Arkansas Blog

"What he'll do about the ensuing increased deficit ..."

Why, the same thing all repugnant Repukes would do - pass it on to their grandchildren.

I'm now thankful that we are barren.

Huey Long would be real proud.

makes one wonder if perhaps the Mayan Calendar is true?

Seems to be a Baptist thing -- give more to the needy. And the truly needy are . . .?
In my extended family, it seems to be 40-something children, with jobs and in demand work skills, and their grown young'uns who have drained Ma/Grandma of nearly a 100 grand and five -- count 'em -- five cars since her husband died two years ago.
And she still says, "The Lord will take care of me, just has he always has." Want to start a fight? Try to tell her that her husband "took care" of her for fifty years and he's not around to do it anymore.
In Huck's glorious Baptist world, it's defense contractors, and building contractors, and maybe medical research guys, who will take care of the rest of us if we shove pallets of money their way.
More of that old trickle down economic voodoo. See you in the poor house.

As with any tax, there are optimum tax rates that maximize revenue. Raising taxes doesn't always increase revenue, and lowering taxes doesn't always reduce revenue. Naturally, dropping a tax to 0% (i.e. removing the so called death tax), is guaranteed to reduce revenues. In fact, it's likely to reduce revenues to pretty much nothing. The revenues aren't quite 0% because those inheriting the money will pay some tax on their winnings. I can only assume that Huckabee is too stupid to understand economics regarding optimum tax rates.

Warren Buffett is a very smart man. When Warren says that extremely rich people like him should pay higher estate taxes to allow for lower tax rates for the middle class, I tend to believe him. However, one should set tax rates to maximize revenue rather than to punish people for having too much wealth. Raising rates too high results in tax avoidance which yields less revenue.

Don't worry! Once he outlaws all abortions, all those kergillions of new kids will be more than happy to toil all day long to pay off the Republican debts. Maybe we'll have huge orphanages of unwanted urchins who we can use as slave labor. It will be like Charles Dickens with cell phones and jet packs. Man, this guy is starting to sound better all the time.

Raising rates too high results in tax avoidance which yields less revenue.<M

Yes the balance is important. However cutting IRS compliance staff by 50%, as Shit4Brains did, also reduces revenue. My old tax professor used to say that if you tax people more they work harder. Maybe higher taxes is the answer to our obesity problems.

Again Huck is selling ........ S-I-Z-Z-L-E.

Where's the beef?

Why am I wasting time posting about a showman who fall to oblivion in 45 days?

I challenge anyone to find a person who will say that their own taxes are too low or a politician to admit that we are dishonest. It just isn't in our nature.

Repugpublican continually accuse dems of being tax-and-spenders. However the republicans have embraced the "untax and deficit spend" (shop until you drop) battle cry. With little knowledge, intense peer pressure, only fantasy stories to guide their economic decisions, the republican party is acting like a teenager with a hand full of credit cards, borrowing from their parents with no intent of paying it back, bestowing gifts upon their wealthy running buddies, and believing that mystical thinking will pay it all back.

They hang onto that profligate lifestyle as long as it is the "other guy" who doesn't have money for food, housing, health care, a clean environment. At the time the "other guys" come banging on their doors, the republicans blame democrats for giving the people false expectations about the role of government and the people for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

As far as the burgeoning debt, the republicans simply utter some incantation that more tax cuts for their wealthy friends, more loans from foreign countries, draining the remaining public trust funds (Social Security), and cutting the essential government obligations to the poor and middle class will fix the ecomony.

Congress approved 696 billion defense budget last month. that doesn't include any war funding.. or what we spend for defense via intel or through many hidden places like the energy department.. or how much in interest due to the fact most of the defense spending is on the bank of China credit card.. We are spending well over a trillion dollars a year on death/MIC now.

"...Why am I wasting time posting about a showman who fall to oblivion in 45 days?"

I'm guessing it's because President Shit for Brains' stolen presidency is evidence that the presidency isn't safe from our worst citizens. Growing up 'we' usually thought it was our best/brightest classmates who were going to EARN the presidency. Little did we know that it was going to be the snobby 'little' jerk who didn't bother with any of that 'education' stuff who was going to slither his way to the top. I like my former delusion better. But that's just my guess.

(for you zonker.)

"...Why am I wasting time posting about a showman who fall to oblivion in 45 days?"

You're wasting your time for entertainment purposes, just like the rest of us.

(Wikipedia says defense spending in 2007 was half-a-trillion. Huck, thus would boost it at current income levels to $750 billion.)

Come on Max, since when did Wikipedia qualify as a valid resource? For all you know I could have typed that part of the entry. Nice journalism there. That ranks right up there with your lacing your posts with your opinion rather than just posting the facts and letting us decide for ourselves before being influenced by you.

Last time i checked, the dem's control congress. All the spending since Jan 2007 has been approved by the Dem's.

Last time i checked, the dem's control congress. All the spending since Jan 2007 has been approved by the Dem's.

Posted by: southarkie

<<<<<<<<

Good point.. There are a lot of Republicans in Dem clothing in congress (Such as Mike Ross). The vast majority of the congresssriters who are voting NO, are true Democrats.. Almost no Republicans aside from Ron Paul are trying to hold back this spending.

...such as Mark Pryor!!

James, unfortnuately, arguing about the source doesn't disprove Max's point. I checked the US defense spending for 2007. It was $522 billion dollars. Slightly more than half-a-trillion as stated.

FYI, that amount represents about half of the entire military spending in the entire world as well as half of our entire budget.

1) Fact: roughly 900 US combat deaths in Iraq in 2007; roughly 8375 murders in the US in 2007.
Who is more likely to use weapons on a college student or a shopper or a neighborhood child or you - an American crazy or some jihadist freak?

2) Fact: in 2004, average cost per American for health care was $6280; projections show that will be nearly doubled by 2012; 7 out of 10 people die of a chronic disease.

Why is it that people talk about national security being necessary in one breath and then turn around and condemn universal health care in the next? Which is more likely to affect your welfare and income - a debilitating disease or a ragheaded terrorist?

We already spend far too much on war and too little on education, health, and our nation's infrastructure. It is madness! What else can we expect as long as mad men like Bush and Cheney and the theocrat Huckster sell their souls to the military-industrial complex. We use to be the land of the free and the home of the brave but you wouldn't know it with these Bozos.

jake-the cons some people see with universal health care:

A) the government should not be in control of our health. (and i know you guided me to some sites on this topic that i have not yet checked out so) the government should not have anything to do with my care, in that the government basically f's up everything they touch. government programs in general are inefficiently run and ineffective.
B) anyone who wants/needs health care today can in fact get health care...
we look at the money we have put into S-Chip (in arkansas, AR Kids First) and the fact that 1/3 of the people eligible won't even sign up for it because they don't want to pay the $15 copay? so this money, MY money taken from my income is dumped into a pot and not being utilized. then, more of my tax dollars are spent at the government level for the free health care these same people got for free.
if you need health care and you work, pay taxes, have health insurance, then something terrible happens that your insurance does not fully cover, the hospital will work with you on re-payment
i am not saying our health care system is perfect, but government take over is not the answer
C) examples of universal health care are not very promising.

with all that said, i am going to now go do more research. i may change my mind, but these are the reasons opponents to UHC are opponents.

i don't think comparing health care to military spending is fair. keeping our country safe is THE priority of our government. without that safety we would not be enjoying the luxuries of the democracy that we live in today. has the spending been excessive-probably, but do you think it has been worth dismantling much of al-qaeda, immobilizing bin laden, taking down hussein. maybe you don't, maybe you do not see terrorists as a threat to america. i don't understand that, but i respect your opinion. i also am glad that we have done what we have done, because to be honest i don't want to take the chance. pro-actively stopping another 9/11 is worth it to me. i wish it was not so expensive but i don't see spending for my life and liberty as madness. thank you for using the term ragheaded-i have a little more respect for you. OH, and this does not mean i agree with huck, just coining in on some points.

Jake - you might consider the point I was making and that it had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the numbers, but everything to do with Max's journalistic integrity... or lack of. Maybe Max should have conducted the same research you did.

Driving by..

MAK

A) Without current Government involvement in health care.. There would have been almost no R&D money, No Medicare and Medicaid, No school or tuition for most of our health care professionals.. The Government in the good old USA is We The People! When you shout down the government ... you say We The People cannot and should not be taking care of ourselves.. only people in it for profit should be.. SPit out the Regan juice, James.. it's been poisoning our country for far to long with deadly results, no life embracing at all. Explain to me how Private industry receive all of these perks and money.. yet fails to actually provide care for everyone.. Profit VS Care is not working.. We need to reward great work, great care provided by people.. not continue rewarding thieves and industry who could care less if you die or pay your bills..even when you have paid into their insurance system. Explain to my how Medicare maintains less than 5 percent overhead.. and the average HMO costs 33 percent.. often 40? I don't see starving striking Medicaid employees in our streets.. but I do see a lot of private insurance co employees drowning in money while denying people health care.

B) You said: B) "anyone who wants/needs health care today can in fact get health care"... If you really believe that.. you must be in perfect health and never speak to a neighbor, co-worker or have any friends who are not multi millionaires.

<<<<<<<
i don't think comparing health care to military spending is fair.. keeping our country safe is THE priority of our government. without that safety we would not be enjoying the luxuries of the democracy that we live in today. has the spending been excessive-probably, but do you think it has been worth dismantling much of al-qaeda, immobilizing bin laden, taking down hussein.
<<<<<

Again the framing is so flawed.. stop avoiding the answers while running for false fear based questions. I mean .. Did we turn to G.E. or Boeing on 9-11 and say where were you guys?!! Why didn't you defend us? No we turned to Chimpy McFlight suit who ignored advance warnings of the imminent attacks by a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians with a few dollars worth of sharp instruments from an American Wal-Mart ..and we turned around spent trillions to practically wipe two nations of innocent human beings off the map.. insuring hundreds of millions of people now despise us..and they were on our side when we were attacked. The largest Pro USA demonstrations in the Middle East during the week following 9-11 were the Iranian people!

When someone gets on a plane with TB..Does Allstate do a nation/worldwide search for any and all people who may have been infected and are now spreading the disease? Hell no! Public Health of everyone is a matter of national security.. and a lot of wealthy people are failing to get how lack of health care for all threatens them, perhaps most of all. Who used to make sure all kids get vaccines? I don't know how that is all managed in schools today.. but I would imagine most children are vaccinated against several major diseases only because of government involvement on several levels. Does your insurance company work hard to do anything preventative.. except figure out how not to pay your claims while raising your rates?

get real MAK

Thanks both to James & MAK for attempting to provide some calm reason to your points (although you need to have data/research, MAK, to prove your points).

Thanks to Eureka for an insightful reply to which I can add very little other than my support and cheer.

The weakest point in MAK's argument is that universal health care does not work in most other places. If that were the case, then why is the United States practically the only major country without it? What is needed is not national health insurance only like Canada but a system that combines universal health care with private insurance. The US gov't already pays for over 45% of the health care in this country.

If you think about it, we provide a fire department and a police force to serve every citizen and provide them security. It seems rather Scrooge like to not promote and provide health care for all your citizens. There are a lot of benefits to the country if we are healthier.

Agreed Jake da Snake, if we are spending $6200 per capita per person.. Then everyone paying into insurance now could transfer insurance bills to tax payments for much less and rest assured everyone, fellow worker, fellow citizen, student, are as healthy and productive as well as safe as possible.

Why these greedy folks would rather pay more and ensure millions suffer needlessly while potentially threatening their own health.. well it amazes me and says so much about their very soul. However, this is also Hillary and Barack's plan (mandating we all buy private insurance) so I guess they are not alone.

eureka
i dont't think i said gov't should have no involvement with any part of healthcare... i believe what i said is that gov't should not be in control of our health care -BIG DIFFERENCE there.
welfare is a BS program that is GROSSLY abused because gov't programs such as that are too inefficient...when you look at how much money is spent to simply employ the overseers of the money-ridiculous. welfare LITERALLY rewards failure at the cost of those who are trying to succeed... this is a system where haves and havenots will exist. i really am sorry there are people that think they don't need to work. people that make minimum wage and have 5 kids out of wedlock-not my f-ing problem!! (welfare not medicade or medicare)
perhaps uhc works in theory. why don't you talk to some brits, canadians, cubans and ask them what they think. maybe canadians love their health care-but i can't figure why -if they do-they keep coming to america to see a doctor. am sure the cubans love their health care -holes in the hospital floors, rats and all). i am sick and tired of my tax dollars paying for ineffective gov't programs which is exactly what universal health care will turn into.
my parents have been paying for my little sister's accident for about three years. it is almost paid off and the hospital was wonderful working with my parents on a payment plan.... i fit into "low mid class" i guess (less than 40K/year) and of all my family anf friends...i don't know anyone who has not been able to find a way to deal with their health...i know our system is not perfect, but i don't think uhc is the fix.
your thinking is flawed. if it were up to you we would be in a class-less system with sub-standard health care, we would roll over and hide at the face of attack. WE HAVE been protected since 9/11 (like it or not). we have had no other attacks. i don't give a damn if anyone in the middle east like us-we are the hegemonic power-very few will like us. but by God ( or darwin or hale bop) we will notallow terrorism to take over countries where they will have the ability to continue building their network and weapons...
use just a little common sense before you open your mouth....

eureka
i dont't think i said gov't should have no involvement with any part of healthcare... i believe what i said is that gov't should not be in control of our health care -BIG DIFFERENCE there.
welfare is a BS program that is GROSSLY abused because gov't programs such as that are too inefficient...when you look at how much money is spent to simply employ the overseers of the money-ridiculous. welfare LITERALLY rewards failure at the cost of those who are trying to succeed... this is a system where haves and havenots will exist. i really am sorry there are people that think they don't need to work. people that make minimum wage and have 5 kids out of wedlock-not my f-ing problem!! (welfare not medicade or medicare)
perhaps uhc works in theory. why don't you talk to some brits, canadians, cubans and ask them what they think. maybe canadians love their health care-but i can't figure why -if they do-they keep coming to america to see a doctor. am sure the cubans love their health care -holes in the hospital floors, rats and all). i am sick and tired of my tax dollars paying for ineffective gov't programs which is exactly what universal health care will turn into.
my parents have been paying for my little sister's accident for about three years. it is almost paid off and the hospital was wonderful working with my parents on a payment plan.... i fit into "low mid class" i guess (less than 40K/year) and of all my family anf friends...i don't know anyone who has not been able to find a way to deal with their health...i know our system is not perfect, but i don't think uhc is the fix.
your thinking is flawed. if it were up to you we would be in a class-less system with sub-standard health care, we would roll over and hide at the face of attack. WE HAVE been protected since 9/11 (like it or not). we have had no other attacks. i don't give a damn if anyone in the middle east like us-we are the hegemonic power-very few will like us. but by God ( or darwin or hale bop) we will notallow terrorism to take over countries where they will have the ability to continue building their network and weapons...
use just a little common sense before you open your mouth....

MAK, again you are weak on the facts of the matter. You lack data, research, etc. to support your claims. Unforunately for you, the information published disagrees with your assumptions (they usually call it "fiction").

There are good & bad systems of universal health care. Canada & Britain are two that are completely national and also are the most condemned of the systems (mostly by Americans, mind you). The number of Canadian patients coming to America would be interesting to your debate but you do not provide a source on that. The French system is a combination of American and Canadian ideas and is considered far better than both. It does cost in taxes however. The counter argument has been that productivity and worker health is better; infant mortality is much lower, and ALL have insurance.

Although James likes to be a snob about wiki, on major issues they do fairly well (since both sides contribute frequently and the editors have to be more intent on keeping it balanced). So, try this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

You'll find pros/cons/data, etc.

If you click on my name, you will find quite an interesting article that supports an unusually interesting & challenging concept -- getting away from employer supported health care plans. Read it. You might find it something you would support.

It should be telling that the ones most against this proposal are the doctors & the insurance companies, all who are raking in the cash at your expense.

Finally, if you want a summation of the UHC arguments for both sides, go to:

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

This is a great site. Click on HOME and you will be taken to the main page where a host of topics are listed. Click on any and you will see both sides of the issue presented.

Anyway, national health insurance and the US system both have problems. There are plusses for each one and negatives for each. I support a plan which provides UHC and allows the best of both systems to be incorporated. I'm also becoming curious if the proposal by Clive Crook (from The Atlantic I posted to click on my name) has merit. He offers some appealing reasons why we should drop employer HC plans.

BTW, I listened to a Canadian Doctor discuss both the US & Canadian systems. He said the US system was quite efficient provided you had health insurance and lots of money but it was brutal and ruthless if you did not or if you had the infamous "pre-existing condition." That alone is enough to condemn the system for me. Does it make sense to not help you when you're sick because you've already been sick before with the same illness or problem? Add "heartless" to the list.

jake-thank you for the site. i did look at this along with several others you mentioned earlier. yes, based on the facts given to us, this looks great in theory. however, it seems to me government programs are not run very efficiently. actually, they ARE NOT run very well. my husband is in medical, every single doctor i talk to says, that though our system we have now needs improvement, hillary's plan is not the way. not so say that with some tweeking, hillary's plan would not work, but that is what the men and women that are saving lives every day think. i can read "facts" all day long, but these "facts" are still based on theory.
i appreciate your guidance on this, and will look forward to looking into this some more and following throughout the electioin season.

Your welcome, MAK. What you must consider, considering your concerns about the gov't, is that there still is a world of difference between having a somewhat mismanaged gov't run system vs having no system whatsoever. Those people without any health coverage or who are dropped for pre-existing conditions or who fall between the huge cracks in our current system wouldn't mind having some hope rather than face the closed doors under the current system.

The old saying holds: "I complained about having no shoes until I met who had no feet."