The Democrat Thread

[Cknolls]

 

 

The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).

 

How convenient that you left out medicare, medicaid, and SS.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe this conversation needs to be in a separate thread. I'm getting tired of the trolling.

 

I support splitting arguments from the partisan catch-alls, but I'm not going to complain about someone arguing against something in the Democrat thread. The idea of shielded, irrefutable threads in this forum is counter-productive to me (I'm being kind with my phrasing).

[StrangeSox]

How convenient that you left out medicare, medicaid, and SS.

 

It's not a complicated point. That pie chart is discretionary spending.

 

Defense spending keeps rising and rising and rising and rising. We outspend almost the entire rest of the world combined. It's unnecessary and it's very, very expensive. That doesn't mean I advocate cutting all defense spending. That doesn't mean cutting all defense spending would solve the problem. It doesn't mean we shouldn't look at entitlement spending as well as tax policies.

 

What it does mean is that anyone who groans on and on about "fiscal responsibility" and balanced budgets and cries about socialism and kickbacks but supports all military expenditures is a hypocrite who has no real desire to address any of the real economic issues in this country.

[Jenksismyhero]

Nope. It's not a complicated point.

 

Defense spending keeps rising and rising and rising and rising. We outspend almost the entire rest of the world combined. It's unnecessary and it's very, very expensive. That doesn't mean I advocate cutting all defense spending. That doesn't mean cutting all defense spending would solve the problem.

 

What it does mean is that anyone who groans on and on about "fiscal responsibility" and balanced budgets and cries about socialism and kickbacks but supports all military expenditures is a hypocrite who has no real desire to address any of the real economic issues in this country.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are at war openly in at least two countries, and covertly in others yes? Whether you agree with that is a different argument. That would explain the rise in defense spending over the last decade.

 

I'm in total agreement that defense spending needs to be cut. But those that groan on and on about defense spending but don't also support similar cuts in medicare and social security and other entitlement spending is also a hypocrite who has no real desire to address any of the real economic issues in this country. It goes both ways.

[BigSqwert]

I support splitting arguments from the partisan catch-alls, but I'm not going to complain about someone arguing against something in the Democrat thread.

It's one thing to argue but to be a troll about it with all the LMFAO!!!! and circle jerk talk is not civilized discourse.

[StrangeSox]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are at war openly in at least two countries, and covertly in others yes? Whether you agree with that is a different argument. That would explain the rise in defense spending over the last decade.

 

That's a big part of the problem and what Eisenhower warned against.

 

Lockheed,Raytheon etc. need those wars to keep the defense dollars coming. SS, medicade and medicare exist for reasons other than enriching military procurement contractors and bombing places.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's a big part of the problem and what Eisenhower warned against.

 

Lockheed,Raytheon etc. need those wars to keep the defense dollars coming. SS, medicade and medicare exist for reasons other than enriching military procurement contractors and bombing places.

 

No they don't, they did just fine when the defense budget was smaller under Clinton. They'd adapt as they always do.

 

And you don't think medicare/medicaid enriches doctors/hospitals/pharma companies?

[StrangeSox]

No they don't, they did just fine when the defense budget was smaller under Clinton. They'd adapt as they always do.

 

I seem to remember several military excursions in the 90's. If our defense budget was cut back to more reasonable levels, there's no question that it would negatively impact military suppliers/contractors. They have a financial interest in making sure our budget stays as bloated as possible.

 

And you don't think medicare/medicaid enriches doctors/hospitals/pharma companies?

 

I think our medical system is seriously and fundamentally flawed. I don't know if medicare/medicaid is a significant part of the problem.

 

[StrangeSox]

Interesting idea I read elsewhere:

 

if the Pres. debates had been between Paul and Kucinich, America as a whole would understand our federal budgets, economic policies and issues much better than when you've got an R and a D diving to the middle and gobbling up corporate money.

[BigSqwert]

Interesting idea I read elsewhere:

 

if the Pres. debates had been between Paul and Kucinich, America as a whole would understand our federal budgets, economic policies and issues much better than when you've got an R and a D diving to the middle and gobbling up corporate money.

No doubt.

[Balta1701]

I think our medical system is seriously and fundamentally flawed. I don't know if medicare/medicaid is a significant part of the problem.

Yes, it absolutely is a part of the problem. The PPACA helped, and could be a starting point towards the solution.

[StrangeSox]

Part of the problem because of the way it's structured and funded or part of the problem because benefits need to be cut?

[Balta1701]

I'll say it again, link the retirement benefits of public sector unions to the retirement benefits of the everyday joe, i.e. social security, and problem disappears. Want to retire, go ahead, but you get reduced benefitss at 62, and receive full benefis at what is now, nearly 67 yrs? You do not have to change anything.

Can all police, firefighters, construction workers, and teachers physically make it to that age?

[Balta1701]

Part of the problem because of the way it's structured and funded or part of the problem because benefits need to be cut?

The big problem is the health system in general. It can't grow at 7% above the rate of inflation forever.

 

Medicare and Medicaid tend to be 1-2 percentage points below the rate of growth of the health care system. So, their spending grows less quickly than the system as a whole, which is a good thing and does suggest some measure of cost control is plausible.

 

The real way to look at it is the John McClain way...If they're not being part of the solution, they're being part of the problem. Government health care costs can't grow at 6% a year when the country's growth rate is 2% a year without rapidly becoming the entire economy.

[Balta1701]

What's the biggest budget problem out there right now (and specifically growing into the future)? Entitlements right?

I'd say it's the jobs crisis. At least at the state level.

 

Let me steal a quote here:

Let's be clear: Whatever fiscal problems Wisconsin is -- or is not -- facing at the moment, they're not caused by labor unions. That's also true for New Jersey, for Ohio and for the other states. There was no sharp rise in collective bargaining in 2006 and 2007, no major reforms of the country's labor laws, no dramatic change in how unions organize. And yet, state budgets collapsed. Revenues plummeted. Taxes had to go up, and spending had to go down, all across the country.

 

Blame the banks. Blame global capital flows. Blame lax regulation of Wall Street. Blame home buyers, or home sellers. But don't blame the unions. Not for this recession.

 

Of course, the fact that public-employee pensions didn't cause a meltdown at Lehman Brothers doesn't mean they're not stressing state budgets, and that the pensions they've been promised don't exceed what state budgets seem able to bear. But the buildup of global capital that overheated the American housing sector and got packaged into seemingly riskless financial products that then brought down Wall Street, paralyzing the economy, throwing millions out of work, and destroying the revenues from state income and sales taxes even as state residents needed more social services? The answer to that is not to end collective bargaining for (some) public employees. A plus B plus C does not equal what Gov. Scott Walker is attempting in Wisconsin.

[Jenksismyhero]

Part of the problem because of the way it's structured and funded or part of the problem because benefits need to be cut?

 

Both, IMO, though I think the benefits part has more to do with the cost of healthcare these days moreso than the system itself (in that cuts needs to be made because more and more people are receiving treatment via medicare and the costs are only going up).

 

But there's a massive amount of fraud in the system, and hospitals/doctors especially have every incentive to tell patients to come back repeatedly or to have X procedure performed or whatever to pad their bottom line.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think you can support the claim that there's a massive amount of fraud.

[Balta1701]

Since we've already cited the Professor once in this discussion, it's worth noting as well that he made a few points on defense spending over the weekend.

One thing I’m hearing and reading from liberal sources is the argument that we can find big savings by ending the war in Afghanistan, and more generally by cutting bloated defense spending. So, a few words on that issue.

 

Yes, there’s a lot of wasteful defense spending — in fact, it’s almost surely the most waste-ridden part of the federal budget, because politicians are afraid to say no to anything for fear of being called unpatriotic. And even aside from the question of the Bush wars, it has long been clear that we’re still spending a lot to head off threats that haven’t existed since the fall of the Soviet Union. Read Fred Kaplan for a sense of just how bad it is.

 

Then there are those wars. I was against Iraq from the beginning — and I was pretty lonely out there on the pages of major newspapers. Afghanistan made sense in 2002, but I have no idea what we’re doing there now.

 

But if we’re talking about fiscal issues, you have to bear the arithmetic in mind. We’re not living in the 1950s, when defense was half the federal budget. Even a drastic cut in military spending wouldn’t release enough money to offset more than a small fraction of the projected rise in health care costs.

 

So by all means, let’s try to crack down on the massive waste that goes on in matters military. But doing so would be of only modest help on the larger budget problem.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'd say it's the jobs crisis. At least at the state level.

 

Let me steal a quote here:

 

That sort of ignores a problem that's been growing for decades and blaming it on a "sudden" drop off in state revenue. Governments and unions should have known that the cookie jar wasn't always going to be full.

[Balta1701]

I don't think you can support the claim that there's a massive amount of fraud.

It depends on how you define "Fraud". If you read his statement, he's defined fraud in a certain way which is actually correct...we pay most medical providers based on how many procedures they perform, not based on whether or not they actually make their patient healthier.

 

The PPACA had some clauses that allow funding to explore outcome-based payment for health services, but really radical reform on that front would be labeled as evil, socialist, and it would cost you the support of the American Medical Association, which has a habit of killing health care reform bills.

[StrangeSox]

I would not call that fraud unless they deliberately run unnecessary tests.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think you can support the claim that there's a massive amount of fraud.

 

Well, "massive" is relative, but there's plenty of examples of fraud. Google medicare fraud and start reading the stories. But the fraud i'm talking about is basically unprovable. What doctor is going to admit that their treatment isn't 100% necessary? We all know it exists. These doctors know they'll get paid so long as they send in the right form.

[BigSqwert]

I would not call that fraud unless they deliberately run unnecessary tests.

It might be hard to prove that.

[Balta1701]

Well, "massive" is relative, but there's plenty of examples of fraud. Google medicare fraud and start reading the stories. But the fraud i'm talking about is basically unprovable. What doctor is going to admit that their treatment isn't 100% necessary? We all know it exists. These doctors know they'll get paid so long as they send in the right form.

Worth adding an addendum here; the exact same thing happens in the private sector.

 

This problem is also why the PPACA included funding for comparative effectiveness research, which the U.S. currently does not fund. If you have 9 possible drugs and treatments for a patient, no company is going to pay to research which one is the best, because it might not be their expensive drug. That's a really good part of the job-killing health care bill of 2010.

[StrangeSox]

Well, "massive" is relative, but there's plenty of examples of fraud. Google medicare fraud and start reading the stories. But the fraud i'm talking about is basically unprovable. What doctor is going to admit that their treatment isn't 100% necessary? We all know it exists. These doctors know they'll get paid so long as they send in the right form.

 

Ok, that's a good example of a system with potential for abuse if not outright fraud. There's financial incentives for them to perform unnecessary and expensive treatment (and a small fraction of that is related to defensive medicine). How do you reform medicare/medicade to reduce or eliminate that potential? Can it be done without harming patients' care?