The flaw in your argument is that the r's aren't proposing a spending cuts only plan. They honestly believe that spending cuts combined with lower tax rates will lead to increased revenues. You may argue whether lower rates really increase revenue or not and there is support for both side of the argument, but you do at least have to disagreement in accurate terms.

The R's want drastic spending cuts and increased revenue through lower taxes.

The D's want some spending cuts and increased revenue through higher taxes on select groups.

If you can cite any objective analysis that revenue increases through lower taxes, I would be happy to look at it.

The Republican plan will cost more than $3 trillion in lost revenue from the tax cuts to a top rate of 25%, according to a CBO analysis and the revenue from these tax cuts is based on an annual economic growth rate of over 6%, not realistic by any objective measure.

And, I am not suggesting that the Democratic plan is the answer. More spending cuts, particularly in defense, are needed, as is real entitlement reform w/o gutting Medicare completely and putting the burden on the back of seniors (or soon to be seniors).


added:

IMO, David Stockman, Reagan's former Budget Director and architect of the supply side trickle down policy that he later admitted was a failure, has it right with his RED:

Compromise is what is needed, which means taking the extremists from both ends out of the discussion.

1) I didn't say I wanted to have that argument, I was simply saying you were sending any possible discussion down the wrong path by incorrectly framing the issue.

2)This. Cost who? The government? It isn't their money until they take it from us. The taxpayers. So you can flip that statement on its head and say the "Democrat plan will cost taxpayers more than $3 trillion in confiscated wages". Again a ridiculous way to cast the issue in a partisan light, but it's all in how you frame the issue, right?

I could say your number 2 is incorrectly framing the issue as well.

I think Stockman has it right -- RED -- revenue, entitlements, and defense are critical components, along with other discretionary spending cuts that are fiscally based and not ideologically based, to realistically begin the pay down the debt.

The best hope may be with the "Gang of Six" in the Senate, three Ds and three Rs, who are looking at all of the above.

They recognize that neither extreme position is the answer.

You can't run up the credit cards and then cry that you don't have enough income. Anyone who claims that the Dems have not exponentially increased spending since 2006 when they took control of the Congress is a tool of the current Obamanation.

The R's drastic spending cuts will negatively effect select groups as well.

That is absolutely true. The framing of the issue/question sets the direction for the discussion.

Regarding the thread title - would anyone really like to live in a country without a government?

Nope. A government is necessary to keep us from anarchy. Even 25 people on a secluded island would form some type of government to make the rules so that all might live in peace. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way we have forgotten that government is best which governs least and moved toward a model where the government is involved in every aspect of our lives and continues to intrude more daily.

imo.

I wouldn't say "forgotten", because some people never believed that government is best which governs least. Therecertainly is a disagreement on the level that government effects our lives. But let's face it, nobody wants government telling us what to do, but we all want government to stop our neighbors from dumping raw sewage on our lawn.

In my humble opinion, of course.

How about dumping raw sewage on their own lawn?

If they're neighbors, it's the same thing.

I think laws preventing my neighbor from dumping sewage on my lawn are reasonable. I don't really think the government needs to get involved in telling him what he is allowed to eat before he introduces his waste into the sewer, provide medical care when he isn't feeling well, or take my money to pay for it.

Of course, you may have a different opinion on how involved the government should be involved in your day to day life.

You would allow emergency rooms to turn away the dying poor?

They can't do that now. Where did Lookout say anything to stimulate such a response?

.

I get the sense that some here are not really interested in even considering compromise. Its their way or the highway.

So, I suggest the highway.

Here's the plan. There was a bill introduced in the Texas legislature recently (by the same guy who introduced a birther bill and a bill to ban sharia law) to hold a non-binding resolution to secede from the union.

I say lets Texas secede and those in other states who want to free themselves from the over-bearing federal government can swap places with moderates and liberals in Texas.

You can have your free-market economy with no government interference, you can pollute the environment to your heart's content with no EPA regs, you can force the women to give up their reproductive rights, put kids to works....

On the plus side for us:
* two fewer Republicans in the Senate and a bunch fewer in the House
* a buffer zone against those pesky Mexicans trying to take our jobs
* the Dallas Cowboys could no longer claim to be America's team.

On the down side for us:
* hmmmm. I need some help here.
*

If we keep giving them medical treatment we can't grind them up into fertilizer.

Here is a better plan. Liberals can move to New England, New York and all states north of that, although Vermont may have a problem with that, and you can have California, or give it to Mexico if you wish, we will take the rest.

Here's another idea. Everyone shut off their TV until the election, don't read any of the mainstream partisan news sources, and ignore anyone who tells you what a politician or a policy "really means".

Most importantly quit being suckered into "liberal" and "conservative" labels. Actually listen to candidates' explanations for the policies they support and ask yourself 1) is that consistant with the constitution and the current amendments? 2) is that something that is consistant with my personal values?

The government wins by suckering us into fighting with eachother over what the meaning of is is so they can rob us blind while we aren't watching.

To late. All of that happened already. I blame Al "I invented the internet" Gore... Damm you Al Gore!!!! :lol:

Emergency rooms take other people's money (in taxes and/or higher prices for richer people) to provide medical care to poor people, which is what lookout123 said the government doesn't need to do.

Providing non-emergency care as well wouldn't be some novel giveaway, it would be a more efficient and effective way to do what we're already doing.

Which organization will be running this program again?

Emergency rooms don't take money in taxes from richer people, governments do that. Wealth redistribution is a failed plan. You must also be a Zero Liability Voter. Until everyone pays in, there will be no investment mentality to make it work.

It doesn't matter; it's cheaper and more efficient to catch diseases earlier, and do preventative care to head them off altogether.

Where do they get the money to pay for the care of people who can't pay? Government funding and/or overcharging the people who can pay.

Government funding is ONLY available to the few hospitals that are designated to do that, and I want to be sure that you understand that those are few. The rest suck it up, and charge the rest of us the balance. You really need to get out and read more....

You need to get out and read the post you are responding to.

Oh, hey, well at least you acknowledge that it does NOT fucking come from taxes.... You are making progress!

It comes from government regulation on any hospital that receives Federal money. It is written off as a tax deduction by the hospitals, and the remaining cost is transferred to the richer patients. So, as I said to start with,

How many hospitals get that money? So they actually don't receive Tax Payer dollars, as I stated earlier. Right. Thanks for agreeing with my point.

Almost all hospitals get Federal money, and are thus subject to the requirement (see the link). Under the requirement, all of those hospitals can write off nonpaying ER patients on their taxes, which makes up some of the cost at taxpayer expense. The rest of the cost is transferred, by government mandate though not through the tax system, to the paying patients.

They do not however receive Taxpayer dollars, as you stated.

I get write offs as well. I do not however receive taxpayer dollars. See how that works.

Dude you are a fool if you think that the cost is transferred, by government mandate to paying patients. Please cite... thanks.

Federal money is taxpayer dollars. If they don't receive taxpayer dollars, they don't have to follow the mandate. Most hospitals feel that the benefits of the taxpayer dollars they receive outweigh the burden of the mandate, so they do it.

What they don't get is direct funding for poor ER patients, for that they get the tax writeoff.It works rhetorically, but effectively the only difference between a tax writeoff and a check for the equivalent amount from the government is bookkeeping. I would have thought that a flat tax proponent would be especially likely to understand that. I'll cite you:They are mandated to pay these costs, and they charge the rest of us the balance.

Yea, very few hospitals do not accept medicare, unfortunately.

Well I will try to think about it like that when I write off my business expenses. I still do not receive taxpayer dollars because I write off my expense.

But they are not mandated to charge us, as you stated....

Well one thing is for sure! We will never have rationing!

The case for rationing healthcare
Americans will have to decide what we can and cannot afford.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6247911.story

A distinction without a difference.

Bullshit. Taxpayers don't give me a break on my ability to deduct.

On hospital mark ups... today's news.

http://www.ajc.com/business/huge-hos...en-917750.html

Once again, your response has no relation to the quoted text.

Analogy to your failed assumption that hospitals get paid in tax dollars vs deductions.

But completely irrelevant to the text you quoted.

Not how I understood it. So be it. Not really important.

Numbers behind the numbers and the boondoggle over the supposed recent deficit reduction agreement.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...on-budget-deal