View topic - Fiscal Cliff • Redscape

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

04 Jan 2013, 3:24 pm

fate
The problem, dear rickyp, is that central planning has consequences. You like to believe it doesn't

Right now there is central planning. By the small number of large pharmaceutical manufacturers....

You're worrying about a hypothetical. You can't prove there would be any difference in research and development if medicare and medicaid negotiated lower drug prices...
Why?
1) Most original research doesn't have its genesis in corporations....
2) R&D spending has a ludicrously wide definition when it comes to expense claims at tax time... So current spending levels are greatly exaggerated. And include research on a lot of largely incidental changes to drugs to justify patent protection continuations....
Moreover, you're using a hypothetical as weight against a known benefit. That's the kind of thing you accuse liberals of all the time...
Look, if drug negotiations could reduce costs 20% .... and that's likely .... there'd be a lot of room to move on new approaches to funding research if it really is required....
I doubt it though. R&D is required in order for growth by Pharma. They won't stop developing products that are their future . They'll save on the wasteful stuff like marketing and detailing...

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

04 Jan 2013, 3:27 pm

Danivon
Businesses are becoming more 24-7 than ever. Bringing in a 5 day postal week would make a difference (or push more people away from USPS than already have been). It could well be a false economy.

Postal services make their money from package delivery now.... Traditional Mail service is a losing proposition . And Saturday delivery of mail is a luxury expense without real value to the consumer....

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

04 Jan 2013, 3:32 pm

rickyp wrote:Danivon
Businesses are becoming more 24-7 than ever. Bringing in a 5 day postal week would make a difference (or push more people away from USPS than already have been). It could well be a false economy.

Postal services make their money from package delivery now.... Traditional Mail service is a losing proposition . And Saturday delivery of mail is a luxury expense without real value to the consumer....

I agree with Ricky! -- happy weekend everyone

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

04 Jan 2013, 3:33 pm

rickyp wrote:Danivon
Businesses are becoming more 24-7 than ever. Bringing in a 5 day postal week would make a difference (or push more people away from USPS than already have been). It could well be a false economy.

Postal services make their money from package delivery now.... Traditional Mail service is a losing proposition . And Saturday delivery of mail is a luxury expense without real value to the consumer....

Well, sort of. Except that if you combine the rounds, it can reduce overall cost. Splitting them out and dropping mail will make per-unit delivery of parcels more expensive.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

04 Jan 2013, 3:45 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate, I'm sure that there are efficiencies to be wrung from the various programs that serve the needs of the poor, and working poor. However, the really big ticket items are in the realm of corporate tax breaks, corporate subsidies and health care over payment.....
If you have x resources to spend in finding savings its generally a good idea to start where the money really is....

Rubbish.

Please explain, if this is correct, how these would account for Federal spending more than doubling in the last 15 years.

Again:

Doctor Fate wrote:What has Obama proposed to really cut spending?

Again, if the US budget in 1998 was $1.7T, how can more than twice that be justifiable now?

One easy step: eliminate baseline budgeting.

Another easy step: adjust the methodology for calculating inflation adjustments to Social Security.

Another easy step: means testing for Social Security and Medicare.

Another easy step: combine redundant government programs.

There are so many ways to cut government. How many has Obama proposed?

The notion that there are millions of Americans ripping off the country for the vast rewards of welfare ..... defies reality.

No one said there were millions. How many are there? We may never know.

I do know how "well" my State cares for the money it extracts from me:

Sacchetti: Why should taxpayers have any confidence that the state can effectively oversee this system when we apparently can't even locate 19-thousand people?

Governor: Voting information was sent to a very broad group of people, not all of whom are actual recipients of benefits today. They were sent as a result of a settlement in a lawsuit, anyone who had any interaction with the welfare system in the last year. Not all of those people are still on the rolls. Many if not most people receive their benefits electronically not by mail, but for the four percent of mailings that were returned, you bet your life we're going to scrub through them and make sure the information we have is up to date.

Sacchetti: But the four percent, 19-thousand people, is enough to fill the Boston Garden...

Governor: It's a lot of people, it's a lot of people, not all of whom do you or I know are actually on the welfare list today.

Sacchetti: But isn't that the point, we just don't know?

Governor: No, the point is that under the settlement, we had to send mailings to a broader class of people than those who are actually on the rolls today. So there is information we should pay attention to today from the return of those mailings but it may not actually be indicative of a problem, but we'll know that when we do the scrubbing.

Again, I'm not saying welfare is bankrupting the Federal government. I do think that the government is so big and so unwieldy that it cannot be efficient. I also believe the President and his party have no particular interest in making it more efficient. If so, where is that interest made manifest?

The welfare cadillac is a myth.

Would you care for a bit of kerosene with your straw man? However, it is demonstrable that some people are willing to exist on what the government doles out. Handouts crush responsibility and drive in some people. Is that not obvious? How is it that generations live and die in public housing?

A different approach is called for. I think the late Jack Kemp had some innovative ideas that ought to be tried.

Now, military contractors? A different story that, with the resources of a few well seasoned forensic accountants and auditors woul deliver enormous results... .

I would not argue with that. So, why hasn't your Man done this?

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

05 Jan 2013, 7:02 am

What I find frustrating is that the $600 Billion tax increase over 10 years was incredibly challenging and dominated the news. It was very hard to agree to this increase. There was so much fanfare and congratulations to our government.

But we are going to spend $50 to $60 Billion for Hurricane Sandy relief in the next month with no offset. We will have at least 10 more Sandy type expenditures (whether hurricanes or war or some other priority). I'm not commenting on the need for Sandy relief. I'm just saying that there isn't sufficient fiscal control to keep the budget in check. All of the forces, including the teaser rate loans that the US Treasury is getting, result in our spending way beyond our means.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

05 Jan 2013, 7:22 am

Well, I would say that the Sandy bill is largely 'capital' spend, whereas the real issue with the budget is that current revenue flows are very imbalanced.

I did, however, think that the House was putting forward a $27bn Sandy Bill as a response to the Senate one. Maybe the delaying of it has backfired on them, though, with the pressure from East Coast Republicans to have a debate asap.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

05 Jan 2013, 9:40 am

danivon wrote:Well, I would say that the Sandy bill is largely 'capital' spend, whereas the real issue with the budget is that current revenue flows are very imbalanced.

I did, however, think that the House was putting forward a $27bn Sandy Bill as a response to the Senate one. Maybe the delaying of it has backfired on them, though, with the pressure from East Coast Republicans to have a debate asap.

The shame of the Sandy Relief bill sent from the Senate is all the non-Sandy nonsense in it. It is indicative of a government that is more concerned with delivering pork than to taking care of the victims of the storm.

The most interesting thing though was watching Harry Reid.

"When we had that devastating Katrina, we were there within days, taking care of Mississippi, Alabama, and especially Louisiana," said Reid. "Within days. We are now past two months with the people of New York. And the people of New Orleans, in that area, they were hurt, but nothing in comparison to what's happened to the people in New England."

Nearly 1,500 died because of Katrina. About 110 died because of Sandy.

Strange, but I remember liberals attacking GWB because the Katrina response was too slow. Now, it was the poster child for how to respond. Again, weird, but Bush was blamed for the Katrina response and somehow the response to Sandy is not Obama's fault. It's Boehner's--as if he larded up the relief bill with money for Alaska and other non-Sandy items.

If I didn't respect the integrity of Senator Reid and others on the Left so much, why I might be tempted to believe they were playing politics with natural disasters.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

05 Jan 2013, 9:43 am

Ray Jay wrote:What I find frustrating is that the $600 Billion tax increase over 10 years was incredibly challenging and dominated the news. It was very hard to agree to this increase. There was so much fanfare and congratulations to our government.

But we are going to spend $50 to $60 Billion for Hurricane Sandy relief in the next month with no offset. We will have at least 10 more Sandy type expenditures (whether hurricanes or war or some other priority). I'm not commenting on the need for Sandy relief. I'm just saying that there isn't sufficient fiscal control to keep the budget in check. All of the forces, including the teaser rate loans that the US Treasury is getting, result in our spending way beyond our means.

Get used to it.

President Obama is going to talk about spending cuts and fiscal restraint and "being responsible."

In the meantime, he's going to spend like a cheated-on ex-wife who has been given her ex-husband's credit cards and bank accounts and has been told to "spend only what you need."

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

05 Jan 2013, 11:32 am

ray

But we are going to spend $50 to $60 Billion for Hurricane Sandy relief in the next month with no offset

Surely the offset is the repair and replacement of infrastructure, who's loss has affected the economies of New York and New Jersey.
When the commuter rail and subway systems couldn't operate economic activity was greatly curtailed...

But you're probably right about spending generally. However, your constitution and governance process is at the heart of the lack of control - no specific politician. Including the current President. When you see someone with the courage to end subsidies for corn (and therefore an increase in sucrose costs) in either House or the Executive... then you may see a signal that there is a genuine concern about "controlling spending". As it is, the political repercussions for politicians who line up behind the "wrong" spending cuts are enormous. Just as for republicans the primary system makes them vulnerable to delusional resistance to tax increases on the very wealthy.....

Right now, the House is a republican majority and yet more Americans voted for Democratic representatives... In a representative democracy based upon proportional representation Democrats would be just shy of a majority. Perhaps, this signals something significant about the need for substantial reform ?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

05 Jan 2013, 12:35 pm

rickyp wrote:Right now, the House is a republican majority and yet more Americans voted for Democratic representatives... In a representative democracy based upon proportional representation Democrats would be just shy of a majority. Perhaps, this signals something significant about the need for substantial reform ?

Depends on how you look at it. How many Republican governors are there?

30.

There are a lot of ways to slice that pie.

Here's something that is true and actually has bearing on the Fiscal Health of the United States: what we are doing is, by universal acclaim, unsustainable. No one believes we can borrow 40 cents on every dollar we spend.

Now, we have ONE President. He "charts the course" as it were for the country.

But, he is not a dictator. The House is Republican. The Senate is not easily ruled.

His "course," thus far, has been to increase taxes and increase spending. I see no reason to believe he plans on a new "course."

I don't care if it's what EVERY American wants. They can also want a diet of nothing but candy corn and to simultaneously lose weight and put on muscle. What they want and what they are doing are incompatible.

If Americans want to remain a viable and prosperous country, something has to change.The President has promised nothing except higher taxes and more "investment."

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

05 Jan 2013, 2:42 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:Strange, but I remember liberals attacking GWB because the Katrina response was too slow. Now, it was the poster child for how to respond. Again, weird, but Bush was blamed for the Katrina response and somehow the response to Sandy is not Obama's fault. It's Boehner's--as if he larded up the relief bill with money for Alaska and other non-Sandy items.

The difference is that the initial response to Katrina was woeful. FEMA and it's director had a lassez-faire attitude during the actual days of and immediately following the Katrina storm. The response, rescue effort, recovery of vital services etc is where Katrina made several levels of US government look bad.

That's a bit different to the question of rebuilding post-disaster.

While you are quick to point fingers at Reid, why are you not commenting on the position of Gov Christie and other representatives and leaders of the affected areas?

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

05 Jan 2013, 3:09 pm

By the way, the 'pork' on the Sandy Bill for Alaska - how did that get there? Some spendthrift Democrat, or Lisa Murkowsky?

This is ridiculous. Republican Senators help load a bill with extras, and then other Republicans blame the Democrats for it. Republican politicians in the affected areas want the bill signed, and a large portion of their party colleagues in the House vote against even the insurance cover (which is pretty much the basic for emergency costs). And now we get the line that it's the Democrats' fault it's taking so long after Boehner failed to schedule a vote.

You know what is the biggest problem for the Republican Party? Itself - they are fighting against their own measures and principles in a bizarre internal war. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the primaries, when the Tea Party blame the moderates and the moderates blame the Tea Party.

And you wonder why the Democrats can win elections?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

05 Jan 2013, 3:25 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Strange, but I remember liberals attacking GWB because the Katrina response was too slow. Now, it was the poster child for how to respond. Again, weird, but Bush was blamed for the Katrina response and somehow the response to Sandy is not Obama's fault. It's Boehner's--as if he larded up the relief bill with money for Alaska and other non-Sandy items.
The difference is that the initial response to Katrina was woeful. FEMA and it's director had a lassez-faire attitude during the actual days of and immediately following the Katrina storm. The response, rescue effort, recovery of vital services etc is where Katrina made several levels of US government look bad.

Actually, you're just wrong.

The City and State governments failed in a number of ways.

But, no matter how you slice it, the Federal response to Sandy was not exactly whiz-bang.

While you are quick to point fingers at Reid, why are you not commenting on the position of Gov Christie and other representatives and leaders of the affected areas?

Because Reid is largely responsible for the leviathan bill that wended its way over to the House.

Who cares if it was Murkowski or Begich? And, there's a lot more pork than just Alaska.

The point is it should be a "clean" bill.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

05 Jan 2013, 3:49 pm

Well, it 'should' be a clean bill. But it isn't. How much as a proportion of the bill is 'pork' though? A lot of the list that bbauska provided didn't look like slam-dunk pork at all. We asked for more than just a bullet list, and never saw anything.

Still that last $9bn was for the Federal government to pay up what it owes, and yet dozens of GOP members of the House voted against?

218 posts • Page 8 of 15 • 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Fiscal Cliff