Political & Elections

BigG · Guru

RE: New York 26

longprime · Guru

It was more of a rhetorical statement.

I wonder how Mitt will energize the populi? He's been picking at the un-employement figures. If Mitt somehow gets the nomination, The R's can't very well spend money or give more tax breaks to businesses when business doesn't believe people will spend money.

soccerguy315 · Guru

longprime wrote:
[quote=Sguy]In the big scheme of things, our deficit is roughly $14.5 trillion, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost something like $1.2 trillion. I believe the Libya operation is in the single digit billions (like, 1 or 2 billion). $1.2 trillion out of $14.5 trillion is 8.3%.
Are your war numbers Actual outlays or do they include followup Vet benefits? Ages ago, a CC military parent said that the expected Vet benefits and medical was 2-3x +, actual war costs, at non inflated dollars.
Actual war costs are today's outlays and since these Wars were once outside of the budget and were then and continues to be financed by borrowing; The true cost of these Wars are nearly incalculable. Many fine speeches during the Senate's War debate.

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 3rd of June 2011 09:49:07 PM

I have no idea, honestly. I pulled the number from: http://costofwar.com/en/ I am inclined to believe that it does not include long term care that injured and disabled vets will need.

BigG · Guru

Yep.

And then reduce the vouchers until they are left with nothing.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

I think I know the Republican cure for "excessive" spending on veterans benefits.

Give them a voucher to buy private insurance? confuse

BigG · Guru

Interestingly enough, the final tab for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya is not known because we are still there.

I think I know the Republican cure for "excessive" spending on veterans benefits.

longprime · Guru

[quote=Sguy]In the big scheme of things, our deficit is roughly $14.5 trillion, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost something like $1.2 trillion. I believe the Libya operation is in the single digit billions (like, 1 or 2 billion). $1.2 trillion out of $14.5 trillion is 8.3%.

Are your war numbers Actual outlays or do they include followup Vet benefits? Ages ago, a CC military parent said that the expected Vet benefits and medical was 2-3x +, actual war costs, at non inflated dollars.

Actual war costs are today's outlays and since these Wars were once outside of the budget and were then and continues to be financed by borrowing; The true cost of these Wars are nearly incalculable. Many fine speeches during the Senate's War debate.

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 3rd of June 2011 09:49:07 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

BigG... I know that things were promised. But guess what? They cannot be delivered. There is no mathematical way. The requirements for social security and medicare need to be vastly changed. The ages to receive benefits were set in a time when the lifespan was much shorter. You were never intended to be on social security for 20-30 years! The ages must be increased for both of them. Hell, I would even put an upper age limit on medicare, where once a person hits 88 years old (number chosen semi-randomly), they must be evaluated to keep receiving money. If they are still functioning, they still get money. If they are living in a hospital bed, there is no reason for the government to fund that. There needs to be a frank conversation about this. The amount of taxpayer money spent on end of life care is ridiculous.

Medicare pays roughly $55 billion for care in the last 2 months of patients' lives (source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/05/60minutes/main6747002.shtml. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. That is more than the entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for (and doing a mediocre job at) securing our borders, protecting critical infrastructure, improving emergency preparedness, and preventing WMD attacks on US soil (as well as smaller terrorist attacks).

Which of these is a better way for the U.S. to spend $55 billion? So dying people can live a couple weeks longer? Or to protect the entire country? There is only one answer, and it is obvious.

I agree that no one ever promised anything to those crappy countries. That said, even if you cut ALL DEFENSE SPENDING, we are still in the hole by like $600 or $700 billion. Keep in mind that providing for the national security of the United States is something that is stated as a federal government responsibility in the Constitution, unlike many other things that the federal government spends money on. The federal government continues to refuse to close the southern border, and when a dirty bomb is smuggled across the border in a backpack that is normally used for 100 lbs of marijuana, it will be way too late.

In the big scheme of things, our deficit is roughly $14.5 trillion, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost something like $1.2 trillion. I believe the Libya operation is in the single digit billions (like, 1 or 2 billion). $1.2 trillion out of $14.5 trillion is 8.3%.

Abyss · Senior Member

Well, that was a pretty good evisiceration, soccerguy315. Pretty obvious how that 90% figure was constructed.

BigG · Guru

I was confusing budget with revenue.

Obviously we spend more than we take in as a nation.

But SS and such were promised as benefits of citizenship in return for payment of that 15% tax all those years.

No one ever promised Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya anything and they certainly didn't ask.

Why do Republicans want to keep our word to a bunch or foreign quislings but reneg on the social contract with our own citizens?

soccerguy315 · Guru

BigG... I don't listen to talk radio. I would be more than happy to provide you with factual backing of my numbers. Here:

From OMB (Office of Management and Budget) http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals, by clicking on the first table, you can see that FY2011 revenue was $2,173,700 million, or more commonly: $2,173,700,000,000; expressed again as roughly $2.174 trillion (rounded to the nearest billion).

Here is the 2012 budget proposal: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html
Health and Human Services: approximately 1.215 trillion
Social Security: approximately: approximately 815 billion

together, these add up to $2.03 trillion.

$2.03 trillion (spending) / $2.174 trillion (revenue) = 93%.

This means that 93% of revenue will be spent on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

I hope OMB and the NYTimes are appropriate sources for you.

Poetsheart
Defense spending from the NYTimes graphic is $676 billion.

$676 billion (defense spending) / $2.174 trillion (revenue) = 31% of revenue

Other
People might also find it interesting that we are slated to spend $475 billion, or 22% of federal government revenue, on interest for the national debt.

Caveats
OMB estimates FY2012 revenue at $2.6 trillion, which seems very high to me, as it is predicting a 20% increase in government revenue ($2.174 trillion vs. $2.6 trillion). $2.03 trillion is 78% of this projected number. However, I do not think the government will see a 20% increase in tax revenue. You can decide for yourselves if you think a 20% increase in tax revenue is realistic. You can use this number and get new percentages accordingly, if you wish.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Thursday 2nd of June 2011 08:51:48 PM

BigG · Guru

Could we see some references for the "almost 90%" number?

"Rush told me" is not a reference.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for almost 90% of federal government revenue.

Oh really? Well then, what percentage of federal government revenue is taken up by Defense spending?

soccerguy315 · Guru

The Democrats plan is to bash the Republican plan. I don't know if the Republican plan is good, but the Dems aren't offering anything. As usual, they (both parties) are more interested in blasting the other guy than doing something productive to help the country.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for almost 90% of federal government revenue. I expect this will only increase as baby boomers retire. Something has to change.

Abyss · Senior Member

Anyone who doesn't think Medicare needs to be heavily rationed is an idiot with no concept of numbers. One might proclaim that the Republican plan is incorrect - but at least they are attempting to address the problem of reform. The democrats plan to scale back medicare spending has been nonexistent.

catahoula · Guru

While its pretty amazing that the WSJ editorial board agrees with democrats on the results, that it was all about Medicare (MediScare in the case of one of them), its really interesting that neither of them agrees with Karl Rove that it was really all about that self-funded, "used to be a democrat", Tea Party candidate taking close to 10% of the vote.

I fail to see any real differnce between Republicans "gutting Medicare", as imprecise a description as that is, and allowing Democrats and time to allow it to gut itself. Other than the political advantage to be gained, just as many grannies are going to be prematurely croaked either way.

Which party was it that played the "death panel" card with regard to the proposal that Medicare pay for end of life counseling?

Berwick and the advisory boards on effective care will croak multitudes of old folks. Prematurely. What is a more approriate name, other than "death panels"?

BigG · Guru

Just a small one....

2010 numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

2.2/3.6=.61 or about 61% in the vernacular

Is 2011 that much more extreme?

-- Edited by BigG on Thursday 26th of May 2011 08:02:42 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

You realize that social security, medicare, and medicaid alone account for almost 90% of the federal government's revenue?

Cutting the Defense budget by 60% will barely make a dent. Also, "just use nukes" is not a viable defense strategy, which I'm sure you know. What if we nuked Osama's safe house? exactly.

BigG · Guru

Quick "deficit reduction":

1.Monetize the debt. NO INTEREST PAYMENTS!

2. Pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Cut the Pentagon 60% across the board. If we need to kill people, use nukes, the cheapest way to inflict damage or move large amounts of earth.

We own the people of Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq NOTHING! Why spend money on them and deprive our own people?

-- Edited by BigG on Thursday 26th of May 2011 12:21:37 PM

longprime · Guru

Regence, Oregon BC/BS, wants to raise individual HI by 22%, next quarter.

We will be off COBRA in October, and I have 4 years to Medicare and DW has a year to Medicare. Gotta gross $1400/mn to get the same level of COBRA's health insurance vs private individual HI. That's at today's current rates not at BC/BS proposed rates. ashamed

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 26th of May 2011 09:57:31 AM

longprime · Guru

Saw only parts of Peter G Peterson Foundation show last night on CSPAN, feauring BC and Paul Ryan. Very good. BC said that the deficit must be address NOW. And PR said some very intelligient things on health care reform and tax reform- on tax reform he proposes that we eliminate some of the tax treatments-loopholes thereby raising revenues and at the same time flattening (lowering overall tax rates). blankstare

Most of this show I bypassed in favor of watching Sandra Bullock in, The Proposal. evileye (two unwilling partners eventually falling in love). evileye

FFF · Veteran Member

Cartera wrote:
and the dems have honed this into an artform.
Ha! Which party was it that played the "death panel" card with regard to the proposal that Medicare pay for end of life counseling? That twit Paul Ryan had the nerve to accuse Democrats of scaring seniors.

Both parties are guilty of this - just that the Dems have a longer and more successful history of it - yet ironically they are the ones who are actually making cuts in Medicare to help pay for their universal health plan. The Republicans are at least trying to grapple with realities while the Dems are content to make political gain by kicking the can down the road as the looming crisis becomes bigger and bigger.

These are the candid concerns of Bill Clinton in talking with Paul Ryan:

http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-clinton/2011/05/25/bill-clintons-private-words-paul-ryan-caught-tape

-- Edited by FFF on Thursday 26th of May 2011 07:53:44 AM

Cartera · Guru

and the dems have honed this into an artform.

Ha! Which party was it that played the "death panel" card with regard to the proposal that Medicare pay for end of life counseling? That twit Paul Ryan had the nerve to accuse Democrats of scaring seniors.

FFF · Veteran Member

This is not a surprise at all. Medicare and social security are the best fodder for demagoguery and the dems have honed this into an artform. I share Bill Clinton's concern that the dems will see this looming crisis as a means to insure their dominance by simply continuing to ignore it and excoriate anyone who proposes reform.

BigG · Guru

The "third rail" of politics, senior entitlements. Touch and die, it is not rocket science.

So simple even a Republican can understand it?

Apparently not.

The only way out from under the national debt is monetization. Obviously we cannot cut (see above), tax(Democratic "third rail"), or grow(see stock market performance for the latest decade) our way out. Why suffer the death of a thousand cuts via interest? Sooner is better than later.

longprime · Guru

I wonder what the age profile of this district?

Maybe I should send in my renewal to be a Proud member of AARP evileye

catahoula · Guru

No doubt it means something but it's hard to say exactly what.

Was it all about Medicare? Did Ms Hochul run as a liberal democrat or one more along the lines of Manchin (the W. Virginia guy)? Will every race have a Tea Party spoiler in the future, real or planted?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Third party candidates have often been spoilers in the past. It does seem to be in the two dominant parties interests to quash the third party if they are an imminent threat.

Not familiar with the campaign for NY 26. I am keenly watching the 36 in Cal. Previously a Dem stronghold, vacated with Jane Harman's exit in February - now we have a Jungle Primary system - the two top candidates go to a run off, not the top Dem and top Rep.

The Republican candidate got the 2nd spot. Our Sec of State for Cal got the 3rd and refuses to endorse the leading candidate. So will the vote get fragmented?

I don't know if anyone can truly predict voting behavior. People are irrational and often don't vote the way that makes the most sense, especially now. There is so much a sense of discontent with everyone I know, no matter their party. I think the 2012 elections are going to be very, very interesting.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

What? No comment about New York 26? What does Democrat Kathy Hochul's win in this very red district (in this otherwise very blue state) mean for Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for the Paul Ryan Medicare plan? Unless they can amend their message and convince voters that they don't mean to gut Medicare and leave Seniors high and dry, this very bold (some might say, foolhardy) stance on this entitlement may be the most self-destructive move the GOP has made in years. On the other hand, I suppose, given the fact that Davis, the third party candidate, was a Tea Party candidate, it may well be said that he acted as Corwin's spoiler. Certainly, it doesn't say that the district has gotten more liberal. Sounds like Tea Party candidates might pose a greater threat to Republican candidates than any Democrat in 2012. What do you think?