Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

[Boss]

Heritage did not invent the mandate. There are countries that have been practicing the mandate one form or another.

Oh, other countries you say?

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

Wow! I just read through this mountain of left wing socialist propaganda and suddenly became totally convinced by it! I mean, I've always been a free market capitalist who rejects government controlling my life but you posted this and something magical happened! A little light bulb went off in my head and I realized it's far superior to have a system where the government takes care of you and you have nothing to worry about anymore. Not only that but I feel totally confident allowing you and the sleazebag politicians you elect to call all the shots! I'm certain you have my best interests at heart and there is nothing to fear at all.

Stick with what ya got and watch pard, I'm all for it.

Well what we have now is a fucked up mess thanks to Obamacare. What would be best would be a combination of public and private health care where free markets could thrive and we could meet the needs of the less fortunate. But you're hell bent on Nationalized health care that has failed wherever it's tried, and no one can talk any sense into you. It's like your brain only works one way... Socialism!

A combination of public and private would not be the best. That's what Obamacare is, and it sucks. The best thing would be a purely private system where the poor could get their premiums subsidized. All the healthcare purchasing decisions should be made by consumers, not bureaucrats.

Wrong. Obamacare stifles the free market. The system they want (single payer) means healthcare rationing. That's the only way it can work.

 

[bripat9643]

I use to post a mostly Brit forum. One of the Brits talked about checking into a hospital for surgery the next morning and having to spend the night in a gurney in a broom closet. That was after waiting nine months for the surgery appointment. LOL!

Don't the Brits suppose to have the crown jewel of socialized medicine?

I'm not sure your anonymous chat board second hand anecdote outweighs tons of studies by various agencies such as the WHO, JAMA, etc. If you do, nevermind.

"Studies" by communist propaganda organs like the WHO and special interest organizations?

This is so weakly sad as an argument, shouldn't you just move on? You may have a shred of credibility to resurrect on some other topic.

Only a snowflake would claim truth is sad. The WHO is a socialist propaganda organ, and nothing more.

Sure, snowflake, sure.

You are too far gone to be helped, I'm afraid.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, other countries you say?

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

Wow! I just read through this mountain of left wing socialist propaganda and suddenly became totally convinced by it! I mean, I've always been a free market capitalist who rejects government controlling my life but you posted this and something magical happened! A little light bulb went off in my head and I realized it's far superior to have a system where the government takes care of you and you have nothing to worry about anymore. Not only that but I feel totally confident allowing you and the sleazebag politicians you elect to call all the shots! I'm certain you have my best interests at heart and there is nothing to fear at all.

Stick with what ya got and watch pard, I'm all for it.

Well what we have now is a fucked up mess thanks to Obamacare. What would be best would be a combination of public and private health care where free markets could thrive and we could meet the needs of the less fortunate. But you're hell bent on Nationalized health care that has failed wherever it's tried, and no one can talk any sense into you. It's like your brain only works one way... Socialism!

A combination of public and private would not be the best. That's what Obamacare is, and it sucks. The best thing would be a purely private system where the poor could get their premiums subsidized. All the healthcare purchasing decisions should be made by consumers, not bureaucrats.

Wrong. Obamacare stifles the free market. The system you want means healthcare rationing. That's the only way it can work.

How would a purely private system mean healthcare rationing?

 

[edthecynic]

By the way, notice how dishonest the Right-wing Heritage Foundation is with their chart! They use 1980 as the baseline even though they admit that the 5% 1981 tax cut was RETROACTIVE, which means that the revenue from 1981 was using the Carter tax rates minus 5%. so the real baseline should have been the 1981 revenue plus 5% which also means that the lost revenue from the Reagan tax cuts was even greater!!!

I don't trust your data. Mine is from the US Treasury department. I have no idea who made this chart. You claim it's Heritage Foundation... I sincerely doubt that.

Your OWN link shows the same facts, just using different constant dollars, 1996 for my data and 2009 for your data.

Man up and admit your Right-wing sources made a SUCKER out of you, as they ALWAYS do!

Well no.. $1.3 trillion is less than $1.5 trillion. Man up and admit your a mathematical illiterate dimwit.

I said you would keep lying and you proved me right.
Thank you.

You mean $1.3 trillion is larger than $1.5 trillion?

The perpetual Right-wing dumb act so you can lie again. 1.2 trillion is LESS than 1.3 trillion and revenue went down from 1.3 trillion in 1981 to 1.2 trillion in 1983 after Reagan's tax cuts BEFORE he raised taxes and revenue went up to 1.5 trillion by 1998.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Wow! I just read through this mountain of left wing socialist propaganda and suddenly became totally convinced by it! I mean, I've always been a free market capitalist who rejects government controlling my life but you posted this and something magical happened! A little light bulb went off in my head and I realized it's far superior to have a system where the government takes care of you and you have nothing to worry about anymore. Not only that but I feel totally confident allowing you and the sleazebag politicians you elect to call all the shots! I'm certain you have my best interests at heart and there is nothing to fear at all.

Stick with what ya got and watch pard, I'm all for it.

Well what we have now is a fucked up mess thanks to Obamacare. What would be best would be a combination of public and private health care where free markets could thrive and we could meet the needs of the less fortunate. But you're hell bent on Nationalized health care that has failed wherever it's tried, and no one can talk any sense into you. It's like your brain only works one way... Socialism!

A combination of public and private would not be the best. That's what Obamacare is, and it sucks. The best thing would be a purely private system where the poor could get their premiums subsidized. All the healthcare purchasing decisions should be made by consumers, not bureaucrats.

Wrong. Obamacare stifles the free market. The system you want means healthcare rationing. That's the only way it can work.

How would a purely private system mean healthcare rationing?

Insurance corps ration all the time son, geezus.

 

[Care4all]

We don't have debt because we don't collect enough taxes. We have debt because we spend more money than we take in with taxes.

This filthy ass combined governments (Federal, State and Local) already takes 40% of the GDP for the cost of government and that is despicable.

If we cut taxes when we are running a balanced budget, and that tax cut gives us a budget deficit, then IT IS THE TAX CUT that's the problem...., No?

Again... tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates always produces more tax revenue. Not sometimes... Not theoretically... always!

Now...according to the Laffer Curve, there is a point where decreasing the tax rate will result in less revenue, but we are far from that.

What makes you think WE ARE FAR from that???? And was Laffer only speaking about rates on the highest income taxation or all taxation, and WHY didn't we see taxation monies increase with the Bush tax cuts that paid for the tax cuts forever and a day??? And why did the economy CRASH after the tax cuts on the wealthiest under Bush??? Are they even related????

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm not sure your anonymous chat board second hand anecdote outweighs tons of studies by various agencies such as the WHO, JAMA, etc. If you do, nevermind.

"Studies" by communist propaganda organs like the WHO and special interest organizations?

This is so weakly sad as an argument, shouldn't you just move on? You may have a shred of credibility to resurrect on some other topic.

Only a snowflake would claim truth is sad. The WHO is a socialist propaganda organ, and nothing more.

Sure, snowflake, sure.

You are too far gone to be helped, I'm afraid.

By the likes of you I certainly hope so.

 

[danielpalos]

Economics according to Ronnie RayGun and George W. Cut taxes and yell charge it. That's how Reagan made us a debtor nation, W started wars and left it for Obama to pay for. That's exactly how we ended up with all this debt and trump says he's going to add trillions to it and leave the mess for the next prez to try to fix.

Why don't RWNJs ever learn from their past mistakes?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I am utterly baffled that the left cares so much about debt now that trump is in. What happened to "the cupboard is bare," and "its evil to cut meals on wheels spending." Obama ran on the fact that it was immoral to rack up the bush era debt for our children. Which I would agree with, but when he got into office it was a completely different story. Government spending needs to be looked at as a ratio vs GDP. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 ratios of spending:GDP are all virtually the same...we only saw a sharp increase when obama came in. And we have exponentially grown our debt in the past 8 years...where the hell were you guys when all that was going on? Seriously it's been 100 days, and all of a sudden the debt is trumps fault?!?. I don't like the guy, but come on. You guys have spent 8 years blaming bush for everything bad in the world, and 100 days in you guys on one hand freak out over spending cuts that remove SOME spending in SOME states for meals on wheels...and I'm supposed to believe y'all really care about balancing the budget.

If you actually do I am with you let's get it done. Let's zero the budget, look at what works, and what doesn't, and go from there. That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. If your just looking for one more thing to poo poo trump on, even though you didn't say shit when obama did the exact same thing...I don't want to hear it.

simply lowering taxes will increase the debt.

 

[Fenton Lum]

We don't have debt because we don't collect enough taxes. We have debt because we spend more money than we take in with taxes.

This filthy ass combined governments (Federal, State and Local) already takes 40% of the GDP for the cost of government and that is despicable.

If we cut taxes when we are running a balanced budget, and that tax cut gives us a budget deficit, then IT IS THE TAX CUT that's the problem...., No?

Again... tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates always produces more tax revenue. Not sometimes... Not theoretically... always!

Now...according to the Laffer Curve, there is a point where decreasing the tax rate will result in less revenue, but we are far from that.

What makes you think WE ARE FAR from that???? And was Laffer only speaking about rates on the highest income taxation or all taxation, and WHY didn't we see taxation monies increase with the Bush tax cuts that paid for the tax cuts forever and a day??? And why did the economy CRASH after the tax cuts on the wealthiest under Bush??? Are they even related????

Why, they can't be, we're gonna do it all again. More military, more endless war everywhere, more tax cuts for the substantial people with shifting more onto the back of working folk being fed an illusion of jobs coming back. Might as well have the masses out doing ghost dances.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit. I hope we do just keep on digging this hole we can never come up out of. May the deficit grow until this soceity has to come to terms with its own perceptual reality and empire.

This new found concern for spending after 8 years & 9 trillion in frivolous handouts is laughable.

Nothing new found about it son. It's just more partisanshit for you.

When did you complain about Obama's spending?

All the time shoog, the twit turned 2 wars into 7.

Seven wars!

Can you name the wars and our number of casualties?

 

[danielpalos]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

And the thing is...cutting taxes increases the revenue to the government....as more businesses expand, hire more people...and as new businesses start up and hire more people....and then the democrats spend all the new revenue, and more...then lie and say the tax cuts decreased tax revenue.......

never trust democrats/left wingers/socialists.

No, it doesn't; or we would have no debt. Only in right wing fantasy, does your opinion, hold true.

 

[rightwinger]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

So when the government 'steals' from you- and pays for police and fire departments- that pisses you off.

Yes, that does piss me off.

Got a link to back up your claims that cutting taxes actually increases tax receipts?

It only works up to a certain point; increasing debt means we are beyond, that certain point. spend and finance, is all the right wing knows how to do.

And cutting spending is the other half. Zero the budget, give more to what is effective, cut what's ineffective.

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

The law of the Laffer curve is known very well by even leftist Democrats. Even Obama knew about it as he said in one of his speeches when being interviewed that lowering taxes usually increases government revenue, "that while this is true, this is not about revenue, but rather fairness."

The left are NOT interested in creating more revenue, they are interested in class warfare! Without that and racism, they would have lost 1200 seats the last 8 years, instead of 800.

Now I read the Laffer curve expose' quite a while ago, and throughout modern history, it has been very, very, accurate on the behavior of tax rates on the people. I don't remember what the sweet spot was, but I believe it was somewhere in the teens, and from that point, moving it up or down gives diminishing returns and rather quickly turns negative, or a loss. If you read it with all the tables, (and the leftists aren't going to like this) no matter what the tax rate was, the % of GDP (I think that was what the denominator was) never moved more than 1 % or so. But what did change was the size of the economy that % came from. The reason this worked was, when taxes are high, people with money tend to hold it as well as assets because they do not want to pay the tax. When tax is lower, they spend more, and every place that dollar flows through, it is taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.

Now, when I talk about the sweet spot is in the teens, that is over all tax rate of the country as far as on its income. It does not take into account all the hidden taxes that the government has hiding. People do not know about these taxes, so they see it as the cost of buying/selling something, because the price is built in to the product. This is also why every leftist worth his/her salt wants a VAT tax, and would demand that instantly, over an income tax.

Why? Because as I said, most intelligent, leftist, politicians are aware of the Laffer curve. With a vat tax, you would basically receive all of your money that you make, but the prices of all goods would go up appreciably. The tax would not be separate from the product, and they could tweak it easily and you would never know what you were actually paying in taxes.

By the way, in case I didn't make myself clear.........the Laffer curve is NOT based or proved out using an economic principle. What it is based on is human behavior, and how/why they avoid taxes, and how much they are mentally willing to pay before they start fighting tooth and nail to avoid them. It should also tell you why you see disagreements on here so vociferously. One person is getting hosed with a heft of % tax that the Laffer curve says they should, and the other......well the other person is paying less, or none, so doesn't understand the problem, nor care, and insists somehow you are greedy! To balance the Laffer curve effect, go to a flat tax, and now you have virtually ALL Americans united; which is exactly why the Democrats can NEVER let that happen..........and yes, read the Laffer curve and you to, will know it to be true!

For what it's worth the Laffer curve works against taxes being too low as well as too high.

There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative.

Of course there is
Society has certain functions to provide

Taxes pay the bill

 

[Fenton Lum]

Bullshit. I hope we do just keep on digging this hole we can never come up out of. May the deficit grow until this soceity has to come to terms with its own perceptual reality and empire.

This new found concern for spending after 8 years & 9 trillion in frivolous handouts is laughable.

Nothing new found about it son. It's just more partisanshit for you.

When did you complain about Obama's spending?

All the time shoog, the twit turned 2 wars into 7.

Seven wars!

Can you name the wars and our number of casualties?

Go on withya bad seph ...

 

[radical right]

Look up the "Laffer Curve" to find your answer.

Every time I looked up Laffer, it would ask "do you mean LAUGHTER?"

 

[radical right]

Obama had him smoking three packs a day, moron. That would make your analogy more accurate.

Obama cut the deficit by more than 60%, Trump wants to start increasing the deficits again. Even though Trump promised to eliminate the deficits, and Trump even promised to pay off the national debt. Of course Trump reversed himself on any fiscal responsibility.

 

[bripat9643]

Stick with what ya got and watch pard, I'm all for it.

Well what we have now is a fucked up mess thanks to Obamacare. What would be best would be a combination of public and private health care where free markets could thrive and we could meet the needs of the less fortunate. But you're hell bent on Nationalized health care that has failed wherever it's tried, and no one can talk any sense into you. It's like your brain only works one way... Socialism!

A combination of public and private would not be the best. That's what Obamacare is, and it sucks. The best thing would be a purely private system where the poor could get their premiums subsidized. All the healthcare purchasing decisions should be made by consumers, not bureaucrats.

Wrong. Obamacare stifles the free market. The system you want means healthcare rationing. That's the only way it can work.

How would a purely private system mean healthcare rationing?

Insurance corps ration all the time son, geezus.

And you believe Obamacare doesn't ration medical care?

 

[bripat9643]

Look up the "Laffer Curve" to find your answer.

Every time I looked up Laffer, it would ask "do you mean LAUGHTER?"

Who do you think you're fooling, you lying piece of shit?

 

[bripat9643]

Obama had him smoking three packs a day, moron. That would make your analogy more accurate.

Obama cut the deficit by more than 60%, Trump wants to start increasing the deficits again. Even though Trump promised to eliminate the deficits, and Trump even promised to pay off the national debt. Of course Trump reversed himself on any fiscal responsibility.

Obama tripled the deficit, moron.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

The Government needs to make cuts FIRST.......before they lower the tax rate

do both at the same time

That is the way it is supposed to be done

You don't go to your boss and ask him to cut your hours and then try to figure which bills will get paid

You cut your bills first and then decide you can work less hours

that works great when you are earning your own money but government doesn't earn its own money it TAKES money from us. If we say it has to take less then that's how it is going to be

First, the drug war, right wingers.

do you have a short and long term memory deficiency?

I have told you multiple times that I think all drugs should be legalized

 

[bripat9643]

So when the government 'steals' from you- and pays for police and fire departments- that pisses you off.

Yes, that does piss me off.

It only works up to a certain point; increasing debt means we are beyond, that certain point. spend and finance, is all the right wing knows how to do.

And cutting spending is the other half. Zero the budget, give more to what is effective, cut what's ineffective.

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

The law of the Laffer curve is known very well by even leftist Democrats. Even Obama knew about it as he said in one of his speeches when being interviewed that lowering taxes usually increases government revenue, "that while this is true, this is not about revenue, but rather fairness."

The left are NOT interested in creating more revenue, they are interested in class warfare! Without that and racism, they would have lost 1200 seats the last 8 years, instead of 800.

Now I read the Laffer curve expose' quite a while ago, and throughout modern history, it has been very, very, accurate on the behavior of tax rates on the people. I don't remember what the sweet spot was, but I believe it was somewhere in the teens, and from that point, moving it up or down gives diminishing returns and rather quickly turns negative, or a loss. If you read it with all the tables, (and the leftists aren't going to like this) no matter what the tax rate was, the % of GDP (I think that was what the denominator was) never moved more than 1 % or so. But what did change was the size of the economy that % came from. The reason this worked was, when taxes are high, people with money tend to hold it as well as assets because they do not want to pay the tax. When tax is lower, they spend more, and every place that dollar flows through, it is taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.

Now, when I talk about the sweet spot is in the teens, that is over all tax rate of the country as far as on its income. It does not take into account all the hidden taxes that the government has hiding. People do not know about these taxes, so they see it as the cost of buying/selling something, because the price is built in to the product. This is also why every leftist worth his/her salt wants a VAT tax, and would demand that instantly, over an income tax.

Why? Because as I said, most intelligent, leftist, politicians are aware of the Laffer curve. With a vat tax, you would basically receive all of your money that you make, but the prices of all goods would go up appreciably. The tax would not be separate from the product, and they could tweak it easily and you would never know what you were actually paying in taxes.

By the way, in case I didn't make myself clear.........the Laffer curve is NOT based or proved out using an economic principle. What it is based on is human behavior, and how/why they avoid taxes, and how much they are mentally willing to pay before they start fighting tooth and nail to avoid them. It should also tell you why you see disagreements on here so vociferously. One person is getting hosed with a heft of % tax that the Laffer curve says they should, and the other......well the other person is paying less, or none, so doesn't understand the problem, nor care, and insists somehow you are greedy! To balance the Laffer curve effect, go to a flat tax, and now you have virtually ALL Americans united; which is exactly why the Democrats can NEVER let that happen..........and yes, read the Laffer curve and you to, will know it to be true!

For what it's worth the Laffer curve works against taxes being too low as well as too high.

There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative.

Of course there is
Society has certain functions to provide

Taxes pay the bill

You are talking about government, not society. There are no government functions that justify theft.