Politics As Usual

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, you're infering qualifications where there were none. The government, unlike the market, does not bar ponzi schemes within itself.

Were one starting from scratch today, a private solution would be superior.

If the market actually barred ponzi schemes, they would not exist.

And we are not talking about starting from scratch today. We are talking about cutting the current budget.

I also find it upsetting when I realize that I am contradicting myself. It helps to go ahead and acknowledge it -- really, you will respect yourself more if you will just do that.

[SlaveNoMore]

Did you just call me Coltrane?
Such a dilemma for you Slave! Do you side with Yankees fans or Cheney?

Either you're with us or against us.

Cheney is a Red Sox fan*. Fuck 'em.

* which makes me think he must have lost a bet to Rudy or something, seeing how he donned a Yankees cap when seated in the front row. Unless it was just professional courtesy amongst "evil empires"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Would you take that $400B from the $1.2T for Soc. Sec, Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory programs, from the $390B for defense spending (leaving defense to pay back $10b) or the $420B for non-defense discretionary spending?

Most of the cuts would come from non-defense discretionary spending, of course. But I would also propose structural changes to Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Sidd lambasted me yesterday on SS because, in his world. reform of SS only includes the benefits side of the equation. There are long term fixes that are severely needed to be sure, because the surplus he touts will not be there much longer, given the demographics. But I would also propose changes in the ADMINISTRATION of these programs, because I am certain there is an obsene amout of money being wasted in the beauracracy that is administering them.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't rush him -- he said he needed a week.

So we can expect specific numbers from him when we get back from the holiday? Cool.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No Duh!

You guys -- I'm all verklempt! [sniff]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


I also find it upsetting when I realize that I am contradicting myself. It helps to go ahead and acknowledge it -- really, you will respect yourself more if you will just do that.

I acknowledge when I am contradicting myself. I did not in this case. Are you paigow?

If a witness answers the first question "no", and then you change the hypothetical and he answers "yes", is she contradicting herself?

As for the market, imperfect information allows ponzi schemes to exist. But let me rephrase: The government makes ponzi schemes illegal in the private sector, but not within itself.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Most of the cuts would come from non-defense discretionary spending, of course. But I would also propose structural changes to Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Sidd lambasted me yesterday on SS because, in his world. reform of SS only includes the benefits side of the equation. There are long term fixes that are severely needed to be sure, because the surplus he touts will not be there much longer, given the demographics. But I would also propose changes in the ADMINISTRATION of these programs, because I am certain there is an obsene amout of money being wasted in the beauracracy that is administering them.

So you now concede that it's not a question of snipping a little "pork" from the budget, but rather of cutting most of the $420 billion in discretionary, non-military spending? Or are you now pretending that there's fat that can be painlessly cut in the administration of benefits instead? The mind boggles.

[Atticus Grinch]

Green Party veep candidate says she won't vote for herself on Election Day if someone else can beat Bush.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So you now concede that it's not a question of snipping a little "pork" from the budget, but rather of cutting most of the $420 billion in discretionary, non-military spending? Or are you now pretending that there's fat that can be painlessly cut in the administration of benefits instead? The mind boggles.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to concede. Where else would the pork reside than in non-military discretionary spending? Reform in the manner in which administration of benefits is currently done would result in a significant amount of savings without any pain. Milton Friedman has written volumes on the subject.

[sgtclub]

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriend...toryID=5555716

[Darth Bader Ginsburg]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Green Party veep candidate says she won't vote for herself on Election Day if someone else can beat Bush.

And in other news, the Green party vp may hold dual canadian citizenship and be a card carrying member of the Marjiuanna party. party on!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Where else would the pork reside than in non-military discretionary spending? Reform in the manner in which administration of benefits is currently done would result in a significant amount of savings without any pain. Milton Friedman has written volumes on the subject.

Military discretionary spending? $600 gold toilet seats? remember?

But where do you get the admin efficiencies? SSA gets $9B/year to pay out the $400B and keep track of all your payments to them that you'll never see again.

Medicare could use some reform, but it's not admin--it's structural: how much doctors are reimbursed for stuff and the ridiculous incentive structures. But for the most part you need more, not less, admin to ferret out the waste, fraud and abuse.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure what you are asking me to concede. Where else would the pork reside than in non-military discretionary spending?

We don't disagree with each that the federal government spends money on pork, although I tend to think that there's a lot of pork in the military budget, too. The disagreement is whether you can save in the neighborhood of $420 billion by trimming pork. My point is that you can't -- once you start cutting enough to close the deficits Bush has given us, you are well beyond cutting what most people would call pork, and well into cutting things that most people -- though not Penske -- agree that government should be doing. Like protecting the environmental and maintaining national parks, etc. (If you call that "pork," fine, but you are using words in a weird way to mask that your views are far from the mainstream.)

Reform in the manner in which administration of benefits is currently done would result in a significant amount of savings without any pain. Milton Friedman has written volumes on the subject.

What is a "significant amount"? And no pain? You have a GOP Congress and a GOP White House that would be happy to cut taxes even more, so why haven't they done it yet?

eta: What Burger said, too.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Would you take that $400B from the $1.2T for Soc. Sec, Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory programs, from the $390B for defense spending (leaving defense to pay back $10b) or the $420B for non-defense discretionary spending?

Is defaulting on the Reagan-Bush debt an option?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In the real world, both things are true as well.

Yeah, just imagine how well off we'd all be if Social Security money had been invested in the stock market back in 99, when the idea started getting tossed around.


(Nasdaq fifteen thousand!!! Nasdaq fifteen thousand!!! Nasdaq fifte......oh, shit.)