Since we had such a good amount of discussion, which has remained very civil. I thought instead of another comment I'd do another blog, so here it is...
Jason I would agree that Israel is a theocracy not a democracy and there was/is quite a difference. However, I think we need a type of safety net welfare system. Teaching economics I have done some (not alot) of research as to where our tax money goes. Here are some stats: Which may or may not be made up :)
1) Since 1950 we have spent less than half (percentage wise) on military/police/fire
2) Since 1950 we have remained the same in most other areas with two major exceptions....
3) We now spend 4 times as much (again this is percentage wise) in expenses for the poor.
4) We also now spend 4 times as much on paying off interest from the incredible amount of debt from the government. Which leads me to say:
Why trust the government to "fix" the healthcare problem??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
So you're saying that the percentage of spending on military/fire/police is the same as in 1950 but the percentage spent on the poor and on paying interest on the debt have increased significantly, right? Do have a reference for those statistics? It would be useful to know that we're discussing statistics that are reality-based before digging into them too much.
Assuming they're valid, I guess my first thought is that it is remarkable that our spending on military/fire/police is comparable to 1950 since that was coming right off WWII. The debt is a big concern. China is over 300 billion dollars in the black. We’re 700 billion in the red.
source: CIA Factbook
Ultimately, I guess I don’t follow we’re you’re going with these stats. What’s the connection between the stats and your question about whether we should trust the government? Comparing spending now to 1950 tells us neither whether the spending levels in those categories were right then nor whether they’re right now. Maybe you’re saying we shouldn’t trust the government because it obviously has trouble living within its means?
Budget Graph
Someone earlier mentioned a general trend comparing philosophies of Republicans and Democrats. I see a trend below. I guess the argument might the Republicans look bad because they suffer from the mismanagement of the Democrats that proceeded them and vice versa...but I'm skeptical.
Percent change in debt/GDP
Jimmy Carter D -3.2%
Ronald Reagan R +11.3%
Ronald Reagan R +9.2%
George H.W. Bush R +15.1%
Bill Clinton D -0.6%
Bill Clinton D -8.2%
George W. Bush R +6.9%
George W. Bush R +3.9% projection
Source: Wikipedia
Um, yeah... you can't trust the government to look after your healthcare... we've certainly messed it up at home! It doesn't fix any problems, just shifts them around to a different perspective. No one really ends up winning..
Why have we let insurance companies dictate our health care system anyway? I'm with Brooke - universal health care will more than likely put me out of a job.
Jonmower...I hate to break it to you, but Wikipedia is not a trustworthy resource. I can't comment on the subject matter of this post, because I don't have any adequate research to provide, but I can point out that Wikipedia isn't the best source to use. Considering the simple fact that anyone can edit it.
@lerra: Maybe you could dial back the condescension a little bit? You're not telling me anything I don't know about Wikipedia, but I would argue that you're mistaken regarding its usefulness. Though Wikipedia is (of course) inferior to primary sources, it is of similar quality to an encyclopedia. The fact that anyone can edit it is actually a strength. Yes, spurious info can creep in (especially for a subject that few people are paying attention to), but there is also an extraordinary community of people who monitor the content, correct errors, make sure the info is balanced and even-handed, etc. This is possible because a large and robust community is control instead of a small number of information gatekeepers.
In fact, a study by the scientific journal Nature a few years back showed that errors occur in Wikipedia at a rate that is only slightly higher than the Encyclopedia Britannica (link).
Yes, it's not perfect (what source of similar breadth and accessibility is?), but it is certainly trustworthy enough to be useful for discussions like this.
The CIA Factbook link in jonmower's comment lists USA as 747 b-b-b-billion dollars in debt. According to that source, our debt load roughly equals the debt of all 100 of the others who are in debt as a nation. Many of those are South African or South American countries that we hardly have heard of. How can the most productive, advanced, educated people ever to populate the earth be so far behind? Could it be that we give away billions per year to countries without demanding accountability and healthy changes? Could it be that, as a country, we give to individuals billions per year without requiring accountability and positive change? My perspective it that democrats push in this direction most, but republicans also regularly trade dollars for votes. This is not the place to debate all the shortcomings of a "two party system". But unless a surprisingly strong independent jumps in after the party convnetions, the electoral college will elect the democratic nominee--and that person will likely be decided by this time tomorrow. If Obama beats Clinton today, the election is his to loose. With a democrat as president and their control of congress we will go MUCH deeper into debt. By the way, I don't think it would be much better with McCain. National debt and individual debt has place our country in greater peril than anybody younger that 50 can imagine. Please go back and read about what our country went through in the 20's and 30's. If we are in the red now, how in the world do we provide the funds to give LIFETIME medical treatment to an aging, overweight, undisciplined population? How much more would you agree to have taken out of your paycheck to provide that?
@roxy wishum: I share your concern about our debt. I have some different opinions and reactions to it which I’ll now elaborate. The CIA factbook link certainly tells us something about our debt. One can present and compare the data in different ways, and some of them are more meaningful than others. It doesn’t make much sense to compare the U.S. to many of the countries on the list that have much smaller populations and economies or much lower standard of living, etc. It makes more sense to compare us to our peers and potential peers in the near future like the EU, China, Russia, India, etc. Other interesting ways to look at the data would be debt per capita (i.e., per person) or as a percentage of the size of the economy. No matter how you look at it, our financial situation is not a pretty picture.
You asked: “How can the most productive, advanced, educated people ever to populate the earth be so far behind?” The U.S. is a special place, I agree, but sometimes I think we overestimate our own exceptionalism. For example, I think a claim that we are the best educated would be hard to justify. Check out the math and science scores of 4th and 8th graders in a report from the Department of Education. It indicates that we are above average, but we’re not at the top of the list.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005005.pdf
You then hypothesize that overzealous foreign aid giving is at the root of our debt. In terms of total amount, we do lead the world in foreign aid. However, the total foreign aid is a SMALL fraction of our debt. Also, for foreign aid relative to the size of our economy, we are near the bottom of the list among our peers. I’ve written about this before at the link below which links to a newspaper article and to Wikipedia (for shame!). Wikipedia links to a more primary source for the information.
http://jonmower.com/blog/2007/10/charity.php
So, I don’t think your hypothesis that foreign aid is a primary cause for out debt is supported by the facts.
You also claim that Democrats are more likely to exacerbate the debt problems than Republicans. If you only think in terms of the stereotypes that Democrats are undisciplined in their spending and in favor of higher taxes and big government vs. Republicans have financial discipline and being in favor of lower taxes and smaller government, then your claim would seem to be justified. However, I would point you to my first comment to this post that lists the changes in our debt as a function of political party of the president. Admittedly, that analysis is too simple because it doesn’t factor in the impact of which party controls congress nor the effect/legacy of previous presidential administrations…but it doesn’t appear to support the idea that the political affiliation of the president is correlated with changes in our debt in the way you have proposed. Also, it is clear that the current Republican administration does not conform to the stereotype of Republicans as financially disciplined. GWB has cut taxes but has not limited spending.
Your conclusion based on our debt level is that we clearly can’t afford to provide affordable healthcare to all of our citizens. You may be right, but that isn’t my first thought. Personally, I believe that we would benefit in making adjustments in other spending priorities. For example, look at military spending. I’m now hearing that the war in Iraq is expected to cost a few trillion dollars (i.e. several times larger than our debt). Admittedly, that cost wouldn’t be zero if we had not invaded (since we would have spent more on Afghanistan and whatever other activities we would have undertaken), but a significant portion of the high cost is related to the high fees we pay Haliburton and other independent contractors to provide services. Nearly 9 billions dollars of money for Iraq rebuilding went unaccounted for, for crying out loud:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
Even the success that is coming from the surge is related to, essentially, us bribing the Iraqi militias to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq instead of us (link).
I say all that to say some of us would have different priorities on military spending. Some of us were opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning and believe it has actually made us less safe. Few Democrats in Congress had the courage to oppose the war that the Bush administration was pushing for, but I’m convinced that if Gore had been in the White House he would have gone after Al Qaeda and the Taliban but would not have invaded Iraq.
What I’m trying to argue is that, in my opinion, the real situation is more complex than simply: Dem pres = more debt, Rep pres = less debt, current debt level means we can’t provide affordable health care to everyone.
You asked about my pay check. Frankly, I am much more concerned about what my paycheck has paid for in Iraq than what it might pay for in terms of healthcare for those less fortunate than me.
Man of the web addresses in the previous comment were too long.
Education report: link
Foreign aid and charity: link
9 billion dollars unaccounted for: link
okay, well at least we all agree that something is wrong with this picture. The question is - how do we fix it and where do we go from here? . . .
How about some suggestions . . .
MamaKat who has none at this late (for me) hour
The pres. candidates from both parties called for a ban on earmarks (Wikipedia link) but the Senate rejected that proposal (link). However, earmarks don't represent a large fraction of our debt anyway.
The government needs to spend less (or spend differently) and/or take in more.
I would not make the Bush tax cuts permanent. As I alluded to earlier, I would also advocate less military spending...enabled by a change in direction/strategy such that we not lightly/naively undertake actions like the Iraq war that has simultaneously cost us tremendously in lives and money while, in my opinion, actually making us less safe.
For example, here is an article that summarizes one economist's view on the contrasting effects of military vs. other spending (link).
Post a Comment