Maureen Dowd nails it - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Mike D · #31 08-02-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

Sound's grim...I would rather eat a BLT, dripping with Hellmans, then trying to fathom that mess.

Ahhh, c'mon now! Ain't nothing that bad! I mean, Hellman's"? The horror!

Now, maybe some nice deli mustard, a slap of horse radish, a bit of a pickle spear....

Just poking fun, Chilcutt, I know you obey your dietary laws.

Txjake · #32 08-02-2011, 12:06 PM

We need AKLim on this thread, a conversation about a threesome with Coulter & Dowd is needed.....

Mike D · #33 08-02-2011, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I found this graph interesting even though it's from an obviously biased source
(

Umm yeah, just a tad bit of an understatement there, Swampie.

I am not saying removal of the defense budget is needed. I was just pointing out some things within the government spending are out of control.

Do we really need a fleet of submarines which, on their own, are the third most powerful nuclear force in the world?

Government help on mortgages of over $750K? Shouldn't someone living in that kind of home be capable of paying their bills?

Do corporations really need tax breaks considering the fact they "outsource" any and all labor/manufacturing costs possible? What taxes come back from those countries? Sure ain't Social Security or income taxes. Nope, the corps simply use the taxes not paid to increase their profits. Yeah, yeah I know "capitalism". But it ain't supposed to be government sponsored.

Does a mother of 5 children really need life long care for her children? Basic sustenance, okay, for a limited amount of time but until each child is 18? I've got nothing against a helping hand but a "free ride"?

I could go on and on but I figure I'll let someone else cut in with their own ideas, even though they will obviously be wrong 'cause they'll be contrary to MY thoughts!

SwampYankee · #34 08-02-2011, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I don't understand why that graph shows Social Security as such a large contributor to the deficit. I thought it was accepted that Social Security has not historically added to the deficit, at all. Many believe that it is going to add to the deficit in the future, that that graph shows it as contributing to the deficit in the past as well.

What am I missing?

And why do they show Obamacare contributing to the deficit in the out years? They disagree with CBO on that one.

Beats me. It's well over my head. Not only do I have similar questions, I wonder if the graph isn't more true than not? And I think that's part of the problem. The situation is so convoluted that the average voter has no clue what's real, what's fabricated and what's intentionally blurred.

This will come as a shock to some, I'm not a genius.

(There's your understatement, Mike

) But I think I have a better grasp of what's going on in D.C. than the average voter and I don't often have a clue. Given that, it's no surprise that the parties are able to garner support from folks who have no idea what they're talking about but, for whatever reason, like the messenger.

Botnst · #35 08-02-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I don't understand why that graph shows Social Security as such a large contributor to the deficit. I thought it was accepted that Social Security has not historically added to the deficit, at all. Many believe that it is going to add to the deficit in the future, that that graph shows it as contributing to the deficit in the past as well.

What am I missing?

And why do they show Obamacare contributing to the deficit in the out years? They disagree with CBO on that one.

How can we NOT consider social security part of the budget? Money gets taken in by gov, money gets disbursed by gov, an IUO gets put into the drawer.

What am I missing?

SwampYankee · #36 08-02-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D

Umm yeah, just a tad bit of an understatement there, Swampie.

I am not saying removal of the defense budget is needed. I was just pointing out some things within the government spending are out of control.

Do we really need a fleet of submarines which, on their own, are the third most powerful nuclear force in the world?

Government help on mortgages of over $750K? Shouldn't someone living in that kind of home be capable of paying their bills?

Do corporations really need tax breaks considering the fact they "outsource" any and all labor/manufacturing costs possible? What taxes come back from those countries? Sure ain't Social Security or income taxes. Nope, the corps simply use the taxes not paid to increase their profits. Yeah, yeah I know "capitalism". But it ain't supposed to be government sponsored.

Does a mother of 5 children really need life long care for her children? Basic sustenance, okay, for a limited amount of time but until each child is 18? I've got nothing against a helping hand but a "free ride"?

I could go on and on but I figure I'll let someone else cut in with their own ideas, even though they will obviously be wrong 'cause they'll be contrary to MY thoughts!

We're just chock-full of understatements today!

BTW-I don't really take issue with any of your stated points (which doesn't necessarily bode well for your position, or state of mind for that matter

).

Honus · #37 08-02-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

Beats me. It's well over my head...

Same here.

Quote:

Not only do I have similar questions, I wonder if the graph isn't more true than not? And I think that's part of the problem. The situation is so convoluted that the average voter has no clue what's real, what's fabricated and what's intentionally blurred.

This will come as a shock to some, I'm not a genius.

(There's your understatement, Mike

) But I think I have a better grasp of what's going on in D.C. than the average voter and I don't often have a clue. Given that, it's no surprise that the parties are able to garner support from folks who have no idea what they're talking about but, for whatever reason, like the messenger.

It's a wonder we've even made it this far.

Honus · #38 08-02-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

How can we NOT consider social security part of the budget? Money gets taken in by gov, money gets disbursed by gov, an IUO gets put into the drawer.

What am I missing?

You got me. Maybe the problem with the graph is that it implies that eliminating Social Security would bring the expense line closer to the revenue line. In fact, eliminating Social Security would lower both lines.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

sjh · #39 08-02-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

The right needs to get off the "... to stop thinking that people who work hard and work smart and are rewarded for that are responsible for millions of people who choose to NOT WORK SMART OR HARD.

or NOT work at all!

sjh · #40 08-02-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D

... I'll let someone else cut in with their own ideas, even though they will obviously be wrong 'cause they'll be contrary to MY thoughts!

A signature line waiting to be used.

SwampYankee · #41 08-02-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

You got me. Maybe the problem with the graph is that it implies that eliminating Social Security would bring the expense line closer to the revenue line. In fact, eliminating Social Security would lower both lines.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here's that graph with defense spending included in the "Other." This one also assumes a balanced budget. I haven't been able to find another one from another source that shows revenue and expenditure projections but would be interested in seeing one. Maybe someone does?

I find it interesting that with defense spending included; Net interest and Other Spending stay more or less equal, Social Security expands slightly while Medicaid, Affordable Care Act/Obamacare and Medicare all have sizeable expansion. I assume that is due to the throngs of Boomers moving along through the system in the coming years and in the case of Social Security the gap between those paying in and those receiving will continue to close.

Apologies to el chivito for perpetuating the threadjack.

sjh · #42 08-02-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

Here's that graph with defense spending included in the "Other." This one also assumes a balanced budget. I haven't been able to find another one from another source that shows revenue and expenditure projections but would be interested in seeing one. Maybe someone does?

I find it interesting that with defense spending included; Net interest and Other Spending stay more or less equal, Social Security expands slightly while Medicaid, Affordable Care Act/Obamacare and Medicare all have sizeable expansion. I assume that is due to the throngs of Boomers moving along through the system in the coming years and in the case of Social Security the gap between those paying in and those receiving will continue to close.

Apologies to el chivito for perpetuating the threadjack.

Given the historically inaccuracy of any gov't financial projection I question why one would take much comfort from any.

Two quick examples. NASA was off by a fact of 100 when projecting the cost of launching payloads with the shuttle. Congress was off by a fact or 9 when project medical-care (or perhaps it is medicaid) costs for its first 25 years.

Who believes, whichever graph is used, that the projections will be accurate?

I mean we want the analysis but CBO just runs the number congress gives them, they don't state that the assumptions that they are given are valid.

tonkovich · #43 08-02-2011, 03:32 PM

yes, the heritage foundation. that's a good source.

social security had nothing to do with the budget. if you disagree, please do some investigation. oh, and in the early 80's, that great enemy of big government, ronald reagan - along with a democratic congress - adjusted social security contributions, so that the fund will be solvent til 2035. at least. (see, even i can give reagan credit when it is due him. )

panZZer · #44 08-02-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

yes, the heritage foundation. that's a good source.

social security had nothing to do with the budget. if you disagree, please do some investigation. oh, and in the early 80's, that great enemy of big government, ronald reagan - along with a democratic congress - adjusted social security contributions, so that the fund will be solvent til 2035. at least. (see, even i can give reagan credit when it is due him. )

If you are counting on that actually happening you are most likely gonna be mistaken.

cmac2012 · #45 08-02-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

X1000.

This is the part of the debate that drives me bananas..... During the latest (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to rein in government spending we've heard endless moaning and wailing about the people trying to stop absurd and unsustainable levels of spending as 'holding a gun to the head of the country' or 'acting like terrorists' They try to frame the argument as the choice is either to hold the country hostage or not hold it hostage.... doesn't the other side of this argument see that continuing down the road we're on is also holding a gun to the head of future generations?

How can they not see that?

If I may presume to speak for 'they,' some do see that but they also see the corruption of our currency be the gate-keepers of money and finance as well as other high stakes scams such as patentp-trolling. The Tea Party crowd is in general death on extracting greater taxation from that crowd. Plenty of the new rich are not creating jobs with their money.

Add to that the inability of the right wing to seriously consider big defense cuts and you have the R half of financial self-delusion in America.