Political Roundtable - Part VI

[Zonkerbl]

Just to be clear... I consider the shutdown to be legit and within the system. When I say the Republicans are working outside the system, I'm only referring to the debt ceiling. It's kind of unfortunate that there is so much overlap.

[nate33]

Personal opinion aside, the act was passed constitutionally, reviewed constitutionally to a conclusion that the law is constitutional. On a micro level, the argument is completely moot and it's tough cookies for the 49%.

On a macro level, the coulda woulda shoulda's on state vs federal governance is even tougher cookies. Mildly put, it's lost cause and it lost big time in the last 100 years via 4 presidencies with 0 major wins.

1 - Woodrow Wilson - Centralized banking (the Fed) and income tax
2 - FDR - Social security, the FDIC, the SEC
3 - LBJ - Medicare/medicaid
4 - Obama - Bailout/ACA

All conservatives can hope for now is to keep liberalism in check and stem the flow but the levies have broken on keeping this country a Jeffersonian ideal. One particular example is the budget cuts that conservatives want to pass. You can't even being to HOPE to cut out the SNAP program (food stamps). The radical cuts that conservatives proposed is a 5% cut. 5 %.

Even the current shut down seems like an indefensible overreaction but if you want to look at it at an even more macro scale? It's pennies on the dollar compared to the looming social security and medicare payouts if the projections are accurate.

I think the now-famous Marlin Stutzman comment from yesterdsay: “We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” crystallizes it rather well. Conservatives are just pissed off and the ACA is just a whipping boy. It doesn't even begin to make up for the century-long beatdown that conservatives have faced.

EDIT TO ADD:

And all of this rhetoric and arguments based on ideals not facts is getting lost in the trees and missing the actual threat to our nation and economy: the Debt Ceiling whose doomsday is set to be Oct. 17 before we start defaulting.

But you are missing the bigger forest through the little forests. Whether or not we resolve the short term Debt Ceiling crisis by October 17th is irrelevant in the long run. Sooner or later, we WILL DEFAULT. We will default because you can't run an economy the spends a trillion more than it takes in every year. When we do default, things are going to be a lot different.

The Debt Ceiling crisis is a symptom, NOT the problem. There's going to be a Debt Ceiling crisis every couple of years because we are reaching the point where we can no longer paper over our structural imbalances with more paper.

We can't even sell our debt to China anymore. The Fed is buying up our debt. That is, the Fed is printing green pieces of paper and using it to buy our debt. Prior to 2008, the Fed would buy about $30B of new debt a year in Treasuries and/or MBS. From 2009 onward, they have been buying $500B a year. Last year, they bought 61% of all federal debt issued!

[barelyawake]

You are assuming the economy will always be the same. Of course, the hope/belief is that the economy will be better (thus more taxes). Much of the spending is for health care costs. There is a hope/belief those will go down. Spending has already gone down drastically. Etc etc.

[W. Unseld]

Google "unfunded liabilities of United States Government." Some articles will go as high as $180 trillion, others will go as low as $80 trillion and others will tell you it isn't a problem at all but if you look around at states that have large retirement pensions due it appears to be a problem even though the numbers are miniscule in comparison.

*I'd also like to congratulate everyone this thread for not immediately blaming the other party for the woman who ran into the barricade yesterday.

[dckingsfan]

Google "unfunded liabilities of United States Government." Some articles will go as high as $180 trillion, others will go as low as $80 trillion and others will tell you it isn't a problem at all but if you look around at states that have large retirement pensions due it appears to be a problem even though the numbers are miniscule in comparison.

*I'd also like to congratulate everyone this thread for not immediately blaming the other party for the woman who ran into the barricade yesterday.

Damn independent terrorists!

[Nivek]

If we're talking deficit, it's come down the past four years. It's still too big, but it's moving the right direction. In terms of long-term debt and unfunded liabilities, I think everyone can agree these are things that need to be addressed. But, do they need to be addressed now or can they be addressed in the near future when the economy improves?

Next, I guess someone needs to explain to me how shutting down the government over ACA or the debt limit will address the long-term problems of debt and unfunded liabilities. I guess, if you see stopping ACA as a spending issue, then maybe kinda-sorta. But, not really -- the uninsured will still get health care at the ER, which is the most expensive way possible, which means the spending happens anyway.

[nate33]

Next, I guess someone needs to explain to me how shutting down the government over ACA or the debt limit will address the long-term problems of debt and unfunded liabilities. I guess, if you see stopping ACA as a spending issue, then maybe kinda-sorta. But, not really -- the uninsured will still get health care at the ER, which is the most expensive way possible, which means the spending happens anyway.

It sounds like you believe the ACA will be a net savings, or at least a wash. I'm considerably more skeptical.

[Nivek]

Next, I guess someone needs to explain to me how shutting down the government over ACA or the debt limit will address the long-term problems of debt and unfunded liabilities. I guess, if you see stopping ACA as a spending issue, then maybe kinda-sorta. But, not really -- the uninsured will still get health care at the ER, which is the most expensive way possible, which means the spending happens anyway.

It sounds like you believe the ACA will be a net savings, or at least a wash. I'm considerably more skeptical.

I don't know whether it'll be a savings or not. At this point, I don't think anyone truly knows. Its proponents think it will, and that's possible.

At least in theory, ACA addresses a few major issues: providing healthcare for the uninsured, eliminating the free-rider effect, and controlling overall costs. Maybe it'll fail in one or more of those areas. Repealing it before it's even implemented doesn't seem like a good way to find out. If it's an outright failure, it can be repaired, replaced or repealed. Yeah, repeal three years from now might be tough.

Honestly, I think ACA is a bad idea. It seems needlessly complex and convoluted. With all we pay for healthcare in this country, it ought to be possible to provide care for everyone within a single-payer system. I can hear the hollering about taxes and rationing already -- but I'm already paying through the nose for health insurance. The cost goes up every year while they cover less. And medical care is already rationed through the insurance companies who refuse to pay for various treatments.

[dckingsfan]

Next, I guess someone needs to explain to me how shutting down the government over ACA or the debt limit will address the long-term problems of debt and unfunded liabilities. I guess, if you see stopping ACA as a spending issue, then maybe kinda-sorta. But, not really -- the uninsured will still get health care at the ER, which is the most expensive way possible, which means the spending happens anyway.

It sounds like you believe the ACA will be a net savings, or at least a wash. I'm considerably more skeptical.

I don't know whether it'll be a savings or not. At this point, I don't think anyone truly knows. Its proponents think it will, and that's possible.

At least in theory, ACA addresses a few major issues: providing healthcare for the uninsured, eliminating the free-rider effect, and controlling overall costs. Maybe it'll fail in one or more of those areas. Repealing it before it's even implemented doesn't seem like a good way to find out. If it's an outright failure, it can be repaired, replaced or repealed. Yeah, repeal three years from now might be tough.

Honestly, I think ACA is a bad idea. It seems needlessly complex and convoluted. With all we pay for healthcare in this country, it ought to be possible to provide care for everyone within a single-payer system. I can hear the hollering about taxes and rationing already -- but I'm already paying through the nose for health insurance. The cost goes up every year while they cover less. And medical care is already rationed through the insurance companies who refuse to pay for various treatments.

ACA, like Medicare and Social Security will not be repealed or replaced once it gets put into place. And once in place it will grow. Just the basic nature of entitlement programs. One way a group of fiscal conservatives (regardless of party) could address the problem is limit entitlement spending to some portion of the GDP.

[W. Unseld]

If we're talking deficit, it's come down the past four years. It's still too big, but it's moving the right direction. In terms of long-term debt and unfunded liabilities, I think everyone can agree these are things that need to be addressed. But, do they need to be addressed now or can they be addressed in the near future when the economy improves?

I think the national debt versus unfunded liabilities are two different things, though it gets confusing. The national debt is around 17 trillion and I don't believe it has gone down but may have slowed down--though I'm not sure how. I the unfunded liabilities are where the estimates range from 80 trillion to 180 trillion.

[Nivek]

I think you're correct -- at least about an outright appeal. It's already too late for that, though. It passed, and it's being implemented, which means that some sort of governmental healthcare assistance will be around for awhile.

I don't mind that idea of tying spending to GDP. I wouldn't limit it to entitlement programs, though. If you're going to put a cap on spending, apply the cap to overall spending. Let congress and the president prioritize spending within that constraint.

[payitforward]

I don't participate much here -- I know the Wizards don't listen to us, but I really know the politicians don't!

Still, having peeked in maybe I'll make two little points:

1. Every country on planet earth that you or I would call "civilized" (whatever that means -- lets say the country has a banking system and more than two airports), and I do mean every single one, has some kind of government-funded healthcare system. We don't. And we spend more on healthcare per capita than any other country, and no we don't get better health as a result.

2. We have a military budget larger than the next I don't know how many countries combined (can't remember the number -- was it 15 perhaps?). We have troops in I think 120 countries at last count.

So if you want to ask why we borrow from the future, the answer is that we borrow from it in order to dominate it, because we feel we have to dominate the future.

Do you think we have to dominate the future? Yes? Then stop complaining. No? Then make your voice heard on that issue.

[penbeast0]

Google "unfunded liabilities of United States Government." Some articles will go as high as $180 trillion, others will go as low as $80 trillion and others will tell you it isn't a problem at all but if you look around at states that have large retirement pensions due it appears to be a problem even though the numbers are miniscule in comparison.

*I'd also like to congratulate everyone this thread for not immediately blaming the other party for the woman who ran into the barricade yesterday.

Nah, that was PMS. btw, you know why they call it PMS?
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Mad Cow was taken.

[hands11]

The problem here is that we have a country that is split 50/50 on the main issues. When one party surges to have a 51% majority and manages to pass legislation, the 49% isn't going to be happy about it. And when 49% of your population isn't happy, things don't go smoothly.

The solution is to actually follow the Constitution. Health care isn't an enumerated power and shouldn't be run at the federal level. It should be run at the state level. That includes Medicare and Medicaid as well. If we did things at the state level, we would have 60-90 percent majority agreement on most issues.

The same goes for issues like drugs and abortion.

Personal opinion aside, the act was passed constitutionally, reviewed constitutionally to a conclusion that the law is constitutional. On a micro level, the argument is completely moot and it's tough cookies for the 49%.

On a macro level, the coulda woulda shoulda's on state vs federal governance is even tougher cookies. Mildly put, it's lost cause and it lost big time in the last 100 years via 4 presidencies with 0 major wins.

1 - Woodrow Wilson - Centralized banking (the Fed) and income tax
2 - FDR - Social security, the FDIC, the SEC
3 - LBJ - Medicare/medicaid
4 - Obama - Bailout/ACA

All conservatives can hope for now is to keep liberalism in check and stem the flow but the levies have broken on keeping this country a Jeffersonian ideal. One particular example is the budget cuts that conservatives want to pass. You can't even being to HOPE to cut out the SNAP program (food stamps). The radical cuts that conservatives proposed is a 5% cut. 5 %.

Even the current shut down seems like an indefensible overreaction but if you want to look at it at an even more macro scale? It's pennies on the dollar compared to the looming social security and medicare payouts if the projections are accurate.

I think the now-famous Marlin Stutzman comment from yesterdsay: “We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” crystallizes it rather well. Conservatives are just pissed off and the ACA is just a whipping boy. It doesn't even begin to make up for the century-long beatdown that conservatives have faced.

EDIT TO ADD:

And all of this rhetoric and arguments based on ideals not facts is getting lost in the trees and missing the actual threat to our nation and economy: the Debt Ceiling whose doomsday is set to be Oct. 17 before we start defaulting.

There is zero chance of a default. As much as I don't like what Bauhner has done as speaker, I don't think he is that reckless. He wants to keep his job. He will play alone with the TPs over a gov shut down. I have a little more confidence that he will step up when it come to the last second over the debt ceiling. And if he doesn't Obama will step in. Between the two of them, they won't allow the debt ceiling thing to happen.

Its just a matter of how much crazy talk, crying, blaming, treats, gimmick politicizing we have to watch before we get there and what is the political melt down after.

Here is why I think Bauhner will be the one to do it. Cuz if he doesn't, Obama will. That will lead to the Rs starting impeachment hearing. Now they already did all this stupid over Clinton. If they do it again, with the electorate changed and changing more by the day the way it is, TP and Rs will annihilated as a party. Both sides. People will storm DC and march. It would be political suicide for them.

Now if Bauhner does it, he can at least claim establishment R grown ups do still exist and they aren't totally nuts. There is a line they won't cross. People feel for what he is having to deal with at some level. They know the TPs funded by the Koch brother have him by the balls. He can say, hey, I let them try it their way. Didn't work. Times up. So establishment Rs can regain some reputation at statesman and separate themselves from the terrorists.

Either way, the TPRs and the Est Rs dating is coming to an end, and in doing so, both will lose power either way. At this point, it about who survives for governors and who will be listened to by the Dem majority until they can grow the party out again.

[hands11]

Well, no system is going to be perfect. If we let everything be run at the state level we'd still have segregation in the South.

The fair thing is to work within the system if you can and try to persuade people to change the system if you can't.

But doing the economic equivalent of blowing up the two towers is not a legitimate way to approach things.

Nice post pancakes, I agree. And I agree the ACA won fair and square.

But . . . aren't the Republicans working within the system? Why do you think they put all these continual budget votes into the system . . . so they could have a systemic check on whatever current overspending the federal government is doing or threatening to do. The ACA may be (and probably is) just a symbolic whipping boy but the idea that the government should be trying harder to spend within its means is a legit fight even if its one that is doomed to lose due to the way the system is set to favor rent seeking behavior by our representatives.

By working with in the system, what are you really getting at ?

Can they do what they are doing with in the system. Sure. They are. Is it politically smart. NOPE.

The government is partly shut down and its costing us more then if it wasn't. And all over what ? Passing 6 weeks of funding at the levels they wanted ? That's childish.

Look. They thought the Dems would fold ... again. They thought they could extort them. It didn't work. If it had worked, they would do it again next time. Like they are now because it did work last time. They gambled the extortion and threats would work. They didn't. Now they will pay the price. Move on.

They gambled, they lost. Now they are trying to spin there way out of it by funding the government by news story. WWII vets, vote on a bill to fund that. NIH story about children, vote on a bill to fund that. Storm coming, vote on a bill to fund that. Its not going to work. They can pass these BS bills till they are blue in the face. Its all a stupid game.

They have the bill they need. 6 weeks. Funding at their levels. Give it a vote. It can't pass without Rs signing on. What are they afraid of. They democracy will work ?

They have turn a mole hill into a mountain. The 6 week CR only gets us past this silliness so they can get to assigning appointees so they can go to conference over the 1 year budget. Then they can get to funding all these things they keep bring up bills over. And other important things.



Look, anyone with children knows this game. Its not a very sophisticated one.

[hands11]

It sounds like you believe the ACA will be a net savings, or at least a wash. I'm considerably more skeptical.

I don't know whether it'll be a savings or not. At this point, I don't think anyone truly knows. Its proponents think it will, and that's possible.

At least in theory, ACA addresses a few major issues: providing healthcare for the uninsured, eliminating the free-rider effect, and controlling overall costs. Maybe it'll fail in one or more of those areas. Repealing it before it's even implemented doesn't seem like a good way to find out. If it's an outright failure, it can be repaired, replaced or repealed. Yeah, repeal three years from now might be tough.

Honestly, I think ACA is a bad idea. It seems needlessly complex and convoluted. With all we pay for healthcare in this country, it ought to be possible to provide care for everyone within a single-payer system. I can hear the hollering about taxes and rationing already -- but I'm already paying through the nose for health insurance. The cost goes up every year while they cover less. And medical care is already rationed through the insurance companies who refuse to pay for various treatments.

ACA, like Medicare and Social Security will not be repealed or replaced once it gets put into place. And once in place it will grow. Just the basic nature of entitlement programs. One way a group of fiscal conservatives (regardless of party) could address the problem is limit entitlement spending to some portion of the GDP.

Its not an entitlement program. No more then any program. I would sooner call being covered by our military forces an entitlement program.

[penbeast0]

Main Entry: entitlement program
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a government program guaranteeing certain benefits to a segment of the population; the right to benefits offered by a government, esp. as compensation
Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon

By definition an entitlement program is a right to benefits offered by the government. Thus social security, ACA, etc. are entitlement programs. The money spent on the military is contractual, the members of the military work for the government just as park rangers and employees of the Department of Labor do. If you are talking hardware, that is contractual too -- those are not rights to benefits, those are contract rights and therefore not entitlements.

It's not a matter of whether something is good or bad, it's just the definition of the word.

[dckingsfan]

I don't know whether it'll be a savings or not. At this point, I don't think anyone truly knows. Its proponents think it will, and that's possible.

At least in theory, ACA addresses a few major issues: providing healthcare for the uninsured, eliminating the free-rider effect, and controlling overall costs. Maybe it'll fail in one or more of those areas. Repealing it before it's even implemented doesn't seem like a good way to find out. If it's an outright failure, it can be repaired, replaced or repealed. Yeah, repeal three years from now might be tough.

Honestly, I think ACA is a bad idea. It seems needlessly complex and convoluted. With all we pay for healthcare in this country, it ought to be possible to provide care for everyone within a single-payer system. I can hear the hollering about taxes and rationing already -- but I'm already paying through the nose for health insurance. The cost goes up every year while they cover less. And medical care is already rationed through the insurance companies who refuse to pay for various treatments.

ACA, like Medicare and Social Security will not be repealed or replaced once it gets put into place. And once in place it will grow. Just the basic nature of entitlement programs. One way a group of fiscal conservatives (regardless of party) could address the problem is limit entitlement spending to some portion of the GDP.

Its not an entitlement program. No more then any program. I would sooner call being covered by our military forces an entitlement program.

Which also continues to grow

[hands11]

Main Entry: entitlement program
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a government program guaranteeing certain benefits to a segment of the population; the right to benefits offered by a government, esp. as compensation
Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon

By definition an entitlement program is a right to benefits offered by the government. Thus social security, ACA, etc. are entitlement programs. The money spent on the military is contractual, the members of the military work for the government just as park rangers and employees of the Department of Labor do. If you are talking hardware, that is contractual too -- those are not rights to benefits, those are contract rights and therefore not entitlements.

It's not a matter of whether something is good or bad, it's just the definition of the word.

I wasn't speaking to the military employees who work for pay. I was talking at a bigger scale. What the military is to you and me.

Sure it is a right to a benefit. The benefit of being the strongest military and everything that comes with that. Its not a cash payment benefit but it is defiantly a benefit and it cost me in taxes and national debt. It cost in spending on that over other things like roads and bridges which is a healthier way to grow an economy vs bombing people that didn't attach us. It cost me in relatives, friends and others dieing.

My point was, the word entitlement is no so clear cut. At least it is not used evenly. It just mean you have a right to something. I pay SS tax and medicaid. I get a benefit for it. There is actually a more direct connection between what I pay in there and what I get out then there is for the military. So its a insurance program. Social Security.

As DCking so wisely pointed out, the entitlement of the military does also grow. My point was, where is the outcry from the Rs over that and why is it not called what it is, and entitlement program. I have my answer to that.

SS is group insurance programs but with an annuity twist. I pay into it every mouth. My benefits are connected to what I pay in. Its not some give away.

ACA ? I was already paying for the uninsured. Now funding for those people is just getting done differently. Part from taxing the mega rich more. Part from medical equipment tax. Part from younger people getting covered and pay it forward. Part from the regular budget.

This entitlements branding as a dirty word instead of social security benefits, is just more fallout from Reagan and the forces that came to power with him. He turned the people against themselves. He was far from a uniter, he was a divider. Only thing he united was greed, shortsightedness, and false pride. He and his ilk, sold the ill informed on supply side trickle-down economics. He also sold them the government is inept and can't do anything right and its a welfare jobs program. Far from a great president. I have always felt Reagan was a terrible president. I felt that way when he was elected and that has never changed. I projected he would blow a hole in the debt and massively onto the national debt. He did. Same things I said about Bush Jr before he screwed this country for the mega rich. Sadly, Reagan planted seeds that are still hurting this country. And the people that voted for them and their policies are complicit.

[Wizardspride]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/1 ... rous/?_r=0

Hitting the Ceiling: Disastrous or Utterly Disastrous?


Obama won’t, can’t negotiate over the debt ceiling, and Republicans still haven’t figured that out. So you have to say that it’s pretty likely that we will indeed hit the ceiling. Suppose that Obama’s lawyers tell him that extraordinary measures like just ignoring the ceiling or minting the coin are out. Then what?

Well, Goldman Sachs has a short paper (not online) arguing that the government probably could prioritize payments on Treasury bills, avoiding the breakdown of markets that would come from putting the world’s key safe asset into default. They don’t sound too confident. But even if they’re right, the government would still go into arrears on many other payments, from contractor bills to medical bills. And it would be forced into savage spending cuts, around 4 percent of GDP, that wouldn’t just cause hardship (Surprise! No Social Security for you this month!) but amount to a severely contractionary fiscal policy, sending us into recession if it lasted any length of time.

I think this is important. Lots of people have been focusing on the possibility of a mega-Lehman event, but even if we somehow avoid that, this will be a catastrophe.