O/T: Quote Of THe Day

[Ed Pawlowski]

Complexities? No, nothing complex, we just let the government grow and grow. Used to be about 1 in 10 people was government employed, now closer to 1 in 4.

[Leon]

Do you think it is worse?

[Dave in Texas]

Has the CBO or an outside agency ever actually -verified- any of these Democrat claims of surplus?

Would you believe them [CBO numbers] if they did?

Dave in Texas

[Larry Blanchard]

If any surplus is less than that years interest on the debt, the debt will increase. There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went up in all of those years.

[Larry Jaques]

Has -any- budget surplus ever been used to pay down the debt, not just interest? Hell, the interest payments alone are far greater than I can even wrap my little-figured mind around.

-- The most powerful factors in the world are clear ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will. -- J. Arthur Thomson

[Doug Winterburn]

The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on the debt is an expense line item.

[Just Wondering]

That would cause inflation. Since inflation has been under 4% for over a decade, the federal deficit has not recently been covered in any significant amount with new printed money.

[Dave]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:55:56 -0600, Just Wondering

You're absolutely correct, it doesn't. But, what's happened with budgetary concerns back then are not very comparable with what goes on now. The solutions and methods back then would most likely have a disastrous effect if they were implemented these days ~ Much more than many people think it already is.

[Just Wondering]

The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait, the worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.

[Dave]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:21:38 -0600, Just Wondering

Maybe, but that's a pretty easy statement to say. According to what I've read, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security took up nearly half of US federal spending in 2004.

A vast number of US citizens use those services. You'd have a pretty difficult time implementing those cuts, the outcry would be consuming. I'm a Canadian, so we're not too much different than you are. The number one concern of Canadians is our health care. I'd guess that most people down in the US feel pretty much the same way.

How exactly would you do that cost cutting without an uprising of some type? As far as I see it, Obama got elected with the support of these same people. As long as they have voting power, you're pretty much stuck with the problems you have. Would that be a fair assessment?

[HeyBub]

Are you insane?

The national debt has gone up six trillion dollars in 3-1/2 years of the current administration.

[Han]

Dave wrote in news: [e-mail]:

OK, there are differences between Federal debt and budget deficit. SS is funded outside of the budget, and there is a surplus on the books. I don't quiote understand how the books finagle it, but I am told we need to look at it separately. Social Security is easily funded almost to perpetuity with adjustments to taxation, just like happened before. Perhaps, like before the retirement age for full benefits may need further adjustment, but politically that is not so easy.

Medicare and MedicAid are different, and depend on cost control. It is nonsense that US medical costs are so much higher than that in other countries. I'd like a commission established to look into all the cost factors here, and I'll bet that unnecessary bureaucratic and clerical costs will be a big part. As may be the desire for the biggest, costliest, newest equipment in each doctor's office. Maybe there should be more control (it already exists) as to how many MRI machines there should be per 100,000 population.

[Han]

Ed Pawlowski wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Right. I'm left of Ed, but the main reason I retired was being sick of regulations that took my time from the research I was supposed to do. But the problem is how to reduce the burdens, and I don't know how. Just some of the problems in today's research fields is that of fraud and of abuse of research subjects. The regulations designed to combat these are stupendous, requiring testing & certification of researchers, approval programs of proposed protocols, and documentation, documentation, documentation. The HIPAA forms we are all familiar with are another example. Something that should be just self-evident, that your doctor shouldn't expose your records to just anyone, now requires multipage forms of legalese with exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions.

So let us do away with the HIPAA forms and everything analogous, and just punish anyone who violates our trust with sufficient force. Let's do away with due process?

[Han]

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:50475c4c$0$12927$c3e8da3$ [e-mail]:

I indeed didn't understand that "payroll tax vacation" other than it being a simple infusion of stimulus to everyone. But, like some other tax reductions, it is supposed to end, this one Dec 31 2012.

[dadiOH]

Wait.

There is no way the debt will ever be paid without starting up the printing presses. And yes, it will cause inflation. Our dollar is now worth $0.10 relative to how I knew it; in the not too distant future it will be worth $0.01. Or less.

And under 4% is *still* inflation. That rate will decrease the value of a dollar to 50% in 18 years or less.

[Just Wondering]

True, but it's a financial burden that is simply unsustainable long-term.

That may be true. If so, this country is royally screwed.

[Larry Blanchard]

OK, then I'll repeat my previous statement in shortened form :-).

There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went up in all of those years.

Creative accounting?

[Larry Blanchard]

If you took SS off the budget, as it used to be, we'd show a surplus. And SS could be fixed with some minor adjustments and show a surplus as well. Of course at that point the politicians would put it back on budget to mask some other spending.

And Medicare could be fixed by extending it to younger healthier people. Getting rid of the MedAdvantage (advantage to the insuranace companies) would help as well, as would allowing negotiations over drug prices (a gift to the drug companies).

I can at least understand those who oppose SS & Medicare on philosophical grounds, even though I disagree with them. But those who say we can't afford them are saying the US is poorer than Canada, Japan, Germany, England, etc., etc.. Oops I forgot - we are!

[Doug Winterburn]

Yes, creative accounting. I already explained it to Han. The difference is in how trust fund excess contributions are treated. The Feds claim all excess trust fund contributions as revenue in the annual accounting, but do not count the promisory notes placed in the trust funds as expenses. However, they do count the promisory notes in the debt.

It all boils down to the fact that the increase in debt is the true indicator that we have spent more than we have taken in since Ike.

[Lew Hodgett]

--------------------------------------- Which also must include the biggest entitlement program of them all, the defense budget.

Probably won't happen with out a fight since representives use it as a way to bring home the bacon to their districts.

Lew