i love me some

Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. He also said the measure’s cost will reach beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a down payment for the policy changes.
Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.”

That's my favorite part right there. Has this administration estimated any numbers right? Job losses - wrong. Amount the first stimulus would be - wrong. National Debt - numbers keep growing every few months from their initial prediction. It's just starting to be funny.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. He also said the measure’s cost will reach beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a down payment for the policy changes.
Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.”

That's my favorite part right there. Has this administration estimated any numbers right? Job losses - wrong. Amount the first stimulus would be - wrong. National Debt - numbers keep growing every few months from their initial prediction. It's just starting to be funny.[/QUOTE]

What's another trillion to them? Hell, after all our real debt is somewhere around $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion dollars).
Here's the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve in 2008:
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent."[/FONT]
Click to expand...
There's not even that much money in circulation. This reckless spending and printing of money will destroy the entire economy.
 
I'm curious at what point between the Bush tax cuts, increased military spending, and massive federal deficit accrued during his years did everyone not think for one second that it would have to be made up in higher taxes at some point.

Obama isn't exactly making the situation any better, but at least he has enough sense of basic math to know that higher taxes are necessary if everyone wants to keep the increased national defense budget (Gotta catch those terrorists, after all), and to be able to run his own agenda.

~HotShotX
 
these taxes have nothing to do with catching up to our budget shorfalls. These taxes are for funding new programs on top of the programs we already cannot pay for.
 
i keep hearing that our health care costs, particularly medicare and medicaid, especially with booby boomers cashing in on it and all their diabetes and crap, are the biggest financial burden our nation has in the near future... i thought that's obama's whole reasoning for wanting health care reform.. the health care reform they're proposing doesn't actually have much of an impact on patients, it's primarily an economic decision..
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']these taxes have nothing to do with catching up to our budget shorfalls. These taxes are for funding new programs on top of the programs we already cannot pay for.[/QUOTE]
that makes no sense -- it has everything to do with shortfalls.. you realize we cannot keep things as they are now and keep on truckin', right? medicare and medicaid are in the red, taxes would have to increase to pay for health care even if we changed nothing
 
[quote name='Koggit']that makes no sense -- it has everything to do with shortfalls.. you realize we cannot keep things as they are now and keep on truckin', right? medicare and medicaid are in the red, taxes would have to increase to pay for health care even if we changed nothing[/QUOTE]

medicare, medicaid and social security could have a war chest if they hadnt been borrowed against for the last 30 years.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']What's another trillion to them? Hell, after all our real debt is somewhere around $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion dollars).
Here's the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve in 2008:
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm
There's not even that much money in circulation. This reckless spending and printing of money will destroy the entire economy.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, that's not really our debt, just the unfunded promises Congress has made. Benefits could be curtailed or eliminated at any time. And they will, since we can't afford that kind of money.

Translation: don't bet on Social Security to be there for your retirement. But most of us weren't betting on that anyway (at least those of us under 55).
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']What's another trillion to them? Hell, after all our real debt is somewhere around $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion dollars).
Here's the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve in 2008:
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm
There's not even that much money in circulation. This reckless spending and printing of money will destroy the entire economy.[/QUOTE]

Do the words "over the infinite horizon" mean a fucking thing to you?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']To be fair, that's not really our debt, just the unfunded promises Congress has made. Benefits could be curtailed or eliminated at any time. And they will, since we can't afford that kind of money.

Translation: don't bet on Social Security to be there for your retirement. But most of us weren't betting on that anyway (at least those of us under 55).[/QUOTE]
There's going to be a lot of angry old people.

[quote name='mykevermin']Do the words "over the infinite horizon" mean a fucking thing to you?[/QUOTE]

Do the words "there's not that many dollars in circulation" mean anything to you?
In fact before the bailouts, there wasn't even a trillion dollars out there.
As of December 2007, currency in circulation—that is, U.S. coins and paper currency in the hands of the public—totaled about $829 billion dollars.
Click to expand...
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html
Add in another couple trillion for the bailouts, and you don't even get $10 trillion. Our "official" debt is around $12 trillion, and there is about $3-8 trillion in existence. (Adding in the money in the banks, along with the bailout money). Short of printing more money, or abolishing the Fed, there's no real way to pay that off in a reasonable amount of time.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']There's going to be a lot of angry old people.[/QUOTE]

Not just old people when we finally get around to even more damaging consequences of our profligate ways.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Do the words "there's not that many dollars in circulation" mean anything to you?[/QUOTE]

Let me demonstrate.

I will eat 99.2 Trillion "Hostess Twinkies" over the infinite horizon.

Now, I probably eat fewer than one "Twinkie" per year - but that doesn't change that the statement above is wholly true, and no more untrue than the initial statement you cited in this thread.

"The Cosby Show" will air 99.2 Trillion times over the infinite horizon.

My point is that numbers are meaningless if their danger is time-sensitive, and the numbers presented have no time-boundedness to them at all. It's a parlor trick. But, hey, if you want to be a mark, be my guest.
 
Most money is circulated in credit (or at least a good portion of it). It's still a very high number though (Well, unless you are going by what bill's have passed so far this year).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let me demonstrate.

I will eat 99.2 Trillion "Hostess Twinkies" over the infinite horizon.

Now, I probably eat fewer than one "Twinkie" per year - but that doesn't change that the statement above is wholly true, and no more untrue than the initial statement you cited in this thread.

"The Cosby Show" will air 99.2 Trillion times over the infinite horizon.

My point is that numbers are meaningless if their danger is time-sensitive, and the numbers presented have no time-boundedness to them at all. It's a parlor trick. But, hey, if you want to be a mark, be my guest.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, well a large amount of that money is about to be due, sooner rather than later.
The Board of Trustees report found that program costs will exceed tax revenues in 2016, a year sooner than predicted in last year's report. The trust fund will be exhausted in 2037, four years sooner than the 2008 estimate.
Click to expand...
We're going to have to decide whether we can still afford social security and Medicare. If we decide we can't handle the costs, then is everyone who paid into in it sol? What do we do when everyone gets pissed off that they aren't getting the same thing that their parents got, and they paid for? If we do decide we can afford social security how do we pay for it? Print money? Borrow money? Raise taxes? If we are going to give millions more health care, how do we know in fifty years or maybe even less that it won't end up like social security? My point is, we need to really cut back on spending, on things we don't need and can't afford, or else the federal government will collapse, under the weight of it's debt. One way to do that would be to abolish the Fed. We owe most of our "official" debt to the Federal Reserve, which is a private institution. We borrow money from them, they print it and we owe it to them. Why we do this, I don't know. Congress has the authority to create money, but instead they give that authority to a private bank, which we borrow money from, instead of Congress just printing money, and not ending up with $5+ trillion debt to a private bank. I would suggest you look up the Grace Commission if you want to see where our tax dollars really go. Here's a quote from the Grace Commission's findings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grace_Commission
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm
100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.
Click to expand...
As you can see, a large amount, if not most of your tax dollars go to paying back interest on the debt from the Federal Reserve. Here's a pie chart from 2006 showing official national debt:
7988_b.png
 
I get the feeling you don't understand how Social Security is funded if you think it's unsustainable on its own.

SS is fine, and will be fine. As long as it stops lending money to its junkie brother, federal spending.

As for medicaire - if you're opposed to Obama's health care plan, you're wilfully ignoring a plan to decrease medical spending (on a per capita level).

WTF is 'dollardaze.org'? There has to be some standard for what websites people will cull shit from just to try to get a point across. There isn't, of course. But there should be.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I get the feeling you don't understand how Social Security is funded if you think it's unsustainable on its own.

SS is fine, and will be fine. As long as it stops lending money to its junkie brother, federal spending. [/QUOTE]

The problem is, it is always lending money to its junkie brother, and because of that its going to be broke pretty soon. Congress seems to think they can just take money from any fund, and pay it back some day. Until they realize they have done that too much and fix it, social security is dead. Although, with all the money that has been borrowed from the social security fund, I don't know that it can be fixed.

As for medicaire - if you're opposed to Obama's health care plan, you're wilfully ignoring a plan to decrease medical spending (on a per capita level).
Click to expand...
But, it bill cost another trillion to the U.S. government, which unless it was reformed, like the Grace Commission suggested, can't really afford.

WTF is 'dollardaze.org'? There has to be some standard for what websites people will cull shit from just to try to get a point across. There isn't, of course. But there should be.
Click to expand...
It's apparently a good one because many websites like to link to it.
It's also the first image that comes up in a google image search for
composition of the u.s. national debt
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1571.html
www.safehaven.com/article-7988.htm
http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/US_national_debt_housing_071920073
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I get the feeling you don't understand how Social Security is funded if you think it's unsustainable on its own.

SS is fine, and will be fine. As long as it stops lending money to its junkie brother, federal spending.[/QUOTE]

Have they ever tried to say 'we're not spending this money over here'? I think they tried, but were denied by the Supreme Court. Not really sure, though.
 
wikipedia.

:lol:

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']The problem is, it is always lending money to its junkie brother, and because of that its going to be broke pretty soon. Congress seems to think they can just take money from any fund, and pay it back some day. Until they realize they have done that too much and fix it, social security is dead. Although, with all the money that has been borrowed from the social security fund, I don't know that it can be fixed.[/quote]

The problem then is not SS, so why be concerned about SS's sustainability? Focus on controlling spending and SS will take care of itself. We don't need to be concerned about controlling spending AND fixing SS.

That's my point.

It's like buying one of those shampoo/conditioner all-in-ones. You don't need to worry about conditioning your hair. It's already taken care of when you wash! Amazing!

But, it bill cost another trillion to the U.S. government, which unless it was reformed, like the Grace Commission suggested, can't really afford.
Click to expand...

We either (1) continue to pay through the nose through medicare, and (estimated) within the next 2-3 decades, as health care costs continue to increase, we end up spending more overall for care for fewer people, we (2) follow through with Obama's plan that allows for public and private coverage, paying less over time for more people to be covered, or we (3) let those who can't afford medical care die, no matter what they have. Do you have any other solutions? Or perhaps you're a proponent of #3?
 
[quote name='mykevermin'](2) follow through with Obama's plan that allows for public and private coverage, paying less over time for more people to be covered, or we [/QUOTE]

How long do you think companies will pay for their employees health care when they could just let the government take care of it?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']wikipedia.

:lol:



The problem then is not SS, so why be concerned about SS's sustainability? Focus on controlling spending and SS will take care of itself. We don't need to be concerned about controlling spending AND fixing SS.

That's my point.

It's like buying one of those shampoo/conditioner all-in-ones. You don't need to worry about conditioning your hair. It's already taken care of when you wash! Amazing![/QUOTE]

There's nothing left in the SS fund. It's all T-Bills and T-Bonds that we don't have the money to pay out on. Once SS income becomes lower than the amount that is supposed to be payed out, the T-Bonds, and T-Bills will be redeemed, and there's no money to pay for that.

We either (1) continue to pay through the nose through medicare, and (estimated) within the next 2-3 decades, as health care costs continue to increase, we end up spending more overall for care for fewer people, we (2) follow through with Obama's plan that allows for public and private coverage, paying less over time for more people to be covered, or we (3) let those who can't afford medical care die, no matter what they have. Do you have any other solutions? Or perhaps you're a proponent of #3?
Click to expand...
I don't want federal government run health care for 2 reasons.
1. The federal government can't manage it's own money.
2. We don't have a trillion dollars, and taxing people with health care benefits will make things worse for them.
3. Free health care would overload the system.
However I would support something like we have in Minnesota being instituted across the country. MinnesotaCare, as it is called provides health insurance through the state of Minnesota, and the cost is determined by your income.This also works in Minnesota, and I think it would be a better idea than government run health care, as it works, and is inexpensive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='perdition(troy']How long do you think companies will pay for their employees health care when they could just let the government take care of it?[/QUOTE]

how long do you plan on having an opinion about obama's plan, but remaining uninformed about it?

edit: fullmetalfan, jump in on this wagon with troy. if you think it's "universal care," then you're not allowed to speak your mind until you go get informed about Obama's proposal.

An apple doesn't taste like purple, Karl Marx did not excel at the pole valut, Toyota isn't interested in the Norwegian metal scene, and Obama's proposal ain't universal coverage.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']how long do you plan on having an opinion about obama's plan, but remaining uninformed about it?

edit: fullmetalfan, jump in on this wagon with troy. if you think it's "universal care," then you're not allowed to speak your mind until you go get informed about Obama's proposal.

An apple doesn't taste like purple, Karl Marx did not excel at the pole valut, Toyota isn't interested in the Norwegian metal scene, and Obama's proposal ain't universal coverage.[/QUOTE]

It's damn close enough to universal health care. All children would be forced to have health care. The federal government running health care will not work, because if you cover people with pre-existing conditions, it will cost a shit ton of money. There's a reason why health care companies don't. Then if you give everyone cheap health care, who wants it, you're looking at spending a massive amount of money. Even with all these supposed ways that will save money, I don't see how we can afford it. The fact is the federal government can't run anything for shit, and I don't think health care will be any different.
This guy makes some good points:http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...-wrong-with-obamas-health-care-plan.html#more
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']It's damn close enough to universal health care. All children would be forced to have health care. The federal government running health care will not work, because if you cover people with pre-existing conditions, it will cost a shit ton of money. There's a reason why health care companies don't. Then if you give everyone cheap health care, who wants it, you're looking at spending a massive amount of money. Even with all these supposed ways that will save money, I don't see how we can afford it. The fact is the federal government can't run anything for shit, and I don't think health care will be any different.
This guy makes some good points:http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...-wrong-with-obamas-health-care-plan.html#more[/QUOTE]

You're not really making any points - you're just droning on and on in a variant of the "government can't do things right; therefore we must privatize it!" argument.

How many more megacorporations have to fall before your very eyes in order for you to discover that the private sector is not the answer, and that the private sector is not perfect?
 
Of course. Which is why we should have taken our social security money and put it in the stock market, right Broly? We'd be so much better off financially if we depended on the free market!
 
At least you'd get to say 'there's my money' every now and again.

I don't think we can get privatized SS right now anyways. The Government would have to do a lot of smart things like dig themselves out of the huge hole they've dug themselves for a start, then change some laws around to make sure they can't spend that money, then build up some kind of bubble for a transitional period. But until you do that, it can't happen.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']At least you'd get to say 'there's my money' every now and again.

I don't think we can get privatized SS right now anyways. The Government would have to do a lot of smart things like dig themselves out of the huge hole they've dug themselves for a start, then change some laws around to make sure they can't spend that money, then build up some kind of bubble for a transitional period. But until you do that, it can't happen.[/QUOTE]

Let me ask you this to find out if you're a fool or an idiot - I've narrowed it down to those two, but can't decide which.

Do you WANT to put SS funds into the market?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're not really making any points - you're just droning on and on in a variant of the "government can't do things right; therefore we must privatize it!" argument.

How many more megacorporations have to fall before your very eyes in order for you to discover that the private sector is not the answer, and that the private sector is not perfect?[/QUOTE]

So what is the answer? Socialism? Or Fascism, as our government likes? The reason this depression happened is because of the Federal Reserve, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Both of those enabled corrupt bankers to make a lot of money, and destroy the economy on derivatives.
 
My choices are socalism/facism or whatever is behind curtain #2? No wonder you're such a fool - you can't think beyond more than two categories at a time.

As for Glass-Steagall, that's laughably pathetic of you, and just reinforces that you're a man with a conclusion in search of an explanation.

Let's blame 76 year old legislation, and not mind its repeal more than 2 decades ago. And, of course, nothing else.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My choices are socalism/facism or whatever is behind curtain #2? No wonder you're such a fool - you can't think beyond more than two categories at a time.

As for Glass-Steagall, that's laughably pathetic of you, and just reinforces that you're a man with a conclusion in search of an explanation.

Let's blame 76 year old legislation, and not mind its repeal more than 2 decades ago. And, of course, nothing else.[/QUOTE]

What I was asking, since you can't read, is what is your solution to this financial crisis? It seems you like socialism, so that is one thing I suggested. Fascism as our government has been into with the bailouts, and other things.

On Glass-Steagall, it was repealed 10 years ago, not 20, and by being repealed allowed the banks to buy securities made up of sub-prime loans, which caused many financial institutions to collapse.
 
Ok, so it was repealed ten years ago. It was then not the Act itself, but it's repeal, that greatly contributed to that. But that repeal was done in the name of deregulation - in other words, by giving greater power to private interests and taking away government oversight. Not a very libertarian viewpoint.

Ron Paul would not have approved.

My solution to the financial crisis? Either (1) bring the marginal tax rate back to 1980 levels (i.e., twice what it is now), (2) institute a maximum wage (including newly acquired holdings, not growth in previously acquired holdings), or (3) both.

This, of course, includes someone to finally do, and not just say, that they will close tax loopholes and int'l tax shelters exploited by the wealthy and their corporations.

Soak the rich, in other words.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course. Which is why we should have taken our social security money and put it in the stock market, right Broly? We'd be so much better off financially if we depended on the free market![/QUOTE]

You must have a very short memory. Sure, if you started putting money in the market in 2005, it's gone down. Obviously. But over the long haul, as a retirement fund would in for, the market has far outperformed the Social Security returns (which are barely the rate of inflation) throughout our history. So yes, I still would support putting SS funds in the market, understanding that over 40+ years the market has always gone up more than what the government is offering. OTOH, I think we should abolish Social Security or at least make it voluntary. But if we must force people to do what the government thinks is best with regards to saving for retirement, at least let met get a decent return.

[quote name='mykevermin']how long do you plan on having an opinion about obama's plan, but remaining uninformed about it?[/QUOTE]

It's hard to be informed since the bill isn't fully written and plans are still evolving.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']There's nothing left in the SS fund. It's all T-Bills and T-Bonds that we don't have the money to pay out on. Once SS income becomes lower than the amount that is supposed to be payed out, the T-Bonds, and T-Bills will be redeemed, and there's no money to pay for that.[/QUOTE]

True, there is nothing left in the SS trust fund. It's IOUs that, given the way we are spending ourselves into oblivion, aren't worth too much. But keep in mind SS gets dedicated tax money. So myke's point, which should be taken, is that if politicians can keep their grubby hands off SS money (impossible now but when where is no SS surplus they'll have a hard time taking any of it), we can still pay ~70% of benefits to retirees using money coming in from younger, employed people. I'd say that still needs to be fixed in order to fulfill promises made, but even if that ends up being the case 70% is a lot better than 0%.

But I digress. Someone mentioned "millions" more for health care. That gave me a good laugh. That's like saying we spent "thousands" on bailouts.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Oh?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,3508020,full.story[/QUOTE]

I think I mentioned this in the other thread about healthcare how you don't want someone's salary to depend on whether or not you get coverage, an excerpt from the article:

"It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses."

I don't begrudge companies to make a profit, but damn, something just seems wrong about that.
 
Conservatives would say those people should be cast to the wayside so we don't have to pay a dime more in taxes. Because America is all about keeping every single dollar I ever make. No one can tell me to give any of my hard earned dollars to the lady down the street so she can get mammogram. I'm sure her grandchildren will all start selling lemonade so she can afford to pay out of pocket. Maybe her kids could take that second mortgage out and risk foreclosure just so conservatives don't have to deal with any more taxes.

It's good thing Americans sacrificed and went down to Philadelphia to help write a Constitution because conservatives would've told the rest of America to shove it or provide an expense account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top