Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Source is the AP
Published on March 20, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics


We very often hear that the private sector is more efficient then government. That is one of the GOP axioms. In an earlier Blog I provided data that showed the cost to provide support in combat zones to our military is several times MORE expensive when provided by private companies then by military manpower.

Now the same thing exists in the Medicare program. Some years ago the claim was that it would be less expensive to have Medicare administered by private companies then the traditional Medicare system. About 8 of the 43 Million seniors receive their medical care from private companies like Humana. A House Subcommittee has been looking at the cost to provide health care to seniors by there private companies. What they found is that it is costing Medicare 19% MORE to provide the same medical care to seniors then the same care administered by traditional Medicare staff. That translates to an added cost of $65 Billion dollars over a five year period to have Medicare administered by private companies.

Democrats are pushing to lower the payments to private companies administering Medicare to the same cost as experienced by traditional Medicare staff. We need to reexamine this notion that the private sector can always provide service in a more cost effective manor then the government!

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 24, 2007
MythicalMino

The Republicans want the rich to get richer, and the Democrats want the poor to get poorer. I agree that the Republicans want the Rich to become Richer. The Democrats want to see that those WHO NEED help get the help they need. I do not want to hand out our tax money to those that refuse to work. Where it becomes a problem is when you have people that do not work and have children. To refuse to help children that have parents that will not do their part is saying that the innocent are to be ignored! That is not what I believe we should do and it is certainly not the Christian thing to do.

My problem with the position Dragional takes is that he would turn his back on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which are needed. Almost ALL retired Americans could not afford health care without Medicare and they are too old to seek alternate solutions. All but the top 20% or so also need their Social Security. Dragional has said balance the budget by cutting or eliminating the programs the VAST MAJORITY NEED so people with far more then they will EVER NEED can have a little more. You can call that what you want. I do not agree with that and the VAST majority of Americans would not cut off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid so the wealthy can keep their tax cuts.

Also the issue that none of the Bushies will address is that the Bush tax cuts were predicated on a LIE-- there was a SURPLUS that we needed to returned to the American Taxpayers. Just like WMD there was NO SURPLUS!
on Mar 24, 2007

You truly are a socialist. That is a LIE. During the 1990's you are saying America was a communist state? You are full of BS. You just want to keep more of your surplus while the poor and disabled have nothing and our country piles up the debt so future generations are burdened by our refusal to PAY FOR WHAT WE SPEND!

If I quote you insisting that we tax and spend based purely based on what people can pay to give to people who "need" (you capitalized the word "need" 5 times in the one paragraph I quoted) then yes, you are a socialist.

Your philosophy is literally text book socialism.

on Mar 24, 2007

I'm going to quote Gene's rant again:

If we taxed the rich more we could balance the budget, pay down the debt, and be able to help those that NEED HELP. We could keep the promises made to the Boomers for Social Security and Medicare. All but the very rich NEED Social Security and Medicare. The Rich do not NEED tax cuts. It is a choice between WHAT the majority of people NEED and WHAT the rich WANT! I Pick NEED over WANT!

Gene says taht the rich should pay because they have the money and that that money should be given to those based on "need".

This is classic socialism.

Again:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
-Karl Marx

If someone wants to explain how Gene's statement doesn't match with what the founder of Communism said, I'd love to hear it.  Gene insisting it's a "lie" to state that Gene is a socialist (at best but really he's almost a classic communist) is unimpressive.

 

on Mar 24, 2007
Draginol

What I am saying is that we need about $600-700 Billion MORE per year to meet the spending Congress and the President approve and to begin repaying the National debt. I said that added tax should come from those that have the ability to pay more without creating problems for them to live and meet their obligations. The top 20% do not live from pay check to pay check and a slightly increased tax will not have a negative impact on spending. They will pay the added tax from their Surplus which will only lower the growth rate of their accumulated wealth! The fact that the economy and the wealthy did so well during the 1990’s when rates were higher prove that slightly higher taxes will not harm the economy or the wealthy. Please do not tell me that investment will decline because we already know that the increased tax revenue from the investment taking place because of the Bush Tax cuts to the wealthy is only offsetting ½ the lost tax revenue from the tax cuts. The Comptroller General has documented that result. You can also not make the case that the wealthy NEED the added money from the Bush tax cuts!
on Mar 24, 2007
Dragional

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
-Karl Marx

If someone wants to explain how Gene's statement doesn't match with what the founder of Communism said, I'd love to hear it. Gene insisting it's a "lie" to state that Gene is a socialist (at best but really he's almost a classic communist) is unimpressive.

The result of returning to the tax rates of the 1990's would not produce anything like, ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” In fact the distribution of wealth would be altered only a few % and that would result in the top 10% with 88% of the wealth rather then the 90% they currently have. That is NOTHING like Karl Marx suggested! You are attempting to make a Mountain out of a grain of sand!
on Mar 24, 2007
If Congress and the President agree to spend "X" they must tax "X"!


Actually col your theory is more like this.


Congress and the President agree to spend "X", then people who are successful need to pay "X".


on Mar 25, 2007

Gene - read carefully:

You are the one who believes that the government should take from those to give it to people who "need" it.

Your argument for not cutting programs is because it would hurt people who "need it".  

This is classic marxism. For you, the government taking one people to give to people based on "need" takes precedence over balancing the budget. That makes you a socialist.

As soon as you start basing your position on concepts like "need" you've already lost. 

on Mar 25, 2007
IslandDog

What is wrong with paying for what we spend? Who better to pay then those that can afford to pay?


Dragional

This is classic Marxism. For you, the government taking one people to give to people based on "need" takes precedence over balancing the budget. That makes you a socialist. Anyone that can call this country a socialistic state with the wealth distribution that existed at the higher tax levels does not know what they are talking about. A country where the top 1 % has 51% of the wealth and where the top 10% had almost 90% of the wealth is as far from Communism as you can get!

I do not claim helping people takes precedence over balancing the budget. What I said we need to balance the budget including help to those in need by a tax system that generates enough revenue to equal our total spending including help to those that need it!


on Mar 25, 2007

You are unwilling to cut programs that help "the poor" in order to balance the budget.

You have said this many times.  Therefore, giving money to poor people is more important to you than balancing the budget.

on Mar 26, 2007
What is wrong with paying for what we spend? Who better to pay then those that can afford to pay?


Nothng is wrong paying for what we spend.  What is wrong that you are picking out a class of people to pay for it just because you think they can "afford it" without realizing the consequences. 
on Mar 26, 2007
What is wrong that you are picking out a class of people to pay for it just because you think they can "afford it" without realizing the consequences


the perrenial battle cry of the rich...don't impede our wealth building or we'll make you pay.

fact of the matter is that most of the rich (that didn't inherit their wealth) are alpha type personalities that thrive on overcoming obstacles. i've writte nmore in depth in the past on this and don't feel like repeating myself...so i'll levave it at that.

just as raising the min wage a few duckets won't cause the economy to tailspin inherently, neither does gatting a percent or 2 from the wealthiest in the long run.

in wwII taxes were raised on the wealthy for a greater good. people sacrificed in their own lives for a great cause. in this era, in another wartime, no one is asked to sacrifice anything except our civil liberties.

what a shame.
on Mar 26, 2007

Sean

You are correct. The issue is not that slight increases in the tax rates on the wealthy will cause harm to our economy but the desire of the wealthy to keep as much as possible. The rich did not NEED the Bush tax cut and in fact the reason Bush gave for those tax cuts was to return the so called surplus he claimed existed. There was NO surplus and there was NO reason for the taxes to the wealthy. They were NOT being over taxed as Bush claimed. The fact is that we are running a major annual deficit that will jeopardize the future of this country! That must be reversed and only by cutting spending, better enforcement of tax laws and increased tax revenue by increasing tax rates on those that can afford to pay a little more will solve the problem!
on Mar 26, 2007
Lower taxes generally mean increased economic growth. So, if you allow for increased economic growth, then that smaller percentage in taxes leads to a higher amount of tax that can be collected via one with a larger percentage of tax for that same time period.

The problem is, what is good for the short run is often not what is good for the long run. Too many people I've spoken to don't understand this. Yes, by raising taxes, you've helped alleviate the problem in the short run, but the solution would not have been nearly as good as if it were done in the long run.

Let's say you owned a factory, and you could run this factory with machines, or through manual labor. Let's say that you currently are running the factory with manual labor and were thinking of switching to machines, which would end up reducing costs substantially. However, you would have to lay off the manual labor.

Now, some might say that it's wrong to lay off all those workers and that just hurts the economy. In the short term, they may be correct, as there aren't as many workers employed right now. But this is before the benefit from the machine labor has had a chance to propogate thoroughly. The lower operating costs leads to reduced prices most likely, or even for the owner of the factor to invest the saved money and expand a bit allowing opportunities for new jobs. The economy will eventually become stronger than it would have been otherwise.

I generally don't like politics interfering with economics too much. I mean, all too often, politicians who are running for relatively short terms, need to show immediate results and so will often put forth economic policies that seem to show benefit in the short run, but won't do as well in the long run. This is so they can show that they've done a good thing and perhaps become reelected, often leaving the problems that come with their policies and dump them on someone elses term.

Now, let's say that you tax the hell out of the wealthy to the point where either there's not as much incentive to gain wealth anymore (if it's just going to be taxed to death) or the wealthy simply leave the country. Yes, you've aqcuired money to give it to those that "need" it, but now look at what happens in the long term. You won't have nearly as many wealthy people, so where are you going to get the money to keep giving to those "needy" people.

Let's say you have a tree whose fruit also act as seeds. Well, if you eat all the fruit now, well, you'll have none left later, and so you die. If you eat none of the fruit and plant them all, you'll die still. The trick is to find the correct balance between short term gain and long term gain, for if you neglect either one completely, you're gone.

Again, to my original point, if you lower the taxes of the wealthy a bit, yes, you might not have as much money at the start, and it might seem as if those "needy" people are getting screwed. But now these people have more money to put into things such as creating new markets for jobs, and now those poorer people can find different areas to work and earn money, making them better off.
on Mar 27, 2007
Again, to my original point, if you lower the taxes of the wealthy a bit, yes, you might not have as much money at the start, and it might seem as if those "needy" people are getting screwed. But now these people have more money to put into things such as creating new markets for jobs, and now those poorer people can find different areas to work and earn money, making them better off.


in other words..."trust the rich" they know what's best for you. now drink your cod liver oil and say thank you.

on Mar 27, 2007

the perrenial battle cry of the rich...don't impede our wealth building or we'll make you pay.

fact of the matter is that most of the rich (that didn't inherit their wealth) are alpha type personalities that thrive on overcoming obstacles. i've writte nmore in depth in the past on this and don't feel like repeating myself...so i'll levave it at that.

Except you don't really know what you're talking about.  I mean, what's your qualifications? Referring to yourself as a source for your own opinion is pretty silly.

How about basic principle: It is morally wrong to force one person to pay for another person. It is particularly repugnant to force that person simply on the basis of "need".

No offense but people like you and Gene always demonstrate rank ignorance when it comes to how the wealthy use their capital.  I too have written many times on what happens if you reduce the investment capital of "the rich". The difference is that I can self-reference because I actually am, by any standard, "rich" so I know not just from first hand experience but also because those are the circles I travel.  An investment banker could tell you much the same thing.

3 Pages1 2 3