes then. Joe Liebermann (I-Aetna) wouldn’t have stood for it. Maybe after the Dems take back the House, keep the presidency, and regain 60+ votes in the Senate in 2016 they can give it another shot.
Even if I accept that figure, it’s still a rather small tax base.
but they promised! Oh wait, maybe I am being childish.
I think they could have rammed it through in 2009-2010 if they *really *wanted to. It would have probably been an extremely close vote, and required an absolute maestro-level job of persuasion by Obama.
Plus, the average American probably doesn’t know what single payer health care really entails.
No. Since no Republicans were voting for it they had to provide a bill that the Democrats’ rightmost members would accept. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu were not going to support single payer.
On the other hand, they did expand single payer by increasing Medicaid eligibility.
You’ve got to understand that to Republicans this isn’t a feature, it’s a bug. The number would have been even better if Republican governors didn’t prevent Medicaid expansion in their states.
Also Medicare increased the period it is going to be solvent without changes for another four years thanks to ACA. Another bug, no doubt.
No, that’s a good thing. Would have been even better if you hadn’t spent the money. I guess all those years of Medicare overspending were a feature to the Democrats: it meant they had a ready source of income when they got around to creating a new entitlement.
Didn’t do us taxpayers any favors though.
Then there’s the fact that when you cut Medicare and spend the money elsewhere, you don’t actually increase the life of Medicare. That’s known as double counting. You fell for an accounting gimmick.
Not what happened, as you know.
For the purposes of this thread, I’ll be agnostic on whether Medicare has been cut, or whether they have merely cut “overpayments”. Either way, Democrats look like they don’t care about the taxpayers. They opposed cutting these overpayments for 40 years until they needed the money for a new entitlement.
Taxpayers have never had it so good.
Small comfort for 40 years of waste. What other waste in the budget are the Democrats saving until they need to use it to claim a program is budget neutral?
And what did *your *guys do about it? You know, the party of efficient, businesslike administration, ruthlessly eliminating wastefraudandabuse (it’s just one word) wherever they found it? 
C’mon, man.
THey tried to pass bills cutting the rate of growth of Medicare. Democrats then ran ads showing Republicans rolling grandma in a wheelchair off a cliff.
Turnabout happens and Democrats cry a river of tears at the injustice.