They might be going about it badly....

Generali

....but perhaps the Republicans have a point after all:



Hmm. Spending rising much faster than revenues, that's not ideal.

"What's making that happen Generali?", you cry.

Funny you should ask as I have another graph to demonstrate:



Bringing the Government to a halt probably isn't a great way to try to make the Democrats see sense but this clearly isn't sustainable. Increasing taxes, the obvious solution, becomes self defeating of course as that reduces GDP due to 'deadweight loss'.

michaels

Umm most of Europe can (perhaps can is a bit strong) manage with taxation being a much higher share of GDP than 18% (note below the recent norm). I guess if some of health care is to be swiched from private funding to state funding (note funding not provision) then the tax take should be increased accordingly?

Finally is there a good way to reconcile the current situation where the budgetary process is being used by the Republicans to try and circumvent legislation passed elsewhere. Perhaps a blanced budget ammendment that states that all new spending (and tax) policies should also include corresponding changes to other expenditure/taxation to make them deficit neutral?

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

....but perhaps the Republicans have a point after all:

Bringing the Government to a halt probably isn't a great way to try to make the Democrats see sense but this clearly isn't sustainable. Increasing taxes, the obvious solution, becomes self defeating of course as that reduces GDP due to 'deadweight loss'.[/QUOTE]

For the sake of clarity it is worth noting that the increase in healthcare costs on that chart isn't down to CARE (otherwise it would happen quicker) it is due to the population ageing and healthcare costs continuing to rise on a per person basis. Elderly Americans were already covered under medicare so this increase was going to happen anyway.

America barely functions as a country now that the teaparty has hijacked a chunk of the influence. They are in a situation where some of the poorest states, which receive most money from central government are passionately demanding decreased government spending.

What I don't understand is why, as democrat states tend to be wealthier, the Democratic president doesn't return more power and money to the states. That way New York and other blue states that want public healthcare could easily afford it, and the red states that claim to want low taxes and small government can give it a try and see if they really like being poor and unsupported.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

Hmm. Spending rising much faster than revenues, that's not ideal.

Nothing new Gen. Healthcare budget is a major problem in around 2020. No one wants to openly admit or address it though. The USA is going to be printing money for a long time yet......

chewmylegoff

So what's your solution G? Cap healthcare spending somehow? Euthanasia?