scoutingagain

"What will be the premium cost for the average family that the government will have to pick up?" Probably less than what the average family pays now. Right now, the system supports dozens of administrative bureaucracies for individual companies that also have to satisfy stockholder demands for profits. Under a single payer system there would be one administrative bureaucracy. Yes, as a government agency it probably would be somewhat less efficient when compared to a single insurance company, but in aggregate would probably be more efficient than the current overall system. ie. more dollars would go to care rather than executives and managers. The big advantage would be, from a pro-business standpoint, would be to get private businesses out of the health care insurance business. Our companies cannot compete with their counterparts from other countries when they have to absorb the cost or even a part of the cost of employee health care. They are at a hugh disadvantage. Ultimately to be a competitor in the world economy we need to decouple health care from employment. That means either individuals buy their own insurance or the government provides it. That's why the current health care bill that follows the Dole/Romney approach of requiring individuals to purchase insurance is the much more conservative approach. Unless folks want to continue to cripple our private companies, the generators of wealth and jobs. SA

"I fail to see how being forced to purchase private health insurance is somehow a government service. " Which is one reason why, if the Dole/Romney approach to requiring people to take individual responsibility and purchase their own health insurance fails, the only alternative to being sure people pay their fair share for health insurance is to tax them for a government service,i.e. a single payer government health care. Or we can continue to let them free load off the rest of us and keep the most expensive health care in the world, continuing to put our private employers at a disadvantage when competing against the rest of the world. SA

Nor do the actions of the government in this case. SA

Well the tax cut "deal" pretty much seals it. People voted for change and what we got was: A health care bill whose blueprint was authored by Rebublicans even if it was voted in by Democrats. Wall street "reform" that leaves in place most of the rules that allowed the fiscal mess to begin with. (I'm convinced our government, Dem and Rep, has been pretty much co-opted by special interests.) Continued policies of corporate welfare(bailouts) started under the previous Republican administration. And now with the tax deal, a fiscal policy right out of the Republican tax-cut and spend, credit card, pass the debt on to the next generations, approach to government spending. Looks like Mitch McConnel will get his wish. He will seal Obama's fate as a one term President by having him implement Republican policies. Hopefully a real conservative candidate will emerge, but if the option is Sara Palin, we may be stuck with what we have. SA

"The value gained by the government doesn't correlate to the income required, " I agree government is a net consumer of wealth. However in your example, if a bridge is built from tax revenue, it transfers wealth from the taxpayer, for the benefit of having a bridge to the contractor who builds it. The taxpayers have a bridge, which represents wealth of some sort. Yes it's depreciating, but it has value which can be sold, probably for less than it cost to construct it, but it is an asset. However, the bridge could also be built from funds the government borrows in the form of bonds, paid for from tolls paid for by users of the bridge, not taxpayers. (At least in the sense those taxpayers not using the bridge don't pay tolls for it.) In this instance government acts almost like private industry. Borrowing money, to invest in an asset that creates a revenue stream that produces wealth...said bridge. In many cases infrastructure like a bridge or turnpike ultimately gets paid for and eventually returns a "profit" to government in the sense toll revenues exceed the requirements to pay bond holders and maintenance. (The Massachusetts Turnpike is an example.) However, those "profits" are eaten up by other expenditures that exceed other revenues and ultimately government is a "net" consumer of wealth. But everthing is does is not necessarily wealth consumetive. No absolutes. SA

Agreed. Other than the loudest voices at both ends of the political spectrum, I'm seeing and hearing a general consensus among many folks that now is the time to do something and they understand there will be some sacrifices, whether it's increases in taxes or a reduction in entitlements, they know it will be something. We need leaders willing to lead instead of bowing to the carnival barkers on both sides of the aisle. SA

"Because the government has only paper wealth" That's not quite true. Governments also have hard assets. Land, bridges, highways, watertreatment plants, buildings, etc. In fact at the state level some states are exploring the possiblity of leasing or in some cases even selling assets such as bridges and highways to private companies to generate revenue. Private companies would then maintain the assets and charge users fees to use the asset. i.e. tolls. There are few absolutes in the world which is the larger point I think Beav's making. SA

Actually as I understand the estate tax mess currently there is no estate tax at the Federal level. (2010) If the Bush tax cuts expire the threshold goes back to 1$ Million.(2011). In 2009 the threshold was $3.5 million. There will likely be some compromise when the cuts are extended raising the level, probably back to $3.5 million. So I agree it's a mess. Anyone trying to do estate planning with that kind of variability is really up a creek. Wonder how many older rich folks are looking over their shoulders between now and 1/1/2011 A permanent threshold of $10 million indexed to inflation would make sense to me. SA

Maybe there is hope for a rational response to the deficit. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Deficitcutting-plan-wins-more-apf-1861666462.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode= SA

"LOTS of people. Many small businesses have been forced into bankruptcy by such, as it is based on assets, not income. The father/son garage half a block from a new mall, with $50k income but the land is worth $2 mil." If they're only earning 2.5% income and are headed to bankruptcy on assets of $2 million they need to talk to Barry's wife. SA

I'd prefer a flat tax with all income being treated the same and no, zero, nada deductions for anyone for anything. The flat tax rate would be simple: National budget/National Income x 100 = Tax rate for that budget year. The recommendations by the deficit commission take some steps towards this approach. SA

The Bush tax cuts were generally described as a bad idea at the time by many main stream economists. John McCain described them as irresponsible. They were a bad idea then and are a bad idea now. I agree let them expire. Time to begin paying off the debt. True fiscal conservatives would understand what financial responsiblity is and that's paying the debt that we have allowed our leaders to create for us. SA

I really don't know Ms. Palin so I can't comment on her virtue. I don't think there is anything wrong with getting paid to be in an entertainment show. She certainly has camera presence. I among those that don't believe she's qualified to be President, but I think there is a realistic possibility she could be the Republican nominee. She has a real possibility of winning in Iowa, NH and South Carlina. In those small states where enthusiatic support from a significant portion of the Republican electorate, plus some Democratic crossover votes could easily give her wins in the initial caucus and primaries. With that momentum, she might just pull off the nomination. As Brent and Beavah noted, I think she likes the attention but she'd get that much more with those three wins. All Presidential candidates have ego's and ambition. I don't think she's any different. It will be hard to say no to a run, when a lot of people around her are going to tell her to run and that she can win and I think she's a better than even chance of getting the Republican nomination. The general election is a different story. But as Yogi said, "It over til it's over." It's only 2010. I saw recently Donald Trump was thinking about running as well. Pretty amazing statespeople we're comming up with as prospective leaders. SA

Well some states are talking about experimenting with open primaries. By that I mean everyone is on the same ballot in the primary. Then the top two participate in a runoff. The two major parties are dead set against this approach because it virtually eliminates the two party system. An independant candidate has much more of a chance in an open primary where there might be a field of 6 -8 candidates. But I like the "None of the above" option. It might provide some humilty. SA

If the Euro is fundamentally flawed the dollar must be worse given it's recent performance vrs the Euro. Wait until we have to bailout California. SA

" Infidel men could instantly be caught by their estranged wives, streamlining the divorce process." What a sexist comment. Wives can be infidels too. SA

I suspect Goldwater would be considered a RINO by today's standards. SA

Unless of course Dick Cheney's right and deficits don't matter. SA

"I'm no economist, but if I put money in a envelope to pay for one thing, I shouldn't be dipping into it to pay for something else, and than go rob someone to replace the money in the envelope. " Well the government has been doing just that for 200 years or more. To be fair, investing in US government bonds would have been considered about as safe an investment as you could make. If they had litterally kept the money in cash in an envelope somewhere, the money would have lost substantial value. They had to put it somewhere where there was little risk. But there is no money other than what we currently collect and borrow to pay for these programs. And currently we're borrowing about a third of our revenue. Imagine what your financial situation would look like in 10 years if you borrowed 33% of your income for the next 10 years and spent it all like a drunken sailor. You'd have a great time for 10 years and then at somepoint someone would start asking for their money back. To pay it back, if you could at all, your next 10 years or more would be pretty bleak. Financially at least. That's what we've done for the last 10 years. Now it's time to pay up or as Pack notes just pass the buck to our kids. There is no possible way to balance the budget in 10 years without all of us making significant sacrifices. We should accept less Soc. Sec., accept a military whose job it is to defend our shores and not be the world's police force, and generally accept a lower standard of living to pay for the excesses we've allowed our government to engage in. That would be the conservative, personally responsible thing to do. As Gunny note, and I agree, I think there is a large portion of the country ready to do that. They're willing to do their share and some maybe more. But I'm not sure folks really understand the depth of the issue and how much needs to be done. If one looks at the numbers, the math is pretty sobering. SA

", where does the money I've put into it for the last 35 years go. Up in smoke? " The government spends it as it comes in. They spend it on wars, social security, medicare and keep all those government employees Gern noted employed. The social security trust fund is invested in government bonds that the government promises to pay back with future revenues.(TAXES) So cut taxes, cut future revenue and there is no money to pay you back all those soc. security taxes you put in the last 35 years. SA

"Obviously the first one is not unique to B.O" And the second is a concept that originated and was implemented by a fiscal conservative Republican based on the argument that it is an individual's responsibility to pay for their own health insurance rather than waiting until they get hurt or become ill and requiring taxpayers to pay for treatment. SA

".......it's about his policies" See that's the problem. Most of the fiscal issues they're angry about have as much or more to do with the policies of his predecessor than his. SA

JoeBob you are absolutely correct. Allowing the tax cuts to expire for only the rich doesn't come close to dealintg with the deficit. It's another myth and inside the beltway sham. The only way to make a real dent is to let the tax cuts expire for everyone. Time we all started paying up for the defecit spending we've authorized our government to do over the last 10 years. SA

For yucks I looked up the interest on National Debt. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm For FY2010 it was $413 Billion or nearly %11 of the budget. So we really need to cut closer to %35 of discretionary spending, "everything except interest on the debt" to balance the budget. Unless we choose to default on the national debt or a portion of there of. Let's just tell China, sorry we can't pay you back. See if they come over to break any legs. SA

"but why not go ahead and cut the easy parts first - no time lost - no major arguments/fights over them " Gunny I now your heart's in the right place but every nickel and dime is someone's sacred cow. I don't think Beav's saying we have to focus on entitlements, but if any rational person looks at the numbers, there's no way to get there without dealing with them. Anyone that says we can balance the budget without effecting entitlements or raising taxes is disengenuous to say the least. Personnaly I also would like to see a straight up or down vote on the deficit commission's recommedations. Heck I'd like to see a Federal ballot initiative like we have at the state level. Take the decision out of the hands of the political class clowns in DC. I'll give the Tea Party it's due though. If it wasn't for them Mitch McConnel & Co. would be fighting tooth and nail to keep earmarks. The only reason they're being seriously discussed is the Tea Party. McCain and others tried for years to do something about them and got nowhere. SA