The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Gil Gunderson]

MikeC, you also have to consider the impact of Bush's other big ticket items, such as NCLB and Medicare Part D.  NCLB is one thing, as it can, and probably will, be amended.  However, Part D added another costly entitlement onto an already costly entitlement.

And yes, the DoD's budget should be pared down.  It is the largest share of discretionary spending and has was too many money holes.

Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements.  It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president. 

[Brownie]

MikeC, you also have to consider the impact of Bush's other big ticket items, such as NCLB and Medicare Part D.  NCLB is one thing, as it can, and probably will, be amended.  However, Part D added another costly entitlement onto an already costly entitlement.

Yes, this. Very much so, this. Conservatives should (and many do) have a major problem with these bills.

And yes, the DoD's budget should be pared down.  It is the largest share of discretionary spending and has was too many money holes.

I agree, but Bush's original plan was to do more with less. That was Rumsfeld's charge when he came in to be SecDef in 2001. The execution sucked. However, I think Gates might actually be up to the task of bringing military costs under control.

Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements.  It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president. 

That is the problem with entitlements. You can't get rid of them once they're there. Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it. No one dare touch Medicare. We all saw what happened when Bush vetoed an expansion of SCHIP.

[Tank]

Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements.  It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president. 

By "entitlements" I assume you're talking first and foremost about Medicare.

Maybe Obama should think about trying to reign in out-of-control health care spending.

Someone should write that down and stuff it in the White House "Idea Box."

[morpheus]

MikeC, you also have to consider the impact of Bush's other big ticket items, such as NCLB and Medicare Part D.  NCLB is one thing, as it can, and probably will, be amended.  However, Part D added another costly entitlement onto an already costly entitlement.

And yes, the DoD's budget should be pared down.  It is the largest share of discretionary spending and has was too many money holes.

Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements.  It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president. 

Gil makes good points here, although I'd argue that if there was an area that the Federal Government should be spending money in, it would be DoD.

As for the question about the national debt, it's easy to look that up.  According to the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds statements, total liabilities of the Federal Government went from $4.546T in Q4 1997 to $4.232T in Q4 2000, or about a $330B decrease. On the other hand, the Office of Management and Budget says that Gross Federal Debt went from $5.369T in 1997 to $5.628T in 2000.  That breaks down into debt held by the "public" ($3.772T to $3.409T) and "held by Federal Government Accounts" ($1.597T to $2.219T).  There's where the difference is likely coming from - debt held by the public went down by some $300B but debt held by the Federal Government went up by some $500B.  Now, what part of the Federal Government is holding Federal debt? 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/histint.html

Gross Federal debt is composed both of Federal debt held (owned) by the public and Federal debt held by Federal Government accounts, which is mostly held by trust funds. Federal debt held by the public consists of all Federal debt held outside the Federal Government accounts. For example, it includes debt held by individuals, private banks and insurance companies, the Federal Reserve Banks, and foreign central banks. The sale (or repayment) of Federal debt to the public is the principal means of financing a Federal budget deficit (or disposing of a Federal budget surplus).

Yep, Social Security and Medicare.  In other words, this is indeed a case of "fuzzy math" - it all depends on whether or not you include SS and Medicare as part of total Federal debt or not.

[Tank]

Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.

And rightly so.

Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?

Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.

It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.

[Gil Gunderson]

Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements.  It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president. 

By "entitlements" I assume you're talking first and foremost about Medicare.

Maybe Obama should think about trying to reign in out-of-control health care spending.

Someone should write that down and stuff it in the White House "Idea Box."

Of course.  I applaud him for trying to reform the system, but I would like to see some wholesale changes, such as the elimination of Part D.

I would like to see this Idea Box, as well.

[Brownie]

Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.

And rightly so.

Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?

Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.

It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.

OK, so will you let me take my hedge and double it down? Or maybe you can allow me to invest it as I see fit, and either live or die by the sword but at least be a free man able to make a foolish decision? SS still promises me monthly payments when I get old, right?

[RV]

Gil makes good points here, although I'd argue that if there was an area that the Federal Government should be spending money in, it would be DoD.

morph, this isn't directed at you, but I absolutely cannot fathom how the desire for smaller government/less spending can be reconciled with a polite dismissal of the fact that we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military:



Or that defense spending accounts for around 40% of the federal budget:



But meh, I'm sure there's no fat to be trimmed there. Let's focus on 60% of the budget and ignore 40% of it. We've got a Cold War to win, right?

If there's a true third rail in politics, it's defense spending. No one from either party wants to address this element of the deficit.

[morpheus]

Gil makes good points here, although I'd argue that if there was an area that the Federal Government should be spending money in, it would be DoD.

morph, this isn't directed at you, but I absolutely cannot fathom how the desire for smaller government/less spending can be reconciled with a polite dismissal of the fact that we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military:



Or that defense spending accounts for around 40% of the federal budget:



But meh, I'm sure there's no fat to be trimmed there. Let's focus on 60% of the budget and ignore 40% of it. We've got a Cold War to win, right?

If there's a true third rail in politics, it's defense spending. No one from either party wants to address this element of the deficit.

What % of the Federal budget is the correct one for Defense?  Just curious.  I desire a smaller and less intrusive government, but defense is an area where the government provides a comparative advantage, as opposed to, say, agriculture.

[Tank]

Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.

And rightly so.

Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?

Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.

It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.

OK, so will you let me take my hedge and double it down? Or maybe you can allow me to invest it as I see fit, and either live or die by the sword but at least be a free man able to make a foolish decision? SS still promises me monthly payments when I get old, right?

What if you double down and lose everything (savings, investments, property) due to some unforeseen tragedy? Would you really die by that sword? Would we as a society let you?

More to the point: what if broad swathes of the public do the same and find their safety nets evaporate at exactly the wrong time (be it retirement, disability or a loved one's untimely death) because they had everything pegged it to the ups and downs of the business cycle?

Say, for sake of this scenario, we see a new Great Depression (the original Depression being the context from which SS was birthed) that leaves millions indigent. Do you really expect, in any practical sense, our nation to say, "you live by the sword, you die by the sword"?

No. If these people were to become a burden on their families and the communities around them, society would wind up paying the price (both monetarily and socially) in any event. Either because that's just the right thing to do or because it would be politically untenable to do otherwise.

Social Security allows to to ameliorate some of that.

It is not, fundamentally, an investment. It's a safety net that provides for a risk floor (and, actually, a fairly low one at that).

Moreover, it's not just a safety net for individuals.

It's social insurance that insures both individuals and the society that would be forced to deal with them in any event against a certain amount of catastrophic risk, through a broad and all-inclusive risk pool, and defined benefits that are not completely handcuffed to the business cycle.

[Gil Gunderson]

Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.

And rightly so.

Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?

Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.

It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.

OK, so will you let me take my hedge and double it down? Or maybe you can allow me to invest it as I see fit, and either live or die by the sword but at least be a free man able to make a foolish decision? SS still promises me monthly payments when I get old, right?

What if you double down and lose everything (savings, investments, property) due to some unforeseen tragedy? Would you really die by that sword? Would we as a society let you?

More to the point: what if broad swathes of the public do the same and find their safety nets evaporate at exactly the wrong time (be it retirement, disability or a loved one's untimely death) because they had everything pegged it to the ups and downs of the business cycle?

Say, for sake of this scenario, we see a new Great Depression (the original Depression being the context from which SS was birthed) that leaves millions indigent. Do you really expect, in any practical sense, our nation to say, "you live by the sword, you die by the sword"?

No. If these people were to become a burden on their families and the communities around them, society would wind up paying the price (both monetarily and socially) in any event. Either because that's just the right thing to do or because it would be politically untenable to do otherwise.

Social Security allows to to ameliorate some of that.

It is not, fundamentally, an investment. It's a safety net that provides for a risk floor (and, actually, a fairly low one at that).

Moreover, it's not just a safety net for individuals.

It's social insurance that insures both individuals and the society that would be forced to deal with them in any event against a certain amount of catastrophic risk, through a broad and all-inclusive risk pool, and defined benefits that are not completely handcuffed to the business cycle.

Under the scenario that you laid out, Thrill, I think this country would then be the functional equivalent of a third-world country.  Huge portions of the country without resources, or food, or medicine.

SS was also an attempt to increase employment.  During the Depression, there were incredible numbers of elderly who were without the means to obtain the basic needs of daily living.  These people sought employment in whatever fields they could, and in doing so, crowded out others from similarly obtaining employment.  SS removed those people from the labor pool and made finding employment somewhat easier for others.

[Brownie]

Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.

And rightly so.

Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?

Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.

It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.

OK, so will you let me take my hedge and double it down? Or maybe you can allow me to invest it as I see fit, and either live or die by the sword but at least be a free man able to make a foolish decision? SS still promises me monthly payments when I get old, right?

What if you double down and lose everything (savings, investments, property) due to some unforeseen tragedy? Would you really die by that sword? Would we as a society let you?

More to the point: what if broad swathes of the public do the same and find their safety nets evaporate at exactly the wrong time (be it retirement, disability or a loved one's untimely death) because they had everything pegged it to the ups and downs of the business cycle?

Say, for sake of this scenario, we see a new Great Depression (the original Depression being the context from which SS was birthed) that leaves millions indigent. Do you really expect, in any practical sense, our nation to say, "you live by the sword, you die by the sword"?

No. If these people were to become a burden on their families and the communities around them, society would wind up paying the price (both monetarily and socially) in any event. Either because that's just the right thing to do or because it would be politically untenable to do otherwise.

Social Security allows to to ameliorate some of that.

It is not, fundamentally, an investment. It's a safety net that provides for a risk floor (and, actually, a fairly low one at that).

Moreover, it's not just a safety net for individuals.

It's social insurance that insures both individuals and the society that would be forced to deal with them in any event against a certain amount of catastrophic risk, through a broad and all-inclusive risk pool, and defined benefits that are not completely handcuffed to the business cycle.

Under the scenario that you laid out, Thrill, I think this country would then be the functional equivalent of a third-world country.  Huge portions of the country without resources, or food, or medicine.

SS was also an attempt to increase employment.  During the Depression, there were incredible numbers of elderly who were without the means to obtain the basic needs of daily living.  These people sought employment in whatever fields they could, and in doing so, crowded out others from similarly obtaining employment.  SS removed those people from the labor pool and made finding employment somewhat easier for others.

But, waiiiit.... Who says you have to (or even should) invest in Enron shares? What if you have low risk tolerance so simply elect to invest in Treasuries? Would you not have as good (if not better) return than old fashioned SS?

[Philberto]

Gil makes good points here, although I'd argue that if there was an area that the Federal Government should be spending money in, it would be DoD.

morph, this isn't directed at you, but I absolutely cannot fathom how the desire for smaller government/less spending can be reconciled with a polite dismissal of the fact that we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military:



Or that defense spending accounts for around 40% of the federal budget:



But meh, I'm sure there's no fat to be trimmed there. Let's focus on 60% of the budget and ignore 40% of it. We've got a Cold War to win, right?

If there's a true third rail in politics, it's defense spending. No one from either party wants to address this element of the deficit.

I can deal with Defense being 50% of the budget, even... if some cuts come from useless areas... And by useless, I mean Welfare and Health Care... Low rate of return things. The right things

[CT III]

Paul Vallas will not be riding to the rescue of you Strogerites in 2010.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1618674,paul-vallas-election-chicago-061109.article

[MAD]

Paul Vallas will not be riding to the rescue of you Strogerites in 2010.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1618674,paul-vallas-election-chicago-061109.article

And to think that this very morning I had gotten my hopes up that he would eschew the County Board presidency for the mayor's seat.