As others have pointed out, debt and deficits are different. Cut almost to a third, from 1.413 trillion to .492 trillion in the time Obama has been in office. Its funny, despite their rhetoric, Republicans truly suck at fiscal responsibility. The last three Republican presidents have doubled (Reagan), doubled (Bush the elder), and tripled (Bush the younger) the deficit. The last two Democrat presidents have eliminated (Clinton) and cut by 2/3 the deficit, but somehow, as usual, Obama gets the blame. http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php No, not unsustainable. Unwise, to be certain, but our debt/GDP ratio is about where it was after WWII. Perhaps it is time to get serious about reducing our debt just like we did after the end of the war. You're the one rationalizing based on political alignment. For God's sake, thumbs is actually comparing Harry Reid to the GOP over the last six years with regards to intransigence. That is some severe rationalization. Absolutely, but it has objectively gotten much better over the last six years and could improve even more, except that the GOP is apparently more interested in giving corporate tax breaks than eliminating the deficit. They, like so many other deluded folks, must actually believe the disproved canard that "tax cuts increase revenues."
Absolutely, the opportunity cost of this debt service is HUGE. We pay over 250 billion per year just in debt service, it is certainly time we got serious about eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt. Sadly, the GOP absolutely and completely opposes half of the policies necessary to pay down the debt.
So, cut government, including agencies which are already experiencing difficulty servicing their mandate, and cut corporate taxes even further than they have already rather than just closing the loopholes that allow them to park those trillions offshore tax free? Sounds like you're just reciting Fox "News." Absolutely, but it will take the combination of reducing spending (combining the various government healthcare agencies would certainly cut redundancy and waste) AND raising taxes. It is sad that your ideology causes you to completely ignore half of the equation, but your choice to ignore that equation doesn't remove it, just means you choose to be blind.
We need tax reform, just not the kind you're calling for. When the Greatest Generation found themselves in debt after WWII, they all tightened their belts, accepted high marginal tax rates, and paid down the debt. Then, when debt was at more reasonable levels (during JFK), they lowered the taxes again. Sadly, Republicans have become convinced that every problem has tax cuts as its solution, and they have tax cut this country to an $18 trillion debt.
My reply was fine; Dems lose majority balancing budget, philosophical conservatives and liberals too self-deluded about class, security and personal achievement to admit their respective fiscal fetishes lead to more debt.
You have a poor recollection of history and an odd definition of "reasonable". You must be one of the VSPs Paul Krugman talks about. And US national debt is not eighteen trillion dollars. Total U.S. debt is over fifty-five trillion dollars. Much of the national debt is sourced from health care.
Would you like to point out some specifics where my recollection of history is off or where my proposals are unreasonable? I am someone who is highly educated with regards to business and politics. Nope, still under $18 trillion... http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Let me guess, you heavily relate to the last half of this song... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/w-0TEJMJOhk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> This is the first accurate statement you've made here. A good portion of the national debt comes from the SS and Medicare trust funds. Perhaps you're thinking of mandatory unfunded spending in the future, which doesn't count as "debt" today, but may well turn into debt someday. Either way, you should stop listening to your sources, they're lying to you.
Lofty rhetoric but good luck accomplishing that. The system you are proposing does exactly to doctors what you say you don't want. The idea of merging medicare, medicaid and the VA together to form a 'streamlined' government agency scares the crap out of me. It'd basically be turning healthcare into the postal service, a minimal level of service at a cheap price. All the while everyone using the USPS hates it and all the employees are apathetic.
Lemme break it down. The "Greatest Generation" found themselves in debt <i>during</i> WWII and in a recession afterwards. Not sure what "belt-tightening" you are referring to. And I am someone who is highly experience with regards to the oilfield. Weak source. Better Source. For someone highly educated in business and politics, you have taste in music that fit with that distinction. I am not sure if a "good portion" comes from SS. It is mainly Medicare and (rising) Medicaid. And my sources are the data themselves. If this were a court of law there would be no need to put the data under oath - because the data do not lie.
With Medicaid, Medicare, and some HMO insurance companies aren't doctors (who mostly deal with them) already working with restraints...??? They'll find whatever reason possible to deny a claim and usually only pay a small percentage of the claim (specifically Medicaid and Medicare). They even have to get authorization from the insurance companies 1st before they perform many procedures and some HMO's give doctors and patients the run around. And on top of that, some of those same doctors are slaves to pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs to patients for profit. If they're getting the same money they probably wouldn't care if healthcare was streamlined or not.
That would be raising marginal tax rates after the war to pay down the debt. For someone who claims to know history, you sure seem oblivious. ETA, a correction: We raised taxes during WWII to help deal with rising deficits and debt, not after the war. Either way, my point stands... http://taxfoundation.org/article/us...-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets But with somewhere between zero and little knowledge of politics, business, or history. And your source shows a dramatically lower debt than mine. Perhaps you would like to expand on your opinion that the debt is $55 trillion, your source shows it at $12.6 trillion. What exactly does my taste in music have to do with my education? Since you didn't get it, I was wondering if you wear a foil lined hat. That would explain the fact that you seem to believe things that simply aren't true. It does. The SS trust fund is comprised of over $2.7 trillion in US treasuries. You can learn a great deal by reading. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=5 No, people do. Which is why I find it telling that people like you never show your sources. You make all kinds of unfounded claims, crowing about "the data," while spouting off unsubstantiated garbage you heard on Fox.
Yes doctors already deal with a lot of red-tape, not sure what your point was there. With the advent of new laws (some very justified), doctors aren't 'slaves' to drug companies as they once were. It's now highly illegal to send a doctor on a paid vacation to hawaii. Hell at the academic medical center I did my clinicals at, pharm companies couldn't even hand out pens or provide lunch. Yes there were some bad apple doctors who abused the system and took lots of perks, but really its no different than anything else. I'd much rather have pharm reps trying to explain the merits of a drug to a doctor on an individual basis than to patients (e.g viagra commercials) or some healthcare administrator (who can also be swayed with perks) who doesn't treat patients or know anything about the science behind the drugs. Define 'same money'. It is now much more difficult for a physician to make 2/3's of what they made 20 years ago. Individual practices are closing left and right. The managed healthcare lobby has basically enslaved this generation of physicians to work for a giant company at ever decreasing wages. Doctors can no longer own their hospital or imaging center, a ridiculous limitation that only serves corporate interests.
My point is that it doesn't make a difference to many of them if they streamlined healthcare are not because they are still dealing with a bunch of 5h1t. Again, which is why I say to many doctors it probably wouldn't make a difference... But I seriously doubt streamlining healthcare would happen when big businesses have so many patients and doctors bent over.
It's hard to envision a scenario where healthcare is reformed and doctors aren't drastically affected. More so, it's hard to envision a scenario where healthcare is reformed and doctors aren't negatively affected. Just because we're losing autonomy and leverage by the day doesn't mean we're anxious to make wholesale changes which exacerbate that.
There was a very large increase in war spending, and the war and spending eventually ended. Two recession followed over the next six years before the "military industrial complex" set in. The decrease in spending is what drove the liabilities and deficit down. Spending Deficit This newly found wealth lead to an increase in the tax rate. However, the tax rate did not come down and post war recessions stagnated the economy further. So what happened? Spending went down and the deficit went down. However, tax rates remained high and stagnated the economy. A cut in the tax rate is known as a positive Keynesian shock. The lack of tax cut is therefore a negative Keynesian shock and hurts the economy. So why you think it was the marginal tax rate that drove the deficit down? I don't know. There are clearly more factors at hand and government spending was the biggest factor in deficit reduction. Yep. This industry sprang up just over night. No politics. No business. No history. Your sources believe that their is a stash of money known as a "trust fund". And total US debt is over $55 trillion - actually it is at about $57.5 trillion. I can't figure this out either. Uh oh. There it is: trust fund. I've posted links to my sources. None of which are Fox.
Wow I just realized what you meant. No kidding Americans have debt. Why don't you look at the total wealth of America as well?
As usual for people with your ideological beliefs, you leave out half of the equation. When it became clear that spending was going up for the war, we raised tax rates, resulting in dramatically higher tax receipts... Then, as you observed, spending went down after the war. However, it was the combination of reduced spending AND higher taxes that eliminated the deficit and allowed us to pay down the debt. No, it was the high levels of deficit spending that led to the increase in the tax rate. Note that the tax rate and resulting revenues went up BEFORE the end of the war. Federal government revenues bottomed out in 1941 and started rising dramatically in 1942. I'm not sure where exactly you see economic stagnation. After the war, economic growth was up and down around the 5% level. This graph clearly shows what I have been saying. When tax rates went up during the war, the result was increased revenues, which was a large component in the elimination of the deficit once the war spending went down. Again, you left out one of the important components. Spending went down, taxes went up, and the budget got balanced. There is no evidence of this. It is nice that you know the theory, but the numbers don't support the theory in this case. If the theory is to hold water, we would see a positive shock and resulting increases in economic growth after the tax rates were reduced in 1964, which didn't happen... I don't think it was taxes all by themselves. I know it was the combination of higher taxes and lower spending, as I have been saying all along are the two components which will be required for us to balance the budget today. Perhaps you could explain how lower spending ALONE resulted in elimination of the deficit when the evidence clearly shows it was the combination of these that eliminated the deficit and allowed us to pay down the debt. As evidenced by your posts, which seem to lack knowledge of politics, business, and history. You do realize that this data series includes ALL debt held in the US, including that held by the private sector and the states, right? We're talking about FEDERAL debt, not debt held by the private sector and state governments. There seems to be a lot you can't figure out. You seem to have a pathological aversion to the term "trust fund," not sure what that's about, but you can educate yourself on what the trust fund is, all it takes is a little reading. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html Here's a great Forbes article on the SS trust funds and the myths spread by various pundits... http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/06/12/is-the-social-security-trust-fund-solvent/ You've posted links, but they don't support your opinions. Your opinions appear to be driven by ideological opposition to tax cuts, which causes you to ignore the facts. I assume this ideology is partially as a result of your willingness to believe pundits over facts.
You seem to be contradicting your point. Here is a graph that clearly shows that government spending is much larger than its taxes. I don't see a point in time when the government accumulated $2.7 trillion of reserves. In fact, it looks like the federal government always runs a deficit - even in years when it supposedly had a surplus. See graph.
Facts are simple and facts are straight Facts are lazy and facts are late Facts all come with points of view Facts don't do what I want them to Facts just twist the truth around Facts are living turned inside out Facts are getting the best of them Facts are nothing on the face of things Facts don't stain the furniture Facts go out and slam the door Facts are written all over your face Facts continue to change their shape I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting... I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting... I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
Yes, spending was much higher than receipts, particularly as the war went on. The graph you presented here shows a ratio, not revenues. As I showed in this graph... ...revenues did go up after we raised taxes. Then, when spending went down as the war came to a close, the ratio closed to zero fairly quickly. These two graphs, when considered together, clearly illustrate that the combination of tax hikes and spending cuts eliminated the deficit. This is my whole point, we need both. If you chose to read the link I posted, you would have found that the trust fund was generated over decades when the receipts from payroll taxes dramatically outpaced expenditures. Deficit spending consumed the cash reserves for the trust fund, leaving it stocked with the safest investments on the planet (according to the market, anyway), US Treasuries. Again, all of this and more can be learned by clicking the link, lots of useful information about SS up there. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html
