The Goat Pen

Owlman wrote:As any good corporation would tell you, debt is only a problem if you can't service your debt (there are businesspeople that take on debt to offset some other income for example). Right now, our debt is not a problem. Countries are actually buying our debt as a matter of choice right now. We don't have a short-term debt problem, we have a long-term debt problem, with projections being extreme. The biggest culprits in terms of size, medicare, medicaid, social security and military expenditures. Medicaid is actually one of the most efficient health care programs out there. Social Security under Reagan increased taxes to pay for this time period (of the baby boomers). While that money was used for other things, social security is still safe for about 30 years.

The biggest problems are the military and medicare. The military spent money on two wars and didn't even include their costs in the budget. That's a huge backlog of money. Our military budget drawfs every other country in the world. Medicare is only solvent for about 12 years. It's a 300,000 gift transfer to seniors. But of the programs mentioned, which is the one most likely to get attacked? The one with the least influential voters, medicaid (even though it's the most efficient of all the ones mentioned). Despite rhetoric, generally, the poor don't vote and don't have a big lobbiest.

They need long term solutions, not short term that actually makes it worse. Watch. When companies start cutting their research budget, those are companies on the downslide. When things tight, you increase your research budget, not decrease it.

Debt is a problem whether you can service it or not. If I go out and buy a $900,000 McMansion with 6 bedrooms, 5 baths, and a 1200 sq foot sunken living room, the mortgage will be a major problem for me for the next 30 years whether I can service that mortgage payment or not. But at least I could pay that debt OFF before I die (hopefully.) Our Federal debt will still be here long after we all go the way of the Dodo.

The two biggest problems for our federal debt are not the military and medicare. The two biggest problems are that married people are having fewer children and we are all living longer (can't afford to pay retirees at age 62.) You can't grow your way out of debt with an ever aging population that has lost the will to marry and reproduce itself.

Add three lousy points and tax rates are still at historical lows.

Ain't it amazin' how the combination of a dem president and total suspension of reality by the MSM create new normals?

Trillions in debt....no problemo

Unemployment lines around the block....no problemo

$3.70+ a gallon for gas....no problemo

Crank up the ($$) printing press.....no problemo

Companies making a profit during a recession.......Stop the fuhking presses, Houston, we have a problem.....people need to pay their fair share...!!!1111

bluetick wrote:

Add three lousy points and tax rates are still at historical lows.

And yet, tax revenues do not fluctuate between the window of 15-20% of gdp no matter what the top tax bracket.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/ ... on-of-gdp/

So, you ain't going to find a whole lot of deficit reduction with higher tax rates. It has to mostly come from adjustments to expenses.

I'm willing to give up child tax credits and education credits. And come Hillary's first term, I'll be okay with doing away with the mortgage interest credit.

Everybody pitch in.

Yeah...paying a coach 10 million with the country going to hell....hypocrite.

Owlman wrote:As any good corporation would tell you, debt is only a problem if you can't service your debt (there are businesspeople that take on debt to offset some other income for example). Right now, our debt is not a problem. Countries are actually buying our debt as a matter of choice right now. We don't have a short-term debt problem, we have a long-term debt problem, with projections being extreme. The biggest culprits in terms of size, medicare, medicaid, social security and military expenditures. Medicaid is actually one of the most efficient health care programs out there. Social Security under Reagan increased taxes to pay for this time period (of the baby boomers). While that money was used for other things, social security is still safe for about 30 years.

The biggest problems are the military and medicare. The military spent money on two wars and didn't even include their costs in the budget. That's a huge backlog of money. Our military budget drawfs every other country in the world. Medicare is only solvent for about 12 years. It's a 300,000 gift transfer to seniors. But of the programs mentioned, which is the one most likely to get attacked? The one with the least influential voters, medicaid (even though it's the most efficient of all the ones mentioned). Despite rhetoric, generally, the poor don't vote and don't have a big lobbiest.

They need long term solutions, not short term that actually makes it worse. Watch. When companies start cutting their research budget, those are companies on the downslide. When things tight, you increase your research budget, not decrease it.

I agree with 90% of what you are saying. The three main items of any significance is military, medicare/medicaid, and SS. Social security can pay for itself with some minor age tweaking. Medicare and defense need to be cut back to 1999 levels as a percentage of the budget. They were 17.5% and 16.4%, respectively then. They are now 28.67% and 22.8%, respectively. Unsustainable.

Doesn't matter how efficiently Medicare is run. It is still unsustainable. I can build a deck for you faster than anyone, but if you pay me less than the cost of materials I still lose money on the deal. The benefit needs to be trimmed.

sardis wrote:

Owlman wrote:As any good corporation would tell you, debt is only a problem if you can't service your debt (there are businesspeople that take on debt to offset some other income for example). Right now, our debt is not a problem. Countries are actually buying our debt as a matter of choice right now. We don't have a short-term debt problem, we have a long-term debt problem, with projections being extreme. The biggest culprits in terms of size, medicare, medicaid, social security and military expenditures. Medicaid is actually one of the most efficient health care programs out there. Social Security under Reagan increased taxes to pay for this time period (of the baby boomers). While that money was used for other things, social security is still safe for about 30 years.

The biggest problems are the military and medicare. The military spent money on two wars and didn't even include their costs in the budget. That's a huge backlog of money. Our military budget drawfs every other country in the world. Medicare is only solvent for about 12 years. It's a 300,000 gift transfer to seniors. But of the programs mentioned, which is the one most likely to get attacked? The one with the least influential voters, medicaid (even though it's the most efficient of all the ones mentioned). Despite rhetoric, generally, the poor don't vote and don't have a big lobbiest.

They need long term solutions, not short term that actually makes it worse. Watch. When companies start cutting their research budget, those are companies on the downslide. When things tight, you increase your research budget, not decrease it.

I agree with 90% of what you are saying. The three main items of any significance is military, medicare/medicaid, and SS. Social security can pay for itself with some minor age tweaking. Medicare and defense need to be cut back to 1999 levels as a percentage of the budget. They were 17.5% and 16.4%, respectively then. They are now 28.67% and 22.8%, respectively. Unsustainable.

Doesn't matter how efficiently Medicare is run. It is still unsustainable. I can build a deck for you faster than anyone, but if you pay me less than the cost of materials I still lose money on the deal. The benefit needs to be trimmed.

But you are GOING to BUILD that deck (and if you lose money, so be it), and that is the end of it. That is the position of the Democratic Party, the position of this President, and the position of our Senate. That is largely what people look at Medicare, particularly those near the age of using it (or those already using it.) They don't give a damn that it is unsustainable, they just want theirs.

innocentbystander wrote:

Owlman wrote:

Debt is a problem whether you can service it or not.

Talk to a finance guy. Educate yourself.

Toe, it ain't the media for my sources.

sardis wrote:
I agree with 90% of what you are saying. The three main items of any significance is military, medicare/medicaid, and SS. Social security can pay for itself with some minor age tweaking. Medicare and defense need to be cut back to 1999 levels as a percentage of the budget. They were 17.5% and 16.4%, respectively then. They are now 28.67% and 22.8%, respectively. Unsustainable.

Doesn't matter how efficiently Medicare is run. It is still unsustainable. I can build a deck for you faster than anyone, but if you pay me less than the cost of materials I still lose money on the deal. The benefit needs to be trimmed.

Well done, Sardis. Yes to all of that except for the Draconian hit on Medicare. Maybe go half on that particular cut.

and who doesn't love a good deck-building metaphor

Doesn't matter how efficiently Medicare is run. It is still unsustainable. I can build a deck for you faster than anyone, but if you pay me less than the cost of materials I still lose money on the deal. The benefit needs to be trimmed.

I think you meant medicaid here. Medicaid is more efficient in providing care. The benefit is for each member though is small. The alternative to the benefit is no care at all for the poor which will costs more in the long run. You build the deck at a loss if the alternative is a 30 foot drop.

50% of medical cost is defensive medicine. Tort reform is targeted though to malpractice payment reform which lowers malpractice insurance rates. Physicians though practice defensive medicine to protect the accusation. Perhaps a better way will be to take it out of the fault perspective. Have a certain amount of money put aside for certain negative outcomes. No lawsuits at all. Then increase the effectiveness of the medical discipline board. It will need more comprehensive application, but hopefully will decrease overall test.

What? I thought all you guys were arguing that medmal had little impact in driving up the cost of medical care a year or two back. Now, you say it is a key component of why Medicaid is the most efficient way of distribution of healthcare. BOJ will be most displeased.

Anyhoo, I misread your post. Medicaid is manageable, medicare needs to be seriously curtailed, but it looks like Sen. Reid and his compadres are not hearing any of that.

bluetick wrote:I'm willing to give up child tax credits and education credits. And come Hillary's first term, I'll be okay with doing away with the mortgage interest credit.

Everybody pitch in.

Of course you are. Are you even eligible for any of those credits anymore as your kids are grown or very very close?

bluetick wrote:Biggest Black Friday EVER! Biggest Cyber Monday EVER (28% over last year)!

sorry...let us return to Days of Our Sucky Lives

Heh...did you see CNN reporting that 247 million people went shopping over the weekend?

So basically every person over 14 in the USA went shopping?

-------------------

CNN: All Adults in America Went Shopping on Black Friday Weekend

"A record 247 million shoppers visited stores and websites in the post-Thanksgiving Black Friday weekend this year, up 9% from 226 million last year, according to a survey by the National Retail Federation released Sunday," the CNN reports reads. The headline reads: "247 million shoppers visited stores and websites Black Friday weekend."

This would seem to mean, according to these statistics, that basically all Americans over the age of 14 went shopping this past weekend.

There are, according to the 2010 Census, an estimated 308,745,538 folks living in this country. Under the age of 5 years old, there are 20,201,362; between 5-9, there are 20,348,657; and between 10-14, there are 20,677,194.

That means, if you subtract those who are too young to shop, 0-14 year olds, from the total U.S. population, there are 247,518,325 people in this country. The number of people CNN reports who went shopping this past weekend.

So if CNN's statistics are to be believed, that means everyone over 14 went shopping between the Friday after Thanksgiving and the Sunday two days later. That includes 4,371,357 who are between 75-79, 3,110,470 between 80-84, 1,913,317 between 85-89, 830,206 between 90-94, 228,669 between 95-99, and 40,397 over 100.

CNN's numbers, however, include those who visited "websites." The numbers so loose it could even include news website or the same person visiting multiple shopping websites.

sardis wrote:What? I thought all you guys were arguing that medmal had little impact in driving up the cost of medical care a year or two back. Now, you say it is a key component of why Medicaid is the most efficient way of distribution of healthcare. BOJ will be most displeased.

Anyhoo, I misread your post. Medicaid is manageable, medicare needs to be seriously curtailed, but it looks like Sen. Reid and his compadres are not hearing any of that.

Actually, medmal is actually not the issue the way most think it is. It's not about the cost of lawsuits, it's about the attack on reputation publicly. That's why tort reform (which has been instituted in most states) doesn't decrease medical costs but does decrease medical malpractice insurance for physicians.

"Here is an article about the 144 corporations that had left CA by 2010:

144? In a state the size of California, that's not much. I thought you were going to say 700 to 800."

Well, even 700 to 800 would be quit a comedown from the hysterical number Prof first tried to float:

"Companies and jobs are leaving California by the tens of thousands every year."

TEN of THOUSANDS are leaving EVERY YEAR!! PEOPLE ARE STARVING IN THE STREETS!! IT'S A FACT!!!

Tens of thousands? Every year? Really? Oh wait, it's 144. LMAO. Yep, the sky is falling. Run, chicken little, run!!

Owlman wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:

Owlman wrote:

Debt is a problem whether you can service it or not.

Talk to a finance guy. Educate yourself.

Toe, it ain't the media for my sources.

Ok, what's your ceiling? (in terms of %GDP)

200%

During WWII, wasn't our debt greater than 100% of GDP?

But to partially answer your question, not too much when (while) the world is prioritizing buying our debt

hedge wrote:And yet if you go to California, you see lots and lots of people who appear to be doing very well and seem to be very happy. Somehow it just doesn't square with your doomsday scenario. But it sounds good, at least to a certain type of mind. Oh well, carry on. The end is nigh. Repent!

http://news.yahoo.com/bankrupt-san-bern ... ector.html