A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
the Jordan Eason scandal? Can you catch me up?

As far as I can tell -- and this is from a little Googling in response to your post, since I hadn't heard of Jordan Eason or this "scandal" until you mentioned it -- you have a couple right-wing bloggers with little or no journalistic credibility (e.g., Hugh Hewitt) beating Eason up for comments that he has clarified. He initially said that the U.S. military targeted journalists. (I can't find even a quotation of his remarks on line, but this is what Hugh Hewitt says, so take it with a grain of salt.) He now has said that journalists have died at the hands of the U.S. military -- which is undeniably true -- but that he didn't mean to say they were being targeted. From what little I know of Hewitt, I understand why he'd rather flog this story than others, but what's the scandal?

eta: This story has better reporting. If Barney Frank is "agog" about Eason's comments, maybe there's something to this.

But club, if you think this shows some kind of lefty bias on the part of CNN, then doesn't this story establish right-wing bias at the New York Times?

And thank God no one here is talking about Ward Churchill.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If there was no deduction the government would take some more money from me. Maybe they'd pay for a school or a bomb or food stamps. SS is taking money from one to give another. I'm in favor of SS Sidd, but it is a step towards equalizing. I'm done-

Right -- if there were no deduction the government would take more money from you. And then the government would incur less debt, thus imposing less burden on everyone else.

I know that it's fashionable in Republican circles today to think that the government can cut taxes and buy lots of stuff and never have to ask where the money for all of this is coming from, but that's not reality.

PS: Safety nets equalize- you're a hippy- you haven't read Harrison Bergeron?

The fact that you rely on old Kurt Vonnegut stories to interpret government policy explains a lot.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Query: If we raise the minimum wage, would we raise contributions to the SS trust fund enough to avert the impending "crisis"?

My guess is no, because raising the minimum age means raising the pay-outs down the line. The long-term problems with SS arise from demographic changes -- more people living longer, and lower birth rates meaning fewer people paying into the system to support them.

[Sidd Finch]

NYTimes reports that new estimates of the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan are $720 billion over 10 years. Just slightly higher than the $400 billion the White House "predicted" (remember, back when they were suppressing any estimates of higher costs).

And while we're on the subject of the Bush deficits, another few thoughts on why the "50% reduction" is bullshit.

-- costs of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan are not counted, right? I guess the question of "how do we pay for this" doesn't seem to fly in the Oval Office.

-- the reported Bush deficits are always falsely deflated by the SS surplus, and the annual SS surplus is currently on a growth curve. In other words, the government will borrow more money from SS next year, and even more the year after, and that borrowing will not "count" in the Bush deficit -- even though it will be debt that the government will have to repay (apparently the White House finally figured out that suggesting the gov't will default on bonds is a bad idea).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
NYTimes reports that new estimates of the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan are $720 billion over 10 years. Just slightly higher than the $400 billion the White House "predicted" (remember, back when they were suppressing any estimates of higher costs).

Not to mention the drag on the economy of the reFUCKulous amount of administrative stuff all employers are going to have to do (compute actuarial value of prescription drug benefit received by each employee eligible for Medicare or retiring or something -- I haven't had to do it yet, but what a PITA, now everyone has to get actuaries in to compute this crap).

How is it that Mr. Party of Small Gov't got away with creating a huge new entitlement program? HOW? Under his general rubric, shouldn't we just be letting seniors pay for their prescriptions tax-free or something? Why aren't they more responsible for their own drug-cost management? If they actually felt the cost, I'm sure they'd be much more responsible about what they are taking. Especially the really sick ones, who are in THE best position to comparison-shop and research the best deals/treatments from a cost-benefit standpoint.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
NYTimes reports that new estimates of the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan are $720 billion over 10 years. Just slightly higher than the $400 billion the White House "predicted" (remember, back when they were suppressing any estimates of higher costs).

Yes, but (as reported on NPR this a.m.) -- this discrepancy wasn't really caused by changes in any of the yearly cost estimates.

The original ten year projection of $400 billion when the bill was being considered covered 2004-2013. The trick there was that the plan had no prescription drug benefit in 2004 and 2005 , just that little drug discount card that was estimated to cost about $5 billion for the two years combined.

At this point, two years later, the new 10 year projection covers 2006-2015, and 2014 and 2015 are _very expensive_ years (about $150 billion per). The projected cost of the program will continue to rise over time as the population continues to age, unless the benefit is changed or drug costs fall.

The Medicare folks knew this. Most people just didn't pay attention, though.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
My guess is no, because raising the minimum age means raising the pay-outs down the line. The long-term problems with SS arise from demographic changes -- more people living longer, and lower birth rates meaning fewer people paying into the system to support them.

I think that's right. I don't know what the return factors are, but they are far better at the lower end of the spectrum than at the high end. That is, people with low payins get a 1:1 (or even better return), so there's no money to be made by increasing their pay-in. The money to be made is at teh top end, where the payback rate is more like 1:2.

Moreover, how many people spend their entire career at minimum wage (assuming legal work)? Most semi-talented people start at the minimum but work their way up after a few years. since benefits are based on 35 best years (or something akin), unless a sizable portion of that time is at minimum wage, a change is not going to have much effect.

Not to mention the people not hired because of hte higher minimum--what about them?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And while we're on the subject of the Bush deficits, another few thoughts on why the "50% reduction" is bullshit.

-- costs of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan are not counted, right? I guess the question of "how do we pay for this" doesn't seem to fly in the Oval Office.

Hmm. Seems I have an answer to my earlier question. Gracias, Sidd.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
NYTimes reports that new estimates of the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan are $720 billion over 10 years. Just slightly higher than the $400 billion the White House "predicted" (remember, back when they were suppressing any estimates of higher costs).

The Republican on NPR this morning explained that the original estimate included 2004 and 2005, which are years that do not have the benefits in place, wheras this estimate includes 2014 and 2015 where the benefit is fully funded.

He also explained that Medicaid cuts were going to help fund the prescription drug benefit. I'm sure that the sick poor will understand that covering (non-negotiated priced) viagra is more important than their health coverage.

Pete Stark's people were livid and their estimate is closer to a trillion.

eta stp

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think you care what I think, other than it gives you another excuse to call me stupid, which is laughable coming from you, but I've learned to accept it with a smile

I think my test is right on. If you don't agree, please explain. Calling it idiotic is not helpful to the bi-partisan atmosphere I'm trying to facilitate here.

With that said:

Here's a start at the conservative test:

1. Do you believe that government should be able to have control over social issues in order to foster moral behavior?

2. Do you believe that the first amendment permits the practice of religion and/or belief in god in or by public institutions, so long as it is not overtly coercise?

3. Do you believe taxes are too high?

4. Do you believe that the federal government has usurped the powers that should be reserved to the states.

How can the government control social issues "in order to foster moral behavior" without coercing individuals to follow whatever religious background the government chooses to select as its moral compass?

How does the government accomplish the above without usurping powers traditionally reserved to the states?

This isn't a measure of conservativism; it's the charter of the John Birch Society.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The Republican on NPR this morning explained that the original estimate included 2004 and 2005, which are years that do not have the benefits in place, wheras this estimate includes 2014 and 2015 where the benefit is fully funded.

He also explained that Medicaid cuts were going to help fund the prescription drug benefit. I'm sure that the sick poor will understand that covering (non-negotiated priced) viagra is more important than their health coverage.

Pete Stark's people were livid and their estimate is closer to a trillion.

eta stp

Remind me to buy more Merck. Damn, their lobbyists are good.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moreover, how many people spend their entire career at minimum wage (assuming legal work)? Most semi-talented people start at the minimum but work their way up after a few years. since benefits are based on 35 best years (or something akin), unless a sizable portion of that time is at minimum wage, a change is not going to have much effect.

If we assume that the total wages paid rises b/c of the rise in min wage (i.e., the pay increases to those who remain employed outweigh the amounts not paid to people not hired) this actually argues in favor of RT's question -- more SS taxes would be paid, but benefits would not change much because the vast majority of people have benefits calculated based on years in which they are earning more than minimum wage, anyway.

Unless raising the minimum wage causes all other wages to go up (i.e., Level 10 employee is getting $7/hr instead of current min, so Level 9 employee has to get a raise of $0.50/hr so that they will still be making more, and so on) so much that it cancels out that effect.

Iiiiiinteresting. This is why I could never be a politician.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[note to self]This test thing is fun. Never knew it was so easy to get people worked up around here. There's a truce in the middle east, and no one posts on it, but post a couple of tests, which were solicited, mind you, and they all come out of the wood-work. [/note to self]

There are truces all the time in the ME. It's no longer newsworthy.

eta: Beat by Burger - doh!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Remind me to buy more Merck. Damn, their lobbyists are good.

I wouldn't do that right now . . . .

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
There are truces all the time in the ME. It's no longer newsworthy.

eta: Beat by Burger - doh!

The first truce post Araphat? Of course it's newsworthy! This one actually has a chance.