Politics As Usual

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
DRudge must need some page hits.

No way, still. And for health care? Talk about DOA. "He's trying to resurrect the same medical system as President Clinton: the efficiency of the Post Office, the cost-effectiveness of the Pentagon, and the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service."

And yet, which party ensured that Medicare can't bargain with drug companies on prices?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I have no idea, because its not my job to know. Give me 1 week and a copy of the budget and I guarantee I will not only find $400 billion in cuts, I will find an additional $400 billion for good measure.

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?

[ltl/fb]

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?

He would pull it from Soc. Sec by privatizing it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He would pull it from Soc. Sec by privatizing it.

Yes, I'm sure it will be easy to find a private-sector company willing to take on an annual $400B (and increasing) liability. The only thing more expensive would be convincing Maryland to take back DC.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Drudge is reporting that insiders are claiming Kerry is close to tapping Hillary as Veep

Cheney booed by Yankees fans: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/sp...partner=GOOGLE

Such a dilemma for you Slave! Do you side with Yankees fans or Cheney?

Either you're with us or against us.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He would pull it from Soc. Sec by privatizing it.

If you privatize Social Security for people who aren't receiving benefits yet, you have to find money to pay for the benefits other people are receiving right now. That makes privatization more expensive in the short run, regardless of its effects in the long run. This is why Social Security is sometimes called an intergenerational Ponzi scheme. As Sidd pointed out yesterday Social Security is currently a source of revenue for the government, not a drain on it. Conservatives opposed to it on philosophical grounds like to group it with Medicare/Medicaid to imply that all are in big trouble, which is rhetorically a little like saying that, collectively, Connecticut and Iraq are taxing the Army's resources right now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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?

Don't rush him -- he said he needed a week.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, I'm sure it will be easy to find a private-sector company willing to take on an annual $400B (and increasing) liability. The only thing more expensive would be convincing Maryland to take back DC.

Ooooh, that would probably save a bunch of federal money, making Maryland responsible for DC. Great idea!

OK, maybe we can save the money by making SS an individual-account thing? Right?

You are such a naysayer, with your pulling out the actual numbers. It's much much easier to believe that a big chunk can be saved if you don't actually look at the budget and if you decree that in your hypo, you get to make unilateral decisions. It's really BEST if you can also decree that the only consequences of your changes will be those you intend. Unintended consequences are prohibited.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you privatize Social Security for people who aren't receiving benefits yet, you have to find money to pay for the benefits other people are receiving right now. That makes privatization more expensive in the short run, regardless of its effects in the long run. This is why Social Security is sometimes called an intergenerational Ponzi scheme. As Sidd pointed out yesterday Social Security is currently a source of revenue for the government, not a drain on it. Conservatives opposed to it on philosophical grounds like to group it with Medicare/Medicaid to imply that all are in big trouble, which is rhetorically a little like saying that, collectively, Connecticut and Iraq are taxing the Army's resources right now.

OMG, you are kidding me! NO FUCKING WAY. I thought it was really like an insurance system, with you know reserves and stuff like that. I am so happy you enlightened me.

Duh.

See above re: unilateral actions, unintended consequences, not actually being forced to find actual cuts in an actual budget.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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

Just helping him get him started. Fringey's not helping, though, what with her proposals to take Soc. sec. off the budget and thereby increase the deficit.

We could probably find some savings if we reinstituted the draft. At least Chuck Rangel would support it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OMG, you are kidding me! NO FUCKING WAY. I thought it was really like an insurance system, with you know reserves and stuff like that. I am so happy you enlightened me.

Duh.

No Duh!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Just helping him get him started. Fringey's not helping, though, what with her proposals to take Soc. sec. off the budget and thereby increase the deficit.

We could probably find some savings if we reinstituted the draft. At least Chuck Rangel would support it.

Um, in the imaginary world I have helpfully outlined, SS is actually a drain on the budget and the market would do a better job.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, in the imaginary world I have helpfully outlined, SS is actually a drain on the budget and the market would do a better job.

In the real world, both things are true as well.

[ltl/fb]

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

You just said that my taking SS out would increase (not decrease) the budget deficit.

By better job I meant immediate cash savings and immediately feasible. As you pointed out, no private company would take on that kind of liability.

Your contradictions of yourself are giving me a headache. Or, I have a sinus infection.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


Your contradictions of yourself are giving me a headache. Or, I have a sinus infection.

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.