I think the poll really means that most of the American public don’t think that raising anyone’s taxes by any amount will not lead to ruin. It means that Grover Norquist and the morons who signed his pledge are out of line with what the majority of the voters want. I doubt very much the poll was about particular tax policy, IIRC it asked whether a solution should involve both spending cuts and revenue increases.
Didn’t we have a Civil War about this? I mean, you can say it was about State’s Rights, and it certainly was. The whole Civil War was a politically motivated conflict, not so much about slavery as it was whether or not the Federal Government had the right to tell the States what to do, and how to conduct themselves. Looking at the arguments in the Government today, isn’t this just a little bit of history repeating itself?
The thing that gets me is how the problem is cast as though the government is overspending in some general, nebulous, ill-defined way. As though the government were a ship riddled with a trilillion little leaks that are steadily sinking us into the ocean. But that image is a lie.
We’re bleeding money all right, but the source of the bleeding is mainly coming out of one hole: defense. Not that we don’t spend a lot on Medicare and Medicaid too, but when other governments spend proportionately more on their healthcare-related programs than we do, it’s hard for me to say we spend too much on ours. Especially since we don’t even have universal healthcare. Our services only cover the tip of the population iceberg, and yet we’re supposed to believe even that tip is too much? Yeah, okay.
It’s undeniable, though, that our defense budget is way out step with other countries. None of the Republicans whining about how our government is overstretched will come out and acknowledge that elephant in the room. Rather, they try to act as though that government spending in general is the problem. Instead of preaching about how we need to be realistic about what the govt can and can’t do, they should be saying, explicitly, that we need to be realistic about what our military should and shouldn’t be doing.
I thought the main argument for single-payer was that all the other governments spent so much less on health care. Now you are saying they spend more, and so should the US. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Taxpayer-funded health care covers a bit more than half of the health care spending in the US. It’s not really the tip of the iceberg.
Your notion that the increase in government spending is driven mostly by increases in defense spending is, of course, simply wrong. Sorry, but any analysis based on so clear a factual misunderstanding is worthless from the start.
It isn’t cast that way.
The rise in government spending is driven mostly by a rise in entitlement spending. I know that, the CBO knows that, you ought to know that.
Regards,
Shodan
He meant that the US spending covers only a small part of the population (the tip of the iceberg), not that spending was the tip.
Correct. Eliminating defense spending entirely still would not come close to filling the current budget deficit.
Actually you caught me speaking out of pocket, Shodan. Other governments do tend to spend proportionately less on healthcare than we currently do. My bad. Which is really odd since a hell of a higher percentage of people in those countries receive publically funded care.
Which goes to my point: our government isn’t trying to do too much with healthcare-related services. Not when relatively few people receive those services to begin with. The only real reason our spending is high because our market-driven economy has made the cost of health care high. And so it’s nonsense to call this government “overspending”. That puts the blame on government efficiency rather than our bleeped up healthcare system.
I’m not talking about what’s to blame for the rise in government spending; I’m talking about total government spending. Defense constitutes 19% of govt spending, which is much higher than most industrial countries.
The rich probably aren’t opposed to paying taxes any more than are others who pay taxes.
Medicare and Medicaid account for about 23%, and Social Security about 20%. So for total government spending, entitlements account for more than twice as much as defense.
Measuring by increase, by percentage, or by total spending, the US government is doing more with healthcare-related services than they are with defense.
It is simply not possible to sustain the position that the reason the US federal government spends so much money is because of defense.
Yes, we can, probably should, and possibly may, make cuts to defense spending. To look to that as the solution to our current bloated budget, unsustainable deficit, and the coming catastrophe of entitlements spending, is just not realistic.
Regards,
Shodan
Why do you think this is meaningful, though? Just because most people spend more on groceries than they do clothes, doesn’t necessarily mean they are “overspending” on groceries. Just like groceries, healthcare services are expensive. The answer to that is to find a way to make healthcare more affordable. Not slash programs aimed at helping people who otherwise can’t afford those high costs.
But the fact remains that our military spending is way out of proportion when compared to other countries. In case it’s not clear to you yet, that’s what my assessment of overspending comes from.
Not sure if the rich are, as a whole, against paying taxes. But if they’re against paying a disproportianate percentage in taxes well maybe its because it just plain isn’t fair. Are they any less American? Are they going to get special priveleges because they pay more in taxes? No.
They need loopholes because many pay 50% or more already. We should all pay the same percentage. Its what is fair. Its just sour grapes for some people expecting the rich to give up more.
Overtaxing the rich really seems like something that goes on in some other country. Not America.
No, they don’t need loopholes. Loopholes are a product for the wealthy and well connected to buy from politicians. I would be much happier with taxation if there were not so many ways to weasel out of paying what you should.
And my point is that the rich don’t pay what they should. They pay more.
We all do. Everybody gets to pay only 10% on $8,500 of their income, and so on, even the very rich.
A flat percentage on total income across the board. Say 20%. Somebody making $10,000 pays $2,000. Somebody making $10,000,000 pays $2,000,000.
When you join that with sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, etc. The $10,000 person would be paying a much higher total percent of his income than the rich person.
I paid 103K+ for America; I’m fine with what I owe, or I just hope it’s deadly accurate. Otherwise I’m ballin on a budget for no reason.
[/QUOTE]
An aristocracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the electorate of the “deserving” discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury and the nation’s resources. After that, the electorate always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the aristocracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a democracy, then a dictatorship.
An absolute monarchy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the crown discovers it can decree itself largess out of the public treasury and the nation’s resources. After that, the crown always chooses the policy promising the most benefits with the result the monarchy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by an aristocracy, then a democracy.
Or, more bluntly, any electorate, from one man to the whole populace, may behave selfishly and badly. To argue against democracy is to argue for restricting the general embezzlement of public resources to an elite, while the poor get pillaged without lawful recourse. If you see some advantage to that, please explain. Just so we are clear.
Because the coming crash is from entitlements, not defense spending.
I thought we already agreed that our health care spending is way out of proportion when compared to other countries. And therefore your assessment doesn’t seem to be valid.
I don’t know how you budget, but if I were running up a thousand dollars a month in credit card debt, and $900 of it was groceries and $100 was clothes, I would not look to try to fix the problem by cutting my clothes allowance in half.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you took my presenting that quotation a whole lot more seriously than I did. btw, to address a previous comment from Fear Itself, whoever made that quotation did it to explain why (in his opinion) previous democracies had failed, so he at least believed that this has happened before.
My point is just that I do not believe that democracy means simply following the wishes of the masses all the time, otherwise there can be catastrophic, or at least unfortunate, consequences. A quick Google search comes up with the following being apparently supported by a majority of Americans:
[ul]
[li]Not raising the debt ceiling[/li][li]King’s inquiry into Muslim Radicalization[/li][li]Casey Anthony should have been found guilty[/li][li]The Arizona immigration bill [/li][li]Tougher gun control[/li][/ul]
I don’t think I want any of those issues resolved based wholly or mainly on the wishes of the majority of the voters.