Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are we all on the same page?

sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:25:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just want to check and see if all who read this post are on the same page as me with regard to the so called "fiscal cliff"

The plan is to stop spending more money than the govt takes in over ten years.

The govt currently spends 1 trillion more than it takes in every single year.

Assuming that this years baseline budget which is one trillion more than the govt takes in at current revenue collections, remains static and does not increase. The first year will increase the public debt by 900 billion then the second year 800 billion and so on and so on until the budget is deficit neutral after ten years. That is assuming the baseline never increases from the first year.

The govt wants to tax the so called rich to raise 1.6 trillion over the same ten year period.

Rate of growth stands static. There is no economic growth to speak of. So no new revenue coming in. I will be extremely optimistic and lets say by some fluke that the govt generates 100 billion in additional revenues over and above the previous years revenues. That would be 1 trillion over ten years.

The math:

Year one: Public debt = -16 trillion
Deficit spending = -900 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +100 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -16.784 trillion

Year two: Public debt = -16.784 trillion
Deficit spending = -800 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +200 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -17.368 trillion

Year three: Public debt = -17.368 trillion
Deficit spending = -700 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +300 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -17.752 trillion

Year four: Public debt = -17.752 trillion
Deficit spending = -600 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +400 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -17.936 trillion

Year five: Public debt = -17.936 trillion
Deficit spending = -500 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +500 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -17.920 trillion

Year six: Public debt = -17.920 trillion
Deficit spending = -400 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +600 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -17.704 trillion

Year seven: Public debt = -17.704 trillion
Deficit spending = -300 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +700 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -17.288 trillion

Year eight: Public debt = -17.288 trillion
Deficit spending = -200 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +800 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -16.672 trillion

Year nine: Public debt = -16.672 trillion
Deficit spending = -100 billion
Optimistic additional revenues = +900 billion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -15.856 trillion

Year ten: Public debt = -15.856 trillion
Deficit spending = 0
Optimistic additional revenues = +1 trillion
Taxing the rich 1.6 trillion/10 years = + 16 billion
public debt = -14.84 trillion

So the most optimistic of optimistic to look forward to in the next ten years is a reduction of the public debt of 1.16 trillion. Assuming that the govt does not increase it's base line budget 1 penny for the next ten years and the economy generates 100 billion in revenues over and above the previous years revenues for the next ten years. Call me a pessimist if you will but this plan is the biggest load of crap ever. The public debt that you kiddies are going to inherit is going to destroy your futures. You will live to service the debt of the dead and the govt will tell you it is all your fault just like they are telling me that the current situation is my fault. Good luck to ya. Bwahaahaahaa. Look on the bright side you will have gay marrige and abortion to fall back on. After all isn't that what "freedom" really is. Screw financial freedom, who needs it. That's just greedy minded crap from the minds of the evil rich.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 2:45:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Deficit spending doesn't cause debt. Borrowing money causes debt. We don't borrow money when our government wants to spends more than it takes in. We print it (and, despite what ya heard, The US Government owes The FED nothing for money printed...though, The FED does benefit from this, at the public's detriment)

We only borrow money in the case of trade deficits.

Lowering spending, or raising taxes, right now, considering that we still haven't recovered from the recession of 2007 yet, would be about the dumbest thing we could possibly do. This country has spent a grand total of 1 day, in its entire history, not in debt. Big deal.

Wanna fix the economy? Spend the money we've been spending, but instead of LITERALLY burning it in Afghanistan, Iraq (soldiers are back in that country...the war didn't end. It just went on hiatus), Iran, etc, etc, etc.

Bring that trillion dollars home and pump it into the domestic economy instead of tossing it away, and you'll never hear the words "fiscal cliff" again in your entire life.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 4:27:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 2:45:49 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Deficit spending doesn't cause debt. Borrowing money causes debt. We don't borrow money when our government wants to spends more than it takes in. We print it (and, despite what ya heard, The US Government owes The FED nothing for money printed...though, The FED does benefit from this, at the public's detriment)

We only borrow money in the case of trade deficits.

Lowering spending, or raising taxes, right now, considering that we still haven't recovered from the recession of 2007 yet, would be about the dumbest thing we could possibly do. This country has spent a grand total of 1 day, in its entire history, not in debt. Big deal.

Wanna fix the economy? Spend the money we've been spending, but instead of LITERALLY burning it in Afghanistan, Iraq (soldiers are back in that country...the war didn't end. It just went on hiatus), Iran, etc, etc, etc.

Bring that trillion dollars home and pump it into the domestic economy instead of tossing it away, and you'll never hear the words "fiscal cliff" again in your entire life.

"When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference."

http://www.davemanuel.com...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 5:34:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 2:45:49 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Deficit spending doesn't cause debt. Borrowing money causes debt. We don't borrow money when our government wants to spends more than it takes in. We print it (and, despite what ya heard, The US Government owes The FED nothing for money printed...though, The FED does benefit from this, at the public's detriment)

So, treasury bills are only for the trade deficit? I don't think so. When the government runs a deficit, it borrows from its citizens in the form of treasury bills and bonds, which other countries do buy.

The treasury is printing money to give to the government its stimulus money, but if and when the stimulus bubble bursts and the economy is still where it is, there will be inflation, probably hyperinflation.

We only borrow money in the case of trade deficits.

Lowering spending, or raising taxes, right now, considering that we still haven't recovered from the recession of 2007 yet, would be about the dumbest thing we could possibly do. This country has spent a grand total of 1 day, in its entire history, not in debt. Big deal.

Wanna fix the economy? Spend the money we've been spending, but instead of LITERALLY burning it in Afghanistan, Iraq (soldiers are back in that country...the war didn't end. It just went on hiatus), Iran, etc, etc, etc.

Bring that trillion dollars home and pump it into the domestic economy instead of tossing it away, and you'll never hear the words "fiscal cliff" again in your entire life.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 6:12:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 4:27:52 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/12/2012 2:45:49 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Deficit spending doesn't cause debt. Borrowing money causes debt. We don't borrow money when our government wants to spends more than it takes in. We print it (and, despite what ya heard, The US Government owes The FED nothing for money printed...though, The FED does benefit from this, at the public's detriment)

We only borrow money in the case of trade deficits.

Lowering spending, or raising taxes, right now, considering that we still haven't recovered from the recession of 2007 yet, would be about the dumbest thing we could possibly do. This country has spent a grand total of 1 day, in its entire history, not in debt. Big deal.

Wanna fix the economy? Spend the money we've been spending, but instead of LITERALLY burning it in Afghanistan, Iraq (soldiers are back in that country...the war didn't end. It just went on hiatus), Iran, etc, etc, etc.

Bring that trillion dollars home and pump it into the domestic economy instead of tossing it away, and you'll never hear the words "fiscal cliff" again in your entire life.

"When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference."

http://www.davemanuel.com...

The government does borrow money. However, everything else said by malcom makes sense. A recession is not the time to become fiscally conservative. The USA should increase government spending to get out of the recession and pay down the debt.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 6:30:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 6:13:12 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
^

pay down the debt later when the economy improves

If only that would actually happen...

It may be ideal to pay down debt later buy reducing spending and using that savings to pay off debt. The problem is: what bastard would support eliminating government jobs or aid to the poor or farmers or green technology?!?

Unfortunately, the spending stays.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 8:18:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 6:30:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 6:13:12 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
^

pay down the debt later when the economy improves

If only that would actually happen...

It may be ideal to pay down debt later buy reducing spending and using that savings to pay off debt. The problem is: what bastard would support eliminating government jobs or aid to the poor or farmers or green technology?!?

Unfortunately, the spending stays.

Most government jobs can be kept. Military is a good place to cut. Also, taxes can be raised.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:13:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 4:27:52 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/12/2012 2:45:49 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Deficit spending doesn't cause debt. Borrowing money causes debt. We don't borrow money when our government wants to spends more than it takes in. We print it (and, despite what ya heard, The US Government owes The FED nothing for money printed...though, The FED does benefit from this, at the public's detriment)

We only borrow money in the case of trade deficits.

Lowering spending, or raising taxes, right now, considering that we still haven't recovered from the recession of 2007 yet, would be about the dumbest thing we could possibly do. This country has spent a grand total of 1 day, in its entire history, not in debt. Big deal.

Wanna fix the economy? Spend the money we've been spending, but instead of LITERALLY burning it in Afghanistan, Iraq (soldiers are back in that country...the war didn't end. It just went on hiatus), Iran, etc, etc, etc.

Bring that trillion dollars home and pump it into the domestic economy instead of tossing it away, and you'll never hear the words "fiscal cliff" again in your entire life.

"When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference."

http://www.davemanuel.com...

That's the official line (or, it was...they're now admitting to printing $40B/mo solely to cover deficit spending). Now, look at each year's budget deficits and compare that to the amount of T-Bills issued those years. The numbers don't add up.

Printing money, especially money that is held by foreign nationals in foreign lands, is a huge income generation tool for The US (and also why 80% of the bills in circulation are $100s...we're fueling the black market for our own currency).

Here's when we'll actually hit the fiscal cliff - when Iran and China complete their expected oil futures deal for non-US currency (with the rate China has been gobbling up Japan's gold, my guess is that the medium o exchange will be gold).

Once other nations lose confidence in the US Dollar, and also realize it needn't be the medium of exchange for goods and services for all large scale trading endeavors, we're screwed...which is why we're isolating Iran by occupying nearly all countries which border it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:30:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you look at the proposed budget directly from the whitehouse:

http://www.whitehouse.gov...

it has both spending and revenue going up something like 5% a year. The deficit dips down to $662 billion in 2014 but then goes back up slowly to $1.2 trillion by 2014. I suppose this does not reflect the fiscal cliff. Then, after reading these:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

it's still unclear what it all means. However, one line caught my eye:

The year-over-year projected changes for fiscal years 2012"2013 include a 19.63% increase in federal tax revenue and 0.25% reduction in spending

Are we to believe a 0.25% decrease in spending is a "fiscal cliff"? It is when the dems are in charge.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 8:18:36 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/12/2012 6:30:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 6:13:12 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
^

pay down the debt later when the economy improves

If only that would actually happen...

It may be ideal to pay down debt later buy reducing spending and using that savings to pay off debt. The problem is: what bastard would support eliminating government jobs or aid to the poor or farmers or green technology?!?

Unfortunately, the spending stays.

Most government jobs can be kept. Military is a good place to cut. Also, taxes can be raised.

Not in regards to simulus spending.
If the government spends money it doesn't have to "jump start" the economy by building new roads and whatnot, why do new new projects need to be added once the economy is back in motion? These jobs are not necessary, and should be cut.

For example, in an effort to stem unemployment, let's say a state uses deficits to hire 100 people, in addition to the people they already have, to clean parks and fill potholes. When the economy settles, why should these people still have these jobs? Cut this spending, lose those jobs, and take those savings to pay down the debt.

There is the budget and there is discretionary spending. The budget is the budget and you can argue it shouldn't be touched. However, discretionary spending is about 31% of federal spending (1.2 trillion of 3.8). If the spending is so important, put it in the normal budget. Stimulus spending (discretion), pet projects, and other earmarks should stop and, assuming there was money to pay for those, put that towards the debt, and once that is under control, lower taxes.

To my understanding, when budgets go up (even if it is discretionary), they rarely go back down. Military is probably the only example of one that gets lowered, as there is no war to fight (hopefully).
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:37:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Our roads in this country are in horrible shape, and we have many vital bridges in desperate need of repair. Also, the roads we were built with the population at the time in mind, and since most cities in this country couldn't get a public transportation works project approved if Ralph Nader, himself, held a gun to each voter's head as they walked into the booth, roads it is.

We could also lay down a state of the art fiber-optics network, as well as a portable phone, low orbit satellite network and begin to invest in sustainable energy projects such that the money we were spending would actually create jobs now as well as sustain the economy in the future.

Think of what came out of the WPA - electricity and water to rural areas, roads, The Griffith Observatory, etc, etc, etc.

How much more commerce is engaged in when an area has reliable electricity and clean running water? Same would be the case as we modernized our infrastructure.

Or, it's a better idea than using a bunch of money to blow sh*t up, anyway.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, cutting the "unnecessary" jobs means a bunch of people won't be able to buy iPhones, or food, or anything else. And, as the economy dips back into another recession when Apple and Safeway go out of business, those who do have money will hoard it (because they are justifiably fearful that they may need it for a rainy day), that lowers the money multiplier effect, and so car sales will take a nose dive (for example, and among many other things) and all those jobs will be lost, which will...and so on.

It's not just a stupid mentality, it's a reckless one.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:37:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Our roads in this country are in horrible shape, and we have many vital bridges in desperate need of repair. Also, the roads we were built with the population at the time in mind, and since most cities in this country couldn't get a public transportation works project approved if Ralph Nader, himself, held a gun to each voter's head as they walked into the booth, roads it is.
So, we expand these systems. Then what? No jobs.

We could also lay down a state of the art fiber-optics network, as well as a portable phone, low orbit satellite network and begin to invest in sustainable energy projects such that the money we were spending would actually create jobs now as well as sustain the economy in the future.
The capital costs would be better spent having MORE people work, wouldn't it?

Think of what came out of the WPA - electricity and water to rural areas, roads, The Griffith Observatory, etc, etc, etc.

How much more commerce is engaged in when an area has reliable electricity and clean running water? Same would be the case as we modernized our infrastructure.
This is an argument for why government should be involved in roads and whatnot. It doesn't mean it should constantly spend more than it has.

Or, it's a better idea than using a bunch of money to blow sh*t up, anyway.
I did not imply this in the least.

What is your point?
That money we don't have should be used as capital costs to temporarily employ fewer people than otherwise could? How does this make sense?
If there is a tax surplus, no you could look at this, but what is better: using money we don't have to hire 100 people to do work that needs to be done, or hiring 1 person to do work that would be most benefical? In the current status, the former, when the economy settles, the latter. But that would mean jobs are cut, doesn't it?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:02:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, cutting the "unnecessary" jobs means a bunch of people won't be able to buy iPhones, or food, or anything else. And, as the economy dips back into another recession when Apple and Safeway go out of business, those who do have money will hoard it (because they are justifiably fearful that they may need it for a rainy day), that lowers the money multiplier effect, and so car sales will take a nose dive (for example, and among many other things) and all those jobs will be lost, which will...and so on.
That is why I explicitly said when the economy settles. The idea is that these people would get jobs in the private sector, and not be a burden to the state.

It's not just a stupid mentality, it's a reckless one.
No, it's a practicle one. When times are good, you don't hold the nation's workforce's hand; this is the time you do your expensive upstart projects.

Tell me, what business would spend millions building new stores when it can't pay the bills? If they are going to spend, they will spend it on "infrastructure" like advertising, sales, and new hires to up production. Then, if and when things turn around, they will invest in the bigger projects.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:02:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, cutting the "unnecessary" jobs means a bunch of people won't be able to buy iPhones, or food, or anything else. And, as the economy dips back into another recession when Apple and Safeway go out of business, those who do have money will hoard it (because they are justifiably fearful that they may need it for a rainy day), that lowers the money multiplier effect, and so car sales will take a nose dive (for example, and among many other things) and all those jobs will be lost, which will...and so on.

It's not just a stupid mentality, it's a reckless one.

An economy built on straw should burn...burn to the ground in a blaze of ashes.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:15:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 12:02:13 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, cutting the "unnecessary" jobs means a bunch of people won't be able to buy iPhones, or food, or anything else. And, as the economy dips back into another recession when Apple and Safeway go out of business, those who do have money will hoard it (because they are justifiably fearful that they may need it for a rainy day), that lowers the money multiplier effect, and so car sales will take a nose dive (for example, and among many other things) and all those jobs will be lost, which will...and so on.

It's not just a stupid mentality, it's a reckless one.

An economy built on straw should burn...burn to the ground in a blaze of ashes.

But, don't you know that the multiplier only works when government spends money...
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 2:09:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 12:02:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, cutting the "unnecessary" jobs means a bunch of people won't be able to buy iPhones, or food, or anything else. And, as the economy dips back into another recession when Apple and Safeway go out of business, those who do have money will hoard it (because they are justifiably fearful that they may need it for a rainy day), that lowers the money multiplier effect, and so car sales will take a nose dive (for example, and among many other things) and all those jobs will be lost, which will...and so on.
That is why I explicitly said when the economy settles. The idea is that these people would get jobs in the private sector, and not be a burden to the state.

What are you talking about? The state fuels the economy - ALWAYS. A full 1/3 of Boeing's yearly revenue comes from the US Government.

Virginia contractors (which, in this instance, means any party to a contract, and not just construction businesses) got $88.7 billion in government contracts last year. California contractors got $62.4 billion and Texas contractors got over $45 billion. This is in addition to the money that is paid directly from the Federal Government to the individual state governments, as well as Federal jobs which are located in each state that also fuel local economies.

The idea of the successful private business without government tax incentives (which are a form of income, from a purely economic perspective), contracts, military bases within proximity of their business, government built roads on which they can transport goods and services to fuel their income, etc, etc, etc is a complete fallacy and fantasy.

Without government spending, this country would fold.

It's not just a stupid mentality, it's a reckless one.
No, it's a practicle one. When times are good, you don't hold the nation's workforce's hand; this is the time you do your expensive upstart projects.

Actually, the best time to do upstart projects, if you can swing it, is during a recession, because with the exception of the Reagan Era Stagflation, and the recent low-interest rate fueled mortgage bubble, interest rates are at their low point during recessions, and borrowing capital to expand during recessions, even when revenue is down, makes the best fiscal sense for your business or municipalities/states (since only the Federal Government can engage in deficit spending legally...states have to borrow or beg for the money).

Tell me, what business would spend millions building new stores when it can't pay the bills? If they are going to spend, they will spend it on "infrastructure" like advertising, sales, and new hires to up production. Then, if and when things turn around, they will invest in the bigger projects.

I just did. If you need a specific example, though - Staples.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 2:21:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 2:09:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 12:02:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, cutting the "unnecessary" jobs means a bunch of people won't be able to buy iPhones, or food, or anything else. And, as the economy dips back into another recession when Apple and Safeway go out of business, those who do have money will hoard it (because they are justifiably fearful that they may need it for a rainy day), that lowers the money multiplier effect, and so car sales will take a nose dive (for example, and among many other things) and all those jobs will be lost, which will...and so on.
That is why I explicitly said when the economy settles. The idea is that these people would get jobs in the private sector, and not be a burden to the state.

What are you talking about? The state fuels the economy - ALWAYS. A full 1/3 of Boeing's yearly revenue comes from the US Government.
And this money wouldn't be spent elsewhere if the government didn't spend it? It is a wash. If anything, government will spend on things that "need" to be spent on (like jobs or intrastructure), while businesses will spend it on efficiency of resources. It is debatable which is better.

Virginia contractors (which, in this instance, means any party to a contract, and not just construction businesses) got $88.7 billion in government contracts last year. California contractors got $62.4 billion and Texas contractors got over $45 billion. This is in addition to the money that is paid directly from the Federal Government to the individual state governments, as well as Federal jobs which are located in each state that also fuel local economies.

The idea of the successful private business without government tax incentives (which are a form of income, from a purely economic perspective), contracts, military bases within proximity of their business, government built roads on which they can transport goods and services to fuel their income, etc, etc, etc is a complete fallacy and fantasy.
Did I ever say this?
Don't force a similar argument down my throat, please.

Without government spending, this country would fold.

It's not just a stupid mentality, it's a reckless one.
No, it's a practicle one. When times are good, you don't hold the nation's workforce's hand; this is the time you do your expensive upstart projects.

Actually, the best time to do upstart projects, if you can swing it, is during a recession, because with the exception of the Reagan Era Stagflation, and the recent low-interest rate fueled mortgage bubble, interest rates are at their low point during recessions, and borrowing capital to expand during recessions, even when revenue is down, makes the best fiscal sense for your business or municipalities/states (since only the Federal Government can engage in deficit spending legally...states have to borrow or beg for the money).
Wouldn't the best time to ensure jobs be during a recession, and the best time for high upstart cost projects be when you don't need to borrow at all?

Tell me, what business would spend millions building new stores when it can't pay the bills? If they are going to spend, they will spend it on "infrastructure" like advertising, sales, and new hires to up production. Then, if and when things turn around, they will invest in the bigger projects.

I just did. If you need a specific example, though - Staples.
Expand.
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 2:53:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 2:21:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:09:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 12:02:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, cutting the "unnecessary" jobs means a bunch of people won't be able to buy iPhones, or food, or anything else. And, as the economy dips back into another recession when Apple and Safeway go out of business, those who do have money will hoard it (because they are justifiably fearful that they may need it for a rainy day), that lowers the money multiplier effect, and so car sales will take a nose dive (for example, and among many other things) and all those jobs will be lost, which will...and so on.
That is why I explicitly said when the economy settles. The idea is that these people would get jobs in the private sector, and not be a burden to the state.

What are you talking about? The state fuels the economy - ALWAYS. A full 1/3 of Boeing's yearly revenue comes from the US Government.
And this money wouldn't be spent elsewhere if the government didn't spend it? It is a wash. If anything, government will spend on things that "need" to be spent on (like jobs or intrastructure), while businesses will spend it on efficiency of resources. It is debatable which is better.

Where did the idea that businesses are efficient and governments are not come from? People and systems are either efficient or they are not efficient, and it matters little if those people or systems are under private or public control. What is "efficient" about a private, corporate jet that only 4 people (corporate officers) in a company of 10,000+ people have access to? What is efficient about having a desk made out of teak and adorned with gold fixtures when pine can be stained to look exactly the same and gold colored aluminum (because brass must be polished) fixtures will be equally as functional and look just as swanky?

What is efficient about the largest insurance company in the world getting themselves so drowned in credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities that my money has to be injected into their company to avoid a complete economic meltdown?

I don't get it.


Virginia contractors (which, in this instance, means any party to a contract, and not just construction businesses) got $88.7 billion in government contracts last year. California contractors got $62.4 billion and Texas contractors got over $45 billion. This is in addition to the money that is paid directly from the Federal Government to the individual state governments, as well as Federal jobs which are located in each state that also fuel local economies.

The idea of the successful private business without government tax incentives (which are a form of income, from a purely economic perspective), contracts, military bases within proximity of their business, government built roads on which they can transport goods and services to fuel their income, etc, etc, etc is a complete fallacy and fantasy.
Did I ever say this?
Don't force a similar argument down my throat, please.

I simply used it to further illustrate my point. Chill out.


Without government spending, this country would fold.

It's not just a stupid mentality, it's a reckless one.
No, it's a practicle one. When times are good, you don't hold the nation's workforce's hand; this is the time you do your expensive upstart projects.

Actually, the best time to do upstart projects, if you can swing it, is during a recession, because with the exception of the Reagan Era Stagflation, and the recent low-interest rate fueled mortgage bubble, interest rates are at their low point during recessions, and borrowing capital to expand during recessions, even when revenue is down, makes the best fiscal sense for your business or municipalities/states (since only the Federal Government can engage in deficit spending legally...states have to borrow or beg for the money).
Wouldn't the best time to ensure jobs be during a recession, and the best time for high upstart cost projects be when you don't need to borrow at all?

Sure, that's the best time, but we've built an economy in which we are now reliant on it all the time. I didn't design the thing. Don't look at me. I'm just pointing out reality (sorry to force that down your throat, but you were obviously missing it)


Tell me, what business would spend millions building new stores when it can't pay the bills? If they are going to spend, they will spend it on "infrastructure" like advertising, sales, and new hires to up production. Then, if and when things turn around, they will invest in the bigger projects.

I just did. If you need a specific example, though - Staples.
Expand.

In order to expand from one store to 200+ (something they couldn't afford at the time), Staples traded away a portion of their equity to Bain Capital (which was an excellent, and ethical, company under Romney's tenure as CEO, by the way) to expand. Without outside money, they never could have done what they did. Why is it OK for a business to do this, but a government can't borrow (since The US cant exactly have an IPO) money for the same purpose?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 7:25:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 2:53:56 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:21:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:09:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 12:02:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Where did the idea that businesses are efficient and governments are not come from? People and systems are either efficient or they are not efficient, and it matters little if those people or systems are under private or public control. What is "efficient" about a private, corporate jet that only 4 people (corporate officers) in a company of 10,000+ people have access to? What is efficient about having a desk made out of teak and adorned with gold fixtures when pine can be stained to look exactly the same and gold colored aluminum (because brass must be polished) fixtures will be equally as functional and look just as swanky?


70% of private charity ends up in the hands of it's targeted recipients while 30% of welfare does:
http://libertariananswers.com...

Have you ever looked at the inefficiency's of cost-plus military spending?:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org...

How many private business's use this form of contracting? I've never seen it. It's either fixed contract or hourly. Apparently you are completely unaware of the fact that 99% of business's operate without private jets. You should visit all the business's I've worked at (dozens, I'm a contractor) and see all the "luxury" offices.

Your benevolent congressman are no different than the greedy businessman you are complaining about:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...

In fact, Washington, D.C. is now the most affluent city in the country:

http://ksoo.com...

Private business is, by nature, more efficient because it has to be. What happens when some government agency spends it's budget is unable to provide an acceptable level of service. Simple. Increase the budget. In fact, these agenies are motivated to spend every penny for this reason. There is absolutely no incentive to be efficient. What happens when a private business does that? They go out of business.

This is nothing but class warfare rhetoric driven by emotion and jealousy.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 8:12:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 7:25:06 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:53:56 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:21:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:09:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 12:02:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Where did the idea that businesses are efficient and governments are not come from? People and systems are either efficient or they are not efficient, and it matters little if those people or systems are under private or public control. What is "efficient" about a private, corporate jet that only 4 people (corporate officers) in a company of 10,000+ people have access to? What is efficient about having a desk made out of teak and adorned with gold fixtures when pine can be stained to look exactly the same and gold colored aluminum (because brass must be polished) fixtures will be equally as functional and look just as swanky?


70% of private charity ends up in the hands of it's targeted recipients while 30% of welfare does:
http://libertariananswers.com...

Have you ever looked at the inefficiency's of cost-plus military spending?:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org...

How many private business's use this form of contracting? I've never seen it. It's either fixed contract or hourly. Apparently you are completely unaware of the fact that 99% of business's operate without private jets. You should visit all the business's I've worked at (dozens, I'm a contractor) and see all the "luxury" offices.

Your benevolent congressman are no different than the greedy businessman you are complaining about:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...

In fact, Washington, D.C. is now the most affluent city in the country:

http://ksoo.com...

Private business is, by nature, more efficient because it has to be. What happens when some government agency spends it's budget is unable to provide an acceptable level of service. Simple. Increase the budget. In fact, these agenies are motivated to spend every penny for this reason. There is absolutely no incentive to be efficient. What happens when a private business does that? They go out of business.

This is nothing but class warfare rhetoric driven by emotion and jealousy.

Medicare spends $.97 for every dollar it takes on health care costs. As per the newly passed ACA (aka Obamacare), private insurance companies will be spending $.65 for every dollar they take in on health care costs.

Medicare administrative costs (and, this isn't even scaled up to a universal health care system where costs would be even lower - economies of scale) - $.03/$1

Private Health Insurance administrative costs - $.35/$1

Medicare is TEN TIMES as efficient as private health care companies.


Guess who has developed a viable, in production bio-jet fuel? The US Air Force (it's developed from flax seed).

I never said that there aren't businesses which are efficient. Obviously, there are. I never said that there weren't inefficient divisions of the government. Obviously, there are those as well.

My point was, neither is inherently efficient or inefficient. It's the people and systems within each, some efficient, some not, that matter, not the arena in which they operate.

I'm an Economics and History major who used to make 6-figures in a very kush IT job who now refinishes antiques to make ends meet. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you assume way too much.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 8:25:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 7:25:06 AM, ax123man wrote:

Private business is, by nature, more efficient because it has to be. What happens when some government agency spends it's budget is unable to provide an acceptable level of service. Simple. Increase the budget. In fact, these agenies are motivated to spend every penny for this reason. There is absolutely no incentive to be efficient. What happens when a private business does that? They go out of business.


Oh really? Um...Goldman Sachs still seems to be in business. JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Bank of America, Arthur Anderson Consulting Group (now Accenture), Trump Industries, United Airlines, General Motors and Ford Motor Corp. are as well.

But, but, but...you said that they be out of business for lack of efficiency...

I guess you have absolutely no friggin' clue what you're talking about, do you?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 8:51:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 2:53:56 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:21:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:09:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 12:02:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, cutting the "unnecessary" jobs means a bunch of people won't be able to buy iPhones, or food, or anything else. And, as the economy dips back into another recession when Apple and Safeway go out of business, those who do have money will hoard it (because they are justifiably fearful that they may need it for a rainy day), that lowers the money multiplier effect, and so car sales will take a nose dive (for example, and among many other things) and all those jobs will be lost, which will...and so on.
That is why I explicitly said when the economy settles. The idea is that these people would get jobs in the private sector, and not be a burden to the state.

What are you talking about? The state fuels the economy - ALWAYS. A full 1/3 of Boeing's yearly revenue comes from the US Government.
And this money wouldn't be spent elsewhere if the government didn't spend it? It is a wash. If anything, government will spend on things that "need" to be spent on (like jobs or intrastructure), while businesses will spend it on efficiency of resources. It is debatable which is better.

Where did the idea that businesses are efficient and governments are not come from? People and systems are either efficient or they are not efficient, and it matters little if those people or systems are under private or public control.
Businesses have a profit motive, and those that aren't efficient don't last too long, generally. Governments have no such motive, as they do what they feel needs to be done, like building a bridge to service 50 people.
What is "efficient" about a private, corporate jet that only 4 people (corporate officers) in a company of 10,000+ people have access to?
It is more efficient than having those people wait at an airport for hours going through security checks.
What is efficient about having a desk made out of teak and adorned with gold fixtures when pine can be stained to look exactly the same and gold colored aluminum (because brass must be polished) fixtures will be equally as functional and look just as swanky?
This deals with ego, not really efficiency. But, have you seen museums, courthouses, and other ornate government buildings?

What is efficient about the largest insurance company in the world getting themselves so drowned in credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities that my money has to be injected into their company to avoid a complete economic meltdown?
Yet, the government is the one that allowed the bailout. So, instead of a company going bankrupt, which is an efficient market correction, it was inefficient and prolonged this mess. Credit default swaps are not evidence of inefficency, as they were money making tools based on the premise that house values would continue to rise, but the bubble burst. The bubble occurred because of government involvement, but I don't want to get side-tracked.

I don't get it.


Virginia contractors (which, in this instance, means any party to a contract, and not just construction businesses) got $88.7 billion in government contracts last year. California contractors got $62.4 billion and Texas contractors got over $45 billion. This is in addition to the money that is paid directly from the Federal Government to the individual state governments, as well as Federal jobs which are located in each state that also fuel local economies.

The idea of the successful private business without government tax incentives (which are a form of income, from a purely economic perspective), contracts, military bases within proximity of their business, government built roads on which they can transport goods and services to fuel their income, etc, etc, etc is a complete fallacy and fantasy.
Did I ever say this?
Don't force a similar argument down my throat, please.

I simply used it to further illustrate my point. Chill out.
Chilled, the point is, government aided a company's growth, but without government influence, is it impossible for growth to occur? Did the government have roads or gas stations when the Model-T came out?

Without government spending, this country would fold.
I am not suggesting all spending go away.

It's not just a stupid mentality, it's a reckless one.
No, it's a practicle one. When times are good, you don't hold the nation's workforce's hand; this is the time you do your expensive upstart projects.

Actually, the best time to do upstart projects, if you can swing it, is during a recession, because with the exception of the Reagan Era Stagflation, and the recent low-interest rate fueled mortgage bubble, interest rates are at their low point during recessions, and borrowing capital to expand during recessions, even when revenue is down, makes the best fiscal sense for your business or municipalities/states (since only the Federal Government can engage in deficit spending legally...states have to borrow or beg for the money).
Wouldn't the best time to ensure jobs be during a recession, and the best time for high upstart cost projects be when you don't need to borrow at all?

Sure, that's the best time, but we've built an economy in which we are now reliant on it all the time. I didn't design the thing. Don't look at me. I'm just pointing out reality (sorry to force that down your throat, but you were obviously missing it)
It didn't use to be that way, I don't think.


Tell me, what business would spend millions building new stores when it can't pay the bills? If they are going to spend, they will spend it on "infrastructure" like advertising, sales, and new hires to up production. Then, if and when things turn around, they will invest in the bigger projects.

I just did. If you need a specific example, though - Staples.
Expand.

In order to expand from one store to 200+ (something they couldn't afford at the time), Staples traded away a portion of their equity to Bain Capital (which was an excellent, and ethical, company under Romney's tenure as CEO, by the way) to expand. Without outside money, they never could have done what they did. Why is it OK for a business to do this, but a government can't borrow (since The US cant exactly have an IPO) money for the same purpose?

There is a world of difference between equity financing and debt financing. Staples used its equity (sold stock) so it could invest, while the government is using debt (bonds, bills). The former dollars hope to reap rewards if and when the business is successful, while the latter dollars demand interest payment, regardless of success.

To illustrate my point, you could look at the military as stimulus. People have to manufacture ammo, guns, gasoline, etc. However, if we were to stop the war, jobs would be lost, and money, which we don't have, would be saved. Are you advocating the wars continue for the sole purpose of stimulus? Probably not. If you do advocate the wars stopping, should the money we are spending be used elsewhere (transfer budget to DOT), or should we simply stop spending that money which we don't have?
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 9:27:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 8:51:06 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

This deals with ego, not really efficiency. But, have you seen museums, courthouses, and other ornate government buildings?

Museums are places which house priceless artifacts which should be preserved for future generations (and, our most magnificent museums in this country, The Smithsonian ones, are funded, almost exclusively, with private money - the product of a grant from James Smithson).

You can't seriously be down on museums, can you? And, ornate architecture, like that of The Chrysler Building, adds to the overall aesthetic enjoyment of a place. Buildings like that one should be what we strive to build, and there should be massive tax incentives for companies that build masterpieces like that one that Chrysler built (and, there are plenty of city hall buildings in the suburbs which are in strip malls...it goes both ways...I hate strip malls, and think THOSE COMPANIES should be penalized for building those ugly monstrosities).

Yet, the government is the one that allowed the bailout. So, instead of a company going bankrupt, which is an efficient market correction, it was inefficient and prolonged this mess. Credit default swaps are not evidence of inefficency, as they were money making tools based on the premise that house values would continue to rise, but the bubble burst. The bubble occurred because of government involvement, but I don't want to get side-tracked.

With some of the companies, they had to do it. The "correction" for the reckless behavior of these greedy, lazy @ssholes would have been, in some cases, dead bodies.

Yes, you want to allow the market to naturally correct itself, but there are more important things than preserving the economic structure, like people's lives. Even Adam Smith was of the opinion that the economy should work in the people's best interests, and not the other way around.

Chilled, the point is, government aided a company's growth, but without government influence, is it impossible for growth to occur? Did the government have roads or gas stations when the Model-T came out?

Impossible? No. At a ridiculously slower pace, with unnecessary disasters that happen along the way? Yes.

Did the government have roads and gas stations when the Model T came out? Well, we still don't have too many government own and operated gas stations in this country, but since I wrote my thesis on it, I can definitively say that yes, we did have a great many government built roads by the time the Model T came out (roads were originally built for bicycles, not cars, and there were a ton of them by the time the car became commonplace. Otherwise, the automobile may not have become commonplace for a long time to come.)

It didn't use to be that way, I don't think.

Well, sorry to be blunt, but you're wrong.


Tell me, what business would spend millions building new stores when it can't pay the bills? If they are going to spend, they will spend it on "infrastructure" like advertising, sales, and new hires to up production. Then, if and when things turn around, they will invest in the bigger projects.

There is a world of difference between equity financing and debt financing. Staples used its equity (sold stock) so it could invest, while the government is using debt (bonds, bills). The former dollars hope to reap rewards if and when the business is successful, while the latter dollars demand interest payment, regardless of success.

Do I really need to find an example of a company who used debt, or used the restructuring of debt through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, to do something similar, or can we just agree, since this practice is so common, that it takes place?


To illustrate my point, you could look at the military as stimulus. People have to manufacture ammo, guns, gasoline, etc. However, if we were to stop the war, jobs would be lost, and money, which we don't have, would be saved. Are you advocating the wars continue for the sole purpose of stimulus? Probably not. If you do advocate the wars stopping, should the money we are spending be used elsewhere (transfer budget to DOT), or should we simply stop spending that money which we don't have?

Military is stimulus, but businesses are efficient, right? The moment those dollars went away, they would immediately and efficiently adapt to build a new product and make all our lives more fulfilling as they did so, wouldn't they?

Yeah, military spending, should we (and we should) reduce it, would have to be reduced at a well thought out, incremental rate, losing the direct military jobs (so, soldiers as opposed to defense contractors) that we'd eventually need to lose, last.

As far as what to do with the money? Some of it should be re-injected into the economy initially, so that new industry can sprout where the defense contracts have run out (point being here - the private sector needs the public sector just as much as the reverse). After that, I also would like to not be personally beholden to China and Japan for the kind of scratch we're into them for...and, lowering the debt, because it would lower interest owed, would also lower the budgets afterward.

Now's not the right time to do that, though.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 9:41:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, when I say that military is stimulus, I mean only those dollars spent domestically. Blowing up stuff in Afghanistan, and then putting up diesel generators to replace the power infrastructure we had just blown to bits, and funding the cost of the diesel to run those generators (just before we pull the plug...right as the Afghan manufacturing sector starts to see some real growth, providing jobs to would-be terrorists), would be one of those military expenses that we could probably afford to drop without any effect on the domestic recovery from the last recession.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 10:15:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 8:12:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:25:06 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:53:56 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:21:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:09:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 12:02:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:42:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Where did the idea that businesses are efficient and governments are not come from? People and systems are either efficient or they are not efficient, and it matters little if those people or systems are under private or public control. What is "efficient" about a private, corporate jet that only 4 people (corporate officers) in a company of 10,000+ people have access to? What is efficient about having a desk made out of teak and adorned with gold fixtures when pine can be stained to look exactly the same and gold colored aluminum (because brass must be polished) fixtures will be equally as functional and look just as swanky?


70% of private charity ends up in the hands of it's targeted recipients while 30% of welfare does:
http://libertariananswers.com...

Have you ever looked at the inefficiency's of cost-plus military spending?:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org...

How many private business's use this form of contracting? I've never seen it. It's either fixed contract or hourly. Apparently you are completely unaware of the fact that 99% of business's operate without private jets. You should visit all the business's I've worked at (dozens, I'm a contractor) and see all the "luxury" offices.

Your benevolent congressman are no different than the greedy businessman you are complaining about:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...

In fact, Washington, D.C. is now the most affluent city in the country:

http://ksoo.com...

Private business is, by nature, more efficient because it has to be. What happens when some government agency spends it's budget is unable to provide an acceptable level of service. Simple. Increase the budget. In fact, these agenies are motivated to spend every penny for this reason. There is absolutely no incentive to be efficient. What happens when a private business does that? They go out of business.

This is nothing but class warfare rhetoric driven by emotion and jealousy.

Medicare spends $.97 for every dollar it takes on health care costs. As per the newly passed ACA (aka Obamacare), private insurance companies will be spending $.65 for every dollar they take in on health care costs.

I assume you meant to say medicare spends $.97 of every dollar on patient care while private insurance spends $.65. You've been brainwashed by the over simplification of statistics. I'd happily debate this resolution with you:

"Private health care is more efficient than medicare"

Efficient: providing the best service at the lowest price

Not only that but Medicare is less effective because of the drain it puts on practices, hence the reason many doctors dropping support of it. It also does not even include the argument of whether it is moral to force people to pay for medicare.

Medicare administrative costs (and, this isn't even scaled up to a universal health care system where costs would be even lower - economies of scale) - $.03/$1

Private Health Insurance administrative costs - $.35/$1

Medicare is TEN TIMES as efficient as private health care companies.




Guess who has developed a viable, in production bio-jet fuel? The US Air Force (it's developed from flax seed).

what does that have to do with the corporate jet argument? On another note, I know nothing about this flax seed jet fuel but I'm willing to bet it's a debacle similar to ethanol. Is the one that they are spending 59$ a gallon on? (link please)


I never said that there aren't businesses which are efficient. Obviously, there are. I never said that there weren't inefficient divisions of the government. Obviously, there are those as well.

My point was, neither is inherently efficient or inefficient. It's the people and systems within each, some efficient, some not, that matter, not the arena in which they operate.

I'm an Economics and History major who used to make 6-figures in a very kush IT job who now refinishes antiques to make ends meet. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you assume way too much.

Great, as an economics major, you understand the subjective value of things. What does this have to do with the macro-issues we are discussing?

You assume way to much when you say I assume way to much. I'd also happily debate you on:

"The user known as ax123man has no idea what he is talking about"

or

"The personal remuneration of one former IT employee is irrelevant to discussions of medicare efficiencies"

or

"Government is inherently less efficient than private industry"

or

"Flax seed jet fuel is probably a debacle"
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 11:07:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Did I mention that I worked in the IT Department at an insurance company before going on to be a consultant for multiple insurance companies? I probably forgot to mention that part, but it makes me kinda qualified to speak about insurance.

http://www.nationalreview.com...#

Here's an anti-medicare, pro private health care article...let's examine:

Let"s unpack the facts. The administrative costs of Medicare are usually calculated as a percentage of Medicare"s total costs. The cost of administering the program is compared with benefits paid. Presented in this fashion, the administrative costs are indeed relatively low.

Yeah, no sh*t. That's because this is how EVERY insurance company calculates their expense ratio, and if you want to do an apples to apples comparison, that's how you have to calculate it for medicare as well.

"Medicare patients are by definition elderly, disabled, or patients with end-stage renal disease, and as such have higher average patient care costs, so expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs gives a misleading picture of relative efficiency." In other words, Medicare spends a lot of money on benefits, and these expenditures make its administrative costs look small in comparison.

Hi, my name is complete and utter bullsh*t. Nice to meet ya.

When you throw the remainder of the healthy Americans into the mix, the cost to administer the patients they are already administering doesn't go down, and while there is some initial cost in getting the new, healthy people into the system, once they're in, their claims are ridiculously less labor intensive to adjust, because they don't have a million different treatment codes to review and knock down for things like unbundling and such. Administrative costs, on a percentage basis, would go down if we had a single payer system.

Estimates of Medicare"s administrative costs also exclude the costs borne by health providers rather than the government. Medicare is governed by tens of thousands of pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines. Doctors, hospitals, home-health agencies, and nursing homes must, under threat of civil and criminal penalties, comply with this vast, mind-numbing, and complex regulatory regime. While more research is needed on the extent of these costs, a groundbreaking study by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2001 found that for every hour of care delivered to a "typical" Medicare hospital patient, hospital officials spent roughly a half-hour complying with Medicare paperwork. Not one dime of these costs shows up in the Medicare budget, and in Congress and elsewhere these costs are routinely ignored.

Better them than the sick, and/or dying person, and since patients must shoulder this burden in civil court (known as "bad faith" suits) when dealing with a private insurance carrier, and an expert on a hospital administrative staff is much better equipped to do this efficiently than your dying grandma, score another one for how medicare benefits society.

I'd keep going, but you're stupid and brainwashed.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...