US politics circa 2011

And because I can't resist: The Texas economic miracle was forced into $31 billion in budget cuts (btw RK has promised to cure me of my misguided thoughts) Originally Posted by discreetgent

Uh yeah, DG. That's what normal, thinking people do when revenues decline. One cuts spending. Only the Fed thinks they can spend their way out. I never said Texas was immune from the world economy...I just said it was better than most others...and it still is.

Not only is Texas dealing with its budget shortfalls by making tough cuts...it is doing so (at least to date) without dipping into its +/- $10B rainy day fund. How is your state's rainy day fund?

I always find it amusing that when someone is bleeding like a stuck hog, and they need to be applying pressure to their wound...they instead spend all their efforts talking about the wounds of others. I guess misery really does love company...at least if your a Lib.

At least the CBO lays out what assumptions it is making, the timeframe, a best case, and a worst case scenario.

At times it has Dems bitching at it, at times Republicans which is a good thing if you are supposed to be an objective assessor lol

Not a whole lot of numbers out there that have undergone anything near that kind of analysis. So if you want to call it bullshit, fine but all the other numbers are less reliable.

On a side note: do you REALLY believe the Republicans want to repeal the Health Care bill because if the deficit? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Here is just the highlights on why it is bullshit.
* Its the net between raising taxes by $535 billion and a net spending increase of $401 billion over the period 2011-2020. The people paying these taxes would not be getting any benefit so this is just new revenue from the "rich". If you think they should be taxed more raise taxes on them, but don't play this charade that it offsets the cost of a new spending program. That's the biggest con in Washington.
* The taxes are for the full period and are projected to grow 5% a year after 2020 (from an annual base of about $95 billion in 2020). Bear in mind that no federal tax estimate are always more than these things actually yield.
* The net new spending of doesn't start until 2014 (thus it is only 7 years) and includes the laughable assumption that Congress will reduce physician Medicare reimbursements by $500 billion over the period. This is a reduction which they have already voted not to do and which if they did make, would reduce physician reimbursements so low that docs would stop treating seniors. BTW, every entitlement benefit estimate understates what a new plan would cost. Medicare was off by an order of magnitude (i.e. about 10x).
* Spending is estimated to grow at 8% a year after 2020 from a base of about $160B (assuming that nasty $50B/yr Medicare cut has actually happened.) Thus you are adding to the structural deficit with net costs growing by 3% a year (i.e., the 8% minus the 5%). By the end of 2029 the increase in the structural annual deficit is about $200B (or closer to $300B if you didnt do the doc fix.)

Everyone in Washington knows its a bullshit number. The CBO Director has even walked it back in public speeches.

Ansley, I got 4+ paragraphs out of PJ

PJ, give me a number around healthcare that isn't bullshit?

Uh yeah, DG. That's what normal, thinking people do when revenues decline. One cuts spending. Only the Fed thinks they can spend their way out. I never said Texas was immune from the world economy...I just said it was better than most others...and it still is.

Not only is Texas dealing with its budget shortfalls by making tough cuts...it is doing so (at least to date) without dipping into its +/- $10B rainy day fund. How is your state's rainy day fund?

I always find it amusing that when someone is bleeding like a stuck hog, and they need to be applying pressure to their wound...they instead spend all their efforts talking about the wounds of others. I guess misery really does love company...at least if your a Lib. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

My point was that Texas Governor Perry was extolling how Texas had weathered the economic storm with its conservative policies and lo and behold 4 months after his re-election the state needs to deal with a deficit that is among the largest in the country.

PJ, give me a number around healthcare that isn't bullshit? Originally Posted by discreetgent

There aren't any.

There aren't any. Originally Posted by pjorourke

So the conundrum is how do we make policy when we can't get numbers that we can rely on?

I have maintained for some time that the only way you can even come close to paying for all this stuff is with a VAT.

Alternatively, you could impose a huge income tax hike on the middle class. (The extent to which you can collect significantly more revenue from the affluent is far more limited than most people think.)

Anyone know of a promiment politician who has the cojones to stand up and suggest implementing a VAT? Remember the last guy to do so? (Ways and Means Chairman Al Ullman, who was voted out of office in 1980.)

Anyone know of a promiment politician who has the cojones to stand up and suggest implementing a VAT? Remember the last guy to do so? (Ways and Means Chairman Al Ullman, who was voted out of office in 1980.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Among other things, it would take a newly elected President who would be willing to significantly decrease his chance to be re-elected. Second term presidents rarely get any major legislation done.

My point was that Texas Governor Perry was extolling how Texas had weathered the economic storm with its conservative policies and lo and behold 4 months after his re-election the state needs to deal with a deficit that is among the largest in the country. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Thats what you get for "drive by" reading. The current deficit is not much over $1B. What you are reading (apparently in a Cliff notes manner) is the 2012-13 budget projection shortfall. Texas has a two year budget (not one year) like a lot of others...since the legislature only meets every other year. So, the shortfall is estimated to be as low as $20B...and as high as $32B...depeneding on different people. But thats a 2 year budget.

So, even though I'm not a Perry fan, Texas has pretty much dodged the shortfalls others have...but adjustments (and significant ones at that) are going to have to be made for the future. You rejoicing in that?

You might want to put down that single malt scotch before your review all that next time.

You rejoicing in that? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Nope - remember I'm the liberal with the bleeding heart - usually the cuts hit the folks who need the most help.

You might want to put down that single malt scotch before your review all that next time.

Maybe I should get it first lol No scotch tonight I am afraid.

So the conundrum is how do we make policy when we can't get numbers that we can rely on? Originally Posted by discreetgent

It probably best starts with a diminished "neener, neener" dialog...and instead an addressing of the reality of the world.

So the conundrum is how do we make policy when we can't get numbers that we can rely on? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Well you start by getting the government the hell out of it.

Well you start by getting the government the hell out of it. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Lets say we did. How would you restructure our entire healthcare system to do that (remember the argument about messing with 1/6 of the economy - or whatever the number was) with the caveat that we had to have universal - or darn close to it - coverage.

I borrowed this quote from another thread:

Hahahaha! I love those guys, i even skyped with one (just for fun of course....) I can`t believe people still fall for these scams. There was a TV show in germany showing people really getting broke over things like this. Hello?? Originally Posted by ninasastri

Yet, I think Nina’s remark would apply equally to those who support Obamacare.

Here is just the highlights on why it is bullshit.
* Its the net between raising taxes by $535 billion and a net spending increase of $401 billion over the period 2011-2020. The people paying these taxes would not be getting any benefit so this is just new revenue from the "rich". If you think they should be taxed more raise taxes on them, but don't play this charade that it offsets the cost of a new spending program. That's the biggest con in Washington.
* The taxes are for the full period and are projected to grow 5% a year after 2020 (from an annual base of about $95 billion in 2020). Bear in mind that no federal tax estimate are always more than these things actually yield.
* The net new spending of doesn't start until 2014 (thus it is only 7 years) and includes the laughable assumption that Congress will reduce physician Medicare reimbursements by $500 billion over the period. This is a reduction which they have already voted not to do and which if they did make, would reduce physician reimbursements so low that docs would stop treating seniors. BTW, every entitlement benefit estimate understates what a new plan would cost. Medicare was off by an order of magnitude (i.e. about 10x).
* Spending is estimated to grow at 8% a year after 2020 from a base of about $160B (assuming that nasty $50B/yr Medicare cut has actually happened.) Thus you are adding to the structural deficit with net costs growing by 3% a year (i.e., the 8% minus the 5%). By the end of 2029 the increase in the structural annual deficit is about $200B (or closer to $300B if you didnt do the doc fix.)

Everyone in Washington knows its a bullshit number. The CBO Director has even walked it back in public speeches. Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1

... with the caveat that we had to have universal - or darn close to it - coverage. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I don't accept the caveat.