Politics has always seen facts as malleable and chameleon, @keith. When making a political argument one can try to undermine the opponent’s “fax” or argue your position with your own “fax.”
@Keith
Thank you…you are right. The single payer system I had in mind was Medicare for all. But, any Govt. regulated, not for profit institution would do it. The management system is already there in Medicare. In this day and age, any non profit single payer would work off that system as well if it were not directly govt. run.
Management costs are relatively low costs compared to the profits of private insurance companies. When you have a single payer like Medicare THEY determine the costs. They determine the cost of each procedure then add 9% for profit for the service provider which is very reasonable. Otherwise, healthcare providers charge OUTRAGIUOSLY and all suffer.
Employer based healthcare is such a huge burden to hiring that it is well worth getting it off the backs of the real job makers…small businesses.
I had a great insurance group plan when i worked and was much healthier in little need of service and yet I am much happier with Medicare.
Google “defense spending fraction of budget” and click on images, there are many versions of the same plots.
I must assume that the source is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
I really can’t understand how a plot of % of budget over time for defense spending is ‘right’ or ‘left’. If you have facts that say otherwise, bring them on.
For example, here’s the same basic information plotted as a fraction of the Fed’s discretionary budget (leaves out all entitlement programs). Same basic trend. My source? San Diego Veterans for Peace web site (so is that ‘right of Attila the Hun’?):
More than half of the federal budget is spent on the military exactly, @texases.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-50-of-us-government-spending-goes-to-the-military/18852
And that fact is the central issue that is washed out when “entitlements” are thrown into the graph. Social Security and Medicare are paid for with FICA funds, not income tax. But, on the other hand, the FICA funds are spent on the military.
Be careful what you ask for:
“Liberals are increasingly facing a conundrum as the Pentagon experiences the deepest cuts in a generation: The significant reductions in military spending that they have long sought are also taking a huge bite out of economic growth.”
@texases
I agree with that statement if you talk cuts alone. But , if cuts in military spending are offset with increased spending in infrastructure, education, training, technology and healthcare, the resulting long term growth is better for the economy. I believe that is the sound approach for getting out of debt and growing the economy and is the biggest job producer. My point has always been, “cuts alone fail” to grow the economy.
A wise businessperson talks investment as much as if not more then cuts if (s)he wants long term success. Cuts alone have never grown the economy; long term they have always increased, not decreased debt.
dag, you just hit a sore point with me. The military used to be one of the greatest sources of technology training. It probably still is, but unfortunately, every time the military budget is cut, its the training that gets the ax first.
If the military is not actively engaged in a conflict, then it only has two jobs; stand guard and train. Technology training provided by the military is still a source used by industry for trained and experienced workers for tech and maintenance positions.
If we are going to have a smaller military, at least let it be a well trained military.
The federal government is a rats nest of overlapping programs, marriages of convenience, runaway trains and political fiefdoms, @texases. Regardless of the party, any honest, well thought out plan to get the economy back on track will be a struggle of fits and starts. I reserve my right to rant in any and all directions. My opposition to the GOP is centered on the success of bank and market lobbyists who incrementally and systematically legislated the demise of the middle class in this country through unfair trade practices and preferential taxes to benefit the outrageously wealthy. The Republican primary gave us a stage full of chatter for various wedge issues but they each made it plain that eliminating capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes and corporate taxes was the primary objective of the party. Obama was to a great many Democrats what Romney was to the GOP last November.
Regrettably, good sense is rare and has little value on a ballot. Charismatic ambiguity is the primary talent of successful politicians.
Both parties would benefit greatly if more people voted in the primaries. The moderate candidates get weeded out because the vocal fringes tend to vote in higher percentages than us regular folk. My candidates never get to the general election, except H. Ross Perot who got on the general ballot through a third party.
“The federal government is a rats nest of overlapping programs, marriages of convenience, runaway trains and political fiefdoms, @texases. Regardless of the party, any honest, well thought out plan to get the economy back on track will be a struggle of fits and starts.”
Gotta say I agree. I expected this administration to at least attempt to do something about this instead of making it worse with additional regulations and restrictions and give-aways. Maybe we need another Hoover to try and reorganize the mess into something workable. FDR brought Hoover in to help. Who can Obama bring in? Its time before this guy goes down in flames and I voted for him twice.
@kieth
I agree. I also feel if more states had open primaries, more people would vote in them and bettere candidates would be chosen. I also feel that run off elections would cease to marginalized third parties. If all you had to do was come in second to have a chance at beating someone who already couldn’t garner half the votes, people would start listening to you.
It is an interesting question. I would guess that the military would be better at thinking through what we need than the Congress. What kind of war will the next one be? Ships? Tanks? Planes? Drones? Trenches? Spies carrying suitcase bombs? Congress is probably afraid that anything they cancel will result in their being called soft on defense in the next election. As far as readiness: My Dad was in the Navy in World War II. He was part of the Armed Guard; the Navy crews that escorted and defended the Liberty Ships carrying supplies to the troops. At the beginning of our entry into the war, we had so few cannons and big guns that many ships were leaving port with telephone poles painted black to bluff the enemy.
"I would guess that the military would be better at thinking through what we need than the Congress."
Better than Congress, yes. But they are not necessarily the best at deciding what they need. First, the military does not have inventors, they don’t invent new weapons systems. That is done by individuals and corporations. They (the inventor or company) comes up with a new idea, take it to the Pentagon and see if they can get one or more of the services to buy it.
The military is not real good at envisioning a completely new weapons system. If you bring an improved version of something they already have, they are good at listening, eager to buy and will ask Congress for the money. But sometimes, a completely new idea has to be forced on them, i.e. the A-10, drones, etc.
The worse thing to try to sell is something that is cheap but effective. Everyones career is dependent on the size of their budget so a low cost weapons system just doesn’t get the attention it might deserve. You cannot believe how endemic this is in the system. Picture this, there was a guy one the ship, a fellow E-6 at the time who used to come down to my shop to play "cards’ when off duty.
We both got promoted to Chief at the same time and went to different commands. I went to a training command staff, he went to Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR for short). A few months later, I needed something that cost $25k that would save the Navy millions each year and was having trouble getting it. I gave him a call and I was floored by his response, “Don’t call me about anything less than a million dollars”. If I was face to face with him when he said that, I would have punched him out. BTW, I eventually got what I wanted. But anyway, that is an example of the mindset in Washington. A perfectly normal guy who a few months earlier while playing “cards” in the shop would sometimes borrow a couple of bucks to, lets say “buy a soda” now won’t talk to me for less than a million dollars.
Another example, a little idea from an E5 in the fleet greatly increased the capability of the F-14 but almost didn’t happen because it was so cheap. His idea, replace the IR system in the nose of the plane that never did anything useful with a video camera. The squadron he was in at the time let him do that to one plane and the squadron commander was so impressed that he fought to get this in every F-14.
Five years later, after much development, a camera system designed for this job got installed in the F-14. It cost about a half mil per plane but it was significantly better than the prototype. But here is the rub, the Navy was spending about $175M for each aircraft at the time. A squadron consisted of 12 planes, but were only allowed about 6 cameras. They had to keep moving the cameras from plane to plane. They were literally too cheap to buy very many of them.
Strangely, the F-14 is now gone and I do not see this camera on its replacement, the F-18E/F. I cannot tell you just how much this camera system increases the capabilities of the weapons platform.
Another example that baffles me, there are at least two systems that have been developed that can instantly locate to within a few inches, the source of gunfire. Imagine how much this would help the a squad on patrol if they hear a shot and can instantly locate its source. These aren’t terribly expensive either, but no, we would rather give the squad a multimillion dollar Striker vehicle or another tank.
“The military is not real good at envisioning a completely new weapons system.”
Actually, they are. For the really wild and craze ideas, they have DARPA to come up with ideas and monitor progress. Other requirements are determined by field units and pushed up the line. If enough units want a new capability, DoD will ask if any contractors are willing to undertake the task, and eventually what the system would consist of.
I know that health insurance is a big expense,but I also believe that more people could actually afford their own health insurance if they put their minds to it.Some people will pass up a pretty good job in lieu of one with promised paid health insurance.Employers probably should help out,but not the total burden and health insurance should qualify as a good tax exemption or salary reduction.
I realize also with tort laws being as they are,a lot of excess expense is incurred as a result of CYA,so it doesn’t surprise me when a Physician orders a different test,but sometimes when they are playing the “cash cow” game I will holler foul,but remember fallible people have made it harder on everyone-Kevin
Its not that there are not intelligent and creative people in the military, there are plenty. But there are no billets for design and invention in the service. In other words, that wasn’t what they were hired for.