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
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?
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Here’s a hanky for you.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
(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.)
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?
Isn’t it every one?
HEY SOCIALIST REPUBLICANS! Keep your hands off my Medicare!
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.
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.
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?
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:[ul][]All taxes should be marginal.[]Means testing should be abandoned; all welfare systems should be universal, including Social Security.[/ul]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?