PDA

View Full Version : Paul Ryan vs. the Truth



Telos
04-30-2011, 10:56 AM
There's a lot of annoying mendacity in Paul Ryan's budget proposal, but the most annoying by far is his repeated insistence that under his plan seniors would get "the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy." Aside from the fact that he's offered no details about how or why private insurers would magically decide to provide the same kind of benefits to the elderly that they do to members of Congress, he's just flatly lying about the most important part of his proposal: namely that it will force seniors to pay far, far more for Medicare than they do now — and far, far more than members of Congress pay for their health insurance. If you're a millionaire, maybe this counts as the "same kind" ....

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/04/paul-ryan-vs-truth


How the lies doth freely flow with unabated ease from out of the hoary mouth of this raffish oaf.....

TerrellW
05-11-2011, 04:42 PM
By the time Ryan's budget will erase our debt, I think we'll have bigger problems on our hands like the fact that most seniors are dieing at an earlier age because they can't afford Medicare or health care (http://www.goldenrule.com/health/high_deductible.shtml). Seniors will have to start skimping on blood pressure and other vital prescription medicines. Overall health of our elderly will deteriorate and children of the elderly will have to either provide financial assistance creating a burden for their household income. We can't ignore our elderly or our poor and let them fend for themselves. If we did, then we will all suffer from the effects of their health and economic problems.

Thai Kimchi
05-11-2011, 04:56 PM
When most people figured out Ryan's a stone liar, Obama's reelection was sealed.

Thanks Paul.

John Galt
05-11-2011, 05:07 PM
Kinda odd the lengths these idiots will go, in order to avoid a 5% tax increase on those who spend that amount as chump change.

Thai Kimchi
05-11-2011, 06:07 PM
The Pukes screwed the pooch on this one - they're still scrambling like mental patients as I post.

nondual
05-11-2011, 06:31 PM
The Pukes screwed the pooch on this one - they're still scrambling like mental patients as I post.
:lmao2:

Revere
05-11-2011, 06:35 PM
Americans don't want four more years of smothering debt and a party that is clueless about how to get unemployment above 9%.

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 02:14 AM
he's just flatly lying about the most important part of his proposal: namely that it will force seniors to pay far, far more for Medicare than they do now — and far, far more than members of Congress pay for their health insurance. If you're a millionaire, maybe this counts as the "same kind" ....

How the lies doth freely flow with unabated ease from out of the hoary mouth of this raffish oaf.....Please explain to me precisely how it will cost seniors more.

Do you have a clue how a high-deductible plan and a medical spending plan works?

nondual
06-05-2011, 07:53 AM
Please explain to me precisely how it will cost seniors more.

Do you have a clue how a high-deductible plan and a medical spending plan works?
Insurance companies are going to love all those new and sick customers with all of their chronic diseases, right Minty?

They are going to love paying for their care, right Minty?

And it is all going to cost you less than the current Medicare system we have, right Minty?

If Medicare's approval rating is 77%, the new customers will give healthcare for profit providers and even higher rating, right Minty?

:crazzy:

Minty, are you evil, or stupid, which is it? :lmao2:

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 09:16 AM
Insurance companies are going to love all those new and sick customers with all of their chronic diseases, right Minty?

They are going to love paying for their care, right Minty?

And it is all going to cost you less than the current Medicare system we have, right Minty?

If Medicare's approval rating is 77%, the new customers will give healthcare for profit providers and even higher rating, right Minty?

:crazzy:

Minty, are you evil, or stupid, which is it? :lmao2:Perhaps you can explain how it 'will cost Seniors more'?

nondual
06-05-2011, 10:09 AM
Perhaps you can explain how it 'will cost Seniors more'?
Minty, why do you think insurance companies want to know your medical history? What do you think they need that info. for?

Think Minty, think! :D

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 10:12 AM
Minty, why do you think insurance companies want to know your medical history? What do you think they need that info. for?

Think Minty, think! :D How will Ryan's plan 'cost Seniors more'?

nondual
06-05-2011, 10:15 AM
Minty, are you evil, or stupid, which is it?
Never mind...

bairdi
06-05-2011, 10:32 AM
How will Ryan's plan 'cost Seniors more'?
From the CBO report on Ryan's plan:

Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system. For a typical 65-year-old with average health spending enrolled in a plan with benefits similar to those currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the beneficiary’s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of a benchmark: what total health care spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By 2030, the beneficiary’s spending would be 68 percent of that benchmark under the proposal, 25 percent under the
extended-baseline scenario, and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdf

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 11:19 AM
From the CBO report on Ryan's plan:

Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system. For a typical 65-year-old with average health spending enrolled in a plan with benefits similar to those currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the beneficiary’s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of a benchmark: what total health care spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By 2030, the beneficiary’s spending would be 68 percent of that benchmark under the proposal, 25 percent under the
extended-baseline scenario, and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdfThe plan gives subsidies to Medicare recipients to spend as they choose. If the subsidy is $10,000, they could choose a plan which costs 7,000 and put the 3,000 in the medical spending account which would meet the deductible and total out-of-pocket, depending on what both items are.

When the total out-of-pocket is met, the amounts of which vary, the insurance picks everything up at 100%. Total out-of-pockets with high deductible policies can range from 2,000 to 10,000, with the latter being the highest.

Explain to me how it will cost Seniors more, in your own words.

anatta
06-05-2011, 11:22 AM
what i want to know, is what is the Dem's plan? do they have any? (asking)

Ryan at least put it on the table, i hear a lot of complaining, but no proposals from the left

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 11:30 AM
Never mind...Translation: "I don't shit about this plan or how insurance works. I'm just repeating what I've been told to say to protect my Lord and Savior".

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 11:31 AM
what i want to know, is what is the Dem's plan? do they have any? (asking)

Ryan at least put it on the table, i hear a lot of complaining, but no proposals from the leftIn an earlier thread you said Ryan's plan is "flawed (poor)".

Can you explain what led you to this conclusion?

anatta
06-05-2011, 11:36 AM
In an earlier thread you said Ryan's plan is "flawed (poor)".

Can you explain what led you to this conclusion?
I can't recall, honestly my understanding of HC is rudimentary.
Proly referring to what I thought was vouchers, now i'm really not sure.

I don't know what the Dem's are offering to even compare.
do you know what the Dem plan is ( iread your post on what Ryan's plan was)

All I know is something has to be done -but when i say that, i hear "medicare is solvent".

Color me completely confused.

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 12:04 PM
I can't recall, honestly my understanding of HC is rudimentary.
Proly referring to what I thought was vouchers, now i'm really not sure.

I don't know what the Dem's are offering to even compare.
do you know what the Dem plan is ( iread your post on what Ryan's plan was)

All I know is something has to be done -but when i say that, i hear "medicare is solvent".

Color me completely confused.The dems are offering the same Medicare thru Obamacare, business as usual, status quo. Medicare pays a paltry amount to providers, and a govt panel called the IPAB would decide who is 'worthy' of treatment which would 'manage costs'.

Ryan's plan gives Seniors the opportunity to have regular insurance. Insurance which pays just as much as every other plan, giving Seniors a higher quality of care and it takes the burden off others paying full price for insurance to offset the low reimbursement rate of Medicare. Medicare, as it stands now, is a factor as to why premiums are so high.

I can see why Seniors would be in favor of it. Given a choice, I would rather have private insurance than Medicare.

bairdi
06-05-2011, 12:07 PM
The plan gives subsidies to Medicare recipients to spend as they choose. If the subsidy is $10,000, they could choose a plan which costs 7,000 and put the 3,000 in the medical spending account which would meet the deductible and total out-of-pocket, depending on what both items are.

When the total out-of-pocket is met, the amounts of which vary, the insurance picks everything up at 100%. Total out-of-pockets with high deductible policies can range from 2,000 to 10,000, with the latter being the highest.

Explain to me how it will cost Seniors more, in your own words.
It's all explained in the CBO report, but I guess you are too lazy to do the research yourself.

The subsidies would be paid directly to the insurance company, not the recipient. There would be no 3,000 to put into a medical spending account unless it was out of the pocket of the recipient. Under the current medicare plan, the CBO projects that spending would be 15,000 per capita in 2022, but under the Ryan plan spending would be 8,000. The difference would have to be made up by either the state or the individual since the cost would be the same.

bairdi
06-05-2011, 12:13 PM
The dems are offering the same Medicare thru Obamacare, business as usual, status quo. Medicare pays a paltry amount to providers, and a govt panel called the IPAB would decide who is 'worthy' of treatment which would 'manage costs'.

Ryan's plan gives Seniors the opportunity to have regular insurance. Insurance which pays just as much as every other plan, giving Seniors a higher quality of care and it takes the burden off others paying full price for insurance to offset the low reimbursement rate of Medicare. Medicare, as it stands now, is a factor as to why premiums are so high.

I can see why Seniors would be in favor of it. Given a choice, I would rather have private insurance than Medicare.
You say that Medicare pays a paltry amount to providers yet, according to the CBO report, "Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts." If your objection to Medicare is the amount paid to providers, then you should be against Ryan's proposal.

bairdi
06-05-2011, 12:22 PM
I can't recall, honestly my understanding of HC is rudimentary.
Proly referring to what I thought was vouchers, now i'm really not sure.

I don't know what the Dem's are offering to even compare.
do you know what the Dem plan is ( iread your post on what Ryan's plan was)

All I know is something has to be done -but when i say that, i hear "medicare is solvent".

Color me completely confused.
Ryan does not want to fix medicare, he wants to replace it with a plan driven by private insurance. Currently medicare is a single payer plan that works quite well but needs adjustments to insure its continuation. Did you mean that you heard that medicare was insolvent, not sustainable? If that is the case, these claims have been made for years.

Chicago Tribune July 2, 1969: The Medicare hospital trust fund faces bankruptcy by 1976 and taxes must either be raised or benefits reduced the senate finance committee was told today.

New York Times July 7, 1981: Medicare payroll taxes already imposed by Congress, including two increases scheduled for 1985 and 1986, will only be able to keep the hospital insurance system solvent for eight to 10 more years, three Cabinet officers informed Congress. Even under the Reagan Administration's highly optimistic economic projections, the fund will be bankrupt before 2000, the three said.

Washington Post,March 6, 1983: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici warned the nation's governors the other day, "Medicare can be bankrupt in 2 1/2 years," unless some way is found to put the brakes on its burgeoning costs.

Chicago Tribune: June 25, 1983: Medicare is in danger of bankruptcy as early as 1986, the system’s trustees declared Friday.

Chicago Tribune, March 10 1984: To avert Medicare’s expected insolvency, a federal advisory council proposed Friday raising the eligibility age to 67, taxing employer paid health insurance benefits and boosting the tax on alcohol and tobacco… the Congressional Budget Office said Medicare may be insolvent in 1989

New York Times, January 20, 1985: In the last few years, when it appeared that the Medicare trust fund would run out of money in 1987-89... But the need seemed less urgent after the Congressional Budget Office issued new estimates last September indicating that the Medicare trust fund would not go bankrupt until 1994.

Chicago Tribune February 6, 1985: Medicare is still expected to go bankrupt in 1991, and a new flood of red tape is not helping America's hospitals.

New York Times, March 27, 1985: Reagan Administration officials said tonight that new projections showed the Medicare trust fund would not go bankrupt until late in 1990's.

Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17 1985: Last spring, the government estimated that the Medicare trust fund would run out of money by 1998. Given less optimistic assumptions about the economy, it could happen as soon as 1992

Washington Post, April 1, 1986: The Medicare hospital insurance program faces bankruptcy by 1996, two years earlier than projected last year.

Chicago Tribune, June 29, 1986: Dr. Jerald Schenken of Omaha, an AMA trustee, said the doctors have worked for more than two years on formulating the plan, because they fear the current Medicare system will go bankrupt by the end of the century.

New York Times, May 22, 1988: Reflecting the view of the Reagan Administration, Dr. William L. Roper, the head of the Federal Medicare and Medicaid agency, said, ''With the Medicare Trust Fund expected to go insolvent shortly after 2000, it is hard for us to sign on for a major expansion of the Medicare program beyond the catastrophic care bill.''

New York Times, January 22, 1989: The fund that pays all Government reimbursement for hospital care of Medicare patients is projected to become insolvent in the next decade or so.

Washington Post May 4, 1990: Control of health costs is considered by many experts to be the number one health problem in the United States. Such costs are expected to bankrupt Medicare by the year 2003.

Washington Post December 13, 1994: The trust fund that finances Medicare is projected to become insolvent in the year 2001

Los Angeles Times May 31, 1995: For weeks, Republicans have been talking about a report that warns that Medicare is in danger of going bankrupt in the year 2002.

Chicago Tribune April 25, 1997: Medicare trustees said Thursday that the program providing health care to more than 38 million senior citizens is still headed for bankruptcy in 2001.

Chicago Tribune, January 7, 1999: [The National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare] was created in 1997 to deal with Medicare's projected bankruptcy in 2008.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/03/981508/-Reports-of-Medicares-demise-are-%28still%29-greatly-exaggerated?via=blog_

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 12:26 PM
It's all explained in the CBO report, but I guess you are too lazy to do the research yourself.

The subsidies would be paid directly to the insurance company, not the recipient. There would be no 3,000 to put into a medical spending account unless it was out of the pocket of the recipient. Under the current medicare plan, the CBO projects that spending would be 15,000 per capita in 2022, but under the Ryan plan spending would be 8,000. The difference would have to be made up by either the state or the individual since the cost would be the same.Doesn't matter. If the voucher is paid to the insurance company, they would take the cost for the plan and roll the remainder into a medical spending account, tax free. If the subsidy was $10k, and the policy was $7k, the amount in the MSA would be $3k, which would be used --for medical expenses only-- for office visits, etc. until the deductible is met, depending on what that amount is. Once the deductible and total out-of-pocket are met, insurance picks up the costs at 100%.

That's how insurance works.

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 12:28 PM
Are you a retard,or do you just play one on the internet..Is that another one of your ''characters?''

If healthy young people are paying $500.00 a month for health insurance,how much do you think old people who have pre existing conditions will pay?

As it is now,people are paying more for insurance than they do for their rent or mortgages..With Ryan's plan, the exchange offering the plans would have no pre-existing clause, and all Seniors would be covered regardless of health status.

bairdi
06-05-2011, 12:32 PM
Doesn't matter. If the voucher is paid to the insurance company, they would take the cost for the plan and roll the remainder into a medical spending account, tax free. If the subsidy was $10k, and the policy was $7k, the amount in the MSA would be $3k, which would be used --for medical expenses only-- for office visits, etc. until the deductible is met, depending on what that amount is. Once the deductible and total out-of-pocket are met, insurance picks up the costs at 100%.

That's how insurance works.
Please provide something, anything to substantiate that claim. I think you pulled that piece of bs out of your arse. What part of projected costs are explected to be $15,000 and Ryan's plan would pay $8,000 didn't you quite understand.

anatta
06-05-2011, 01:17 PM
Ryan does not want to fix medicare, he wants to replace it with a plan driven by private insurance. Currently medicare is a single payer plan that works quite well but needs adjustments to insure its continuation. Did you mean that you heard that medicare was insolvent, not sustainable? If that is the case, these claims have been made for years.


actually I heard that unemplotment extensions, corporate welfare, and our entire entitlement programs are headed towards insolvency.

Since each is a different money stream, and since I am not n accountant -
it's very difficult to seperate fact from fiction.

I STILL don't see any plans by the Dems' -are there any yet?

You say: "needs adjustments to insure it's continuation" OK.seems reasonable
do the Dem's have any such plans - and could you possibly take the time to at least mention them? TY -Cos

nondual
06-05-2011, 01:35 PM
With Ryan's plan, the exchange offering the plans would have no pre-existing clause, and all Seniors would be covered regardless of health status.
Yeah, but at what cost?

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 01:37 PM
Yeah, but at what cost?
It depends on what plan they choose.

nondual
06-05-2011, 01:40 PM
actually I heard that unemplotment extensions, corporate welfare, and our entire entitlement programs are headed towards insolvency.

Since each is a different money stream, and since I am not n accountant -
it's very difficult to seperate fact from fiction.
AlterNet / By Joshua Holland

The 9 Biggest Conservative Lies About Taxes and Public Spending (http://www.alternet.org/story/149265/the_9_biggest_conservative_lies_about_taxes_and_pu blic_spending)

Here are the things the corporate media won't tell you about the tax-cut rhetoric in Washington.

December 19, 2010 | It’s difficult to know where to begin deconstructing conservative rhetoric on taxes and spending. It's such a central part of their worldview, and yet it's a view informed by a whole slew of falsehoods that have been repeated again and again during this year's debates over the Bush tax cuts, public spending and the deficit. What follows are nine of the biggest fact-free whoppers that conservatives insist are true.

bairdi
06-05-2011, 02:08 PM
actually I heard that unemplotment extensions, corporate welfare, and our entire entitlement programs are headed towards insolvency.

Since each is a different money stream, and since I am not n accountant -
it's very difficult to seperate fact from fiction.

I STILL don't see any plans by the Dems' -are there any yet?

You say: "needs adjustments to insure it's continuation" OK.seems reasonable
do the Dem's have any such plans - and could you possibly take the time to at least mention them? TY -Cos
In my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, Obama attempted to address the rising costs of Medicare by addressing the rising cost of healthcare in general. That was the reason why he put so much effort and time into getting a healthcare bill passed. Since medical costs are such a large proportion of the expense of government, this only made sense. Because opposition from the right was so great, primarily because of fundamental differences in political philosophies, he had to settle for what he got. It's not everything one would wish, but it is a start.

I've read that an idea floating around out there is to let everyone that wants, to opt in to Medicare and use this existing program as a public option. I believe most Dems would support this and specualte that it will be presented in one form or another after the next presidential election, should the Dems retain control.

As an election strategy, presenting an alternative plan at this time is a losing issue for the Dems. Why would they want to change the narrative now that the Republicans have hung themselves with the Ryan plan? Their smartest course of action, again in my opinion, is to do nothing at this time and just keep pounding the Repubs.

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:24 PM
1. Cutting Taxes Leads to More Money for the Government


Conservatives can't say they oppose popular programs on ideological grounds, and they can't admit they're happy to run up huge budget deficits, so they've come up with the fiction that cutting taxes actually brings in more revenues to finance the public sector.


What's especially brazen about this is that it's usually preceded by debate-stifling phrases such as “as everyone knows,” “history shows us” or “every single time taxes have been cut.”


In 2007, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said, “Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues”; Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, claimed that “Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue," and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY said earlier this year that the myth represented “the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."


It's also complete nonsense (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001914.htm), and it's worth noting that only conservative politicians and pundits make the claim -- economists across the ideological spectrum agree that the argument is cursed by voodoo math.


As Time Magazine's (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html) Justin Fox (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html) noted in 2007, "Every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves—and were never intended to.” Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, dedicated a whole section of his economics textbook to debunking the claim.


And in an opinion column in the Wall Street Journal responding to Bush's claim that "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," Andrew Samwick, who served as chief economist on Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote, “You are smart people....You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues... You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues.”

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:29 PM
2. Conservatives' Favorite Economist Proves the Point

As I note in my book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (http://www.amazon.com/Fifteen-Biggest-Lies-about-Economy/dp/0470643927), that falsehood is based in large part on an abuse of “Laffer’s curve,” the conservative media’s favorite economic theorem. The idea, first scribbled on a cocktail napkin by economist Arthur Laffer (according to lore), is pretty simple. It holds that you can raise income taxes to a degree, but when the top tax rate exceeds a certain point, people will go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid paying the piper that the government will actually end up collecting less revenue.

When Dylan Matthews asked a number of experts (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html) where the Laffer Curve “bends” for theWashington Post, the economists (he asked some conservative opinion columnists as well) all agreed that a top rate of 50 percent – several went as high as 70 percent – would still fall below the curve. That's important to keep in mind as we debate the merits of letting the top rate return to the 39 percent that prevailed during the Clinton years.

Each time taxes have been cut in the past few decades, it's led to a drop in revenues, which is why people like McCain like to go back to the Kennedy era, when cutting the top rate did spur growth and bring more money into the government's coffers. What they don't mention is that Kennedy cut the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, which has no bearing on the debate we're having today.*

*The "Kennedy tax cuts" were signed into law by Johnson, a year after JFK's assassination.

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:32 PM
3. Taxes on the Rich Keep 'Wealth Producers' from 'Creating Jobs'

We're all familiar with this one. In a New York Post column last week, Fox Business columnist Charles Gasparino claimed that businesses have "been hoarding cash instead of hiring" because of "the likelihood for higher taxes.” Media Matters responded (http://mediamatters.org/research/201012150006) by citing the CBO's finding that "[i]ncreasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive" to hire.

What's noteworthy about the narrative is the degree to which it defies simple common sense. It shouldn't be a matter of debate that only one thing creates jobs, and that's demand for companies' goods and services. The idea that a business that was booming would refuse to hire people and forego expansion because top tax rates might nudge upward is as silly as the idea that a business that has no customers would add new employees because its owners expect taxes to be low.

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:35 PM
4. The Opposite: Tax Cuts for Upper Earners Spur Job Growth

Demand creates jobs, and U.S. Demand is way down because American households lost around $15 trillion dollars in wealth during the downturn. So it's important to note that research has shown that when you give a tax break to high-earners, they bank it (http://www.alternet.org/story/148185/more_tax_cuts_for_the_rich_no_way!_--_6_key_points_about_the_tax_debate_raging_in_washi ngton/?page=2), and when you give relief to working people, they spend it, increasing demand.

Like other types of public spending, giving cuts to those at the top does stimulate the economy, but very, very badly. According Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's, a dollar in tax cuts on capital gains adds .38 cents of economic growth and a dollar in corporate tax cuts brings us just .30 cents worth of stimulus, but a dollar in unemployment benefits gives the economy a boost of $1.63 and a buck worth of food stamps adds $1.73 in stimulus (PDF (http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf)).

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:37 PM
5. Only Half of American Families Pay Taxes

Rush Limbaugh put it this way: “The bottom 50 percent is paying a tiny bit of the taxes.... Remember this the next time you hear the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.”

That's an entirely false narrative that emerges from some rather transparent sleight-of-hand. You have to look at the federal income tax in isolation and then pretend that it represents the government’s entire take. But the reality is that the government isn't financed from federal income taxes alone – far from it. Payroll taxes, for example, represent the biggest tax bite for the average worker.

When you add it all up—state and local taxes, federal taxes, sales taxes and excise fees—it turns out that the rich, the poor, and those in between all end up with about the same tax rate. That’s the conclusion of a 2007 study by Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson. They summarized, “The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.”

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:38 PM
6. Americans Are Taxed to Death

This is one of those claims made so frequently that it becomes a matter of faith. But faith doesn't rely on fact, and this one is totally untrue.

In 2008, we ranked 26th out of the 30 countries (http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/Facts-and-figures/Taxes/Taxes-and-GDP/Tax-as-a-percentage-of-GDP/) in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in terms of our overall tax burden -- the share of our economy we fork over to the government. The U.S.came in almost 9 percentage points below the average of the group of wealthy nations, and some 20 percentage points below highly taxed countries like Denmark.

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:40 PM
7. We're Being Killed by Runaway Government Spending

Public spending has increased with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, temporarily, with the stimulus package. And it will rise in the future as more baby boomers retire. But beyond that, it's important to understand how “limited” our government really is relative to other wealthy countries.

Sabina Dewan and Michael Ettlinger of the Center for American Progress crunched the data and found that between 2004 and 2007, the U.S. ranked 24th out of 26 OECD countries in overall government spending (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/oecd_spending.html) as a share of our economic output. Only Ireland and South Korea, both relative newcomers to the club, had a more “limited government” than we did during that span. Again, we came in around 7 percentage points of GDP below the OECD average -- and almost 20 percentage points beneath that of big spenders like France

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:45 PM
8. Conservatives Favor Low Taxes and Limited Government

The Right loves “Big Government” as long as it's pursuing their preferred agenda. What they don't like are the government's most popular functions – assuring a social safety net, protecting consumers and the environment, subsidizing education, etc. They don't want to debate priorities, so they claim an ideological preference for a smaller government while showering tons of money on the military, law-enforcement, corporate subsidies, etc.

That's why the share of the economy represented by government spending (at the local, state, and federal levels combined) has been remarkably consistent during the last 40 years or so, regardless of which party controlled the White House or Congress.

In the two years that Gerald Ford presented budgets, government spending as a share of GDP averaged 31.4 percent; in ultra-liberal Jimmy Carter’s four years, it dropped to 30.7 percent; Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of fiscal conservatism, came into office, and it rose to 32.2 percent. It nudged slightly higher during the first George Bush’s term in office, then dropped to an almost Nixonian 30.3 percent during the Clinton years, before rising to 31.6 percent during the second Bush administration.

Looking at the other side of the ledger, overall government revenues have also remained relatively stable, but the pattern is reversed. The government’s take, as a share of GDP, dropped during the Ford era, rose again under Carter, and fell again under Reagan. Revenues rose by almost 2 percent under Clinton and fell by a percent and a half under George W. Bush. (The only exception: government revenues rose from 27.3 percent of GDP during the Reagan years to 27.6 percent under George Herbert Walker Bush – that was the “peace dividend.”)

Although the government taxes and spends at fairly similar rates, under Republican leadership the nation shells out a bit more for government services and takes in just a bit less in taxes. With a $15 trillion economy, those little differences add up to pretty big deficits, and this, rather than hot school lunches for poor kids, is responsible for a large chunk of our federal debt.

Given that reality, it's a wonder that conservatives have managed to convince the mainstream media and much of the country that they’re the fiscally responsible ones who are always ready to step in and clean up the nation’s budgetary mess.

nondual
06-05-2011, 03:48 PM
9. Taxes on Top Earners Are Actually Taxes on 'Small Businesses'

For years, Republicans have pushed the spin that most of the Bush cuts for the highest earners were going to “small business owners,” the proverbial lifeblood of Small Town U.S.A. Then Republican national committee chair Ed Gillespie launched the meme in a 2003 speech, saying that “80% of the tax relief for upper income filers goes to small businesses.”

Fact-check.org, the nonpartisan campaign watchdog, looked at the claim, which was cooked up by GOP staffers on the House Economic Committee, and concluded (http://www.factcheck.org/puncturing_a_republican_tax_fable.html) that “it’s untrue—and a classic example of a statistical distortion gone amok.” The lie is pretty simple: around 80 percent of the wealthiest Americans report some business income on their tax returns, either from private partnerships (think big law firms) or from “hobby” businesses. And the GOP committee counted everyone who reported even a dollar on Schedule C of their returns as a “small business owner.”

The reality? Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by people in the top two income brackets. As a Washington Post analysis concluded (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html), “If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.”

MarkMiller
06-05-2011, 04:07 PM
If I can actually find a link to the plan to read it, I might be able to able to understand what the problems are or are not, but I am not going to discuss it from the crap I see pundits and politicians talking about in bits and pieces. About the only thing that is clear to me about it.....is that even the Republican candidates are afraid of it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/05/2252331/ryan-medicare-plan-puts-gop-candidates.html

California Chrome
06-05-2011, 04:12 PM
If I can actually find I link to the plan to read it, I might be able to able to understand what the problems are or are not, but I am not going to discuss it from the crap I see pundits and politicians talking about in bits and pieces. About the only thing that is clear to me about it.....is that even the Republican candidates are afraid of it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/05/2252331/ryan-medicare-plan-puts-gop-candidates.htmlI found it Mark.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/fy2012FullReportText.pdf

anatta
06-05-2011, 04:24 PM
In my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, Obama attempted to address the rising costs of Medicare by addressing the rising cost of healthcare in general. That was the reason why he put so much effort and time into getting a healthcare bill passed. Since medical costs are such a large proportion of the expense of government, this only made sense. Because opposition from the right was so great, primarily because of fundamental differences in political philosophies, he had to settle for what he got. It's not everything one would wish, but it is a start.

I've read that an idea floating around out there is to let everyone that wants, to opt in to Medicare and use this existing program as a public option. I believe most Dems would support this and specualte that it will be presented in one form or another after the next presidential election, should the Dems retain control.

As an election strategy, presenting an alternative plan at this time is a losing issue for the Dems. Why would they want to change the narrative now that the Republicans have hung themselves with the Ryan plan? Their smartest course of action, again in my opinion, is to do nothing at this time and just keep pounding the Repubs.
wouldn't that be a PO by another name? I am starting to "get it", and yes I cannot argue the old maxim in politics ( or war)

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." ( Napoleon Bonaparte ).
It's good politics, but not helpful for the country for the Dem's NOT to put out a plan.
Such is the nature of partisian politics, i can't argue with your logic, and TY for the taking the time to answer.

Thai Kimchi
06-05-2011, 04:24 PM
Ryan Medicare plan puts GOP candidates on the spot


Jeebus, no shit!

Obama has some SERIOUS economic headwinds to deal with, around 25-35% due to his sloppy jobs stimulus efffort[?] (caving to the Pukes, in that 40% of the stimulus package went to tax cuts) - but now? Ryan is like doubling or tripling the 'Palin Effect' on Repuke street cred. The GOBP knows how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory just as well as the Dems, apparently. Freakin bozos.

MarkMiller
06-05-2011, 04:28 PM
I found it Mark.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/fy2012FullReportText.pdf
Thank you. Will have to spend the time to pour over it!