[luke warm]

any ss or medicare cuts have to be, as winston pointed out, phased in without disturbing contracts already "finalized"... a standing army needs to go... most of the aircraft carriers (and new ones to be built) need to go... as for taxes, a simple rate that all (or almost all) have to pay would bring in more revenues; there would be fewer places to "hide"

[awm]

I did notice something interesting while doing my taxes.

My income didn't really increase last year over previous years. I've been working for the University of California for quite some time, and we have had salary freezes (and furloughs, and other issues) so I didn't get a raise.

Yet my total federal tax went up, and the amount I had to pay by check (i.e. tax minus what was deducted from my paycheck) also went up.

Most people apparently don't do their own taxes. So it's easy to see why someone whose total federal tax went up and who has to pay more by check (like I did) would think that Obama has raised his taxes. But this is not true -- Obama has put forward all these little tax reductions, and has renewed all the Bush tax cuts. So what happened?

Since I do my own taxes, I know what happened to me. And my case may not be that unusual.

I live in an expensive condo, on which I have a substantial mortgage with a variable rate. Currently interest rates are very low, so I am paying very little in interest on this mortgage. Mortgage interest is a tax deduction. Thus, I owe more in federal taxes. Also, I pay a pretty hefty property tax bill. But my condo was recently reassessed as being worth somewhat less than I bought it for. So my property tax bill went down. Property tax is a tax deduction. Thus, I owe more in federal taxes.

Back when I told UCLA how much to withhold from my paychecks, both my mortgage interest bill and property tax bill were more than they are now. So UCLA is withholding less from my paycheck than they should, and the check I had to write to the IRS was more than it was in previous years. Of course, the overall net effect on my income is in my favor (i.e. my property tax and mortgage payments went down by more than my federal income tax went up).

Anyway, I dunno that this convinces anyone of anything, but it does explain the beliefs of some that "Obama raised taxes" and that "taxes are too high."

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-09, 15:13, said:

Medicare and Social Security are not "benefits" in the sense of health benefits provided by a private business, which can certainly be changed or even canceled at the whims of the business that provides them.

I think there is a strong argument that SS and Medicare are contractual obligations of the government, and any changes made can only affect payers who begin paying after a change is made - the government has a fiduciary repsonibility to adhere to the contractual obligations that were in place when I first began paying into the system. I would think a case could be made that the government cannot say, oh, gee, I have to cut your SS payments because I'd rather bomb Iraq than pay you.

The three biggests costs are SS, medicare, and all defense/security/national security. The first two are owed. The latter is discretionary spending.

And what, pray tell, of the promises made to military veterans? Are they not contractual obligations as well? Or does the fact that it's the military mean they can be ignored?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-09, 15:57, said:

And what, pray tell, of the promises made to military veterans? Are they not contractual obligations as well? Or does the fact that it's the military mean they can be ignored?

IMO, you would certainly count some if not most veterans' benefits - those who were compelled to serve or joined duing mandatory service periods should receive full benefits. Remember, the citizenry does not have a right to opt out of paying medicare and social serurity taxes. The soldier at times had to serve.

Those who elected to join without mandate are receiving something like company benefits, though, as an incentive to work there as opposed to elsewhere, no different than any other company's benefits and those benefits, like my benefits at my work, are subject to being altered without an employee having any recourse.

[awm]

The military spending that people usually suggest cutting is not veterans benefits. We obviously have a commitment to our veterans (and current troops) which is at least as important as social security or medicare. Personally I find it somewhat disgusting that Republicans were willing to shut down the government (forcing our troops and their families to go without pay) over something as ridiculous (and honestly, counterproductive) as cutting funding for planned parenthood.

Currently we are spending a lot of money developing the next generation of fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and missile defense. All of these things are a lot more useful in a traditional military confrontation between super powers than they are in a continuing battle against terrorism. They are mostly remnants from the cold war days. Even the Pentagon has suggested cutting these programs, many of which are way over-budget on things that it's not totally clear we even need. However, building the next generation of fighter jets produces big contracts for large private companies, which themselves provide some jobs in the districts of important congressmen (and women)... between the lobbying money and the jobs issue it seems to be very difficult to make these programs die.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2011-May-09, 15:44, said:

any ss or medicare cuts have to be, as winston pointed out, phased in without disturbing contracts already "finalized"... a standing army needs to go... most of the aircraft carriers (and new ones to be built) need to go... as for taxes, a simple rate that all (or almost all) have to pay would bring in more revenues; there would be fewer places to "hide"

Along the same lines, the reason I support single payer is not because I argue that it is the best system, but because it is the best choice we have to reign in out-of-control costs.

At the same time, I admit to a bias of belief that basic healthcare services should be considered as and treated as a right of citizenship.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-09, 20:50, said:

At the same time, I admit to a bias of belief that basic healthcare services should be considered as and treated as a right of citizenship.

Why? Do you think the founders of this country would agree?

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-09, 21:00, said:

Why? Do you think the founders of this country would agree?

Probably not. But then again, they thought slavery should be allowed. Hopefully current issues can be settled without a war.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-09, 21:00, said:

Why? Do you think the founders of this country would agree?

Well, it really doesn't matter. That was then. This is now. You know, I used to accept the argument that the constitution was inviolate, but then I came to see that it is plainly stupid to rely totally on 1700s thinking that was designed to govern 13 small agricultural-based colonies as the unyielding measure to govern a modern, industrialized 50-state union.

Besides, in those days the physicians acted as if healthcare were a right. I doubt many in 1776 were turned away from the doctor's office because their insurance provider wasn't on the right list.

But, if the founders were alive, I think they could easily support the concept of a healthcare as a right. They considered life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights, so life as free of disease and incapacity as possible seems in line with that thinking.

[kenberg]

A few thoughts about rights, contracts, and such.

Social Security and pensions: I receive social security and I receive a pension from my years as a college prof. I see these two matters differently.

In the case of the pension, it was part of the deal when I took the job. I was offered several options for a pension plan, I chose the one with the largest contributions from both me and from the state. Basically, the deal was that if I chose to work there and if I made my contributions, they would then pay me money later according to a certain formula. I accepted this deal. The state has no more right to withdraw that deal than they would have had to cut my paycheck while I was working. Life is never as simple as logic, and so I acknowledge that while working we (like Adam) also were given furlough days which temporarily reduced pay without at all reducing work, but this just means that even the best of principles may have to sometimes bow to economic reality.

Social security has always seemed to me to be more like a tax. In 1953 I got a job setting pins in a bowling alley, I had to get a social security card so they could withhold some of my wages, and I have been paying ever since. I still work some and I still pay into social security even as I also receive it. The purpose, originally at least, was to prevent poverty in old age. Now exactly what constitutes poverty is a bit in the eye of the beholder but I think making an effort so that the aged have a reasonably comfortable life is worthwhile. This does not, in my view, preclude some sort of means testing. It should not be that if you can afford to eat hamburger rather than cat food then you don't need your check, but there could be something.

Military pensions seem much like my college pension. A guy takes a job based on promises made. These promises include how much he will be paid at the end of the week, and how much he will be paid as a pension in later life. He took the job on the basis of the promises that were made, these promises have to be kept.

All of these things are subject to revision in the future promises made.

Health care is a toughie. I really do not want to give it the status of a right. I think that this just causes problems. In particular it provides a lot of work for lawyers who interpret these rights. I would be happy enough though to say that I hold it as a self-evident truth that affordable health care is a worthy goal. The difference is this: I also think it is self-evident that the advances in medical technology are such that we can now do far more procedures than we can ever hope to pay for. Some of the procedures may not work, but often that is not known until they are tried. I am perhaps closer to crunch time on this than some of the other contributors, but I accept that at some point it will all be over, and the economics of delaying that event have to be considered. But if I have a right to three heart transplants, well...

I know a guy who is greatly in debt because he believes that he has a right to a certain standard of living. Not to put too fine a point on it, he's nuts. Sometimes a person can walk right on the edge and survive, but it's not recommended by me. Same with society. We need to make practical efforts to pursue worthwhile goals, and we need to discuss how to pay for them. Healthcare certainly qualifies, so does education, so does national defense broadly understood, and I would expect most to agree, whether or not they define it as a right.

[kenberg]

Today's news, http://www.washingto...om/todays_paper, informs me that John Boehner is still holding to the Republican threat to not raise the debt ceiling unless their demands are met. It's difficult to convey how irresponsible I believe this to be. As I understand it, not raising the ceiling will be a total disaster. There are some on this thread who support conservative economics and I don't always disagree. But this? Does anyone here really think that not raising the ceiling is a good idea? If not, are they ok with threatening irresponsible action unless the opposition caves? This really is not cool.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2011-May-10, 07:08, said:

Today's news, http://www.washingto...om/todays_paper, informs me that John Boehner is still holding to the Republican threat to not raise the debt ceiling unless their demands are met. It's difficult to convey how irresponsible I believe this to be. As I understand it, not raising the ceiling will be a total disaster. There are some on this thread who support conservative economics and I don't always disagree. But this? Does anyone here really think that not raising the ceiling is a good idea? If not, are they ok with threatening irresponsible action unless the opposition caves? This really is not cool.

What I found most interesting was the yahoo from the Tea Party saying that the debt ceiling could be traded off against Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Yet another clear example that the Tea Party(Parties) is very much motivated by social issues and is best viewed as the an attempt to rebrand the far right of te Republican Party.

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-09, 22:23, said:

Probably not. But then again, they thought slavery should be allowed. Hopefully current issues can be settled without a war.

My understanding is that many of them thought slavery should not be allowed, but that getting agreement to abolish it at the time would be too difficult.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-09, 23:21, said:

Well, it really doesn't matter. That was then. This is now. You know, I used to accept the argument that the constitution was inviolate, but then I came to see that it is plainly stupid to rely totally on 1700s thinking that was designed to govern 13 small agricultural-based colonies as the unyielding measure to govern a modern, industrialized 50-state union.

Besides, in those days the physicians acted as if healthcare were a right. I doubt many in 1776 were turned away from the doctor's office because their insurance provider wasn't on the right list.

But, if the founders were alive, I think they could easily support the concept of a healthcare as a right. They considered life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights, so life as free of disease and incapacity as possible seems in line with that thinking.

Two men are in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. No one knows where they are, they have no communications. Rescue is highly unlikely. They know where land is, and they are headed there. However, they have only enough food and water for one to survive the trip. If they try to both make it, they'll both die. Which one's "right to life" takes precedence?

As for what doctors used to do, I can attest that as recently as the latter half of the last century doctors would do as you suggest. My father, a cardiologist, certainly did. But that doesn't mean that there is an entitlement to healthcare, that the government should pay for it. My father certainly did not agree with such an entitlement.

Some of the founders might support the concept, I suppose. They weren't always all on the same page about everything. As a whole, though, I doubt they would have. Of course, it wasn't an issue then, and there was no "health insurance", for anybody.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-10, 08:31, said:

What I found most interesting was the yahoo from the Tea Party saying that the debt ceiling could be traded off against Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Yet another clear example that the Tea Party(Parties) is very much motivated by social issues and is best viewed as the an attempt to rebrand the far right of te Republican Party.

There will always be total idiots in any gathering. I of course agree this guy is bizarre. But John Boehner is a leader with responsibilities. If a guy straps dynamite to his chest and threatens to blow everyone up, including himself, unless we do what he says, he might well get his way. We should try hard not to put such people in a position of national leadership.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-May-10, 07:08, said:

Today's news, http://www.washingto...om/todays_paper, informs me that John Boehner is still holding to the Republican threat to not raise the debt ceiling unless their demands are met. It's difficult to convey how irresponsible I believe this to be. As I understand it, not raising the ceiling will be a total disaster. There are some on this thread who support conservative economics and I don't always disagree. But this? Does anyone here really think that not raising the ceiling is a good idea? If not, are they ok with threatening irresponsible action unless the opposition caves? This really is not cool.

Totally irresponsible! My hope is that there are enough folks who see this who are also willing to pressure their representatives non-stop.

Dan Benishek, the guy who took my congressional district (with strong tea party support) when Bart Stupak retired, is part of the problem. He was a little shaken by the reactions he got here during the recess, but I don't know how that will play out. He's got some strong defenders here too. Dan doesn't answer my letters or emails -- something Bart or his staff always did no matter how much he disagreed with what I had written.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-10, 08:31, said:

Yet another clear example that the Tea Party(Parties) is very much motivated by social issues and is best viewed as the an attempt to rebrand the far right of te Republican Party.

the tea party could have a (real) nat'l presence if they would simply abandon all the social issues... it would not be hard to do, simply say something like "imo that (abortion, gay marriage, whatever) is not something the federal gov't should be involved in... let the states handle it as much as possible"... individual members could do that while affirming whatever it is they believe, just differentiate between personal beliefs and governmental policy

[cherdano]

luke warm, on 2011-May-10, 15:47, said:

the tea party could have a (real) nat'l presence if they would simply abandon all the social issues... it would not be hard to do, simply say something like "imo that (abortion, gay marriage, whatever) is not something the federal gov't should be involved in... let the states handle it as much as possible"... individual members could do that while affirming whatever it is they believe, just differentiate between personal beliefs and governmental policy

1. "abortion is an issue that should be handled by the states" has become code for being anti-abortion.
2. The first round of budget cuts restricted the local DC government's right to use their local tax money to pay for abortions. Of course, the same politicians who usually claim "abortion is an issue that should be handled by the states" forced this rider into the budget compromise.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-10, 08:31, said:

What I found most interesting was the yahoo from the Tea Party saying that the debt ceiling could be traded off against Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Yet another clear example that the Tea Party(Parties) is very much motivated by social issues and is best viewed as the an attempt to rebrand the far right of te Republican Party.

Although I haven't looked into it at all, a women where I work attended last year's Beck-a-holics Anonymous Tea Party gathering in Washington, D.C. I know here to be deeply religious and I am sure she advocates for ID.

What I wonder about is how much of the same influences and driving power is behind ID as is behind the ID movement, which, regardlss of the propaganda, is a creationist movement intent on governmental change to reflect Christian beliefs. (see barbara forrest presentations on you tube)
Pat Robertson admitted his goals as co-opting the Republican Party and changing it into an arm of the Moral Majority. In some ways, it appears as if he succeeded. And the tea party - due to their concern not just about social issues, but issues that could be called "moral" issues, seems cut from the same cloth.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-10, 08:55, said:

Two men are in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. No one knows where they are, they have no communications. Rescue is highly unlikely. They know where land is, and they are headed there. However, they have only enough food and water for one to survive the trip. If they try to both make it, they'll both die. Which one's "right to life" takes precedence?

As for what doctors used to do, I can attest that as recently as the latter half of the last century doctors would do as you suggest. My father, a cardiologist, certainly did. But that doesn't mean that there is an entitlement to healthcare, that the government should pay for it. My father certainly did not agree with such an entitlement.

Some of the founders might support the concept, I suppose. They weren't always all on the same page about everything. As a whole, though, I doubt they would have. Of course, it wasn't an issue then, and there was no "health insurance", for anybody.

Two men are in a lifeboat. One is well-to-do and has his American Express card - the other broke because he can't find work. Both have suffered cuts to their legs and both have gangrene. A ship with a doctor on board finds them, but he only has enough antibiotics to cure one of them. If he divides the doses, both may lose their legs, but they will live. If he treats only one, he will survive with his leg intact but the other will lose his leg and may die. Does the wealthy man have more right to treatment than Stumpy?