Mr President, I've seen enough or why yes I am still blaming Bush

[blazerboy30]

They can, just don't call it unobtainable revenue. People are unwilling to pay for services like they did in the past (because they can't afford it). The business charges them the same price and never collect on the unpaid balance knowing the customer isn't going to pay the unpaid balance and writes it off as a loss.

Basically charge customers the same price knowing that price is unobtainable and write off the difference that is unobtainable as a loss.

How that applies to this gov't thread I don't know. But for business, it is all about how you characterize things (I'm guessing like politics).

No, no it isn't. Unless of course, you're ok with going to jail. You can't just decide what you want to call a "loss" or a "cost" for your business.

 

[Klinky]

This isn't close at all. I guess we just have fundamental differences on people's rights with respect to their money. My view is that my money isn't the government's money. It isn't a government "cost" just because I'm keeping what I earned. A reduction in revenue? Sure. A "cost"? No.

With your view, then the "cost" being claimed by the government should be anything less than 100% of peoples' income.

If you're a business & you're offering certain customers a promo of 50% off your normal rates as a way to spur business, you damn well better be keeping track of who is on the promo & how much your promo is costing you. That's basic marketing/accounting.

The the .gov is basically saying "We are giving you a reduced tax rate that is x% below the sticker rate for y amount of years. This will cost $z amount of dollars in lost revenue over that period". The tax reduction was suppose to be temporary, it was not suppose to be permanent, but it practically is now permanent. If the tax cuts were written into tax law permanently, then yes you could say the .gov is no longer entitled to list the tax cut as a "cost". But the gist of the program was a temporary promo to spur growth, which it didn't really do as practically all of the growth of the last decade can be attributed to the fraud known as the housing market.

Also your concept of money fails the simple chicken & egg test. You need the USA to get the money that you spend in the USA. Without taxes, there is no USA. Yes I know in Libertopia there is the gold standard & fiat currency is evil, but good luck finding any decent country that matches those fiduciary values.

 

[Klinky]

I agree.

The thing is that a Keynesian approach is to run deficits in bad times... so we feel good about ourselves in good times (and commit ourselves to programs that people don't want to get rid of later) and then we spend MORE when times are bad.

It's a vicious, doomed cycle.

Ed O.

The same could be said of taxes as there never seems to be a good time to raise taxes. If it's good times then we can't raise taxes because it will kill the good times & if it's bad times, then we can't raise taxes because that'll make the bad times last longer...

I am also not sure of what big budget untouchable programs were added during the "Good Times" of the last decade. The two biggest programs that we accumulated were the wars & tax cuts, both of which I am in favor of getting rid of!

 

[Denny Crane]

Good grief... that you're trying to pass off the health care BS that passed as some sort of example of the Dems mighty filibuster proof Senate You are classic!

Because everyone knew they didn't have close to the votes, they didn't propose anything close to what they wanted (SPHC). It was a massive compromise from the get go only to be distorted until the various in pocket health care opposition from both sides could look down their noses at it as something that should have been aborted.

STOMP

Obama didn't propose anything at all. Just a vague idea that there should be universal health care run by giant health care companies.

It's a failure of leadership, not of the huge majorities his party enjoyed.

 

[Paxil]

What in the world are you talking about? That still isn't a loss for the business (necessarily, unless you're selling for less than it cost you). It is just reduced revenue. Clearly you don't own your own business.

With taxes at a given rate, if you decide to lower them... you are encuring the cost in the form of reduced income. I don't really give a shit what you want call it.

 

[STOMP]

Obama didn't propose anything at all. Just a vague idea that there should be universal health care run by giant health care companies.

It's a failure of leadership, not of the huge majorities his party enjoyed.

so instead of conceding the filibuster proof Senate talking point you were propping up as fact was actually transparent BS, you've just moved on to the next one.

though I follow politics, right about now I'm reminded why I usually don't bother to discuss them here.

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

so instead of conceding the filibuster proof Senate talking point you were propping up as fact was actually transparent BS, you've just moved on to the next one.

though I follow politics, right about now I'm reminded why I usually don't bother to discuss them here.

STOMP

Uh, no. They had a filibuster proof senate. They were perfectly content to negotiate among themselves (democrats) to come up with their health care bill. If they didn't have a filibuster proof senate, they'd have tried to court lots of republican votes. They did try to get one or two republicans to go along, but that was to cover their asses. "See, it was bipartisan!"

 

[blazerboy30]

If you're a business & you're offering certain customers a promo of 50% off your normal rates as a way to spur business, you damn well better be keeping track of who is on the promo & how much your promo is costing you. That's basic marketing/accounting.

That still isn't a "cost" or "loss" that can be claimed by the business. Again, it is decreased revenue. Why is this so hard to understand? It's "basic marketing/accounting."

 

[blazerboy30]

I am also not sure of what big budget untouchable programs were added during the "Good Times" of the last decade. The two biggest programs that we accumulated were the wars & tax cuts, both of which I am in favor of getting rid of!

And notice how difficult it is to get rid of those programs? Yeah, that was the point.

 

[blazerboy30]

With taxes at a given rate, if you decide to lower them... you are encuring the cost in the form of reduced income. I don't really give a shit what you want call it.

Yeah, clearly you're still confused. Tell the IRS that you want to claim reduced income as a business "loss" to write off. Let me know what they think of that, as they're throwing you in jail.

 

[MARIS61]

That is a interesting picture... but I am not sure I believe it. The temporary Bush tax cuts where really almost 2 trillion? Good God. And over 50% go directly to the top 5%.

Yes. It's a fact.

Without that single stroke of his pen, Bush could have prevented the economic collapse of our country. He chose to serve a different group of people that day. There are countries who would behead their leader for such treason. We support his lavish lifestyle and protect him for the rest of his life.

Ain't America great!?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Can someone help me out...I'm trying to understand the chart, but I'm confused about a couple of things...

I don't see anything about "$1.2T (and counting)" in non-discretionary spending to cover the medicare/medicaid gaps from 2009 and 2010, and which will probably get higher over the next few years. Are you saying that since Medicare isn't a "new program", that designating new debt to cover the gaps isn't an Obama cost?

Are they counting the 1T that you're not showing from Obamacare (from the CBO estimate) as all coming after 2017?

While I agree that the "Bush tax cuts" deservedly go in the Bush column, don't they go in the Obama column also (he extended them, right?) As for Paxil's complaint that most tax cuts go to the "rich", I'd imagine that if more of the country actually paid taxes, then they could receive cuts, too. But 47M workers aren't paying a dime in federal taxes.

How is it that the "Iraq, Afghanistan and defense" goes 1.5T in "new costs" to Bush, but "savings" for Obama? Are you including new airplane and shipbuilding budgets, R&D initiatives, etc? Those are "new costs" compared to January 2009. Are you still counting overseas contingency budgets as "neutral" to Obama, b/c he's just continuing what Bush started? Are you counting payments to NATO and the projected costs for operations like Libya and other "peacekeeping"?

Good way of showing debt, though I'd like to see something with inflation-adjusted numbers and/or % of GDP, to make it more comparable

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Can someone help me out...I'm trying to understand the chart, but I'm confused about a couple of things...

I don't see anything about "$1.2T (and counting)" in non-discretionary spending to cover the medicare/medicaid gaps from 2009 and 2010, and which will probably get higher over the next few years. Are you saying that since Medicare isn't a "new program", that designating new debt to cover the gaps isn't an Obama cost?

Are they counting the 1T that you're not showing from Obamacare (from the CBO estimate) as all coming after 2017?

While I agree that the "Bush tax cuts" deservedly go in the Bush column, don't they go in the Obama column also (he extended them, right?) As for Paxil's complaint that most tax cuts go to the "rich", I'd imagine that if more of the country actually paid taxes, then they could receive cuts, too. But 47M workers aren't paying a dime in federal taxes.

How is it that the "Iraq, Afghanistan and defense" goes 1.5T in "new costs" to Bush, but "savings" for Obama? Are you including new airplane and shipbuilding budgets, R&D initiatives, etc? Those are "new costs" compared to January 2009. Are you still counting overseas contingency budgets as "neutral" to Obama, b/c he's just continuing what Bush started? Are you counting payments to NATO and the projected costs for operations like Libya and other "peacekeeping"?

Good way of showing debt, though I'd like to see something with inflation-adjusted numbers and/or % of GDP, to make it more comparable

The chart is based on the premises that it's all Bush's fault. Once that sinks in the rest becomes very clear.

 

[PapaG]

Here is some words, because I need to have words.

This graph, without showing the record tax receipts after the Bush tax cuts, makes it as dumb as Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph.

Plus, how can it be that continuing Bush policies are solely blamed on Bush? That's so dishonest, it's actually hilarious.

An idiotic graph.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Klinky]

So was it tax cuts or the bubble? Why does anyone consider the 2000s to be times of prosperity, it was all a fraud & we're all paying the piper for the fake growth/revenues of the last decade.

At least Clinton used the tech bubble to create a surplus, GWBjr ran deficits practically the entire time he was in office.

 

[Denny Crane]

It does not counter the fact that the govt's receipts were an all-time high with the tax cuts in place.

Here's a little math...

Over the next 10 years, the govt. is on pace to spend about $40T. The claim is the Bush tax cuts cost $2T. Of that $40T, $12T to $15T will be borrowed money, adding to the debt. Raising everyone's taxes by letting all of the tax cuts expire barely makes a dent. And this is assuming the govt. doesn't grow at all.

 

[blazerboy30]

So was it tax cuts or the bubble? Why does anyone consider the 2000s to be times of prosperity, it was all a fraud & we're all paying the piper for the fake growth/revenues of the last decade.

At least Clinton used the tech bubble to create a surplus, GWBjr ran deficits practically the entire time he was in office.

Even with the bubble collapse, and your so-called "fake growth", our GDP per capita is still well above 2006 levels. And 2006 levels were WAY higher than 2000. Would you have preferred no growth during the 2000s?

 

[Klinky]

Even with the bubble collapse, and your so-called "fake growth", our GDP per capita is still well above 2006 levels. And 2006 levels were WAY higher than 2000. Would you have preferred no growth during the 2000s?

We also have double the unemployment rate, 5 trillion more in debt & a world economy that is still shaky at best. GDP can be misleading & with fewer people working it's perhaps easier to keep a per capita rate up, but that doesn't mean we're more prosperous for it. The true reality of the tech bubble & accounting scandals of the early 2000s has been masked by war spending, the housing bubble, TARP & stimulus spending...

 

[blazerboy30]

We also have double the unemployment rate, 5 trillion more in debt & a world economy that is still shaky at best. GDP can be misleading & with fewer people working it's perhaps easier to keep a per capita rate up, but that doesn't mean we're more prosperous for it. The true reality of the tech bubble & accounting scandals of the early 2000s has been masked by war spending, the housing bubble, TARP & stimulus spending...

And yet federal revenues are still well up over 2000 levels.

 

[Klinky]

And yet federal revenues are still well up over 2000 levels.

If you want to ignore inflation then sure.

 

[Denny Crane]

And yet federal revenues are still well up over 2000 levels.

 

[STOMP]

Uh, no. They had a filibuster proof senate.

no they didn't.

Having a jersey on doesn't make you part of the team. Sharing the same values and being willing to work together does. Lieberman and the Blue Dogs were part of the other team. This is established and really a very silly tedious point to have to make.

They were perfectly content to negotiate among themselves (democrats) to come up with their health care bill. If they didn't have a filibuster proof senate, they'd have tried to court lots of republican votes. They did try to get one or two republicans to go along, but that was to cover their asses. "See, it was bipartisan!"

how ridiculous are you willing to be? The Blue Dogs were as paid off by the health care industry as any Republican. There was no negotiating with them. They entertained but turned down every single effort in the public option direction because of this. They were the ones dictating that SPHC was off the table to even discuss. Of course actual Dems reached across the aisle trying to break the Republican block as they absolutely knew that some wearing their jersey were bought off... everyone knew this. Now you're trying in retrospect to pretend that all that matters is the jersey. Follow the money if you care to see who's on what team.

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

no they didn't.

Having a jersey on doesn't make you part of the team. Sharing the same values and being willing to work together does. Lieberman and the Blue Dogs were part of the other team. This is established and really a very silly tedious point to have to make.


how ridiculous are you willing to be? The Blue Dogs were as paid off by the health care industry as any Republican. There was no negotiating with them. They entertained but turned down every single effort in the public option direction because of this. They were the ones dictating that SPHC was off the table to even discuss. Of course actual Dems reached across the aisle trying to break the Republican block as they absolutely knew that some wearing their jersey were bought off... everyone knew this. Now you're trying in retrospect to pretend that all that matters is the jersey. Follow the money if you care to see who's on what team.

STOMP

You deserve a better answer from me, and I'll provide it later this morning. But for now:

[video=youtube;ACbwND52rrw]

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Stomp, I think you must live on Fantasy Island. Aside from being wrong, you indicate only republicans accept lobby money. I don't want to shatter your belief in the tooth fairy, but dems do as well. So follow the money on the left as well as the right and you will find some pretty unhappy things.

 

[Denny Crane]

no they didn't.

Having a jersey on doesn't make you part of the team. Sharing the same values and being willing to work together does. Lieberman and the Blue Dogs were part of the other team. This is established and really a very silly tedious point to have to make.


how ridiculous are you willing to be? The Blue Dogs were as paid off by the health care industry as any Republican. There was no negotiating with them. They entertained but turned down every single effort in the public option direction because of this. They were the ones dictating that SPHC was off the table to even discuss. Of course actual Dems reached across the aisle trying to break the Republican block as they absolutely knew that some wearing their jersey were bought off... everyone knew this. Now you're trying in retrospect to pretend that all that matters is the jersey. Follow the money if you care to see who's on what team.

STOMP

Here's your better answer from me.

Republicans never enjoyed a 60 vote majority in the senate, yet were able to pass all sorts of things. Which is unfortunate, because they are supposed to be the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility and didn't show it when they had both houses and the presidency. Like the Democrats, they are not a monolithic ideological group, but their leadership was able to get things done.

I have repeatedly posted my support for a government option, but the option I envisioned was NEVER considered. You talk about who's being paid off by the health care industry, and it sure looks like EVERYONE, since health care reform was all about forcing everyone to have health insurance provided by the industry. It was what Obama talked about from day 1, what democrats of every stripe talked about from day 1, and what the 60-40 procedural vote was in favor of.

What I envisioned was a VA style health care delivery system. The govt. builds hospitals, buys equipment, buys medicine, hires doctors, and treats people in its facilities for cost, basically. Slightly above cost so the few extra dollars per flu shot administered could be pooled to pay for the far more occasional heart or brain surgery. Not a dime to insurance companies, and not a single regulation of insurance companies required.

Nancy Pelosi did a great job as speaker in terms of keeping her membership in line. She counted her votes and knew which vulnerable members she could allow to vote the way the people wanted, to help save their jobs.

The whole mess was a debacle and ill timed and was made a priority when the economy was hurting and jobs and real estate (e.g. loss of wealth of main street) were far more urgent issues.

So I write that the whole thing is an issue of leadership and you disregard it as if it doesn't matter. It surely does. A guy you probably hate, W, was able to lead. He was able to convince his smaller government and fiscally responsible party to pass his agenda. HIS agenda. HIS SOCIAL agenda. Things like No Child Left Behind, a ginormous highway (infrastructure) bill, the biggest spending increase on Medicare (prescription drug program), etc. He and his people wrote legislation and submitted it to congress. He went on the road and rallied the people to pressure congress to vote for it. He knew how to wield the hammer and coerce congress to vote on things like war resolutions and reorganization of many departments into Homeland Security.

Clinton was just as good at leading, if not even better. When he had majorities in both houses, his presidency was in serious jeopardy. He tried to ram health care reform down everyone's throats and it cost him both houses. Then he wielded the hammer and got things done. Even balanced the budget.

What's Obama done? He's set the agenda - "I want health care reform." He never submitted an actual proposal, though. He went out on the road and told everyone what they wanted to hear, though not much of it resembled the final bill - that nobody read before voting on. The Bill didn't get written until the last minute, and wasn't properly vetted.

It's a sad thing that W managed things better than Obama has, but it's the sorry truth. Consider his leadership on stem cell research. I have NO problem with any form of stem cell research, myself, but I acknowledge there is a huge number of people who oppose it. What did W do? A compromise that nobody was happy with ultimately, but that appealed to both sides: use existing stem cell lines (can proceed and fund stem cell research), no new stem cell lines (raw meat for the religious conservatives).

Feel free to make the case that without 14 weeks of (yes it's true) filibuster proof senate, that Obama would have gotten his health care bill passed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/us/politics/28obama.html?_r=1&hp

President on Sidelines in Critical Battle Over Debt Ceiling

 

[BrianFromWA]

Back to the charts, it looks like one of my questions was answered. From Medicare's Office of the Actuary:

The analysis found that President Barack Obama's health care overhaul would only be a modest contributor to growing costs, even though an additional 30 million people who would be otherwise uninsured stand to gain coverage.

The main reasons that health care spending keeps growing faster than the economy are the high cost of medical innovations and an aging society that consumes increasing levels of service.

Many of the newly insured people under the health care law will be younger and healthier. As a result, they are expected to use more doctor visits and prescription drugs and relatively less of pricey hospital care. Health care spending will jump by 8 percent in 2014, when the law's coverage expansion kicks in. But over the 2010-2020 period covered by the estimate, the average yearly growth in health care spending will be only 0.1 percentage point higher than without Obama's overhaul.

Part of the reason for that optimistic prognosis is that cuts and cost controls in the health care law start to bite down late in the decade. However, the same nonpartisan Medicare experts who produced Thursday's estimate have previously questioned whether that austerity will be politically sustainable if hospitals and other providers start going out of business as a result.

However, the part that concerns me is this:

Government, already the dominant player because of Medicare and Medicaid, will become even more important. By 2020, federal, state and local government health care spending will account for just under half the total tab, up from 45 percent currently. As the health care law's coverage expansion takes effect, "health care financing is anticipated to further shift toward governments,"

Am I wrong in thinking that cost "shifting towards government" = cost "shifting away from users to taxpayers"?

 

[huevonkiller]

You deserve a better answer from me, and I'll provide it later this morning. But for now:

[video=youtube;ACbwND52rrw]

Lmao, that was great. :O

 

[barfo]

Am I wrong in thinking that cost "shifting towards government" = cost "shifting away from users to taxpayers"?

Maybe. It might be shifting away from "payers of insurance premiums" rather than from "users of healthcare services".

barfo