U.S. Politics part X

[DanteGabriel]

But the Russians may well take back Alaska, and then all of Sarah Palin's nonsensical campaign ramblings about Putin in her airspace and seeing Russia from her house will be true.

[potsherds]

I think the military is probably one pet project we could just about do without. That would free up a lot of money.

Gods yes. I want to see the Air Force hold a bake sale to raise money for a spiffy plane.

I don't hold that we should disband all our military, but there is waaaaaaayyyyyy too much of the U.S. budget going toward the war machine that would better benefit the people of this country in social programs.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

As to Inigima. I'll I'm saying is that taxes will be higher than they are now. If raising taxes to a level that they existed before isn't a tax increase then we don't have any tax increases until we hit 94%.

I understand UHC may bring savings over the long haul but in the short to medium term it's going to cost a fair amount to put into operation. That is money we simply don't have available without making hard choices to get it. Printing money may be the easiest choice politically at the end of the day because it dodges the hard choices we're faced with now. That's regardless of the rather harsh impact more debasement may cause. The people advocating it can simply invoke a little class warfare and paint those who worry about debasement as people who don't care about the poor.

[MojoJojo]

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.

The idea that by spending money on health care we save money is wrong for the following reason: Comprehensive universal health care with cradle to the grave coverage would save money by eliminating the private and public beaurocracy and focusing resources on preventive medicine. Our system has and always will be a patchwork of private and public providers. You have hundreds of private insurance companies administering thousands of policies for hundreds of thousands of employers, there are both private and public hospitals, clinics, research institutions, as well as county, state, and federal spending on dozens of different entitlement programs for various interest groups (like the elderly, disabled, veterans, special needs children, etc). The industry is just too big and complex, the opposition to change is too powerful and entrenched. We will never be able to wave our magic legislative wand and change the system to one provider. Rather what has been happening over the last couple decades is we have been slowly oozing towards socialized health care, which is what Obama and Hillary's campaign plan for UHC amounted to. Realistically any workable plan that can get through congress towards establishing UHC will be along these lines, more federal money for existing programs to plug the gaps, and thus is not going to save us a dime.

[sToNED_CAT]

I'm not too concerned about the semantics but Inigima is right. All Obama has really tried to do so far is not renew those Bush tax cuts thus allowing them to return to the Clinton-era levels. This is exactly what he said he wanted to do in his campaign.

Well, in fact there is s also ome talk about abolishing the top FICA tax limit. That would effectively mean 13% higher tax on wages for rich people.

[C S]

Triskele,

As to Inigima. I'll I'm saying is that taxes will be higher than they are now. If raising taxes to a level that they existed before isn't a tax increase then we don't have any tax increases until we hit 94%.

Don't you think that there is a difference between actively raising taxes and allowing your predecessor's temporary tax reduction to expire as originally planned?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

Has anyone actually proposed printing more money or are you just speculating on the most likely means of payment?

I'm speculating based upon the U.S. financial condition.

Let me clarify that I'm not trying too much to use the class warfare angle. Remember that healthcare costs are increasing something like 4 times that of inflation. This is not about helping the poor. It's about helping all of us. I don't know of a more unsustainable program in America than the status quo of the health care system. I voiced some of the ways in which I'm hoping we can help the economy through reform in my last post.

I'm not saying you are resorting to class warfare. I'm saying it would be a politically expedient method for dealing with fiscally based opposition to UHC.

CS,

Don't you think that there is a difference between actively raising taxes and allowing your predecessor's temporary tax reduction to expire as originally planned?

Well, one's a bit more passive than the other but both result in a higher tax rate.

[Annelise]

The people advocating it can simply invoke a little class warfare and paint those who worry about debasement as people who don't care about the poor.

While I know there is legitimate worry about debasement, let's not pretend that there has not been plenty of resistence to this when that wasn't an issue. In short, it's a newer concern that does not erase what came before; by the same token, that is also no excuse to ignore the financials.

Anyway, my take is not that (some) opponents don't care about the poor, they just care about their own interests more. What frustrates me are the folks content to live in the now because they currently have it good, when I think they should be looking down the line as, overall, I have come to believe healthcare reform is in everyone's longterm interest, not just the poor.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Annelise,

While I know there is legitimate worry about debasement, let's not pretend that there has not been plenty of resistence to this when that wasn't an issue. In short, it's a newer concern that does not erase what came before; by the same token, that is also no excuse to ignore the financials.

Anyway, my take is not that (some) opponents don't care about the poor, they just care about their own interests more. What frustrates me are the folks content to live in the now because they currently have it good, when I think they should be looking down the line as, overall, I have come to believe healthcare reform is in everyone's longterm interest, not just the poor.

You may be right and UHC back in the early 90s under Clinton would have been a good time to try such a reform. With the nation in the shape it is in now I don't see how making the national debt even larger is a good idea when our currency is devaluing because of recent efforts to borrow our way out of recession.

[Meili]

Shouldn't any official US politics thread not have a certain byline about one topic underneath? If all things US goes under this tent thread then the torture line shouldn't be there. Just a friendly point for the next thread.

I have a lot of opinions on Obama's trip to Saudi and his stance on our relationship to the ME but I'll wait to judge until his trip is concluded. So far though, his behavior is less than impressive even though his celebrity status seems as popular as ever. It is funny though to see the same people who were livid over Bush's close relationship to the Saudi's be so impressed by the things Obama is doing as far as saying we are one of the world's largest Muslim countries due to the amount of Muslims here and and other surprising things said.

[Annelise]

Annelise,

You may be right and UHC back in the early 90s under Clinton would have been a good time to try such a reform. With the nation in the shape it is in now I don't see how making the national debt even larger is a good idea when our currency is devaluing because of recent efforts to borrow our way out of recession.

I understand. I'm not going to say you shouldn't worry, or that it isn't a concern. Even if I could prove it wasn't, I also recall you objecting to it for other reasons through the various healthcare threads, so what would be the point?

[Annelise]

. It is funny though to see the same people who were livid over Bush's close relationship to the Saudi's be so impressed by the things Obama is doing as far as saying we are one of the world's largest Muslim countries due to the amount of Muslims here and and other surprising things said.

Eh, it's all bullshit on both sides. The King and royals know we'll drop them as soon as we can afford to. I read a book that said one member of the Saudi royal family was estimating 20 years before they were forced out of the country into exile because we didn't need them anymore (this was back in 1997 or so). Man, I can't wait.

[Bill Foote]

N. Korea would invade S. Korea in about three minutes if the US was not an immediate military threat.

Other way around.

[DanteGabriel]

I have a lot of opinions on Obama's trip to Saudi and his stance on our relationship to the ME but I'll wait to judge until his trip is concluded. So far though, his behavior is less than impressive even though his celebrity status seems as popular as ever. It is funny though to see the same people who were livid over Bush's close relationship to the Saudi's be so impressed by the things Obama is doing as far as saying we are one of the world's largest Muslim countries due to the amount of Muslims here and and other surprising things said.

I suppose one could draw some equivalency between Bush, who came from a family with a decades-long financial interest in the House of Saud and did special things like letting all the bin Ladens leave the country really quickly and secretly after 9/11, and Obama, who mistakenly bowed to their king and said some flowery things about US-Saudi relations on an official state visit...

I mean, you could draw an equivalency, but it may be unreasonable to expect people to take your opinion seriously.

[Inigima]

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.

Seriously? You don't see a difference here? Even that aside, the fact is that "not renewing tax cuts" isn't the same as "raising taxes."

Well, one's a bit more passive than the other but both result in a higher tax rate.

Ah, but you see how that's not the same thing as what you said before?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Inigima,

I see a difference in mechanism but the end result is identical.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Look at it this way Scott: US government is scaling back handouts. :P

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Czar,

Maybe it's just me but not taking people's money doesn't meet my definition of a "handout."

:/

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Czar,

Maybe it's just me but not taking people's money doesn't meet my definition of a "handout."

:/

But the end result is identical! :thumbsup:

[Inigima]

Oh. Oh. High five.