PDA

View Full Version : Economics GOP Budget Plan to Cut More Than $4 Trillion Over Decade, Rep. Paul Ryan Says


mlyonsd
04-03-2011, 12:33 PM
GOP Budget Plan to Cut More Than $4 Trillion Over Decade, Rep. Paul Ryan Says


Published April 03, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee said his party's budget proposal for 2012 would cut deficits by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, vowing to tackle costly entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.

The proposal, set to be unveiled Tuesday, would serve as the Republicans' official response to President Obama's proposed $3.7 trillion budget for 2012. The White House claims its plan would cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade.

But Ryan, R-Wis., in an interview with "Fox News Sunday," accused Obama of "punting" and said Republicans' plan would exceed the fiscal goals set by the president's fiscal commission -- which issued a report calling for $4 trillion in cuts. That report never made it out of committee.
"We can't keep kicking this can down the road," Ryan said. "The president has punted. We're not going to follow suit."

The GOP proposal coincides with the ongoing debate over the remainder of the fiscal 2011 budget. Both parties are trying to hammer out a half-year budget before the deadline for a partial government shutdown Friday.

From there, they move immediately to the 2012 budget debate.

Ryan said Sunday that the GOP proposal would reform the tax code but focus on spending cuts and entitlement reform to achieve savings.

"We don't have a tax problem," Ryan said. "We have got to stop spending money we don't have."

Though the plan is expected to mostly leave Social Security reform for another day, Ryan proposed big changes to Medicare and Medicaid. For Medicaid, he called for a system of block grants to the states, so the states can "customize" coverage for the poor.

"We want to give governors freedom," he said.

For Medicare, he said the GOP proposal will be modeled after the "premium support" system outlined in an earlier proposal co-authored by him and former White House Budget Director Alice Rivlin. Such a proposal would provide a fixed amount of government assistance toward premiums in the health plan of seniors' choosing. The Ryan-Rivlin plan would call for seniors to pay more for smaller expenses but put a cap on what they could pay out-of-pocket. Ryan, on "Fox News Sunday," did not discuss these details but said the plan would provide less money to wealthy beneficiaries, and stressed that the changes would not affect those 55 and older.

"The biggest driver of our debt is Medicare," Ryan said, adding that the overall goal of the budget changes are to bring down the debt, something he notes Obama's plan does not do.

Ryan said the proposal would also seek a cap on discretionary spending as well as a cap on all spending as a percentage of GDP.

"Our numbers are moving around right now," he said, declining to say what those caps would look like.

Democrats were quick to pounce on Ryan's budget preview, accusing him of sparing oil and gas subsidies at the expense of seniors.

"Paul Ryan made clear that the Republican budget will protect Big Oil companies subsidies over seniors health care," Jesse Ferguson, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement. "It's already becoming clear who will be the priority in the House Republican budget -- special interests, not middle class families."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Ryan's Democratic counterpart on the budget committee, said the GOP plan would threaten health care coverage for millions of Americans.

"It is increasingly clear that the House Republicans are more committed to continuing tax breaks to millionaires and big corporate special interests than they are to a serious, balanced approach to reducing deficits," Van Hollen said.

But Ryan said the changes to Medicare and Medicaid would not reduce spending on those programs. Rather, he said, they would slow their rate of growth from an otherwise "unsustainable" trajectory.

He said the proposal could be used against Republicans, but added, "They will have to lie and demagogue to make that a political weapon."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/03/gop-budget-plan-cut-4-trillion-decade-ryan-says/

mlyonsd
04-03-2011, 12:38 PM
DOA of course but interesting posturing.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2011, 12:57 PM
DOA of course but interesting posturing.

Trimming real waste, and promoting reforms aimed at increasing efficiency would be a more politically saavy way of addressing deficit issues. Reaching consensus on that, of course, is a tremendously difficult task.

It also lacks the red-meat appeal to the reactionary base of the party....which is why they prefer demagoguery and extremist rhetoric to win right wing votes, over comity and consensus to fix problems.

mlyonsd
04-03-2011, 02:24 PM
Trimming real waste, and promoting reforms aimed at increasing efficiency would be a more politically saavy way of addressing deficit issues. Reaching consensus on that, of course, is a tremendously difficult task.

It also lacks the red-meat appeal to the reactionary base of the party....which is why they prefer demagoguery and extremist rhetoric to win right wing votes, over comity and consensus to fix problems.

Come again?

ChiefaRoo
04-03-2011, 04:08 PM
Good. The R's need to bring serious and substantial spending cuts to the table and then duke it out with the socialists in D.C. in 2012. BRING IT!

HonestChieffan
04-03-2011, 04:36 PM
Well, its a start. Now lets see a counter proposal from the other side to reform medicaid and medicare.

FD
04-03-2011, 05:13 PM
An interesting proposal. It looks like most of the cuts come from the transition in how Medicare works. He would change it to a system where seniors choose plans from private insurers and the government subsidizes them instead of paying directly. While this would presumably cost more than the current system in the short run, Ryan achieves long-term cost reductions by proposing to slowly phase out the subsidy over time such that seniors eventually pay for more and more of their health care costs out of pocket.

I think that as long as there is a minimum level of support for the poorest elderly, phasing out Medicare benefits in the way he proposes is not that bad of an option. I would like to hear alternate proposals though before judging fully.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 05:43 PM
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Ryan's Democratic counterpart on the budget committee, said the GOP plan would threaten health care coverage for millions of Americans.

"It is increasingly clear that the House Republicans are more committed to continuing tax breaks to millionaires and big corporate special interests than they are to a serious, balanced approach to reducing deficits," Van Hollen said.

Um, where was the budget from the Dem Congress last year? Oh yea, we never got one!

CoMoChief
04-03-2011, 05:53 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.

This will never happen. Our politicians have fucked the world over so bad there's no return. And just wait til the U.S. dollar loses it's reserve status, shit will hit the fan as food and gas prices as well as other necessities to maintain our standard way of life, are going to sore tremendously.

ChiefaRoo
04-03-2011, 08:24 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.

This will never happen. Our politicians have ****ed the world over so bad there's no return. And just wait til the U.S. dollar loses it's reserve status, shit will hit the fan as food and gas prices as well as other necessities to maintain our standard way of life, are going to sore tremendously.

I just won't believe that a majority of our pols will kill the proverbial golden goose. They may be foolish but I hope they're not profoundly dumb and/or evil.

Amnorix
04-03-2011, 08:52 PM
Where's the DoD cuts? Oh right, this is more posturing than anything else. I commend the effort, but I'd like to see a more bipartisan effort. Unfortunately, demogoguery is the rule.

patteeu
04-03-2011, 09:00 PM
Trimming real waste, and promoting reforms aimed at increasing efficiency would be a more politically saavy way of addressing deficit issues. Reaching consensus on that, of course, is a tremendously difficult task.

It also lacks the red-meat appeal to the reactionary base of the party....which is why they prefer demagoguery and extremist rhetoric to win right wing votes, over comity and consensus to fix problems.

Don't trip over those clown shoes.

HonestChieffan
04-03-2011, 09:02 PM
Where's the DoD cuts? Oh right, this is more posturing than anything else. I commend the effort, but I'd like to see a more bipartisan effort. Unfortunately, demogoguery is the rule.

I expect tomorrow to see the bipartisanship to develop. Dont you?

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 07:05 AM
Where's the DoD cuts? Oh right, this is more posturing than anything else. I commend the effort, but I'd like to see a more bipartisan effort. Unfortunately, demogoguery is the rule.

Cutting defense is a whole other game of posturing. Talking about it is one thing but getting it done is another.

Try removing bases or weapon system development projects out of a state controlled by either party and very quickly it isn't a rep or dem thing at all.

Amnorix
04-04-2011, 07:42 AM
I will say this, the Republicans may very well earn my vote in 2012 if they appear serious about budgetary reform. While I may not like how they do it, exactly, if the Democrats keep just kicking the ball down the road, then I'm going to like just about ANY plan to NO plan.

VAChief
04-04-2011, 08:00 AM
Cutting defense is a whole other game of posturing. Talking about it is one thing but getting it done is another.

Try removing bases or weapon system development projects out of a state controlled by either party and very quickly it isn't a rep or dem thing at all.

Unfortunately very true. However virtually ignoring military spending isn't looking like a serious attempt to bring down deficits. It would seem to me the best approach would be to make significant budget reduction reforms to all three of the big budget drains Do we really need to outspend the entire world's armies COMBINED?

Jaric
04-04-2011, 08:06 AM
I wonder what would happen if we just figured out what % we needed to cut from the budget to balence it and just cut that % accross the board of all money spent?

Chief Henry
04-04-2011, 08:15 AM
I will say this, the Republicans may very well earn my vote in 2012 if they appear serious about budgetary reform. While I may not like how they do it, exactly, if the Democrats keep just kicking the ball down the road, then I'm going to like just about ANY plan to NO plan.

REP

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 09:32 AM
Come again?

Draconian cuts to vital programs and a federal safety net (and never-ending tax cuts) are more appealing to reactionary and Tea Party types...than the hard work that is required to more responsibly prune programs and fix the government. Prioritization and re-evaluation are messy.

Americans don't want more government, but most don't really want less government either: they want government that works. Right now, both parties seem hell bent on "my way, or the highway." So instead of consensus and compromise, we are getting wild swings left and right along the ideological spectrum.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 09:35 AM
Unfortunately very true. However virtually ignoring military spending isn't looking like a serious attempt to bring down deficits. It would seem to me the best approach would be to make significant budget reduction reforms to all three of the big budget drains Do we really need to outspend the entire world's armies COMBINED?

What's the right formula? Outspend the largest foreign army by $1?

We need to field the best military in the world by far in order to discourage conflict before it starts. If we field an army that can win a conflict, but at great expense in the process, it will invite that conflict. I'd rather pay up front and limit our conflicts to those we choose. Speaking of which, our diplomacy is far more effective with the most powerful military in the world behind it than it otherwise would be. Ask Russia.

We don't need to spend more than the rest of the world combined as long as we can achieve the same results by spending less. But most people who want to spend less mistakenly think that we can afford to give up a bunch of surplus capability which isn't the case.

There may be some cases where politics are trumping requirements in the procurement game and if we can overcome that and kill off unneeded programs I'm fine with that, but our military needs to be requirement driven not budget driven. If we need to shave the budget it needs to come from the spending areas that have exploded over the past few decades, the entitlements and domestic spending.

Bob Dole
04-04-2011, 09:38 AM
Does anyone else have a problem with the continued use of "entitlement programs" when talking about SSI, Medicare and Medicaid?

Bob Dole is pretty damned sure he's been PAYING premiums for the first two his entire working life. Medicaid is the ONLY one of those programs that is an "entitlement program".

patteeu
04-04-2011, 09:39 AM
Draconian cuts to vital programs and a federal safety net (and never-ending tax cuts) are more appealing to reactionary and Tea Party types...than the hard work that is required to more responsibly prune programs and fix the government. Prioritization and re-evaluation are messy.

Americans don't want more government, but most don't really want less government either: they want government that works. Right now, both parties seem hell bent on "my way, or the highway." So instead of consensus and compromise, we are getting wild swings left and right along the ideological spectrum.

Where were you when candidate Obama was promising to increase spending by amounts that, if cut, you'd call draconian? That's right, you were in line to vote for the guy. 4321

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 09:39 AM
I will say this, the Republicans may very well earn my vote in 2012 if they appear serious about budgetary reform. While I may not like how they do it, exactly, if the Democrats keep just kicking the ball down the road, then I'm going to like just about ANY plan to NO plan.

"The Democratic Party is the party of no ideas, and the Republican Party is the party of bad ideas." — Lewis Black

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 09:45 AM
I will say this, the Republicans may very well earn my vote in 2012 if they appear serious about budgetary reform. While I may not like how they do it, exactly, if the Democrats keep just kicking the ball down the road, then I'm going to like just about ANY plan to NO plan.

I agree the Dems have to get serious on this front too. However, the idea that Republicans are serious about fiscal responsibilty, when at every turn they insist on never-ending tax cuts, and policies that disproportionately benefit a small minority of Americans....is wishful thinking, at this point. Spending cuts need to be on the table, but so does respnonsible calls for tax reform to increase revenue.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 09:48 AM
Where were you when candidate Obama was promising to increase spending by amounts that, if cut, you'd call draconian? That's right, you were in line to vote for the guy. 4321

Priorities, patty....priorities. Not all spending is the same. Re-establishing spending priorities, including entitlement reform....should be on the table; but so should defense spending, and tax reform.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 09:48 AM
Kotter to English translation: Government workers want more money to go to government.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 09:48 AM
Does anyone else have a problem with the continued use of "entitlement programs" when talking about SSI, Medicare and Medicaid?

Bob Dole is pretty damned sure he's been PAYING premiums for the first two his entire working life. Medicaid is the ONLY one of those programs that is an "entitlement program".

"Entitlement" just has to do with the fact that the spending doesn't need to be authorized every year like other spending programs. It's not synonymous with "welfare".

However, I'd argue that both SS and Medicare have welfare components to them in the sense that there is a redistribution of wealth taking place. In SS, for example, the benefit formula isn't based on how much you contributed. It's based on your salary but it's skewed so that low wage earners receive a larger percentage of their wage than higher wage earners.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 09:49 AM
Priorities, patty....priorities. Not all spending is the same. Re-establishing spending priorities, including entitlement reform....should be on the table; but so should defense spending, and tax reform.

Your guy jumped in the hole and started digging furiously. Don't preach to me or anyone until you get your own house in order.

Amnorix
04-04-2011, 09:51 AM
I agree the Dems have to get serious on this front too. However, the idea that Republicans are serious about fiscal responsibilty, when at every turn they insist on never-ending tax cuts, and policies that disproportionately benefit a small minority of Americans....is wishful thinking, at this point. Spending cuts need to be on the table, but so does respnonsible calls for tax reform to increase revenue.

I agree with that, but my overriding concern right now is deficit reduction, and I'll take it pretty much any way I can get it.

Amnorix
04-04-2011, 09:52 AM
Your guy jumped in the hole and started digging furiously. Don't preach to me or anyone until you get your own house in order.

The hole that Bush re-created, when it was starting to disappear. I don't see either side as having allt hat much moral high ground on this issue.

The deficit/debt belongs to both parties.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 09:52 AM
Kotter to English translation: Government workers want more money to go to government.

CB to English translation: The wealthy and corporations want more money to go them.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 09:53 AM
CB to English translation: The wealthy and corporations want more money to go them.

Of course they do.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 09:55 AM
Your guy jumped in the hole and started digging furiously. Don't preach to me or anyone until you get your own house in order.

And your guy's policies of irresponsible tax cuts and misguided spending priorities, along with deregulation of key economic sectors, created a recession that very nearly took down the whole ship. Extenuating circumstances require extraordinary remedy.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 09:56 AM
Of course they do.

In other words, you have no real point. Thanks for that.

chiefsnorth
04-04-2011, 09:56 AM
Where were you when candidate Obama was promising to increase spending by amounts that, if cut, you'd call draconian? That's right, you were in line to vote for the guy. 4321

Precisely...

Now, back to more copy from the desk of Chuck Schumer

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 09:57 AM
The hole that Bush re-created, when it was starting to disappear. I don't see either side as having allt hat much moral high ground on this issue.

The deficit/debt belongs to both parties.

THIS

VAChief
04-04-2011, 09:59 AM
What's the right formula? Outspend the largest foreign army by $1?

We need to field the best military in the world by far in order to discourage conflict before it starts. If we field an army that can win a conflict, but at great expense in the process, it will invite that conflict. I'd rather pay up front and limit our conflicts to those we choose. Speaking of which, our diplomacy is far more effective with the most powerful military in the world behind it than it otherwise would be. Ask Russia.

We don't need to spend more than the rest of the world combined as long as we can achieve the same results by spending less. But most people who want to spend less mistakenly think that we can afford to give up a bunch of surplus capability which isn't the case.

There may be some cases where politics are trumping requirements in the procurement game and if we can overcome that and kill off unneeded programs I'm fine with that, but our military needs to be requirement driven not budget driven. If we need to shave the budget it needs to come from the spending areas that have exploded over the past few decades, the entitlements and domestic spending.

I'm just saying you outspend the whole world combined yet there isn't even a mention in the budget proposal? That's a heck of a lot of hope that there isn't ANY waste going on at a time when we are bankrupt.

I'm all for keeping us the strongest military in the world (even by a large margin). Along with that I would like a much higher level of accountability in regards to who, what and where they spend taxpayer money.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 10:22 AM
In other words, you have no real point. Thanks for that.

The only point was that no one should ever listen to a government worker's opinion on budgetary matters.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 10:31 AM
And your guy's policies of irresponsible tax cuts and misguided spending priorities, along with deregulation of key economic sectors, created a recession that very nearly took down the whole ship. Extenuating circumstances require extraordinary remedy.

You mean the irresponsible tax cuts your guys extended? Huh.

DJ's left nut
04-04-2011, 10:31 AM
GOP Budget Plan to Cut More Than $4 Trillion Over Decade, Rep. Paul Ryan Says


"Paul Ryan made clear that the Republican budget will protect Big Oil companies subsidies over seniors health care," Jesse Ferguson, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement. "It's already becoming clear who will be the priority in the House Republican budget -- special interests, not middle class families."
[/URL]

Shit like this is why I'm giving up on this country ever righting the ship.

Look, maybe you like the plan and maybe you don't, but the bottom line is that Paul Ryan knows a HELL of a lot more about what's in that plan than Jesse Ferguson does and is one of the most brilliant economic minds in the country. Even those that don't favor his politics will concede that he has a better fundamental understanding of economics than (arguably) anyone in Congress.

And this joker's just spouting the same old crap. Blah blah, oil cronies are coming to steal money from the old folks, blah blah blah.

I mean why try to have an adult conversation about what's in the thing when you can just rehash the same tired lines? Though I do feel compelled to ask when the Democrats last showed they gave a wet fart about "middle class families".

Yeah, we're probably screwed.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 10:35 AM
The hole that Bush re-created, when it was starting to disappear. I don't see either side as having allt hat much moral high ground on this issue.

The deficit/debt belongs to both parties.

There is no comparison between the sizes of the holes these two guys (and their two respective parties) dug. Especially when you consider that the biggest one-time chunk of Bush deficit, TARP, ended up being almost zero in the long run, but it was Obama's deficits that benefitted from the payback. If not for TARP, the huge difference between Obama deficits and Bush deficits would have been even more stark.

If you can't see a difference between the large Republican deficits and the humongous democrat deficits, you haven't completely shed your partisan glasses.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 10:37 AM
I'm just saying you outspend the whole world combined yet there isn't even a mention in the budget proposal? That's a heck of a lot of hope that there isn't ANY waste going on at a time when we are bankrupt.

I'm all for keeping us the strongest military in the world (even by a large margin). Along with that I would like a much higher level of accountability in regards to who, what and where they spend taxpayer money.

Where are we getting this idea that the Republican budget proposal leaves DoD untouched? It's hard for me to believe that that's accurate.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 10:38 AM
The only point was that no one should ever listen to a government worker's opinion on budgetary matters.

Good rule to live by. If that's not something Ben Franklin said, it should have been.

Otter
04-04-2011, 10:42 AM
Trimming real waste, and promoting reforms aimed at increasing efficiency would be a more politically saavy way of addressing deficit issues. Reaching consensus on that, of course, is a tremendously difficult task.

It also lacks the red-meat appeal to the reactionary base of the party....which is why they prefer demagoguery and extremist rhetoric to win right wing votes, over comity and consensus to fix problems.

The first thing you need to get over is the "right wing vs left wing" superman vs the green goblin shit that your falling for.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 10:48 AM
The only point was that no one should ever listen to a government worker's opinion on budgetary matters.

Good rule to live by. If that's not something Ben Franklin said, it should have been.


:spock:

As if the opinions Wall Street and corporate America are NOT a coflict of interest?

ROFL

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2011, 10:49 AM
You mean the irresponsible tax cuts your guys extended? Huh.

Yes; those very ones.

The first thing you need to get over is the "right wing vs left wing" superman vs the green goblin shit that your falling for.

Wrong; they are both green goblins. The pendulum merely swings back and forth as to which is the lesser of two evils at any given time.

VAChief
04-04-2011, 11:15 AM
Where are we getting this idea that the Republican budget proposal leaves DoD untouched? It's hard for me to believe that that's accurate.

I haven't seen anywhere that it is mentioned. There may be hard looks being taken, but since it represents similar proportions of our budget as the other areas making headlines, you would think it would get a mention.

VAChief
04-04-2011, 11:17 AM
Good rule to live by. If that's not something Ben Franklin said, it should have been.

Excluding "retired" government personnel working as lobbyists for defense contractors right?

Amnorix
04-04-2011, 11:27 AM
There is no comparison between the sizes of the holes these two guys (and their two respective parties) dug. Especially when you consider that the biggest one-time chunk of Bush deficit, TARP, ended up being almost zero in the long run, but it was Obama's deficits that benefitted from the payback. If not for TARP, the huge difference between Obama deficits and Bush deficits would have been even more stark.

If you can't see a difference between the large Republican deficits and the humongous democrat deficits, you haven't completely shed your partisan glasses.

You seem to have a particular blind spot when you think that deficits are solely the result of spending, and have nothing to do with taxes/revenues. You're also ignoring the POSITIVE contribution from the Clinton era and in particular the beating they took by acting responsibly in 1993 by increasing taxes. Obama isn't exactly the be-all, end-all of the Democratic Party after all.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 11:28 AM
I haven't seen anywhere that it is mentioned. There may be hard looks being taken, but since it represents similar proportions of our budget as the other areas making headlines, you would think it would get a mention.

Actually, it doesn't come close to representing a similar portion of the budget. Here's a pie chart from a 2007 budget proposal from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/category.html):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif

That's 19% for Defense and 35% for Medicare/SS. And things haven't gotten any closer since then because the rate of growth is the real problem and the rate of growth of entitlements far outstrips the rate of growth of defense.* Defense really is of only secondary concern here, if it's even that high. No one disagrees that any superfluous spending at Defense should be ended, but the entitlement growth problem needs to be the top focus and really should have been the focus a long time ago. It's time for democrat politicians to stop using this as a political tool and start working for the welfare of the country.

_________________

* If you check the link, you'll see that the projected growth of spending for Medicare was +14%, that of SS was +6%, while that of defense spending was -2%. This was just a proposed budget so I'm sure the numbers ended up being different, but you can see the relative impacts here.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 11:33 AM
You seem to have a particular blind spot when you think that deficits are solely the result of spending, and have nothing to do with taxes/revenues. You're also ignoring the POSITIVE contribution from the Clinton era and in particular the beating they took by acting responsibly in 1993 by increasing taxes. Obama isn't exactly the be-all, end-all of the Democratic Party after all.

The structural deficits were built through spending and there's only so much you can do by raising taxes. At some point, you have to address the root cause, i.e. entitlements. Nothing works until you do that.

I'm not ignoring the Clinton era. I'm just recognizing that the Clinton era was brought to you by the Republican party and one democrat. The democrat party, as a group, didn't have much to do with it.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 11:44 AM
:spock:

As if the opinions Wall Street and corporate America are NOT a coflict of interest?

ROFL

The battle the taxpayer faces is against corporations that benefit from government largesse as well as it is against overcompensated government workers. The opinions of both should be highly suspect.

Amnorix
04-04-2011, 11:54 AM
The structural deficits were built through spending and there's only so much you can do by raising taxes. At some point, you have to address the root cause, i.e. entitlements. Nothing works until you do that.

So you allocate 100% of our deficit/debt problem to the spending side? Is that right? And what percent of that spending-side-created-problem is allocable to overspending on defense? 1%?

I'm not ignoring the Clinton era. I'm just recognizing that the Clinton era was brought to you by the Republican party and one democrat. The democrat party, as a group, didn't have much to do with it.

That's a ridiculous joke. The Democrats did the right thing in 1993 wrt the deficit, raised taxes (and took it on the chin in the 1994 elections) to try to fix the deficit. And you give them pretty much no credit. That's BS.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 12:15 PM
So you allocate 100% of our deficit/debt problem to the spending side? Is that right? And what percent of that spending-side-created-problem is allocable to overspending on defense? 1%?



That's a ridiculous joke. The Democrats did the right thing in 1993 wrt the deficit, raised taxes (and took it on the chin in the 1994 elections) to try to fix the deficit. And you give them pretty much no credit. That's BS.

Every bit of that increased revenue and then some was then spent by the democrats in the brief time when they had the opportunity, so yeah, pretty much no credit.

The overspending on defense is of minimal concern compared to the looming entitlement problems. It's like worrying about spending too much on name brand corn flakes instead of getting the store brand when you've got a top tier cable TV subscription, a 3 pack a day smoking habit, and a leased Mercedes in the driveway.

Amnorix
04-04-2011, 12:25 PM
Every bit of that increased revenue and then some was then spent by the democrats in the brief time when they had the opportunity, so yeah, pretty much no credit.

Seriously? It staggers me that someone with intelligence can just hold the Republicans blameless. You're like a politician yourself where your side are completely good and the other side completely bad. It's a joke. You don't even argue that the blame should be 60/40 or whatever. Nope, it's ALL on the Democrats apparently. :rolleyes:

And you said I had partisan glasses. Oh boy.

The overspending on defense is of minimal concern compared to the looming entitlement problems. It's like worrying about spending too much on name brand corn flakes instead of getting the store brand when you've got a top tier cable TV subscription, a 3 pack a day smoking habit, and a leased Mercedes in the driveway.

Yes, the entitlement problems are there, and are looming every larger, but LOOMING doesn't explain where we are already, which is in significant part ALSO due to defense OVERspending, plus BushCo military adventurism.

And the failure to even discuss defense spending thus far exacerbates the failure by the Republican Party to craft a bipartisan solution. You want reform, why don't you pretend to reach out to the other side, even a little.

Look, I already said I might vote Republican in 2012 regardless, just for even trying a little bit, which is mroe than Democrats are doing at the moment, but don't think this is much more than grandstanding. Serious efforts would involve Democrats, not just cherry-pick a bunch of Republican pet peeves to kill/reform while protecting pet projects and call it serious reform.

True leadership is moving the ball forward on something so important. This doesn't get it done. At least not yet.

VAChief
04-04-2011, 12:30 PM
Actually, it doesn't come close to representing a similar portion of the budget. Here's a pie chart from a 2007 budget proposal from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/category.html):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif

That's 19% for Defense and 35% for Medicare/SS. And things haven't gotten any closer since then because the rate of growth is the real problem and the rate of growth of entitlements far outstrips the rate of growth of defense.* Defense really is of only secondary concern here, if it's even that high. No one disagrees that any superfluous spending at Defense should be ended, but the entitlement growth problem needs to be the top focus and really should have been the focus a long time ago. It's time for democrat politicians to stop using this as a political tool and start working for the welfare of the country.

_________________

* If you check the link, you'll see that the projected growth of spending for Medicare was +14%, that of SS was +6%, while that of defense spending was -2%. This was just a proposed budget so I'm sure the numbers ended up being different, but you can see the relative impacts here.

I wasn't lumping them together as you conveniently did...I was looking at them as the three biggest distinct budget areas.

VAChief
04-04-2011, 12:35 PM
Seriously? It staggers me that someone with intelligence can just hold the Republicans blameless. You're like a politician yourself where your side are completely good and the other side completely bad. It's a joke. You don't even argue that the blame should be 60/40 or whatever. Nope, it's ALL on the Democrats apparently. :rolleyes:

And you said I had partisan glasses. Oh boy.



Yes, the entitlement problems are there, and are looming every larger, but LOOMING doesn't explain where we are already, which is in significant part ALSO due to defense OVERspending, plus BushCo military adventurism.

And the failure to even discuss defense spending thus far exacerbates the failure by the Republican Party to craft a bipartisan solution. You want reform, why don't you pretend to reach out to the other side, even a little.

Look, I already said I might vote Republican in 2012 regardless, just for even trying a little bit, which is mroe than Democrats are doing at the moment, but don't think this is much more than grandstanding. Serious efforts would involve Democrats, not just cherry-pick a bunch of Republican pet peeves to kill/reform while protecting pet projects and call it serious reform.

True leadership is moving the ball forward on something so important. This doesn't get it done. At least not yet.

:thumb:

patteeu
04-04-2011, 12:37 PM
Seriously? It staggers me that someone with intelligence can just hold the Republicans blameless. You're like a politician yourself where your side are completely good and the other side completely bad. It's a joke. You don't even argue that the blame should be 60/40 or whatever. Nope, it's ALL on the Democrats apparently. :rolleyes:

And you said I had partisan glasses. Oh boy.

I hope you read your contracts more carefully than you read that post. We weren't talking about blame we were talking about credit. Of course both sides deserve some blame (although, definitely, the blame falls most heavily on democrats). The Republicans showed that they were willing to overspend during the first 6 years of the Bush administration, but even then, democrats consistently complained that Republicans weren't spending enough on such programs as prescription drugs and NCLB.

There have been lonely voices worthy of credit in the democrat party. But by and large, Republicans have been beating the spending restraint drum for decades and democrats have been spending half their time thinking of new ways to spend tax dollars and the other half of the time thinking of ways to demagogue any attempts by Republicans to reign that spending in. There is no comparison between the two. For heaven's sake, Obama campaigned against the Bush deficits while promising brand new spending of nearly $1 trillion and that was even before the banking/housing crisis hit. Obama has made Bush look like a penny-pincher.

Yes, the entitlement problems are there, and are looming every larger, but LOOMING doesn't explain where we are already, which is in significant part ALSO due to defense OVERspending, plus BushCo military adventurism.

And the failure to even discuss defense spending thus far exacerbates the failure by the Republican Party to craft a bipartisan solution. You want reform, why don't you pretend to reach out to the other side, even a little.

Look, I already said I might vote Republican in 2012 regardless, just for even trying a little bit, which is mroe than Democrats are doing at the moment, but don't think this is much more than grandstanding. Serious efforts would involve Democrats, not just cherry-pick a bunch of Republican pet peeves to kill/reform while protecting pet projects and call it serious reform.

True leadership is moving the ball forward on something so important. This doesn't get it done. At least not yet.

And yet we agree that it's more than we're getting from the democrats. That song has been playing all my life. That's why I'm so critical of democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 12:49 PM
I wasn't lumping them together as you conveniently did...I was looking at them as the three biggest distinct budget areas.

That sounds like an arbitrary distinction designed to mislead. Whether you're misleading yourself or others, I don't know. The fact remains that entitlements take up almost twice as much of the budget as defense does today and the entitlement share of the pie is growing rapidly while the defense share is shrinking. If you combine other domestic spending with the entitlements, the picture is even more dramatic.

According to this reading of OMB data (http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/2009/04/page/3/) from 40 years ago or so, defense took up almost 46% of the budget. It's under 21% today. Meanwhile, entitlements (both medicare and SS) have grown from 17% to 41%. Dramatic contrast, huh?

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pgpf-willisms-4-09-federalspending68to08.gif

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 01:15 PM
I've only read the outlines, so I'll wait for the news tomorrow before I offer a definitive judgment on Ryan's extraordinary work.

My first impression: this was something I predicted (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7124797#post7124797) that could be done under this Congress.

There are two ways you attack the deficit: Medicare and defense. Apparently the Republican establishment still won't take on defense as seriously as they need to. But I welcome any foray into working on Medicare.

I think the plan asks for too much sacrifice from seniors and the middle class. Not enough from the wealthy (still at the Bush tax cuts rate) those who got us into this mess.

Matter of fact, I don't see any serious sacrifice from the wealthy. It seems to almost be entirely on the middle and lower class.

That said, this is a phenomenal start that Democrats should use to move forward. So long as they do, and we don't enter into scorched earth tactics, the American budget can still be saved.

VAChief
04-04-2011, 02:13 PM
That sounds like an arbitrary distinction designed to mislead. Whether you're misleading yourself or others, I don't know. The fact remains that entitlements take up almost twice as much of the budget as defense does today and the entitlement share of the pie is growing rapidly while the defense share is shrinking. If you combine other domestic spending with the entitlements, the picture is even more dramatic.

According to this reading of OMB data (http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/2009/04/page/3/) from 40 years ago or so, defense took up almost 46% of the budget. It's under 21% today. Meanwhile, entitlements (both medicare and SS) have grown from 17% to 41%. Dramatic contrast, huh?

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pgpf-willisms-4-09-federalspending68to08.gif

Medicare and Social Security are listed as individually on the graph you gave. YOU decided to lump them together then say I am trying to mislead? I get that Medicare and SS spending have grown at faster rate (as a portion of the budget). I never said anything about proportion of spending that needs to be reduced in any of the budget areas including defense. I think it should at least be given a thorough look however.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 02:40 PM
LOL at the liberals mocking the proposal when the dems couldn't even pass a 2011 budget when they held the executive branch AND both houses of congress.

Too funny.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 02:53 PM
I want someone to list for me any serious sacrifices we're asking the wealthy to make in this unveiled plan.

I'm finding it difficult to locate one. At least in the outlines.

Chief Faithful
04-04-2011, 02:57 PM
I applaud the effort, but if the US is running an approximate $1.5T deficit annually I don't see how $4T over 10 years is something to get excited about. This plan must assume some serious economic growth if a balanced budget is the target.

What am I missing?

Chief Faithful
04-04-2011, 02:59 PM
I want someone to list for me any serious sacrifices we're asking the wealthy to make in this unveiled plan.

I'm finding it difficult to locate one. At least in the outlines.

You have some serious class envy.

Let me help you out, wealth does not get taxed only income. Income is a result of profit. Profit is the economic fuel that grows government tax base, grows business, creates jobs, modernizes factories,...etc. Raise taxes and jobs are lost, companies leave, factories grow old and utimately tax base shrinks.

This is not some SIM game.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 03:01 PM
I want someone to list for me any serious sacrifices we're asking the wealthy to make in this unveiled plan.

I'm finding it difficult to locate one. At least in the outlines.

New sacrifices or the same old ongoing ones?

patteeu
04-04-2011, 03:53 PM
I want someone to list for me any serious sacrifices we're asking the wealthy to make in this unveiled plan.

I'm finding it difficult to locate one. At least in the outlines.

NPR executives will have to find a way to replace the portion of their funding that comes from the government. Corn magnates will probably have a bit of discomfort if ethanol subsidies are reduced/eliminated. If there is any justice, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac execs will have to find new jobs.

And of course, everyone, rich and poor alike, will have to share the pain of fixes to entitlements in roughly the same proportion to which they've always benefitted from them.

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals are always trying to redistribute wealth from rich to poor on both ends of every issue.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 04:37 PM
I want someone to list for me any serious sacrifices we're asking the wealthy to make in this unveiled plan.

I'm finding it difficult to locate one. At least in the outlines.

I agree it needs to be unveiled yet but the rough outline has one.

The Ryan-Rivlin plan would call for seniors to pay more for smaller expenses but put a cap on what they could pay out-of-pocket. Ryan, on "Fox News Sunday," did not discuss these details but said the plan would provide less money to wealthy beneficiaries, and stressed that the changes would not affect those 55 and older.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 07:10 PM
So that's the one actual "sacrifice" the wealthy are being expected to make? A reduction in social security payments that they don't need?

lolz.

Seriously, Ryan is attempting to close the deficit on the backs of the lower and middle class. Meanwhile, the upperclass remains largely untouched.

As pure an expression of Republican policymaking if there ever was one.

Basically, this ensures that there will be a government shutdown.

There are a hundred bipartisan ways to attack Medicare properly to make it solvent. Privatizing it is something that not only Democrats will shoot down, but many Republicans will shoot down.

I wanted to believe. I should have known better. We're ****ed. Short term and long term.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 07:16 PM
So that's the one actual "sacrifice" the wealthy are being expected to make? A reduction in social security payments that they don't need?

lolz.

Seriously, Ryan is attempting to close the deficit on the backs of the lower and middle class. Meanwhile, the upperclass remains largely untouched.

As pure an expression of Republican policymaking if there ever was one.

Basically, this ensures that there will be a government shutdown.

There are a hundred bipartisan ways to attack Medicare properly to make it solvent. Privatizing it is something that not only Democrats will shoot down, but many Republicans will shoot down.

I wanted to believe. I should have known better. We're ****ed. Short term and long term.

This proposal doesn't touch SS.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 07:18 PM
So that's the one actual "sacrifice" the wealthy are being expected to make? A reduction in social security payments that they don't need?

lolz.

Seriously, Ryan is attempting to close the deficit on the backs of the lower and middle class. Meanwhile, the upperclass remains largely untouched.

As pure an expression of Republican policymaking if there ever was one.

Basically, this ensures that there will be a government shutdown.

There are a hundred bipartisan ways to attack Medicare properly to make it solvent. Privatizing it is something that not only Democrats will shoot down, but many Republicans will shoot down.

I wanted to believe. I should have known better. We're ****ed. Short term and long term.

When are the poor going to chip in their fair share after decades of being the cause of the problem?

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 07:23 PM
When are the poor going to chip in their fair share after decades of being the cause of the problem?

I too have wondered when there will stop being poor people.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 07:24 PM
This proposal doesn't touch SS.

What program was being described in your post?

banyon
04-04-2011, 07:24 PM
That sounds like an arbitrary distinction designed to mislead. Whether you're misleading yourself or others, I don't know. The fact remains that entitlements take up almost twice as much of the budget as defense does today and the entitlement share of the pie is growing rapidly while the defense share is shrinking. If you combine other domestic spending with the entitlements, the picture is even more dramatic.

According to this reading of OMB data (http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/2009/04/page/3/) from 40 years ago or so, defense took up almost 46% of the budget. It's under 21% today. Meanwhile, entitlements (both medicare and SS) have grown from 17% to 41%. Dramatic contrast, huh?

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pgpf-willisms-4-09-federalspending68to08.gif

Your graph is interesting. Looks like you would agree non-defense discretionary spending (where the Republicans have targeted) isn't he answer.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 07:27 PM
What program was being described in your post?

You didn't read the article did you.

Medicare/Medicaid is what's being discussed.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 07:30 PM
Medicare/Medicaid is what's being discussed.

So just substitute my previous post with the proper program, and my reply is the exact same.

My point continues to stand.

Ryan is attempting to close the deficit on the backs of everybody in this country, but the rich.

banyon
04-04-2011, 07:31 PM
Where's the DoD cuts? Oh right, this is more posturing than anything else. I commend the effort, but I'd like to see a more bipartisan effort. Unfortunately, demogoguery is the rule.

+1000%

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 07:33 PM
Yup.

We're careening into a government shutdown.

By design.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 07:39 PM
So just substitute my previous post with the proper program, and my reply is the exact same.

My point continues to stand.

Ryan is attempting to close the deficit on the backs of everybody in this country, but the rich.

Just making sure we're talking about the same thing.

So, if the rich have reduced medical benefits that should equal them paying more than their fair share, right?

patteeu
04-04-2011, 07:39 PM
Your graph is interesting. Looks like you would agree non-defense discretionary spending (where the Republicans have targeted) isn't he answer.

There has been a significant and unnecessary increase in non-defense discretionary spending since that graph was made so I don't have any problem with cutting it, but I agree with Republicans like Paul Ryan who say that entitlements are by far the biggest source of our budget problems.

It's good to see one party playing the role of a grown up in this debate. Hopefully democrats will follow suit, but I'm not optimistic, to be honest.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 07:40 PM
+1000%

Dems held both sides of congress and the executive branch....so why are we still spending so much on defense?

I mean other than the current president has proven to be just as blood thirsty and willing to destroy stuff using our military as the previous one?

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 07:46 PM
So, if the rich have reduced medical benefits that should equal them paying more than their fair share, right?

Please.

If the only sacrifice we're talking about for the wealthy is limiting access to a program they generally don't use anyway...

patteeu
04-04-2011, 07:47 PM
So just substitute my previous post with the proper program, and my reply is the exact same.

My point continues to stand.

Ryan is attempting to close the deficit on the backs of everybody in this country, but the rich.

Your point is idiotic. Seriously. Both because you fail to recognize the sacrifices the wealthy are being asked to make and because you fail to recognize the sacrifices the wealthy made to create these redistributive programs in the first place. You're only one small notch above Kotter in terms of ridiculousness on this issue. And that's only because your posts are readable instead of incoherent.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 07:47 PM
Dems held both sides of congress and the executive branch....so why are we still spending so much on defense?

I mean other than the current president has proven to be just as blood thirsty and willing to destroy stuff using our military as the previous one?

Non sequitor.

Both parties abusing defense spending doesn't have anything to do with the fact that defense spending needs to be significantly reduced.

Defense and Medicare, mlyonsd. That's how you cut the deficit.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 07:51 PM
Your point is idiotic. Seriously. Both because you fail to recognize the sacrifices the wealthy are being asked to make and because you fail to recognize the sacrifices the wealthy made to create these redistributive programs in the first place. You're only one small notch above Kotter in terms of ridiculousness on this issue. And that's only because your posts are readable instead of incoherent.

At a time in which everybody is being told the hard choices need to be made, and that we will all have to sacrifice.

There is no shared sacrifice in this budget proposal.

But you're saying that the rich already have it pretty bad. Guess I missed that.

banyon
04-04-2011, 07:52 PM
Dems held both sides of congress and the executive branch....so why are we still spending so much on defense?

I mean other than the current president has proven to be just as blood thirsty and willing to destroy stuff using our military as the previous one?

While I agree with your criticism of Obama's military policies (and it is the principal reason, along with his acquiescence on health care that I will not vote for him in 2012).

However, the Republicans, of course had it for 6 years to the Democrats' two. To pretend it is anything but an institutionalized problem now is beside the point.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 07:58 PM
Please.

If the only sacrifice we're talking about for the wealthy is limiting access to a program they generally don't use anyway...

What makes you think they don't use it? And if they don't use it lower/middle income payers are even better off.

So you're saying the rich should take dollars away from what they pay for ultimate premier insurance and give it to others, thus leveling the playing field?

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 08:01 PM
So you're saying the rich should take dollars away from what they pay for ultimate premier insurance and give it to others, thus leveling the playing field?

I don't give a shit about leveling the playing field, insomuch as I do isolating any and all sacrifices for a budget crisis that was created by rich politicians and exacerbated by Wall Street and big banks, on the middle and lower classes.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 08:04 PM
I don't give a shit about leveling the playing field, insomuch as I do isolating any and all sacrifices for a budget crisis that was created by rich politicians and exacerbated by Wall Street and big banks, on the middle and lower classes.

The problem was created by politicians who decided that pandering to the poor and middle class was the best way to buy votes and win the next election. This goes for George W. Bush and his prescription drug entitlement just as it goes for nearly every democrat since FDR.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 08:06 PM
Non sequitor.

Both parties abusing defense spending doesn't have anything to do with the fact that defense spending needs to be significantly reduced.

Defense and Medicare, mlyonsd. That's how you cut the deficit.

So we can agree that this might be at least a serious, if not perfect, attempt to address Medicare and that defense spending is a different subject because both sides are the issue there, right?

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 08:10 PM
So we can agree that this might be at least a serious, if not perfect, attempt to address Medicare and that defense spending is a different subject because both sides are the issue there, right?

It's a ideologically serious attempt at addressing Medicare, sure, but it's not politically serious because it has no prayer of passing.

Think of Kucinich wanting to impeach every President since Clinton.

Ideologically serious, sure. Politically serious, no.

Which is a problem if you're the head of the budgetary committee.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 08:12 PM
While I agree with your criticism of Obama's military policies (and it is the principal reason, along with his acquiescence on health care that I will not vote for him in 2012).

However, the Republicans, of course had it for 6 years to the Democrats' two. To pretend it is anything but an institutionalized problem now is beside the point.

My response was more TIC than anything else.

But if you think defense spending is a republican issue just try cutting bases or weapons systems that are based in blue states and you'll quickly understand military spending doesn't follow party lines.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 08:12 PM
The problem was created by politicians who decided that pandering to the poor and middle class was the best way to buy votes and win the next election. This goes for George W. Bush and his prescription drug entitlement just as it goes for nearly every democrat since FDR.

They also pandered to the rich by consistently dropping their tax rates without any adjusting in spending.

Any sacrifice to solve this budget crisis must be shared.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 08:15 PM
I don't give a shit about leveling the playing field, insomuch as I do isolating any and all sacrifices for a budget crisis that was created by rich politicians and exacerbated by Wall Street and big banks, on the middle and lower classes.Well then I don't understand why reducing medical benefits for the wealthy doesn't solve your issue.

Mind you, we both haven't seen the specifics.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 08:17 PM
Well then I don't understand why reducing medical benefits for the wealthy doesn't solve your issue.

Mind you, we both haven't seen the specifics.

Yeah. Like I said, everything we're talking about should be taken with two grains of salt.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 08:18 PM
It's a ideologically serious attempt at addressing Medicare, sure, but it's not politically serious because it has no prayer of passing.

Think of Kucinich wanting to impeach every President since Clinton.

Ideologically serious, sure. Politically serious, no.

Which is a problem if you're the head of the budgetary committee.

If it has no prayer of passing who is to blame for that?

Your side has entitled their base so deep if concessions can't be made by the poor and middle class we're F'd. Primarily because the rich don't have the bucks to fix it. Period.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 08:18 PM
It's a ideologically serious attempt at addressing Medicare, sure, but it's not politically serious because it has no prayer of passing.

Think of Kucinich wanting to impeach every President since Clinton.

Ideologically serious, sure. Politically serious, no.

Which is a problem if you're the head of the budgetary committee.

The medicare reform you're criticizing came out of a collaborative effort between Paul Ryan and Alice Rivlin which raises the question, whose ideology are they following, his or hers?

patteeu
04-04-2011, 08:22 PM
Ryan's proposal has no chance of passage not because it's overly ideological, but because too many democrats, including the guy in the WH, aren't serious about addressing the problem. They're more concerned about the next election.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 08:24 PM
If it has no prayer of passing who is to blame for that?

That's immaterial to the cause.

If it has no prayer of passing, it has no prayer of passing.

You can piss and moan about it, or you can try to strike a deal that has a prayer.

Paul Ryan has taken the former course of action.

Your side has entitled their base so deep if concessions can't be made by the poor and middle class we're F'd. Primarily because the rich don't have the bucks to fix it. Period.

I'm not recommending the rich fix this issue. It's a multi-trillion dollar issue. Everybody's going to have a serious hand in it.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 08:24 PM
Ryan's proposal has no chance of passage not because it's overly ideological, but because too many democrats, including the guy in the WH, aren't serious about addressing the problem. They're more concerned about the next election.Very true. The risk is of course if independents are paying attention. Fine line for dems.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 08:25 PM
They also pandered to the rich by consistently dropping their tax rates without any adjusting in spending.

Any sacrifice to solve this budget crisis must be shared.

We're talking about adjusting the spending now, but all you can think about is finding a way to make rich people hurt.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 08:26 PM
We're talking about adjusting the spending now, but all you can think about is finding a way to make rich people hurt.

We're talking about righting the budget.

You do that in two ways. Reduce spending, raise revenue.

Edit: You are at your demagoguery best in this thread, by the way. I am loving it.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 08:27 PM
...raises the question...

YES!

patteeu
04-04-2011, 08:33 PM
YES!

:) That was a conscious word choice. I admit that "begs" came to mind initially so it's not natural talent with the language.

mlyonsd
04-04-2011, 08:35 PM
That's immaterial to the cause.

If it has no prayer of passing, it has no prayer of passing.

You can piss and moan about it, or you can try to strike a deal that has a prayer.

Paul Ryan has taken the former course of action.



At some point one side is going to make a stand and let the voters decide. The way things are going I wouldn't just assume dems believing they can vote against any reduction in debt on ideological issues is good for them.

Heck, you've already made Amnorix trigger happy.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 08:36 PM
We're talking about righting the budget.

You do that in two ways. Reduce spending, raise revenue.

Edit: You are at your demagoguery best in this thread, by the way. I am loving it.

I'm absolutely confident that there are revenue enhancements in Paul's proposal. They'll involve payroll taxes instead of income tax rates, but they're tax increases nonetheless. I don't know any particulars, but I'd bet on it.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 09:27 PM
I'm absolutely confident that there are revenue enhancements in Paul's proposal. They'll involve payroll taxes instead of income tax rates, but they're tax increases nonetheless. I don't know any particulars, but I'd bet on it.

Only particulars we know at this point is that there are some corporate loopholes closing.

Which is a start.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 09:28 PM
At some point one side is going to make a stand and let the voters decide. The way things are going I wouldn't just assume dems believing they can vote against any reduction in debt on ideological issues is good for them.

Pop quiz: How well does taking taxes back to Clinton levels poll?

Amnorix
04-05-2011, 06:20 AM
I hope you read your contracts more carefully than you read that post. We weren't talking about blame we were talking about credit.

Credit and blame are just opposite sides of the same coin in this context.

Of course both sides deserve some blame (although, definitely, the blame falls most heavily on democrats). The Republicans showed that they were willing to overspend during the first 6 years of the Bush administration, but even then, democrats consistently complained that Republicans weren't spending enough on such programs as prescription drugs and NCLB.

Democrats were also trying to ensure that revenues didn't take a dramatic hit by revamping a tax code to favor the wealthy in a way that also increased the deficit. Which is pretty much exactly what happened.

There have been lonely voices worthy of credit in the democrat party. But by and large, Republicans have been beating the spending restraint drum for decades and democrats have been spending half their time thinking of new ways to spend tax dollars and the other half of the time thinking of ways to demagogue any attempts by Republicans to reign that spending in. There is no comparison between the two. For heaven's sake, Obama campaigned against the Bush deficits while promising brand new spending of nearly $1 trillion and that was even before the banking/housing crisis hit. Obama has made Bush look like a penny-pincher.

And yet we agree that it's more than we're getting from the democrats. That song has been playing all my life. That's why I'm so critical of democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

The Democrats did the right thing, in terms of budget, by and large during the Clinton years. The Republicans have been steadily wrong in many ways in terms of defense spending and taxation. The Democrats have been steadily wrong in many ways in terms of what we afford on the entitlement front. Because you like what the Republicans want to do on defense spending and taxation, they're right, and the Democrats are wrong. I get your position. I just don't agree with it.

Amnorix
04-05-2011, 06:23 AM
Your point is idiotic. Seriously. Both because you fail to recognize the sacrifices the wealthy are being asked to make and because you fail to recognize the sacrifices the wealthy made to create these redistributive programs in the first place. You're only one small notch above Kotter in terms of ridiculousness on this issue. And that's only because your posts are readable instead of incoherent.


One thing that is perfectly clear is that the Republicans have certainly gotten their way in squeezing the Middle Class over the last 30 years.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the <NOBR>United States, 1983-2007</NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=allrules cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller rowSpan=2> </TH><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=3>Total Net Worth</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1983</TD><TD class=smaller>33.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>47.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>18.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1989</TD><TD class=smaller>37.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1992</TD><TD class=smaller>37.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.2%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1995</TD><TD class=smaller>38.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1998</TD><TD class=smaller>38.1%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2001</TD><TD class=smaller>33.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>51.0%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2004</TD><TD class=smaller>34.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.3%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2007</TD><TD class=smaller>34.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.0%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=4> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller rowSpan=2> </TH><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=3>Financial Wealth</TD></TR> <TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TH></TD><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1983</TD><TD class=smaller>42.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>48.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>8.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1989</TD><TD class=smaller>46.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>6.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1992</TD><TD class=smaller>45.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1995</TD><TD class=smaller>47.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.0%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1998</TD><TD class=smaller>47.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>9.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2001</TD><TD class=smaller>39.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>51.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>8.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2004</TD><TD class=smaller>42.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2007</TD><TD class=smaller>42.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.0%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Amnorix
04-05-2011, 06:37 AM
The structural deficits were built through spending and there's only so much you can do by raising taxes. At some point, you have to address the root cause, i.e. entitlements. Nothing works until you do that.

Like defense isn't an entitlement spending at this point? Sure, technically you reauthorize every year or whatever, but spare me any pretense that it's any kind of thorough, top to bottom review.

If we all agree that the budget situation is alarming, then you need to look at EVERY avenue for fixing that problem. And that includes taxation and defense levels, sorry.

I do agree that reform of the various entitlement programs may well be necessary as well, but you can't just point to them and say "there it is, that's the problem" as if there's nothing else to discuss.

I'm not ignoring the Clinton era. I'm just recognizing that the Clinton era was brought to you by the Republican party and one democrat. The democrat party, as a group, didn't have much to do with it.

The Democrats voted for the 1993 Act that helped pave the path for Chrissakes.

patteeu
04-05-2011, 07:54 AM
Like defense isn't an entitlement spending at this point? Sure, technically you reauthorize every year or whatever, but spare me any pretense that it's any kind of thorough, top to bottom review.

This isn't a semantic argument nor did I make any pretense of the kind you're describing. I'm just using the proper terms in an effort to speak clearly (suggesting that defense is an entitlement works against this effort). The main problem creating the skyrocketing deficit are the programs known as entitlements, especially Medicare. It has nothing to do with what technically makes them "entitlements" and therefore, any similarities between defense spending and what makes the entitlements entitlements (i.e. the authorization issue) have no bearing on this argument. Defense is not a driver here.

I've always agreed that there are inefficiencies in the defense budget just like there are in all parts of the federal budget and we should be constantly vigilant in our efforts to weed these out and make sure that defense is requirements driven and not politics driven. However, defense is not a piggy bank from which you can withdraw spending in order to finance other parts of the gee-it-would-sure-be-nice-to-have budget.

If we all agree that the budget situation is alarming, then you need to look at EVERY avenue for fixing that problem. And that includes taxation and defense levels, sorry.

I do agree that reform of the various entitlement programs may well be necessary as well, but you can't just point to them and say "there it is, that's the problem" as if there's nothing else to discuss.

We don't all agree that we can sacrifice defense for the sake of making sure that people who otherwise couldn't afford it can have elective surgery or every life-extending surgery known to man or retire on the taxpayers' dime. The patient is bleeding profusely, but that bleeding isn't coming from the defense department, it's coming from the entitlements. There may well have to be tax increases (because the can has been kicked down the road so far already, primarily by democrats and their demagoguery) and there certainly should be non-defense discretionary spending cuts from relatively small potatoes programs that government shouldn't be involved in in the first place, but unless the root problem of the entitlements is addressed as the top priority, there's no sense in bothering with any of the rest of it because any benefit will be washed out by the entitlement tsunami anyway.

Sorry, but this lame democrat angle of everything but entitlements first is a loser and your slightly less lame angle of everything is an equally high priority is too because it obscures the real problem. Defense isn't the problem. NPR isn't the problem. Foreign aid isn't the problem. The entitlements ARE the problem and they need to cease being sacred cows. Tax increases should only be considered as a part of entitlement reform and they shouldn't be primarily designed as a further transfer of wealth as the Direckshuns and Kotters of the world would make them. The top two considerations in any tax measure should be (1) help fix the entitlement mess and (2) promote economic growth.

jiveturkey
04-05-2011, 07:57 AM
Fighting over who caused it and who's better at fixing it seems like a waste of time at this point.

Put everything on the table. Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, tax increases....

Nobody should get away with paying 0%. If we are going to ask the wealthy to go back to Clinton era taxes then the poor should also start contributing. I'm not asking for 35%. But even 5% would be a step in the right direction. I can't remember the number but I remember it being discussed here and the amount of people in this country that pay jack squat is alarming.

If we're going to provide services for the poor the least they can do is band together to help pay a portion.

I also remember seeing an article recently that a defense review found $70billion in annual waste. It's just that nobody wants to kill a program that produces jobs on this district.

I don't expect the budget to be fixed in one year but at least get the ship pointed in the other direction.

mlyonsd
04-05-2011, 07:59 AM
The Administration continues to invest in the Nation’s military servicemembers and their families and provides them with the training, equipment, and infrastructure needed to maintain military readiness. The President's 2012 Budget for the Department of Defense (DOD) reflects that commitment, proposing $553 billion - an increase of $22 billion above the 2010 appropriation.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_defense/

Just so we're on the same page here....that's a quote from the WH website.

2010 defense spending increased as well, and who was in charge of everything then?

The idea defense spending is just a republican thing is misguided BS.

donkhater
04-05-2011, 08:37 AM
First of all, people need to calibrate their arguments. Presidents have little to do with budgets other than approving/disapproving them. Congress has control of the purse strings. So those who spout off about Bush's deficit or Obabma's deficit need to realize that the Congress is much more responsible for the situation that we are currenlty in.

Having said that, it is still laughable to that there are those who think that there is $1.6 trillion in tax revenues that are not being collected and that is the primary cause of this deficit.

Are corporations taking advantage of tax loopholes? Of course. Government laws always alter behavior. Why is it surprising to anyone that corporations respond to the highest corporate tax rate in the world by leaving and protecting there profits?

But let's say that we can somehow extract revenue from those businesses. $4 trillion over 10 years is ONE QUARTER of the current deficit. This isn't draconian cuts. It's a small and absolutely necessary start.

jiveturkey
04-05-2011, 08:47 AM
Here's another article from this morning.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576244522761581288.html

By NAFTALI BENDAVID

WASHINGTON—House Republicans on Tuesday morning proposed a budget for the next fiscal year that would spend $3.53 trillion—$179 billion less than President Barack Obama's plan—and aims to bring the budget into balance, excluding interest payments, by 2015.

The GOP budget for 2012, crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, would mark a reversal of a years-long trend of growing deficits. Mr. Ryan says that after three years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion, the GOP plan would bring the deficit down to $995 billion in 2012, with deficits declining steadily thereafter.

The budget proposal stands little chance of becoming law, since it would have to be approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate and signed by Mr. Obama, and, among other things, it would repeal Mr. Obama's signature health-care law. It would make fundamental changes to Medicare and Medicaid and reduce spending on the government health-insurance programs.

The proposal marks an extraordinary political statement by House Republicans, propelled to power by a surge of concern over government spending. It's a gamble that voters are so concerned about the size of government that they are willing to accept significant cuts in popular programs and a transformation of the pillars of the New Deal and Great Society.

Mr. Ryan, who has long advocated a significant reduction in government's reach, portrayed the changes as necessary to reverse a federal expansion that is threatening the country's financial and moral health.

The plan "calls for a government faithful to its limited but noble mission: securing every American's right to pursue a destiny of his or her choosing," Mr. Ryan wrote in the introduction to his budget proposal, which he calls "The Path to Prosperity."

Democrats, based on early reports of the budget's contents, portrayed it as an extreme document, dedicated to dismantling the protections government has provided the lower- and middle-class for decades, while declining to make businesses pay their fair share.

While government spending is currently about 24% of the gross domestic product, Mr. Ryan says his budget would bring that to 22.5% next year and to less than 20% by 2018. By 2021, the deficit would be reduced to $385 billion.

In all, the GOP proposal says it would cut spending by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years, and spend $6.2 trillion less than Mr. Obama has advocated over the same period.

Nondefense, nonsecurity discretionary spending would be cut by $79 billion next year and by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. This category includes the traditional domestic spending that Congress approves each year for programs such as environmental protection and scientific research.

Such cuts would likely be politically difficult. Currently, Congress is on the verge of triggering a partial government shutdown due to a stalemate over a House GOP plan to cut a smaller amount—$61 billion—in discretionary spending in the current fiscal year. Democrats say the cuts are too deep and are offering $33 billion in cuts, some of it from nondiscretionary programs.

In the Ryan proposal, some of the biggest changes would occur in Medicare, the health program for the elderly and disabled, and Medicaid, the health program for the poor. Medicare in 2022 would be converted into a "premium support" system, meaning beneficiaries would choose from an array of private insurance plans, with government helping pay the premium.

Medicaid would be converted into a block grant for the states. The GOP budget estimates it would save $771 billion on Medicaid over the next 10 years. It would also turn the Food Stamp program into a block grant system.

To Democrats and liberal groups, these moves amount to undermining the key programs by which government helps seniors and the less fortunate. Mr. Ryan argues that these programs face financial problems and must be overhauled in order to save them.

The GOP budget would also overhaul the tax code, setting the top individual and corporate rates at 25% rather than 35%. The changes would be revenue-neutral, since the budget would eliminate a series of tax breaks. But even some Republicans say it's unrealistic to try to balance the budget without some increases in revenue.

Not all programs would be severely cut. Mr. Ryan would adopt $178 billion in Pentagon cuts identified by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. But he would reinvest $100 billion of this in other defense programs, using the remaining $78 billion for deficit reduction.

Mr. Ryan's budget also consolidates an array of job-training programs into "career scholarships" aimed at retraining workers. And it would end the federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the home-mortgage giants.

Write to Naftali Bendavid at naftali.bendavid@wsj.com

thecoffeeguy
04-05-2011, 08:47 AM
Awesome video!
This man is awesome!!

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xwv5EbxXSmE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

VAChief
04-05-2011, 09:09 AM
Fighting over who caused it and who's better at fixing it seems like a waste of time at this point.

Put everything on the table. Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, tax increases....

Nobody should get away with paying 0%. If we are going to ask the wealthy to go back to Clinton era taxes then the poor should also start contributing. I'm not asking for 35%. But even 5% would be a step in the right direction. I can't remember the number but I remember it being discussed here and the amount of people in this country that pay jack squat is alarming.

If we're going to provide services for the poor the least they can do is band together to help pay a portion.

I also remember seeing an article recently that a defense review found $70billion in annual waste. It's just that nobody wants to kill a program that produces jobs on this district.

I don't expect the budget to be fixed in one year but at least get the ship pointed in the other direction.

The amount of "non-payers" has risen steadily since the early 70's range of 16% to the mid 40% (non-payers including those that have taxes deducted, but returned at the end of the year due to deductions, credits, dependents, etc.). There is an interesting positive correlation that occurs during that same time frame regarding the widening gap between middle class and the wealthy.

donkhater
04-05-2011, 10:12 AM
There is a reason why Wal Mart makes a shitload of money and it ain't because they charge a premium price on just a few items. They take a scant margin on mega-volumes of goods. Same principle COULD apply to the federal revenue stream, but you'd have to overcome the demagoguery first.

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 10:14 AM
Ugh.

Read a ton of the details today.

I'll keep reading. But as bad as privatizing and voucherizing Medicare is, and that alone is going to cause the government shutdown, it's Ryan's treatment of Medicaid that's the most alarming to me.

Sweet jesus. There's like 100 ways to make Medicare more solvent that could potentially earn bipartisan support. To just come out with a privitization of Medicare...

Ryan is not politically serious with this. This is an engineered shutdown of the government.

On and on we go.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 10:19 AM
One thing that is perfectly clear is that the Republicans have certainly gotten their way in squeezing the Middle Class over the last 30 years.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the <NOBR>United States, 1983-2007</NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=allrules cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller rowSpan=2> </TH><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=3>Total Net Worth</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1983</TD><TD class=smaller>33.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>47.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>18.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1989</TD><TD class=smaller>37.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1992</TD><TD class=smaller>37.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.2%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1995</TD><TD class=smaller>38.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1998</TD><TD class=smaller>38.1%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2001</TD><TD class=smaller>33.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>51.0%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2004</TD><TD class=smaller>34.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.3%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2007</TD><TD class=smaller>34.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.0%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=4> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller rowSpan=2> </TH><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=3>Financial Wealth</TD></TR> <TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TH></TD><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1983</TD><TD class=smaller>42.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>48.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>8.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1989</TD><TD class=smaller>46.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>6.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1992</TD><TD class=smaller>45.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1995</TD><TD class=smaller>47.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.0%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1998</TD><TD class=smaller>47.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>9.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2001</TD><TD class=smaller>39.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>51.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>8.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2004</TD><TD class=smaller>42.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2007</TD><TD class=smaller>42.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.0%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Why do democrats insist on confusing wealth with income?

patteeu
04-05-2011, 10:19 AM
Ugh.

Read a ton of the details today.

I'll keep reading. But as bad as privatizing and voucherizing Medicare is, and that alone is going to cause the government shutdown, it's Ryan's treatment of Medicaid that's the most alarming to me.

Sweet jesus. There's like 100 ways to make Medicare more solvent that could potentially earn bipartisan support. To just come out with a privitization of Medicare...

Ryan is not politically serious with this. This is an engineered shutdown of the government.

On and on we go.

Ryan is clearly politically serious about the issue or he wouldn't be sticking his neck out for the democrats cheap demagoguery like this. I'd criticize the democrat proposal, but they have yet to become serious about the issue. Personally, I doubt they ever will.

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 10:34 AM
Ryan is clearly politically serious about the issue or he wouldn't be sticking his neck out for the democrats cheap demagoguery like this.

Uh... it's not cheap demagoguery to say "don't privatize Medicare."

That's a pretty seriously held political belief. Expecting them to just reverse it for no reason is not a politically serious thing to do.

By contrast, cheap demagoguery would be along the lines of accusing someone you disagree with of wanting to cause pain to rich people. But I can't think of any recent examples of that (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7538779&postcount=101), so I guess you'll just have to use your imagination.

mlyonsd
04-05-2011, 10:43 AM
Uh... it's not cheap demagoguery to say "don't privatize Medicare."

That's a pretty seriously held political belief. Expecting them to just reverse it for no reason is not a politically serious thing to do.

By contrast, cheap demagoguery would be along the lines of accusing someone you disagree with of wanting to cause pain to rich people. But I can't think of any recent examples of that (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7538779&postcount=101), so I guess you'll just have to use your imagination.

K. I'll wait to hear another proposal. Maybe one from the other side. Do you think it will be ready by the time I get back from lunch?

talastan
04-05-2011, 11:07 AM
Uh... it's not cheap demagoguery to say "don't privatize Medicare."

That's a pretty seriously held political belief. Expecting them to just reverse it for no reason is not a politically serious thing to do.

By contrast, cheap demagoguery would be along the lines of accusing someone you disagree with of wanting to cause pain to rich people. But I can't think of any recent examples of that (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7538779&postcount=101), so I guess you'll just have to use your imagination.


Hey direckshun, I'd be open to any ideas at this point. No one on the left is trying to do something about SS, Medicare or Medicaid. The government obviously has done such a wonderful job of running the program that there is no need to reform it. :rolleyes:

A private firm would do a hell of a lot better and a hell of a lot cheaper than the Broke Corporation that is US Government.

patteeu
04-05-2011, 11:38 AM
Uh... it's not cheap demagoguery to say "don't privatize Medicare."

That's a pretty seriously held political belief. Expecting them to just reverse it for no reason is not a politically serious thing to do.


No, saying don't do it without any explanation is not. But in the hands of the democrat party, you can bet that any explanation will be. Meanwhile, most democrats will continue to hide from any conceivable solutions.

Whatever happened to Obama's commission on the deficit anyway?

talastan
04-05-2011, 11:41 AM
Whatever happened to Obama's commission on the deficit anyway?

It got ignored by Reid and Pelosi.

patteeu
04-05-2011, 11:43 AM
It got ignored by Reid and Pelosi.

And Obama himself.

Hydrae
04-05-2011, 11:43 AM
Fighting over who caused it and who's better at fixing it seems like a waste of time at this point.

Put everything on the table. Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, tax increases....

Nobody should get away with paying 0%. If we are going to ask the wealthy to go back to Clinton era taxes then the poor should also start contributing. I'm not asking for 35%. But even 5% would be a step in the right direction. I can't remember the number but I remember it being discussed here and the amount of people in this country that pay jack squat is alarming.

If we're going to provide services for the poor the least they can do is band together to help pay a portion.

I also remember seeing an article recently that a defense review found $70billion in annual waste. It's just that nobody wants to kill a program that produces jobs on this district.

I don't expect the budget to be fixed in one year but at least get the ship pointed in the other direction.

If they are poor enough to qualify for government money to get through life where are they getting money to "pay a portion?" That makes no sense.

jiveturkey
04-05-2011, 11:58 AM
If they are poor enough to qualify for government money to get through life where are they getting money to "pay a portion?" That makes no sense.I'm just saying that everyone should pay something in taxes. I understand that they're extremely poor but if they are working there should be some kind of contribution on their end.

patteeu
04-05-2011, 11:59 AM
If they are poor enough to qualify for government money to get through life where are they getting money to "pay a portion?" That makes no sense.

The poor in this country do more than just get through life. The poor in this country are pretty well off by global standards. No one should be in the 0% tax bracket.

Hydrae
04-05-2011, 12:06 PM
The poor in this country do more than just get through life. The poor in this country are pretty well off by global standards. No one should be in the 0% tax bracket.

Then don't give it to them in the first place. It makes no sense to give them money and turn around and tell them to pay a portion of it back.

jiveturkey
04-05-2011, 12:09 PM
Then don't give it to them in the first place. It makes no sense to give them money and turn around and tell them to pay a portion of it back.People pay taxes on unemployment checks.

Hydrae
04-05-2011, 12:20 PM
People pay taxes on unemployment checks.

Equally ridiculous. Just imagine the savings in removing the administration of sending and then recollecting the money. Give someone money and the ask for a portion of it back costs money. Don't give it to the in the first place and you save more than just the money sent to begin with.

patteeu
04-05-2011, 12:37 PM
Then don't give it to them in the first place. It makes no sense to give them money and turn around and tell them to pay a portion of it back.

It makes all kind of sense for everyone to be subject to the tax code for the purpose of keeping everyone's mind in the same game when it comes to holding our politicians accountable, even if you turn around and give some of it back with explicit spending. IMO, the tax code shouldn't be used for welfare transfers.

jiveturkey
04-05-2011, 12:39 PM
Equally ridiculous. Just imagine the savings in removing the administration of sending and then recollecting the money. Give someone money and the ask for a portion of it back costs money. Don't give it to the in the first place and you save more than just the money sent to begin with.Wouldn't your way require even more oversight?

If you collect unemployment for part of the year and work the rest your taxes would become a lot more complicated. Unemployment is income so it easily rolls into that category come tax time.

The unemployment angle is a little off topic though. My fault.

Your idea would still cause some headaches. If a family is doing OK and then half way through the year the floor falls out and they go on Medicaid do the automatically stop paying taxes?

They should at least be paying a minimal amount of tax. Even if it's 5%. They can make all of the deductions that they want but their effective rate should never be below 5%. That's not much to ask.

donkhater
04-05-2011, 02:03 PM
Privatize medicare? Nah. Dump it completely. Clearly millions of people were without access to medical care prior to the creation of this entitlement. No? huh. I wonder how they managed.

The creation of these agencies and the link of medical insurance to employment are the two single biggest reasons for the mess we are in.

Now there will be plenty of people who will say that it isn't a responsible or serious position to advocate dumping it altogether, but it really doesn't matter. Simple math will end up dictating that action in the end.

The Rick
04-05-2011, 04:20 PM
Awesome video!
This man is awesome!!

<IFRAME title="YouTube video player" height=390 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xwv5EbxXSmE" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
Yep...I'd love to see him run for President in 2012 or 2016!

Bwana
04-05-2011, 06:09 PM
Get it done, it's do or die time.

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 08:59 PM
K. I'll wait to hear another proposal. Maybe one from the other side. Do you think it will be ready by the time I get back from lunch?

It'll be ready whenever the fuck I want it to be.

This is a goddamn message board and I've got a life. I'll post a couple ideas that I have when I get a moment to think it over.

Christ.

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 09:01 PM
Hey direckshun, I'd be open to any ideas at this point. No one on the left is trying to do something about SS, Medicare or Medicaid. The government obviously has done such a wonderful job of running the program that there is no need to reform it. :rolleyes:

I don't disagree with the lack of Democratic ideas. But a solution as extreme as privitization isn't our only hope.

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 09:02 PM
Whatever happened to Obama's commission on the deficit anyway?

It got ignored by Reid and Pelosi.

And Obama himself.

Are you guys serious with this shit?

There's a bipartisan group of congressmen trying to turn Simpson-Bowles into legislation.

As we speak.

So at a certain point, you're going to have to ask yourself how full of shit you actually are.

HonestChieffan
04-05-2011, 09:05 PM
CB to English translation: The wealthy and corporations want more money to go them.

Well, it is their money.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2011, 09:08 PM
Yep...I'd love to see him run for President in 2012 or 2016!

We'd be better off if the govt just shut down. At least three wars would end.

HonestChieffan
04-05-2011, 09:13 PM
Are you guys serious with this shit?

There's a bipartisan group of congressmen trying to turn Simpson-Bowles into legislation.

As we speak.

So at a certain point, you're going to have to ask yourself how full of shit you actually are.



Fiscal Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson: “The budget released this morning by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges.”

Hmmmmmm.

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 09:21 PM
Medicare reform ideas that Democrats and Republicans could potentially support:

* Increase eligibility to 70 (saves us $100B over a decade or two)
* Adjust the rate at which the tax break for employer-provided health insurance increases to coincide with the rate of economic growth. ($150B)
* Cap Medicare growth at GDP + 1%. (over $550B)

Off the top of my head, and a quick google search to locate some ideas that expressed my thoughts better, I just came up with a short list of relatively easy tweaks that could result in nearly $800 billion in potential savings over the next 10-20 years.

I'd add in a repeal of Part D, but that'd be politically impossible. All the above ideas are suggested and supported by yours truly, and I consider myself to be a pretty hardcore liberal.

tmh
04-05-2011, 10:21 PM
I give Ryan credit for putting something semi-serious out there to get blasted by 90% of the media with lies and distortions. Yes, its the R's and the D's fault, its everyones fault all the way back to most of our grandparents.

Yes, defense must be cut, a good start would be closing bases accross the globe. Bring those soldiers home and put them on the border. You will stop the illigeal crossings and put a huge dent in drug traffic. Then you can defund this stupid war on drugs that has never worked, and is just another program to incease the size of goverment.

Go ahead and means test medicare and medicaid. There are plenty of rich people who still take the money from the gov because its offered. Stop the handouts and subsidies. fix the tax code where every corporation pays the same ammount. Personaly, I am not opposed to paying more in taxes to not screw my kids over, but I want deductions and reform first. simply because you cannot trust goverment once the increased revenue comes in to reduce the deficit. Understand that its in thier intrest to create more must have programs because it protects thier jobs.

The real debate that s needed in this country needs to be amoung its citizens, about what the proper size, scope and role of goveremnt is and should be. As long as people want help from the goverment to live, eat, breathe, educate themselves or whip thier own ass this problem is going to continue

patteeu
04-05-2011, 10:42 PM
It'll be ready whenever the **** I want it to be.

This is a goddamn message board and I've got a life. I'll post a couple ideas that I have when I get a moment to think it over.

Christ.

Are you the only guy on the left who can pull this thing together? What's Chuck Schumer doing? Is Nancy Pelosi tied up with more important issues?

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 10:45 PM
Are you the only guy on the left who can pull this thing together? What's Chuck Schumer doing? Is Nancy Pelosi tied up with more important issues?

I'm not defending their inability to get things done.

I will say, they voted to reduce Medicare spending by $500 billion when they voted for healthcare reform.

So let's not pretend like Democrats are unwilling to fiddle with Medicare. They totally are.

But this isn't reforming it. It's basically disbanding it.

patteeu
04-05-2011, 10:50 PM
Are you guys serious with this shit?

There's a bipartisan group of congressmen trying to turn Simpson-Bowles into legislation.

As we speak.

So at a certain point, you're going to have to ask yourself how full of shit you actually are.

Did I miss it? Did I miss Obama's incorporation of any of the major commission recommendations on entitlement reform in his budget? No, I didn't miss it because it's not there. He lightly touched on some of the tax reform ideas, but when I say "lightly", I mean very lightly. Obama has decided not to lead on this issue. He kicked the can down the road a year by appointing a commission and now that the can is right there in front of him again, he sidestepped it and looked around for someone else to either kick it or pick it up. The guy is like the t-ball kid out in left field who drops his glove and starts picking flowers instead of paying attention to the game.

patteeu
04-05-2011, 10:51 PM
I'm not defending their inability to get things done.

I will say, they voted to reduce Medicare spending by $500 billion when they voted for healthcare reform.

So let's not pretend like Democrats are unwilling to fiddle with Medicare. They totally are.

But this isn't reforming it. It's basically disbanding it.

No they didn't.

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 10:55 PM
No they didn't.

Okay, guy.

Direckshun
04-05-2011, 10:57 PM
Did I miss it? Did I miss Obama's incorporation of any of the major commission recommendations on entitlement reform in his budget? No, I didn't miss it because it's not there. He lightly touched on some of the tax reform ideas, but when I say "lightly", I mean very lightly. Obama has decided not to lead on this issue. He kicked the can down the road a year by appointing a commission and now that the can is right there in front of him again, he sidestepped it and looked around for someone else to either kick it or pick it up. The guy is like the t-ball kid out in left field who drops his glove and starts picking flowers instead of paying attention to the game.

We've already gone a round about how upset we were nobody ran with Bowles-Simpson.

This is the first major proposal that seems to have incorporated some of it. For that, I am thankful, because Bowles-Simpson is not a terrible deal.

But to pretend it's been completely ignored by Democrats is silly. Democrats are working on implementing a version of it legislatively with Republicans.

suzzer99
04-05-2011, 11:04 PM
This budget sucks donkeyballs for anyone under 55. Yay I get to keep paying for my arch-conservative/govt-hating aunts and uncle's Rascal scooters until the end of time, and get fucked when I reach their age. Talk about cynical politics.

Here's a good article about how the people on Medicare now still take home 3x more than they ever paid in to the system: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/business/06leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

The Rick
04-05-2011, 11:09 PM
We'd be better off if the govt just shut down. At least three wars would end.
To quote the great orator, Jim Carey:

"Aaaallllrighty then!"

:rolleyes:

donkhater
04-06-2011, 06:33 AM
Well, it is their money.

Yes and no. I have no problem with businesses wanting and deserving to keep their money--that they've earned through providing goods or services. A big disconnect that many people (particularly those on the left) have is that laws have consequences. If you have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, businesses are not going to headquarter their offices here to circumvent those laws and you aren't going to collect those taxes and you are not going to create the number of private sector jobs in the world's largest market that you could. Some call them loopholes, I call them sound and prudent business decisions.

Having said that, there are those (particularly those on the right) who think supporting big corporations is the same as supporting free markets. Big corporations DO NOT want free markets. They want monopolies and they use the advantage of their capital to lobby lawmakers to set laws favorable to them. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN PUBLIC UNIONS.

So both parties need to get their heads out of the sand. Republicrat is a very apt term for our supposed two party system. It has never been more clear than in the last decade.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 07:32 AM
Okay, guy.

Where does this $500 billion in reduced spending come from specifically?

patteeu
04-06-2011, 07:35 AM
We've already gone a round about how upset we were nobody ran with Bowles-Simpson.

This is the first major proposal that seems to have incorporated some of it. For that, I am thankful, because Bowles-Simpson is not a terrible deal.

But to pretend it's been completely ignored by Democrats is silly. Democrats are working on implementing a version of it legislatively with Republicans.

Wake me up when democrats come up with a proposal. As for those few (and I mean very few) democrats who are working with Republicans on grown up legislation, we'll call them exceptions because that's what they are.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 07:38 AM
This budget sucks donkeyballs for anyone under 55. Yay I get to keep paying for my arch-conservative/govt-hating aunts and uncle's Rascal scooters until the end of time, and get ****ed when I reach their age. Talk about cynical politics.

Here's a good article about how the people on Medicare now still take home 3x more than they ever paid in to the system: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/business/06leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

Fixing the system has to start somewhere and for people already in retirement it's too late for them to adjust to the new reality. People at 55 have a limited ability to adjust. People at 35 have a significant ability to adjust. People at 18, can live their entire lives based on the new reality. It sucks that we've allowed (primarily liberals) to build up the failed system we're now trying to fix, but that's all water under the bridge.

Direckshun
04-06-2011, 08:02 AM
Where does this $500 billion in reduced spending come from specifically?

I understand your point, but that doesn't change the fact that Democrats and Obama specifically argued that Medicare would benefit from half a trillion in savings over the next ten years.

That's something they actively worked to sell. So it's not like it's an untouchable football.

Wake me up when democrats come up with a proposal. As for those few (and I mean very few) democrats who are working with Republicans on grown up legislation, we'll call them exceptions because that's what they are.

:rolleyes:

I don't know how many times you've worked by committee, but it typically involves a small number of people. But I'll leave you to your grandstanding.

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 08:42 AM
Fixing the system has to start somewhere and for people already in retirement it's too late for them to adjust to the new reality. People at 55 have a limited ability to adjust. People at 35 have a significant ability to adjust. People at 18, can live their entire lives based on the new reality. It sucks that we've allowed (primarily liberals) to build up the failed system we're now trying to fix, but that's all water under the bridge.

How about fixing corporate welfare and incestuous executive/board of directors siphoning off billions of $$ while they run "too big to fail" companies into the ground? When does that happen?

How about asking EVERYONE to share the pain a little, not just those of us under 55?

How about we extricate ourselves from 3 pointless wars and cut defense spending?

How about we ask the new Global Elite to pay something commensurate with the ever-increasing amount of the wealth pie they're gobbling up?

Why does this plan not even address Social Security? I'm 42. I'd much rather someone tell me I can't take SS until I'm 70 vs. tell me I have to go on the private market for health insurance when I retire. That's ****ing terrifying.

mlyonsd
04-06-2011, 08:49 AM
Wake me up when democrats come up with a proposal. As for those few (and I mean very few) democrats who are working with Republicans on grown up legislation, we'll call them exceptions because that's what they are.

They're still working on a 2011 budget. I think you're asking a bit much of them to plan 10 years into the future.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 08:50 AM
How about fixing corporate welfare and incestuous executive/board of directors running "too big to fail" companies into the ground? When does that happen?

How about asking EVERYONE to share the pain a little, not just those of us under 55?

How about we extricate ourselves from 3 pointless wars and cut defense spending?

How about we ask the new Global Elite to pay something commensurate with the ever-increasing amount of the wealth pie they're gobbling up?

Why does this plan not even address Social Security? I'm 42. I'd much rather someone tell me I can't take SS until I'm 70 than telling me I have to go on the private market for health insurance when I retire. That's ****ing terrifying.

The reason medicare is the focus here is because medicare is the biggest problem and because further delay in dealing with that problem will make the solutions even more painful than they seem now. The other things you're talking about are all really trivial by comparison. Sorry dude, your share of the free lunch needs to come to an end.

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 08:52 AM
Fine. Address Medicare. But why do I have to pay for the baby boomers, including fabulously wealthy ones, healthcare forever? That's going to choke the life out of us and we get the shaft. How in the hell is private insurance supposed to work if you're 70 anyway? Can they deny you for pre-existing conditions?

How about we work on bringing Medicare's cost under control, and making it a little more need based, vs. just giving all the spoils to people born before an arbitrary cutoff point, then ****ing everyone else? We both know why - politics. Old people vote.

Also not letting the Bush tax cuts expire is far from trivial wrt to the deficit:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7213/halvingdeficits1612369.jpg

Hey lets cut taxes, it will spur jobs. Oh noes, worst financial crisis since the depression, well that worked great. Hey now we have a huge deficit, what could be the cause? Medicare!!!

Also defense is far from trivial. We spend as much now as we did during the cold war, half of it chasing a few criminals around the globe. We're spending a billion $$ a day rebuilding Iraq when we never should have been there in the first place. We're paying contractors 3x or more than what the military makes, and we have more contractors than service-people over there.

If they raised the min. age of SS to 70, that also would be far from trivial.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2011, 08:54 AM
So both parties need to get their heads out of the sand. Republicrat is a very apt term for our supposed two party system. It has never been more clear than in the last decade.

Hear ye! Hear ye! :thumb:

You can bet your bottom dollar, when there's another R president who wants a war, Ryan will vote for it tossing the budget back out the window.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 08:58 AM
Fine. Address Medicare. But why do I have to pay for the baby boomers, including fabulously wealthy ones, healthcare forever? That's going to choke the life out of us and we get the shaft. How in the hell is private insurance supposed to work if you're 70 anyway? Can they deny you for pre-existing conditions?

How about we work on bringing Medicare's cost under control, and making it a little more need based, vs. just giving all the spoils to people born before an arbitrary cutoff point, then ****ing everyone else? We both know why - politics. Old people vote.

Also not letting the Bush tax cuts expire is far from trivial wrt to the deficit:


Hey lets cut taxes, it will spur jobs. Oh noes, worst financial crisis since the depression, well that worked great. Hey now we have a huge deficit, what could be the cause? Medicare!!!

It's absolutely trivial in the long run, which is what is important here. It's also very possible that higher taxes would cause the economy to be even worse than it is today. Apparently, there were enough democrats who believe that that they decided to join Republicans in extending the Bush tax cuts for at least a couple of years.

Do you see the shape of this curve? That steep climb on the right side isn't caused by Bush tax cuts.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bud.jpg

Deberg_1990
04-06-2011, 08:59 AM
Same old crap, different year...

Everybody wants to cut the budget, nobody wants to make sacrifices to cut the programs that affect them...

So what do you do?

jiveturkey
04-06-2011, 09:03 AM
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bud.jpg
That looks like one of them fancy Al Gore charts. :Poke: o:-)

jiveturkey
04-06-2011, 09:04 AM
Same old crap, different year...

Everybody wants to cut the budget, nobody wants to make sacrifices to cut the programs that affect them...

So what do you do?
Just like nobody likes the idea of a tax increase.

Does anyone really want either?

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 09:10 AM
Same old crap, different year...

Everybody wants to cut the budget, nobody wants to make sacrifices to cut the programs that affect them...

So what do you do?

You cut stuff fairly. Not give a political gift to the over-55 block and fuck everyone else. You look at cutting defense. Etc.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 09:13 AM
You cut stuff fairly. Not give a political gift to the over-55 block and **** everyone else. You look at cutting defense. Etc.

Even if you don't agree with it, did you at least understand the rationale for giving that "political gift" to the over-55 block? Because it seems like you're completely ignoring it.

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 09:16 AM
Apparently, there were enough democrats who believe that that they decided to join Republicans in extending the Bush tax cuts for at least a couple of years.

That was another political football. Hey let's cut taxes, not really cut spending, then freak out about the deficit getting so big!

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7070/ramclrfnl040511pie29741.jpg

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 09:20 AM
Even if you don't agree with it, did you at least understand the rationale for giving that "political gift" to the over-55 block? Because it seems like you're completely ignoring it.

Of course I do. But it completely ****s me, so I am allowed to hate it and do everything I can to vote against it.

And it really pisses me off the cognitive dissonance in my aunts and uncles who are nominally against every govt initiative except prisons and blowing stuff up, yet need apparently to be given straight political gifts from the govt to be kept happy.

Hey baby boomers, how about that horrible govt bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor? That's what Medicare is you know? Wouldn't you rather the govt just give you a check and you can shop around for your own insurance? Hell no. They've lived too long to fall for that line of BS. That solution is just good enough for everyone else.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 09:22 AM
That was another political football. Hey let's cut taxes, not really cut spending, then freak out about the deficit getting so big!

They didn't cut taxes and the Republicans didn't have control. You can see Republicans in action now that they have control over one of the houses of Congress and you do see them addressing the deficit while democrats drag their heels.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 09:24 AM
Of course I do. But it completely ****s me, so I am allowed to hate it and do everything I can to vote against it.

And it really pisses me off the cognitive dissonance in my aunts and uncles who are nominally against every govt initiative except prisons and blowing stuff up, yet need apparently to be given straight political gifts from the govt to be kept happy.

Hey baby boomers, how about that horrible govt bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor? That's what Medicare is you know? Wouldn't you rather the govt just give you a check and you can shop around for your own insurance? Hell no. They've lived too long to fall for that line of BS. That solution is just good enough for everyone else.

Stop being so selfish and look at the big picture. Do you have any kids? Because it sounds to me like you want to screw both your parents and your kids just so you don't have to face any adversity yourself.

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 09:34 AM
Stop being so selfish and look at the big picture. Do you have any kids? Because it sounds to me like you want to screw both your parents and your kids just so you don't have to face any adversity yourself.

Yes because there is only one solution to solving "The Big Picture" and it is ALWAYS whatever program the republicans want to gut.

I'm actually able to see things from both sides. I'm not fundamentally opposed to what's happening in Wisc. because I think public sector unions, in cahoots with their democrat politicians, have gone way too far. I live in CA and voted for Arnie (I really wanted to see the moderate republican Riordan win in 2002, and hated Dem. Gray Davis with a passion - funny story Gray Davis spent $20 million convincing the republican base that Riordan was too moderate during the republican primary, so they nominated uber-conservative Bill Simon, who of course got crushed in the general election - moral = never underestimate the republican base's ability to be pandered to about God and Country).

You however seem to just toe the party line on everything. How have you not addressed my points on defense at all? Do you really think Iraq was a good idea? How much less would our deficit be if we weren't spending a billion + per day in Iraq for the last 8 years?

I believe there is a way to cut back Medicare that is fair for everyone and doesn't leave senior citizens (now or future) twisting in the wind. I think Ryan's plan for Medicare is a cynical grandstanding abomination that he knows isn't going anywhere anyway.

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 09:38 AM
They didn't cut taxes and the Republicans didn't have control. You can see Republicans in action now that they have control over one of the houses of Congress and you do see them addressing the deficit while democrats drag their heels.

Like they did from 2000-2006, when even the National Review called them the most irresponsible ear-mark-loving congress ever? (or something to that effect)

chiefsnorth
04-06-2011, 10:09 AM
It's absolutely trivial in the long run, which is what is important here. It's also very possible that higher taxes would cause the economy to be even worse than it is today. Apparently, there were enough democrats who believe that that they decided to join Republicans in extending the Bush tax cuts for at least a couple of years.

Do you see the shape of this curve? That steep climb on the right side isn't caused by Bush tax cuts.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bud.jpg

That graphic must be bunk, because everyone told me yesterday that I was a laughable ideologue for believing there was a dimes bit of difference between the parties.

The Rick
04-06-2011, 10:12 AM
Hear ye! Hear ye! :thumb:

You can bet your bottom dollar, when there's another R president who wants a war, Ryan will vote for it tossing the budget back out the window.
Care to put your money where your mouth is? :)

You obviously don't know Paul Ryan very well and haven't studied up on him like I've asked you to in the past. You continue to just find little snippets on fringe websites and state them as fact...

donkhater
04-06-2011, 10:24 AM
Frankly, I'm not losing sleep about affecting the lives of senior citizens with any sort of budget solution. It was on their watch that the current mess was set up. While the brunt of the problem will be laid at the feet of the younger sects of the population, you won't see me shed one tear about having senior citizens share the burden as well. They have to face the consequences of their actions to some extent.

As for taxing the rich, making millionares pay their fair share, yada, yada, yada, you aren't going to bridge a $1.6 trillion deficit by revenue increases. Ain't gonna happen. And for the life of me, I don't get where anyone gets the impression that the additional revenues would be put towards debt reduction anyway. This is Congress remember? One of the most fiscally irresponsible entities ever created. Show me you can create and love within a budget (i.e trim the fat) THEN we can have a discussion about revenue.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 11:00 AM
Yes because there is only one solution to solving "The Big Picture" and it is ALWAYS whatever program the republicans want to gut.

I'm actually able to see things from both sides. I'm not fundamentally opposed to what's happening in Wisc. because I think public sector unions, in cahoots with their democrat politicians, have gone way too far. I live in CA and voted for Arnie (I really wanted to see the moderate republican Riordan win in 2002, and hated Dem. Gray Davis with a passion - funny story Gray Davis spent $20 million convincing the republican base that Riordan was too moderate during the republican primary, so they nominated uber-conservative Bill Simon, who of course got crushed in the general election - moral = never underestimate the republican base's ability to be pandered to about God and Country).

You however seem to just toe the party line on everything. How have you not addressed my points on defense at all? Do you really think Iraq was a good idea? How much less would our deficit be if we weren't spending a billion + per day in Iraq for the last 8 years?

I believe there is a way to cut back Medicare that is fair for everyone and doesn't leave senior citizens (now or future) twisting in the wind. I think Ryan's plan for Medicare is a cynical grandstanding abomination that he knows isn't going anywhere anyway.

I did address your points on defense. I called it small potatoes and that's what it is. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the entire cost of the Iraq war could have been saved by deciding not to fight it. We still have to house and train our military somewhere. And even if do consider the entire cost of the war, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the tsunami heading our way because of medicare and the other entitlements.

There is no way to cut back on medicare that is "fair to everyone" just like there's no tax system that is "fair to everyone". "Fair" isn't an objective concept. Personally, I think it's fair to exclude those over 55 from the brunt of medicare reform because they don't have any time left to adjust (as I've already pointed out). What you want to do is blame the deficit on things that don't directly affect your future standard of living, but that's not reality. I'd love to hear what you consider fair.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 11:07 AM
Like they did from 2000-2006, when even the National Review called them the most irresponsible ear-mark-loving congress ever? (or something to that effect)

Ear marks aren't even relevant to this discussion. Even to the extent that they lead to increased deficit spending, that spending is trivial compared to the war in Iraq, which is trivial compared to the runaway entitlement train. You're two degrees of triviality away from the point here. You have no sense of proportion.

Having said that, I never defended the big spending that went on during the first 6 years of the Bush administration. I was particularly critical of the prescription drug entitlement that you're currently clinging to like a lifeline along with the rest of medicare. But the fact that Bush and his Republican Congresses overspent doesn't change the fact that Republicans have traditionally been more frugal with the nation's treasury (even during that 6 year period, democrats consistently complained that spending was too low) or the fact that for the past 4 years and for the foreseeable future the Republicans have been far more responsible on this issue than democrats.

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 11:25 AM
Frankly, I'm not losing sleep about affecting the lives of senior citizens with any sort of budget solution. It was on their watch that the current mess was set up. While the brunt of the problem will be laid at the feet of the younger sects of the population, you won't see me shed one tear about having senior citizens share the burden as well. They have to face the consequences of their actions to some extent.


You do realize this budget changes nothing for anyone over 55, right?

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 11:43 AM
I did address your points on defense. I called it small potatoes and that's what it is. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the entire cost of the Iraq war could have been saved by deciding not to fight it. We still have to house and train our military somewhere. And even if do consider the entire cost of the war, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the tsunami heading our way because of medicare and the other entitlements.

We don't need as much military if we aren't bogged down in 3 wars. Total cost of the Iraq war is about $920 billion according to this site: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html And $720 billion according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

This chart predicts Medicare running a $245 billion deficit from 2006-2016. Yes it may be out of date, but it would have to be about 5 times worse to equal the same impact from the Iraq war over a similar timespan. Yes that Iraq war that you hand-wave off as small potatoes.

And yes you can quibble with the methodology in the first links I posted to the cost of the Iraq war. But you better give a concrete reason and maybe some facts as to why you think he's off by several orders of magnitude. Because that's what I would take for Iraq war costs to be "small potatoes".

Ok I just spent half an hour googling. Now your turn to show your work that allows you to just assert the Iraq war is small potatoes.


There is no way to cut back on medicare that is "fair to everyone" just like there's no tax system that is "fair to everyone". "Fair" isn't an objective concept. Personally, I think it's fair to exclude those over 55 from the brunt of medicare reform because they don't have any time left to adjust (as I've already pointed out). What you want to do is blame the deficit on things that don't directly affect your future standard of living, but that's not reality. I'd love to hear what you consider fair.

I told you what I consider fair. Why should I pay for some millionaire's scooter? Make medicare more need-based. Yes everyone paid into it, but they still take out 3x more than they ever put in. That's enough justification for making wealthy people pay more in Medicare premiums, or get their own healthcare imo. There are lots of other cost-cutting mechanisms which are already happening. I know a guy who made a fortune on medicare-based scooters. That industry is dead according to him. Obviously any govt program is going to be slow and inefficient. But they usually do catch on eventually.

patteeu
04-06-2011, 01:31 PM
We don't need as much military if we aren't bogged down in 3 wars. Total cost of the Iraq war is about $920 billion according to this site: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html And $720 billion according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

This chart predicts Medicare running a $245 billion deficit from 2006-2016. Yes it may be out of date, but it would have to be about 5 times worse to equal the same impact from the Iraq war over a similar timespan. Yes that Iraq war that you hand-wave off as small potatoes.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem we face. If Medicare spending was flat, it would be a trivial problem too. But it's not. It's growing dramatically faster than our defense budget. It's growing dramatically faster than the discretionary portion of the budget (where earmarks are most prevalent). Not only do we project dramatic increases over the next few decades, but our projections are dramatically increases as time goes by.

BTW, you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare raw military spending with only a portion of medicare spending (i.e. the medicare deficit). Not only are there taxes supporting defense expenditures which you're ignoring, but you're also ignoring the fact that even if we didn't fight the Iraq war, we'd still have to spend a portion of that money to maintain preparedness. And while we might be able to reduce the size of our military a bit if there were no threat to our interests in the world, there actually is a threat to our interests and we're going to be at war at some level for the foreseeable future.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Medicare-Projections.jpg



And yes you can quibble with the methodology in the first links I posted to the cost of the Iraq war. But you better give a concrete reason and maybe some facts as to why you think he's off by several orders of magnitude. Because that's what I would take for Iraq war costs to be "small potatoes".

Ok I just spent half an hour googling. Now your turn to show your work that allows you to just assert the Iraq war is small potatoes.

If you go back to your analysis and start comparing apples to apples, you're going to find that it only takes a couple of years of medicare spending to equal 10 years of Iraq spending. You'll also find that Iraq spending was temporary and is declining while medicare is potentially permanent and dramatically rising. There's really no comparison here. Small potatoes it is.

I told you what I consider fair. Why should I pay for some millionaire's scooter? Make medicare more need-based. Yes everyone paid into it, but they still take out 3x more than they ever put in. That's enough justification for making wealthy people pay more in Medicare premiums, or get their own healthcare imo. There are lots of other cost-cutting mechanisms which are already happening. I know a guy who made a fortune on medicare-based scooters. That industry is dead according to him. Obviously any govt program is going to be slow and inefficient. But they usually do catch on eventually.

I don't agree with your concept of fair. It sounds terribly unfair to me. Almost like you want to reach into your neighbor's pocket to fund your scooter just because he worked harder, saved more, or just got luckier than you during his working years.

go bowe
04-06-2011, 01:33 PM
The poor in this country do more than just get through life. The poor in this country are pretty well off by global standards. No one should be in the 0% tax bracket.global standards?

what happened to american interests first and foremost and the globe be damned?

the welfare of our american citizens here in america is an american issue that must be addressed by american standards, american (did i say american enough?)...

you dirty neocon globalist... /honey

go bowe
04-06-2011, 01:44 PM
Did I miss it? Did I miss Obama's incorporation of any of the major commission recommendations on entitlement reform in his budget? No, I didn't miss it because it's not there. He lightly touched on some of the tax reform ideas, but when I say "lightly", I mean very lightly. Obama has decided not to lead on this issue. He kicked the can down the road a year by appointing a commission and now that the can is right there in front of him again, he sidestepped it and looked around for someone else to either kick it or pick it up. The guy is like the t-ball kid out in left field who drops his glove and starts picking flowers instead of paying attention to the game.teehee, i saw what you did there...

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 02:14 PM
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem we face. If Medicare spending was flat, it would be a trivial problem too. But it's not. It's growing dramatically faster than our defense budget. It's growing dramatically faster than the discretionary portion of the budget (where earmarks are most prevalent). Not only do we project dramatic increases over the next few decades, but our projections are dramatically increases as time goes by.

It's growing because health care costs are spiraling out of control. We're still going to face gigantic problems if we don't address this, medicare or no. If we do address it, maybe by stopping our funding of most of the world's drug research and medical tech innovation, and plenty of other realistic solutions, medicare becomes much less of a problem.

Nice dodging the issue by the way. I showed the Iraq war has cost 4-5x more than medicare is projected to cost over the same period. And by your logic you still get to wave your hands and claim the Iraq was is small potatoes. That's ridiculous.

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]'
But just keep kicking medicare...


BTW, you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare raw military spending with only a portion of medicare spending (i.e. the medicare deficit). Not only are there taxes supporting defense expenditures which you're ignoring, but you're also ignoring the fact that even if we didn't fight the Iraq war, we'd still have to spend a portion of that money to maintain preparedness. And while we might be able to reduce the size of our military a bit if there were no threat to our interests in the world, there actually is a threat to our interests and we're going to be at war at some level for the foreseeable future.

If you go back to your analysis and start comparing apples to apples, you're going to find that it only takes a couple of years of medicare spending to equal 10 years of Iraq spending. You'll also find that Iraq spending was temporary and is declining while medicare is potentially permanent and dramatically rising. There's really no comparison here. Small potatoes it is.

The projection I showed calculated the cost of the war itself, not the war over and above normal expenditures, which would also be much lower if we weren't constantly getting into questionable wars. Taxes support defense (partially), medicare taxes and premiums support medicare (partially). Both are currently requiring us to borrow tons of money. What's your point?



I don't agree with your concept of fair. It sounds terribly unfair to me. Almost like you want to reach into your neighbor's pocket to fund your scooter just because he worked harder, saved more, or just got luckier than you during his working years.

How the hell does - I don't want to pay for some millionaire's scooter - equate to - please pay for my rascal scooter? I would be fine with scooters not being covered at all as a cost reform (which actually is already happening to a large degree according to my friend who sells them).

patteeu
04-06-2011, 02:55 PM
It's growing because health care costs are spiraling out of control. We're still going to face gigantic problems if we don't address this, medicare or no. If we do address it, maybe by stopping our funding of most of the world's drug research and medical tech innovation, and plenty of other realistic solutions, medicare becomes much less of a problem.

This is the first thing you've said that I partially agree with. Yes, the root problem is the rising cost of health care, but the reason health care costs are spiraling out of control is because our government is insuring a steady demand for health care without any sensitivity to the increased costs, both directly through medicare and indirectly through mandates and regulation on the private insurance industry. As newer, far more expensive (and effective) treatments come on line, we can't continue to fund them as if they're the same as taking 2 aspirin and calling the doctor in the morning. By limiting medicare growth, we are forced to make decisions about how much health care we can really afford. The decreased demand for the most expensive treatments will either lead providers to find cheaper ways to provide them or to retreat to lower tech solutions that aren't as costly. Meanwhile, the wealthy, who can afford to pay for their own gold plated care, can be the leading edge on which these new treatments are practiced and improved upon.

Nice dodging the issue by the way. I showed the Iraq war has cost 4-5x more than medicare is projected to cost over the same period. And by your logic you still get to wave your hands and claim the Iraq was is small potatoes. That's ridiculous.

I didn't dodge the issue. I explicitly and specifically rejected your premise. Medicare deficits are not the same thing as medicare costs. The costs are much higher than the numbers you provided. The data you're relying on subtracts the revenue generated from medicare related payroll taxes. Iraq war costs are not the same thing as the portion of the deficit reasonably attributable to the Iraq War.


But just keep kicking medicare...

I absolutely will. It's by far the biggest fiscal issue we face.

The projection I showed calculated the cost of the war itself, not the war over and above normal expenditures, which would also be much lower if we weren't constantly getting into questionable wars. Taxes support defense (partially), medicare taxes and premiums support medicare (partially). Both are currently requiring us to borrow tons of money. What's your point?

The point is that your medicare numbers are net (cost minus revenue), while your Iraq war numbers, and I'm accepting them as is for purposes of argument, are not (cost only without subtracting revenue or the base cost of a standing army).

How the hell does - I don't want to pay for some millionaire's scooter - equate to - please pay for my rascal scooter? I would be fine with scooters not being covered at all as a cost reform (which actually is already happening to a large degree according to my friend who sells them).

So if it's already happening, why is it relevant to this discussion at all?

donkhater
04-06-2011, 03:05 PM
You do realize this budget changes nothing for anyone over 55, right?

Don't tell it to me. Tell it to the Democrats spewing rhetoric about 'death traps'.

jiveturkey
04-06-2011, 03:07 PM
Don't tell it to me. Tell it to the Democrats spewing rhetoric about 'death traps'.
Are those anything like death panels?

BucEyedPea
04-06-2011, 03:36 PM
Care to put your money where your mouth is? :)

You obviously don't know Paul Ryan very well and haven't studied up on him like I've asked you to in the past. You continue to just find little snippets on fringe websites and state them as fact...

Actually, I have and I posted it in the past.
Note: I understand that you live in a very Progressive state. Rs from such states aren't really small govt guys though.


Does Paul Ryan’s Record Match His Rhetoric? (http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/)

Nope!

Voted with Bush 94% of the time.
"It appears that when Paul Ryan’s party is doing the spending, raising debt limits, and acting unconstitutionally… Ryan goes with the flow."


But why did the Congressman vote to bail out the auto industry, to pass the Medicare package to the tune of $400 billion, and to nationalize education via No Child Left Behind?

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.

According to Michelle Malkin in 2009, “[Paul Ryan] gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank-Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede. Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: ‘He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it’.”

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 04:15 PM
This is the first thing you've said that I partially agree with. Yes, the root problem is the rising cost of health care, but the reason health care costs are spiraling out of control is because our government is insuring a steady demand for health care without any sensitivity to the increased costs, both directly through medicare and indirectly through mandates and regulation on the private insurance industry. As newer, far more expensive (and effective) treatments come on line, we can't continue to fund them as if they're the same as taking 2 aspirin and calling the doctor in the morning. By limiting medicare growth, we are forced to make decisions about how much health care we can really afford. The decreased demand for the most expensive treatments will either lead providers to find cheaper ways to provide them or to retreat to lower tech solutions that aren't as costly. Meanwhile, the wealthy, who can afford to pay for their own gold plated care, can be the leading edge on which these new treatments are practiced and improved upon.

You left out the biggest cause of spiraling costs which is the corporate health insurance tax break. This has given rise to basically federally-subsidized corporate insurance cos with until recently very little price sensitivity. It's also at the moment giving corporations (who have a naturally desirable large group to insure) a huge advantage over entrepreneurs and small businesses, who are getting absolutely killed by private and small group premiums.

Whatever you feel about Obamacare (and I think I know what that is), while I admit there's a huge legit debate about costs and implementation, one giant benefit is it would make it a lot easier for a small business of say 5 people, to hire someone with diabetes or the like. Right now that would just crush them. I know people who have small businesses that have to be very very careful about who they hire for this exact reason. Also good luck as an entrepreneur with health problems who isn't married to someone with good insurance. But hey, keep giving that lip service to caring about small businesses and entrepreneurs. Because you know, it's only healthy 20 and 30-somethings who have all the good ideas.


I didn't dodge the issue. I explicitly and specifically rejected your premise. Medicare deficits are not the same thing as medicare costs. The costs are much higher than the numbers you provided. The data you're relying on subtracts the revenue generated from medicare related payroll taxes. Iraq war costs are not the same thing as the portion of the deficit reasonably attributable to the Iraq War.

I absolutely will. It's by far the biggest fiscal issue we face.

The point is that your medicare numbers are net (cost minus revenue), while your Iraq war numbers, and I'm accepting them as is for purposes of argument, are not (cost only without subtracting revenue or the base cost of a standing army).

What is the difference between a war deficit and a medicare deficit in any given year? Both take in a certain amount of money earmarked for them, then borrow to pay more. That is definitely comparing apples to apples, and at least in the present the war deficit is far higher than the medicare deficit by the links I found, and at the very least in the same ballpark. Which means the war deficit is not "small potatoes" no matter how many times you want to assert that it is.


So if it's already happening, why is it relevant to this discussion at all?

Because it shows the govt is trying to curtail costs, it's just going about it in delayed inefficient fashion as always. You're operating from the assumption that the only way to fix medicare is to destroy it. Also that costs are going to keep going up exponentially like they have the last decade or so. That just isn't sustainable, something has to give before costs ever got that high. So graphs that show 2000-2010-style price acceleration are a little far-fetched.


It's been fun but my politics stamina is pretty much maxed out for a while. I think I've made my points as clear as I can. Carry on.

go bowe
04-06-2011, 04:31 PM
Non sequitor.

Both parties abusing defense spending doesn't have anything to do with the fact that defense spending needs to be significantly reduced.

Defense and Medicare, mlyonsd. That's how you cut the deficit.you say that like it's a bad thing...

patteeu
04-06-2011, 04:40 PM
You left out the biggest cause of spiraling costs which is the corporate health insurance tax break. This has given rise to basically federally-subsidized corporate insurance cos with until recently very little price sensitivity.

I don't know if it's the biggest cause or not, but I agree that it's a problem and I'm fully on board with the idea of repealing that tax break.

What is the difference between a war deficit and a medicare deficit in any given year? Both take in a certain amount of money earmarked for them, then borrow to pay more. That is definitely comparing apples to apples, and at least in the present the war deficit is far higher than the medicare deficit by the links I found, and at the very least in the same ballpark. Which means the war deficit is not "small potatoes" no matter how many times you want to assert that it is.

There are two things wrong with your analysis here.

First of all, "in the present" isn't where our focus needs to be. "In the present" we're fine even with our large deficit. It's "in the future" that we have to be concerned with, because it's then that, after continuing to grow, it will eventually crush our economy and our standard of living along with it.

And second, you're still comparing apples and oranges. If you look at the chart I posted in post #185, you find the medicare cost (apple) to compare to the Iraq war cost (apple) that you provided. This is the number that should be used for the comparison instead of the medicare deficit (orange) that you provided. In 2020 alone, the cost of medicare is projected to be $700 billion. That's slightly less for one year compared to the $720b to $920b for the 10 year Iraq War window you provided. And it goes up dramatically from there. By that time, Iraq will be something you learn about in history class.

That's not quite apple to apple, because of the time frame though. We know medicare costs are rising so it stands to reason that current medicare costs are something less than $700b per year. The Medicare wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)) says that in 2002, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8b. If we assume the costs are flat from 2002 to 2011 (an assumption that underestimates costs by quite a bit), the 10 year cost of Medicare of the past decade has been $2.5 TRILLION. That's about 300% of the cost of the Iraq War. And again, it's rising fast while the costs of Iraq are declining.


Because it shows the govt is trying to curtail costs, it's just going about it in delayed inefficient fashion as always. You're operating from the assumption that the only way to fix medicare is to destroy it.

The cost dangerous cost curve presented in post #185 already includes the kinds of tinkering around the edges of cost that this scooter thing represents. Something more needs to be done. I'm not arguing that Ryan's alternative is the only possible answer. I'm just arguing that preserving medicare largely as it is for you and for your kids is not a possible answer. I'll listen to other credible alternatives, but so far Ryan's is the main game in town. And I'll be honest that I'm probably going to favor the type of approach that moves us away from government as insurer over the approach that tries to raise taxes on people who have money in the bank in order to provide gold plated insurance to poor people.

donkhater
04-06-2011, 05:27 PM
Are those anything like death panels?

Yep. Are you starting get my point about Republicrats?

The Rick
04-06-2011, 05:54 PM
Actually, I have and I posted it in the past.
Note: I understand that you live in a very Progressive state. Rs from such states aren't really small govt guys though.


Does Paul Ryan’s Record Match His Rhetoric? (http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/)

Nope!

Voted with Bush 94% of the time.
"It appears that when Paul Ryan’s party is doing the spending, raising debt limits, and acting unconstitutionally… Ryan goes with the flow."
This is the exact same thing you posted last time.

Again, you're living in the land of milk and honey, where there's no such thing as a choice between bad and worse. Like I said previously, you're not all that different from the liberals. In their eyes, liberals try to make society better, damn the consequences. You like to close your eyes, plug your ears, and shout "la la la" while pretending decisions are simple and without consequence. In the real world, there are consequences to every decision.

As I've clearly proven before on TARP, Ryan didn't WANT to vote for it. However, after a lot of thought and analysis, he determined not voting for it would be worse. Better to authorize some one-time cash than the alternative, which was the largest expansion of government since the New Deal era. You of course, don't seem to be capable of such forward thinking.

go bowe
04-06-2011, 08:28 PM
This is the exact same thing you posted last time.

Again, you're living in the land of milk and honey, where there's no such thing as a choice between bad and worse. Like I said previously, you're not all that different from the liberals. In their eyes, liberals try to make society better, damn the consequences. You like to close your eyes, plug your ears, and shout "la la la" while pretending decisions are simple and without consequence. In the real world, there are consequences to every decision.

As I've clearly proven before on TARP, Ryan didn't WANT to vote for it. However, after a lot of thought and analysis, he determined not voting for it would be worse. Better to authorize some one-time cash than the alternative, which was the largest expansion of government since the New Deal era. You of course, don't seem to be capable of such forward thinking.
my goodness, man...

forward thinking?

honey? :doh!: :doh!: :doh!:

RJ
04-06-2011, 08:33 PM
I wonder what would happen if we just figured out what % we needed to cut from the budget to balence it and just cut that % accross the board of all money spent?

Wouldn't that just take all the fun out of it?

suzzer99
04-06-2011, 09:43 PM
Well at least Ayn Rand was able to get her Social Security and Medicare before her fanboys pull the plug on them: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html

... Tea Party hero Ayn Rand was also a kleptoparasite, sneakily gobbling up taxpayer funds under an assumed name [note: it might have been her legal name] to pay for her medical treatments after she got lung cancer.

An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.

Thank goodness, I'd hate to see her get left out in the cold after all she's done for humanity, what with teaching us all about the evil parasitic nature of government assistance. I'm sure she was really hurting for money too.

Go Galt!

patteeu
04-07-2011, 12:03 AM
Well at least Ayn Rand was able to get her Social Security and Medicare before her fanboys pull the plug on them: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html



Thank goodness, I'd hate to see her get left out in the cold after all she's done for humanity, what with teaching us all about the evil parasitic nature of government assistance. I'm sure she was really hurting for money too.

Go Galt!

I'm not sure the standard should be that if you oppose the system you have to live outside of it. How many liberals who think we should have higher tax rates send an extra check to the IRS each year to cover their share of that preferred tax system?

Bewbies
04-07-2011, 12:15 AM
I'm not sure the standard should be that if you oppose the system you have to live outside of it. How many liberals who think we should have higher tax rates send an extra check to the IRS each year to cover their share of that preferred tax system?

Intentions > Results

BucEyedPea
04-07-2011, 01:10 AM
This is the exact same thing you posted last time.

Again, you're living in the land of milk and honey, where there's no such thing as a choice between bad and worse.

This is the problem....I am tired of bad and worse. Things are just too bad to accept such a mediocre way. Pragmatic now demands extreme measures.

The Rick
04-07-2011, 10:13 AM
This is the problem....I am tired of bad and worse. Things are just too bad to accept such a mediocre way. Pragmatic now demands extreme measures.
Again, you're still not living in reality. If you think that there is never a circumstance where the two options are bad and worse, then I have some oceanfront property in Paul Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin to sell you.

You continue to criticize Paul Ryan on his TARP vote as if there was a 3rd choice. There wasn't. The choice was authorize the money or don't.

In Ryan's mind, the choice REALLY came down to authorizing a one time allocation of funds, OR, the largest expansion of government since the New Deal era. We're already teetering on the edge of collapse, if you believe what Paul Ryan believes. That expansion of government could have been the final straw.

I understand it's Ron/Rand Paul or bust with you, but I refuse to allow you to push this notion that Paul Ryan is nothing more than a phony, when the facts - everything he says and does - prove the opposite.

suzzer99
04-07-2011, 10:15 AM
I'm not sure the standard should be that if you oppose the system you have to live outside of it. How many liberals who think we should have higher tax rates send an extra check to the IRS each year to cover their share of that preferred tax system?

The point (aside from the amusing hypocrisy aspect) is if a million-selling author needed medicare so badly she would have been "wiped out" how much hope is there for the rest of us when we get that age? You're selling us on this magical "you'll have time to adjust" concept, when their literally may be no possibly adjustment we can make to getting cancer after retirement, other than become fabulously wealthy.

What plan do you propose? Or are you cool with seniors just dying in the streets, or familiars having to make incredibly painful decisions whether or not to sell their homes to keep Mom alive? There's a reason Medicare sprang up in the first place you know. It wasn't just govt bureaucrats wanting to get their mitts into everything.

patteeu
04-07-2011, 10:36 AM
The point (aside from the amusing hypocrisy aspect) is if a million-selling author needed medicare so badly she would have been "wiped out" how much hope is there for the rest of us when we get that age? You're selling us on this magical "you'll have time to adjust" concept, when their literally may be no possibly adjustment we can make to getting cancer after retirement, other than become fabulously wealthy.

What plan do you propose? Or are you cool with seniors just dying in the streets, or familiars having to make incredibly painful decisions whether or not to sell their homes to keep Mom alive? There's a reason Medicare sprang up in the first place you know. It wasn't just govt bureaucrats wanting to get their mitts into everything.

Those decisions about whether or not to sell the home to keep Mom alive are the decisions that were removed when government stepped into the health care insurance business. By removing them, government helped to create the runaway health care cost problem we're facing in the first place. If you don't have to sell your house to pay for that expensive late-life procedure, then everyone will want one and who are our political leaders to deny us what is overwhelmingly popular?

I'd rather these "death panel" decisions be made by family members weighing hard choices like whether or not to sell their houses than by the government anyway. I see no reason why the person who partied and vacationed away all their money throughout their life should have the same access to late-life medical care as the person who lived frugally and saved for a rainy day.

suzzer99
04-07-2011, 03:46 PM
Ayn Rand didn't exactly party or vacation her way through life, and still apparently needed govt assistance to keep from being "wiped out". I really hope you never have to decide whether to sell your house to keep your mom alive. That can't be a fun decision. Luckily most of society (and the rest of the semi-wealthy countries in the world) agrees with me on that.

patteeu
04-07-2011, 04:09 PM
Ayn Rand didn't exactly party or vacation her way through life, and still apparently needed govt assistance to keep from being "wiped out". I really hope you never have to decide whether to sell your house to keep your mom alive. That can't be a fun decision. Luckily most of society (and the rest of the semi-wealthy countries in the world) agrees with me on that.

It seems to me that you think it would have been alright if Ayn Rand hadn't been able to get that expensive, late-life medical treatment. Me too. Maybe no one should get that treatment unless they can afford it. Maybe limited medical care resources are better spent elsewhere.

I'm sure that if it came to the point where my mother needed me to sell my house to keep her alive for a couple more years, she'd recognize that it was her time to go rather than selfishly clinging to life at all costs.

patteeu
04-07-2011, 04:12 PM
BTW suzzer99, I just heard on the radio that Medicare cost $530 billion this year alone. The Iraq War continues to be small potatoes.

suzzer99
04-07-2011, 10:45 PM
It seems to me that you think it would have been alright if Ayn Rand hadn't been able to get that expensive, late-life medical treatment. Me too. Maybe no one should get that treatment unless they can afford it. Maybe limited medical care resources are better spent elsewhere.

I'm sure that if it came to the point where my mother needed me to sell my house to keep her alive for a couple more years, she'd recognize that it was her time to go rather than selfishly clinging to life at all costs.

Hmmmm. Maybe you should ask your mother how she feels about that.

What if say she needed bone cancer treatment for a year, but had a good prognosis to live a normal life after? It will cost you and your siblings everything you own. There are no more social safety nets. She will die in a month w/o treatment. What's your call? Sorry Mom you should have planned better?

suzzer99
04-07-2011, 11:12 PM
BTW suzzer99, I just heard on the radio that Medicare cost $530 billion this year alone. The Iraq War continues to be small potatoes.

Yeah an according to this in 2009 Medicare needed about $213 billion from the general fund, to cover what isn't generated by it's own earmarked revenues: http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Spending/2010/08/05/The-Financial-Condition-of-Medicare.aspx?p=1

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1623/medicarerevenues.jpg

And according to this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-05-12-afghan_N.htm): "In fiscal 2011, Afghanistan is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq $46 billion"

Those two are absolutely in the same ballpark no matter how many times you want to assert that they aren't.

And don't give me that we would be spending close to that if not at war. Bombs, fuel, transporting everything to the other side of the globe--all that shit is super expensive. Also we now have more contractors in Iraq than military service people. Contractors make about 3 times as much. 100% of what goes to those contractors is money we wouldn't be paying if we weren't in Iraq.

ClevelandBronco
04-07-2011, 11:22 PM
Yeah an according to this in 2009 Medicare needed about $213 billion from the general fund, to cover what isn't generated by it's own earmarked revenues: http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Spending/2010/08/05/The-Financial-Condition-of-Medicare.aspx?p=1

And according to this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-05-12-afghan_N.htm): "In fiscal 2011, Afghanistan is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq $46 billion"

Those two are absolutely in the same ballpark no matter how many times you want to assert that they aren't.

And don't give me that we would be spending close to that if not at war. Bombs, fuel, transporting everything to the other side of the globe--all that shit is super expensive. Also we now have more contractors in Iraq than military service people. Contractors make about 3 times as much. 100% of what goes to those contractors is money we wouldn't be paying if we weren't in Iraq.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13281

President Barack Obama today* sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $708 billion for fiscal 2011. The budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD) includes $549 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $159 billion to support overseas contingency operations (OCO), primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.




*Not today. The release is more than a year old.

patteeu
04-07-2011, 11:51 PM
Hmmmm. Maybe you should ask your mother how she feels about that.

What if say she needed bone cancer treatment for a year, but had a good prognosis to live a normal life after? It will cost you and your siblings everything you own. There are no more social safety nets. She will die in a month w/o treatment. What's your call? Sorry Mom you should have planned better?

I did. She told me she agreed with me.

I haven't advocated for the end of all social safety nets so don't try to put me in that box. Nor have I said anything about reasonable expenses being covered for treatment that is likely to lead to a long period of high quality life.

Here's my position:

1) It's not hypocritical for Ayn Rand to live by the rules of the system that exists even while advocating for change to that system.

2) If society is going to provide medical insurance, either through the government or through private, regulated insurers, costs need to be contained. Factors such as the cost of the treatment, the likelihood of success, and the length of high quality of life anticipated upon success should all be considered when deciding what care should be denied. But limits must be imposed.

3) The best way to impose the limits mentioned in (2) is by making the health care consumer sensitive to the cost in some way, whether it be that at a certain point the entire cost falls on the consumer or whether it be that a larger fraction of low payoff treatments falls on the consumer.

patteeu
04-08-2011, 12:00 AM
Yeah an according to this in 2009 Medicare needed about $213 billion from the general fund, to cover what isn't generated by it's own earmarked revenues: http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Spending/2010/08/05/The-Financial-Condition-of-Medicare.aspx?p=1

And according to this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-05-12-afghan_N.htm): "In fiscal 2011, Afghanistan is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq $46 billion"

Those two are absolutely in the same ballpark no matter how many times you want to assert that they aren't.

And don't give me that we would be spending close to that if not at war. Bombs, fuel, transporting everything to the other side of the globe--all that shit is super expensive. Also we now have more contractors in Iraq than military service people. Contractors make about 3 times as much. 100% of what goes to those contractors is money we wouldn't be paying if we weren't in Iraq.

You keep trying to throw that orange in the apple barrel. Do you not understand why I'm calling it apples and oranges or are you just acting like you don't?

http://diditwith.net/content/binary/WindowsLiveWriter/ApplesAndOranges_79DF/WeigtingApplesAndOranges_3.jpg

The comparison (using your numbers for the combined Iraq/Afghanistan Wars) is

Medicare = $530 billion
Iraq/Afghanistan = $163 billion

You don't get to reduce the $530 billion by the amount of revenue generated by the payroll tax unless you similarly reduce the cost of the war by the portion of revenue generated from general taxation that would be fairly allocated to the war expense segment of overall discretionary spending. This leaves aside the standing army cost argument.

Furthermore, Medicare is on the way up with no respite in sight while war expense is on it's way down. At this current point in time, Medicare spending is 3 times what we're spending on both wars combined. Over the next 10 years, that factor dramatically increases, and it continues to get worse after that. The problem is medicare, not the Global Contingency Operation on Human Caused Events.

suzzer99
04-08-2011, 12:24 PM
Lol I love how you like to quote the entire cost figure of Medicare every time while completely ignoring the revenues brought in to pay for it.

The cost of war calculations subtract out normal operations spending. See The links I posted and ClevelandBroncos post showing normal base expenditures, and the extra to fund our foreign wars. By all accounts both are costing about $150-$200 billion over their normal operating budget.

Yeah they're not exactly the same thing. But they're both adding about the same amount to the deficit. So you're point that the war is "small potatoes" is completely invalid.

suzzer99
04-08-2011, 12:32 PM
I did. She told me she agreed with me.

I haven't advocated for the end of all social safety nets so don't try to put me in that box. Nor have I said anything about reasonable expenses being covered for treatment that is likely to lead to a long period of high quality life.

Here's my position:

1) It's not hypocritical for Ayn Rand to live by the rules of the system that exists even while advocating for change to that system.

2) If society is going to provide medical insurance, either through the government or through private, regulated insurers, costs need to be contained. Factors such as the cost of the treatment, the likelihood of success, and the length of high quality of life anticipated upon success should all be considered when deciding what care should be denied. But limits must be imposed.

3) The best way to impose the limits mentioned in (2) is by making the health care consumer sensitive to the cost in some way, whether it be that at a certain point the entire cost falls on the consumer or whether it be that a larger fraction of low payoff treatments falls on the consumer.

I have no problem with any of these points. Yes consumers need to be more sensitive to costs, tough decisions will need to be made to reign in costs, medicare should be self-sustainable - which means in the long run it will be a lot less "cadillac" than it is now.

I just don't understand why this means we have to completely destroy medicare as the only option going forward. Giving people vouchers, or taking the position that "well you should have just become a multi-millionaire" (and even then still run the risk of being wiped out) are not very realistic imo,

patteeu
04-08-2011, 01:03 PM
Lol I love how you like to quote the entire cost figure of Medicare every time while completely ignoring the revenues brought in to pay for it.

The cost of war calculations subtract out normal operations spending. See The links I posted and ClevelandBroncos post showing normal base expenditures, and the extra to fund our foreign wars. By all accounts both are costing about $150-$200 billion over their normal operating budget.

Yeah they're not exactly the same thing. But they're both adding about the same amount to the deficit. So you're point that the war is "small potatoes" is completely invalid.

Yes, I do that because that's what makes it an apples to apples comparison. We could alternatively subtract the portion of general revenues attributable to defense spending from the gross incremental costs of war but that number is significantly more difficult to calculate. But to ignore it completely is inappropriate analysis. This isn't an argument about subtracting normal operating expenses from cost of war to find the incremental cost of the war. I gave up that point in an effort to make this easier for you to understand and because it was unnecessary to show the dramatic the difference between the gross cost of medicare ($530b) and the gross cost of the war ($163b, which isn't really the incremental cost, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument).

You want to include medicare payroll taxes to reduce the "deficit impact" of medicare, but you refuse to acknowledge the income tax, the corporate tax, and various other general fund revenue sources. An apples to apples comparison must either be gross cost to gross cost or net cost to net cost. You're making a net cost to gross cost argument. That's the kind of BS politicians use to fool the people who aren't paying attention.

patteeu
04-08-2011, 01:07 PM
I have no problem with any of these points. Yes consumers need to be more sensitive to costs, tough decisions will need to be made to reign in costs, medicare should be self-sustainable - which means in the long run it will be a lot less "cadillac" than it is now.

I just don't understand why this means we have to completely destroy medicare as the only option going forward. Giving people vouchers, or taking the position that "well you should have just become a multi-millionaire" (and even then still run the risk of being wiped out) are not very realistic imo,

Where do you come up with the idea that destroying medicare is presented as the only option? I'm not sure destroying medicare has even been proposed as an option by anyone of any significance. If you're talking about Ayn Rand, I don't think you need to worry about her prescriptions being adopted anytime soon. If you're talking about Paul Ryan, I think "destroy" is being improperly used here.

suzzer99
04-08-2011, 01:29 PM
The Ryan plan destroys Medicare for everyone under 55 and replaces it with vouchers. I thought that's what we were discussing itt.

suzzer99
04-08-2011, 01:31 PM
Yes, I do that because that's what makes it an apples to apples comparison. We could alternatively subtract the portion of general revenues attributable to defense spending from the gross incremental costs of war but that number is significantly more difficult to calculate. But to ignore it completely is inappropriate analysis. This isn't an argument about subtracting normal operating expenses from cost of war to find the incremental cost of the war. I gave up that point in an effort to make this easier for you to understand and because it was unnecessary to show the dramatic the difference between the gross cost of medicare ($530b) and the gross cost of the war ($163b, which isn't really the incremental cost, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument).

You want to include medicare payroll taxes to reduce the "deficit impact" of medicare, but you refuse to acknowledge the income tax, the corporate tax, and various other general fund revenue sources. An apples to apples comparison must either be gross cost to gross cost or net cost to net cost. You're making a net cost to gross cost argument. That's the kind of BS politicians use to fool the people who aren't paying attention.

Both Medicare, and our foreign wars, are adding $150-$200 billion to the deficit - when compared to if they didn't exist at all. Please show your work refuting that, instead of just hand-waving. I've shown how I arrived at those numbers. Which number specifically do you refute?

patteeu
04-09-2011, 12:25 AM
The Ryan plan destroys Medicare for everyone under 55 and replaces it with vouchers. I thought that's what we were discussing itt.

It changes medicare, it doesn't destroy it. Medicare is destroying itself as it is.

Chiefshrink
04-09-2011, 12:27 AM
It changes medicare, it doesn't destroy it. Medicare is destroying itself as it is.

THIS!!:thumb:

patteeu
04-09-2011, 12:54 AM
Both Medicare, and our foreign wars, are adding $150-$200 billion to the deficit - when compared to if they didn't exist at all. Please show your work refuting that, instead of just hand-waving. I've shown how I arrived at those numbers. Which number specifically do you refute?

JFC, I'm not sure you're capable of understanding this. Either that or I suck at explaining it.

Lets use some simple, made-up numbers to illustrate the point. Consider a budget that consists of 4 line items.

War spending
Other discretionary spending
Interest on the debt
Medicare spending

We'll say that war, other spending and medicare each cost $100b while the interest cost is $50b

Gross cost of war spending = $100b
Gross cost of other discretionary spending = $100b
Gross cost of interest on the debt = $50b
Gross cost of Medicare spending = $100b

Now let's look at the revenue side. In our simplified example, we have 2 revenue sources.

Income Tax (supporting the first 3 cost items)
Medicare Payroll Tax (dedicated to the Medicare item)

Because the general Income Tax supports all general spending, it should be allocated among the 3 general spending line items in proportion to their cost. That means that if the general income tax is bringing in $100b, $40b goes to war spending, $40b goes to other spending, and $20b goes to interest. If the Medicare tax is bringing in $100b, it all goes to Medicare. This would lead to the following NET deficit impacts:

Net deficit impact of War spending = $100b - $40b = $60b
Net deficit impact of other discretionary spending = $100b - $40b = $60b
Net deficit impact of interest spending = $50b - $20b = $30b
Net deficit impact of Medicare spending = $100b - $100b = zero

Note that these results are completely dependent on the numbers we choose for the example and I could have just as easily made the Net number for War Zero while the Net number for Medicare was something greater than zero.

There are two possible apples to apples comparisons here. We can either compare the gross costs or the net costs, but we shouldn't be comparing the net cost of Medicare to the gross cost of the war as you've been trying to do since you brought it up.

I'm comparing gross costs ($530b for Medicare compared to $163b for War) because it's far less complicated than trying to figure out how much general revenue the government is pulling in and what fraction of spending is represented by War spending for purposes of allocating that revenue. If you want to take a crack at digging all that up to see how it might change the picture, be my guest. But no matter how you slice it, Medicare costs are spiraling out of control while War spending is, at worst, flat and expected to decline.

Oh, and btw, it's no more correct to compare Net numbers than Gross numbers because even though we observe a bookkeeping fiction that medicare taxes are devoted to the support of medicare, the truth is that it all ends up in the general fund anyway.

And as for the "hand waving" thing you keep going on about, there's really no reason for me to dig up a lot of new data when the data you've provided supports my position as it is.