Score one for the middle class

Oh, I forgot a very important point.

The result of all those tax cuts during the Reagan years was to balloon yearly budget deficits and add more to the federal debt than all previous presidents before him since WWII.
Meanwhile the tax hikes in the Clinton years turned the deficits into the first surpluses since 1969.

Hmm, seems like tax hikes on the rich aren't so awful after all...by paying down the deficit, interest rates were kept lower, making home and auto purchases less expensive. It was like a tax cut for everyone!

Apparently the tax rates of the 1990s didn't prevent growth and prosperity after all.

I sense conservative minds, exploding...
 
Werbung:
Social Security and Medicare are the most precious and successful social programs in America's history.

If you don't think so, just look what happens to politicians who try to mess with them. They aren't called the "third rail" of American politics for nothing.

Try to screw around with them and the "grey panthers" rise up and smite the politician down to soot.

Having said that, Medicare and Medicaid have serious funding problems. That's why we need serious health care reform, as proposed by Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. And unlike anything proposed by any of the GOP candidates.
 
Think about what your saying. You admit the government has horribly mismanaged social insecurity, but yet you want them controlling your health care? :confused:

You mention government needs some money to cover military and national defense. Great, they can do that with the first $817 Billion (as outlined in my other post). Ok what about the other $1 Trillion the government blew in '07? :confused:

Medicare and Medicaid Fraud is hitting over $33 Billion a year.
Medicare lost $23 Billion in payment errors, 12% of Medicares yearly budget.
Medicare loses 14% in just plain mismanagement, roughly $63 Million a day.
Medicare does not pay enough to cover the cost of care, therefore hospitals and doctors charge more to non-medicare patients to recoup the cost of providing care to Medicare patients. (psst that's you. Next time you gag at health insurance, remember this is why)

And Social Insecurity... you don't really want me to go over all the waste, fraud and mismanagement of SS do you? It's the same only worse.

These programs are self-sustaining?... what are you talking about? :confused: Social Insecurity has increased taxes 3 times over, and cut benefits in as many times, and will do so again. Medicare has doubled it's payroll taxes while cutting benefits as well. Even now, just Google "Medicare cuts" and dozens of articles come up.

Already there is an issue come up where specific treatments where reimbursement is cut so much, Hospitals are choosing to no longer offer it at all, because they lose to much money doing it. Because of government Medicare, people have lost the ability to get this treatment with, or without, insurance. Now imagine this in a nation wide program! :eek:

Finely let's get some facts straight about single-payer health care. First, no we are not the only nation without it. Germany for one, but there are several others. So strike that. Second, even if we were, so what? We are the most advanced and wealth nation on this planet, despite being one of the youngest among modern nations. We didn't surpass all the other nations of the world by following their examples. Third, yes we spend more on health care than any other nation... well no joke, we have the best quality health care system in the world. We're better equipped, better served, better doctors, and our system has more medical breakthroughs and advancements than any other nation... So yeah we pay more.

Last of all, other countries do not run the system really well. In case you missed the recent world news, France just passed a law declaring that if you manage to retire, or if you are not working, and are younger than 65, you are cut out of Universal Health care. Roughly 3 Million people have lost all medical insurance. And since there is no private insurance, these people can't get health care insurance even if they have the money for it! This is what you want here?

How about Canada? Canada is facing a shortage of Doctors. Few choose to be a doctor because of crappy pay. Most that do, elect to go into specialized training which pays more, or (get this) go to the US to practice.

I have a deal for you: go to school for 9 years, owe $100K+ in schooling fees, and then work 55 hours a week to earn $75K a year, no vacation or benefits. Sounds good right? Wait... a worker for Ford at the Windsor plant in Canada, at 55 hours a week can earn $130K yearly after completing a free apprenticeship program. In fact drywall workers, carpet installers and automatic transmission rebuilders can earn more than $80,000 annually. (all money amounts in Canadian currency)

So after 9 years of school and $100K in debt, you want to earn less than Bubba Joe carpet installer? One doctor who visited a friend doctor who practices in the US, found that after converting to US dollars, he only made $50K a year... as much as a nurse gets paid.

And this is only one of dozens of issues with Canada's system. I'll spare you the rest, and the issues with UKs system, and other systems around the world.

Now with all due respect... you need to start thinking about this stuff. Do you really want waiting lists here in the US? Do you really want to not have quality health care? You really want the best doctors to go to other nations to practice because we don't pay them? You want to wait 2 months for an MRI because there's only 1 unit that 5 states have to share?

Stop saying 'other people do thus and so' without learning if the system 'other people' are using actually works. Because it really doesn't. And it won't here either.

Where to start with all of that?

First of all, I didn't say I wanted the government managing health care.

Second of all, we don't have the "best quality health care system in the world." That's a great talking point for the radio pundits, but the WHO rates the US #37, not #1. Who are you going to believe, the pundits who know diddly squat, or the WHO?

We do have the most expensive health care in the world, that's indisputable.

No, the health care systems in other countries are not run perfectly. Being human institutions, they do have their faults.

I'm not sure where you got the information about 3 million people being unable to get health care in France. I've never seen anything about it, but maybe it's true. I don't know, I do know that over 40 million in this country are without health insurance, however.

About SS: It is self sustaining in that the taxes collected for SS more than pay for the program. Doing away with SS, therefore, would be a net revenue loss to the government. I'm not about to argue that the program is well run. I've already outlined reforms that could be done to put it on sound fiscal footing. It seems that, whenever fiscal irresponsibility and the growth of government are discussed, the term "social programs" or "entitlement programs", usually meaning social security and medicare, are used to explain why federal spending is out of control. Even if those two programs were eliminated entirely, which would result in enormous social consequences, the federal budget would be even more unbalanced than it is currently.
 
Best health care in the world? Well, we're at least 19th. Out of 19.

Blog_Deaths_Amenable_Healthcare.gif
source

But there's a bright side: at least our healthcare isn't funded by the government, like it is in France. Keep that in mind if someone you know dies of preventable causes. Their odds would have been a whole lot better in Paris, but who'd want to live in a socialist hellhole like that anyway? --Kevin Drum
 
Health Care

Where to start with all of that?
Second of all, we don't have the "best quality health care system in the world." That's a great talking point for the radio pundits, but the WHO rates the US #37, not #1. Who are you going to believe, the pundits who know diddly squat, or the WHO?

I do know that over 40 million in this country are without health insurance, however.

About SS: It is self sustaining in that the taxes collected for SS more than pay for the program. Doing away with SS, therefore, would be a net revenue loss to the government. I'm not about to argue that the program is well run. I've already outlined reforms that could be done to put it on sound fiscal footing. It seems that, whenever fiscal irresponsibility and the growth of government are discussed, the term "social programs" or "entitlement programs", usually meaning social security and medicare, are used to explain why federal spending is out of control. Even if those two programs were eliminated entirely, which would result in enormous social consequences, the federal budget would be even more unbalanced than it is currently.

This is what I'm talking about. Think about the issue instead of just listing off what some other group of idiots say.

WHO... why do you trust them? Did you ever look at how they ranked the health care systems? They ranked based on coverage. As in: France's health care system covered (past tense) everyone. What WHO did not rank was quality of service.

What people like me, are referring to when we say 'this is the greatest health care system in the world', is the quality of the service. We here in America have the most access to the best medical technology, the best pharmaceuticals, and the best doctors.

In France, in order to control cost, they use older drugs. For example, medicines for arthritis. In the US, when a new, more effective drug with fewer side effects is brought to market, we in the US, use it. France on the other hand, in order to save cost, will use the older drug instead. This is a good system?

Further, because of the price controls, pharmaceutical companies have no reason to develop new drugs. Why spend money on R&D to make a new better drug when you can't change any more for it than the drug you already have on the market? Worse, because of price caps, and capital gains taxes imposed on pharmaceutical companies, there is little to no money available to spend on R&D anyway (at least they are not greedy, right?). The result has been a drift of many companies to other nations like Germany and *surprise* the US where they can make money and develop new drugs. This is a good system?

Moreover, publicly funded hospitals are horribly ill-equipped. Most lacking staff, supplies and even the basics. In 2003, France had a massive heatwave that killed thousands... but what was shocking was the number of in-hospital deaths. Most state run hospitals do not have air conditioning! A nurse at one hospital complained they didn't even have ice! This is a good system?

Finely the French government run health care system has consistently run deficit since the second year it was started, and was $15 Billion in the red in 2004 prompting the government to cut budgets which resulted in nation wide strikes. In fact, France has had dozens of hospital staff strikes starting in 1988.

Now why am I bashing on the French? Because the WHO ranked them number 1. Is that a system that seems number 1 to you? No AC in hospitals? No supplies? Old drugs? No R&D for new medicine and treatments? This is what WHO thinks is a great system and you agree? You can get the best pills on the market, you can go to the most well equipped cleanest hospitals fully supplied, get looked at in under an hour, and have an MRI or whatever else you need, the same day, without worry of the staff having a strike.

Oh wait, their system is much better because we have 40 million people uninsured. Honestly I'm ok with that. I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for yourself. I learned the value of having insurance from when I had to go into the hospital.

In another post I mentioned I have a Muslim female friend. This women did not have insurance and I convinced her she needed it. I helped her shop for insurance. In that process I found she could get decent basic catastrophic insurance coverage for only $48 dollars a month. I ended up enrolling her in a $66 per month coverage that included some high deductible doctor/dentist and drug coverage.

Now given that most people pay more for their Cable/Internet service... what possible excuse does any American have? None... there is no excuse. So to me, 40 million people are uninsured, is a pitiful lame claim that our health care system sucks. Those people make their choices. It's their job to provide for themselves. Cut the cable and internet, and buy a health plan.

Now I don't know about radio pundits, but if they agree with me great... so I'll say it again... We have the best health care system in the world.
 
Best health care in the world? Well, we're at least 19th. Out of 19.

Blog_Deaths_Amenable_Healthcare.gif
source

But there's a bright side: at least our healthcare isn't funded by the government, like it is in France. Keep that in mind if someone you know dies of preventable causes. Their odds would have been a whole lot better in Paris, but who'd want to live in a socialist hellhole like that anyway? --Kevin Drum

I reject this argument. The basis for the report is on shaky ground. For example, cancer can be genetically related. Other countries with lower instances of genetic cancers would have a better rank. How is this related to the system behind health care? It isn't. Same with diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Further many cases of cancer and such, are directly related to when the patient seeks help. Many refuse to do so until it is too late to treat. It's not because of the type of health care available.

Finely, it's a known fact that Americans typically are less healthy than many other nations. Other nations where the population is more healthy, more active, and eats better foods, has a better rank... is it possible that it is less due to the health care system, than due to better more healthy life styles? I say it is.

Lastly, maybe you don't know this, but that socialist system in France is using drugs, surgical procedures, and medical equipment, that was researched and developed here in our greedy American Health Care system. Their system would be crap if not for us.
 
This is what I'm talking about. Think about the issue instead of just listing off what some other group of idiots say.

WHO... why do you trust them? Did you ever look at how they ranked the health care systems? They ranked based on coverage. As in: France's health care system covered (past tense) everyone. What WHO did not rank was quality of service.

What people like me, are referring to when we say 'this is the greatest health care system in the world', is the quality of the service. We here in America have the most access to the best medical technology, the best pharmaceuticals, and the best doctors.

In France, in order to control cost, they use older drugs. For example, medicines for arthritis. In the US, when a new, more effective drug with fewer side effects is brought to market, we in the US, use it. France on the other hand, in order to save cost, will use the older drug instead. This is a good system?

Further, because of the price controls, pharmaceutical companies have no reason to develop new drugs. Why spend money on R&D to make a new better drug when you can't change any more for it than the drug you already have on the market? Worse, because of price caps, and capital gains taxes imposed on pharmaceutical companies, there is little to no money available to spend on R&D anyway (at least they are not greedy, right?). The result has been a drift of many companies to other nations like Germany and *surprise* the US where they can make money and develop new drugs. This is a good system?

Moreover, publicly funded hospitals are horribly ill-equipped. Most lacking staff, supplies and even the basics. In 2003, France had a massive heatwave that killed thousands... but what was shocking was the number of in-hospital deaths. Most state run hospitals do not have air conditioning! A nurse at one hospital complained they didn't even have ice! This is a good system?

Finely the French government run health care system has consistently run deficit since the second year it was started, and was $15 Billion in the red in 2004 prompting the government to cut budgets which resulted in nation wide strikes. In fact, France has had dozens of hospital staff strikes starting in 1988.

Now why am I bashing on the French? Because the WHO ranked them number 1. Is that a system that seems number 1 to you? No AC in hospitals? No supplies? Old drugs? No R&D for new medicine and treatments? This is what WHO thinks is a great system and you agree? You can get the best pills on the market, you can go to the most well equipped cleanest hospitals fully supplied, get looked at in under an hour, and have an MRI or whatever else you need, the same day, without worry of the staff having a strike.

Oh wait, their system is much better because we have 40 million people uninsured. Honestly I'm ok with that. I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for yourself. I learned the value of having insurance from when I had to go into the hospital.

In another post I mentioned I have a Muslim female friend. This women did not have insurance and I convinced her she needed it. I helped her shop for insurance. In that process I found she could get decent basic catastrophic insurance coverage for only $48 dollars a month. I ended up enrolling her in a $66 per month coverage that included some high deductible doctor/dentist and drug coverage.

Now given that most people pay more for their Cable/Internet service... what possible excuse does any American have? None... there is no excuse. So to me, 40 million people are uninsured, is a pitiful lame claim that our health care system sucks. Those people make their choices. It's their job to provide for themselves. Cut the cable and internet, and buy a health plan.

Now I don't know about radio pundits, but if they agree with me great... so I'll say it again... We have the best health care system in the world.

actually, no. These are the criteria that the WHO uses to rate health care systems.

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

And, no, the average family can't begin to buy medical insurance for anywhere close to $66 per month. If a person does not have insurance, and has pre existing conditions, he/she can't get coverage at all for any price.

If an American loses his/her job, he loses health insurance. One serious illness or accident while between jobs can bankrupt a family in a matter of months.

If insurance were really that cheap and available, nearly everyone would be covered, and the big corporations like GM for example, would have a much healthier bottom line.
 
Economic Reality Check!

False.

It was 28 percent when he (finally) left.

More importantly, tax revenue didn't double in 8 years. Not even close. In fact the only way you can approach that number is to use current dollars, which no serious analyst ever does when comparing dollars across a range of years. You use real dollars--dollars that are adjusted for inflation. That puts everything on the same standard.

However, even using current dollars the increase in revenue only jumps from 599.3 billion to 909.3 billion, or 52 percent. Much of that is inflation. If you use real dollars, the increase is from 1.0774 trillion to 1.2356 trillion, or 15 percent.

15 percent is not exactly double, although "double" is what you often read on dishonest right-wing disinformation web sites or what they say on Fox "news."

Let's compare that performance with the Clinton years. As you'll recall, in 1993 the Democrats pushed through a fairly stiff tax hike on the richest 2 percent of the population. According to you, Andy, this would have a devastating effect on the economy. That's what all the right-wingers predicted too. Not a single Republican voted for it. They all foresaw economic doom and ruination.

From 1993 to 2000, tax revenues jumped from 1.1545 to 2.0255 trillion or 75 percent in current dollars; and from 1.3232 to 2.0255 trillion or 53 percent in real dollars.
source of figures here

So what you claimed, really, is false.

So is what you believe.

You have a choice. Adjust your beliefs to fit the facts, or adjust the facts to fit your beliefs. If you choose the latter, the right wing has a story all laid out for you--it's all because of the tech bubble.

The choice is yours.

I choose reality.
Regardless of which set of numbers you choose, the indisputable fact is, revenue went up. Taxes went down... revenue went up. This is reality. In fact, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

Further, Clinton reversed the trend started by Reagan where the largest tax burden shifted to the more wealthy. The tax hike enacted by Clinton caused more rich people to use tax avoidance strategies. According to Clinton's own budget submissions, the income tax revenue as a % of GDP was lower during his first 4 years, than the prior. In fact, even the National Bureau for Economic Research indicated that the Clinton tax failed to even collect 40% of their original projections.

So why didn't Clinton's tax hike harm the economy? Because rich people wisely didn't pay it.

"It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." - President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994

So what you claimed, really, is false.

So is what you believe.

You have a choice.

While I'm at it...

No the 80s tax cuts did not cause a deficit. Logic dictates a rise in income can not possibly cause a deficit. I earn $25 today, and $50 tomorrow, but spend $25 both days.. how does my increase in income cause a deficit? It does not... this is basic logic.

Only if I spend $75 the next day, while getting $50, do I end up in debt. The cause of debt was over spending by the people in congress... and who was in charge there?

And there was no surplus. It never existed. Clinton lied (oh surprise) about the budget, and used borrowed money as income in order to make it look like there was a surplus while at the same time increasing the nation debt, which defeats the purpose.

I bring in $9K, and spend $10K
Now I borrow $2K cash advance on a credit card.
I come home to my lovely wife "Hi hon! I brought in $11 Thousand! We have a grand surplus after paying our bills!"
Uh... I'm $2K in debt now... but I have a surplus! Clinton is brilliant!

Clinton did exactly that. He borrowed money, claimed it was income, and brain washed dozens of liberal parrots into thinking he balanced the budget.

Sensing a liberal covering his ears to shut out new information... it's safer that way...
 
I choose reality.
Regardless of which set of numbers you choose, the indisputable fact is, revenue went up. Taxes went down... revenue went up. This is reality. In fact, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

Further, Clinton reversed the trend started by Reagan where the largest tax burden shifted to the more wealthy. The tax hike enacted by Clinton caused more rich people to use tax avoidance strategies. According to Clinton's own budget submissions, the income tax revenue as a % of GDP was lower during his first 4 years, than the prior. In fact, even the National Bureau for Economic Research indicated that the Clinton tax failed to even collect 40% of their original projections.

So why didn't Clinton's tax hike harm the economy? Because rich people wisely didn't pay it.

"It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." - President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994

So what you claimed, really, is false.

So is what you believe.

You have a choice.

While I'm at it...

No the 80s tax cuts did not cause a deficit. Logic dictates a rise in income can not possibly cause a deficit. I earn $25 today, and $50 tomorrow, but spend $25 both days.. how does my increase in income cause a deficit? It does not... this is basic logic.

Only if I spend $75 the next day, while getting $50, do I end up in debt. The cause of debt was over spending by the people in congress... and who was in charge there?

And there was no surplus. It never existed. Clinton lied (oh surprise) about the budget, and used borrowed money as income in order to make it look like there was a surplus while at the same time increasing the nation debt, which defeats the purpose.

I bring in $9K, and spend $10K
Now I borrow $2K cash advance on a credit card.
I come home to my lovely wife "Hi hon! I brought in $11 Thousand! We have a grand surplus after paying our bills!"
Uh... I'm $2K in debt now... but I have a surplus! Clinton is brilliant!

Clinton did exactly that. He borrowed money, claimed it was income, and brain washed dozens of liberal parrots into thinking he balanced the budget.

Sensing a liberal covering his ears to shut out new information... it's safer that way...

However you choose to spin it, the debt increased under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It went down under Clinton.

Of course the problem is spending, no doubt about it. Spending has gone up over 70% under Bush. Income did increase despite (or because of, according to your bias) the tax cuts. The same thing happened during Reagan's first term. It's too bad that the Congress and White House didn't decrease spending while cutting taxes. We'd be in a much better fiscal situation now if they had.

It's going to be difficult to counter decades of overspending by the federal government, but it has to be done one way or another.
 
Cheap Health Insurance.

And, no, the average family can't begin to buy medical insurance for anywhere close to $66 per month. If a person does not have insurance, and has pre existing conditions, he/she can't get coverage at all for any price.

If an American loses his/her job, he loses health insurance. One serious illness or accident while between jobs can bankrupt a family in a matter of months.

If insurance were really that cheap and available, nearly everyone would be covered, and the big corporations like GM for example, would have a much healthier bottom line.

I just priced out family coverage for $128/mo. I can afford that and I earn less than $20K a year. (happily single)

I have never purchased coverage through my job. What a waste. Buy your own health care insurance, and if you have to change jobs, it doesn't matter. Most places I personally have been, allowed you to keep your insurance after you leave your job.

Part of the problem seems to be lazy people. The fact that no one wants to get up and take responsibility, but instead wants to wait for the job to cover them. Then they feel helpless when between jobs. It is also amazing the number of people who complain about high cost, but have no problem going to bars, playing the lotto, smoking cigs, watching cable TV, having the latest greatest cell phone, have a 400-watt stereo and on and on.

Finely for those really messed up by a pre-existing condition, Medicaid covers that. If you didn't know, there really isn't any completely uninsured. Medicaid covers a wide range of people, notably low income.

I'll look at the WHO link later. Regardless, to rank that mess in France as number one indicates to me, they have some way whacked values. France's health care system is headed for disaster.
 
You almost got it.

However you choose to spin it, the debt increased under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It went down under Clinton.

Of course the problem is spending, no doubt about it. Spending has gone up over 70% under Bush. Income did increase despite (or because of, according to your bias) the tax cuts. The same thing happened during Reagan's first term. It's too bad that the Congress and White House didn't decrease spending while cutting taxes. We'd be in a much better fiscal situation now if they had.

It's going to be difficult to counter decades of overspending by the federal government, but it has to be done one way or another.

Blind... Erm... ok we covered this... it didn't go down under Clinton. Sorry. You are not correct. It never happened. It was lie. Spin is saying the debt went down under Clinton when it didn't. I suppose that goes beyond spin, to outright lies... but close enough.

Further, no kidding it increased under president XXXXXX... the debt has increased under every single president since the 1930s, which includes Reagan, the Bushies and Captain Underpants Clinton. I never suggested otherwise.

Yes I agree with you there, cut spending. Cut spending as much as possible, and then more. Start with unconstitutional spending.
 
Social Insecurity

Social Security and Medicare are the most precious and successful social programs in America's history.

Having said that, Medicare and Medicaid have serious funding problems. That's why we need serious health care reform, as proposed by Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. And unlike anything proposed by any of the GOP candidates.

Ok, I suppose we will never agree on this because we are looking at it from a completely different world view.

See... the fact that Social Insecurity and Medicare/Medicaid have serious funding problems, negate the possibility of it being "the most... successful social programs in America's history".

If the problem is going to be bankrupt in 5 to 10 years, if you have to keep cutting benefits, and raising taxes, if it is constantly coming up in politics about 'what do we do about it?'... that to me is not a "successful social program".

A successful social program is one that works, and isn't in constant threat of falling apart. It's one that isn't cutting benefits and raising taxes every few years. When more than half of generation X thinks it won't be there when they retire... it's not a success.

About the only way to view that as success is from the stand point of Democrats getting votes. Democrats have successfully created a system of dependence by the public, on themselves, and thus gain votes every year by those trapped in their system.

The people trapped in Social Insecurity are left in poverty too. That hardly seems like a success. Maybe you haven't seen them, but I have. I've been to the social services homes. I delivered drugs for a pharmacy for a year. I've been in the government wards where people sit in a one room apartment and collect meals on wheels because Social Insecurity has them trapped, unable to afford anything more.

Worse yet, for the money put into Social Insecurity, the payoff is horrible. Just putting your money into a CD at a bank will yield a higher interest rate than SS.

If you want SS, fine. I want to opt out. I'll keep voting for people who will give me that option. I should not be forced to pay into a system I don't believe in, and I would be better off with that money is a plain money market account. While you get the crappy SS interest rate, I'll have twice as much when I retire if I put it in a mutual fund, and that's assuming you get anything at all with the way government blows money.
 
I reject this argument.

Of course you do.

What about this one?
health_stats1.jpg


There's virtually no metric in which the US health care system provides better care than those of other countries, other than in care for the very rich.

healthstats1.jpg


healthstats2.jpg


Best health care in the world, baby. Best in the world.
 
A quick question

Best health care in the world? Well, we're at least 19th. Out of 19.

Blog_Deaths_Amenable_Healthcare.gif
source

But there's a bright side: at least our healthcare isn't funded by the government, like it is in France. Keep that in mind if someone you know dies of preventable causes. Their odds would have been a whole lot better in Paris, but who'd want to live in a socialist hellhole like that anyway? --Kevin Drum
How does the WHO collect the data from each individual country, and how accurate and honest is the data that is provided to them? Just wondering.
 
Werbung:
I choose reality.
Regardless of which set of numbers you choose, the indisputable fact is, revenue went up. Taxes went down... revenue went up. This is reality. In fact, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

So you accept the fact that you overstated your case when you wrote that tax revenues doubled under Reagan.
Thanks for clearing that up.

First, let's establish a baseline. Generally speaking, all things being equal, federal tax revenues go up every year. They went up this year, they'll probably go up next year. That's because of our growing economy and growing population. A long recession may result in a year in which tax revenues go down, or tax cuts might result in a year in which tax revenues go down. Years in which tax revenues do not increase are the exception, not the rule.

It's true that overall, tax revenues went up during the Reagan years. I believe this is also true of every president since WWII. So when you write "Regardless of which set of numbers you choose, the indisputable fact is, revenue went up," you really aren't saying anything.

But then you wrote: Taxes went down... revenue went up. This is reality."

Not really. Taxes went down. Taxes also went up. In 1981 taxes went down. In 1982 TEFRA was passed. In was passed in part in reaction to the disasterous reduction in tax revenues experienced in 1981-2. TEFRA was a tax hike. A big one. In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history". In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in the National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history." In 1983 there was a big Social Security tax hike. In 1984 was another big tax hike. source here

So some taxes were cut, some were raised. What were the effects on tax revenue of the various tax bills? Here's a study done by the Department of the Treasury in 2006:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)


......................................Number of years after enactment
...................................................................................2-yr........4-yr
Tax bill...........................1..........2..........3..........4..........avg..........avg

ERTA of 1981..............-1.21.....-2.60.....-3.58....-4.15......-1.91........-2.89
TEFRA of 1982..............0.53......1.07.......1.08.....1.23........0.80.........0.98
Hiway Act of 1982.........0.05......0.11.......0.10......0.09.......0.08.........0.09
SSA of 1983.................0.17......0.22.......0.22......0.24.......0.20.........0.21
IDTCA of 1983.............-0.07.....-0.06.....-0.05.....-0.04.....-0.07........-0.05
Deficit Red Act 1984......0.24.......0.37......0.47.......0.49......0.30.........0.39
Omnibus Act of 1985......0.02.......0.06......0.06......0.06.......0.04.........0.05
Tax Reform of 1986........0.41.......0.02.....-0.23....-0.16.......0.22.........0.01
Omnibus Act 1987..........0.19.......0.28......0.30......0.27.......0.24.........0.26

TOTAL.........................0.33......-0.53....-1.63.....-1.97......-0.10.......-0.95

source (pdf)

So you can see that the big Reagan tax cut that conservatives remember so fondly, according to George W Bush's own Treasury Department cost the treasury 4 percent of GDP over four years. This is not good. This causes deficits. If tax revenues went up overall during the Reagan years, it was in spite of his massive 1981 tax cut, not because of it, and also because of a number of tax hikes passed during his tenure.

On page 19 of the study you can see the effects on revenue of all the major pieces of tax legislation. Look at the positive effects of the 1993 Clinton tax hikes on the rich. Very impressive.

You write: "So why didn't Clinton's tax hike harm the economy? Because rich people wisely didn't pay it."

Well, apparently somebody did. Tax revenues fairly exploded in 1993 and the years following: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
 
Back
Top