|
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"John R. Carroll" wrote:
Now there is a guy that realy saw the world change. Did you know that aprox. 1/3 of all of the WWII draftees were rejected as physically unfit? Malnutrition and starvation were largely the cause. My mother, my grandfather's youngest child, saw an even bigger change in the world. Born in 1905, she made it to mid 2008. Lew |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Jun 12, 10:40*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
I mentioned that the separate accounting for SS is helpful to tell where it stands, and from the data it's clear that the funds designated for SS (FICA payroll taxes) are more than enough to pay for SS through 2017: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf* (page 17 of the PDF, or "CRS-6" of the document) So Social Security isn't adding to the deficit. Just remember that the big chunk represented by SS is totally funded by dedicated revenues, and roughly 60% of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues. Pretty much everything else comes out of general revenues. That "everything else," plus 41% or so of Medicare, are the sources of deficit spending. In other words, aside from SS and 60% or so of Medicare, most other statutory entitlement expenditures are *not* coming from designated revenue sources. They are, in fact, major sources of deficit spending. So is defense and the non-budget expenditures for the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, and all of the discretionary spending items. The pie charts are real eye-openers for most people. Just remember about the dedicated funding for SS and 60% of Medicare. The total amounts spent on them show up in the pie charts, but they aren't coming out of general revenues. -- Ed Huntress And that is the way it is now. But the scary part is in a relatively few years ( 2017 -2009 = 8 short years ) there will no longer be any extra dedicated revenue from SS to go into the general revenue fund. And Medicare revenue will be less that 60 % of Medicare costs. So taxes will have to go up or the deficit spending rate go up, or Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits will have to come down. Obama's plan on having those making over 250 K$ pay more in SSBN, is not going to be near enough. Unless we have massive inflation so that most everyone working is making over 250K$. And while inflation is manageable for those working, it really affects some. We got a letter today from an old friend. " I can no longer afford the house I presently own. The economy has ( something illegible ) its upward inflated prices. I must sell my own home and rent................" Dan |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
wrote in message ... On Jun 12, 10:40 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: I mentioned that the separate accounting for SS is helpful to tell where it stands, and from the data it's clear that the funds designated for SS (FICA payroll taxes) are more than enough to pay for SS through 2017: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf (page 17 of the PDF, or "CRS-6" of the document) So Social Security isn't adding to the deficit. Just remember that the big chunk represented by SS is totally funded by dedicated revenues, and roughly 60% of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues. Pretty much everything else comes out of general revenues. That "everything else," plus 41% or so of Medicare, are the sources of deficit spending. In other words, aside from SS and 60% or so of Medicare, most other statutory entitlement expenditures are *not* coming from designated revenue sources. They are, in fact, major sources of deficit spending. So is defense and the non-budget expenditures for the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, and all of the discretionary spending items. The pie charts are real eye-openers for most people. Just remember about the dedicated funding for SS and 60% of Medicare. The total amounts spent on them show up in the pie charts, but they aren't coming out of general revenues. -- Ed Huntress "And Medicare revenue will be less that 60 % of Medicare costs. " Absent any real change we are on the way to having 63% funded from general fund revenue fairly quickly. "So taxes will have to go up or the deficit spending rate go up, or Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits will have to come down." Or we could do what the rest of the civilised world does and institut a single payer system for basic health care. According to the Economist the total US spend on healthcare is 15.4% of GDP including both state and private . With that it gets 2.6 doctors per 1,000 people, 3.3 hospital beds and its people live to an average age of 78.2 "UK - spends 8.1% of GDP, gets 2.3 doctors, 4.2 hospital beds and live to an average age of 79.4. So for roughly half the cost their citizens overall get about the same benefit in terms of longevity of life. "Canada - spends 9.8% of GDP on healthcare, gets 2.1 doctors, 3.6 hospital beds and live until they are 80.6 yrs "Now if we look at the more social model in Europe the results become even more surprising: "France - spends 10.5%, 3.4 docs, 7.5 beds and live until they are 80.6 "Spain - spends 8.1% , 3.3 docs , 3.8 beds and live until they are 81 "As a whole Europe spends 9.6% of GDP on healthcare, has 3.9 doctors per 1,000 people, 6.6 hospital beds and live until they are 81.15 years old. Dan |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote: It's also worth remembering that people did't last much beyond 65 YO in the thirties, large numbers even less. Which just points out how remarkable my grandfather was. Born in 1848, he made it to 83. Once again the myth of "life expectancy" rears its ugly head. It's an average--those who made it to adulthood lived about the same amount of time as people today, but fewer of them made it to adulthood. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Lew Hodgett wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote: It's also worth remembering that people did't last much beyond 65 YO in the thirties, large numbers even less. Which just points out how remarkable my grandfather was. Born in 1848, he made it to 83. Once again the myth of "life expectancy" rears its ugly head. It's an average--those who made it to adulthood lived about the same amount of time as people today, but fewer of them made it to adulthood. The life expecrancy "at birth" in 1930 of all sexes and races combined in the US was 59.7 years. It was 77.8 in 2005. People are living much longer today as a rule. That and changes in age weighted distribution of he population are the cause of forecast shortfalls in the SS fund. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html JC |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message ... HeyBub wrote: Stuart Wheaton wrote: Our incompetent President Hmmm.... Today the Dow is 600 points above where it was on the last day of Bush.... And 200 points above where it was right after the election... And 4,000 points below its high during the Bush years. Gee, most of us are enjoying a tax cut, but if you are getting more than 250K /yr and can't shield it, I feel no pity.... Or is this a "Joe the plumber" thing where you have no clue about income vs taxable income? Right. I saw one investor who managed to save $13,000 in taxes per DAY by the simple expedient of moving from New York to Florida. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...153.html?imw=Y So, Bush's silly little war and Reagan's deficits are OK for you, but buying better highways is the road to ruin? Yes. We already pay a highway tax - and right now the highway tax has a huge surplus. Blame the politicians for dipping into the highway kitty to provide psychological counseling for troubled pets. What about the massive bill about to come due for Social Security? Are you going to show me where you advocated paying higher taxes during the Bush years so we could start to get ahead of the SS juggernaut? I can't; it didn't come up. You may recall that the first item on Bush's political agenda back in 2001 was reform of SS. Reform failed. You thought that privatizing Social Security was reform? That explains your first problem. Privatization was not reform, and in the immediate future it would have made the system more unstable because the current revenues would fall as contributions were siphoned off to Wall Street. Privatization was an attempt to damage Social security beyond repair. Reform of SS will require that benefits be decreased, indexed to assets, and that contributions be increased, exempted wages reduced, and payouts delayed. Furthermore, the U.S. Securities that George W called "Worthless IOU's " Will need to be turned into cash through tax revenues before they can be paid out. Even though we had an intense capital need hanging over our heads, W pushed for tax cuts and reducing the income to SS... Where is the reform you spoke of? Not better, but with somewhat less carnage. Recall, it was the market that got us here, and then screamed for mommy when their lousy decisions put the whole economy in peril. How do you feel about "too big to fail?" Personally? The bigger they are, the harder they fall, but fall they must. Even FDR said that part of SS had to be private. It could not all be government. I believe he said that the responsibility for retirement had to be shared, that SS was a minimum, safety net to ensure nobody retired into abject poverty, and to encourage older worker TO retire and clear the employment roles for younger workers. This was part of the solution to unemployment, paying older workers to go home and relax. Was originally the Widows and Children's act. Was to prevent starvation and deprivation for surviors of a worker killed or injured or dies of natural causes leaving a spouse who was normally a homemaker. Was not the National Retirement Act. I think the original tax was 1% of the first $1500 of wages. Until LBJ found out he could hide the huge deficit from the SEA war and raised rates and payouts to get lots more money in to the general fund. Until LBJ I paid 1% of the first $3300 and employer matched. $660 a year. Can not buy a great annuity with life insurance included for that can of money. LBJ left it to our children and grandchildren to pay for his spending. Those paying in now will not get back anywhere what they paid it. I paid in $190k and employers matched that amount over my employment years. I get back $15k a year. Means the government has taken a huge share of my payments and not invested the "Trust Fund" in interest paying securities. I will have to life to 100 to come close to the amount paid in. Put that kind of money into an annuity, and the payouts would exponentially higher. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... snip Butts In To Ask A Really Dumb Question OK, here's what I don't understand. If SS is paid out of current revenues - indeed *all* statutory entitlement commitments are, if I understand your explanations - then just *what* is responsible for our national debt? Debt is only possible if we're spending more than we're collecting as a nation. No amount of accounting gymnastics changes this. Since statutory entitlements comprise well over half the annual budget, the rest primarily being Defense, servicing the debt and administration (what we in the Real World call "SG & A"), are you arguing that the debt is entirely a consequence of these latter three? 'Seems unlikely to me. Inquiring minds wanna know... As convoluted as this thing is, there are no dumb questions. I mentioned that the separate accounting for SS is helpful to tell where it stands, and from the data it's clear that the funds designated for SS (FICA payroll taxes) are more than enough to pay for SS through 2017: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf (page 17 of the PDF, or "CRS-6" of the document) So Social Security isn't adding to the deficit. Medicare is more complicated; parts A, B, and D each are funded differently. As of a few years ago, total Medicare was funded 41% by general revenues, and most of the rest through payroll taxes and other designated funds. Total Medicare revenue in 2005 was around $440 billion, so 41% of that could be counted as contributing to the deficit. There are many other "trust funds" that have designated sources of revenue, but many of those actually are just designated portions of general revenues. So you can see what we're spending money on by looking at any of the pie charts and other graphs online. Here's one for FY 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008 Just remember that the big chunk represented by SS is totally funded by dedicated revenues, and roughly 60% of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues. Pretty much everything else comes out of general revenues. That "everything else," plus 41% or so of Medicare, are the sources of deficit spending. In other words, aside from SS and 60% or so of Medicare, most other statutory entitlement expenditures are *not* coming from designated revenue sources. They are, in fact, major sources of deficit spending. So is defense and the non-budget expenditures for the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, and all of the discretionary spending items. The pie charts are real eye-openers for most people. Just remember about the dedicated funding for SS and 60% of Medicare. The total amounts spent on them show up in the pie charts, but they aren't coming out of general revenues. -- Ed Huntress I used to think you had a handle on finances. Not anymore. The reason we are not running deficits at the present time for SS is there is a surplus of funds entering the system Those surplus funds are being spent in the general fund. Hiding even more deficit spending. Interagency government borrowing does not show up in the National Debt column. But that money is owed. And will have to be paid back by higher taxes on workers. Guesstimate in 2017. Maybe on the high side with the economy in the tank. The war in Iraq is not a source of Deficit Spending. It is a government expense just like the salaries of the Congress. Deficit spending is because we keep having more federal expenses than revenue. We have a Congress and President that shows no fiscal restraint. Not just this present administration, but all back to IKE at least. SS is funded with dedicated revenue? Only until there are more money to those collecting than from those paying in. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Lew Hodgett wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote: It's also worth remembering that people did't last much beyond 65 YO in the thirties, large numbers even less. Which just points out how remarkable my grandfather was. Born in 1848, he made it to 83. Once again the myth of "life expectancy" rears its ugly head. It's an average--those who made it to adulthood lived about the same amount of time as people today, but fewer of them made it to adulthood. The life expecrancy "at birth" in 1930 of all sexes and races combined in the US was 59.7 years. It was 77.8 in 2005. People are living much longer today as a rule. That and changes in age weighted distribution of he population are the cause of forecast shortfalls in the SS fund. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html JC Life expectancy is longer. But the length of time an adult person lives has not changed much. The Life expectancy is longer because of better living through chemistry. My mother, who is 94 was a practicing RN until 91 years old. She said other than sulfa drugs, there were not antibiotics until penicillin. Single biggest enhancer of life expectancy. Not the max time you live, but the likelihood you will make it to a natural death. We are held up as bad with our health system because we have a lower life expectancy than most of Europe and Canada. We also have a huge immigrant population that was not real healthy when they got here. And may not avail themselves of the modern medical wonders. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
wrote in message ... On Jun 12, 10:40 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: I mentioned that the separate accounting for SS is helpful to tell where it stands, and from the data it's clear that the funds designated for SS (FICA payroll taxes) are more than enough to pay for SS through 2017: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf (page 17 of the PDF, or "CRS-6" of the document) So Social Security isn't adding to the deficit. Just remember that the big chunk represented by SS is totally funded by dedicated revenues, and roughly 60% of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues. Pretty much everything else comes out of general revenues. That "everything else," plus 41% or so of Medicare, are the sources of deficit spending. In other words, aside from SS and 60% or so of Medicare, most other statutory entitlement expenditures are *not* coming from designated revenue sources. They are, in fact, major sources of deficit spending. So is defense and the non-budget expenditures for the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, and all of the discretionary spending items. The pie charts are real eye-openers for most people. Just remember about the dedicated funding for SS and 60% of Medicare. The total amounts spent on them show up in the pie charts, but they aren't coming out of general revenues. -- Ed Huntress And that is the way it is now. But the scary part is in a relatively few years ( 2017 -2009 = 8 short years ) there will no longer be any extra dedicated revenue from SS to go into the general revenue fund. There's really nothing scary about that, Dan. The margins will be small at first. Either the economy will be perking along by then, or it won't matter, because we won't have a pot to pee in, anyway. And Medicare revenue will be less that 60 % of Medicare costs. So taxes will have to go up or the deficit spending rate go up, or Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits will have to come down. Medicare is unlikely to exist in its present form by then. More likely we'll have a unified health care system, and our taxes will be more like those of Europe. As much as I dislike the idea, a VAT looks very likely. Obama's plan on having those making over 250 K$ pay more in SSBN, is not going to be near enough. Unless we have massive inflation so that most everyone working is making over 250K$. We're in for some changes, all right, and it won't matter who is in the White House. We're running out of time to run the country on self-delusions. And while inflation is manageable for those working, it really affects some. We got a letter today from an old friend. " I can no longer afford the house I presently own. The economy has ( something illegible ) its upward inflated prices. I must sell my own home and rent................" Yeah, that's happened to a few people around here, especially because we had no decline in housing prices in my town. They've kept going up, right through the housing crisis. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... snip Butts In To Ask A Really Dumb Question OK, here's what I don't understand. If SS is paid out of current revenues - indeed *all* statutory entitlement commitments are, if I understand your explanations - then just *what* is responsible for our national debt? Debt is only possible if we're spending more than we're collecting as a nation. No amount of accounting gymnastics changes this. Since statutory entitlements comprise well over half the annual budget, the rest primarily being Defense, servicing the debt and administration (what we in the Real World call "SG & A"), are you arguing that the debt is entirely a consequence of these latter three? 'Seems unlikely to me. Inquiring minds wanna know... As convoluted as this thing is, there are no dumb questions. I mentioned that the separate accounting for SS is helpful to tell where it stands, and from the data it's clear that the funds designated for SS (FICA payroll taxes) are more than enough to pay for SS through 2017: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf (page 17 of the PDF, or "CRS-6" of the document) So Social Security isn't adding to the deficit. Medicare is more complicated; parts A, B, and D each are funded differently. As of a few years ago, total Medicare was funded 41% by general revenues, and most of the rest through payroll taxes and other designated funds. Total Medicare revenue in 2005 was around $440 billion, so 41% of that could be counted as contributing to the deficit. There are many other "trust funds" that have designated sources of revenue, but many of those actually are just designated portions of general revenues. So you can see what we're spending money on by looking at any of the pie charts and other graphs online. Here's one for FY 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008 Just remember that the big chunk represented by SS is totally funded by dedicated revenues, and roughly 60% of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues. Pretty much everything else comes out of general revenues. That "everything else," plus 41% or so of Medicare, are the sources of deficit spending. In other words, aside from SS and 60% or so of Medicare, most other statutory entitlement expenditures are *not* coming from designated revenue sources. They are, in fact, major sources of deficit spending. So is defense and the non-budget expenditures for the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, and all of the discretionary spending items. The pie charts are real eye-openers for most people. Just remember about the dedicated funding for SS and 60% of Medicare. The total amounts spent on them show up in the pie charts, but they aren't coming out of general revenues. -- Ed Huntress I used to think you had a handle on finances. Not anymore. The reason we are not running deficits at the present time for SS is there is a surplus of funds entering the system Those surplus funds are being spent in the general fund. That's always been the way SS is run, from the 1930s on. Some people seem to have just noticed within the past few years. g As for not running deficits at the present time because there is a surplus of funds entering the system...duh, yeah, that's what happens when more is coming in than going out. Hiding even more deficit spending. It's not being hidden from anyone who looks. It is being hidden to people who don't look. But they couldn't find their butts without a night light to begin with. They always think they're being tricked, because they keep tricking themselves, and they're too lazy to look. Interagency government borrowing does not show up in the National Debt column. To clarify things, you're using the traditional definition of "national debt," which is public debt. And that's quite true. Intragovernmental debt is not part of what the government owes to those outside of government, so it doesn't show up as public debt. But that's axiomatic. But that money is owed. To...ourselves. g And will have to be paid back by higher taxes on workers. That depends on how the economy stands at the time it comes due. Guesstimate in 2017. Maybe on the high side with the economy in the tank. The war in Iraq is not a source of Deficit Spending. It is a government expense just like the salaries of the Congress. Deficit spending is because we keep having more federal expenses than revenue. Duh...maybe you could explain the difference. ALL government spending from general revenue is a source of deficit spending, when you aren't taking in enough revenue to cover it. That's what happens when you cut taxes without cutting expenses. Off-budget items like the war in Iraq are especially egregious in that regard, because nobody even *tried* to cover it with revenue. Bush just said "keep shopping and don't worry." We have a Congress and President that shows no fiscal restraint. So was Reagan. So was Bush II. And they didn't even have a real reason for it. You deficit-spend when the economy is tanking. That's mainstream economics. You don't deficit-spend when the GDP is going up. That's lunacy. And Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, said as much a few years later. I always like this Stockman quote about the period: "Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront? The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control. [The Administration's] basic strategy was to match or exceed the Democrats, and we did." Not just this present administration, but all back to IKE at least. SS is funded with dedicated revenue? Only until there are more money to those collecting than from those paying in. Exactly. You do get it, after all. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
John R. Carroll wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Lew Hodgett wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote: It's also worth remembering that people did't last much beyond 65 YO in the thirties, large numbers even less. Which just points out how remarkable my grandfather was. Born in 1848, he made it to 83. Once again the myth of "life expectancy" rears its ugly head. It's an average--those who made it to adulthood lived about the same amount of time as people today, but fewer of them made it to adulthood. The life expecrancy "at birth" in 1930 of all sexes and races combined in the US was 59.7 years. It was 77.8 in 2005. People are living much longer today as a rule. That and changes in age weighted distribution of he population are the cause of forecast shortfalls in the SS fund. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html And this further advances the myth that people living into their 70s and 80s in the '30s was rare. You are aware are you not that the life expectancy at age 20 in the '30s was significantly higher than the life expectancy at birth? The expected shortfalls are the result of the bumbling incompetence of every government since Social Security was first implemented. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Calif Bill wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Lew Hodgett wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote: It's also worth remembering that people did't last much beyond 65 YO in the thirties, large numbers even less. Which just points out how remarkable my grandfather was. Born in 1848, he made it to 83. Once again the myth of "life expectancy" rears its ugly head. It's an average--those who made it to adulthood lived about the same amount of time as people today, but fewer of them made it to adulthood. The life expecrancy "at birth" in 1930 of all sexes and races combined in the US was 59.7 years. It was 77.8 in 2005. People are living much longer today as a rule. That and changes in age weighted distribution of he population are the cause of forecast shortfalls in the SS fund. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html JC Life expectancy is longer. But the length of time an adult person lives has not changed much. The Life expectancy is longer because of better living through chemistry. My mother, who is 94 was a practicing RN until 91 years old. She said other than sulfa drugs, there were not antibiotics until penicillin. Single biggest enhancer of life expectancy. There's also the elimination of many childhood diseases through widespread programs of immunization. Not the max time you live, but the likelihood you will make it to a natural death. We are held up as bad with our health system because we have a lower life expectancy than most of Europe and Canada. We also have a huge immigrant population that was not real healthy when they got here. And may not avail themselves of the modern medical wonders. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote: "Doug Winterburn" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Doug Winterburn" wrote in message snip I guess it's old math - the meaning of surplus, deficit and their effect on debt. If you have a deficit (expenses exceed revenue), your debt goes up because you had to borrow the difference. If you have a surplus (income exceeds expenses), your debt goes down because you use the difference to pay some/all of your debt. At least that's the way it works in my house. Equating a household's finances with the finances of our federal government is the source of a great deal of confusion. In our case, most of the confusion is the result of having intragovernmental accounts, which don't work like a household at all. SS is a pay-as-you-go program, as it always has been, but we've larded it with this bit of accounting since the mid-'80s, in which we issue special bonds in exchange for surplus SS revenue. Meanwhile, we're taking in the revenue, which is counted as current revenue, and we're making SS payments, which is counted as current expenses. The fact that we might have to pay a shortfall out of future general revenues will look good on paper -- we'll be retiring some of those SS bonds when we do it -- but it isn't going to change the fact that we have to pay them out of current revenues. Both ways, the "bonds" create a fictional idea of what is happening, because, again, there is no way to store those surpluses. Sure there is - invest in non government instruments. But that would mean the dreaded privatization word would enter the picture. Uh, would you rather have had GM Preferred or would you just go for California state bonds? ggg! There are many problems with that. For one thing, you'd have the federal government locked into a positive feedback loop with the state of the stock or bond markets. For another, you'd have the government having to protect its own investments -- tempting preferential treatment. Or you could just invest it in a S&P index fund which would reduce the preferential treatment issue. Let's see, how much money did they lose over the past year?.... It sure did better than what happens now - all the surplus is spent and the only way to recoup is to tax folks again for the same purpose. You only get taxed once, Take 2002, you paid taxes, part for SS, part normal... Out of that, all your regular taxes were needed to pay federal expenses, SS needed about 50% of your SS taxes to pay my Grandmother, and they gave the rest to the general revenue. The feds gave the feds a note saying, "thanks for the extra SS money, If you ever need it, we'll get some for you." The general revenue needed more money, since we had given the rich a tax cut, and then started a war. Rather than tax people for the war, and the tax cut for the rich, the feds borrowed the SS surplus. That still wasn't enough, and instead of raising taxes, since if people had to actually pay for the optional war, they might have rebelled against it, we called our best buddies, the Chinese, and said, "we'd like to borrow a few hundred Billion, could you help?" Someday, we will need to pay them, and for the war that we put on the credit card, and we can use some of that money to pay SS benefits if needed. Ain't no way. Nohow. The two problems with that are, first, that the bonds don't represent any additional debt. The future obligations are the result of a statutory program. The bonds help clean up the accounting. But there is no more or less "debt" owed for future SS obligations than there was before we used the bond gizmo to account for it. In that sense, there is no parallel to a household. We don't replace statutory obligations with I.O.U.s at home. If we tried it with our taxes, for example, we could find that the government takes a very dim view of it. g The second problem is that, from an accounting point of view, this has the unfortunate effect of adding the value of the "bonds" to our total debt -- even though our system works entirely on currect accounts, and there is no real way to offset the debt represented by those bonds. This is totally unlike a household, where you could put the cash in a savings account or invest it in something. So the debt goes up, even when nothing really changed, either in terms of current revenues and expenses, nor in our future obligations. If you keep all the pieces in mind, the use of bonds in a "Trust Fund" is a useful accounting device and helps keep track of where SS stands. But when you're looking at the "national debt," and use total debt as the value for it, it just keeps adding something that isn't really there. In accounting terms, it will come out in the wash when we retire the bonds -- if we ever do. But that may be decades away. Meantime, they screw up the impression many people have of what is happening. Many think the cash is going into a pot somewhere. When you ask them what the Treasury is supposed to do with that revenue, most of them give you a blank stare. g The question shouldn't be what the Treasury shhould do with the excess revenue - it should be what the SS administration should do with them. I'm surprised that you'd trust them to invest your retirement money. Actually, I don't. That's why I invested 10% of my gross in public instruments so I now have a real retirement fund that is paying out much better than SS. Actually, they've already invested in what is considered by investors around the world to be the world's most secure investment: US Treasury bonds. In the governments case, it doesn't really matter who they owe money to - China or the SS trust fund or a savings bond holder. When a bond holder redeems a bond, the taxpayer is the source of the money. Right. But when you hold the bond, as the federal government does, and you're the payer of the bond, as the federal government is...it gets a little strange. Internal accounting is a useful thing. Just don't mix it up with money we owe to someone else. It may well be converted to money we owe someone else. The Treasury may have to issue public bonds to raise the cash to pay the SS administration. Kind of like paying off your Mastercard with your VISA card. Possibly. Let's hope that SS is reformed enough by then that it won't have to be funded (for long periods, anyway) with debt. It already is. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Calif Bill wrote:
Was originally the Widows and Children's act. Was to prevent starvation and deprivation for surviors of a worker killed or injured or dies of natural causes leaving a spouse who was normally a homemaker. Was not the National Retirement Act. I think the original tax was 1% of the first $1500 of wages. Until LBJ found out he could hide the huge deficit from the SEA war and raised rates and payouts to get lots more money in to the general fund. Until LBJ I paid 1% of the first $3300 and employer matched. $660 a year. Can not buy a great annuity with life insurance included for that can of money. LBJ left it to our children and grandchildren to pay for his spending. Those paying in now will not get back anywhere what they paid it. It is not an annuity, it is an insurance plan. I paid in $190k and employers matched that amount over my employment years. I get back $15k a year. How does that compare to your medical, car, and homeowners insurance over the years? Since the earliest days of your working life, you've had a family policy with disability benefits... Not my fault if you didn't die and claim on it. My Uncle died in his early 40's and never got a cent from the program, even though he paid in. Means the government has taken a huge share of my payments and not invested the "Trust Fund" in interest paying securities. They weren't supposed to. Although US treasury notes are securities, what interest rate do you want them to say? I think you found the solution, we just boost the rate the treasury has to pay itself on these notes, and the SS system is solvent by the stroke of a pen! I will have to life to 100 to come close to the amount paid in. Put that kind of money into an annuity, and the payouts would exponentially higher. Again, what is the return on the rest of your insurance policies? |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote: John R. Carroll wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Lew Hodgett wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote: It's also worth remembering that people did't last much beyond 65 YO in the thirties, large numbers even less. Which just points out how remarkable my grandfather was. Born in 1848, he made it to 83. Once again the myth of "life expectancy" rears its ugly head. It's an average--those who made it to adulthood lived about the same amount of time as people today, but fewer of them made it to adulthood. The life expecrancy "at birth" in 1930 of all sexes and races combined in the US was 59.7 years. It was 77.8 in 2005. People are living much longer today as a rule. That and changes in age weighted distribution of he population are the cause of forecast shortfalls in the SS fund. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html And this further advances the myth that people living into their 70s and 80s in the '30s was rare. You are aware are you not that the life expectancy at age 20 in the '30s was significantly higher than the life expectancy at birth? Some data. The mortality tables used by insurance companies start at age 10, for two reasons. First, one does not usually insure the life of a child (unless a star, but this is uncommon). Second, back in the day something like one half of children didn't make it to 10, for one reason or another. Nowdays, most children do make it past 10 all the way to adulthood, mostly due to various public-health measures such as clean water, sewers, mosquito-reduction, concrete basement floors (reduce rat populations near people), etc. Although antibiotics got all the press, the main benefit came from the various public-health measures. Joe Gwinn |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... snip Butts In To Ask A Really Dumb Question OK, here's what I don't understand. If SS is paid out of current revenues - indeed *all* statutory entitlement commitments are, if I understand your explanations - then just *what* is responsible for our national debt? Debt is only possible if we're spending more than we're collecting as a nation. No amount of accounting gymnastics changes this. Since statutory entitlements comprise well over half the annual budget, the rest primarily being Defense, servicing the debt and administration (what we in the Real World call "SG & A"), are you arguing that the debt is entirely a consequence of these latter three? 'Seems unlikely to me. Inquiring minds wanna know... As convoluted as this thing is, there are no dumb questions. I mentioned that the separate accounting for SS is helpful to tell where it stands, and from the data it's clear that the funds designated for SS (FICA payroll taxes) are more than enough to pay for SS through 2017: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf (page 17 of the PDF, or "CRS-6" of the document) So Social Security isn't adding to the deficit. Medicare is more complicated; parts A, B, and D each are funded differently. As of a few years ago, total Medicare was funded 41% by general revenues, and most of the rest through payroll taxes and other designated funds. Total Medicare revenue in 2005 was around $440 billion, so 41% of that could be counted as contributing to the deficit. There are many other "trust funds" that have designated sources of revenue, but many of those actually are just designated portions of general revenues. So you can see what we're spending money on by looking at any of the pie charts and other graphs online. Here's one for FY 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008 Just remember that the big chunk represented by SS is totally funded by dedicated revenues, and roughly 60% of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues. Pretty much everything else comes out of general revenues. That "everything else," plus 41% or so of Medicare, are the sources of deficit spending. In other words, aside from SS and 60% or so of Medicare, most other statutory entitlement expenditures are *not* coming from designated revenue sources. They are, in fact, major sources of deficit spending. So is defense and the non-budget expenditures for the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, and all of the discretionary spending items. The pie charts are real eye-openers for most people. Just remember about the dedicated funding for SS and 60% of Medicare. The total amounts spent on them show up in the pie charts, but they aren't coming out of general revenues. -- Ed Huntress I used to think you had a handle on finances. Not anymore. The reason we are not running deficits at the present time for SS is there is a surplus of funds entering the system Those surplus funds are being spent in the general fund. That's always been the way SS is run, from the 1930s on. Some people seem to have just noticed within the past few years. g As for not running deficits at the present time because there is a surplus of funds entering the system...duh, yeah, that's what happens when more is coming in than going out. Hiding even more deficit spending. It's not being hidden from anyone who looks. It is being hidden to people who don't look. But they couldn't find their butts without a night light to begin with. They always think they're being tricked, because they keep tricking themselves, and they're too lazy to look. Interagency government borrowing does not show up in the National Debt column. To clarify things, you're using the traditional definition of "national debt," which is public debt. And that's quite true. Intragovernmental debt is not part of what the government owes to those outside of government, so it doesn't show up as public debt. But that's axiomatic. But that money is owed. To...ourselves. g And will have to be paid back by higher taxes on workers. That depends on how the economy stands at the time it comes due. Guesstimate in 2017. Maybe on the high side with the economy in the tank. The war in Iraq is not a source of Deficit Spending. It is a government expense just like the salaries of the Congress. Deficit spending is because we keep having more federal expenses than revenue. Duh...maybe you could explain the difference. ALL government spending from general revenue is a source of deficit spending, when you aren't taking in enough revenue to cover it. That's what happens when you cut taxes without cutting expenses. Off-budget items like the war in Iraq are especially egregious in that regard, because nobody even *tried* to cover it with revenue. Bush just said "keep shopping and don't worry." We have a Congress and President that shows no fiscal restraint. So was Reagan. So was Bush II. And they didn't even have a real reason for it. You deficit-spend when the economy is tanking. That's mainstream economics. You don't deficit-spend when the GDP is going up. That's lunacy. And Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, said as much a few years later. I always like this Stockman quote about the period: "Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront? The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control. [The Administration's] basic strategy was to match or exceed the Democrats, and we did." Not just this present administration, but all back to IKE at least. SS is funded with dedicated revenue? Only until there are more money to those collecting than from those paying in. Exactly. You do get it, after all. d8-) -- Ed Huntress It is still debt! Whether we owe it to the foreign borrowers as T bills, or as money borrowed from some other "Trust Fund" at another government agency. Gas Tax, SS tax, etc. A private lawyer would go to jail for the abuse of trust funds the Feds do everyday. That money is still gone. And it has to come out of the tax payers pocket. VAT taxes just hide it better from the people. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Lew Hodgett wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote: It's also worth remembering that people did't last much beyond 65 YO in the thirties, large numbers even less. Which just points out how remarkable my grandfather was. Born in 1848, he made it to 83. Once again the myth of "life expectancy" rears its ugly head. It's an average--those who made it to adulthood lived about the same amount of time as people today, but fewer of them made it to adulthood. The life expecrancy "at birth" in 1930 of all sexes and races combined in the US was 59.7 years. It was 77.8 in 2005. People are living much longer today as a rule. That and changes in age weighted distribution of he population are the cause of forecast shortfalls in the SS fund. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html JC Life expectancy is longer. But the length of time an adult person lives has not changed much. The Life expectancy is longer because of better living through chemistry. My mother, who is 94 was a practicing RN until 91 years old. She said other than sulfa drugs, there were not antibiotics until penicillin. Single biggest enhancer of life expectancy. There's also the elimination of many childhood diseases through widespread programs of immunization. Not the max time you live, but the likelihood you will make it to a natural death. We are held up as bad with our health system because we have a lower life expectancy than most of Europe and Canada. We also have a huge immigrant population that was not real healthy when they got here. And may not avail themselves of the modern medical wonders. Also true. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ... "John R. Carroll" wrote: It's also worth remembering that people did't last much beyond 65 YO in the thirties, large numbers even less. Which just points out how remarkable my grandfather was. Born in 1848, he made it to 83. Now there is a guy that realy saw the world change. Did you know that aprox. 1/3 of all of the WWII draftees were rejected as physically unfit? Malnutrition and starvation were largely the cause. JC When you know that the average American male in WWII was 5' 7" and weighed 145 you get an idea of what it was really like in those days. The population was only 135 million then too. So the U.S. was not that big and neither were its men. The reasons why are varied but you can see why in those days a 200 lb. man was considered a "heavyweight". Hawke |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... snip Butts In To Ask A Really Dumb Question OK, here's what I don't understand. If SS is paid out of current revenues - indeed *all* statutory entitlement commitments are, if I understand your explanations - then just *what* is responsible for our national debt? Debt is only possible if we're spending more than we're collecting as a nation. No amount of accounting gymnastics changes this. Since statutory entitlements comprise well over half the annual budget, the rest primarily being Defense, servicing the debt and administration (what we in the Real World call "SG & A"), are you arguing that the debt is entirely a consequence of these latter three? 'Seems unlikely to me. Inquiring minds wanna know... As convoluted as this thing is, there are no dumb questions. I mentioned that the separate accounting for SS is helpful to tell where it stands, and from the data it's clear that the funds designated for SS (FICA payroll taxes) are more than enough to pay for SS through 2017: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf (page 17 of the PDF, or "CRS-6" of the document) So Social Security isn't adding to the deficit. Medicare is more complicated; parts A, B, and D each are funded differently. As of a few years ago, total Medicare was funded 41% by general revenues, and most of the rest through payroll taxes and other designated funds. Total Medicare revenue in 2005 was around $440 billion, so 41% of that could be counted as contributing to the deficit. There are many other "trust funds" that have designated sources of revenue, but many of those actually are just designated portions of general revenues. So you can see what we're spending money on by looking at any of the pie charts and other graphs online. Here's one for FY 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008 Just remember that the big chunk represented by SS is totally funded by dedicated revenues, and roughly 60% of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues. Pretty much everything else comes out of general revenues. That "everything else," plus 41% or so of Medicare, are the sources of deficit spending. In other words, aside from SS and 60% or so of Medicare, most other statutory entitlement expenditures are *not* coming from designated revenue sources. They are, in fact, major sources of deficit spending. So is defense and the non-budget expenditures for the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, and all of the discretionary spending items. The pie charts are real eye-openers for most people. Just remember about the dedicated funding for SS and 60% of Medicare. The total amounts spent on them show up in the pie charts, but they aren't coming out of general revenues. -- Ed Huntress I used to think you had a handle on finances. Not anymore. The reason we are not running deficits at the present time for SS is there is a surplus of funds entering the system Those surplus funds are being spent in the general fund. That's always been the way SS is run, from the 1930s on. Some people seem to have just noticed within the past few years. g As for not running deficits at the present time because there is a surplus of funds entering the system...duh, yeah, that's what happens when more is coming in than going out. Hiding even more deficit spending. It's not being hidden from anyone who looks. It is being hidden to people who don't look. But they couldn't find their butts without a night light to begin with. They always think they're being tricked, because they keep tricking themselves, and they're too lazy to look. Interagency government borrowing does not show up in the National Debt column. To clarify things, you're using the traditional definition of "national debt," which is public debt. And that's quite true. Intragovernmental debt is not part of what the government owes to those outside of government, so it doesn't show up as public debt. But that's axiomatic. But that money is owed. To...ourselves. g And will have to be paid back by higher taxes on workers. That depends on how the economy stands at the time it comes due. Guesstimate in 2017. Maybe on the high side with the economy in the tank. The war in Iraq is not a source of Deficit Spending. It is a government expense just like the salaries of the Congress. Deficit spending is because we keep having more federal expenses than revenue. Duh...maybe you could explain the difference. ALL government spending from general revenue is a source of deficit spending, when you aren't taking in enough revenue to cover it. That's what happens when you cut taxes without cutting expenses. Off-budget items like the war in Iraq are especially egregious in that regard, because nobody even *tried* to cover it with revenue. Bush just said "keep shopping and don't worry." We have a Congress and President that shows no fiscal restraint. So was Reagan. So was Bush II. And they didn't even have a real reason for it. You deficit-spend when the economy is tanking. That's mainstream economics. You don't deficit-spend when the GDP is going up. That's lunacy. And Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, said as much a few years later. I always like this Stockman quote about the period: "Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront? The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control. [The Administration's] basic strategy was to match or exceed the Democrats, and we did." Not just this present administration, but all back to IKE at least. SS is funded with dedicated revenue? Only until there are more money to those collecting than from those paying in. Exactly. You do get it, after all. d8-) -- Ed Huntress It is still debt! Whether we owe it to the foreign borrowers as T bills, or as money borrowed from some other "Trust Fund" at another government agency. Gas Tax, SS tax, etc. A private lawyer would go to jail for the abuse of trust funds the Feds do everyday. That money is still gone. And it has to come out of the tax payers pocket. VAT taxes just hide it better from the people. sigh I give up. Bill, what about all of the unfunded, future obligations of Social Security that *aren't* represented by Treasury notes? That's most of the future obligation. Is it all "debt"? If not, why not? If so, then we've lost all sense of what debt is. When you owe it to yourself, or the government owes it to the government, or the taxpayers owe it to the taxpayers, it's kind of a silly game. Today it's a future obligation and doesn't add to the national debt; tomorrow it does. It's all accounting, not an actual flow of money, or a change in an obligation. Except when you're doing the bookkeeping and analysis. That's the only reality it has. Believe what you want. The bonds neither increase nor decrease the future obligation. And the accounting by which we keep track of it is purely arbitrary, begun only in 1986 (give or take a year), when the political decision was made to account for it that way. That's the important point. Make of it what you will. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: Was originally the Widows and Children's act. Was to prevent starvation and deprivation for surviors of a worker killed or injured or dies of natural causes leaving a spouse who was normally a homemaker. Was not the National Retirement Act. I think the original tax was 1% of the first $1500 of wages. Until LBJ found out he could hide the huge deficit from the SEA war and raised rates and payouts to get lots more money in to the general fund. Until LBJ I paid 1% of the first $3300 and employer matched. $660 a year. Can not buy a great annuity with life insurance included for that can of money. LBJ left it to our children and grandchildren to pay for his spending. Those paying in now will not get back anywhere what they paid it. It is not an annuity, it is an insurance plan. I paid in $190k and employers matched that amount over my employment years. I get back $15k a year. How does that compare to your medical, car, and homeowners insurance over the years? Since the earliest days of your working life, you've had a family policy with disability benefits... Not my fault if you didn't die and claim on it. My Uncle died in his early 40's and never got a cent from the program, even though he paid in. Means the government has taken a huge share of my payments and not invested the "Trust Fund" in interest paying securities. They weren't supposed to. Although US treasury notes are securities, what interest rate do you want them to say? I think you found the solution, we just boost the rate the treasury has to pay itself on these notes, and the SS system is solvent by the stroke of a pen! I will have to life to 100 to come close to the amount paid in. Put that kind of money into an annuity, and the payouts would exponentially higher. Again, what is the return on the rest of your insurance policies? I know it is an insurance policy and not an annuity. And you could get whole life policies that paid back all the premiums at maturity. Whole life policies are to expensive for what you get. Maybe same can be said for SS. If you need life insurance, get a term policy. Since I was supplied with life insurance policies during my working career as an engineer in the Computer industry, I did not buy policies. I invested. All the kids are on their own with university degrees, and house is paid for. I do not need a life insurance policy. SS is a good program. Unfortunately it has become the National Retirement Plan, and not enough money was paid in by most collecting that retirement. So the present payers are having to way overpay for what are going to get. And the borrowed money is still debt to the taxpayer. It is an IOU from the Federal Government. The real National Debt is maybe 30-40 trillion bucks. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Stuart Wheaton wrote: Our incompetent President Hmmm.... Today the Dow is 600 points above where it was on the last day of Bush.... And 200 points above where it was right after the election... And 4,000 points below its high during the Bush years. Gee, most of us are enjoying a tax cut, but if you are getting more than 250K /yr and can't shield it, I feel no pity.... Or is this a "Joe the plumber" thing where you have no clue about income vs taxable income? Right. I saw one investor who managed to save $13,000 in taxes per DAY by the simple expedient of moving from New York to Florida. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...153.html?imw=Y So, Bush's silly little war and Reagan's deficits are OK for you, but buying better highways is the road to ruin? Yes. We already pay a highway tax - and right now the highway tax has a huge surplus. Blame the politicians for dipping into the highway kitty to provide psychological counseling for troubled pets. What about the massive bill about to come due for Social Security? Are you going to show me where you advocated paying higher taxes during the Bush years so we could start to get ahead of the SS juggernaut? I can't; it didn't come up. You may recall that the first item on Bush's political agenda back in 2001 was reform of SS. Reform failed. You thought that privatizing Social Security was reform? That explains your first problem. Privatization was not reform, and in the immediate future it would have made the system more unstable because the current revenues would fall as contributions were siphoned off to Wall Street. Privatization was an attempt to damage Social security beyond repair. Reform of SS will require that benefits be decreased, indexed to assets, and that contributions be increased, exempted wages reduced, and payouts delayed. Furthermore, the U.S. Securities that George W called "Worthless IOU's " Will need to be turned into cash through tax revenues before they can be paid out. Even though we had an intense capital need hanging over our heads, W pushed for tax cuts and reducing the income to SS... Where is the reform you spoke of? Not better, but with somewhat less carnage. Recall, it was the market that got us here, and then screamed for mommy when their lousy decisions put the whole economy in peril. How do you feel about "too big to fail?" Personally? The bigger they are, the harder they fall, but fall they must. Even FDR said that part of SS had to be private. It could not all be government. I believe he said that the responsibility for retirement had to be shared, that SS was a minimum, safety net to ensure nobody retired into abject poverty, and to encourage older worker TO retire and clear the employment roles for younger workers. This was part of the solution to unemployment, paying older workers to go home and relax. Was originally the Widows and Children's act. Was to prevent starvation and deprivation for surviors of a worker killed or injured or dies of natural causes leaving a spouse who was normally a homemaker. Was not the National Retirement Act. I think the original tax was 1% of the first $1500 of wages. Until LBJ found out he could hide the huge deficit from the SEA war and raised rates and payouts to get lots more money in to the general fund. Until LBJ I paid 1% of the first $3300 and employer matched. $660 a year. Can not buy a great annuity with life insurance included for that can of money. LBJ left it to our children and grandchildren to pay for his spending. Those paying in now will not get back anywhere what they paid it. I paid in $190k and employers matched that amount over my employment years. I get back $15k a year. Means the government has taken a huge share of my payments and not invested the "Trust Fund" in interest paying securities. I will have to life to 100 to come close to the amount paid in. Put that kind of money into an annuity, and the payouts would exponentially higher. But you are presupposing that there is no risk of default. I think you may have noticed recently that while private firms may pay higher rates than the government does you have a risk of loss that is much higher as well. Had you put that money in an annuity and the company backing it folded you would be wishing you had a government run plan that would at least pay you something. All the people that invested with Bernie Madoff have now recognized the risk in the free market. You want risk and more money or do you want to be sure you are not going to lose it all? Of course, you can bellyache that the government doesn't pay enough and the free market is too risky. That way you get to complain no matter what happens. Hawke |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Hawke" wrote: What's irritating is that no matter how many times you show these numbers to right wing guys it just doesn't sink in. It really doesn't matter what they think or say, they don't have the votes to stop health care reform this year. Lew |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... snip Butts In To Ask A Really Dumb Question OK, here's what I don't understand. If SS is paid out of current revenues - indeed *all* statutory entitlement commitments are, if I understand your explanations - then just *what* is responsible for our national debt? Debt is only possible if we're spending more than we're collecting as a nation. No amount of accounting gymnastics changes this. Since statutory entitlements comprise well over half the annual budget, the rest primarily being Defense, servicing the debt and administration (what we in the Real World call "SG & A"), are you arguing that the debt is entirely a consequence of these latter three? 'Seems unlikely to me. Inquiring minds wanna know... As convoluted as this thing is, there are no dumb questions. I mentioned that the separate accounting for SS is helpful to tell where it stands, and from the data it's clear that the funds designated for SS (FICA payroll taxes) are more than enough to pay for SS through 2017: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf (page 17 of the PDF, or "CRS-6" of the document) So Social Security isn't adding to the deficit. Medicare is more complicated; parts A, B, and D each are funded differently. As of a few years ago, total Medicare was funded 41% by general revenues, and most of the rest through payroll taxes and other designated funds. Total Medicare revenue in 2005 was around $440 billion, so 41% of that could be counted as contributing to the deficit. There are many other "trust funds" that have designated sources of revenue, but many of those actually are just designated portions of general revenues. So you can see what we're spending money on by looking at any of the pie charts and other graphs online. Here's one for FY 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008 Just remember that the big chunk represented by SS is totally funded by dedicated revenues, and roughly 60% of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues. Pretty much everything else comes out of general revenues. That "everything else," plus 41% or so of Medicare, are the sources of deficit spending. In other words, aside from SS and 60% or so of Medicare, most other statutory entitlement expenditures are *not* coming from designated revenue sources. They are, in fact, major sources of deficit spending. So is defense and the non-budget expenditures for the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, and all of the discretionary spending items. The pie charts are real eye-openers for most people. Just remember about the dedicated funding for SS and 60% of Medicare. The total amounts spent on them show up in the pie charts, but they aren't coming out of general revenues. -- Ed Huntress I used to think you had a handle on finances. Not anymore. The reason we are not running deficits at the present time for SS is there is a surplus of funds entering the system Those surplus funds are being spent in the general fund. That's always been the way SS is run, from the 1930s on. Some people seem to have just noticed within the past few years. g As for not running deficits at the present time because there is a surplus of funds entering the system...duh, yeah, that's what happens when more is coming in than going out. Hiding even more deficit spending. It's not being hidden from anyone who looks. It is being hidden to people who don't look. But they couldn't find their butts without a night light to begin with. They always think they're being tricked, because they keep tricking themselves, and they're too lazy to look. Interagency government borrowing does not show up in the National Debt column. To clarify things, you're using the traditional definition of "national debt," which is public debt. And that's quite true. Intragovernmental debt is not part of what the government owes to those outside of government, so it doesn't show up as public debt. But that's axiomatic. But that money is owed. To...ourselves. g And will have to be paid back by higher taxes on workers. That depends on how the economy stands at the time it comes due. Guesstimate in 2017. Maybe on the high side with the economy in the tank. The war in Iraq is not a source of Deficit Spending. It is a government expense just like the salaries of the Congress. Deficit spending is because we keep having more federal expenses than revenue. Duh...maybe you could explain the difference. ALL government spending from general revenue is a source of deficit spending, when you aren't taking in enough revenue to cover it. That's what happens when you cut taxes without cutting expenses. Off-budget items like the war in Iraq are especially egregious in that regard, because nobody even *tried* to cover it with revenue. Bush just said "keep shopping and don't worry." We have a Congress and President that shows no fiscal restraint. So was Reagan. So was Bush II. And they didn't even have a real reason for it. You deficit-spend when the economy is tanking. That's mainstream economics. You don't deficit-spend when the GDP is going up. That's lunacy. And Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, said as much a few years later. I always like this Stockman quote about the period: "Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront? The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control. [The Administration's] basic strategy was to match or exceed the Democrats, and we did." Not just this present administration, but all back to IKE at least. SS is funded with dedicated revenue? Only until there are more money to those collecting than from those paying in. Exactly. You do get it, after all. d8-) -- Ed Huntress It is still debt! Whether we owe it to the foreign borrowers as T bills, or as money borrowed from some other "Trust Fund" at another government agency. Gas Tax, SS tax, etc. A private lawyer would go to jail for the abuse of trust funds the Feds do everyday. That money is still gone. And it has to come out of the tax payers pocket. VAT taxes just hide it better from the people. sigh I give up. Bill, what about all of the unfunded, future obligations of Social Security that *aren't* represented by Treasury notes? That's most of the future obligation. Is it all "debt"? If not, why not? If so, then we've lost all sense of what debt is. When you owe it to yourself, or the government owes it to the government, or the taxpayers owe it to the taxpayers, it's kind of a silly game. Today it's a future obligation and doesn't add to the national debt; tomorrow it does. It's all accounting, not an actual flow of money, or a change in an obligation. Except when you're doing the bookkeeping and analysis. That's the only reality it has. Believe what you want. The bonds neither increase nor decrease the future obligation. And the accounting by which we keep track of it is purely arbitrary, begun only in 1986 (give or take a year), when the political decision was made to account for it that way. That's the important point. Make of it what you will. They obviously do represent a future obligation, just as any other gov bond does. Why do you think all the hand wringing about when the "trust funds" are exhausted - no more obligation to collect taxes to pay off the bonds since there won't be any. Also, one thing that changed in the Tip O'neal/Bob Dole "saving" of SS in the '80's was the bonds became non-negotiable - meaning prior to that time SS could have sold 'em and bought peanut futures. From FDR's start of SS, any surplus was mandated by law to be invested in gov bonds, but at that time they were negotiable bonds. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
rec.crafts.metalworking: People are living much longer today as a rule. That and changes in age weighted distribution of he population are the cause of forecast shortfalls in the SS fund. Pillaging of the SS "Trust Fund" by Congress is the "Cause" of the shortfall. -- I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Jun 14, 2:00*am, "Hawke" wrote:
What's irritating is that no matter how many times you show these numbers to right wing guys it just doesn't sink in Hawke Just to irritate you some more, it still has not sunk in. The problem is while it is easy to come up with those numbers, it is a lot harder to know why. Correlation does not mean cause and effect. An easy way to decrease the cost of healthcare in the US, would be to eliminate all procedures which will only prolong someones life by six months and also eliminate all procedures that do not have a proven success record. If we had done this say thirty years ago, we would not have any heart transplants , artificial heart valves, etc. Dan |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: snip Believe what you want. The bonds neither increase nor decrease the future obligation. And the accounting by which we keep track of it is purely arbitrary, begun only in 1986 (give or take a year), when the political decision was made to account for it that way. That's the important point. Make of it what you will. They obviously do represent a future obligation, just as any other gov bond does. But the obligation was already there. The bonds didn't add to it. They didn't subtract from it. Why do you think all the hand wringing about when the "trust funds" are exhausted - no more obligation to collect taxes to pay off the bonds since there won't be any. The hand wringing is about political deception for an ideological purpose. That's all it is. That's all it ever was. As for not paying off the bonds, it's Congress that determines what the money will be used for, when the bonds are cashed in. The Social Security system is a creature of legislation. Legislation will be adjusted as necessary to keep the benefits rolling along, to the extent they can be. That doesn't change whether there are bonds involved in the accounting, or not. Here's the description of those bonds, and the Trust Fund, by the government's own OMB: "These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures -- but only in a bookkeeping sense. ... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)" Also, one thing that changed in the Tip O'neal/Bob Dole "saving" of SS in the '80's was the bonds became non-negotiable - meaning prior to that time SS could have sold 'em and bought peanut futures. No, they never could. The original Act of 1935, and the substantial changes enacted in 1939, require that all SS surplus be invested in securities with a guarenteed principle value and a guarenteed rate of interest. In other words, Treasury bonds. And the revenue from the sale of the bonds to SS goes into the general fund, as it always has. But the amount of the bonds was never large enough to be a big issue in the budget until after 1985. So now the question of whether the national debt is public debt, as it always has been, or should now include everything that's in total federal debt (including the SS bonds) has raised this controversy. From FDR's start of SS, any surplus was mandated by law to be invested in gov bonds, but at that time they were negotiable bonds. The only difference is that market forces determine negotiable bond value, and the idea was to invest in securities with guarentees. Thus, the special, non-negoiable bonds used for intragovernmental transactions. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
" wrote in
: On Jun 14, 2:00*am, "Hawke" wrote: What's irritating is that no matter how many times you show these numbers to right wing guys it just doesn't sink in Hawke Just to irritate you some more, it still has not sunk in. The problem is while it is easy to come up with those numbers, it is a lot harder to know why. Correlation does not mean cause and effect. An easy way to decrease the cost of healthcare in the US, would be to eliminate all procedures which will only prolong someones life by six months and also eliminate all procedures that do not have a proven success record. If we had done this say thirty years ago, we would not have any heart transplants , artificial heart valves, etc. Dan Until you have been involved in the decision whether to treat a loved one aggressively to prolong life or let go ("let nature take its course"), you don't know what you are talking about. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Han" wrote in message ... " wrote in : On Jun 14, 2:00 am, "Hawke" wrote: What's irritating is that no matter how many times you show these numbers to right wing guys it just doesn't sink in Hawke Just to irritate you some more, it still has not sunk in. The problem is while it is easy to come up with those numbers, it is a lot harder to know why. Correlation does not mean cause and effect. An easy way to decrease the cost of healthcare in the US, would be to eliminate all procedures which will only prolong someones life by six months and also eliminate all procedures that do not have a proven success record. If we had done this say thirty years ago, we would not have any heart transplants , artificial heart valves, etc. Dan Until you have been involved in the decision whether to treat a loved one aggressively to prolong life or let go ("let nature take its course"), you don't know what you are talking about. It isn't a question of treatment or not. The question is payment. There isn't any reason a person shouldn't be able to buy insurance to cover anything they need. Their needs, and the needs of their families for emotional placation, are not the needs of society. JC |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
: "Han" wrote in message ... " wrote in : On Jun 14, 2:00 am, "Hawke" wrote: What's irritating is that no matter how many times you show these numbers to right wing guys it just doesn't sink in Hawke Just to irritate you some more, it still has not sunk in. The problem is while it is easy to come up with those numbers, it is a lot harder to know why. Correlation does not mean cause and effect. An easy way to decrease the cost of healthcare in the US, would be to eliminate all procedures which will only prolong someones life by six months and also eliminate all procedures that do not have a proven success record. If we had done this say thirty years ago, we would not have any heart transplants , artificial heart valves, etc. Dan Until you have been involved in the decision whether to treat a loved one aggressively to prolong life or let go ("let nature take its course"), you don't know what you are talking about. It isn't a question of treatment or not. The question is payment. There isn't any reason a person shouldn't be able to buy insurance to cover anything they need. Their needs, and the needs of their families for emotional placation, are not the needs of society. JC If you think payment is the question, not treatment, then I have to ask payment for what? The cost of (let's say) a liver transplant for a patient who is going to die soon, whether or not the transplant occurs, is WAY more than the cost of palliative treatment. I have to ask what we are insuring against. A basic low(er) level of treatment costs, or the costs of treating everything. IMNSHO, a asic level of insurance (however defined) should be compulsory (yes, that bad word, and whether the employee or the employer pays is ultimately only semantics). On top of that a person should be allowed to insure against the costs of more complex events/procedures. Freedom of personal choice, etc., etc. Society needs some kind of insurance, and the current system is dysfunctional. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Han wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in : "Han" wrote in message ... " wrote in On Jun 14, 2:00 am, "Hawke" wrote: What's irritating is that no matter how many times you show these numbers to right wing guys it just doesn't sink in Hawke Just to irritate you some more, it still has not sunk in. The problem is while it is easy to come up with those numbers, it is a lot harder to know why. Correlation does not mean cause and effect. An easy way to decrease the cost of healthcare in the US, would be to eliminate all procedures which will only prolong someones life by six months and also eliminate all procedures that do not have a proven success record. If we had done this say thirty years ago, we would not have any heart transplants , artificial heart valves, etc. Dan Until you have been involved in the decision whether to treat a loved one aggressively to prolong life or let go ("let nature take its course"), you don't know what you are talking about. It isn't a question of treatment or not. The question is payment. There isn't any reason a person shouldn't be able to buy insurance to cover anything they need. Their needs, and the needs of their families for emotional placation, are not the needs of society. JC If you think payment is the question, not treatment, then I have to ask payment for what? The cost of (let's say) a liver transplant for a patient who is going to die soon, whether or not the transplant occurs, is WAY more than the cost of palliative treatment. I have to ask what we are insuring against. A basic low(er) level of treatment costs, or the costs of treating everything. IMNSHO, a asic level of insurance (however defined) should be compulsory (yes, that bad word, and whether the employee or the employer pays is ultimately only semantics). On top of that a person should be allowed to insure against the costs of more complex events/procedures. Freedom of personal choice, etc., etc. Society needs some kind of insurance, and the current system is dysfunctional. Government in the medical business is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. When I was a kid, when you got sick you went to the doctor and he did what he could and it didn't cost much. Now he can do a lot more but it's all cutting edge and the costs are horrendous. A hundred years from now when the technologies have matured and an NMR scanner is a child's plaything that you get at Toys R Us for 50 bucks it's going to be back to where most people can pay for most medical issues out of pocket without it hurting particularly. But if we get government involved now then government will still be involved then. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"J. Clarke" wrote in
: Han wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : "Han" wrote in message ... " wrote in om On Jun 14, 2:00 am, "Hawke" wrote: What's irritating is that no matter how many times you show these numbers to right wing guys it just doesn't sink in Hawke Just to irritate you some more, it still has not sunk in. The problem is while it is easy to come up with those numbers, it is a lot harder to know why. Correlation does not mean cause and effect. An easy way to decrease the cost of healthcare in the US, would be to eliminate all procedures which will only prolong someones life by six months and also eliminate all procedures that do not have a proven success record. If we had done this say thirty years ago, we would not have any heart transplants , artificial heart valves, etc. Dan Until you have been involved in the decision whether to treat a loved one aggressively to prolong life or let go ("let nature take its course"), you don't know what you are talking about. It isn't a question of treatment or not. The question is payment. There isn't any reason a person shouldn't be able to buy insurance to cover anything they need. Their needs, and the needs of their families for emotional placation, are not the needs of society. JC If you think payment is the question, not treatment, then I have to ask payment for what? The cost of (let's say) a liver transplant for a patient who is going to die soon, whether or not the transplant occurs, is WAY more than the cost of palliative treatment. I have to ask what we are insuring against. A basic low(er) level of treatment costs, or the costs of treating everything. IMNSHO, a asic level of insurance (however defined) should be compulsory (yes, that bad word, and whether the employee or the employer pays is ultimately only semantics). On top of that a person should be allowed to insure against the costs of more complex events/procedures. Freedom of personal choice, etc., etc. Society needs some kind of insurance, and the current system is dysfunctional. Government in the medical business is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. When I was a kid, when you got sick you went to the doctor and he did what he could and it didn't cost much. Now he can do a lot more but it's all cutting edge and the costs are horrendous. A hundred years from now when the technologies have matured and an NMR scanner is a child's plaything that you get at Toys R Us for 50 bucks it's going to be back to where most people can pay for most medical issues out of pocket without it hurting particularly. But if we get government involved now then government will still be involved then. The real problem now, and for the foreseeable future, is that the healthcare system makes out of pocket payment unaffordable. Whether or not this is a free enterprise system or not, and if so, whether it is subject to market forces (doesn't seem to), the reality is that almost any procedure or medication costs far more when paid for directly out of pocket than via reasonably priced insurance, such as group employer- sponsored programs. Here in New York, hospital costs include an 8% (I think) surcharge to pay for indigent compassionate care. Is that fair? Therefore, I maintain (I recognize there is opposition) that there should be compulsory insurance for everyone at some basic level. Yes, it might be called a tax. But it does not have to cost as much as it costs now to submit and resubmit claims and counterclaims. That only makes for a bloated bureaucracy. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in : Han wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : "Han" wrote in message ... " wrote in om On Jun 14, 2:00 am, "Hawke" wrote: What's irritating is that no matter how many times you show these numbers to right wing guys it just doesn't sink in Hawke Just to irritate you some more, it still has not sunk in. The problem is while it is easy to come up with those numbers, it is a lot harder to know why. Correlation does not mean cause and effect. An easy way to decrease the cost of healthcare in the US, would be to eliminate all procedures which will only prolong someones life by six months and also eliminate all procedures that do not have a proven success record. If we had done this say thirty years ago, we would not have any heart transplants , artificial heart valves, etc. Dan Until you have been involved in the decision whether to treat a loved one aggressively to prolong life or let go ("let nature take its course"), you don't know what you are talking about. It isn't a question of treatment or not. The question is payment. There isn't any reason a person shouldn't be able to buy insurance to cover anything they need. Their needs, and the needs of their families for emotional placation, are not the needs of society. JC If you think payment is the question, not treatment, then I have to ask payment for what? The cost of (let's say) a liver transplant for a patient who is going to die soon, whether or not the transplant occurs, is WAY more than the cost of palliative treatment. I have to ask what we are insuring against. A basic low(er) level of treatment costs, or the costs of treating everything. IMNSHO, a asic level of insurance (however defined) should be compulsory (yes, that bad word, and whether the employee or the employer pays is ultimately only semantics). On top of that a person should be allowed to insure against the costs of more complex events/procedures. Freedom of personal choice, etc., etc. Society needs some kind of insurance, and the current system is dysfunctional. Government in the medical business is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. When I was a kid, when you got sick you went to the doctor and he did what he could and it didn't cost much. Now he can do a lot more but it's all cutting edge and the costs are horrendous. A hundred years from now when the technologies have matured and an NMR scanner is a child's plaything that you get at Toys R Us for 50 bucks it's going to be back to where most people can pay for most medical issues out of pocket without it hurting particularly. But if we get government involved now then government will still be involved then. The real problem now, and for the foreseeable future, is that the healthcare system makes out of pocket payment unaffordable. Whether or not this is a free enterprise system or not, and if so, whether it is subject to market forces (doesn't seem to), the reality is that almost any procedure or medication costs far more when paid for directly out of pocket than via reasonably priced insurance, such as group employer- sponsored programs. Here in New York, hospital costs include an 8% (I think) surcharge to pay for indigent compassionate care. Is that fair? Therefore, I maintain (I recognize there is opposition) that there should be compulsory insurance for everyone at some basic level. Yes, it might be called a tax. But it does not have to cost as much as it costs now to submit and resubmit claims and counterclaims. That only makes for a bloated bureaucracy. You and Obama and your "compulsory insurance". So now you are putting people who are already having to choose between paying the rent and buying food in the position of having to pay for insurance or be punished by the government. Sorry, but you and Obama are really out of touch with the notion of "poor". And how will "compulsory insurance" change the way that the insurance companies work? |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Han wrote:
Society needs some kind of insurance, and the current system is dysfunctional. Dysfunctional? 300 million (out of 340 million) have insurance. Of those, 80% or so are satisfied. Hardly dysfunctional. Folks are screeching about 40 million of our population are uninsured! Of these, 14 million are illegal aliens, about 8 million are between employer-provided insurance, a few million are eligible for Medicaid and will get it as soon as they apply in the emergency room, many are young, healthy, cash-strapped people who choose not to have insurance, plus a few lesser categories. After doing all the arithmetic, we find there are exactly eight people in the whole country without insurance who need it. As a result, there are those who would chance screwing up the system for 339,999,992 people so these eight would not be inconvenienced. Bah! |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"J. Clarke" wrote in
: You and Obama and your "compulsory insurance". It's there now too. As I mentioned, I (actually my insurance company) have to pay 8% extra over the cost of whatever the hospital charges to pay for the indigent (for lack of a better word). That is already compulsory. So now you are putting people who are already having to choose between paying the rent and buying food in the position of having to pay for insurance or be punished by the government. You're twisting my words. I thought you were in favor of everyone paying his fair share. I think this system will simplify things. Like I am NOT in favor of the frigging homeowner rebates here in NJ, where another layer of bureaucracy increases overall taxation. Sorry, but you and Obama are really out of touch with the notion of "poor". Probably, since I have never really been close to that. But I am proud that I have earned my and my family's keep while being compassionate. And how will "compulsory insurance" change the way that the insurance companies work? Simple. Simplify the whole process. Set the rates the same for everyone, and eliminate bureacracy. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"HeyBub" wrote in
m: Han wrote: Society needs some kind of insurance, and the current system is dysfunctional. Dysfunctional? 300 million (out of 340 million) have insurance. Of those, 80% or so are satisfied. Hardly dysfunctional. Folks are screeching about 40 million of our population are uninsured! Of these, 14 million are illegal aliens, about 8 million are between employer-provided insurance, a few million are eligible for Medicaid and will get it as soon as they apply in the emergency room, many are young, healthy, cash-strapped people who choose not to have insurance, plus a few lesser categories. After doing all the arithmetic, we find there are exactly eight people in the whole country without insurance who need it. As a result, there are those who would chance screwing up the system for 339,999,992 people so these eight would not be inconvenienced. Bah! So I have to pay an 8% surcharge on hy hospitalization costs so that 8 people in the US can get care? Hey, bud, you should check your arithmetic. And if you are between jobs with the full benefits you're used to, you suddenly have to pay $1300/mo for a family of 2 to keep your insurance? -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:34:24 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote: Hawke wrote: There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and work ethic. And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of attainment. Show us your data. IOW, you're talking out your a$$. If that is the case, is that perhaps the time to reconsider our stereotypes? Perhaps you should reconsider yours. i think what he is saying is that your stereotypes should be the same as his... Ah, yes. That is the leftist's way. At least that is what you think the leftist's way is. What people are forgetting is that there are stereotypes, which do have some truth to them, and then there is reality. There are concrete things that actually make someone a liberal or a conservative. They each have their own ways and beliefs. The problem is when one side makes claims about the other side which are not true, which is usually the case. In this group, which is filled with right wingers and republicans denigration of "liberals" are posted constantly. That's because the "wingers" detest anyone who has views that are different from theirs (a conservative trait). Proof of this is the unending stream of criticism and invectives directed at liberals by them. Take one trait that is common among liberals; tolerance. This same trait is not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot more Yes conservatives are guilty of often clinging to rules for their own sake, even when they don't make sense. Liberals - as the term is currently constituted - tolerate almost everything including evil, stupidity, lack of judgment, lack of personal accountability, and lack of moral courage. As a group, today's liberals live in a world driven by their ambitions not by any recognizable reality. They are always astonished when their fairyland ideas fail spectacularly. The liberals are either the authors of accelerators of almost every single failed policy in the West but have become masters of blaming everyone else for their own misdeeds - not unlike their voting base does on a day-to-day basis. The one thing that liberals *cannot* seem to tolerate is anyone with whom they disagree. As William F. Buckley aptly noted: “Liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, but it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.” The only thing breathing any life into liberal ideology today is the intellectual, moral, and ideological bankruptcy among conservatives who - as a political movement at least - have traded electability for principle. Vote libertarian ... "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam" Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno "Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone. I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout" Unknown Usnet Poster Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls. Keyton |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:18:05 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote: I was originally taken in by Bush's rhetoric on 'compassionate conservatives' just to find out he was lying warmongering megalomaniac who had an inferiority complex to the point that all he wanted to do was please his daddy...how sick was that? almost as sick as blowing muslims, which apparently you do. Gunner "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam" Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:36:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote: Hawke wrote: I have some bad news for ya. Your "do nothing" recommendation is just what the Hoover administration thought was the right medicine for the country in 1929. Their view was that the depression was like a hurricane. The best thing you could do was get out of the way and let it happen and then clean up afterwards. You will understand if we don't think that is a smart way to handle our problems. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Why else would the government not be following your and Hoover's advise to just do nothing? Maybe because they know something you don't. Like history. Actually we don't know whether a "do nothing" approach would have worked. FDR tried all manner of fixes. The latest research indicates that FDR's tinkering actually made the depression worse. FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx And as a result of the control the Far Leftist extremists have on the USA...I have returned to stocking up on canned goods by the multiple case, ammo and components and so forth. The Great Depression Part Deux is upon us and this time it may last longer with Leftwing extremists trying to juggle things. Got Rope? Gunner "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam" Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 06:11:11 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote: On Jun 9, 8:41*am, " wrote: On Jun 9, 6:04*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote: . The only place that government does a consistently outstanding job is running the military and arguably the DOJ. Even the military have figured out that using contractors to run mess halls and repair facilities is more efficient than having the government do the work. A lot of that had more to do with handing lucrative contracts to friends and relatives of Dick Cheney. The opinion of a Leftwing Drone is noted with extreme amusement. One notes that Clinton was deeply involved in setting up the contractors. And yet this Drone claims it was Cheney. "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam" Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote: On Jun 8, 4:52*pm, "HeyBub" wrote: And if you can blame Bush for what happened during the last 100 days of his administration, then you've got no complaint when criticism is leveled at the first 100 days of Obama's. That, of course, is a crock of ****. Bush had the best part of 7 years to take a run at his last 100 days, as opposed to Obama who got the aftershocks AND he started from scratch. To compare both is ludicrous. I can't believe you made that comparison. r Spoken like a true Useful Idiot. "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam" Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter