Publicly funded, state funded, single payer, etc.

[davjohns 1]

I hate these terms. I think they attempt to pretend that money will just appear to pay the bill. The 'state' does not have a job and therefore does not have it's own money. 'Public' gets closer, but it gets to sounding like there's some vast coffers from which funds flow. And 'single payer'? Please.

I once heard an idea that I found thought provoking. When we say that anyone is entitled to a dollar of tax money, we are also saying that the ten people who earned that dollar are less entitled to it.

So, I would prefer a little truth in advertising. I would like to hear the people on television say, "This program cost $20 Million of YOUR money" or possibly "OUR money" or "Ed's money". Just something a bit more personal.

Maybe if every bill had a little line that explained how many people's salaries it would take to fund that issue. How many Americans' income goes exclusively to fund foreign aid to Argentina? I'd like that specified in the budget where it says we're going to give these people money. IE: $10 million dollars is alloted to fund research into the sex habits of lemurs. 2000 people making $50k and paying 10% of this in taxes will work exclusively to fund this lemur sex project this year. Kind of puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

Maybe some legislation could say everyone named Fred will be funding childcare to welfare recipients this year. Or maybe everyone in Indiana is paying for National Public Television this year. Vermont gets to fund the National Endowment for the Arts.

On the far end, we could list the names of the people who will work to fund congressional fact finding trips to Hawaii this year or the First Lady's shopping trips.

I'm just of a mind that we could find lots of things we didn't need in the federal and state budgets if we realized a simple fact: A few million here; a few million there; before long, you're talking about real money...oh, yeah...it IS real money. People just act like it's Monopoly Money. And thus...deficit spending.

I know economists and political strategists will draw charts and write extensive papers about how it's not really my money and spending money you don't have is good at a macro level. I've seen them. I actually did well in those classes. But there's this little thing I call a paycheck...and it shows me where the money really comes from.

Hi. I'm David. And I funded a congressional staff member who gave blow jobs to a politician in an expensive office last year. Did you fund the office or the politician?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

I get your point, but you should also remember that the people receiving those funds are also human beings. You could also say, "this $20 million program is funding 400 people's jobs at $50k each." I realize that a lot of the money is being wasted, but it's not just being flushed down the toilet. Sure, we can cut a alot, but we can't cut it all.

As an aside, I realize you were just pulling examples out of thin air to make a rhetorical point, but I think you've overstated how much money public TV and the arts get from the feds. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which in turn funds NPR and PBS among other things) received $420 million in 2010. A lot less than the taxes received from Indiana. The NEA received $125 million in 2007 (later years were not quoted on their website). I think we pull in much more than that from Vermont.

- Dan G

[airdvr 200]

Newspeak plain and simple. It's not by accident that terms like single payer etc... are used. Those words are designed to mislead the reader or listener. I've said before there needs to be some sort of truth in advertising component of political campaigns.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[davjohns 1]

Quote

I get your point, but you should also remember that the people receiving those funds are also human beings. You could also say, "this $20 million program is funding 400 people's jobs at $50k each." I realize that a lot of the money is being wasted, but it's not just being flushed down the toilet. Sure, we can cut a alot, but we can't cut it all.

As an aside, I realize you were just pulling examples out of thin air to make a rhetorical point, but I think you've overstated how much money public TV and the arts get from the feds. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which in turn funds NPR and PBS among other things) received $420 million in 2010. A lot less than the taxes received from Indiana. The NEA received $125 million in 2007 (later years were not quoted on their website). I think we pull in much more than that from Vermont.

And...that's my point. If we all recognized that individuals are supporting the jobs of other individuals and there was no ephemeral 'state money', we might wonder, "What are those 400 lemur voyeurs doing that we really want to fund?"

And again...$420 million here; $125 million there; before long, you're talking about real money....

If people wanted to see the programs on public television or supported the events paid out of the NEA, the government wouldn't have to steal my money to support them, now would they? That's how free market is supposed to work. People vote for what they want with their dollars. If they don't vote for it with money, it is supposed to go the way of platform shoes with fish in them.

Some things would fly through the budget just fine. "Texas funded maintenance of the interstate system this year.", would not bother anyone. We would thank every Texan we met that year.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Some things would fly through the budget just fine. "Texas funded maintenance of the interstate system this year.", would not bother anyone. We would thank every Texan we met that year.

As has been pointed out time and again, what some people might thank Texas for, others would consider a waste. "$400 million for lemur research, that's outrageous!" as opposed to, "$400 million for cancer drug trial in lemurs, that's great!"

The free market is not a solution to everything. Free market journalism has given us Fox and MSNBC. I believe there is a place for publicly funded but intellectually independent news outlets. Others don't, which is the rub. And to whoever is going to post that NPR and PBS are liberal, go listen/watch them first. They are so fair and balanced that they don't have to tell us it every ten minutes.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,463]

>Some things would fly through the budget just fine. "Texas funded
>maintenance of the interstate system this year.", would not bother anyone.

Bad example; Texas takes in a lot more in federal taxes than they pay out. Phrase it accurately - "welfare for Texas" - and you'd have a lot fewer supporters.

[DaVinci 0]

I have long wished bills had a "Cost to individual taxpayer" entry.

That way before you support the invasion of Iraq, or publicly funded HC, you could see the projected bottom line and make a better choice.

[Southern_Man 0]

All depends how you break it down. If you say Highways (for instance) that would have wide support. If you said "ordering clerk" then nobody is wanting to pay that salary, even though you might need an ordering clerk for any highway work to get done. Nobody wants to pay for the electric bill.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DanG 1]

Quote

That way before you support the invasion of Iraq, or publicly funded HC, you could see the projected bottom line and make a better choice.

I agree that it might be good to put huge spending bills into terms that people can relate to everyday life. Instead of a $30 billion dollar bill, you'd be looking at $100 for every person in the country. However, most of the bills that people complain about do not have fixed costs. No one knew ahead of time how much the war in Iraq would cost, just as no one knows how much the HC bill will cost. It would all come down to estimates, and those don't seem to be that reliable.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,463]

>No one knew ahead of time how much the war in Iraq would cost, just as no
>one knows how much the HC bill will cost.

Agreed. If you went by estimates around the beginning, the Iraq war would have cost $333 per person; actual cost will be closer to $6000 per person. Likewise, the healthcare bill would save each taxpayer around $953 per CBO estimates, but again, that's merely an estimate.

(And something tells me that the GOP would fight publishing that number with every fiber of its being.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Likewise, the healthcare bill would save each taxpayer around $953 per CBO estimates, but again, that's merely an estimate.

Yeah, it's amazing what you can do when you tell the CBO to include several years before the bill kicks in as part of their baseline. As I recall, they also made the assumption that the 'doc fix' would happen (which it didn't).

All those shell games, just to keep the (reported) *COST* below 1T.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,463]

>Yeah, it's amazing what you can do . . .All those shell games, . . .

Thank you for proving my point.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

However, most of the bills that people complain about do not have fixed costs.

Then those bills should have that included as well.

Quote

No one knew ahead of time how much the war in Iraq would cost, just as no one knows how much the HC bill will cost.

You don't think we should have that information before we pass a bill?

Besides the CBO:

Quote

The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion.

1T was passed around long ago as the cost for the HC bill.

138m are expected to pay tax each year, and the number was for 10 years.

About 730 dollars per tax payer per year. This of course does not include any other tax needs or the tax payers personal HC costs.

So if you knew passing the HC bill would add 730 dollars to your tax bill a year.... Or 7,300 total is that OK with you?

For that matter... You know the bailouts equaled about $9,513.76 per U.S. taxpayer?

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0901/gallery.money_summit/index.html

[DanG 1]

Quote

You don't think we should have that information before we pass a bill?

No. It's not possible for many bills. The best you get is an estimate.

Quote

1T was passed around long ago as the cost for the HC bill.

138m are expected to pay tax each year, and the number was for 10 years.

$1 trillion was passed around by people who were against the bill. The actual CBO estimate before the bill was passed said the bill would save money. Which are you going to believe? As I said in another thread on this, people will believe the estimate that agrees with their preconceived bias. Either way, they are just estimates, and as we've seen time and time again, estimates are seldom correct.

Quote

So if you knew passing the HC bill would add 730 dollars to your tax bill a year.... Or 7,300 total is that OK with you?

Well, if I went with the official CBO estimate, I'd be making money, so sure!

Quote

For that matter... You know the bailouts equaled about $9,513.76 per U.S. taxpayer

Actually, most of the bank bailout has been paid back. The last I heard the $700 billion bank bailout will actually only cost $30 billion or so, and has the outside chance of making money. Most of the stimulus was in the form of tax breaks so you can't really count that as a cost. Most, if not all, of the rest of it was spent on domestic programs, which means it went into corporate and taxpayer pockets in the form of wages and purchases. What was a cost for some was a paycheck for others. Again, my point is that the accounting is not as simple as it seems.

- Dan G

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

$1 trillion was passed around by people who were against the bill.

And now the CBO agrees with that number.

Quote

Well, if I went with the official CBO estimate, I'd be making money, so sure!

Remember, that is just tax burden, it does NOT include anything you pay for the HC you receive.

Quote

Again, my point is that the accounting is not as simple as it seems.

Still better than just throwing around large numbers that do not mean anything to the average person.

I also think we should have to have a balanced budget.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I also think we should have to have a balanced budget.

On that we agree.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>No one knew ahead of time how much the war in Iraq would cost, just as no
>one knows how much the HC bill will cost.

Agreed. If you went by estimates around the beginning, the Iraq war would have cost $333 per person; actual cost will be closer to $6000 per person. Likewise, the healthcare bill would save each taxpayer around $953 per CBO estimates, but again, that's merely an estimate.

(And something tells me that the GOP would fight publishing that number with every fiber of its being.)

Yes, estimates are exactly that. But in the case of wars, we can be more precise at the end of each year. Now you'd still be estimating the future VA costs, but the Iraq Appropriations are add ones.

I believe we've talked about this before - we could have a yearly War tax added to everyone's tax bills (in some progressive manner, no skipping 50% of the population) and we could then see how much people really want to stay in Iraq.

Or more practically, the war would need to be funded by 10 year Treasuries and that tax would be the current payoff on them. Then you avoid the large spike in taxes without planning, and get 9 more years of reminders lest you think about another big conflict.

We can't afford to use our military around the world based on a platinum card. Our long term national security will be enhanced when we're much more selective about when we engage in force.

As for HC - yeah, no idea how to implement an immediate cost on that one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I also think we should have to have a balanced budget.

On that we agree.

+1, and base it against what was collected the year prior, not "we *should* get this much in revenues this year, so..."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

+1, and base it against what was collected the year prior, not "we *should* get this much in revenues this year, so..."

Projections are altered up and down to help justify one's goals. There is rarely any truth in them.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239