Obama the Pragmatic Moderate

[Fast_Eddie]

Pete, don't you think that chart is missing a lot of information that would be needed to make any decisions? Population? Inflation? What can you buy today for the price you would have paid in 1934? How on earth could we opperate the government at 1934 levels? I just think popping up that chart is misleading. There's almost certainly a similar chart for average income.

[piece-itpete]

Agreed BUT keep in mind that because taxes are based on percentages they generally rise with inflation.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Agreed BUT keep in mind that because taxes are based on percentages they generally rise with inflation.

Pete

Well that's my point. That's what that chart shows.

[merrylander]

Here is a little factoid for y'all. Back when Mike Pearson started the SinglePayer plan Canadians and Americans were statistically equal. Same life expectancy, same infant death rate, same prevalence of heart attacks.

Now the Canadians have a six year advantage on life expectancy, half the infant death rate, and much lower rate of heart attacks. Hey, if that is socialism I'll take it.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Here is a little factoid for y'all. Back when Mike Pearson started the SinglePayer plan Canadians and Americans were statistically equal. Same life expectancy, same infant death rate, same prevalence of heart attacks.

Now the Canadians have a six year advantage on life expectancy, half the infant death rate, and much lower rate of heart attacks. Hey, if that is socialism I'll take it.

Yeah, but, that's all a big lie as is evidenced by all of the MILLIONS of Canadians cloggoing up hospital waiting rooms all across America.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

So if the fed income is indeed par with income, why o why do they need a GREATER percentage?

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

So if the fed income is indeed par with income, why o why do they need a GREATER percentage?

Pete

Again, we don't have enough information here to say much other than things go up. There's no population information here, no spending per-capita information, no notation of when major programs went into effect and no accounting for military spending. In 1935 spending on the Air Force was zero. We didn't have one. So are you suggesting we should disolve the Air Force? Show me in the Constitution where it says the government can create an Air Force.

Technology advances and things cost money- things that we need to be a developed nation. What did we spend on highways in 1935? Should we get rid of the highway system? Why should I pay so Wal Mart can move goods across the country? How's your GPS working for you? Why should I have to pay for the technology that launces satellites? Before probably the 1980s no government offices had computers. They don't give those things away. Should we eliminate all computerized systems from the government? I guess that would include the internet. Get rid of that too? It would save tax dollars. Deliver mail by horse back. Why do I now have to pay for vehicles and fuel? They didn't have to in 1935.

But what would be the *cost* to the American economy if all of those things were eliminated? Would any major corporation establish headquarters in a country with no state sponsored infrastructure? No roads, bridges, internet, national security, satellite comunication, postal system, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. You want to visit from abroad for a face to face about a project? Sure- take a boat. We have no airports here. Then buy a Horse and ride across country because we have no highway system. Am I being absurd? I don't think so. I hear no recognition from the Tea Party folks that we need *any* taxes at all and no specific direction as to where our spending should be cut.

You know what we would have? Afghanistan. Yeah, it all costs money. But thank God we collect taxes and provide appropriate services. If we didn't it wouldn't be much of a place to live and we sure wouldn't have the economic base to keep everyone living so well.

And yes, health care is one of those deals. Why run my company in the U.S. where I have to pay for my employee's health coverage when I can set up shop in Europe or Canada and have the government pick up the tab? You think it's just a fluke that they build a lot of "American" cars north of the border?

And if i need some specialized software developed for my company, why do the job with a Silicon Valley company for more money when I can get it from a French company for less. Those California guys have to pick up the tab for health care and the French guys don't.

This Tea Party nonsense is going to drive us into the stone age.

Here in Colorado, the city of Colorado Springs is so short on cash they're no longer maintaining many of their parks and turning off the street lights. No street lights? Is that the country we want to live in? We're so greedy we're affraid some poor person will have a lighted street at our expense? But they are allowing people to "adopt" street lights, so the wealthy neighborhoods will still have them. It's getting insane.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

So if the fed income is indeed par with income, why o why do they need a GREATER percentage?

Pete

Actually, the highest marginal tax rate now is considerably lower than in the "good old days." Extracted from an article cited on another thread:

"Between 1913, the first year that the income tax became constitutional, and 1981, the first year of the Reagan presidency, the highest federal marginal income tax rate was, on average, 68 percent ... and today the highest marginal tax rate is only 35 percent."

[piece-itpete]

I thought the argument was federal programs like the highway system generated growth?

Anyway how about government spending as a percentage of GDP.

Pete

PS the US in 1800 wasn't much like Afghanistan.

[Fast_Eddie]

Am I missing something? That looks pretty flat Pete.