Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-03-2018, 01:43 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,935
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, on How to Pay for Medicare for All

Let us all rejoice, because the lovely Ms. AOC has found $21 trillion under the mattress of the US military, so two-thirds of Medicare for All can be funded even before we start charging premiums. Setting aside minor quibbles like the fact that we haven't spent $21 trillion on the military in total since the founding of the Republic and that her economic education did not seem to include anything about basic bookkeeping.

She seems somehow to believe that we can squeeze $21 trillion out of a total yearly budget of almost $700 billion. This is the kind of fresh, outside reality the box thinking that we need in Congress.

Or else it is Ocasio-Cortez floundering in the depths of confident cluelessness, Part XXIII. It's hard to tell.

Regards,
Shodan
  #2  
Old 12-03-2018, 01:58 PM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 60
Socialismo O Muerte!
  #3  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:04 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
The 32 trillion estimate for medicare for all is over 10 years, that's the first reason for your confusion, and overall spending on healthcare would be about the same. The 21 trillion is from the years 1998 to 2015, so another comprehension error since none of these numbers has to do with a single fiscal year. Not a good look to make basic comprehension errors, one of which is spelled out in your own cite, when trying to criticize someone else's intelligence.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-cost-voxcare
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-03-2018 at 02:08 PM.
  #4  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:05 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
The 32 trillion estimate for medicare for all is over 10 years, that's the first reason for your confusion, and overall spending on healthcare would be about the same. ...
Facts, logic and simple arithmetic are all just left-wing distractions; American "conservatives" seek A Higher Truth.

A few days ago, one right-wing dolt here made an off-by-a-factor-of-1000 error when attempting long division, deducing that the cost of the trillion-dollar F-35 worked out to $3 per American or some such gibberish. Best is just to completely ignore any right-wing post with any numbers in it at all: The conclusions will be wrong even if the numbers aren't themselves lies. (Amusingly though, it was HurricaneDitka — nominee for stupidest Doper of all — who first corrected his fellow traveler's off-by-a-factor-of-1000 error.)

Are there any conservatives in the thread? Do you understand that when a price is quoted for single-payer health, employers and citizens will no longer need to pay premiums, and, depending on details, there may no longer be co-pays, or money wasted on deny-coverage red-tape? Most right-wingers are unwilling to even acknowledge that! I've never been sure whether they're really too stupid to understand this, or hope that the Undecideds they're trying to gull are so stupid. Sincere question: Will any of that ilk respond?

Very clever of the hypocrites to insist on 10-year numbers to inflate the numbers on spending they don't like. In the past they've sometimes been too enthusiastic and gone with 100-year numbers — "Quadrillion dollar cost over the next century; perhaps quintillions if the Hillaryist Inflationary Terrorists have their way" — but even right-wing morons may see through that.
  #5  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:23 AM
jz78817 jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Are there any conservatives in the thread? Do you understand that when a price is quoted for single-payer health, employers and citizens will no longer need to pay premiums, and, depending on details, there may no longer be co-pays, or money wasted on deny-coverage red-tape? Most right-wingers are unwilling to even acknowledge that! I've never been sure whether they're really too stupid to understand this, or hope that the Undecideds they're trying to gull are so stupid. Sincere question: Will any of that ilk respond?
there's a special class of shithead who believes both that anything run by the government is inherently evil, and that poor people must have done something to deserve to be poor so if they don't have a job which includes health insurance they should be happy to get sick and die.

It's really laid bare by the utter MORONS who believe that "prosperity gospel" horseshit just because some slick, well dressed sociopath gets up on stage and preaches it.

these people are so stupid they buy into the notion that if God loves you He will make you rich. therefore they despise poor people (because God obviously hates them) and give all of their money to the charlatans. Curiously, when they don't get rich they never think "hey, maybe God doesn't love me."
  #6  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:05 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Let us all rejoice, because the lovely Ms. AOC has found $21 trillion under the mattress of the US military, so two-thirds of Medicare for All can be funded even before we start charging premiums. Setting aside minor quibbles like the fact that we haven't spent $21 trillion on the military in total since the founding of the Republic and that her economic education did not seem to include anything about basic bookkeeping.

She seems somehow to believe that we can squeeze $21 trillion out of a total yearly budget of almost $700 billion. This is the kind of fresh, outside reality the box thinking that we need in Congress.

Or else it is Ocasio-Cortez floundering in the depths of confident cluelessness, Part XXIII. It's hard to tell.

Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, that's pretty bad. Almost as bad as the actual President of the United States retweeting clearly false information about how much illegal aliens get paid by the US Federal Government each year.
  #7  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:57 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yeah, that's pretty bad. Almost as bad as the actual President of the United States retweeting clearly false information about how much illegal aliens get paid by the US Federal Government each year.
It's really not almost as bad. It's not even close.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #8  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It's really not almost as bad. It's not even close.


I've been looking for any posts where certain posters called out the President for retweeting ridiculously incorrect information about money and illegal immigrants. Surprise, surprise, not much was found.

I'm not surprised.

Last edited by manson1972; 12-03-2018 at 03:17 PM.
  #9  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:28 PM
Railer13 Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post


I've been looking for any posts where certain posters called out the President for retweeting ridiculously incorrect information about money and illegal immigrants. Surprise, surprise, not much was found.

I'm not surprised.
Well, there was this one a few days ago:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...postcount=5418

I'm surprised you didn't find it, because you had two immediate responses to that post.
  #10  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:07 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 103
I think her major confusion stems from the fact that the 21b was counted multiple times in transactions, not a total. Either way, it's a hilariously huge number that she should have caught straight from the gate.

Good for a chuckle. Of course, having a chuckle means we're "scared" of her, or something like that. But she just keeps spitting these howlers out.

Last edited by Dacien; 12-03-2018 at 02:08 PM.
  #11  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:10 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
I think her major confusion stems from the fact that the 21b was counted multiple times in transactions, not a total. Either way, it's a hilariously huge number that she should have caught straight from the gate.

Good for a chuckle. Of course, having a chuckle means we're "scared" of her, or something like that. But she just keeps spitting these howlers out.
It also has nothing to do with a single year of the budget since both figures, the 32 trillion for medicare for all, and the 21 trillion mentioned, have nothing to do with one years budget. The OP is hilariously wrong considering he is trying to impugn someone else's intelligence and reading comprehension and he clearly didn't even understand his own cite.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-03-2018 at 02:14 PM.
  #12  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:31 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Good for a chuckle. Of course, having a chuckle means we're "scared" of her, or something like that. But she just keeps spitting these howlers out.
There you go again with "keeps spitting these howlers out", a characterization that you can't back up. Go ahead: show me 10 of these "howlers" that Miss O-C "keeps spitting".
  #13  
Old 12-03-2018, 08:17 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
I think her major confusion stems from the fact that the 21b was counted multiple times in transactions, not a total. Either way, it's a hilariously huge number that she should have caught straight from the gate.

Good for a chuckle. Of course, having a chuckle means we're "scared" of her, or something like that. But she just keeps spitting these howlers out.
Well, yeah, it does.

There are two different ways to interpret her statement: one that makes sense and one that doesn't. And you are insisting the one that doesn't make sense is what she actually meant. This is a tactic that is only used to try discredit an opponent when you can't discredit them directly.

It's not remotely uncommon, even on this board. I've had it used against me so many times it's ridiculous. I say something with a good, rational meaning, but also there's this one way of looking at it that makes it seem stupid. And so what do my opponents do? They accuse me of meaning the stupid one.

This is a tactic that is unnecessary if what the person is saying is actually wrong. You can just prove it wrong. You don't need to cherry pick an interpretation.

All Ocasio-Cortez is guilty of is being unpolished. Her brand is outspoken, but she lacks the experience in how to guard things so that the stupid interpretation doesn't make sense.

You're all going after her for the trivial, not her ideas. That means you're scared of her. It's like when people went after Obama for the 57 states remark.
  #14  
Old 12-03-2018, 08:41 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Well, yeah, it does.

There are two different ways to interpret her statement: one that makes sense and one that doesn't. And you are insisting the one that doesn't make sense is what she actually meant. This is a tactic that is only used to try discredit an opponent when you can't discredit them directly.
You think Matthew Yglesias, cofounder of Vox and the author of the article, considers her an opponent to be discredited?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Yglesias
The US military budget is such a bloated monstrosity that it contains accounting errors that could finance two-thirds of the cost of a government-run single-payer health insurance system. All Americans could visit an unlimited array of doctors at no out of pocket cost. At least that’s a notion spreading on left-wing Twitter and endorsed and amplified by newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of Democrats’ biggest 2018 sensations and an undeniable master at the fine art of staying in the public eye.

Unfortunately, it’s not true.
  #15  
Old 12-03-2018, 10:15 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Well, yeah, it does.

There are two different ways to interpret her statement: one that makes sense and one that doesn't. And you are insisting the one that doesn't make sense is what she actually meant. This is a tactic that is only used to try discredit an opponent when you can't discredit them directly.

It's not remotely uncommon, even on this board. I've had it used against me so many times it's ridiculous. I say something with a good, rational meaning, but also there's this one way of looking at it that makes it seem stupid. And so what do my opponents do? They accuse me of meaning the stupid one.

This is a tactic that is unnecessary if what the person is saying is actually wrong. You can just prove it wrong. You don't need to cherry pick an interpretation.

All Ocasio-Cortez is guilty of is being unpolished. Her brand is outspoken, but she lacks the experience in how to guard things so that the stupid interpretation doesn't make sense.

You're all going after her for the trivial, not her ideas. That means you're scared of her. It's like when people went after Obama for the 57 states remark.
I don't even know what makes sense about her statement. Like I said earlier, you sort of have to fill in the gaps to make sense of it. I think she believed that the $21 trillion number was an actual total of wasteful spending, and jeez you guys, that money could be better spent elsewhere!
__________________
Authoritarianism is necessary to protect a house of cards

Last edited by Dacien; 12-03-2018 at 10:17 PM.
  #16  
Old 12-03-2018, 10:31 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Well, yeah, it does.

There are two different ways to interpret her statement: one that makes sense and one that doesn't. And you are insisting the one that doesn't make sense is what she actually meant. This is a tactic that is only used to try discredit an opponent when you can't discredit them directly.

It's not remotely uncommon, even on this board. I've had it used against me so many times it's ridiculous. I say something with a good, rational meaning, but also there's this one way of looking at it that makes it seem stupid. And so what do my opponents do? They accuse me of meaning the stupid one.

This is a tactic that is unnecessary if what the person is saying is actually wrong. You can just prove it wrong. You don't need to cherry pick an interpretation.

All Ocasio-Cortez is guilty of is being unpolished. Her brand is outspoken, but she lacks the experience in how to guard things so that the stupid interpretation doesn't make sense.

You're all going after her for the trivial, not her ideas. That means you're scared of her. It's like when people went after Obama for the 57 states remark.

I can't claim to read AOC's mind but based off of "that could have funded 66 percent of Medicare for all" (a crucial window into her thinking,) I think she DID believe that there was a cumulative $21 trillion in defense spending over the years that could have been better diverted elsewhere.
  #17  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:11 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,662
AOC was commenting on the magnitude of accounting errors within the Pentagon, not saying that there is actually $21T available to be redirected.
  #18  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:25 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
AOC was commenting on the magnitude of accounting errors within the Pentagon, not saying that there is actually $21T available to be redirected.
She actually did say that:

"That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. "

At the very least, she seems to think that an actual total of 21 billion existed and could have paid for 2/3 of Medicare for All.
  #19  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:30 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
She actually did say that:

"That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. "

At the very least, she seems to think that an actual total of 21 billion existed and could have paid for 2/3 of Medicare for All.
Psst - trillion.

She seems to be getting progressively more innumerate as time goes on. By the end of her first year in office it will be 100 zillion.

Regards,
Shodan
  #20  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:14 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Exactly, and it had nothing to do with one years budget either, so the entire OP is based on basic misunderstanding of his own cite.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #21  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:25 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Exactly, and it had nothing to do with one years budget either, so the entire OP is based on basic misunderstanding of his own cite.
I suppose I could make a reference to his "confident cluelessness" remark in the OP...

...but I'm not going to.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #22  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:21 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 103
The entire budget of the Pentagon has only been 18 billion in the last 30 years, so how could this 21 billion be real? Because they're dollars that have been counted multiple times. So no, we could not fund 2/3 of Medicare for All with an inflated number. It makes no sense. It forces her adherents to insert explanations to fill the gaps.

Which, I think she knows that. Ocasio supporters remind me of certain other politicians' supporters in that respect.
  #23  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:24 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 20,651
Sounds like the President also agrees with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that military spending is too high:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...880974849?s=19

"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race. The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!"
  #24  
Old 12-03-2018, 04:29 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Sounds like the President also agrees with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that military spending is too high:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...880974849?s=19

"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race. The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!"
This would be amazing if true.
  #25  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:26 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
The entire budget of the Pentagon has only been 18 billion in the last 30 years, so how could this 21 billion be real? Because they're dollars that have been counted multiple times. So no, we could not fund 2/3 of Medicare for All with an inflated number. It makes no sense. It forces her adherents to insert explanations to fill the gaps.

Which, I think she knows that. Ocasio supporters remind me of certain other politicians' supporters in that respect.
Dude the entire OP was discredited due to basic misunderstandings of his own cite. Her detractors remind me of haters of a certain other politician as well. Now that that politician is out of the spotlight they need to aim their ire at someone else.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-03-2018 at 02:29 PM.
  #26  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:37 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Dude the entire OP was discredited due to basic misunderstandings of his own cite. Her detractors remind me of haters of a certain other politician as well. Now that that politician is out of the spotlight they need to aim their ire at someone else.
No, there's no discredit, it's quite clear she at best, played with some fuzzy math that she didn't have a full grasp of.
  #27  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:05 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
No, there's no discredit, it's quite clear she at best, played with some fuzzy math that she didn't have a full grasp of.
Come on, the entire OP was based on BS and failure to even read his own cite. He was talking about yearly budgets and mocking her for it when he was totally wrong about his own cite! Where in his own cite did it say anything about 32 or 21 trillion in a single year.

Just because it fit your narrative that AOC is an airhead it doesn't make it valid. You claim that you are not afraid of her, but your obession is very telling. Have you made any remarks about any other freshman representatives? Even one? You have a singular focus, but I'm sure you'll just say that she's making you focus on her or something like that.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #28  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:54 PM
Monocracy Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Come on, the entire OP was based on BS and failure to even read his own cite. He was talking about yearly budgets and mocking her for it when he was totally wrong about his own cite! Where in his own cite did it say anything about 32 or 21 trillion in a single year.
The OP never mentioned 21 trillion in a single year. He asked how do get $21T from a $700B annual budget? I think he understands his cite just fine.
  #29  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:45 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
No, there's no discredit, it's quite clear she at best, played with some fuzzy math that she didn't have a full grasp of.

Should be a feature and not a bug for Trump supporters.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #30  
Old 12-11-2018, 09:22 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Dude the entire OP was discredited due to basic misunderstandings of his own cite. Her detractors remind me of haters of a certain other politician as well. Now that that politician is out of the spotlight they need to aim their ire at someone else.
No. No it wasn't. The OP correctly points out a pretty mind numbing error by AOC.

Shodan's error was perhaps misreading a sentence.

AOC's error was having such a lack of familiarity with the budget that she could make a statement like that. She needs to spend a little more time familiarizing herself with the guts of governing, I'm sure she'll get there.

She is going to keep putting her foot in her mouth but ultimately her point is that we can afford medicare for all if we are willing to reduce other spending (or heaven forbid, increase taxes).

With that said, I am rooting for her. I particularly liked how she called out the establishment Democrats for letting Wall Street and the Chamber of commerce effectively run their freshman orientation. The cozy relationship between wall street and the democrats should have ended in 2008.
  #31  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:49 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
The entire budget of the Pentagon has only been 18 billion in the last 30 years, so how could this 21 billion be real? Because they're dollars that have been counted multiple times. So no, we could not fund 2/3 of Medicare for All with an inflated number. It makes no sense. It forces her adherents to insert explanations to fill the gaps.

Which, I think she knows that. Ocasio supporters remind me of certain other politicians' supporters in that respect.
It's not real, that's the point. But there is something else here also - you seem to be indicating that counting something multiple times is inappropriate. But that's not right either. If a company has interfund transfers of $1.00 that is due to accounting error, then it makes sense to describe that as an error of $1. If that same transaction happens one trillion times back and forth between the same funds, it is accurate to say that accounting errors resulted in $1T of transactions erroneously. It's not an inappropriate double counting inflating the magnitude of the error. Now it could be clarified even further, but a problem that results in $1 of transactions a single time is much less severe than one that happens a trillion times.

There was never any indication that this was real dollars that could be used. A different way to phrase the same criticism would be something like, "the magnitude of the accounting errors are so large, that if they were actually real we could use that money to buy another country." It's a way to convey the ginormity of the accounting errors.

There's plenty to criticize AOC over. This is not one of those things.

Last edited by Bone; 12-03-2018 at 02:51 PM.
  #32  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:55 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It's not real, that's the point. But there is something else here also - you seem to be indicating that counting something multiple times is inappropriate. But that's not right either. If a company has interfund transfers of $1.00 that is due to accounting error, then it makes sense to describe that as an error of $1. If that same transaction happens one trillion times back and forth between the same funds, it is accurate to say that accounting errors resulted in $1T of transactions erroneously. It's not an inappropriate double counting inflating the magnitude of the error. Now it could be clarified even further, but a problem that results in $1 of transactions a single time is much less severe than one that happens a trillion times.
Agreed.

Quote:
There was never any indication that this was real dollars that could be used.
Disagreed. She wrote: "$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.”

$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T.

That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon."

When someone writes that something "could have been funded already" then it's an open-and-shut case that she thought the $21 trillion has purchasing power, and is not simply a abstract measurement that happens to use a dollar sign.
  #33  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:10 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Disagreed. She wrote: "$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.”

$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T.

That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon."

When someone writes that something "could have been funded already" then it's an open-and-shut case that she thought the $21 trillion has purchasing power, and is not simply a abstract measurement that happens to use a dollar sign.
It seems more like a rhetorical device, like my example above with buying a country. YMMV. I guess I read it that way because that makes much more sense to me.
  #34  
Old 12-03-2018, 04:05 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It seems more like a rhetorical device, like my example above with buying a country. YMMV. I guess I read it that way because that makes much more sense to me.
There's an underlying issue of "we could afford nice things if we wanted to," but reading her tweet, it is just wrong on the face of it.

Now, she could be angling for the Democratic contender to be "taken seriously but not literally," which if that is her intention, she ends up in rather awful company.
  #35  
Old 12-03-2018, 07:42 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
When someone writes that something "could have been funded already" then it's an open-and-shut case that she thought the $21 trillion has purchasing power, and is not simply a abstract measurement that happens to use a dollar sign.
Yeah, I can't defend this gaffe. Does everyone realize that the OP linked to a Vox article, not Breitbart?
  #36  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:16 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, I can't defend this gaffe. Does everyone realize that the OP linked to a Vox article, not Breitbart?
Yep, if you read the article, she's clearly way off on the numbers. Even if that 21 trillion includes transactions, that doesn't equate to actual budget/revenue. And that's kind of unnerving that she doesn't realize it.

Her tweet says:

Quote:
$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.”

$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T.

That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.

And that’s before our premiums.
  #37  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:50 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
The entire budget of the Pentagon has only been 18 billion in the last 30 years, so how could this 21 billion be real?
That's not correct either.

The total amount of money spent on national defense from 1940 to 2018 is $18 trillion. Therefore, it's quite easy to project that $21 trillion is more than this country has spent on defense in its entire history. See table 3.1 here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

But agreed that the issue here is counting money multiple times, like if you put a $20 bill in your pocket in the morning, but don't spend it, and put the same $20 bill on your nightstand before turning in, you have executed $40 in transactions.

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-03-2018 at 02:50 PM.
  #38  
Old 12-03-2018, 05:09 PM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Setting aside minor quibbles like the fact that we haven't spent $21 trillion on the military in total since the founding of the Republic and that her economic education did not seem to include anything about basic bookkeeping.

She seems somehow to believe that we can squeeze $21 trillion out of a total yearly budget of almost $700 billion. n
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That's not correct either.

The total amount of money spent on national defense from 1940 to 2018 is $18 trillion. Therefore, it's quite easy to project that $21 trillion is more than this country has spent on defense in its entire history. See table 3.1 here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/
I do not quite follow this. A yearly budget of 700 billion $ is 0.7 trillion $. It seems that at this rate the US would have spent 21 trillion over 30 years. Now admittedly 700 billion sounds a bit high, I've a general feel for it around 500 billion. But I do believe it is down these days. Is this a "not adjusting for PP changes" thing?
  #39  
Old 12-03-2018, 05:23 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I do not quite follow this. A yearly budget of 700 billion $ is 0.7 trillion $. It seems that at this rate the US would have spent 21 trillion over 30 years. Now admittedly 700 billion sounds a bit high, I've a general feel for it around 500 billion. But I do believe it is down these days. Is this a "not adjusting for PP changes" thing?
Defense spending today is far higher than before. At the time of 9/11, it was only around $300 billion, I think, not adjusting for inflation. Even in the Reagan era it was below $300 billion.
  #40  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:32 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 103
Sorry, trillion. Got me there.
  #41  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:08 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Sorry, trillion. Got me there.
No worries, as long as you use this as a learning opportunity, and don't criticize people for making far less egregious math errors than you just made, we're all cool!
  #42  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:34 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
No worries, as long as you use this as a learning opportunity, and don't criticize people for making far less egregious math errors than you just made, we're all cool!
Funnily enough, I'd forgive Cortez for a slip up like that, saying blillion when she might have meant trillion. If the numbers were otherwise accurate, then it would be quite clear it was misspeak.

But gaffes that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being talked about? That's cause for concern. Or at the very least, a chuckle.

Last edited by Dacien; 12-03-2018 at 03:35 PM.
  #43  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:39 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
But gaffes that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being talked about? That's cause for concern. Or at the very least, a chuckle.
You mean like the OP, that you've gleefully jumped on board with because it seemed to fit your preconceived narrative, even though it demonstrates complete misunderstanding of the issue, and even of his own cite? I don't see why you are clinging so hard to be on team OP when he completely faceplanted on reading and understanding his own cite. I'd be embarrased at this point, but that's me.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #44  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:55 PM
Modesty Blaise Modesty Blaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Funnily enough, I'd forgive Cortez for a slip up like that, saying blillion when she might have meant trillion. If the numbers were otherwise accurate, then it would be quite clear it was misspeak.

But gaffes that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being talked about? That's cause for concern. Or at the very least, a chuckle.
Then you must be really concerned about Trump's misunderstanding of every issue, every day, all day.

Or you must be constantly rolling on the floor laughing. Right?
  #45  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:35 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,935
Billion, trillion - it's all free money!

Regards,
Shodan
  #46  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:41 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Billion, trillion - it's all free money!

Regards,
Shodan
How hard is it really to add a few zeros to the next batch of bills to be printed? If socialism does take hold in the US how bad can zoo donkey stew be?
  #47  
Old 12-03-2018, 11:24 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 13,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
How hard is it really to add a few zeros to the next batch of bills to be printed? If socialism does take hold in the US how bad can zoo donkey stew be?
Our president thought we could just print more bills to make up the deficit. You like your zoo donkey stew with salt?
  #48  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:08 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,727
I think everyone (left and right wing) has a tendency to have a double standard of fiscal largesse for spending they like, and fiscal restraint for spending they don't like. Think the husband who spends hundreds of dollars on fishing gear but flips out if his wife buys a $95 dress.

But I'm reminded of the quote from the movie Independence Day where the president asks how these secret alien UFO programs are paid for and someone comments, "You don't think the government really spends $600 on a hammer, do you?" Is this fraud, waste, or also black-budget stuff?
  #49  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:27 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,935
Perhaps they knew it was just a rhetorical device.

Regards,
Shodan
  #50  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:34 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
Well, there was this one a few days ago:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...postcount=5418

I'm surprised you didn't find it, because you had two immediate responses to that post.

He's not a "certain poster"

Last edited by manson1972; 12-03-2018 at 03:35 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017