3 ms·

I'm kind of confused. The big three are our biggest expenses (which includes healthcare for veterans). So giving tax cuts to the super rich (or anyone really) w

by jshen 16y ago

I'm kind of confused. The big three are our biggest expenses (which includes healthcare for veterans). So giving tax cuts to the super rich (or anyone really) without addressing the big three is the problem that the person you're replying to is pointing out. How is that a "no sale"? Cause he mentioned veterans?

cletus 16y ago
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/100223williams.pdf http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/100223williams.pdf > Growth in Budgets for Military Health Care > The DoD's health care costs rose from about $20 billion in 1998 to $47 billion in 2010 (FY 2010 dollars)—an annual growth rate of 7.4 percent above inflation. Absent changes in policy, CBO projects they will at least double between now and 2028. It's no sale because it's ~2% of the budget masked in emotion, which is at best an irrelevant distraction and at worst a deliberate attempt to demonize opposing views. Limit the focus to just the (increasingly ill-named) "defense" budget and even then it's only around 10% and is dwarfed by the cost of discretionary operations within that budget/department.
- natnat 16y ago
  That last argument was about tax cuts, though, and not military health care spending. Even if we held military spending constant, it still would have been irresponsible to cut taxes because there was no corresponding spending cut that ensured those tax cuts were paid for.
- mattrepl 16y ago
  I believe you want the Department of Veteran Affairs. The 2010 budget was $114 billion. http://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp http://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp
- jonhendry 16y ago
  I agree with what you're saying about the big issues and the 3 sources of deficits. But when considering something like the estate tax cut, it makes sense to consider the 'cost' of it in terms of either borrowing necessary to replace the lost revenue, or the cost of cutting government programs to make up for the lost revenue. The $50 billion or whatever cost of the estate tax cut might be a drop in the bucket compared to the overall deficit, but it should still be dealt with responsibly.
- jshen 16y ago
  I think your focus on this one example instead of his larger argument could also be considered an irrelevant distraction. VA benefits are part of two of your big three so they seem relevant to me. In order to cut taxes we have to cut something from the big three and VA care is such a thing that could be cut to pay for tax cuts. It seems completely relevant to me, and yes it is emotional, that's why we never deal with this problem. The estate tax is emotional too, especially when called the death tax. It seems impossible to talk about this stuff without dealing with things that are emotionally charged.

by jshen 16y ago

cletus 16y ago

http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/100223williams.pdf http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/100223williams.pdf > Growth in Budgets for Military Health Care > The DoD's health care costs rose from about $20 billion in 1998 to $47 billion in 2010 (FY 2010 dollars)—an annual growth rate of 7.4 percent above inflation. Absent changes in policy, CBO projects they will at least double between now and 2028. It's no sale because it's ~2% of the budget masked in emotion, which is at best an irrelevant distraction and at worst a deliberate attempt to demonize opposing views. Limit the focus to just the (increasingly ill-named) "defense" budget and even then it's only around 10% and is dwarfed by the cost of discretionary operations within that budget/department.

natnat 16y ago
That last argument was about tax cuts, though, and not military health care spending. Even if we held military spending constant, it still would have been irresponsible to cut taxes because there was no corresponding spending cut that ensured those tax cuts were paid for.
mattrepl 16y ago
I believe you want the Department of Veteran Affairs. The 2010 budget was $114 billion. http://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp http://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp
jonhendry 16y ago
I agree with what you're saying about the big issues and the 3 sources of deficits. But when considering something like the estate tax cut, it makes sense to consider the 'cost' of it in terms of either borrowing necessary to replace the lost revenue, or the cost of cutting government programs to make up for the lost revenue. The $50 billion or whatever cost of the estate tax cut might be a drop in the bucket compared to the overall deficit, but it should still be dealt with responsibly.
jshen 16y ago
I think your focus on this one example instead of his larger argument could also be considered an irrelevant distraction. VA benefits are part of two of your big three so they seem relevant to me. In order to cut taxes we have to cut something from the big three and VA care is such a thing that could be cut to pay for tax cuts. It seems completely relevant to me, and yes it is emotional, that's why we never deal with this problem. The estate tax is emotional too, especially when called the death tax. It seems impossible to talk about this stuff without dealing with things that are emotionally charged.