why big government programs = MASSIVE FAIL

[Billy the Great Khan]

We have programs that arent in any budget right, black ops off the record stuff right? How could i show it, when most of it is a secret?

Those programs comprise around $50,000,000. So cutting those really wouldn't solve anything.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/socialsecurity/a/cboonssa.htm

This article quotes a CBO estimate for SS alone at over $8-10 Trillion in unfunded liabilities

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

also.... this was done by the CBO in 2004....http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5771&type=0&sequence=2 Look down at table 4 and the comments below it. Then tell us... do you think things have gotten better or worse since then?

I love how some folks deride the CBO when their findings look bad for their argument, but when it looks like good news, all of a sudden the CBO is holy writ.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Whether "it is done in this manner" doesn't answer the question of whether Medicare costs are ONLY lower because hospitals charge more to non-Medicare patients as you asserted. So go piss up a rope, Cochise.

ok... the vast majority/bulk of 'savings' difference is due to this.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Could you be specific? Outside of military and FDA (in most ways), being effective, what other big programs do you think the government has managed well? If they'd left SSI funding in place, perhaps that would have been one. Alas, they didn't, so which do you consider wonderfully efficient and well managed?

The following seems pretty typical of how these programs run, perhaps do to a lack of regulations on the government?

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2011/06/apocalyptic-financial-numbers-.html

Ya know it seems that the right wing is under the utterly predictable impression that only the military is run efficiently by the government. The whole argument is an absurd one. Any large program has inefficiencies, just as big businesses do. Please show me where private sector free market programs are more efficient then, social security, medicare/medicaid, national defense, veterans affairs, public utilities, etc?

My point is affective government is important. We only have to look at how FEMA has functioned during national disasters under Presidents Clinton and Obama vs the utter incompetence of the organization under Bush during the Katrina disaster. Please explain to me how some private sector entity didn't just stand up and who us how much more efficient they are at managing a natural disaster? They didn't? Oh and why is that? Cause they can't and they aren't.

Affective, well organized and responsive government administration is critical to our well being as a civilized society and ideological anti-government rhetoric is almost always a self fullfilling prophecy for bad government. The Bush administration was one giant glaring example of that fact.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

And corporations consider taxes part of the cost of doing business. And what happens when business expenses go up? If you answered "Prices go up" give yourself a cigar.

Wages have declined or stayed flat for most Americans while corporate profits have risen. Corporate profits grew 36.8 percent in 2010, the biggest gain since 1950.

Have prices fallen?




http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage_rates/blog/201468.aspx


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/27/111113/strong-corporate-profits-amid.html

 

[Annie]

Ya know it seems that the right wing is under the utterly predictable impression that only the military is run efficiently by the government. The whole argument is an absurd one. Any large program has inefficiencies, just as big businesses do. Please show me where private sector free market programs are more efficient then, social security, medicare/medicaid, national defense, veterans affairs, public utilities, etc?

My point is affective government is important. We only have to look at how FEMA has functioned during national disasters under Presidents Clinton and Obama vs the utter incompetence of the organization under Bush during the Katrina disaster. Please explain to me how some private sector entity didn't just stand up and who us how much more efficient they are at managing a natural disaster? They didn't? Oh and why is that? Cause they can't and they aren't.

Affective, well organized and responsive government administration is critical to our well being as a civilized society and ideological anti-government rhetoric is almost always a self fullfilling prophecy for bad government. The Bush administration was one giant glaring example of that fact.

So your long winded response is FEMA and that you think the military is ineffective?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

How is the military 'effective'?

Did they prevent 9/11?

Did we find WMD in Iraq?

Is Afghanistan free from strife and standing on it's own as a democracy?

 

[Bfgrn]

Then I apologize, it has been posted by the left wingers on this site a few thousand times. I made an incorrect assumption that you had made at least one of the other posts.



I have criticized Bush for doing so many times over the past 8 years. The POINT is that the BUSH tax cuts ended on Dec. 31st 2010. The BUSH tax cuts do NOT effect the deficit beyond that time. In 2011 and 2012 the OBAMA tax cuts will. Beyond 2012, we have yet to see, but as of right now, the entire tax bracket will revert back to Clinton era rates at the start of 2013.



This is just the standard line of crap used by fear mongers. The 'oh, because they are changing it, it means they want to end it'.



Blah blah blah talking point blah blah blah fear mongering blah....



Ok. I have NO problem with programs like the above. I agree that portion is beneficial as is preventative care measures.



Obama care overall ADDS to health care costs. It does not address the cost structure, it simply changes HOW it is paid for.



Agreed, everyone should have a living will in place.



Moron. I encourage and recommend to all of my clients to take care of this. So quit assuming you know my position on it. But you are taking one small part of Obama care and pretending that is the be all end all. It is not. It also does not address the $60 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

I can see by your need to constantly chop up my posts, which I respectfully asked you not to do, that you have an attention deficit disorder, but see if you can follow along.

When I say 'you right winger(s) (plural) I am not singling 'you' out. OK...now pay attention

President Obama and Democrats ran on health care reform, and McCain and Republicans also promised reform.

Obama won.

The President and Democrats actually DID what they said they would do.

And Republicans, at the beginning of this process made a strategic decision: they we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. They were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

So, Republicans SAID they were for reform, but all they were really for was destroying reform and causing Obama's Waterloo. And everything they said, like government takeover of health care and death panels were LIES.

NOW, you right winger(s) (plural) want to debate health care based on all those Republican lies as being fact.

They were lies when they said them and they are lies today.

 

[Minister of Truth]

How is the military 'effective'?

Did they prevent 9/11?

Did we find WMD in Iraq?

Is Afghanistan free from strife and standing on it's own as a democracy?

Only Example 1 is a real slam on the military's effectiveness. NORAD has done a pretty good job since then, though, and the civilian agencies were the one's with the intel that could have helped us with the attacks. If the WMDs don't exist (or at least aren't in Iraq) as most of us would accept, how is that the military's fault that they cannot be found? Finally, the middle east isn't really a culture capable of cultivating a democracy. The only thing that should be expected is security for the governments which have been set up, and seeing as how Karzai is still alive in Afghanistan, and al-Maliki is still alive in Iraq, the military has more-or-less done its job.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Only Example 1 is a real slam on the military's effectiveness. NORAD has done a pretty good job since then, though, and the civilian agencies were the one's with the intel that could have helped us with the attacks. If the WMDs don't exist (or at least aren't in Iraq) as most of us would accept, how is that the military's fault that they cannot be found? Finally, the middle east isn't really a culture capable of cultivating a democracy. The only thing that should be expected is security for the governments which have been set up, and seeing as how Karzai is still alive in Afghanistan, and al-Maliki is still alive in Iraq, the military has more-or-less done its job.

By your standard of effectiveness, the rest of the government is fucking stellar.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Not at all, you just came up with non-examples. The DOD wastes money like there's no tomorrow - you could use that as an example of how its a drain on public resources. If the EPA got tasked with ending all pollution by the end of the year, and it failed to do so, who would seriously use that as an argument to get rid of it?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Not at all, you just came up with non-examples. The DOD wastes money like there's no tomorrow - you could use that as an example of how its a drain on public resources. If the EPA got tasked with ending all pollution by the end of the year, and it failed to do so, who would seriously use that as an argument to get rid of it?

Who said 'get rid' of the DoD?

Just don't tell me it's any more 'effective' than any other government agency, and pretend it shouldn't get it's budget cut the same as any other program.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Who said 'get rid' of the DoD?

Just don't tell me it's any more 'effective' than any other government agency, and pretend it shouldn't get it's budget cut the same as any other program.

*Sigh* A lot of people want to delete the EPA. This thread opens up the door for deleting agencies such as the EPA, DOEs (both of them), DOA; while cutting back on departments such as the DOD, and programs such as medicare/medicaid and SS. Try and think this stuff through.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I can see by your need to constantly chop up my posts, which I respectfully asked you not to do, that you have an attention deficit disorder, but see if you can follow along.

It doesn't hurt you one bit, but does allow for points to be addressed individually. I am sorry that it offends you so, but I will continue to use the quote boxes in such a manner so that it is quite clear where my comments are directed. You are the one that seems to be distracted by it. So either deal with it or remain silent. Your choice.

When I say 'you right winger(s) (plural) I am not singling 'you' out. OK...now pay attention

President Obama and Democrats ran on health care reform, and McCain and Republicans also promised reform.

Obama won.

Great. no one disputed any of that. So the above is pointless to mention.

The President and Democrats actually DID what they said they would do.

No they did not. They said that the process would be transparent, it was not. They said they would work in a bipartisan manner, they did not. They said they would give time to the public to review and comment on the bill before passage, instead they forced a 2000 page bill down our throats and told us 'we have to pass it before you will like it' or some such nonsense. They said they would address the rise in costs... the monstrosity they created did no such thing.

And Republicans, at the beginning of this process made a strategic decision: they we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. They were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Just like Clinton, Obama rammed through legislation that was highly partisan with little input from the right.

So, Republicans SAID they were for reform, but all they were really for was destroying reform and causing Obama's Waterloo. And everything they said, like government takeover of health care and death panels were LIES.

More talking point nonsense from the left. Just because you don't LIKE the reform efforts of the Reps doesn't mean they aren't interested in reform. It means you simply don't like their methods, just as many on the right don't like the fiasco created by the Dems.

NOW, you right winger(s) (plural) want to debate health care based on all those Republican lies as being fact.

They were lies when they said them and they are lies today.

Again... NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the FACT that there are TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities.

You are simply trying to deflect away from the topic at hand because you are scared of debating what the unfunded liabilities mean to this country's economic future.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

*Sigh* A lot of people want to delete the EPA. This thread opens up the door for deleting agencies such as the EPA, DOEs (both of them), DOA; while cutting back on departments such as the DOD, and programs such as medicare/medicaid and SS. Try and think this stuff through.

I have thought it through. I have the benefit of impartiality, since I don't get paid by the Pentagon while I post slurs on the CiC from my duty station.

How much of this country's 'free enterprise' is government-funded?

Without the 'massive government spending' that Republicans have been crying about since January 2009, where would corporations get their profits?

 

[apple0154]

So you pick some obscure issue being debated in LA as an example of why we shouldn't look to reform programs that have trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Brilliant apple.

Thank-you, but one really doesn't have to be brilliant to know the same-old, same-old Repub solution because it's the same approach they use for everything, namely, cut entitlements like pensions and medicare. Do you ever wonder if the Repubs had any idea back in 2001/02 about pension and medicare funding?

Well, sure they did but that didn't stop Rummy from telling everyone they had funds to invade Iraq. In fact, they had so much money they cut taxes, as well.

So, the question becomes were the Repubs that stupid or was it all part of a plan to make sure there wouldn't be money to fund programs?

I'm with Obama and going along with the latter. That's why Obama went ahead with ObamaCare. If there's so much money the government can start a war AND cut taxes, then, why not?

Other countries, smaller and less wealthy, have pensions and medical care FOR EVERYONE. How do they do it? They do it by taxing people and the citizens still have jobs and homes and cars and TVs and computers and.....

Just take the Bush drug plan as an example. What moron would have the government pay for drugs while at the same time forbid the government from negotiating drug prices? Have you ever heard of anything so absurd, in all your life?

As more and more people increase their knowledge regarding other countries they're beginning to see the Repub scam. Why are people in those "second class" countries collecting pensions and going to the hospital when the folks here are being told that as citizens of the richest country in the world their pensions are in jeopardy? Why, being citizens of the richest country in the world, are they being told that when it comes to medical care they will be given the equivalent of food stamps in the form of medical vouchers?

Remember what Lincoln said about fooling the people?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Thank-you, but one really doesn't have to be brilliant to know the same-old, same-old Repub solution because it's the same approach they use for everything, namely, cut entitlements like pensions and medicare. Do you ever wonder if the Repubs had any idea back in 2001/02 about pension and medicare funding?

Well, sure they did but that didn't stop Rummy from telling everyone they had funds to invade Iraq. In fact, they had so much money they cut taxes, as well.

So, the question becomes were the Repubs that stupid or was it all part of a plan to make sure there wouldn't be money to fund programs?

I'm with Obama and going along with the latter. That's why Obama went ahead with ObamaCare. If there's so much money the government can start a war AND cut taxes, then, why not?

Other countries, smaller and less wealthy, have pensions and medical care FOR EVERYONE. How do they do it? They do it by taxing people and the citizens still have jobs and homes and cars and TVs and computers and.....

Just take the Bush drug plan as an example. What moron would have the government pay for drugs while at the same time forbid the government from negotiating drug prices? Have you ever heard of anything so absurd, in all your life?

As more and more people increase their knowledge regarding other countries they're beginning to see the Repub scam. Why are people in those "second class" countries collecting pensions and going to the hospital when the folks here are being told that as citizens of the richest country in the world their pensions are in jeopardy? Why, being citizens of the richest country in the world, are they being told that when it comes to medical care they will be given the equivalent of food stamps in the form of medical vouchers?

Remember what Lincoln said about fooling the people?

why big government programs = MASSIVE FAIL

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...terstitialskip

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $534,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

 

[Bfgrn]

It doesn't hurt you one bit, but does allow for points to be addressed individually. I am sorry that it offends you so, but I will continue to use the quote boxes in such a manner so that it is quite clear where my comments are directed. You are the one that seems to be distracted by it. So either deal with it or remain silent. Your choice.



Great. no one disputed any of that. So the above is pointless to mention.



No they did not. They said that the process would be transparent, it was not. They said they would work in a bipartisan manner, they did not. They said they would give time to the public to review and comment on the bill before passage, instead they forced a 2000 page bill down our throats and told us 'we have to pass it before you will like it' or some such nonsense. They said they would address the rise in costs... the monstrosity they created did no such thing.



Just like Clinton, Obama rammed through legislation that was highly partisan with little input from the right.



More talking point nonsense from the left. Just because you don't LIKE the reform efforts of the Reps doesn't mean they aren't interested in reform. It means you simply don't like their methods, just as many on the right don't like the fiasco created by the Dems.



Again... NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the FACT that there are TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities.

You are simply trying to deflect away from the topic at hand because you are scared of debating what the unfunded liabilities mean to this country's economic future.

I am not surprised that you won't respond to a respectful request.

Is it that you can't comprehend or is it an inability to accept the truth freak? Can't get past your ultra partisanship or is it just a need to make excuses for Republicans? You just fired off a whole litany of lies that were right wing talking points used as an excuse by Republicans to cover up their REAL intent...destroy reform and hand Obama his Waterloo.

Those are not my words about the Republican strategy. They are the words of a Republican and former Bush speechwriter. The guy was fired from a 6 figure job at AEI, a right wing think tank because he told that truth. It is really sad that it falls on the deaf ears of people like you who are so steeped in ideology that logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.

Not only that, the bill that Democrats passed builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

David Frum:
"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Bartlett came to David Frum's defense and added credence to Frum's truths...

"Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do."

Bruce Bartlett who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am not surprised that you won't respond to a respectful request.

Is it that you can't comprehend or is it an inability to accept the truth freak? Can't get past your ultra partisanship or is it just a need to make excuses for Republicans? You just fired off a whole litany of lies that were right wing talking points used as an excuse by Republicans to cover up their REAL intent...destroy reform and hand Obama his Waterloo.

Those are not my words about the Republican strategy. They are the words of a Republican and former Bush speechwriter. The guy was fired from a 6 figure job at AEI, a right wing think tank because he told that truth. It is really sad that it falls on the deaf ears of people like you who are so steeped in ideology that logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.

Not only that, the bill that Democrats passed builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

David Frum:
"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Bartlett came to David Frum's defense and added credence to Frum's truths...

"Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do."

Bruce Bartlett who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush

You are simply trying to deflect away from the topic at hand because you are scared of debating what the unfunded liabilities mean to this country's economic future.