The perfect quote - political in nature

[Steve]

How would I recoup cost on an uninsured patient if he doesn't pay? Of course I "eat it". There is no "built-in" safety net for physicians. I also lose money on Medicaid patients and either break-even or lose money on Medicare. That is why many MD's don't take either. I work 80+ hours a week to make up the difference, that's how I compensate.

All uninsured patients will never stop utilizing services, but when it's suddenly paid for by "someone else" i.e. the federal government program the utilization (and costs) will sky rocket beyond belief, just like Medicare did. You're the one who stated Obamacare would save money. I have proof (Medicare and Medicaid) that they never stay on budget and costs continue to rise faster than inflation.

I did notice how the revenue chart and the Debt chart are reverse. Increase the debt and you squelch economic growth. Didn't we recently get downgraded by S&P.

Your chart is deceptive. You can see below that spending is the problem, as it's growing sharply. Spending is at it's highest, as a % of GDP, since 1945. Revenue was flat, as it usually is in a recession but is rebounding, even without a tax increase it is expected to reach the avg % of GDP within a few years (18.3%). Spending your way out of a recession usually doesn't work. You can also see the gap between revenue and spending is higher than ever under Obama.

But hey, keep kidding yourself that we'll be fine without entitlement reform and more revenue will solve it. Did you know Medicare is projected to be $1Trillion by 2022? If they're as accurate as they've been in the past it'll be triple that. Hope you're OK saddling your kids/grandkids with insurmountable debt.

 

[Steve]

:lipsrsealed:whoops

 

[Jim Craik]

Your chart shows exactly what I have been saying. Yours is a little hard to see, here is the same data, with dates attached.

The red line of spending is moving up and to the right for several reasons: inflation (a dollar today is worth mabye a third of what it was when Reagan was President), the economy is growing, there are more people, those people have more income, make more dollars and pay more taxes.

The revenue/tax (blue line) and the expence lines should and were going up and to the right more or less even as they should in a strong, well run growing economy.

Right up until 1981, Reagan cut taxes and for the first time the blue line dipped substantially below and remained there until the 1996, under Clinton where the blue line again goes above the red. We actually started paying down the debt!

Then BushII comes along with his tax cuts and two wars. Now we have a huge dip in revenue, and stayed below right up until the Mortgage bubble burst.

Its easy to see, if you take out the two dips caused by the Reagan/BushII tax cuts, the housing bubble though bad, the lines would still be very close together.

You do understand that whenever the blue line is below the red line the debt is going up.

Additionally, I only see two small spots on the red line of spending that actually goes down, both under Obama!

In a healthy growing economy, spending automaticlly goes up, income automatilly goes up and revenue automatilly goes up, RIGHT?

Anyone can see that the lines need to go up together. When BushII cut revenue without cutting spending, we were f**ked!

The economy is very healthy look at the revenue, growing strongly! The chart shows the problem, tax cuts. Take out the big Bush dip and we are fine, take out the mortgage dip and we are golden. Additionally this economy can afford the small amount of revenue increase it would take to bring the lines back together.

I'm more than happy to pay my share, you know, pay for what we get! How about you?

 

[Pat]

I'm more than happy to pay my share, you know, pay for what we get! How about you?

Jim, I've been paying my share for 45 years. My objection is that my granddaughter is going to have to pay approximately 12 times the current my "fair share" and multiples of that compared to the "47 percent" of non-federal taxpayers used so effectively to vilify Mr. Romney.
To suggest that government spending isn't totally out of control, the government bureaucracy is so efficient that there is nothing that should be "removed" from the budget except false savings from a Iraq war that ended in 2011 or reductions in estimates of future growth that somehow count as current savings is silly.
We have entitlement programs that the average American pays into a fractional amount compared to what they will take out and the difference is simply borrowed by the government or printed by the treasury.
There is no way around the fact the government spends too much money. At the current pace, the interest on the debt will overwhelm the economy. Before my granddaughter is age 25, the CBO predicts that the national debt could reach 190% of GDP (by 2035), leading to an unsustainable and potentially ruinous level of debt service (the CBO estimates that debt service could reach 9% of GDP by then). Tell me how is that "fair"?
It is clear that the National Debt has been growing uncontrollably in recent years, regardless of which political party has been in power. To reverse this trend, we need to hold our elected officials accountable and demand that they balance the budget and reduce the National Debt.
Mr. Obama and his party are in an enviable position and will force the Republicans into a choice between Scylla and Charybdis. If they capitulate to Mr. Obama by raising taxes and don’t materially cut spending they will pay a price at the polls from their base during the midterms and Mr. Obama will most likely regain the House and it's full measure of political power. Or Republicans can go off the fiscal cliff, take the wrath of the tax burdened voters and pay a price at the polls during the midterms and Mr. Obama will also most likely regain the House. Either way we are sentencing future generations to an economic life far inferior to our own to support the current political power gaming in Washington. How "fair" is that?

 

[Steve]

Jim,

We had a decade of stagflation prior to Reagan and the dip in revenue correlates with the recession of 1980. The tax cuts were in 1981 and the tax revenue went back up again. Same thing in 2000, a recession. The tax cuts were in 2001 and revenue was on the rise by 2002. How do you explain that? And again in 2008 (where there were no tax cuts) revenue goes down with a recession. You can see tax revenue is on the rise again, steeply. So why do you want more money? Just control spending and hold tax rates the same. The problem is the damn spending that you and all the other liberals want to ignore so you can harvest more money from a small percentage of the population in order to placate and buy votes from your constituents.

As Thatcher once said, "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money"

Only a blind liberal would say a vertical line goes down. Although if you go from right to left I suppose it does!

But then again, you live in a state with one of the highest tax rates in the country, one of the highest debt to GDP ratios in the country, the highest unfunded pension obligations and the highest poverty rate. You probably figure that can be solved with more taxes and socialism.

Socialism has never worked, ever.

But, hey, liberals are smarter and more educated....also arrogant elitists

My favorite T-shirt:

 

[Steve]

Here it is

 

[Steve]

OK, I suck at uploading

 

[Steve]

Pat, you're spot on. What is sad is 2 democratic presidents had a filibuster proof senate and control of the house and rather than address these tough issues and proceed with entitlement reform, they kicked the can down the street. Obama did even worse with increasing govt spending via Obamacare. What a crime to waste such an opportunity. Obama even had cover from a blue ribbon commision, Simpson Bowles, which was bipartisan. Even they indicated this was a spending problem but it was so out of hand some taxes need to be raised. The ratio was $4 of spending reduction for every $1 of taxes. I'm OK with that, but I want to see spending cuts first because after they raise taxes they always seem to never get around to the cuts. And of course Obama wants his taxes now with "spending cuts to be determined in 2013". Yeah right, like that'll happen

If the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were so bad, why did revenue start to rise again very soon after, and at a good rate?

Are all spend/tax happy liberals smarter than Simpson/Bowles commission?

 

[Jim Craik]

No Pat you have not been paying your share. If we had then the lines would still be running together, as they should.

Just like any family budget, when you spend more than you make, your debt goes up. In order to lower your debt you must cut spending and pay down the debts. Its that simple.

During the last four years, the Republicans have done absolutely nothing to help the economy and raise revenue, they would not compromise, it was my way or the highway!

Obama offered a 10 to 1 deal, he would cut $10 in spending for each $1 in increased revenue, the Republicans refused!

They preferred to f**ck the economy, and f**ck America cause a deal like that might have helped the economy and we could not have that. Anything to keep Obama from winning a second term! This was one of the biggest mistakes the leaders have made in my lifetime.

The American people saw this and you know the results. Now the shoe is on the other foot,
Boehnor no longer gets to call the shots, now they want this 10 to 1 deal in their dreams. The stupid party strikes again.

Yes we need to cut spending across the board, but what we really need is more is a revenue increase, Im thinking 1 to 10. Pat, with all due respect, look at the red/blue lines, your fair share, went away with the Reagan/Bush tax cuts.

Steve, apparently Liberals also have better eye sight, carefully look at the top of the red line, is it going down?

Oh yea, I forgot, Reagan/Bush did give lip service to cutting spending, that makes everything OK, right! What a bunch of crap!

 

[Jim Craik]

Until you folks grow up and stop with the Socalism crap, no one will take you seriously! Steve if you really knew what Socalism was, then you would know how stupid that sounds!

Government is just a word we give to things we decide to do together.

Long ago we decided that some things are better done as a group, things like:

Laws
Military
Police
Education
Roads
Mail
Prisons...........

That's not Socalisim, no matter what they tell you!

 

[Steve]

Jim,

Pat is indicating that he personally is paying his share. In fact he's likely paying for himself and 4 or 5 others. It's unfair to ask him to pay for more while pandering to a populace that pays nothing but reaps way more than they'll ever put into the system. Just like the T-shirt above says.

Obama never offered a 10 to 1 deal. He also reneged on the offer he made which is when Boehner walked out. He's also not actively involved in the current discussions 'cause he's too busy "campaigning" while his gnome Geittner (who is a tax cheat himself) does the hard work.

The line above isn't going down. The 2012 budget was 3.79 Trillion. 2013 proposal is 3.8 Trillion (until he goes over it). He's also fortunate in that he has built-in savings from winding down the war in Afghanistan and by decreasing Medicare payments to doctors by %20+ percent (well below every doctors cost of doing business).

Glad to hear you're smarter than the Simpson/Bowles committee as well as all respected economists that say spending has to be addressed and is more critical than any tax increase. Why? Because you can double the top tax rate and still come no where near balancing the budget or addressing the unfunded committments to entitlements.

Jim, you are the epitome of the liberal arrogant elitist and lack any objectivity. Statements like "liberals are smarter and more educated" are laughable and are a symptom of arrogant elitism. I fully admit the foibles of the republicans. I even stated Bush didn't hold the line on spending and we'll pay severely for it. That being said, he never had both houses of congress like Obama did. You can't admit that Obama is anything less than perfect and that his fixation on revenue squeezed from hard-working and successful people is short-sighted. At least Simpson-Bowles recommended tax reform so that all Americans have some skin in the game. I indicated I would be OK with that balance. I'll bet Pat would too as at least it would be fair and force all Americans to shoulder some of this burden.

I find it fascinating that you choose to not respond to many of the arguments I've made (such as the poverty rate in the US remaining stagnant since the democrats initiating entitlement programs that now comprise 42% of our budget). Face it, socialism fails and in this country, we've made "poverty" a tolerable state that without enough incentive to work to rise out of it.

 

[Steve]

Jim,

None of the things you listed are socialism, they are largely the role of the federal govt as stated in the constitution. Police and education are debatable as are more the role of individual states.

But 42% of our annual budget and the pink elephant in the room is 3 entitlement programs enacted by your beloved democrats. They are bankrupting the country and they are socialism. There is nothing in the constitution that states it is the responsibility of the federal govt to pay for my retirement or my healthcare.

I know more about socialism then you ever will. Half my family is Greek. Socialism has resulted in the mess they are in and it started with "free" programs (govt sponsored healthcare and never-ending welfare) and benefits (fat cat govt pension plans) that, in the end, they couldn't afford. Their unemployment is nearly 25% and it's tearing the fabric of their society apart.

You're the one who doesn't want to understand it as it would force you to face many of the points I've mentioned above but refuse to.

 

[Jim Craik]

Steve, what have you been smoking? This is what Socialism is. Definition:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership or state ownership of equity. A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit] driven by the accumulation of capital.

********************
Your saying that that we have is Socialism! So tell me Steve, do the people own all the business, you are saying there is no priffit?

Really, that will come as quite a supprise to Mr Romeny who appears to have made a very large profit!

Steve, this is the definition of Socialism, when you say that we are using this system you are not speaking the truth, are you!

 

[Pat]

No Pat you have not been paying your share. If we had then the lines would still be running together, as they should.

Seriously Jim, just what is my "fair share"? What should I have paid but didn’t? You are suggesting that the government should not live within its means but instead the citizenry is obligated to surrender whatever assets are required to meet whatever spending level the government chooses for itself. (More on that later).
What's your appropriate fair share contribution? Assuming we fall off the fiscal cliff, in January 55% your estate over $1million will be surrendered to the government upon your passing. Is that fair? Didn’t you already pay taxes on that? I suspect your heirs will have to sell your home just to cover the estate taxes on that asset alone-goodness only knows what else they'll have to come up with for the state of CA.
How much of the labor am I obligated at birth to provide that results in wages that belong, not to me or my children but to the government to redistribute to its dedicated supporters in order for it to maintain power? Do I work for the government or is it supposed to work for me and my fellow citizens, even if they are not in the Democrat Party national database so skillfully utilized on Election Day?
You take no account whatsoever of the current administration's repeated $trillion plus current deficits or their projected continued deficits and you're still blaming Mr. Bush. A total pass is not only given to the past four years but the projection of the next four and beyond.
Apparently to you, any excesses of the current administration are acceptable losses resulting from the assumed misconduct of the Bush years. Oh yea, he’s the one that went to war for oil but somehow we didn’t end up with any.
You take no account for the massive waste, duplication and sheer flagrant misuse of taxpayer assets on things like Las Vegas Conferences, Guns for Drug Dealers, failed crony energy ventures and Federal wages that now far exceed similar roles in the private sector (the term “civil servant” is now a sad anachronism of a time before the SEIU). How are AMTRAK, The Postal Service, The FED, Fannie Mae and Freddie doing with the paltry sum in taxes I pay? How about Ally Bank (formerly GMAC), the “shovel ready stimulus infrastructure projects”. How about (an agency with which I have considerable experience) the Defense Department’s programs such as the Navy’s recently funded research examining what the behavior of fish can teach us about democracy while also developing an app to alert iPhone users when the best time is to take a coffee break. How about the Air Force Office of Scientific Research funded a study last year examining how to make it easier to produce silk from wild [silkmoth] cocoons in Africa and South America. Closer to home, both the Navy and the Air Force funded a study that concluded people in New York use different jargon on Twitter than those living in California (Duh!). Apparently these are better uses of my expended labor than funding my granddaughter’s college fund, reimbursements to my physician or new seats for my GT40.
As I have posted before, the government could liquidate the assets of every American making over $250,000 per year and all of the profits of the Fortune 500 companies, and then maybe we could pay off the government’s projected $3.7 trillion in spending, right? Yep, for ONE YEAR - FY2011. Then they’ll have to go after everything else. Forget the current debt of $16T and unfunded liabilites that are estimated at over $84T. In other words, we’re already well over the so called “fiscal cliff”. We don’t have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. Tell me how does this path end other than sheer economic collapse?

 

[Jim Craik]

Pat,

Your fair share is your fair share of what we spend. Just by looking at the two lines on the chart, we have been spending more than we have been brining in, right.

We need to have revenue match spending, we have not. Revenue has been cut but not spending.

If you do not like the services provided by the govrnment, or just do not to pay for them, then elect folks who will cut spending!

Unfortunalty we have only cut revenue, not spending, its a simple as that.

The American people have spoken and you lost. The people want the services, that the government provides.

The People voted, they perfer tax increases to spending cuts, its that simple. Live with it!

If you do not like the way taxes are collected or who they are collected from, then work within the system, change the laws, work together.

Your side has been my way or nothing, how has that worked for you?

 

[Mark]

So Mark,

Are you calling Randy, Mr Fechter, TimB, Keith1 and Steve, "Pussies"?

Not wishing to piss anyone off directly, but yes. I guess I am. IN THIS CONTEXT ONLY ON THIS POINT ONLY. Don't read into that what isn't there Jim!

 

[Steve]

Mark,

Good point. My name is Steve Meletiou

Jim,

1) The revenue is going up, even without tax increases (look at the chart again!) so don't get greedy and ask for more. Once again, are you smarter than Simpson/Bowles committee? PhD in economics?

2) Pat is likely paying far more than what the govt is spending on him; in fact he's likely covering the costs of many others who don't produce. How much more should we suck out of him

3) It's easy to win an election when you tell 99% of the people that the other 1% are going to pay for his addiction to spending. What he hasn't told the 99% is that half of the other 1% are small business owners that employ the majority of the 99%. I'm one of them. With higher taxes and lower Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements I will have to cut costs. Half my overhead is my 150 employees. How do you think I'll cut costs? What effect do you think this will have on unemployment and the economy if many small business owners like myself act this way?

4) I never said we have socialism, in fact I agreed with your assertion of appropriate federal programs (do you read before you spout off?) although Greece effectively did as the majority of the production/employment was the government. What I said is that socialism fails. Our 3 entitlement programs are socialist policies. It doesn't mean we have socialism. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. As is typical for socialist policies, they eventually run out of money.

Jim Sinegal, Costco's CEO, spoke at the Democratic National Convention. He espoused higher taxes and said it wouldn't cause people to behave differently. This week, Costco just took out a massive loan to pay extra dividends to shareholders and large bonuses to the executives. The loan was so large it resulted in a downgrade of their bonds. Classic arrogant elitist democrat hypocrite.

I'm not saying you are a hypocrite, but I think you've got blinders on when the experts say spending is the problem and you say we just need to take more money from 1% of the population who are already paying something like 50% of the entire tax burden already. Now, if you want to raise taxes on everyone, I'm not opposed, as long as the spending cuts are set in stone first. You place too much faith in your democrats to pull their head out of the trough. I place no faith in any of the politicians to cut spending after they get their hands on more money. That's called being objective (and honest). Stop drinking the party Kool Aid, it'll only make you look bad.

 

[TimB]

Pat,


The American people have spoken and you lost. The people want the services, that the government provides.

Classy Jim just like when Obama said the same to McCain when he was trying to negotiate healthcare ideas. I am trying to actually understand your position....we should blindly destroy the economic well being of the of this nation simply because people want stuff and they won??? I forgot you said we need to raise taxes even though we have already established that a 100% tax would not cover everything the winners want???? Am i correct??
It's time to grow up and make some hard decisions and that is what a presidents job is not to just give out everything people want. I shudder to think how my children would develop if I simply gave them everything they wanted whether it was good for them or not.

 

[Steve]

Tim,

You're on point, but Obama isn't bothering with this issue. He's abdicated it to tax cheat Geittner so he can go out and campaign more and foster a little more class warfare.

So when the CEO of Costco, a huge Obama/dem supporter, cashes in big in 2012 so he can pay less taxes in 2013, what does that say?

 

[Jim Craik]

Mark,

Good point. My name is Steve Meletiou

Jim,

1) The revenue is going up, even without tax increases (look at the chart again!) so don't get greedy and ask for more. Once again, are you smarter than Simpson/Bowles committee? PhD in economics?

2) Pat is likely paying far more than what the govt is spending on him; in fact he's likely covering the costs of many others who don't produce. How much more should we suck out of him

3) It's easy to win an election when you tell 99% of the people that the other 1% are going to pay for his addiction to spending. What he hasn't told the 99% is that half of the other 1% are small business owners that employ the majority of the 99%. I'm one of them. With higher taxes and lower Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements I will have to cut costs. Half my overhead is my 150 employees. How do you think I'll cut costs? What effect do you think this will have on unemployment and the economy if many small business owners like myself act this way?

4) I never said we have socialism, in fact I agreed with your assertion of appropriate federal programs (do you read before you spout off?) although Greece effectively did as the majority of the production/employment was the government. What I said is that socialism fails. Our 3 entitlement programs are socialist policies. It doesn't mean we have socialism. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. As is typical for socialist policies, they eventually run out of money.

Jim Sinegal, Costco's CEO, spoke at the Democratic National Convention. He espoused higher taxes and said it wouldn't cause people to behave differently. This week, Costco just took out a massive loan to pay extra dividends to shareholders and large bonuses to the executives. The loan was so large it resulted in a downgrade of their bonds. Classic arrogant elitist democrat hypocrite.

I'm not saying you are a hypocrite, but I think you've got blinders on when the experts say spending is the problem and you say we just need to take more money from 1% of the population who are already paying something like 50% of the entire tax burden already. Now, if you want to raise taxes on everyone, I'm not opposed, as long as the spending cuts are set in stone first. You place too much faith in your democrats to pull their head out of the trough. I place no faith in any of the politicians to cut spending after they get their hands on more money. That's called being objective (and honest). Stop drinking the party Kool Aid, it'll only make you look bad.

Steve,

(1) Yes revenue us going up, the economy is getting better, but paying down the Bush debt requires more.

(2) 5 to 10%

(3) it's easy to lose an election by favoring the 1% over the 99%.

(4) if you are not saying we are Socalist why do you folks alway bring it up?