Boehner wants to raise retirement age to fund the wars. Um...?

[foolsguinea]

"John Boehner's too-honest preview of a Republican Congress" (http://www.salon.com/news/john_boehner/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/06/29/john_boehner_speaker_preview) (Salon, Alex Pareene)Boehner on Rebellion, and the 1950s-'60s:"They're snuffing out the America that I grew up in," Boehner said. "Right now, we've got more Americans engaged in their government than at any time in our history. There's a political rebellion brewing, and I don't think we've seen anything like it since 1776."

Boehner, born in 1949, grew up in an America of high taxes, mass unionization and vast federal infrastructure and anti-poverty programs, along with segregation and pervasive racism, wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. Also there were "beatniks." It's unclear what aspects of that America the Democrats are attempting to snuff out, and which aspects are worthy of being saved from said snuffing.Well put. When conservatives try to evoke a lost America, ask them if they want back the racism or the New Deal. Boehner on War and Economic Security:

The Social Security retirement age must be raised. To pay for our wars!Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country's entitlement system, Boehner said. He said he'd favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.That will be, I'm sure, a very popular position.

So, to sum up: A Republican government will not "overreact" to oil spills or financial meltdowns, and will pay for endless, unchecked war on the backs of retirees. None of that is news, but I don't think they were supposed to say all that so explicitly.I am again quite happy to have switched parties years ago. Stupid stupid GOP creatures!

Anyone here want to defend our Mr Boehner?

[Simplicio]

How long does Boehner intend to be in Afghanistan so that savings from changes to Social Security that kick in twenty years from now will be needed to help pay for it?

Cuts in SS will probably be needed at some point, but not so drastic as Boehner seems to want, and saying that they're being made to help pay for a war the public is already lukewarm on seems like a really good way to a) Not pass cuts in SS, and b) Turn the public against the war.

[Giles]

How long does Boehner intend to be in Afghanistan so that savings from changes to Social Security that kick in twenty years from now will be needed to help pay for it?
It doesn't matter: Vietnam. Iraq, Afghanistan -- there's always a country where America has "vital interests", and needs to waste a few trillion dollars killing the natives to protect those interests.

[BrainGlutton]

Why is this in the election forum instead of the Pit? Is Boehner facing any serious challenger this year?

[Simplicio]

Why is this in the election forum instead of the Pit? Is Boehner facing any serious challenger this year?

The articles hook is that its representative of what we'd get if there's a GOP congress next year.

[Frank]

While I'm not totally against the concept of raising the full benefit retirement age (already raised to 66 1/2 for me) and it's worth discussing and arguing about, another option for fixing the alleged Social Security crisis is to eliminate the withholding cap.

Oh, wait, this is about how to pay for wars, right? Wars aren't paid for with Social Security money.

[Captain Amazing]

Oh, wait, this is about how to pay for wars, right? Wars aren't paid for with Social Security money.

The Social Security surplus gets used to buy treasury bonds, so the more money that Social Security brings in and the less that gets spent, the more the government will have to fund whatever.

[Merijeek]

The articles hook is that its representative of what we'd get if there's a GOP congress next year.

Bah! Like Barton he's just a bad apple! You know, like that Barton guy who will certainly have to face consequences for the very public rimjob he performed for BP.

-Joe

[Gyrate]

The Social Security surplus gets used to buy treasury bonds, so the more money that Social Security brings in and the less that gets spent, the more the government will have to fund whatever.Clearly the answer is to send retirees to Afghanistan. It'll all balance out in the end.

[Polycarp]

I rather like the idea from an early Heinlein story -- the U.S. doesn't send armed forces to fight outside the national boundaries without a Congressional declaration of war. But the kicker is, if as a Congressman/Senator you vote "Yes" and it carries, your "Yes" vote was also volunteering to go fight. A war that's really needed would pass anyway; the legislators would be willing to volunteer, as many of the younger ones did in some past wars. But it would give them cause to think twice.

[Sam Stone]

You guys know that 'the cost of the wars' is a drop in the bucket compared to overall federal debt and liability, right?

The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is around 1 trillion dollars over seven years. The current federal deficit is 1.6 trillion dollars for one year. The stimulus package last year cost about the same as the entire cost of both wars to date.

The total unfunded liability for Medicare and SS is around 100 trillion dollars. That's just the federal liability. Most U.S. states are finding that their entitlement programs and other budgetary liabilities are exploding out of control as well. And last time I checked, the individual states weren't fighting any wars.

This isn't about funding wars. This is about a system of entitlements that is unsustainable, and about government spending growing much faster than the growth in the economy. If you eliminated the entire military budget, you couldn't even cover half of the current deficit.

[Digital Stimulus]

This isn't about funding wars.
Everything you posted is accurate and you're right to point it out...except the above quoted bit. Quoth Boehner (as in the OP):
Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country's entitlement system.
I note that I'm not arguing about what Boehner meant, nor what the argument should be about. Perhaps those few sentences of Boehner's are taken out of context and he didn't actually elevate war-spending above entitlement-spending in importance.

But his exact words say that it's specifically about "funding wars".

[sleeping]

You guys know that 'the cost of the wars' is a drop in the bucket compared to overall federal debt and liability, right?

The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is around 1 trillion dollars over seven years. The current federal deficit is 1.6 trillion dollars for one year. The stimulus package last year cost about the same as the entire cost of both wars to date.

The difference is that wars waste resources and create costs down the line, such as injuries endured by veterans that must be treated. Whereas domestic spending (at least in part), funds jobs and programs that are productive and necessary for the country to function.


The total unfunded liability for Medicare and SS is around 100 trillion dollars. That's just the federal liability. Most U.S. states are finding that their entitlement programs and other budgetary liabilities are exploding out of control as well. And last time I checked, the individual states weren't fighting any wars.

Nope. Just the usual right-wing nonsense and fear-mongering:


Social Security is a government program funded by a dedicated tax. There are two ways to look at this. First, you can simply view the program as part of the general federal budget, with the the dedicated tax bit just a formality. And there’s a lot to be said for that point of view; if you take it, benefits are a federal cost, payroll taxes a source of revenue, and they don’t really have anything to do with each other.

Alternatively, you can look at Social Security on its own. And as a practical matter, this has considerable significance too; as long as Social Security still has funds in its trust fund, it doesn’t need new legislation to keep paying promised benefits.

OK, so two views, both of some use. But here’s what you can’t do: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that for the last 25 years, when Social Security ran surpluses, well, that didn’t mean anything, because it’s just part of the federal government — but when payroll taxes fall short of benefits, even though there’s lots of money in the trust fund, Social Security is broke.

--NYT (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/zombies-have-already-killed-the-deficit-commission/)



It is nonsense to suggest that a crisis looms directly before us that requires immediate, profound change to our social insurance system. We do have a serious problem of rising healthcare costs, but these are just as great for private employers and families as for the public sector, just as great for the young as for the old. Against this, Social Security is in good shape; the bill in the future will not threaten the well being of our children or their children. It will be easy to preserve Social Security without any radical "fixes."
...
The history of Social Security is replete with adjustments to tax rates, benefits, and the retirement age. For example, as funding difficulties approached in 1983, President Reagan appointed a Commission headed by Alan Greenspan that suggested adjustments to keep the system whole. These changes will prevent a funding shortfall for at least another four decades (six decades from the time the Commission's recommendations were adopted).
...
The notion of "unfunded liabilities" in certain programs is based on the arbitrary assumption that certain designated revenue sources should pay for certain classes of government expenditures. The story that Social Security and Medicare should be paid for out of payroll taxes and their trust funds is not a recent creation of critics of those systems. It has been around for decades. But why? Revenues and expenditures are "fungible," meaning that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. In fact, today's Social Security surplus flows right into the pot with other revenues, while a significant portion of Medicare costs already are paid for out of general revenue. The real question is not "will the designated revenues be enough to pay for the designated programs" but "will we have enough income to afford to keep the promises we have made?"

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=496

[sleeping]

I would just add that I am grateful to Boehner for framing the issue in just this way. It will make it that much easier for people to connect the dots and realize that the wars are just ways to funnel money taxpayer to corporations.

[Chronos]

Quoth Polycarp:I rather like the idea from an early Heinlein story -- the U.S. doesn't send armed forces to fight outside the national boundaries without a Congressional declaration of war. But the kicker is, if as a Congressman/Senator you vote "Yes" and it carries, your "Yes" vote was also volunteering to go fight. A war that's really needed would pass anyway; the legislators would be willing to volunteer, as many of the younger ones did in some past wars. But it would give them cause to think twice. I've thought something similar for a while, but I don't recall ever seeing it in Heinlein. Do you remember what story it was?

Of course, the two big problems with the idea are that politicians at that level tend to be both old and very well-connected, which combined mean that the military would probably end up putting them in some safe, easy desk job far from the front.

[septimus]

The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is around 1 trillion dollars over seven years.
...
The total unfunded liability for Medicare and SS is around 100 trillion dollars.

Let's note that both these numbers are wrong. The Trillion dollars for the Wars reflects just the supplemental appropriations to date. Not included are interest on this borrowed money, war-related spending (or lost opportunity) in the regular defense budget, unreplaced equipment and munitions, and future veterans' medical care. Three trillion dollars is generally regarded as a more rational total estimate (assuming the war stops today), and that figure doesn't include costs to U.S. in blood or goodwill, and certainly doesn't include costs to Iraq and Afghanistan, nor oil price-rises and future wars that may arise due to these mistakes.

To understand the number, divide by America's 120 million households to get $3500 per year per household wasted on Bush's Wars. A fair amount of money, though not enough to pay the household's health insurance premium, unfortunately.

And this lets us segue into pointing out Sam Stone's other big mistakes. First, the "unfunded liability" he speaks of is almost entirely Medicare (SS itself is funded for another 30 years), and the big problem isn't the lack of funding per se, but rather the expense and continuing cost growth of healthcare. And the 100 trillion dollar scare figure is calculated by discounting an infinite future projection! (If we asumed the neocon idiots would regain power we could project a huge cost for their future military adventures. :dubious: )

So when people like Sam Stone complain about the "100 trillion dollar" shortfall in providing medical care to retirees, let's ask them what their solution is. Let the retirees get sick and die? :confused: Blame it on Democrats who keep wasting money on public schools etc.? :confused: Or failure to elect right-wingers? -- remember it was the Republicans under Bush who converted Medicare into a Windfall for Drug Companies program. :smack:

[sleeping]

So when people like Sam Stone complain about the "100 trillion dollar" shortfall in providing medical care to retirees, let's ask them what their solution is. Let the retirees get sick and die? :confused: Blame it on Democrats who keep wasting money on public schools etc.? :confused: Or failure to elect right-wingers? -- remember it was the Republicans under Bush who converted Medicare into a Windfall for Drug Companies program. :smack:

More to the point, these lies are designed to privatize Medicare--in other words, steal from the public that which it paid for, under the auspices of fiscal restraint.

[Polycarp]

Quoth Polycarp:I've thought something similar for a while, but I don't recall ever seeing it in Heinlein. Do you remember what story it was?

Of course, the two big problems with the idea are that politicians at that level tend to be both old and very well-connected, which combined mean that the military would probably end up putting them in some safe, easy desk job far from the front.

For Us The Living, if I remember correctly.

And yeah, that is a good point. Most Congressmen and Senators are too old to fight.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

For Us The Living, if I remember correctly.

And yeah, that is a good point. Most Congressmen and Senators are too old to fight.

They don't have to fight. They only need to drive the trucks delivering supplies between Kabul and Kandahar (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ24Df03.html).

[Sam Stone]

Let's note that both these numbers are wrong. The Trillion dollars for the Wars reflects just the supplemental appropriations to date. Not included are interest on this borrowed money, war-related spending (or lost opportunity) in the regular defense budget, unreplaced equipment and munitions, and future veterans' medical care.

Oh, if you want to get picky, shall we recalculate the cost of the stimulus in the same way? How about the health care bill? Or any other government spending?

Three trillion dollars is generally regarded as a more rational total estimate (assuming the war stops today), and that figure doesn't include costs to U.S. in blood or goodwill, and certainly doesn't include costs to Iraq and Afghanistan, nor oil price-rises and future wars that may arise due to these mistakes.

Accepted by who? Cites, please.

To understand the number, divide by America's 120 million households to get $3500 per year per household wasted on Bush's Wars. A fair amount of money, though not enough to pay the household's health insurance premium, unfortunately.

Oh, doing some spinning, are we? Shall we apply that same 'analysis' to the cost of the stimulus package? Or tarp? The unfunded liability for Medicare alone is a little under $100,000 per family, or about twice the net worth of all the citizens of the U.S.


And this lets us segue into pointing out Sam Stone's other big mistakes. First, the "unfunded liability" he speaks of is almost entirely Medicare (SS itself is funded for another 30 years), and the big problem isn't the lack of funding per se, but rather the expense and continuing cost growth of healthcare.

It's not a lack of funds! It's an excess of expenses!

And I did say "Medicare and Social Security", so I'm not sure where my 'mistake' is.

And the 100 trillion dollar scare figure is calculated by discounting an infinite future projection!

What, you mean according to generally accepted accounting principles? The horror! Why would we ever want to hold government to such a standard? You do know that the big number (which is actually higher than 100 trillion - I rounded down) came from the actuaries that prepared the trustees' report to Congress?

Sure, you can make an argument that you should use a shorter time horizon because conditions might change, but that hardly makes the real number a 'mistake'. But hey, let's just go out 75 years then. Now the unfunded liability is only 55 trillion dollars - more than the entire net worth of everyone in the U.S. Does that make you feel better?

And we haven't even mentioned the various unfunded liabilities from all the federal and state pension funds, which is over 1 trillion dollars (and which will be coming due much sooner).

(If we asumed the neocon idiots would regain power we could project a huge cost for their future military adventures. :dubious: )

Comments like this make it clear that you're not even trying to debate the issue reasonably.

So when people like Sam Stone complain about the "100 trillion dollar" shortfall in providing medical care to retirees, let's ask them what their solution is. Let the retirees get sick and die? :confused: Blame it on Democrats who keep wasting money on public schools etc.? :confused: Or failure to elect right-wingers? -- remember it was the Republicans under Bush who converted Medicare into a Windfall for Drug Companies program. :smack:

If you want to know what 'people like Sam Stone' think, why not just ask me directly? What's with the third party nonsense?

What I think is that it's ridiculous that Medicare is universal. If it were fully funded and an actuarially sound program that simply invested contributions and paid them back, it wouldn't matter if it was universal or not. But since contributions don't even come close to paying for promised benefits, it's a welfare program. So make it one explictly, and stop paying for the health care of the rich. Means-test it like every social program should be means-tested.

[Polycarp]

Oh, if you want to get picky, shall we recalculate the cost of the stimulus in the same way? How about the health care bill? Or any other government spending?



Accepted by who? Cites, please.



Oh, doing some spinning, are we? Shall we apply that same 'analysis' to the cost of the stimulus package? Or tarp? The unfunded liability for Medicare alone is a little under $100,000 per family, or about twice the net worth of all the citizens of the U.S.




It's not a lack of funds! It's an excess of expenses!

And I did say "Medicare and Social Security", so I'm not sure where my 'mistake' is.



What, you mean according to generally accepted accounting principles? The horror! Why would we ever want to hold government to such a standard? You do know that the big number (which is actually higher than 100 trillion - I rounded down) came from the actuaries that prepared the trustees' report to Congress?

Sure, you can make an argument that you should use a shorter time horizon because conditions might change, but that hardly makes the real number a 'mistake'. But hey, let's just go out 75 years then. Now the unfunded liability is only 55 trillion dollars - more than the entire net worth of everyone in the U.S. Does that make you feel better?

And we haven't even mentioned the various unfunded liabilities from all the federal and state pension funds, which is over 1 trillion dollars (and which will be coming due much sooner).



Comments like this make it clear that you're not even trying to debate the issue reasonably.



If you want to know what 'people like Sam Stone' think, why not just ask me directly? What's with the third party nonsense?

What I think is that it's ridiculous that Medicare is universal. If it were fully funded and an actuarially sound program that simply invested contributions and paid them back, it wouldn't matter if it was universal or not. But since contributions don't even come close to paying for promised benefits, it's a welfare program. So make it one explictly, and stop paying for the health care of the rich. Means-test it like every social program should be means-tested.

Dearest Sam:

If I were to tell you in so many words, "you should get sick and die," even in the Pit, I would get warned or banned, and rightly so.

What you fail to realize is that you have just, in effect, said the same thing to me.

Sincerely,
Poly

[Sam Stone]

Wow. That's bizarre. I'm curious, though: How did I do that? By advocating that Medicare be on a sound actuarial footing? By saying that the wealthy should pay for their own health care? Or what?

[Measure for Measure]

You guys know that 'the cost of the wars' is a drop in the bucket compared to overall federal debt and liability, right? Misleading. The cost of interest on the wars form a substantial portion of US deficits for the next 10 years, even assuming a rapid draw-down of troops. The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is around 1 trillion dollars over seven years. The current federal deficit is 1.6 trillion dollars for one year. Much of that is TARP money, a portion of which we will get back. Misleading.

The following chart gives a better idea of the budget situation over the next 10 years:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/chart-of-the-day-reminder-the-deficit-youre-freaking-out-about-is-bushs-fault.php?ref=fpblg

The ballooning problem are the Bush tax cuts, which will go away if they are not actively renewed.

[Sam Stone]

The TARP money was part of last year's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

And your chart is highly misleading. Why should Bush's tax cuts and the wars show up, but not government permanent spending increases? Why isn't there a line in there for, say, increases to the Dept of Education over and above inflation? Useful if you're trying to pin everything on Bush, I suppose. Of course, government always had the option of cutting spending, and chose not to. So the chart starts out with all the mandatory and discretionary spending baked in, and then simply highlights a few specific things and tacks them on. It's just an exercise in spin.

[Measure for Measure]

The TARP money was part of last year's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

And your chart is highly misleading. Why should Bush's tax cuts and the wars show up, but not government permanent spending increases? Why isn't there a line in there for, say, increases to the Dept of Education over and above inflation? Useful if you're trying to pin everything on Bush, I suppose. Of course, government always had the option of cutting spending, and chose not to. So the chart starts out with all the mandatory and discretionary spending baked in, and then simply highlights a few specific things and tacks them on. It's just an exercise in spin. And those permanent spending increases are where? Dept of Education is essentially funded year by year, right?

Seriously, Sam, we both know that the US budget is basically a pension plan that happens to have an army. So mumbles about the D of Ed are laughable. You could roll back Dept of Education spending back to 2004 levels of $60.6 billion (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/gryphon-040211.html) and the lines wouldn't move.[1] Over the long haul, the budgetary outlook lives and dies depending upon US health care spending. And the health care reform was highly responsible in that regards, in the face of vicious partisan opposition. Sorry, but your team is all wet.

You can whine all you want, but the net temporary recession spending is dwarfed by the usual collapse in tax revenues following the 2007-09 financial crisis and Bush's tax cuts.

[1] From Wikipedia: US D of Ed discretionary: $62.6 billion, a difference of $2 billion from 2004 which is miniscule. ARRA: $96 billion- but that's included on the chart!

[Measure for Measure]

Of course, government always had the option of cutting spending, and chose not to. Wisely, I would say. During recession, government spending is a good thing, as it compensates for a collapse of investment and consumption.

Heck, even Herbert Hoover increased spending during the Great Depression, though Roosevelt did it more. Modern conservatives don't like to be tied to the policies of the Great Depression, the financial crisis and even the long-running clusterf**k in Iraq. But there's a straight line between policy based on slogans and systemic breakdown.

[SteveG1]

Clearly the answer is to send retirees to Afghanistan. It'll all balance out in the end.

Monty Python's Walker Brigade.


Forget Bohner or however he spells boner. Social Security funds do not and will not finance any wars (were we planning more in the foreseeable future?). It's just another fabricated excuse to loot and kill Social Security, screw working people a little more, and give the politicians and suits more "free" money for themselves. In short, Senator Boner is talking out his ass. If he wants to reduce government, let it start with him - he can quit any time.

[gonzomax]

The deficit is equal to the tax cuts plus Bush's unpaid for wars. Back up the tax cuts and quit waging war. Bush deliberately blew the budget so the Repubs can justify killing programs for the unwashed and undeserving. With a surplus ,it was hard to say programs that helped the poor were wrong and unsustainable. They fixed that, didn't they. Now everything is on the table., except raising taxes and gutting tax loopholes. Nordquist said that was their intention. Mission accomplished, wheres the banner.

[ElvisL1ves]

Why should Bush's tax cuts and the wars show up, but not government permanent spending increases?The former were optional, and your guy's doing as you'll recall, after he started with a budget in surplus. The latter? You'll have to explain your terms and present some data if you're serious about discussing the problem.

Why isn't there a line in there for, say, increases to the Dept of Education over and above inflation?Because no evidence has been presented to show they even exist in significant quantities.

And you really do need to find a different hobbyhorse to ride than Education, friend. Not only are your traditional basic claims wrong (most of its budget gets passed on to local systems), but they're based on your favored party's traditional spite over the teachers' unions traditionally supporting the Democrats.

Useful if you're trying to pin everything on Bush, I suppose. Facts is facts. Bush started with no deficit. What he did is essentially what created the deficit. Face it, okay? Accept a little responsibility for your positions.

Of course, government always had the option of cutting spending, and chose not to."Government"? And you talk about exercises in spin? :dubious: Yes, your Republicans had the option of not starting a war and then keeping its expenses off the books, that's true.

So the chart starts out with all the mandatory and discretionary spending baked in, and then simply highlights a few specific things and tacks them on. It's just an exercise in spin.Here's a hanky for you.

[Measure for Measure]

Why isn't there a line in there for, say, increases to the Dept of Education over and above inflation? Because such a line would represent less than $2 billion on a chart whose axis tops out at $1500 billion. On my screen it the rise would amount to about 1/10th of a millimeter: it is literally microscopic.

The designers of the chart focused on numerically significant programs, rather than emotionally significant ones.

Education budget here: !PDF! http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/education.pdf

Discretionary outlays go from 44971 to 46743 from 2009-2010 and are flat the following year: figures are nominal. The difference of 1.77 billion compares with the chart's $17.65 billion of spending per millimeter on the y-axis on my screen.

[septimus]

And you really do need to find a different hobbyhorse to ride than Education, friend. Not only are your traditional basic claims wrong (most of its budget gets passed on to local systems), but they're based on your favored party's traditional spite over the teachers' unions traditionally supporting the Democrats.

This reminded me of David Brooks' latest gaffe in the Atlantic Monthly.

Each year that magazine invites its contributers to help write "The Biggest Ideas of the Year". This year we see interesting articles on environmentalism, the Catholic Church, fiscal policy, future of the Internet, political partisanship, "boredom is extinct", the rise of China, etc. and most interestingly, "The End of Men", an essay that points out, for example, that women now outnumber men in the "managerial and professional" job category, among Americans.

But what did Mr. Brooks contribute to "The Biggest Ideas" of 2010? A screed against teachers' unions!

(Am I the only one that finds David Brooks to be singularly irritating? Many right-wing commentators embrace their bigoted low-brow beliefs in an almost amusing and likeable way. Brooks likes to adopt a pretence of some humanist idea, then twist it into right-wing tripe.)

[septimus]

Oh, if you want to get picky, shall we recalculate the cost of the stimulus in the same way? How about the health care bill? Or any other government spending?

:confused: The total price estimates for the wars include hundreds of billions of dollars for veterans' medical costs. Do you claim other government programs have similar risks? :confused:

My big objection was that in comparing costs for Wars and Medicare you stopped the war expense at 2010, but your Medicare estimates involved projecting into the 22nd century. If you still can't see why this is not a valid "apples to apples" way to compare, I'm afraid I can't help.

If you want to know what 'people like Sam Stone' think, why not just ask me directly? ... Means-test [Medicare] like every social program should be means-tested.

OK ... sorry. Perhaps I extrapolated from some of your right-wing comments and made you into a stereotypical right-winger. (Perhaps I need to maintain a crib-sheet of Doper's views.) Here I see you want to "means-test" Medicare which seems more Marxist than Beck-Limbaughist! Or perhaps I need to wait for the other shoe to drop ... right-wingers may claim that those wealthy enough not to need Medicare shouldn't be taxed for it either!

Your comment about "means-testing" detracts from emphasizing the real problem, which is simply high health-care costs. Personally I do not support means-testing: it just introduces unnecessary bureaucracy. Cover everyone and finance it with a highly progressive tax.

[Measure for Measure]

OK ... sorry. Perhaps I extrapolated from some of your right-wing comments and made you into a stereotypical right-winger. (Pst: we're just batting stuff back and forth in this thread but for future reference... Sam isn't a stereotypical right-winger. He is, um, smarter.)

[gonzomax]

Not all jobs are equal. Would you want a 70 year old walking on the girders at a construction site? How would it be for a 70 year old to be on an assembly line ? Some jobs are physically demanding and a 70 year old could not do them. Many 70 year olds have it together but some get Alzheimers . You want your accountant to keep plugging away on your taxes at 70?

[DanBlather]

Quoth Polycarp:I rather like the idea from an early Heinlein story -- the U.S. doesn't send armed forces to fight outside the national boundaries without a Congressional declaration of war. But the kicker is, if as a Congressman/Senator you vote "Yes" and it carries, your "Yes" vote was also volunteering to go fight. A war that's really needed would pass anyway; the legislators would be willing to volunteer, as many of the younger ones did in some past wars. But it would give them cause to think twice. I've thought something similar for a while, but I don't recall ever seeing it in Heinlein. Do you remember what story it was?Isn't it every one?

[Ludovic]

The total unfunded liability for Medicare and SS is around 100 trillion dollars.

HEY SOCIALIST REPUBLICANS! Keep your hands off my Medicare!

[Wesley Clark]

You guys know that 'the cost of the wars' is a drop in the bucket compared to overall federal debt and liability, right?

The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is around 1 trillion dollars over seven years. The current federal deficit is 1.6 trillion dollars for one year. The stimulus package last year cost about the same as the entire cost of both wars to date.

The total unfunded liability for Medicare and SS is around 100 trillion dollars. That's just the federal liability. Most U.S. states are finding that their entitlement programs and other budgetary liabilities are exploding out of control as well. And last time I checked, the individual states weren't fighting any wars.

This isn't about funding wars. This is about a system of entitlements that is unsustainable, and about government spending growing much faster than the growth in the economy. If you eliminated the entire military budget, you couldn't even cover half of the current deficit.

Most of those expenses are due to our crappy health care system, which sadly is so entrenched that any meaningful reform is almost impossible. If the US's health care system was as efficient as Canada's our long term liabilities would be tens of trillions less.

So reform the health care system and raise the SS FICA tax cap and that'll go a very long way in fighting our long term deficits.

[Wesley Clark]

Wow. That's bizarre. I'm curious, though: How did I do that? By advocating that Medicare be on a sound actuarial footing? By saying that the wealthy should pay for their own health care? Or what?

Means testing can be seen as a way to convince the middle class that a program is designed to benefit the poor, and as a result make it easier to destroy at the ballot.

Medicare, public education, the interstate system, military etc. benefit everyone regardless of income. If they were income based programs like food stamps, WIC, medicaid, etc. they would be more unpopular and easier for politicians to rail against.

So this push to means test medicare & SS that some republicans are pushing sounds more like a trojan horse effort to make those programs unpopular enough to repeal them.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Wow. That's bizarre. I'm curious, though: How did I do that? By advocating that Medicare be on a sound actuarial footing? By saying that the wealthy should pay for their own health care? Or what?

What's bazaar is you seem to have such mindless tunnel vision you can't see the words in front of your face. Polycarp, appears to have a medical condition he can't afford to have insured. Maybe he's well off, but it's too expensive to ensure. Maybe he's poor and feels it would make the program unpalatable to voters.

What your asking for will mean less coverage for Americans. People like Polycarp may fall through the cracks. Less coverage means some will for sure. Are you ready to have that blood on your UHC covered Canadian hands?

[foolsguinea]

Hasn't Sam previously acknowledged that welfare systems that penalize work are counterproductive? No one should come out behind by making more money for himself. So: All taxes should be marginal. Means testing should be abandoned; all welfare systems should be universal, including Social Security.Yes, I mean replacing our "merit-based" pension plan (& disability, & EIC) with a high general negative income tax, a good libertarian idea. Where are the libertarians for Friedman's negative income tax?

[gonzomax]

So when people like Sam Stone complain about the "100 trillion dollar" shortfall in providing medical care to retirees, let's ask them what their solution is. Let the retirees get sick and die? :confused: Blame it on Democrats who keep wasting money on public schools etc.? :confused: Or failure to elect right-wingers? -- remember it was the Republicans under Bush who converted Medicare into a Windfall for Drug Companies program. :smack:

More to the point, these lies are designed to privatize Medicare--in other words, steal from the public that which it paid for, under the auspices of fiscal restraint.

Social Security and Medicare are huge pots of money. If they can get their fingers in those pots they can filter 15 to 30 percent of the money into the hands of managers and investors. It is Pavlovian. They can not resist. It would wind up being run like the Heath Care which is a pathetic waste of money and a very poor delivery system. But those in control could they get even richer. They never have enough.

[elucidator]

...But what did Mr. Brooks contribute to "The Biggest Ideas" of 2010? A screed against teachers' unions!....Brooks likes to adopt a pretense of some humanist idea, then twist it into right-wing tripe.)

Mr. Brooks is a very intelligent man trapped in a prison of his own devise. He knows who writes his checks, and why.

I never miss him and Shields on PBS, they are precisely the form of calm debate that everyone claims to love and nobody watches. Brooks has the better suits, Shields the better points, and, besides, Shields would make a suit of armor look rumpled.

But Brooks is clearly uncomfortable with trends in the party he serves. He seems to be ever alert for an issue wherein he can declaim his orthodoxy without actually soiling himself. The Teacher's Unions serve his purposes admirably.

Now, let it be noted that I am deeply and unashamedly biased towards unions, walked a picket line with my grandfather when I was three. But even as lefty as I am, there is no question that unions, like any other grouping of people, need be carefully watched, lest good intentions fall into the hands of the ambitious. And I also think there is evidence enough that the Teachers Unions could do with a brisk round of self-criticism.

Unions, like any other human endeavor, are susceptible to human weakness, wellduh. And that's the truth. But far too often when one is being told a truth by somebody wearing $500 shoes, the truth is a worm squirming on the hook, helplessly trying to escape, and luring the unwary.

[gonzomax]

Wow. That's bizarre. I'm curious, though: How did I do that? By advocating that Medicare be on a sound actuarial footing? By saying that the wealthy should pay for their own health care? Or what?

Means testing can be seen as a way to convince the middle class that a program is designed to benefit the poor, and as a result make it easier to destroy at the ballot.

Medicare, public education, the interstate system, military etc. benefit everyone regardless of income. If they were income based programs like food stamps, WIC, medicaid, etc. they would be more unpopular and easier for politicians to rail against.

So this push to means test medicare & SS that some republicans are pushing sounds more like a trojan horse effort to make those programs unpopular enough to repeal them.
Means testing is tough. I worked with a guy who's wife had brain surgeries. She went through millions in care before she died. A person with cancer can go through a million bucks too. How rich do you have to be to not need Medicare?