Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Joanna,I haven't said otherwise. I think the U.S. needs to cut spending across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 OK, lets say we save 50 billion a year then. Not nearly enough for health care. If we save 100 Billion, still not enough. Even if we were to save 200 billion and that was enough, the big fucking problem is the 1.8 trillion dollars in annual deficits. The deficit was inherited, but thats still an awful lot of red ink. Plugging this hole has to be our top priority. To do this means raising taxes and cutting spending all across the board. Until we get this under control, we are just digging the economic hole we are in deeper and deeper.I don't disagree with you. We went through this in the early 90's. The Liberals cut everything in order to balance the books and we eventually turned the corner. Thankfully the government at the time never felt that they could spend there way out of trouble.However, with such a scenario unlikely to happen any time soon, the future savings in health care cost would be beneficial wouldn't you think? And the initial startup costs could be recovered if the money budgeted to the Iraq war was diverted to UHC.I read that the Iraq War is burning up ~12 Billion a month. Half of that could mean 72 billion a year. That would be a good starting place I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I think the military is probably one pet project we could just about do without. That would free up a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Triskele,Scot - Just getting back to the thread. I'd have to echo Shryke's questoin about printing money. If that is really part of the process, I'm not aware of it. The article that Shryke posted I believe suggests that taxes on the rich will be increased as part of the payment. I know that's not always popular but it helps explain where some of the funding comes from.A few things that I think we have to look regarding your post. How much will UHC cost to start up? According to Robert Reich about 650 Billion over ten years. Can taxes on the "rich" (I put "rich" in quotes because that is a very subjective term) cover all costs of start up of a UHC system in the U.S.? Please correct me if I'm wrong but haven't taxes already been raised on the "rich"? How much more of the national tax burden be placed on the "rich" or how little income will be required to be defined as "rich" in order to raise that money? If that's not enough where does the money come from? Again accord to the Robert Reich article I link above it should come from taxes on existing health care benefits which would encompass more than the "rich" and would be something the President criticized Sen. McCain for proposing in 2008 during the campaign.Bill,I think the military is probably one pet project we could just about do without. That would free up a lot of money.Do you mean scraping our existing military altogether or stopping funding for anything but existing weapons systems and troops? There's no question that either proposal would save a great deal of money but I'm not certian either proposal would be altogether wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I think the military is probably one pet project we could just about do without. That would free up a lot of money.Do you mean not have a standing Army? I cannot believe this would be wise at all. To be the most powerful country on Earth, and then dispose of your Army, would open yourself to invasion from the Chinese and/or Koreans. If you mean spending on development of new weapons systems, well we could only do that for a few years, and then the equipment our soldiers are using up will all be gone, and will need replaced. The military could shed a lot of spending, if congress just told them "here is your budget, it is half what it was last year". Unnecessary bases would be shuttered, causing massive woe to the local economies, training would be simulated, as amunition and fuel would be reserved for real battle, thereby causing decreased readiness, development for new projects would be terminated, causing lay-offs at Boeing, Northrupp-Grumann, Rockwell, etc.....No good avenues, but when we speak of massive decreases in Government spending, not many are..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Please correct me if I'm wrong but haven't taxes already been raised on the "rich"?No they have not, and this is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. Bush's unsustainable tax cuts for the rich were allowed to expire, i.e., they were returned to Clinton-era levels. Those cuts' unsustainability is almost universally agreed-upon by economists. To claim that "taxes were raised" on the wealthy is analogous to removing $900 billion from the defense budget, re-adding that $900 billion, and claiming that you "raised the defense budget by $900 billion."EDIT: I suspect there is room in the defense budget for some thoughtful trimming -- Defense Secretary Gates is working on this, in fact, and meeting with resistance from dipshit Congressmen who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground -- but I don't think not funding national defense is a viable option at the moment, particularly with North Korea mouthing off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Inigima,No they have not, and this is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. Bush's unsustainable tax cuts for the rich were allowed to expire, i.e., they were returned to Clinton-era levels. Those cuts' unsustainability is almost universally agreed-upon by economists. To claim that "taxes were raised" on the wealthy is analogous to removing $900 billion from the defense budget, re-adding that $900 billion, and claiming that you "raised the defense budget by $900 billion."By that logic unless tax rates go above 94% (1944, 1945) no increase in taxes is a tax increase all that's going on is returning the tax rate to WWII levels.EDIT: I suspect there is room in the defense budget for some thoughtful trimming -- Defense Secretary Gates is working on this, in fact, and meeting with resistance from dipshit Congressmen who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground -- but I don't think not funding national defense is a viable option at the moment, particularly with North Korea mouthing off.I agree there is room to cut the defense budget. I'm just not certian Bill's idea to either eliminate the military altogether or limit it to it's current size and disposition is a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C S Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 No they have not, and this is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. Bush's unsustainable tax cuts for the rich were allowed to expire, i.e., they were returned to Clinton-era levels. Those cuts' unsustainability is almost universally agreed-upon by economists. To claim that "taxes were raised" on the wealthy is analogous to removing $900 billion from the defense budget, re-adding that $900 billion, and claiming that you "raised the defense budget by $900 billion."It would be more accurate to say that Bush's tax cuts will be allowed to expire. I believe that this occurs in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Frog Eater,Do you mean not have a standing Army?Yeah, pretty much. You refer to the possibility of invasion, but I don't believe it for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Bill,So, if the U.S. were to scrape its military altogether you don't think there would be any negative geopolitical implications for the U.S. that would result from that action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootme Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 My friend says that universal health care will give the poor better health care and the rich worse health care.Is this true?If so then do you think it is better for one class to get the best of the best and one class to get nothing or is it better for everyone to get the same stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Fucking country would be invaded by what ? Mexico ? You only really need a navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 SCO,I think the Canadians have been eyeing Michigan for years. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 My friend says that universal health care will give the poor better health care and the rich worse health care.Is this true?I'm not privy to all the details of the bill germinating in Congress, but this I can say: I sincerely doubt that the day will come to pass when those with the means will lack for health care. That generally does not happen in this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K26dp Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 My friend says that universal health care will give the poor better health care and the rich worse health care.Is this true?Applying just an iota of common sense would answer this question.BTW, understanding that this is the whole "UHC will cut costs in the long run" thing that Scot mentions, but the efficiencies gained by the type of system they are proposing will be a tremendous boon to businesses. It's likely to help businesses in the long term, and possibly in the short term as well if there is the kind of broad-base support that everyone seems to think there is as for as implementing the system. There's going to be winners and losers in all of this of course, but it's looking like the gov't should be able to recoup most if not all of the costs on the revenue side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 My friend says that universal health care will give the poor better health care and the rich worse health care.Is this true?If so then do you think it is better for one class to get the best of the best and one class to get nothing or is it better for everyone to get the same stuff?Yes and no. If the rich were forced to use UHC, it would be true, but preventing them from paying extra for private care is a) ridiculous and b) totally unenforceable (if they're that rich, they can afford to go abroad where it wouldn't even be illegal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imp Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 My friend says that universal health care will give the poor better health care and the rich worse health care.Is this true?Just because a UHC system is put in place doesn't mean the private health insurance / providers would disappear.Sure that means you're paying into both systems, but given private healthcare now has to compete with a universal public system it isn't unreasonable to assume that quality of care may increase and / or pricing go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Yeah, pretty much. You refer to the possibility of invasion, but I don't believe it for a minute.N. Korea would invade S. Korea in about three minutes if the US was not an immediate military threat. Iran would blow up Isreal in less time than that if the US was not an immediate military threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Iran would blow up Isreal in less time than that if the US was not an immediate military threat.Iran would (possibly) blow up Israel if not for the fact that Israel is a nuclear power. The US has very little to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gladius Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 N. Korea would invade S. Korea in about three minutes if the US was not an immediate military threat. Iran would blow up Isreal in less time than that if the US was not an immediate military threat.a)And S. Korea would repel the attack without problemsB)Yes, because Iran really wants to be nuked :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.