patrick.net

Vicente says

Paralithodes says

And why are you not answering the question? Third time: Total government control over all aspects of the economy? Yes or no?

No, however what we think doesn’t matter.
Practically speaking the bankers and the Federal Reserve already have control of the economy.

No? ANTI-SOCIALIST, CAPITALIST PIG!!!! See how easy it is?

As to your latter comments (after the "No") I agree.

Paralithodes says

Vicente says

Paralithodes says

And why are you not answering the question? Third time: Total government control over all aspects of the economy? Yes or no?

No, however what we think doesn’t matter.

Practically speaking the bankers and the Federal Reserve already have control of the economy.

No? ANTI-SOCIALIST, CAPITALIST PIG!!!! See how easy it is?
As to your latter comments (after the “No”) I agree.

And there it is. You see we are all on the same team, but the PtB want us fighting against one another rather than uniting in defense of ourselves.

It is not government (socialism) that is the problem nor big corporations. It is that Corporatism has hijacked government. Government is not accountable to J6P like it should be, instead it is accountable to Corporatism. The Federal Reserve is perhaps the biggest way government has been hijacked from accountability to the people.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -Thomas Jefferson

Paralithodes says

Right… The ‘if you are against *more* Federal government, you should be against ALL local, state, and Federal government or you are a hypocrite strawman argument…’ I take it the corollary is that you would be ok with complete government management of all of the economy?

The problem is that most people argue against government run health care because "government can't do anything right". Or the scariest phrase they've ever heard is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". So, it's not really a strawman in that case, is it?

Paralithodes says

… And yet Obama directly and clearly admitted that certain amendments were inserted into the bill that “violated” (his words) some of the basic tenets of his stated approach… So, were some of the objections over the bill valid, or was Obama lying?

That's not an either/or question. There is an answer c to that...

Paralithodes says

And yet you are convinced that the government can increase people covered, increase service, and decrease cost - even though it cannot do that now in its own government-run programs - all while not putting a dollar value on everything? They can decrease costs while in theory there will be no price limit because bureaucrats and actuaries will not be involved in policy decisions?

Every other civilized nation in the world can do it. Is there some reason why we can't?

Paralithodes says

It’s certainly about as simplistic as it can be put. The government cannot claim that it will reduce health care costs, all while ignoring financial budgets and management by not being concerned with money, which is exactly what it must do to accomplish the former. In addition, the health insurance companies profit margins are very small: 2-4%.

Is that gross profit or net profit?

Net profit.

"I believe that Vicente is for some government controls, and for letting competition and the free market rule in other areas. His beliefs are totally consistent."

LOL!!! Isn't clear? Since I believe that there should be some government, as opposed to zero government, I'm a socialist, just like the rest of you in here.

If it's net--then I believe it. When you pay your top executives hundreds of millions in salary + bonus, then it tends to reduce your net profit... I'd say that there are some savings to be had there.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

Right… The ‘if you are against *more* Federal government, you should be against ALL local, state, and Federal government or you are a hypocrite strawman argument…’ I take it the corollary is that you would be ok with complete government management of all of the economy?

The problem is that most people argue against government run health care because “government can’t do anything right”. Or the scariest phrase they’ve ever heard is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. So, it’s not really a strawman in that case, is it?

Of course it is a strawman, because a) Vicente's comments follow a definitive, black/white statement about ALL conservatives wanting to do away with ALL government functions, and b) because even here your statement is just simply untrue: You have both simplified and generalized certain things to the point where they do not reflect the position of your opposition.

tatupu70 says

If it’s net–then I believe it. When you pay your top executives hundreds of millions in salary + bonus, then it tends to reduce your net profit… I’d say that there are some savings to be had there.

What is the % of gross that specifically goes towards top executive pay? I don't know the numbers: I am only going to guess, but I would bet that if exec compensation were cut to what you would think was a reasonable level, it would add - at most - 1/2 to 1% to the net profit margin. But they certainly are an easy political target, aren't they?

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

And yet you are convinced that the government can increase people covered, increase service, and decrease cost - even though it cannot do that now in its own government-run programs - all while not putting a dollar value on everything? They can decrease costs while in theory there will be no price limit because bureaucrats and actuaries will not be involved in policy decisions?

Every other civilized nation in the world can do it. Is there some reason why we can’t?

And the current health care bill fixes it all?

Paralithodes says

What is the % of gross that specifically goes towards top executive pay? I don’t know the numbers: I am only going to guess, but I would bet that if exec compensation were cut to what you would think was a reasonable level, it would add - at most - 1/2 to 1% to the net profit margin. But they certainly are an easy political target, aren’t they?

And I'd say 1% is a pretty good savings.

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says
Paralithodes says

And yet you are convinced that the government can increase people covered, increase service, and decrease cost - even though it cannot do that now in its own government-run programs - all while not putting a dollar value on everything? They can decrease costs while in theory there will be no price limit because bureaucrats and actuaries will not be involved in policy decisions?

Every other civilized nation in the world can do it. Is there some reason why we can’t?
And the current health care bill fixes it all?

Unfortunately not. The current health bill is not the answer. The scare tactics from the insurance companies and Republicans did their job and ended any chance for meaningful reform..

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

And yet you are convinced that the government can increase people covered, increase service, and decrease cost - even though it cannot do that now in its own government-run programs - all while not putting a dollar value on everything? They can decrease costs while in theory there will be no price limit because bureaucrats and actuaries will not be involved in policy decisions?

Every other civilized nation in the world can do it. Is there some reason why we can’t?

Yes. It's called the defense budget. There's no more money left.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

What is the % of gross that specifically goes towards top executive pay? I don’t know the numbers: I am only going to guess, but I would bet that if exec compensation were cut to what you would think was a reasonable level, it would add - at most - 1/2 to 1% to the net profit margin. But they certainly are an easy political target, aren’t they?

And I’d say 1% is a pretty good savings.

Again, 1% is simply a guess, based on your assumption of hundreds of millions of dollars. And while a 1% savings might be good, sorry... I'm one of those people who does not believe that the government can do this in a "cost neutral" way and that it will save money over the current system. The profits are low. The insurance companies are a huge part of the problem, but not because of profits: If the government were to run a cost neutral program, we would hope they would have the equivalent of a similar margin - better than running at a deficit like the current government programs. The insurance companies are facilitators or enablers of many other dynamics which neither side has appeared to do anything to address.

theoakman says

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

And yet you are convinced that the government can increase people covered, increase service, and decrease cost - even though it cannot do that now in its own government-run programs - all while not putting a dollar value on everything? They can decrease costs while in theory there will be no price limit because bureaucrats and actuaries will not be involved in policy decisions?

Every other civilized nation in the world can do it. Is there some reason why we can’t?

Yes. It’s called the defense budget. There’s no more money left.

The defense budget is approximately 20% of our budget (probably less in future budgets either by cuts or growth in entitlements and debt interest). But your point is important: Very few of the other "1st world" countries spend nearly as much on defense ... because they know that WE are their ultimate defense. I guess one could consider it a re-distribution of wealth....

*snip* [wrong thread]

"Unfortunately not. The current health bill is not the answer. The scare tactics from the insurance companies and Republicans did their job and ended any chance for meaningful reform.."

Yet the Democrats had their majority and the Republicans were constantly reported as disorganized, demoralized, falling apart, with the conservative movement dead. The Democrats couldn't find some compromises among themselves. They had to bribe some Democrats to support it by providing exemptions or special deals to their states. And Obama admitted that the bill "violated" some of the central tenets and promises of his stated approach, essentially admitting that the bill was not good. Despite promises about special interests, initially there were clauses that were favorable to unions but not to non-union folks, and one specific industry: construction (which includes small remodelers, etc) was particularly made the exeption to the 50 employee rule (for them it was only 5), as a payback to the trade unions.

But somehow this is all the Republicans' fault?

Vicente says

Here’s your free-market corporate gratitude:
On being told his bonuses & compensation were under threat, an AIG employee said:
“…….was even more irate, lashing out at the public for scapegoating AIG employees. “To be honest with you, I really hope it blows up. I think the U.S. taxpayer deserves to lose a trillion dollars over this thing for the way they have behaved.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303764.html

Your point is what? For all you know, this guy could have been an Obama supporter. Whom did the financial and insurance industries provide more political funding support to: Democrats or Republicans? But don't you worry, Vicente. Chris Dodd (evil, right-wing conservative) took care of their bonuses. And who has done more to bail these guys out in the first place, letting them know that their risky behaviors will be covered with taxpayer dollars, so they can take more risks in the future, Republicans or Democrats? (my last answer is rhetorical: I see zero difference).

(As far as I am concerned, any company that choose to take taxpayer money definitely should have had strict terms regarding activities, expenses, compensation, etc., until every cent was paid back to the taxpayer with interest. However, the terms should have been set up front: no political tricks like Chris Dodd's feigned indignation after the fact when he helped ensure folks could keep their excessive bonuses, etc. I doubt you'd find many conservatives who would disagree with this).

Paralithodes says

The defense budget is approximately 20% of our budget (probably less in future budgets either by cuts or growth in entitlements and debt interest). But your point is important: Very few of the other “1st world” countries spend nearly as much on defense … because they know that WE are their ultimate defense. I guess one could consider it a re-distribution of wealth….

I agree with oakman. The defense budget is approximately 50%+ of our budget, and will have to be cut drastically to balance our budget.

Paralithodes says

But somehow this is all the Republicans’ fault?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth again.. There was definitely enough blame to go around--I don't think I'd say it's all the Republican's fault. They would have the lion's share though.

But, you have to remember that the Democrats never really had the supermajority needed to pass the bill over a filibuster. Everyone still calls Lieberman a Democrat when he clearly is an Independent bought and owned by corporate interests. So, in all actuality, the Democrats never had had the necessary numbers to pass a bill on their own... That's why there was so much bargaining and why Obama never got the plan he wanted.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

The defense budget is approximately 20% of our budget (probably less in future budgets either by cuts or growth in entitlements and debt interest). But your point is important: Very few of the other “1st world” countries spend nearly as much on defense … because they know that WE are their ultimate defense. I guess one could consider it a re-distribution of wealth….

I agree with oakman. The defense budget is approximately 50%+ of our budget, and will have to be cut drastically to balance our budget.

The defense budget is NOT 50%+ of our budget. It is about 20% (plus or minus a few). There is a larger, separate portion of our budget that goes towards military retirement and medical care, but that is considered non-discretionary, just like social security and other "entitlements." It cannot just be cut from one year's budget to the next like current personnel strength levels and materiel acquisitions. If you want to talk about cutting the retirement/medical entitlement part of it, fine, but let's then talk about cutting ALL entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) without specifically and only picking on the folks who probably did the most to actually earn theirs by actual service to their country. Why would you want to cut non-discretionary entitlements to military retirees/veterans but not all other citizens? I do not believe that you do, and that's why it's important that you learn how the budget works and what it is comprised of before proposing such general statements.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

But somehow this is all the Republicans’ fault?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth again.. There was definitely enough blame to go around–I don’t think I’d say it’s all the Republican’s fault. They would have the lion’s share though.
But, you have to remember that the Democrats never really had the supermajority needed to pass the bill over a filibuster. Everyone still calls Lieberman a Democrat when he clearly is an Independent bought and owned by corporate interests. So, in all actuality, the Democrats never had had the necessary numbers to pass a bill on their own… That’s why there was so much bargaining and why Obama never got the plan he wanted.

LOL, I was wrong. It was not all the Republicans' fault. It was their fault + the "Independent." And Democrats are not owned by corporate interests (You didn't say it, but by bringing it up with Lieberman, it is certainly your unstated premise) ... LOL!!!!!!! Despite having some Republican support for even the cap and trade bill, it the minority party, written off just months ago as in complete disarray, with the conservative movement practically dead, is who gets the lion share. Let's face it, even the most "liberal" Republicans were not on board. That should be an eye opener for anyone who is not so extreme to the left. Maybe the Republicans deserve the lion's share of blame for why the Democrats were "owned" by union interests in the bill? P.S. Unions are essentially corporations.

Paralithodes says

LOL!!!!!!! Despite having some Republican support for even the cap and trade bill, it the minority party, written off just months ago as in complete disarray, with the conservative movement practically dead, is who gets the lion share. Let’s face it, even the most “liberal” Republicans were not on board. That should be an eye opener for anyone who is not so extreme to the left. Maybe the Republicans deserve the lion’s share of blame for why the Democrats were “owned” by union interests in the bill? P.S. Unions are essentially corporations.

huh? I thought we were talking about health care. Not sure what you are even saying here other than putting words in my mouth again at the beginning.

"huh? I thought we were talking about health care. Not sure what you are even saying here other than putting words in my mouth again at the beginning."

Fair enough. I accept that you do not pin ALL the blame on the Republicans (and one I). But did you, or did you not, pin most of the blame on the Republicans? I think it's ridiculous. The Dems could not get it together and they could not even get the more "liberal" Republicans to support it. You commented that Lieberman is owned by corporate interests. I responded that the Dems are as well, which is why they were willing to - IN THE HEALTH CARE BILL, screw non-union companies, including picking on the small 5-person remodeling/contractor companies (your local guy with a pickup or van and a small crew doing small to medium size renovations): because they're "owned" by union (corporate) interests.

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

The defense budget is approximately 20% of our budget (probably less in future budgets either by cuts or growth in entitlements and debt interest). But your point is important: Very few of the other “1st world” countries spend nearly as much on defense … because they know that WE are their ultimate defense. I guess one could consider it a re-distribution of wealth….

I agree with oakman. The defense budget is approximately 50%+ of our budget, and will have to be cut drastically to balance our budget.

The defense budget is NOT 50%+ of our budget. It is about 20% (plus or minus a few). There is a larger, separate portion of our budget that goes towards military retirement and medical care, but that is considered non-discretionary, just like social security and other “entitlements.” It cannot just be cut from one year’s budget to the next like current personnel strength levels and materiel acquisitions. If you want to talk about cutting the retirement/medical entitlement part of it, fine, but let’s then talk about cutting ALL entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) without specifically and only picking on the folks who probably did the most to actually earn theirs by actual service to their country. Why would you want to cut non-discretionary entitlements to military retirees/veterans but not all other citizens? I do not believe that you do, and that’s why it’s important that you learn how the budget works and what it is comprised of before proposing such general statements.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Social security and medicare are budgeted and taxed (fica) separately from the general budget. These programs currently run a surplus which is turned over to the general budget for what amounts to an IOU that can't possibly be paid. Which also refutes your post about medicare (fica) taxes not paying for medicare. They currently do. They will not in the near future. An honest assessment of the situation is that a huge chunk of future baby boomer social security and medicare funding has been stolen to pay for defense since Reagan took office.

Depending on how much you want to dig into the various departments budgets a case could be made that defense is over 60% of the federal (general) budget. The next largest item is medicaid followed by interest on the debt. What is left over, well less than 20% depending on how you finagle the defense numbers, covers everything else.

The decision to report the budget this way using an arrangement of mixing and matching where revenue is collected in two streams, income (personal and corporate) tax and fica, while expenditures are lumped together is a very conscious decision by lawmakers. It hides the true cost of defense as well as medicare and interest on the debt. More importantly, reporting this way allows Social Security and Medicare over collections to be thrown into the general fund without truly having to account for it.

bob2356 says

Depending on how much you want to dig into the various departments budgets a case could be made that defense is over 60% of the federal (general) budget.

The FY11 Defense budget is proposed at approximately $550 Billion. Are you saying that the entire Federal budget is under about $1.1 Trillion? What is your evidence that the "defense" budget is over 60%? Or are you using the term "general" budget to refer ONLY to the *discretionary* portion of the budget? If so, then you are re-interpreting my response to look like apples and oranges simply at your own discretion to make a point: Not quite an "honest assessment" when my response was to someone claiming that the "defense budget" was over 50%.

As far as defense *stealing* from social security and medicare to pay for defense: LOL... Do you have any specific, objective links, showing that defense specifically "stole" from these programs? Social security was originally set up as a voluntary, temporary program under FDR to begin with, or at least it was advertised as being so. Budget projections for both programs dwarf any claim you could have that defense "stole" their money. They also make irrelevant whether I am wrong by a few years regarding *when* the programs pay for themselves or don't. In the best case, as you admit, they will not within a few years.

Debt and socialism are a toxic mix (think Obama).

History is littered with examples showing that socialism kills enterprise...comrade.

Lets do the same thing but expect a different result - hahahaha. Dumb and dumber, or would you call that "double dumb"? How about "dumb squared".

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

I would rather have maximum control over my health care rather than little to none. If we have a public health care system (funded by me a taxpayer) my taxes will confiscate a great portion of the money I could use to seek the care of MY choosing. It is not just about fairness (eg who gets what kind of care) it is about freedom. Freedom to use my income as I see fit and seek the medical and/or alternative of my OWN choosing.

That sounds neat-o on paper, but it simply doesn’t work in reality. If you become seriously ill, you can’t afford your own medical care. You will be bankrupted overnight and become completely dependent on the state.
In human society, the young, strong, and healthy are forced to care for the very young, the very old, and the infirmed. It’s just the way human societies are, be it in a cave or in Manhattan. You were cared for when you were very young, but you just don’t want to shoulder your share of the burden now, although you will accept society’s care again when you age.

Yeah, it simply doesn't work in reality. Unless you are in a place like Singapore.

Let's assume you are right. Why doesn't it work in reality?

AdHominem says

Let’s assume you are right. Why doesn’t it work in reality?

theoakman says

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

I would rather have maximum control over my health care rather than little to none. If we have a public health care system (funded by me a taxpayer) my taxes will confiscate a great portion of the money I could use to seek the care of MY choosing. It is not just about fairness (eg who gets what kind of care) it is about freedom. Freedom to use my income as I see fit and seek the medical and/or alternative of my OWN choosing.

That sounds neat-o on paper, but it simply doesn’t work in reality. If you become seriously ill, you can’t afford your own medical care. You will be bankrupted overnight and become completely dependent on the state.
In human society, the young, strong, and healthy are forced to care for the very young, the very old, and the infirmed. It’s just the way human societies are, be it in a cave or in Manhattan. You were cared for when you were very young, but you just don’t want to shoulder your share of the burden now, although you will accept society’s care again when you age.

Yeah, it simply doesn’t work in reality. Unless you are in a place like Singapore.

The reason that it doesn't work in reality is that you can't afford your own medical care. You will be bankrupted overnight and become completely dependent on the state...

Paralithodes says

bob2356 says

Depending on how much you want to dig into the various departments budgets a case could be made that defense is over 60% of the federal (general) budget.

The FY11 Defense budget is proposed at approximately $550 Billion. Are you saying that the entire Federal budget is under about $1.1 Trillion? What is your evidence that the “defense” budget is over 60%? Or are you using the term “general” budget to refer ONLY to the *discretionary* portion of the budget? If so, then you are re-interpreting my response to look like apples and oranges simply at your own discretion to make a point: Not quite an “honest assessment” when my response was to someone claiming that the “defense budget” was over 50%.
As far as defense *stealing* from social security and medicare to pay for defense: LOL… Do you have any specific, objective links, showing that defense specifically “stole” from these programs? Social security was originally set up as a voluntary, temporary program under FDR to begin with, or at least it was advertised as being so. Budget projections for both programs dwarf any claim you could have that defense “stole” their money. They also make irrelevant whether I am wrong by a few years regarding *when* the programs pay for themselves or don’t. In the best case, as you admit, they will not within a few years.

You either don't know how the federal government budgeting process works or are being willfully ignorant and didn't read what I wrote. The budget of the defense department is far far from the total amount spent on defense. Here is a link that gives some of the layout of how much defense really represents in the budget.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
There are many other articles out there that document the same things so it's not single source. The records are public. If you don't believe anyone's numbers then go look up the information yourself.

There is no discretionary/non discretionary budget. There is THE BUDGET and there is ss/medicare. Politicians lump them together as one entiity to obscure the true spending in each part.

Like the article says, like I said, like many other people have said ss and medicare are separate funding and spending entities from the general federal budget which is paid for by income taxes. I thought I made that clear. Did you actually read what I wrote.

Every year since the Reagan tax cuts the general federal budget has run a deficit. Every year congress takes social security and medicare revenue that is in excess of required for current year spending (over payments that should have been invested for later payout) and moves it to the general federal budget to cover the shortfall. Congress then issues a special bond that can only be repaid by the federal government and gives it to ss/medicare to be paid back from the general budget at a later date. Since there is no way this money can actually be repaid I would call it theft. Whatever semantic device you care to use is up to you. Since anywhere from 40-60% of the federal budget is defense then 40-60% of the money stolen/removed/borrowed/whatever from the ss/medicare program went to defense. This has been going on for 30 years, I'm very surprised you are not aware of it.

These special bonds currently stand at 2.4 trillion dollars. I don't know your economic situation but to me 2.4 trillion is serious money. Because of this huge amount of money owed to the ss/medicare programs they will start running into a cash shortfall around 2020. The entire social security (I couldn't find medicare broken out) shortfall for the 75 year projection is 5.9 trillion so just having the money STOLEN from ss would cover almost half the shortfall for the next 75 years. Simply having fica paid on all income instead of the first 106,000 would make up a big part of the rest. It's ironic that a couple married school teachers making 53k a year each pay the exact same amount in fica every year as a ceo making 50 million.

The amounts of shortfall to the fund can hardly be considered to dwarf the amounts owed to the fund. Putting medicare and ss back on a fiscally sound basis would have been very doable if this huge debt wasn't hanging over the entire system.

Actually, Nomo, I was quoting you after using your quote. I was going for reality with a hint of sarcasm (just one of the many services that I offer).

bob2356 says

I thought I made that clear. Did you actually read what I wrote.

No. Obviously. But that's nothing new.

Nomograph says

First off, I’m not interested in being right; the reality is that what you describe does not work.

That's what's wrong with some of ya'll. You don't care about being right. You would rather be informed and enjoy discourse with others here. I've noticed that you welcome opposing opinions as long as the post is about the subject and not a poorly disguised attack on your character. And when someone attacks you personally (even though they're attacking a guy they've never met who posts on an anonymous forum), you don't rise to the bait.

The healthcare debate is difficult to understand. There are the opinons of people who have no health problems, whose family members are relatively healthy, and who don't work in the healthcare field. They can't fathom the system and its rush to deny benefits while reaping huge financial rewards - and they often rush to judgement of those who need improved access to healthcare. Then there are the opinions of those people who have personally experienced the failures of the system, who have serious healthcare concerns or family members who are struggling through the system.

Then there are those of us who work in the system and see the system fail our patients day in & day out. We see people who have refused to "let go" at a huge cost, and people whose disease processes could easily have been staved off if only the had been able to access affordable healthcare from the start. The worst is when people die from a lack of access to affordable healthcare. Yes, it happens - and quite often. Even once is too often.

Before I hop off my soapbox, I'd like to add that I don't understand when people lack compassion for those with what they determine to be "lifestyle" diseases. Some people think that smokers, or drinkers, or people with risky behaviors don't deserve the same healthcare as those people who have tried to remain healthy. I don't blame miners for black lung disease, or the downwinders for their cancers, or people with asbestosis for working in an industry that exposed them to carcinogens any more than I blame a child who gets lead poisioning from exposure to lead paint. Nor do I blame people with AIDs or an STD for their diseases, just as I don't blame people with Lupus or RA for their diseases.

My point is that I've never met anyone who said, "I'm going to kill myself today by engaging in risky beheaviors." I only see people who need help and don't have thousands of dollars to pay for treatment. I see people who are suffering and need help, and a for-profit system that benefits from denying treatment to those who need it the most.

We can't create compassion for people who lack it. We can only hope that they never get sick or hurt and find that the system that they champion will turn its back on them so fast it'll pop out one of their discs - and they won't be able to afford treatment for that either.

In the meantime, we will continue to suffer thru their boorish, uninformed posts and hope that the clinic in Oil City is able to treat their infected splinter after they attempt to chop wood. 'Cause if they end up losing a digit, that's a pre-existing condition...

bob2356 says
Every year since the Reagan tax cuts the general federal budget has run a deficit.

At the end of FY97 the national debt held by the public was:

09/30/1998 $3,733,864,472,163.53

with an additional $1,792,328,536,734.09 held by the various govt trust funds.

09/30/1999 $3,636,104,594,501.81 $2,020,166,307,131.62

09/29/2000 $3,405,303,490,221.20 $2,268,874,719,665.66

09/28/2001 $3,339,310,176,094.74 $2,468,153,236,105.32

So during Clinton's second term the national debt was actually paid down almost 10%.

Congress then issues a special bond that can only be repaid by the federal government and gives it to ss/medicare to be paid back from the general budget at a later date. Since there is no way this money can actually be repaid I would call it theft.

"can't repay" is a lie rich people pay the media to tell. Rich people have saved up a very large amount of money since the Greenspan deal of 1983. That was the entire plan -- cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on FICA payers so when the FICA payers started retiring the wealthy would have the savings to pay everyone's way.

This has worked pretty well!

Since anywhere from 40-60% of the federal budget is defense then 40-60% of the money stolen/removed/borrowed/whatever from the ss/medicare program went to defense.

This is entirely accurate.

Because of this huge amount of money owed to the ss/medicare programs they will start running into a cash shortfall around 2020.

Actually, due to the shitty economy they're hitting their first annual shortfall right now. This is kinda bad because for the first time since Reagan Social Security is becoming an on-budget expense instead of credit (? I think my terminology here is right).

The entire social security (I couldn’t find medicare broken out) shortfall for the 75 year projection is 5.9 trillion

Nice graph of the trust fund spend-down:

Medicare is a joke. Part-D alone added $17T in unfunded mandate. Medicare in total is a $90T hole for this century:

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba662.pdf

Putting medicare and ss back on a fiscally sound basis would have been very doable if this huge debt wasn’t hanging over the entire system.

yup. The Bush tax cuts were a spectacular failure.

Paralithodes says

The FY11 Defense budget is proposed at approximately $550 Billion.

Maybe on Conservativeplanet. Here on Planet Earth:

"Obama seeks record $708 bln in FY11 defense budget"

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0118167420100201

Troy says

Medicare is a joke. Part-D alone added $17T in unfunded mandate. Medicare in total is a $90T hole for this century:

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba662.pdf

NCPA's article isn't very objective or informative. For example it isn't at all clear why are they mixing income tax rates with the ss/medicare shortfalls. Fica is the payment vehicle for ss not income taxes. Here is a slightly dated article about ss alone, although you are correct that medicare has bigger problems. It is much smaller program at this time however. Anyway it's a much more clear article on the subject, including an explanation of the financial slight of hand called "infinite projection" that essentially projects the shortfalls into forever. This is how critics come up with such horrific projections.
http://www.factcheck.org/article302.html

Clinton reduced the actual federal debt by 360 billion out of 5.7 trillion. That's less than a single years interest on the debt. Your "various government trust funds" which went up while publicly held debt went down are called social security. Moving the debt numbers from one column to another isn't reducing anything since that money will eventually have to be used to actually write real social security checks to real people.

I'm not denigrating Clinton's financial accomplishments. He did an amazing job of starting a process of fiscal responsibility that was simply destroyed by bush. But these accomplishments must be seen in the light of a booming dot com bubble which pumped up the revenues.

Troy says

“can’t repay” is a lie rich people pay the media to tell. Rich people have saved up a very large amount of money since the Greenspan deal of 1983. That was the entire plan — cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on FICA payers so when the FICA payers started retiring the wealthy would have the savings to pay everyone’s way.

What in the world are you talking about?

bob2356 says

Clinton reduced the actual federal debt by 360 billion out of 5.7 trillion. That’s less than a single years interest on the debt.

The way I look at it, which is kinda idiomatic I admit, is that the trust fund debt is forced savings, not debt. The FICA payers' accumulated surplus is savings in the safest asset -- the US gov's ability to tax wealth.

IOW, OASDI surplus represents OVERtaxation, while the general fund deficit is simply UNDERtaxation. These meet to create the total unified national debt, but if we only had an OASDI surplus held in government debt we wouldn't have any problem.

What in the world are you talking about?

In 1983 Greenspan and Reagan got Congress to raise FICA taxes and lower income taxes. Since FICA contributions have been capped to the middle class and below, and the general L-curve of income is weighted towards the high end (approximately half of income in the US goes to the top 20% who earn above the FICA limit), FICA contributors and the upper quintile taxpayers have been largely disjoint populations.

Some of the wealth currently held by the upper quintile was kept in that quintile thanks to the Reagan tax cuts, and the $2.5T in govt assets held in trust for FICA payers is due to the Greenspan plan.

As of Q309, the private sector has a net worth of $53.4T, most of it held by the top 5% of the country. While the economics of this are messy, if we are going to fix things we are going to have to harvest some of that private wealth through increased taxation to cover the costs of the government-administered pension we call SS.

Nomograph says

if you get seriously injured or ill you will simply perish without the help of your fellows.

No the idealogy you want to force on us is that WE WILL PAY YOU (a physician) TO "take care of us" or we will be put in prison. You want to FORCE me to not perish, by FORCING my "fellows" to pay for my "care".

Nomograph says

the masses of healthy and able-bodied people take care of them. That is how human society evolved.

right you are, and we didn't need uncle sam or big brother for that.

I fully agree that it is the responsibility of you and me (and especially ellie) to take care of those around us who we find in need. We just need to find a way to do it in a voluntary fashion. Federal interference is not the answer.

elliemae says

Then there are those of us who work in the system and see the system fail our patients day in & day out.

Excuse me ma'am. The system we have now needs a lot of work. But I work in the health care field as well. And I can assure you the system works for the vast majority of my patients.