Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 10:01pm PT
|
Chaz...just say the word, you will feel better.
The situation is really out of control.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 11:42pm PT
|
Bob,
I'm requesting a continuance on responding to your request. I had surgery on my right middle finger yesterday that makes it rather awkward to type or to play the piano. I also need to be careful about how I wave to people.
I should be ready to climb in a couple of weeks and, I hope, to type properly by the middle of next week. In the meantiem, I'll need to be lazy and give links to the data series that show that under Reagan (and Eisenhower), federal spending as a percentage of GDP stayed constant or fell. Also, defense spending, even during Bush II, is significantly lower as a percent of GDP than it was before.
Finally, I will post (when I find them) links showing that tax revenues as a percentage of GDP has stayed relatively constant for the past several decades. Accordingly, any increase in the deficit reflects increases in non-defense spending.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:04am PT
|
Don't think this got posted yet. Congress members have been threatened and had their offices vandalized in the aftermath of the healthcare vote. One member had his gas line cut "by accident." The accident was that the person thought it was Rep. Stupack's house.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html?hp
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:09am PT
|
But...but...but...teabaggers are good American patriots.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:16am PT
|
The party of hissy fits.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/house-of-anger/
But it’s always better to be building something than destroying it. John McCain had a positive campaign slogan in 2008 — “Country First.” This week, he vowed “no cooperation for the rest of the year.” This is an adolescent living in the shell of a former statesman.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:34am PT
|
I'm not quite sure how to answer your question, since in my lifetime, only Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush had a Republican Congress. Probably a useful starting point comes from the historical data of receipts, outlays, etc. in current dollars, constant dollars, and as a % of GDP (Table 1.3 in the White House Budget Report), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf.
This shows how federal outlays as a percentage of GDP rose dramatically after the 1974 elections that swept liberal Democrats into power in Congress. Under Reagan, even without a Republican congressional majority, spending and revenue as a percentage of GDP declined. Similarly under Eisenhower.
The failure of the Tom DeLay/George W. Bush regime also shows through, as spending as a percent of GDP rose, showing that Republicans acting like Democrats are maybe worse than Democrats acting like Democrats.
This only tells a small part of the story, though. The size of government also involves the intrusiveness of regulation, the unpredictability of court decisions, etc. I'm unaware of where to find (or even how to measure) changes in the Federal bench, so it's rather hard to say who's done better there except by anecdotal evidence. Most of my experience there is on the 9th Circuit, dominated by Carter appointees like Reinhardt, who is perfectly willing to let the government micromanage individuals' decisions. I have never tried to measure the intrusiveness of regulation.
I'm sure there are typos all over this post (See pictures of my right hand, above). It's rather agonizingly slow for me to type right now, so I'll elaborate later.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 09:07am PT
|
Well it looks like the Senate Republicans are playing games and delaying things. No matter, this is just a hiccup. The party of No is continuing to drag feet on reform.
And where will all this anger get them? The British Tories might provide a clue:
At the time, the Tories reckoned they would be in opposition for a couple of years at most. All they had to do was return to their basic principles and declare them with greater fervor and more self-righteous anger than ever before. They knew, they told one another, what the British people really wanted, and they ran two angry campaigns that reeked of xenophobia. The result: The Tories have been out of power since 1997. Thirteen years.
http://www.slate.com/id/2248747/
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 10:33am PT
|
bluering said: Norton, it blows me away...actually it doesn't. You're clearly an operative.
You condescend just enough to keep the dialogue going. You appear to be a friend. Yet no-one knows you. You are a clear party operative.
That's fine. Just don't be disingenuous. God hates liars. You lie and yet come off as just a victim of propaganda. You are a devil. I wish you well, but your fate is your own.
This is a hilarious post.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 10:54am PT
|
It may be a first for me to show up on a political thread.
I pop up here to thank (most of) the participants for a really informative and interesting thread. I'm not into name-calling in conjunction with non-substantive posts and this thread is almost devoid of that. A first for a political thread?
Thanks to all the positive contributors.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 11:06am PT
|
I thought it went pretty well until post 250 or so. Then it went downhill for awhile, but it seems to be getting better.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 11:11am PT
|
John some Numbers...deficit as percentage of GDP
1969 984.4 -0.33
1970 1038.3 0.27
1971 1126.8 2.04
1972 1237.9 1.89
1973 1382.3 1.08
1974 1499.5 0.41
1975 1637.7 3.25
1976 1824.6 4.04
1977 2030.1 2.64
1978 2293.8 2.58
1979 2562.2 1.59
1980 2788.1 2.65
1981 3126.8 2.53
1982 3253.2 3.93
1983 3534.6 5.88
1984 3930.9 4.72
1985 4217.5 5.03
1986 4460.1 4.96
1987 4736.4 3.16
1988 5100.4 3.04
1989 5482.1 2.78
1990 5800.5 3.81
1991 5992.1 4.49
1992 6342.3 4.58
1993 6667.4 3.83
1994 7085.2 2.87
1995 7414.7 2.21
1996 7838.5 1.37
1997 8332.4 0.26
1998 8793.5 -0.79
1999 9353.5 -1.34
2000 9951.5 -2.37
2001 10286.2 -1.25
2002 10642.3 1.48
2003 11142.1 3.39
2004 11867.8 3.48
2005 12638.4 2.52
2006 13398.9 1.85
2007 14077.6 1.14
2008 14441.4 3.18
2009 14258.2 9.91
2010 14623.9 10.64
John...numbers from WW2
1940 101.4 3.02
1941 126.7 3.73
1942 161.9 12.04
1943 198.6 28.05
1944 219.8 22.35
1945 223 24.07
1946 222.2 9.06
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 11:37am PT
|
Crimpie,
Does your post imply that you've been reading all of the other political threads? If so, I'd better be more careful, as I thought I had only my fellow politards to worry about. ;-)
John
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 11:43am PT
|
John..if you look at the chart it seems RR ran the highest during peace time.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 11:58am PT
|
Fat...save it...we been through that one.
I respect John's opinion and just want him to give me a number that he thinks is somewhat reasonable considering during times of two wars and a major recession.
Some experts believe that FDR didn't spend enough and some believe the same for Obama!!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:09pm PT
|
I wouldn't dismiss fattrad's arguments so soon, Bob. If you look at the defense budget, it dropped markedly after the end of the Cold War.
I cited Table 1.2 in the bedget because it shows, to me, the complexity of the isse of fiscal responsibility. During the height of WWII, government intake reached a high of 20.9% of GDP. During the post-war period, it reached that level again only once, in 2000, just before the tech stock bubble burst. Otherwise, it's been in a fairly consistent range.
Spending, on the other hand, has trended upward since the end of WWII. When the Democrats increased the Congressional majorities in 1974, they eliminated a president's ability to "impound" (i.e. not spend) budgeted funds. Accordingly, the responsibility for spending rests squarely on the Congress. The Newt Gingrich-led Republican congress did a good job of that. The later Republican congresses, however, spent like Democrats, and gave us deficits that should not have occurred, even with the Middle East defense outlays. American military spending as a percent of GDP still is not at Cold War levels.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:13pm PT
|
Also I see a disproportionate amount of the discussion has gone to tort reform. Tort reform is something that needs to be addressed but for those of you that think that a complete elimination of torts will drive the cost of health care through the floor you are crazy. It's a very, very small piece of the puzzle. The real problem is our fee for service reimbursement program that rewards procedures instead of outcomes. The sicker you get, the more things doctors do to you and the more money they make. We need a system that rewards doctors and hospitals based on how well they can keep you, not how many hoses and knives that they can shove into you.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:19pm PT
|
John wrote: I wouldn't dismiss fattrad's arguments so soon, Bob. If you look at the defense budget, it dropped markedly after the end of the Cold War.
But during the cold war spending for social programs, health care and education all took a huge dive...maybe leading to where we are today.
You still haven't given me a number as relative to today.
Fat..you have called Obama ineffective...nothing could be further from the truth. You were wrong on the election and health care. The man you admire (McCain) and hold in so high esteem is acting like a six year old who wants to take his ball and bat home cause he is on the losing team.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:23pm PT
|
I respectfully disagree, HDDJ. In California, malpractice rates are much lower than they were befre the imposition of MICRA limits, but that is only a small part of the problem. Most studies I've read cite the cost of "defensive medicine" (i.e., "unnecessary" tests and procedures) to be the single biggest reason for our high cost of medical care. This is a far bigger cause than, for instance, relying on the ER as one's primarly source of medical care.
If you want to do something about that, you need real tort reform. Right now, If I knowingly choose a very slightly less efficacious, but much less costly, treatment, and I die, my heirs can still sue those who treated me for not pursuing the most costly treatment, even though i chose no to do so! Until you say you can't file that suit, you'll be paying for "unnecessary" tests and procedures, and people will continue to practice defensive medicine.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010 - 12:24pm PT
|
"It's a very, very small piece of the puzzle. "
John, you have repeatedly pointed out tort reform as being one of the major shortcomings of the HR bill (in addition to uncoupling HC from employment, improved education opportunities for better caregivers, etc.). I'd wager that these are agreeable points on either side of the aisle.
However, would you acknowledge that tort reform really is a small driver in the escalating cost of healthcare? Again- it is agreed that it should happen, regardless, but every rational source I've read (including the CBO's analysis) shows it to be a small part of the picture.
It appears to me that the Repubs have used that point strictly for political leverage, since everyone hates lawyers, and their was great potential to get more people on board with them- in spite of the fact that it is a straw dog at best. Tort reform alone is far from a direct solution, but the GOP has done all it can to present it that way.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!