Ok, smart guy. YOU solve the deficit!

[mookiemookie]

Fun little interactive tool

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

My proposal is here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=y31k48jj

[FIREWALL]

My solution ? I took ALL the money and went to a country without an extridition treaty. :haha:

[mookiemookie]

My solution ? I took ALL the money and went to a country without an extridition treaty. :haha:

:rotfl2: Well that solves your deficit.

[Oberon]

My solution? Nuke China. No more debt problems. :smug:

No?

Oh, alright then:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vs9k45j5

[Kapitan_Phillips]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=s7916961

[Skybird]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=xzt34kqx

Now I need ten truckloads of submachineguns to negotiate it against the lobby groups, and my private ammo factory to secure my argument supply.

BTW, I saved more than all of you so far. :O:

[Oberon]

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending? :doh:

http://mimg.ugo.com/200711/15341/cuts/buck_288x288.jpg

[razark]

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending?

Is that only military space spending, or is it civilian space exploration?

[Raptor1]

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending? :doh:


People just don't understand the need for a strong deterrent against a Soviet first strike... :shifty:

[Oberon]

Is that only military space spending, or is it civilian space exploration?

Military I'd say:

"Would reduce number of nuclear warheads to 1,050, from 1,968. Would also reduce the number of Minuteman missiles and funding for nuclear research and development, missile development and space-based missile defense."

[Oberon]

People just don't understand the need for a strong deterrent against a Soviet first strike... :shifty:

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsC/2687-25516.gif

"Gentlemen, for the last fifteen years, I've fought at this table alongside your predecessors in the struggle against the Soviet. Now I do not wish to seem melodramatic, but I do wish to impress upon you a lesson I learned with bitter tears and great sacrifice. The Soviet understands only one language: action. Respects only one word: force."

[Diopos]

People just don't understand the need for a strong deterrent against a Soviet first strike... :shifty:

Soviet? :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:


.

[TLAM Strike]

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending? :doh:

http://mimg.ugo.com/200711/15341/cuts/buck_288x288.jpg

Nope your not the only one!

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/951/20080104slimpickensride.jpg

My Plan:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=w11jj5lq

[Diopos]

...
Now I need ten truckloads of submachineguns to negotiate it against the lobby groups, and my private ammo factory to secure my argument supply.

BTW, I saved more than all of you so far. :O:

Of course you did. Nobody argues against a guy with a submachinegun, eh...!

.

[XabbaRus]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=qc5sn9kf

[Nordmann]

Cut foreign aid for a start, we can't keep throwing money around like it's water.

[Raptor1]

Soviet? :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:


.

It would be extremely naive of us to imagine that new development are going to cause any change in Soviet expansionist policy... :O:

[Dowly]

1. Be annexed by Finland
2. ??????
3. Profit!!! :yeah:

[the_tyrant]

my idea:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=ml5un9qj

some other ideas: legalized drugs and prostitution, just charge extreme tax
Form the United States of North America?

[Bubblehead1980]

People just don't understand the need for a strong deterrent against a Soviet first strike... :shifty:


Not Soviets obviously but need to stay strong as a deterrent to say "ex" soviet Putin who runs Russia, China in the future. Let our guard down and it emboldens our enemies.Must always stay on offense, ready for a fight in this world, to think "hey cold war is over so lets have a weaker military to save $$" is just naive.

Here is an idea, stop giving money to all the charity cases around the world like Haiti and various African nations.Stop the lavish travel of Obama, his wife and various officials, it adds up and would save us.Eliminate earmarks, talking all special projects not approved in the budget.Reform trade policies.etc etc etc

[GoldenRivet]

The obvious issue is that our government spends way too much money on BS

they need to eliminate social security completely for example (IMHO)

[TLAM Strike]

Soviet? :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:


.

What did you think they were through with us?
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8444/4334a8ec0f954661.gif

[Diopos]

What did you think they were through with us?
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8444/4334a8ec0f954661.gif

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[antikristuseke]

1. Be annexed by Finland
2. ??????
3. Profit!!! :yeah:

Fistonia, damnit:stare:

[Skybird]

If the ability to wipe out the 10 biggest Russian cities and kill two dozens of millions of Russians, and intoxicate this number again over the next decade - if that is not recognised by the Russians as a believable deterrance, than the ability to wipe out 1,000 Russian cities would not be recognised as a deterrance either.

Moscow alone has over 10 million population. Petersburg has 4,5 million, 10 more cities have between 1 and 2 million.

You do not need 2000 warheads for a nuclear deterrance. A hundred already would be enough for intimidating not only one but all possible enemies on this earth simultaneously.

Not to mention that if you want a huge military, you need to have an economy able to maintain it.

[Dowly]

Fistonia, damnit:stare:

Ow right, sorry had forgotten that. :oops:

[TLAM Strike]

If the ability to wipe out the 10 biggest Russian cities and kill two dozens of millions of Russians, and intoxicate this number again over the next decade - if that is not recognised by the Russians as a believable deterrance, than the ability to wipe out 1,000 Russian cities would not be recognised as a deterrance either.

Moscow alone has over 10 million population. Petersburg has 4,5 million, 10 more cities have between 1 and 2 million.

You do not need 2000 warheads for a nuclear deterrance. A hundred already would be enough for intimidating not only one but all possible enemies on this earth simultaneously.

Not to mention that if you want a huge military, you need to have an economy able to maintain it.

Its not the ablity to wipe out a thousand Russian cities over ten its the ability to make sure our warheads reach those ten cities. Don't forget that the Russians have a ballistic missile defense system in place (and its been in place since the 1960s). We need those warheads to saturate their defenses and reach the their targets, which are BTW the Russian ICBM sites and not their cities. We need something like one warhead for each enemy ICBM plus one for each ABM... its adds up. :03:

EDIT: Correction... we need one ICBM for each ABM not one warhead since the Soviet/Russian ABMs are area effect weapons (nuclear) they can take out several MIRVs each.

[DarkFish]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=jmxj66qh

[Skybird]

Its not the ablity to wipe out a thousand Russian cities over ten its the ability to make sure our warheads reach those ten cities. Don't forget that the Russians have a ballistic missile defense system in place (and its been in place since the 1960s). We need those warheads to saturate their defenses and reach the their targets, which are BTW the Russian ICBM sites and not their cities. We need something like one warhead for each enemy ICBM plus one for each ABM... its adds up. :03:

EDIT: Correction... we need one ICBM for each ABM not one warhead since the Soviet/Russian ABMs are area effect weapons (nuclear) they can take out several MIRVs each.
I have not ignored missile defenmce. But I wonder whether it is reasonable to assume that the Russian's existing system works so much more reliable than the american planned missile shield based in Poland, Czech republic etc . I also wonder why you invest so hilariousa mmounts of money into developeing the B-2 if it still does not make you confident that you can penetrate any air defence with that (several missiles instead of one B-2 woulöd be the mor economic solution). Next, there have been and still can be nuclear TLAMs, or comparable systems, plus SLBMs whose flight time to target does not compare to that of an ICBM, reducing their reaction time.

Next, I never believed in the ide aof sclaed nuclear exchaange between nuclear arsenals as big as the Russian and American ones. Any strike versus a taregt in the other nation hardly will be seen as a "limited" strike, but will trigger a full response. When America and Russia start to exchange nukes, you can bet your money on that they reach fast the stage when they do not target "military" goals (in closer vicinty to civil cities...), but cities, starting with the capitals Washington and Moscow.

Finally, you maybe have not understood what a deterrance is. Deterrance is not to let the enemy believe you would limit your strikes and keep one arm bound on your back. Detrrance means that you make the other believe that if he blinks you immediately will hang on his throat.

The luxury of limiting a nuclear exchange to "military targets" only (tell that a radioactive cloud wandering with the wind - we do not talk about nuclear bunker busters and mini-.nukes here, but ICBMS and SLBMS and major airdelivered nuclear bombs)...) a nation will only afford - when the enemy has no nukes at all. ;) Once both enemies have nukes, we talk about the destruction of cities from much sooner on than you maybe believe. Becasue then both believe they are both fighting nut for some abstract concept of "victory", but for mere biological, physical "survival".

Point of it all is: the threat of even just warhead coming through, already is sufficent a detrrance. No side can or will ever be able to guarantee that it can elimininate 100% of all incoming warhgeads, no matter how many or how few there are. Ands that uncertainty that always remains - that is what the balance of terror really was and is basing on.

It's not about a thousand big bangs. It is about even just one. The chance that they will lose Moscow, will make the Russians think twice. Americas will never risk a conflict when it needs to gamble over New York or Los Angeles.

You now see why I am so bitterly detemrined to deny Iran nukes, and to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Mid East, and why I am so outraged over Pakistan having been allowed nukes. Pakistan has around 50 warheads and not even intercontinental carrier systems - and already is claimed to be untouchable by many. North Korea is not even proved but suspected to have even less - and they are considered almost untouchable. It is like with a submarine in naval war. You do not need to have a sub in the vicinity ofd the enemy fleet for real - just letting the enemy think that there is a sub already forces him to massively alter and limit his actions.

[tater]

We have a large military so the rest of the west doesn't have to.

You're welcome.

That said, the military is a large, but legitimate expense. Both legit from a Constitutional standpoint, and as a "public good" (some libertarians will likely argue this, and I'm cool with that). The real problem is "programatic" spending. AKA the "entitlements." Failure to massively curtail the latter means failure to tame the budget.

There were a few good ideas that just came out of the Obama admin's panel, but they don't go far enough in some areas, and do other things that are wrong. Mainly increasing the taxes to pay for it. There is a trouble here. The SSA calls SS (OASI and DI) a trust fund. We all know that it really isn't in any normal sense (like a trust fund I might set up for the kids). That said, the language implies that we get the money we put in back. Raising the cap (which is how they talk about raising the tax) means that more, or even all income above 100-whatever grand it is today (105?) will be taxed. The amount I would get BACK, however, would still be capped. Wither the "trust fund?" I'm supposed to get out what I put in, if we pay some multiple of what we do now, but only get the same "benefit" how can I get paid back? Do I get to live longer by the same multiple (there's a benefit I'd pay for, happily)?

No. They can't maintain the fiction of a trust fund if they collect higher taxes, and do not give those that pay more larger returns commensurate with the raised cap. They expose it for the ponzi scheme it is. The trouble of course is that the boom is ended, and now there are fewer workers to pay in.

I say cut benefits NOW. Yep, cut benis. Have the people collecting now paid in already? Yes, yes they did. They paid in too much, and the government THEY controlled took the excess money (SS has been over collecting for decades (ie: surplus)) and... loaned it to the USA via t-bills. Where it was spent. This is no secret. The SS surpluses have always been spent, just laundered through t-bills. Who benefitted from all that spending? The people who are now collecting SS, that's who. It was spent on programs for THEM, during their working (and voting) lifetime by people THEY elected. They are responsible.

So no, I don't think anyone has any special exemption from taking a hit, and the entitlements have to be FIRST on the chopping block, as they are the largest expense, and are not constitutionally defensible into the bargain.

[Platapus]

I could not complete it as it did not list all the possible solutions.

For instance, concerning Social Security. The first thing I would do is remove the $106,000 cap on taxation. :yep:

I found it, it was later in the survey

[Castout]

Well from a foreigner's perspective, a bit heavy on tax maybe because it will not be me who's going to take it :O:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=gj1645lm

[Skybird]

You want a big spending on military? Then make sure you can pay for that all by your own money. Can you? You are the world's greatest debtor, and economically critically dependant on foreign powers and their good will to keep your body floating. Like the US society, your state finances your military megatoys - on tic.

The Chinese are more healthy. First they allowed you to run into the trap of becoming financially depending on their good will I (which they are increasingly losing), following the motto of "If you see your enemy making mistakes, don't interrupt him", next they started to build their military - but not on tic but on a basis that they can finance by their own economy. You weakened your economy, they trengthened their economy, and still do and gain more and more strategic advantages. At the same time they did not get fixiated on hard power, but concentraded on soft powers - and these are the qualities that will beat your military without one shot being fired. Guess who is more clever here!? ;)

Nervi belli pecunia infinita. Real money that has a real value - no state bonds and bubbles and play money. Most of the the great european powers of the past 500 years had allowed to ruin their economies and state finances over gallopwing spendsings for bigger and bigger militaries. All of such nations had to declare state bancruptcy at least once in said 500 years. America is repeating their very same mistakes, refusing to learn by their example. Book tip on this matter: Paul Kennedy - The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Great-Powers/dp/0679720197/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289865355&sr=1-1). Also: Herrfried Münkler - Empires. The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States (http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Domination-Ancient-United-States/dp/0745638724/ref=sr_1_1/181-3751115-3545065?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289865252&sr=8-1-spell).

[August]

Lotsa stuff either not included, too inclusive or not inclusive enough but FWIW:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzyp7jn0

[tater]

^^^ funny that the only option is reducing benefits for high incomes. Reduce benefits across the board.

Reduce employer tax break... how about we dump employers providing insurance in the first place, let the employees do that.

They also give an option of reducing Medicare growth, which sounds fine, but due to the way things work that also changes contractual obligations with real insurers. medicare already pays below cost in some cases, yet to save money they want to reduce payments to providers. Keep payments the same, and ration what care is paid for. The docs doing the work should get paid, and not cut-rate, but the same as real insurance. If medicare lacks the money, then medicare can tell people to pay up themselves, or not get X done. Docs should not be forced to have to PAY to work.

Also, they probably project the "cost" of tax increases and costs very simply, and do not include (how could they?) possible growth due to tax reduction, or contraction due to increases (since revenues remain pretty constant as a % of GDP regardless of tax rates).

[mookiemookie]

how about we dump employers providing insurance in the first place, let the employees do that.

And watch emergency rooms become clogged to the point of shutdown as people flood them for basic medical care.

and do not include (how could they?) possible growth due to tax reduction, or contraction due to increases (since revenues remain pretty constant as a % of GDP regardless of tax rates).

Because there's absolutely zero evidence for increases or decreases in tax rates having an effect on any measurable metric of growth, be it unemployment, GDP or personal income.

[CaptainHaplo]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zx1k4270 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zx1k4270)

What is really bad is they didn't have the things in there that I really would have pushed for.

Elimination of the social safety net for the "undocumented".
Denial of all but emergency services for the "undocumented".
Elimination of the Federal Department of Education.
Elimination of income tax, replacing it with a consumption tax instead.
Elimination of Social Security.
Elimination of all other expenditures not directly authorized by the US Constitution...

Of course - the last one alone would balance the button with one click, and remove Federal government from being the all encompassing monstrousity it has become.

[August]

Because there's absolutely zero evidence for increases or decreases in tax rates having an effect on any measurable metric of growth, be it unemployment, GDP or personal income.

So a tax rate of 100% wouldn't have an effect either?

[Castout]

After some thoughts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=gj1140m3



I think that would be a better policy :D

As a foreigner I'm worried about the growing China military aggression towards its fellow Asia neighbors and to think they are just beginning to expand militarily.

A reduced US military presence in Asia could tighten Chinese political and military influence in Asia and South East Asia.

So I decided to cap Medicare growth to GDP growth plus one percent starting from 2013 not sure how it would affect the public. I care less about expensive doctors and hospitals.

But I think the bankers will start a riot because of the bank tax and many other Americans for many other things in the policies.

[mookiemookie]

So a tax rate of 100% wouldn't have an effect either?

In the Soviet Union people still worked under an effective 100% tax rate. Not saying that's the model we should aspire to, but saying that hours worked are inelastic to tax rates.

[August]

In the Soviet Union people still worked under an effective 100% tax rate. Not saying that's the model we should aspire to, but saying that hours worked are inelastic to tax rates.

If it's not a model to aspire to then it's not really worthy of being used as an example to prove your point Mookie. People only worked those hours because the government would send them to the gulag if they refused.

[mookiemookie]

If it's not a model to aspire to then it's not really worthy of being used as an example to prove your point Mookie. People only worked those hours because the government would send them to the gulag if they refused.

Hours worked in this country is not ineleastic due to the threat of gulag, but it's inelastic due to the fact that the majority of us are full time salary workers. I know I am - no matter what the tax rate, I still work the same full time contract rate. I can't adjust my work hours. Again, hours worked are not elastic with respect to marginal tax rates. You either work or you don't.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I've enjoyed seeing most of the plans people submitted here

My "plan" :roll: - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzxph010

Of course, that's just a shadow of the plan I'd like to see, owing to the limited answers. I checked pretty much every spending cut on the list and crippled social security payments because in my plan there would be no social security, a much smaller and more privatized military, and no tax increases - though I would eliminate loopholes and subsidies and drastically cut corporate tax rates.

I'd much rather see every domestic arm of the Federal government reduced to a fraction of its current size and the role of government itself reserved primarily to the state and local governments, where it belongs.

[TarJak]

Good luck yanks: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=gf15f011 :D

[tater]

And watch emergency rooms become clogged to the point of shutdown as people flood them for basic medical care.



Because there's absolutely zero evidence for increases or decreases in tax rates having an effect on any measurable metric of growth, be it unemployment, GDP or personal income.

So revenues plunged when the top marginal rate dropped from 70 to 40%? (along with the other brackets dropping in lockstep) Even though the bulk of taxes collected are on the top 20% of earners?

Nope.

The taxes collected wobble between 16 and 20 percent regardless of the marginal tax rate. So either more people are paying at the lower rate, or the economy grows, otherwise the collections should have plunged.

[tater]

For instance, concerning Social Security. The first thing I would do is remove the $106,000 cap on taxation. :yep:



So someone making 212,000 a year should have to pay $32,436 in FICA instead of $16,218, but should get the exact same benefit, even though it is supposed to be a "trust find?"

That's why they have a cap. Because the BENEFIT is capped. Raising the taxable income only helps if they simply steal that money, and don't raise the pay out.

If that person is sure to get out way less than they put in, why shouldn't any other SS beneficiary get out much less than they get in? If they do, then everyone arguing that SS is retirement, and sacred can just stfu. It will have been demonstrated to be nothing more than a charity ponzi scheme.

Cut pay outs instead.

[mookiemookie]

The taxes collected wobble between 16 and 20 percent regardless of the marginal tax rate. So either more people are paying at the lower rate, or the economy grows, otherwise the collections should have plunged.

Amount of tax collected is not an accurate measure of economic growth. GDP and employment are.

[tater]

Amount of tax collected is not an accurate measure of economic growth. GDP and employment are.

Income tax collected as a function of GDP remains remarkably constant. The marginal rates drop, taxes stay about the same (collected).

What happened?

Either more people start falling into the higher brackets (people earning more), or the GDP increases enough to offset the presumably lower returns you'd expect at lower rates.

In the end it doesn't matter. The OP's NYT calculator is suggesting that a tax reduction means a reduction in revenues. That's what that thing does. Select a tax cut, and it "costs" the budget. In RL, however, tax cuts have happened and government revenue has not dropped in any meaningful way in the long term (maybe the first year it takes effect (catching people who plan ahead long term, basically).

That's the relationship between this thread and tax rates. If the calculator is going to claim a cost due to a tax reduction, they need to demonstrate that the economy won't correct to bring revenues into the "normal" range as a % of total economic activity (when it always seems to).

I'm not arguing that any, arbitrary tax cut would increase growth, but clearly tax burden plays some role on economic decision making, and the economy corrects for most tax changes fairly quickly (resulting in constant revenue). That's just fact. Revenues are remarkably constant.

Note also that they give a big positive for adding a carbon tax, but how can they tell what negative it might have on the economy to start taxing, well, everything, for carbon? Economics is not science. It's not. If economic theory was actually predictive...

I don;t even take a calculator like the one on the NYT with a grain of salt to the extent that ANY of the variables might possibly affect the economy in general (and hence government revenues). Astronomy (my background) is what I'd call a "zeroith order" science in many cases, sometimes 1st order. Meaning in an expansion, only the first terms we know enough to talk about :) . Unlike physics in general where certain things (mechanics, EM, etc) can be characterized to a very fine level. Economics isn't even zeroith order. Making a calculator based on what is in effect guess work (predictions for 2015, much less 2030) is silly.

Simpson-Bowles suggested capping spending at 21% of GDP. That's too high. Cap it lower, then cut ruthlessly, and cut based on the % of the budget something is. SS and medicare need to take large hits.

[FIREWALL]

:rotfl2: Well that solves your deficit.


:yep: :up: :D

[Platapus]

So someone making 212,000 a year should have to pay $32,436 in FICA instead of $16,218, but should get the exact same benefit, even though it is supposed to be a "trust find?"




Yup! That's exactly what I meant.

Social security is not a trust fund, it is an insurance fund. The official name of the primary program is "Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance". It is managed under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Now the money, after being collected is accounted to a trust fund, but that does not mean Social Security is a trust fund. It is an insurance fund, meaning that people are expected to pay more into it in order to fund it.

[tater]

Yup! That's exactly what I meant.

Social security is not a trust fund, it is an insurance fund. The official name of the primary program is "Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance". It is managed under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Now the money, after being collected is accounted to a trust fund, but that does not mean Social Security is a trust fund. It is an insurance fund, meaning that people are expected to pay more into it in order to fund it.

No, with insurance, I pay a premium. The more I pay in premiums, the better coverage I get.

Or are you suggesting a life insurance policy with a $1000/month premium would be worth less than one at $1/mo?

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

^^^ they seem to think there is a trust fund. Silly SSA.

The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts managed by the Department of the Treasury. They serve two purposes: (1) they provide an accounting mechanism for tracking all income to and disbursements from the trust funds, and (2) they hold the accumulated assets. These accumulated assets provide automatic spending authority to pay benefits. The Social Security Act limits trust fund expenditures to benefits and administrative costs.
Benefits to retired workers and their families, and to families of deceased workers, are paid from the OASI Trust Fund. Benefits to disabled workers and their families are paid from the DI Trust Fund. More than 98 percent of total disbursements in 2009 were for benefit payments.

A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.

How are the trust funds invested? By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

What you want is for someone to buy insurance at gunpoint, but get worse value for every dollar over a certain premium.

Your suggestion is NOT insurance, but rather a regular welfare program that takes money from one set of people, and hands it over to another based on arbitrary rules.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=wlf235r3

[Armistead]

Close down about 100 useless US war bases in Europe leftover from the cold war, Europe alone is strong enough to deal with Russia, let them pay for it. I would place those bases along our southern border now that the Cartel controls over 50% of Mexico.

Folks, until banks and corporations are properly regulated to work for Americans we're headed for failure. Corporations don't care about taxes.
It doesn't matter how much they pay, they have enough tax shelters to cover it. They care about regulations or the lack of. The GOP wants less regulation which basically caused the last meltdown. Corporations again are making billions off taxpayers why most Americans suffer in the jobless recovery. Corporations are doing the same thing planning to make billions before the next meltdown, knowing they'll be bailed out once again by the tax dollar only to do it again and again.

I almost laugh when I hear the GOP say corporations pay most taxes. After their shelters they pay little. The average American making 50K a year pays almost 40% in total taxes, add them up, sales, gas, property. Almost every bill you get has several hidden taxes. Add SS and medicare, really a tax because most of us will never see it.

Sadly, their is now only one fix, as a herd weans out the weak, we will have to do the same so the strong and greedy can take us to the future, whatever that will be. SS and medicare will have to go, medical care for most, social programs, stop spending billions to keep the elderly alive a few more years, this will be the future.

[mookiemookie]

Close down about 100 useless US war bases in Europe leftover from the cold war, Europe alone is strong enough to deal with Russia, let them pay for it. I would place those bases along our southern border now that the Cartel controls over 50% of Mexico.

Folks, until banks and corporations are properly regulated to work for Americans we're headed for failure. Corporations don't care about taxes.
It doesn't matter how much they pay, they have enough tax shelters to cover it. They care about regulations or the lack of. The GOP wants less regulation which basically caused the last meltdown. Corporations again are making billions off taxpayers why most Americans suffer in the jobless recovery. Corporations are doing the same thing planning to make billions before the next meltdown, knowing they'll be bailed out once again by the tax dollar only to do it again and again.

I almost laugh when I hear the GOP say corporations pay most taxes. After their shelters they pay little. The average American making 50K a year pays almost 40% in total taxes, add them up, sales, gas, property. Almost every bill you get has several hidden taxes. Add SS and medicare, really a tax because most of us will never see it.

Sadly, their is now only one fix, as a herd weans out the weak, we will have to do the same so the strong and greedy can take us to the future, whatever that will be. SS and medicare will have to go, medical care for most, social programs, stop spending billions to keep the elderly alive a few more years, this will be the future.

Sadly, you're right. All so Goldman Sachs and Monsanto can wring more dollars out of the system.

[tater]

A lower corporate income tax—but with zero exceptions of loopholes—would be preferable to what we have now, which is a high rate, with supertanker sized loopholes such that no one pays it.

Taxes are not the solution though. Stop spending. Stop spending. Stop spending.

Cut entitlements*. Cancel remaining "stimulus" pork.

*cut entitlement benefits. Right now, once again they are on the verge of a massive cut in Medicare reimbursement to docs. A 23% cut to start. Docs are still forced to do all the work, they'll just get paid less to do it. In addition, many extant contracts are pegged to medicare, so when medicare plunges, so will contractual agreements with real insurance. I'm fine with slashing medicare, but slash what is covered, not this nonsense of "covering" everything, but forcing docs to provide the care below cost. Hence no new medicare patients being taken by most docs now. Of course if they show in the ER, the docs have no choice, they HAVE to treat them even if they lose money on every case. So slash away at the program, but do it honestly, what we have now is like a law that guarantees that your plumbing problems MUST be fixed by a plumber and paid by the feds, but then the feds pay the plumber below his cost of materials. How would the plumbers' union respond to that?

[Armistead]

Medicare and SS are done for, Medicare alone owes out 60 trillion to those paid into it, SS is about 10 trillion. No way either can be substained. The baby boomers will break SS. A bigger issue is long term care, only a few percent have it. We have an even bigger medical crisis coming, this upcoming generation of obese people, disease that use to happen at old age will be in mass when people reach their 30's. Corporations and the medical industry will rake in billions...don't tell me there isn't a connection between food and drug, regulations, ect.. Course the government will keep raising SS retirement age to deal with that.

I'm 47, when I was in school you had a few obese people and maybe one hyperactive kid on meds. Today over 30% of kids are placed on either depressants or hyperactive meds before they leave school. Strange, we had gym grades 6-12, made to exercise, no fastfood lunches, ect. Many schools have dropped gym or it's optional. At our high school here at the lunch counter you can get a Wendy's burger or any fast food. Maybe it they ran the hell out of the kids like our gym coaches did us they wouldn't need meds to be calm.

We have one private school here where the kids garden 100 acres of veggies, little cost and healthy food that actually taste good.

[Armistead]

A lower corporate income tax—but with zero exceptions of loopholes—would be preferable to what we have now, which is a high rate, with supertanker sized loopholes such that no one pays it.

Taxes are not the solution though. Stop spending. Stop spending. Stop spending.

Cut entitlements*. Cancel remaining "stimulus" pork.

*cut entitlement benefits. Right now, once again they are on the verge of a massive cut in Medicare reimbursement to docs. A 23% cut to start. Docs are still forced to do all the work, they'll just get paid less to do it. In addition, many extant contracts are pegged to medicare, so when medicare plunges, so will contractual agreements with real insurance. I'm fine with slashing medicare, but slash what is covered, not this nonsense of "covering" everything, but forcing docs to provide the care below cost. Hence no new medicare patients being taken by most docs now. Of course if they show in the ER, the docs have no choice, they HAVE to treat them even if they lose money on every case. So slash away at the program, but do it honestly, what we have now is like a law that guarantees that your plumbing problems MUST be fixed by a plumber and paid by the feds, but then the feds pay the plumber below his cost of materials. How would the plumbers' union respond to that?


Studies differ as they often do, but Doctor's income have increased between 700-2000% since 1970 depending on the field.....don't think they're hurting. The average Doctor visit last 3 minutes and cost $200.00 for basic need issues. I see my Neurologist 4 times a year. Each visit cost $400.00, never last longer than 2 minutes, just writes my meds and charges a full neurological exam. No doubt Doctors screw insurance and they in turn screw americans.

[Onkel Neal]

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending? :doh:

http://mimg.ugo.com/200711/15341/cuts/buck_288x288.jpg

Me too!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zxqmgjp0

[tater]

Studies differ as they often do, but Doctor's income have increased between 700-2000% since 1970 depending on the field.....don't think they're hurting. The average Doctor visit last 3 minutes and cost $200.00 for basic need issues. I see my Neurologist 4 times a year. Each visit cost $400.00, never last longer than 2 minutes, just writes my meds and charges a full neurological exam. No doubt Doctors screw insurance and they in turn screw americans.

My wife loses money on every medicaid patient visit. She's lucky to break even on medicare, even with her time not counted as more than some hourly worker.

Insurance company profit is a statistically insignificant % of total US healthcare delivery (1-2%), BTW.

The doc sees you for 2 minutes (my wife sees no one for 2 minutes, she's always in the room longer than that—when she has to tell someone they have cancer she spends 30-45 minutes in the room with them, min), but they have 6 employees, so they are seeing you for 14 man-minutes. Assuming the employees only make ~35k averaged, that means ~$22 just in labor cost for your 2 minute visit. Also, the charting takes longer than the 2 minutes (it's slower with EMR than paper, LOL). My wife sees at most 30 people a day, usually mid 20s in clinic. Call it 30. She's only seeing patients 7 hours a day, but is at work typically 10-11 hours. That means with paperwork, etc, her typical visit (7-10 minutes in the room with a patient every 14-15 min)) takes 22 minutes of her day. Times 6 employees (we'll call it 4.3 since they are not there as long as she is, only 8 hours) that's ~117 man-minutes per patient seen. Almost 2 hours.

That's ~$35 at employee time cost (ave hourly wage in office). If she made as much as my car mechanic charges per hour, $50 (my yard guy charges that much), then the time alone would be worth $134. Is 2 doctorates worth the same as a car mechanic? PLumbers get ~$90/hr I think. At that rate, the visits cost (no rent, insurance, etc included, just labor) $214. Is a surgeon worth a plumber? No, maybe more. Lesse... electricians charge about as much as plumbers... Lawyers? They bill between $200 and $1000 an hour. Your surgeon worth as much as a cut-rate lawyer? Then that visit cost $434, without physical overhead.

<EDIT> that was at my wife's time. Assume your doc sees 30, and only works 8 hours. At plumber/electrician rates the visit costs him 16 man-minutes (even if just 2 is in the room with you—30 is a LOT of patients, BTW, likely fewer are seen, raising all these costs). Assume 4 employees. That's 80 man-minutes including doc. So the labor cost is $142.67 for your 2 minute visit—assuming your doc's time is worth a plumber's time. And 8 hours is a short day to see 30 people. Likely 9-10 is a minimum, while seeing fewer, so this is a lowball.

[tater]

BTW, the reason docs charge more, and it grows so fast is THE GOVERNMENT.

Medicaid and medicare pay BELOW COST.

Docs (any that work in a hospital, ever) are FORCED to see medicaid and medicare. They MUST to be able to work in the hospital since those cases come into the ER and cannot be turned away.

Since they actually lose money out of pocket on those cases, they must charge more to real insurance to take up the slack. Government is the problem, not the solution.

BTW, all those employees the docs have, almost all work on paperwork. Care to guess what paperwork is the hardest to do, and which claims get rejected the most by insurance...

C'mon, you know the answer...

Medicare and Medicaid. 6 employees per doc at the wife's. 1 is a medical assistant, a fraction of 1 is reception, and the other 4.whatever do insurance. They'd need 1 person per doc, tops to deal with private insurance. Maybe 1 per 2 docs. The majority of the employees are to deal with the 2 government "insurance" plans. It's a cluster****.

[Armistead]

Docs that work in State hospitals are forced to take medicaid, straight Medicaid is not taken by the majority of private doctors because it doesn’t pay much. Managed care Medicaid will pay nothing to doctors and few doctors or private hospitals will be willing to accept it. However, many hospitals and Doctors take part of Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital reimbursement programs to make up for the low payments of Medicaid. Yes, a life threatening ER service they must see, but beyond that you'll get little care and sent out. Specialist care, forget it. In many areas people must drive hours to get specialist care or to another state.

So when someone who works full time as a construction worker (as 8 of 10 uninsured Americans are part of families where at least one person works full time) ignores the warning signs of early diabetes because he doesn’t have insurance, doesn’t manage his chronic disease because he can’t afford the doctor’s visit to prescribe insulin, can’t afford the blood monitors or insulin either, and therefore fights through the increasing pain and discomfort until he has to go to the Emergency Room for care because he can’t take it anymore, only to discover he has advanced stage diabetes and will require a four-week course of antibiotics and a foot amputation, effectively ending his construction work career as well as his ability to pay – yes, his care is paid for by the rest of us. And obviously, since primary care is cheaper and could prevent these expensive complications, we’re not getting a great deal. Our premiums are higher because we don't cover the uninsured.

But it’s not just about government creating a safety net for us all or picking your pocket (depending on your political point of view) your premiums are much higher because we don’t cover the uninsured. Providers must find some way to recoup the emergency medical care they provide that will never be compensated because the patient has no ability to pay. That way is to charge insurers more for their services. If you have insurance and go to the hospital, your paying for yourself and someone uninsured and rest assured they're heaping tons of profit on it. They say in 10 years insurance premiums could equal 40% of your salary if you're one of the lucky few to even have it. In NC about 40% of small businesses now don't provide insurance or make the employee pay 80% or more of the total cost.

Anyone with common sense would know that correct Universal Healthcare would solve many of these issues. The only other option is to accept about 49 million under/unisured americans should be cast from the system left to suffer and die when illness comes and why that might seem viable, it probably would suck if it were your wife or children. The government should at least provide assisted suicide to the many who kill themselves each year due to no medical care.

These problems were created when insurance and medical care became controlled by corporations for mass profit.... .

Kudos to your wife for still taking medicaid, ect...most private Doctors around here don't, nor do private hospitals. You call an ambulance here, if you don't have insurance your arse is getting hauled an hour away to a state hospital life threatening or not. Strange, the state hospitals around here like Baptist Wake Forest are growing leaps and making great profit.

[tater]

In NM, medicaid is partially privatized. HMOs have their own versions of NM Medicaid (called "Salud"). So Pres Health Plan signs up people for Pres Salud, and the State pays Pres up front their entire annual medicaid payout—then Pres is on the hook for all medicaid approved care. My wife only takes a certain number of Salud patients from each plan (contractually arranged) since each costs money to see. See too many, and you'll have to pawn the car to continue with the privilege of treating them ;)

Regardless, anyone who shows at the hospital must be treated. If you live someplace where no one takes it, and you go to the ER, the ER doc will call the specialty on call, and they will HAVE to see you. Once they see you, they "own you" and must continue care, even if they "don't take medicaid."

Since my wife is on call every 6 days or so, she gets new medicaid over and above what she takes on those days.

Right now, they are also not taking any new mediCARE patients, either. And the way things are going they won't. A 23% hit is huge on care that already reimburses at break even levels or less.

Specialists also have equipment overhead, etc. Specialists in another state all have robotic surgery, so we need to spend a couple million bucks to buy one, etc. Everyone wants the latest stuff, but out here in the flyover states who's gonna buy it? (some of the new technology can be more flash than substance, too. Laparoscopy, for example, is over-hyped for many procedures. My wife knew people doing research, and after talking to them she realized that they'd cherry pick patients so they'd have the best outcomes instead of what they should do, do every single case that way for some period, warts and all). All that stuff costs money, though, and they need to have it (else all the cancer patients get on SW and fly to MD Anderson, instead, then want cheap, follow up care locally).

We had a guy who was known to be an illegal, and was seeking medical care with medicaid. Illegally. I looked into ways to report medicaid fraud. I could report a DOC on a website, instantly. A patient who was an illegal alien? Nope, it's not possible in NM to report patients fraudulently using the system, only docs.

Yeesh.

I always thought that docs should be allowed to write off the difference between medicaid and medicare and some nominal real insurance reimbursement as an in-kind charitable contribution. This would encourage providers to see that patient population, and would cost the government nothing.

Universal care is not the answer. It's not. As I said above, the hardest "insurance" to deal with is... the government. Didn't dot some i on the form, claim denied! (they won't tell you what was wrong, just denied). The 2 gov programs only work because they force docs to pay out of pocket to treat them. Expanding this makes medicine impossible. If you want costs reduced (presumably the point of universal care) there is ONE WAY to reduce cost.

One way.

People made fun of Palin and "death panels," but guess what, rationing care for life-threatening disease is the only meaningful way to reduce cost. Period. Over 90% of lifetime health expense is in the last months of life. By definition, that care is actuarially unsuccessful, since it's the last months—the patient DIES.

90%.

Cut all "preventive" costs to zero and you've dropped the outlay by 10%. If it was simply delivered at cost, you'd drop the total expense by maybe 2%.

The trouble is that the crazy money we spend on end of life in the US actually saves some people. People aren't cars, so sometimes a treatment might only work on a tiny %, but the only way to know is to try. If 1% live from some $100,000 cancer treatment, it wastes tons of money, but for the 1 guy that lives, the million dollar cost for his life seems well worth it, doesn't it? (99 failed 100k treatments, 1 successful. total cost 1M$ for 1 life) It's important to remember that warts and all (insured, uninsured, medicaid, etc, all combined), the US is the best place on earth to have cancer. That tells you about real quality of care, since bad care or no care means death. Better mortality per case is entirely a measure of quality of care. That includes the uninsured, too, so it's even better for everyone else.