The 8 biggest economic lies

[Mav88]

Also, Mav wrote:"[Piezoe] spouts ideas easily shown incorrect like the military budet [sic] is larger than entitlements."

This is incorrect, Mav. I never said that, nor would I. What I did say is that the deficits are largely due to discretionary spending, not entitlements.

ok I should have said discretionary and deficits. You are still wrong.

This is incorrect, Mav. I never said that, nor would I. What I did say is that the deficits are largely due to discretionary spending, not entitlements. This is correct, of course, because its been the money in the entitlement trusts that's been borrowed and used to pay for excesses in the discretionary budget! In the main, the amounts collected (separately, by the way) for entitlement payments have been calculated by actuaries and are intended to balance, over time, entitlement expenditures.

No numbers, no evidence at all, just assertions which are at odds with numerical reality. You have a real problem with arithmetic.

In summary, the source of deficits, to a major extent is arising in the discretionary budget, and not the entitlement budget. The trusts of the entitlement programs have ironically served as an indirect source of funding for the discretionary budget. Since military spending is the major component of the discretionary budget, it will have to be targeted

In summary you are wrong.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/facing-facts/what-medicare-surplus

Trust-fund accounting obscures the fiscal bottom line by counting prior-year surpluses, together with the interest-earned thereon, as genuine savings. In reality, these “assets” are simply claims on future taxpayers. According to the White House, Medicare will run a trust-fund surplus of $526 billion over the next ten years. Excluding interest, its cash surplus of earmarked tax revenue over outlays will be just $277 billion.

These figures, moreover, only refer to Hospital Insurance (HI) or Medicare Part A, which brings us to a second problem. Trust-fund accounting lets leaders ignore Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), Medicare's other half. The SMI or Part B trust fund is always “solvent” since general revenues plug any gap between beneficiary premiums and outlays. Solvency, however, is not the same as sustainability. The White House projects that SMI's general revenue subsidy will total $1,171 billion over the next ten years. Subtracting this from HI's cash surplus yields a combined deficit of $894 billion.

Critics object to combining HI and SMI. But why, when they pay benefits to the same people for the same general purpose? Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance, which have much less in common, are routinely totaled up and called “Social Security.” The critics are right that SMI was never designed to be self-financing. But that is precisely the point. Its general revenue subsidy gives Medicare a large, growing, and permanent claim on the rest of the budget

The false argument that the Republicans are using to blame entitlements for deficits has to do, i'm sure, more with political philosophy than any thing else, but the American voter is not known for deep philosophical thought. Thus those philosophically opposed to entitlement programs are using politically-better-selling gee whiz numbers based on the calculation of future obligations to these programs. When these numbers are projected out ten and twenty years hence they sound absolutely gigantic , and they are naturally, because you are talking about the medicare costs and pension costs of a nation of 300 million plus people. But surprisingly, if you make timely adjustments to the contribution rates into these programs now, and don't put them off, these future obligations can be met except for one, and that is medical cost! Medical costs, for years, have been rising much faster than the inflation rate. Obviously this is not sustainable and something must be done about it.

Timely adjustments for $50-100T without any details provided? A hand waving assertion that 'something' must be done? All after castigating other for lacking deep thinking skills.

I do see however you seem to be admitting they may be a problem here.

The other real concern is that the congress has borrowed heavily from the Social Security Trust Fund, which currently has an accumulated surplus of about 3 trillion dollars. Instead of investing the borrowed money, however, much of it was spent on wasting assets, i.e., military adventurism, a failed drug policy, ineffective homeland security spending, CIA, etc. In my personal opinion, much of this spending is motivated by political expediency and irrational fear, originating in special interest groups.

You forgot to add wasted on medicare part B and medicaid, which have no trust funds. Intellectually lazy. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

An imaginary $2.5T with imaginary interest return on the balance.

Because of this problem, and the lack of political will to make deep cuts in the discretionary budget, you are going to see the entitlement programs incorrectly and unfairly targeted, because that's where the money is.

You mean that's where the spending is, another tacit admission that's where the problem is. When one cuts budgets, one has to usually cut the largest items. Regarding the military, why don't you try reading once in a while http://www.stripes.com/gates-dod-budget-cuts-will-require-rethinking-missions-benefits-1.146688

Steep defense budget cuts will likely mean a smaller military and a radical redesign of military benefits, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers on Wednesday.

Defense Department leaders will offer a laundry list of potential cuts and estimates of the resulting national security limitations to the White House by the end of the summer, in response to President Barack Obama’s calls earlier this year for $400 billion in DOD budget cuts.
Gates expects that report to include a serious re-examination of military pay, retirement benefits, Tricare fees, weapons acquisition and even the fundamental two-war philosophy of the military. None of the moves alone are impossible or impractical, he emphasized, but leaders need to be aware that such a dramatic reduction in military spending will have ramifications for the power and capability of the services

....and your position that medical care is not the primary issue for deficits puts you at odds with obama. It's strange that it is me and barry against you on this one

Obama's answer was a variation on the sales pitch, Can you afford not to?

"I think it's a very legitimate question," Obama began. "I guess that the first point I'd make is, if we don't do anything, costs are going to go out of control. Nobody disputes this. Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and the federal debt by a huge margin."

If we don't do something soon to rein in health care costs, Obama said, Medicare and Medicaid "will consume all of the federal budget."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-medicare-and-medicaid-are-largest-defic/

 

[Mav88]

prices are high because the healthcare industry needs to grow. we need more doctors and medical schools, a ton more

Judging by the number of foreign born doctors I have seen, I doubt there is an issue with american kids being blocked from the medical profession. The fact is that it is hard work with about 12 years of school, most kids don't want that and I certainly don't want the less bright ones convinced into becoming doctors.

If I were a smart young guy looking for a career, why would I want to be a doctor when people like you are trying push my wages down and create a surplus?

Prices are high because new treatments are constantly being invented and naturally poeple want that. When gov't forces providers to operate at below market costs, the distortions make prices high.

 

[Mav88]

The fundamental question is- Why are you entitled to have others pay for your health care when you don't have the money? Of course there is no answer. The follow on the is how much and under what conditions?

The fundamental problem is that the left has won the minds of the people. Everyone is convinced of their birthright to have all their healthcare needs covered from cradle to grave. Politicians and idealogues don't care about the unworkability of such a thing, they want power and to feel good. Michelle Obama gets to feel better about her country but then the rest of us have to deal with the mess.

Rationing started almost from day one of gov't healthcare, hasn't anyone on the left noticed?

 

[bigarrow]

Mav88 do you have plans on what you're going to do once you're to old to stay on your parents health care plan?

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from Mav88:

Why are you entitled to have others pay for your health care when you don't have the money?

Because they are entitled to have me pay for theirs when they don't have the money.

It's an extension of the family/tribe.

Rationing of health care happens under all systems, "governmental" or otherwise. The only real difference is the mechanism used to control the rationing.

 

[Mav88]

Mav88 do you have plans on what you're going to do once you're to old to stay on your parents health care plan?

make you pay of course

 

[Mav88]

Because they are entitled to have me pay for theirs when they don't have the money.

It's an extension of the family/tribe.

Rationing of health care happens under all systems, "governmental" or otherwise. The only real difference is the mechanism used to control the rationing.

What happens when the 'tribe' is broke?

What makes your definition of tribe and family the only one?

What if I don't want to be in your tribe?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from bigarrow:

Would you be against the consumer having the choice to chose between a public option and private insurance or some combination of public/private choice? Are you for total regulation free health care too?

1) Health care isn't my area of expertise - I make no claims to Knowing/having all the answers

2) the scariest thing about any sort of universal/centralized care for me is the who will be managing it. An out of control over reaching bureaucracy staffed by inept incompetent corrupt dumber than dog shit career bureaucrats.

That same people who have managed to fuck up virtually every aspect of federal government.

 

[Mav88]

the scariest thing about any sort of universal/centralized care for me is the who will be managing it. An out of control over reaching bureaucracy staffed by inept incompetent corrupt dumber than dog shit career bureaucrats.

well Luc, random says we are a tribe. Of course that simple trite answer to a complicated and important issue ignores the fact that there have been countless tribes with countless different ways of handling health care, but hey he feels good about it and that's all that matters.

Just think of the nightmarish bureaucrats if we are to be like a scythian tribe:

Likewise, the ancient Scythians believed that suicide was a great honor when individuals became too old for their nomadic way of life, thereby sparing the younger members of the tribe the burden of carrying or killing them

http://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/task_force/reports_publications/when_death_is_sought/chap5.htm

tribe my ass, tribes are dictatorships, people came here from europe to escape tribalism

 

[Mav88]

...more interesting anecdotes about some family values regarding health care

Thalaikoothal (Tamil: தலைக்கூத்தல், lit. showering) is the traditional practice of senicide (killing of the elderly) or involuntary euthanasia, by their own family members, observed in some parts of southern districts of Tamil Nadu state of India. In this, the elderly person is given an extensive oil-bath early in the morning and subsequently made to drink glasses of tender coconut water which results in renal failure, high fever, fits, and death within a day or two. [1][2] The practice is illegal in India.[3]

Thalaikoothal has long received covert social acceptance, and in some case the family even inform their relatives before performing thalikoothal. [4] Though issue recently made news in early 2010, when an 80-year old man escaped when he came to know of his fate and heard his family members discussing how they were going to "share" his lands, and took refuge in a relative's home. Subsequent investigation revealed the practice to a "fairly widespread "in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu, and people seldom complain to the police.[5][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalaikoothal


Here's a liberal making a mess of things. The tortured contradiction is painful to read. First the liberal says that putting old people on icefloes and setting them off to die was just fine for the inuit because it was their way and life was hard. We must be understanding and enlightened of course. Then even though they admit withholding other people's money (or borrowed money from victims too young to have a voice) from seniors is not quite the same thing, it's close enough in the liberal mind to draw comparison and declare it much more cruel than putting grandma on an iceberg to die. Of course evil capitalism is to blame for it all.

http://www.projectnola.com/component/content/article/89-american-zombie/80007-sliding-to-senilicide

While some of their past practices may seem cruel by modern standards, I had the pleasure of spending a couple of weeks with an Inuit tribe from Point Barrow, Alaska while working at the Smithsonian and I can tell you their social bonds and sense of altruism left me envious. I often think I would have rather lived 50 good years in such a rich cultural and social environment like theirs than 90 years in the often isolated existence known as "civilized society".

Just love those tourist asswipes who visit a primitive culture and say things like that, then head home again to this cruel uncivilized world.

Point being, the practice of senilicide with the Inuit was incorporated out of pure necessity. If an effort unfolds to incorporate a watered down version of senilicide in modern society the impetus would have to be "it's necessary and the best thing for our society as a whole". You may think the notion is ludicrous but a society bound by the single teleologic goal of increasing capital can eventually justify anything, especially when the select few who reap the benefit of any capital gain control the media and attention of the general populous within the society.

pure necessity? Single teleologic goal of increasing capital? Just what was the goal of the inuit?

What the hell is wrong with liberals anyway? Seriously, I don't know how to even begin a reasonable conversation with such people when we start with the fact we are going broke trying to keep grandma off the iceberg and then they respond with this bullocks.