<p>Driver, why do you continue to insist that I’m saying things I’m not? None of the things you’ve ascribed to me in the last several posts you’ve made are even close to what I’m saying. I know it’s fun and easy to attack a straw man instead of an actual argument, but isn’t it just kind of a waste of all of our time?</p>
<p>Kluge, you wander so much that you get lost in your own posts. I’ve asked twice: How exactly is increasing taxes on “the wealthy” going to help “the middle class” and “the poor?” If I have your premise wrong, please advise. Do you simply want to see something closer statistical income parity, or is there a substantive social/public policy–beyond the feel-good aspect of “getting” those rich folks?</p>
<p>Is there a denial of the doubling of energy costs, both in home heating and automobile fuel? Of health insurance costs, which have also nearly doubled int he past few years?</p>
<p>How many Americans’ salaries have doubled in the past few years (not talking about the CEOs or bond fund managers and their bonuses, of course, but your average American worker)?</p>
<p>Working harder for most people is not going to make an iota of difference in their ability to meet these rising costs, and a little hundred buck “gas rebate” from the government is a laughable band-aid for a gaping wound.</p>
<p>
I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter. Same question to you as posed to Kluge, AM–what would you propose, and what substantive change do you envision as a result?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And your solution to this would be? </p>
<p>edit: Damn driver u beat me to this :P</p>
<p>My solution is quit offering economic policy perks to the oil companies, quit mucking around in the middle east, begin reducing size of automobiles and offering tax incentives for drivers of more efficient vehicles, and supply national health care. </p>
<p>Now, I shall turn the table on the two of you.</p>
<p>Are these insane energy and health care increases acceptable to you? Whether or not you can afford them or not (and for the record, I can afford both, begrudgingly), at what point do you imagine that these runaway costs should be cause for concern?</p>
<p>I think the solutions are forthcoming, whether you like it or not, as the pendulum begins its long, slow swing in the other direction.</p>
<p>Energy: In what sense are the increases insane? </p>
<p>Health care: We need to go back to a pay-as-you-go system, such as the one we grew up with. With medical insurance for catastrophic eventualities. That’s what high-deductible policies are about, that’s what medical IRAs are about. But the entitlement mentality prevents rational analysis of the problem. The idea that we are entitled to a “free” trip to the doctor every time we have a sore throat or need a new prescription for glasses–not to mention “free” contraceptives and viagra, regardless of ability to pay is what is wrecking the system. And the out-of-control medical malpractice industry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bad idea, good sir. If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it becomes free. You might want to check up on tax rates of countries that have socialized medicine. And also the quality, especially Canada+England.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the oil companies shrug, then believe me, we are in trouble. My proposal is to allow them full reign to drill in Alaska and elsewhere, and also end the draconian restrictions on contructing new rigs and such.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mucking around describes the current situation. A good solution would be to nuke Iran and Syria, but that would be a different topic.</p>
<p>
Car companies already offer smaller vehicles, hybrids, and what not. What extra steps can you possibly suggest? And how would that help anyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, what exactly would this accomplish? Would you be willing to also offer tax incentives to those who use few government services?</p>
<p>And why is U.S. Health care better than the UK?:</p>
<p>Total expenditure on healthcare as percentage of GDP (2003): US 15%: UK 7.7%</p>
<p>Life expectancy at birth: US 77.2 years: UK 78.5 years.</p>
<p>Infant mortality per 1,000 live births: US 7.0: UK 5.3</p>
<p>Source: OECD in Figures 2005: <a href=“http://213.253.134.29/oecd/pdfs/browseit/0105061E.PDF[/url]”>http://213.253.134.29/oecd/pdfs/browseit/0105061E.PDF</a></p>
<p>Driver, since you singled out taxes, how about we start with this: we return the tax rate on those with the highest incomes to the level it was at in 1986, and use the extra cash to pay down the deficit? Because the deficit hurts everyone, and in particular hurts the next generation, who will be saddled with the tab for our excesses on top of whatever needs they have of their own.</p>
<p>The political debate about energy costs on the last Meet the Press was very illustrative. </p>
<p>At one point. the very well-spoken and utterly patient Samuel Bodman had to say that Senator Durbin was too smart to actually believe his own words. For the entire hour, the good Senator had offered nothing but partisan and meaningless soundbites. If one could easily dismiss Red Cavaney and Samuel Bodman as biased, the same could not be said for Daniel Yergin, or even for the usually caustic Jim Cramer. They could not help rolling their eyes every time Durbin intervened. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/</a></p>
<p>Total expenditure on healthcare as percentage of GDP (2003): US 15%: UK 7.7%</p>
<p>That must include dental care on both sides, with zero on the UK side.</p>
<p>PS Joking, of course. Your numbers are correct.</p>
<p>Durbin was also on with someone else–I forget who–but he stumbled badly when asked to address the $.08/gallon “profiteering” made by oil companies vis-a-vis the $.50 tax imposed on a gallon of gas.</p>
<p>Kluge, I bought the Ross Perot line in '92, but never again. I’ll consider taxes to “reduce the deficit” when we’ve cut out the spending.</p>
<p>driver, I don’t see the money supply as finite. I see the uber-wealthy getting lots of free passes (from the tax code, from the EPA, from pork.) </p>
<p>The whole corporate culture has a strip mining mentality. Paper profits this quarter = huge payoff for ME.</p>
<p>xiggi, LOL</p>
<p>Oh, the money supply IS infinite, as long as China keeps lending. Apparently.</p>
<p>At the moment, we are just as good as owned by China, seeing as we owe them several trillion dollars. </p>
<p>One day they will come calling for their debt to be repaid, and then things will get a bit dicier here in the land of plenty. </p>
<p>Driver, cutting the spending, LOL! We could consider our million+ dollar a day war…no other spending cost in the US even comes close to the billions we throw away on defense and war. So…cut that? Excellent choice!</p>
<p>But SB, this is where we differ…why should anyone, uber-wealthy or not, need passes from the tax code? Why should differing opinions as to the scope of EPA regulations tranlate into “passes?” I guess I don’t accept your default position that all benefits are/must be bestowed by rulers, elected or otherwise. Our elected officials should ensure a reasonable framework, and then let our individual talents run free. If you feel you’re taking more than your fair share, or more than you need to expand your business, by all means donate to an effective charity.</p>
<p>Public Expenditure as % on health</p>
<p>US 44.4%
UK 83.4%</p>
<pre><code> Practicing Physicians per 1000 population
</code></pre>
<p>US 2.3
UK 2.2</p>
<pre><code> MRI units/million pop.
</code></pre>
<p>US 8.6
UK 5.9</p>
<p>As a sidenote, I was curious to see if % spent on healthcare had any correlation to life expectancy and infant mortality rate. So I charter two plots. I cannot show these plots on a message board, but neither any correlation.</p>
<p>The costs of the healthcare might be a little deceptive. In UK, the costs are kept lower by rationing services. For example, in this article, about 800K Brits are waiting on the NHS <a href=“http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,8150,1498761,00.html[/url]”>Figures show more patients waiting for operations | Society | The Guardian;
<p>Lower birthrate in the United States you say? How about the fact that you are 4X likely to die while undergoing surgery in England?
<a href=“NHS death rates four times higher than US | Daily Mail Online”>NHS death rates four times higher than US | Daily Mail Online;
<p>How about the fact that doctors in the UK are ridiculously incompetent?
<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;
<p><a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2147734_2,00.html</a> (bonus link, yay!)</p>
<p>Maybe you laughed a little too searly Xiggi and SBMom :)</p>
<p>"At the moment, we are just as good as owned by China, seeing as we owe them several trillion dollars. "</p>
<p>Oh, a couple of trillion dollars here, and a couple trillion dollars there…
pretty soon youre talking about real money. Of course, with apologies to Everett McKinley Dirksen. </p>
<p>However, one might wonder if China even owns “several trillion” dollars in foreign reserves to lend the destitute US such a sum. Of course, in 2000, China “only” had 165 billion dollars and 610 billion dollars in 2004. But, who is counting!</p>
<p>PS As far as the US debt to China, try a bit over 265 billions, if truth matters to you. Heck, you don’t have to believe me … “As of February of 2006, China is the second largest holder of US debt, with $265.2 billion in Treasury securities. (Treasury Department, 4/17/06)” Quoted from <a href=“http://www.democrats.org%5B/url%5D”>http://www.democrats.org</a></p>
<p>The problem is, driver, “cutting the spending” is easier said than done. I’ll avoid making partisan comments here - let’s face it, neither party does a real good job of balancing the budget on their own. And when you spend more than you take in, you run a deficit - which means sticking it to our kids. In the meantime - if the tax rates were set so as to meet the expenses and pay down the accumulated debt maybe you’d see some pressure on the politicians to “cut the spending.” (Actually, I can pretty much guarantee you that if the wealthy were forced to fill the gap in the budget a way of balancing the budget would appear before you could say “K Street lobbyist.”)</p>