Republicans: Fiscal Sanity

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country....

Uh-huh.

Then let's see you take each of the "above programs" and give us your opinion on whether they were good expenditures.

And then.....give us your opinion on whether the 3 Trillion cost of the Iraq War that ush started was worth it.

The Iraq War during the Bush administration is estimated by the Los Angeles Times, as costing taxpayers $700 Billion. I have heard the cost to be more around $800 Billion, but 3 TRILLION? Hardly. World War II received a Congressional Research Service Study estimate of $1.4 Trillion. Your numbers are about as inflated as Obama's job numbers through the $787 BILLION stimulus.
Cost Of Iraq War - Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam by year's end - Los Angeles Times

 

[Sallow]

Most of America's economic disasters were caused by Conservatives.

Sally, the mask- frightening though it is, doesn't win the argument...

how about providng some evidence?

Otherwise it's just bloviating.

Sure..

Each and every financial meltdown in the last 100 years or so..were caused by Conservatives and conservative ideas.

From Hoover to Bush II..they authored some of the worst economic crisises in this country's history.

The Laissez-Faire/Milton Friedman model doesn't work..if what you are hoping for is a true capitalistic/democratic-republic.

It does work in places like Central America and parts of Asia. If you like that sort of life style.

 

[Trajan]

If the Republicans had their way, 98% of Americans would be living out of piano crates and cardboard boxes.

nobody has a piano anymore....what century are you living in? this isn't 37...


I live on the side of railroad trax and eat gravel ...so?

 

[Trajan]

Most of America's economic disasters were caused by Conservatives.

Sally, the mask- frightening though it is, doesn't win the argument...

how about providng some evidence?

Otherwise it's just bloviating.

Sure..

Each and every financial meltdown in the last 100 years or so..were caused by Conservatives and conservative ideas.

From Hoover to Bush II..they authored some of the worst economic crisises in this country's history.

The Laissez-Faire/Milton Friedman model doesn't work..if what you are hoping for is a true capitalistic/democratic-republic.

It does work in places like Central America and parts of Asia. If you like that sort of life style.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey PC, I think you'll enjoy this: Cato Institutes $1T of annual spending cuts to balance the budget.

A Plan to Cut Spending | Downsizing the Federal Government

Love it!

I'm working on a post about exactly that...but further: including restrictions on the Congress.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most of America's economic disasters were caused by Conservatives.

Sally, the mask- frightening though it is, doesn't win the argument...

how about providng some evidence?

Otherwise it's just bloviating.

Sure..

Each and every financial meltdown in the last 100 years or so..were caused by Conservatives and conservative ideas.

From Hoover to Bush II..they authored some of the worst economic crisises in this country's history.

The Laissez-Faire/Milton Friedman model doesn't work..if what you are hoping for is a true capitalistic/democratic-republic.

It does work in places like Central America and parts of Asia. If you like that sort of life style.

You're totally wrong, as I'm about to show...but I appreciate that you took me up on my suggestion: rep on the way.

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

Timeline shows Dems were warned:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM[/ame]

 

[Care4all]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

in 1992 for the CRA ....Clinton was NOT President....

And why didn't the republican Presidents veto these measures you imply were against republicans and did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures? and lastly why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?

if you can answer those relevent questions then i can comment with clarity.

Care...it says 1979, that would be Carter, Democrat.
It was Cuomo and Clinton who put the screws to the banks to force loans to obviate what they called Red Lining. (1992)

"...measures you imply were against republicans ..."
No I didn't.

"...why didn't the republican Presidents veto..."
Because all of the dates in the OP were during Democrat presidencies.


"...did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures?"
Were any that I have named offered by Republicans?

"...why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?"
This is the weakest defense offered against the OP.
You suggest changing the subject....I decline.

Perhaps you would Care to begin a thread called, say..."Wussy Republicans Won't Fight For What They Believe..."
I'd agree.

BTW...

"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

I'm sorry, my mistake, I meant the Cuomo Hud/clinton you listed in 1992...clinton began office in 1993.

Republicans run for the primaries, promising fiscal conservatism to energize their base.....running for the actual position they are more centrists....to win the general vote, knowing the conservatives have no one to vote for but themselves while trying to gain the more centrist/ liberal vote, to win the office imho.

But I don't think Ann Coulter is correct on Democrats running on fiscal conservatism....they usually do not win primaries running on that....they have their own handful of issues that they repeatedly use to energize their base....again imho.

Also, how many pages was the last Omnibus bill of the Republicans and how many days did they give their congress to read it before the vote? I would venture to guess it was about 2000 pages....and not enough time to read it with understanding of the consequences....

what you are displaying here with the comments of the repubs in power... mcconnel's comments etc.... obviously is really political posturing chatter/noise, of republicans in power imho.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Taxes gobble up nearly 40% of that median family's income.

The Tax Foundation - The Tax Burden of the Median American Family

Let's just take one of those programs, Medicare, which is the most expensive. How else are you going to provide health insurance coverage for everyone over 65?

After WWII, most other nations chose nationalized healthcare, while the US decided it would be provided by your employer. That was fine while you were working (presumable to age 65). How are you supposed to cover everyone after 65? You will likely not be young (by definition) nor healthy, and monthly private insurance premiums would be prohibitive for all but the rich. The "Death Panels" at the private insurance companies would probably not even offer coverage for such expensive customers.

Most folks have not saved enough to retire and pay basic expenses like rent or house note, elec., food, gasoline, taxes, clothing, much less an expensive monthly health insurance tab to boot.

So, what was your other plan to provide health care for those over 65? Have you got this covered for yourself after 65 without resorting to Medicare, and if so, how?

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0908/moneygo900.jpg
US Dept of Labor, april 2009
Here’s an interesting chart of the spending breakdown for the average U.S. consumer. It’s based a theoretical household “unit” consisting of 2.5 people, not individuals. Looks like such a household unit spends approximately $50,000 per year. Click on image for larger version.
Income before taxes $63,091
Average annual expenditures $49,638
2.5 in the family
1.3 earners, 67% are homeowners
Entertainment $2698 5.4%
Food 6133 12.4
Alcoholic Bev. 457 0.9
Healthcare 2853 5.7%
Tobacco 323 0.7
Housing 16,920 34.1
Transportation 8758 17.6
(gas&oil) 2384` 4.8
Average food spending was $6133, of which $3465 was spent on meals at home. Based on this data, one can conclude that the average consumer unit spends roughly $300 per month on meals prepared at home and roughly $225 per month on meals away from home.
Each year, the average American spends $1881 on “apparel and services”, for example, but only $118 on books.
The chart doesn’t include taxes because the government survey doesn’t include taxes. If the average consumer unit earns $63,091 but spends $49,648, there are $13,443 unaccounted for. The personal saving rate in 2007 was less than 1%, so I’m guessing that most of the unspecified money goes to taxes.

The Democrats’ solution is to raise taxes to pay for preschool child care, which will require more mothers to work outside the home to pay the taxes, which will require them to put their children in government child care. Except welfare mothers. Those are the only women in America who Democrats think should not work.
Coulter

 

[finebead]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

Let's just take one of those programs, Medicare, which is the most expensive. How else are you going to provide health insurance coverage for everyone over 65?

After WWII, most other nations chose nationalized healthcare, while the US decided it would be provided by your employer. That was fine while you were working (presumable to age 65). How are you supposed to cover everyone after 65? You will likely not be young (by definition) nor healthy, and monthly private insurance premiums would be prohibitive for all but the rich. The "Death Panels" at the private insurance companies would probably not even offer coverage for such expensive customers.

Most folks have not saved enough to retire and pay basic expenses like rent or house note, elec., food, gasoline, taxes, clothing, much less an expensive monthly health insurance tab to boot.

So, what was your other plan to provide health care for those over 65? Have you got this covered for yourself after 65 without resorting to Medicare, and if so, how?

I see you joined way back in '07- but perhaps you were away during the time when Obamacare was being debated...and a huge number of posts explored exactly the question that you have asked...

But the point of the OP is the impending financial disaster that awaits our great nation due to the lack of fiscal planning, primarily by Democrats.

So, unless you would care to begin a thread specifically about the question in your post, a good one, too, let me briefly comment as follows.

1. The reason that healthcare was tied to the employer was that the government forbid raises at that time, and this was in lieu of raises.

2. Retired folks have auto insurance, and pay for what they desire, pick and choose between companies, even out of state ones, and do not have state imposed mandates for services that they do not wish.
This should be the model.

If there are needy folks who cannot do same, we could also give tax deductions, and the equivalent of food-stamp-debit cards...at this seems to have worked in that area.

Absolutely essential is the free-market mechanism: health savings accounts.

Look forward to your posts.

Your point about seniors carrying auto insurance is not based on an understanding of the difference in economics between young and old, in driving vs. medical expenses.

Young drivers tend to pay more because they have higher accident rates than older drivers, and the risk being insured is much lower (like a $10K-20K auto) so they can still afford the insurance.

When we go to health insurance, those over 65 generally have left the workplace, and they are MUCH worse risks than young people at that age, and the risk being insured is many times higher (like a $100K or $200K hospital stay, nor say $50K annual nursing home expenses).

So, your comparison is invalid economically, the situations are not similar at all. Insuring a car is not the same as insuring a body's health care.

Medicare is the best plan I have seen to provide health care for those over 65. Medicare is not the best it can be, it is too expensive and additional controls and rationing need to be imposed. There is too much fraud in the system, too many start-ups that submit false claims, get reimbursed and shut down before they are caught. They should delay the first payment and always audit the facility before reimbursement begins. Home healthcare businesses provide equipment that is not needed and leave it in homes too long (people ask them to take it out and they don't take it out, saying "well Medicare will pay for it"), and too much is spent in the last year of life and we need better guidelines for that - yes rationing is a valid way to cut costs).

You seem to think Medicare is a fiscally irresponsible way to provide healthcare to those over 65 without offering an economically valid alternative.

I think Medicare is a valid structure, the best I've seen, to provide healthcare to those over 65, and it has some problems and it needs to become more efficient.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country....

Uh-huh.

Then let's see you take each of the "above programs" and give us your opinion on whether they were good expenditures.

And then.....give us your opinion on whether the 3 Trillion cost of the Iraq War that ush started was worth it.

The Iraq War during the Bush administration is estimated by the Los Angeles Times, as costing taxpayers $700 Billion. I have heard the cost to be more around $800 Billion, but 3 TRILLION? Hardly. World War II received a Congressional Research Service Study estimate of $1.4 Trillion. Your numbers are about as inflated as Obama's job numbers through the $787 BILLION stimulus.
Cost Of Iraq War - Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam by year's end - Los Angeles Times

Let 'em have it, Biggy!

 

[Trajan]

in 1992 for the CRA ....Clinton was NOT President....

And why didn't the republican Presidents veto these measures you imply were against republicans and did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures? and lastly why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?

if you can answer those relevent questions then i can comment with clarity.

Care...it says 1979, that would be Carter, Democrat.
It was Cuomo and Clinton who put the screws to the banks to force loans to obviate what they called Red Lining. (1992)

"...measures you imply were against republicans ..."
No I didn't.

"...why didn't the republican Presidents veto..."
Because all of the dates in the OP were during Democrat presidencies.


"...did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures?"
Were any that I have named offered by Republicans?

"...why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?"
This is the weakest defense offered against the OP.
You suggest changing the subject....I decline.

Perhaps you would Care to begin a thread called, say..."Wussy Republicans Won't Fight For What They Believe..."
I'd agree.

BTW...

"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

I'm sorry, my mistake, I meant the Cuomo Hud/clinton you listed in 1992...clinton began office in 1993.

Republicans run for the primaries, promising fiscal conservatism to energize their base.....running for the actual position they are more centrists....to win the general vote, knowing the conservatives have no one to vote for but themselves while trying to gain the more centrist/ liberal vote, to win the office imho.

But I don't think Ann Coulter is correct on Democrats running on fiscal conservatism....they usually do not win primaries running on that....they have their own handful of issues that they repeatedly use to energize their base....again imho.

Also, how many pages was the last Omnibus bill of the Republicans and how many days did they give their congress to read it before the vote? I would venture to guess it was about 2000 pages....and not enough time to read it with understanding of the consequences....

what you are displaying here with the comments of the repubs in power... mcconnel's comments etc.... obviously is really political posturing chatter/noise, of republicans in power imho.

Andrew Cuomo was appointed to the Department of Housing and Urban Development as Assistant Secretary in 1993, as a member of President Bill Clinton's administration. After the departure of Secretary Henry Cisneros at the end of Clinton's first term under the cloud of an FBI investigation, Cuomo succeeded him as HUD Secretary in January 1997 after being unanimously confirmed by the Senate, serving until 2001 when Clinton's administration ended.

wkki andys bio...
Andrew Cuomo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's just take one of those programs, Medicare, which is the most expensive. How else are you going to provide health insurance coverage for everyone over 65?

After WWII, most other nations chose nationalized healthcare, while the US decided it would be provided by your employer. That was fine while you were working (presumable to age 65). How are you supposed to cover everyone after 65? You will likely not be young (by definition) nor healthy, and monthly private insurance premiums would be prohibitive for all but the rich. The "Death Panels" at the private insurance companies would probably not even offer coverage for such expensive customers.

Most folks have not saved enough to retire and pay basic expenses like rent or house note, elec., food, gasoline, taxes, clothing, much less an expensive monthly health insurance tab to boot.

So, what was your other plan to provide health care for those over 65? Have you got this covered for yourself after 65 without resorting to Medicare, and if so, how?

I see you joined way back in '07- but perhaps you were away during the time when Obamacare was being debated...and a huge number of posts explored exactly the question that you have asked...

But the point of the OP is the impending financial disaster that awaits our great nation due to the lack of fiscal planning, primarily by Democrats.

So, unless you would care to begin a thread specifically about the question in your post, a good one, too, let me briefly comment as follows.

1. The reason that healthcare was tied to the employer was that the government forbid raises at that time, and this was in lieu of raises.

2. Retired folks have auto insurance, and pay for what they desire, pick and choose between companies, even out of state ones, and do not have state imposed mandates for services that they do not wish.
This should be the model.

If there are needy folks who cannot do same, we could also give tax deductions, and the equivalent of food-stamp-debit cards...at this seems to have worked in that area.

Absolutely essential is the free-market mechanism: health savings accounts.

Look forward to your posts.

Your point about seniors carrying auto insurance is not based on an understanding of the difference in economics between young and old, in driving vs. medical expenses.

Young drivers tend to pay more because they have higher accident rates than older drivers, and the risk being insured is much lower (like a $10K-20K auto) so they can still afford the insurance.

When we go to health insurance, those over 65 generally have left the workplace, and they are MUCH worse risks than young people at that age, and the risk being insured is many times higher (like a $100K or $200K hospital stay, nor say $50K annual nursing home expenses).

So, your comparison is invalid economically, the situations are not similar at all. Insuring a car is not the same as insuring a body's health care.

Medicare is the best plan I have seen to provide health care for those over 65. Medicare is not the best it can be, it is too expensive and additional controls and rationing need to be imposed. There is too much fraud in the system, too many start-ups that submit false claims, get reimbursed and shut down before they are caught. They should delay the first payment and always audit the facility before reimbursement begins. Home healthcare businesses provide equipment that is not needed and leave it in homes too long (people ask them to take it out and they don't take it out, saying "well Medicare will pay for it"), and too much is spent in the last year of life and we need better guidelines for that - yes rationing is a valid way to cut costs).

You seem to think Medicare is a fiscally irresponsible way to provide healthcare to those over 65 without offering an economically valid alternative.

I think Medicare is a valid structure, the best I've seen, to provide healthcare to those over 65, and it has some problems and it needs to become more efficient.

"...without offering an economically valid alternative. "
Get out your pencil and paper, Beady, as I'm about to blow your status-quo five-minutes-ago thinking out of the water!


The basis of your post is totally hypothetical...so let me have a go at it:
Free-Market, Beady....

1. Open the market, competition will drive down the costs: more companies will offer the insurance due to more customers and less gov red tape.

2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates:

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:

Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009

a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.

Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

 

[uscitizen]

Social Security is fiscal sanity, it has paid for itself without drawing on general funds and will continue to do so for many years if properly managed.

I love how right wingers throw this in with welfare, etc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

in 1992 for the CRA ....Clinton was NOT President....

And why didn't the republican Presidents veto these measures you imply were against republicans and did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures? and lastly why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?

if you can answer those relevent questions then i can comment with clarity.

Care...it says 1979, that would be Carter, Democrat.
It was Cuomo and Clinton who put the screws to the banks to force loans to obviate what they called Red Lining. (1992)

"...measures you imply were against republicans ..."
No I didn't.

"...why didn't the republican Presidents veto..."
Because all of the dates in the OP were during Democrat presidencies.


"...did any republicans in office support and vote FOR any of these measures?"
Were any that I have named offered by Republicans?

"...why didn't the republicans change these laws they are suppossedly against when they had the full power of congress and when they had the full power of congress and the presidency?"
This is the weakest defense offered against the OP.
You suggest changing the subject....I decline.

Perhaps you would Care to begin a thread called, say..."Wussy Republicans Won't Fight For What They Believe..."
I'd agree.

BTW...

"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

I'm sorry, my mistake, I meant the Cuomo Hud/clinton you listed in 1992...clinton began office in 1993.

Republicans run for the primaries, promising fiscal conservatism to energize their base.....running for the actual position they are more centrists....to win the general vote, knowing the conservatives have no one to vote for but themselves while trying to gain the more centrist/ liberal vote, to win the office imho.

But I don't think Ann Coulter is correct on Democrats running on fiscal conservatism....they usually do not win primaries running on that....they have their own handful of issues that they repeatedly use to energize their base....again imho.

Also, how many pages was the last Omnibus bill of the Republicans and how many days did they give their congress to read it before the vote? I would venture to guess it was about 2000 pages....and not enough time to read it with understanding of the consequences....

what you are displaying here with the comments of the repubs in power... mcconnel's comments etc.... obviously is really political posturing chatter/noise, of republicans in power imho.

Oops! Should have written '97, not '92! Sorry!
But you found all of the other dates correct- and tied to Democrats, right?

And here's some reporting about Democrat guilt:

From the Village Voice analysis of Fannie and Freddie:
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

1. There are as many starting points for the mortgage meltdown as there are fears about how far it has yet to go, but one decisive point of departure is the final years of the Clinton administration, when a kid from Queens without any real banking or real-estate experience was the only man in Washington with the power to regulate the giants of home finance, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

2. Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans.


"...I don't think Ann Coulter is correct on Democrats running on fiscal conservatism...."
How about one glaring example....didn't President Clinton run on a platform of middle class tax cuts, and as soon as he got in office, a RETROACTIVE tax increase?


"Back when Mr. Clinton was campaigning for president in 1992, he made a pretty direct pitch: Raise taxes on people making more than $200,000, and use those revenues to fund tax relief for the "forgotten middle class."

In an October presidential debate, then-Gov. Clinton laid out the marginal-rate increase he wanted and some of his plans for the revenue that would be brought in. He followed with a pledge:

"Now, I'll tell you this," he said. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending, or we will slow down the phase-in of the programs."

Not everyone believed him, but some voters did, possibly enough to give him his winning margin.

Here's what he did in 1993:

Mr. Clinton, of course, won that election. And as the inauguration approached, he began backtracking from his promise. At a Jan. 14, 1993, press conference in New Hampshire, he claimed that it was the media that had played up a middle-class tax cut, not him. A month later, he announced his actual plan before a joint session of Congress.

On page one of the New York Times, the paper described the fate of the middle-class tax cut this way: "Families earning as little as $20,000 a year -- members of the 'forgotten middle class' whose taxes he promised during his campaign to cut -- will also be asked to send more dollars to Washington under the President's plan."
Sound Politics: Learning From 1992, Part 1


C'mon, admit it: Coulter's right again!

 

[Sallow]

She doth Protest a bit to much..

None of the stuff you listed had very much cost associated with it..PC. What cost big was the de-regulation of the financial industry and defunding of SEC. This allowed people like Thane to come up with complex schemes to make up brand new financial instruments while having the banks back them. That's just what went on 2 years ago.

You seem to also skip over Madoff, who drew 20 billion dollars ALONE from the US economy. You skip over the Silverado savings and loan scandal which the Bush family was directly involved in. You skip over the bailouts of the Bond Market and bank failures during Reagan's illustrious career. The terrible inflation of the Nixon/Ford years. And the Coolidge/Hoover debacles that gave us the Great Depression. That and several wars which weren't paid for and some rather nutty foreign policy that costs us very big. Like shipping 9 billion dollars to Israel.

But feel free..continue to harp on ACORN which recieved like 500K support from the government while completely forgetting the United States spending billion and billions on companies like Boeing, Raytheon, Halliburton and Black Water.

 

[uscitizen]

Coulter right? Yep extreme right.
But seldom correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Social Security is fiscal sanity, it has paid for itself without drawing on general funds and will continue to do so for many years if properly managed.

I love how right wingers throw this in with welfare, etc.

Citi....don't take it personally..This is an accouting indictment!


1. FDR, August 14, 1935, on signing the Social Security Act: “We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age,…”

a. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

2. The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan.

3. FDR, master politician, sculpted the program so it could not be whittled down by economic measures: he called the payroll taxes ‘contributions’…”We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.” Social Security Online - HISTORY, FDR Quote from Luther Gulick

a. The implied promise was that one’s ‘contributions’ belonged to him or her, and SS was not simply a tax-funded program that could be cut…thus the designation of a Social Security Trust Fund. Of course that changed in 1983, and since then the funds have been used as general revenue. See, FDR was giving you the right to grouse if anyone said it was welfare....

4. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?
b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?
c. No one calculated the long-term costs?

Get this, Citi...
d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security Online

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

f. “…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.” Trustees Report Summary


Now the kicker: there is no trust fund! It has been used as general revenue by the crooks!

 

[code1211]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Anyone see a pattern here?

Republicans gain power, and:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.

Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year."
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

This post does not raise the question of whether or not any of the above programs and policies were good or bad for the country...

the point is that fiscal planning is over the heads of Democrats.

Let's just take one of those programs, Medicare, which is the most expensive. How else are you going to provide health insurance coverage for everyone over 65?

After WWII, most other nations chose nationalized healthcare, while the US decided it would be provided by your employer. That was fine while you were working (presumable to age 65). How are you supposed to cover everyone after 65? You will likely not be young (by definition) nor healthy, and monthly private insurance premiums would be prohibitive for all but the rich. The "Death Panels" at the private insurance companies would probably not even offer coverage for such expensive customers.

Most folks have not saved enough to retire and pay basic expenses like rent or house note, elec., food, gasoline, taxes, clothing, much less an expensive monthly health insurance tab to boot.

So, what was your other plan to provide health care for those over 65? Have you got this covered for yourself after 65 without resorting to Medicare, and if so, how?

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0908/moneygo900.jpg
US Dept of Labor, april 2009
Here’s an interesting chart of the spending breakdown for the average U.S. consumer. It’s based a theoretical household “unit” consisting of 2.5 people, not individuals. Looks like such a household unit spends approximately $50,000 per year. Click on image for larger version.
Income before taxes $63,091
Average annual expenditures $49,638
2.5 in the family
1.3 earners, 67% are homeowners
Entertainment $2698 5.4%
Food 6133 12.4
Alcoholic Bev. 457 0.9
Healthcare 2853 5.7%
Tobacco 323 0.7
Housing 16,920 34.1
Transportation 8758 17.6
(gas&oil) 2384` 4.8
Average food spending was $6133, of which $3465 was spent on meals at home. Based on this data, one can conclude that the average consumer unit spends roughly $300 per month on meals prepared at home and roughly $225 per month on meals away from home.
Each year, the average American spends $1881 on “apparel and services”, for example, but only $118 on books.
The chart doesn’t include taxes because the government survey doesn’t include taxes. If the average consumer unit earns $63,091 but spends $49,648, there are $13,443 unaccounted for. The personal saving rate in 2007 was less than 1%, so I’m guessing that most of the unspecified money goes to taxes.

I feel that that number is a tad low. The rising debt of individuals historically might make up the difference.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes there is a "trust fund", treasury bonds were issued to cover the rape of the trust fund.
Of course the "stolen" money will have to be repaid out of general funds and that is what most politicians are trying to squirm out of. And why they are callin it a crisis, etc.
But too fracking bad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

She doth Protest a bit to much..

None of the stuff you listed had very much cost associated with it..PC. What cost big was the de-regulation of the financial industry and defunding of SEC. This allowed people like Thane to come up with complex schemes to make up brand new financial instruments while having the banks back them. That's just what went on 2 years ago.

You seem to also skip over Madoff, who drew 20 billion dollars ALONE from the US economy. You skip over the Silverado savings and loan scandal which the Bush family was directly involved in. You skip over the bailouts of the Bond Market and bank failures during Reagan's illustrious career. The terrible inflation of the Nixon/Ford years. And the Coolidge/Hoover debacles that gave us the Great Depression. That and several wars which weren't paid for and some rather nutty foreign policy that costs us very big. Like shipping 9 billion dollars to Israel.

But feel free..continue to harp on ACORN which recieved like 500K support from the government while completely forgetting the United States spending billion and billions on companies like Boeing, Raytheon, Halliburton and Black Water.

Now, now, Sally...You're too bright to think you can change the subject like that and get away with it,

the facts show that the real cause of both the current mortgage/financial meltdown and the impending deficit/debt catastrophe is the oh-so-nuanced philosophy of the Democrat/liberal/progressives, i.e. that financial equality, that is equlity of outcome is the goal of government.

I know I'm going to reget opening this discussion up, but for anyone to really understand the 100-years-of-recessions to which you referred, then the political philosophy that caused same must be examined....

1. Using their control of the dissemination of thought, the left has conditioned the citizenry to believe that ‘equality’ is, and should be, the absolute, ultimate goal of policy.

a. But this nation was founded on the idea that citizens were born into a system that provided them with the ability to be successful and secure. In other words, the founding documents did not decree success, but opportunity

2. For Progressives, the outcome is just as important as having the opportunity, and the pursuit of this end gives rise to group rights, entitlements, and the ‘living’ Constitution. Fundamentally this principle has to do not with treatment, with what is done to and for people, but with satisfaction. Fair enough?

a. “The Principle of Equality is roughly to the effect that we should give a priority to policies which will make well-off those who are badly-off -- policies which will remove individuals from the class of the badly-off -- and that we should seek to act on these policies by having certain practices of equality.” equality2

See where the housing bubble comes from?


3. The most basic of starting point for explaining deficits is in the progressive’s concept of equality, one that requires a government that constantly provides services which must be endlessly upgraded.

a. Deficits are ‘guiltlessly’ promoted and supported by a ‘living’ Constitution and a Keynesian view of economics. Our government has run deficits in 44 of the last 50 years…and the Obama spending has dictated the same for the next decade.

b. “Politicians prior to World War II would have considered it to be immoral (to be a sin) to spend more than they were willing to generate in tax revenues, except during periods of extreme and temporary emergency. To spend borrowed funds on ordinary items for public consumption was, quite simply, beyond the pale of acceptable political behavior. There were basic moral constraints in place; there was no need for an explicit fiscal rule in the written constitution.” Buchanan, http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/009a9a91c225e83d852567ed006212d8/68f7f882cd48d258852567ef0057a8a5/$FILE/v48n3347.pdf