The system worked?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Even using a USA Today article from 3 years ago I can prove that there are unfunded liabilities of 59.1 trillion across the entire government.

According to trustee's (and a WSJ article) 2 years ago the unfunded liabilities of Medicaid were 74 trillion.

[Partha]

Private companies, however, still make a profit while being "horribly inefficient". Yet medicaid, which is "vastly superior", is underfunded by close to 100 trillion and doesn't even pay doctors the full amount (which is why some doctors are no longer accepting medicaid).

Gee, I don't smell the government fucking this one up at all.

Profit is inefficient in this particular case. Do you really not get that?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Profit is what makes industries run.

Without profit, there is no business that survives. Government can't even survive without profit, do you really not get that?

[Partha]

Profit is what makes industries run.

Government! It's not an industry!

Wow, we may have to break out the kids' books yet.

Without profit, there is no business that survives. Government can't even survive without profit, do you really not get that?

Funny, our government has survived without making a profit for 50 of the last 55 years if not more. Once again, because you're slow, governments are not businesses and should not be run like businesses. The insistence that government should be run like a business is a flawed idea, which only highlights why conservatives are so terrible at actually running a government when they get their hands on one.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Our government has survived 50 of the last 55 years if not more on credit. Theres a reason there are unfunded liabilities everywhere and we're over 12 trillion in debt.

[Embar Angylwrath]

If our government was run like a business, it would have gone bankrupt long ago. The government can't (and shouldn't) be operated like a business. Which makes Partha's hooting about efficiency in Medicare laughable, because its an appels to oranges comparison. However, the government SHOULD be run in a fiscally responsible manner, not in a state of perpetual deficit.

Deficit means debt. It eventually has to be paid off. Continued deficit spending will cripple future generations if not brought under control (and I'm even excluding the recession driven spending in this... I recognize the need to deficit spend in a recession, although I don't think Bush or Obama put the money where it needs to be).

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Government can't even survive without profit, do you really not get that?

The indicator that I understood Government wasn't the same thing was there all along. Personally I'm not surprised that Partha decided to ignore it.

[Partha]

If our government was run like a business, it would have gone bankrupt long ago. The government can't (and shouldn't) be operated like a business. Which makes Partha's hooting about efficiency in Medicare laughable, because its an appels to oranges comparison. However, the government SHOULD be run in a fiscally responsible manner, not in a state of perpetual deficit.

Deficit means debt. It eventually has to be paid off. Continued deficit spending will cripple future generations if not brought under control (and I'm even excluding the recession driven spending in this... I recognize the need to deficit spend in a recession, although I don't think Bush or Obama put the money where it needs to be).

You're a lying moron if you claim to believe that, because you're all about tax cuts. The American people, like it or not, have decided they want this stuff funded. In order to do it, you need a reasonable tax structure. Your 'starve the beast' mentality and kneejerk opposition to all domestic spending in order to break society are the problems here, not the government.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You can't escape the math Partha. Continued deficit spending will break the country. Can you grasp that one simple concept?

Tell me, what's your solution to repay the accumulated deficit?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

He can't.

[Partha]

First, understand that this situation took decades to get into and will take decades to get out of.

Second, understand that the free ride for the rich is over if you're serious about reducing the deficit.

Now, let's look at history. When this country went into the sinkhole known as the Great Depression, the top marginal tax rate was 25% on income over 100k.

When Roosevelt changed the tax code in '33, the top marginal tax rate went to 63% on income over $1M. That's the kind of increase in revenues you're going to need to start to reduce the deficit. Even in the era of Reagan, the top marginal tax rate went to 50% on income over 200k. That's the kind of revenue you're going to have to generate if you want China off your back.

You're also going to need to eliminate a lot of loopholes - capital gains taxes will have to rise as well. Don't give me jive about cutting services, because the American people won't stand for it. If you're actually worried about the deficit, then realize that now is the time to pay up and stop whining about having to pay up.

Congress had a good start by bringing forth the idea of PAY-GO. That has to come back as well. So too will have to come back a larger industrial base in America, to reduce our import levels. You're also going to lose the idea of an American Empire, because we can't afford a defense budget larger than the rest of the world put together if you're serious about reducing government expense.

Fortunately, as you reduce the deficit, it has the effect of freeing up more dollars in the federal budget.

UNfortunately, this will never happen.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Good grief Partha.. you can't be serious about compaing tax rates from decades ago to tax rates of today. You just can't really compare tax rates without a complete understanding of tax structure. For instance, what was counted as income, what was an allowable deduction, etc. It's meaningless to get into a discussion about tax rates were higher blah blah blah, because that's only a very small part of the picture.

[Partha]

You don't want to make that argument, Embar, it only makes your position worse.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400.pdf

The IRS report shows that in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available), the 400 richest
income tax filers paid just 17.2 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) in federal income taxes.
That is down from 22.3 percent in 2000, and is less than half of the top statutory income tax rate
of 35 percent. Almost 65 percent of the income reported by those 400 taxpayers consisted of
capital gains and dividends subject to the preferential rates.

As I said - it will never happen, so too bad. But the system of pleasing the richest at the expense of the majority has to end if you're REALLY worried about deficit reduction in this country. Since you support that system, you obviously aren't really worried about it, it's just another way for you to bitch about your supposed inferiors in our class structure.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

If you really want to fix the deficit in this country then the bottom 40% of tax payers need to stop paying negative taxes.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You don't want to make that argument, Embar, it only makes your position worse.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400.pdf

The IRS report shows that in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available), the 400 richest
income tax filers paid just 17.2 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) in federal income taxes.
That is down from 22.3 percent in 2000, and is less than half of the top statutory income tax rate
of 35 percent. Almost 65 percent of the income reported by those 400 taxpayers consisted of
capital gains and dividends subject to the preferential rates.

As I said - it will never happen, so too bad. But the system of pleasing the richest at the expense of the majority has to end if you're REALLY worried about deficit reduction in this country. Since you support that system, you obviously aren't really worried about it, it's just another way for you to bitch about your supposed inferiors in our class structure.

You're going to focus on 400 people, in a report that is biased, and claim that as proof about your misguided opinions about tax structure?

As I've said before, you've lost it. That big chip on your shoulder is clouding everyhting for you.