Republicans: Fiscal Sanity

[boedicca]

I saw the CEO of one of the major drug companies get cornered on why the drugs were much cheaper in Canada and Mexico, and he finally came clean. The Canadians and Mexican govt. imposed "price controls" on the drugs. The company figured out how much profit they wanted to make, and since the US insurance companies would reimburse them what they asked for branded drugs that had not gone generic, they just set the price in the US to make their nut for the year. That's it. Nothing about approval process, etc.

Yeah. Those price controls in Canada are working out really well:

Canadian Pharmacists Association highlighted serious concerns over a lack of generic drugs and commonly prescribed medications, like penicillin.

Even with shelves full of medication, pharmacist Dennis Abud frequently has to tell patients in the Moncton suburb of Dieppe that their drugs just aren't available.

The national association surveyed more than 400 of its members in October to get a sense of the problem, and 70 per cent said the health of patients was adversely affected.

Almost 94 per cent of pharmacists indicated over a period of one week that they had problems finding medication to fill prescriptions.

"We try and beg, borrow and steal," said Abud. "We try to find medication. We call other stores, other companies. It's a lot of time on the phone. A lot of time talking with patients, trying physicians."

Abud said penicillin, one of the most commonly prescribed drugs, is available only in pill form....

CBC News - New Brunswick - Drug shortage worries pharmacists

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security is solvent. Social Security does not add to the deficit or the debt...

...although the recent tax bill might change that equation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone see a pattern here?

Hmmm ... this is a PC thread so lemme guess ... Democrats = bad and Republicans = good?

Notice, that just for starters, she omitted

the Republicans 2 unpaid for wars in the '00's,

unpaid for Medicare part D,

Bush's 2001 tax cut that was explicitly for the purpose of getting rid of the Clinton surplus,

the unpaid for 2003 tax cut that had no economic justification,

the unpaid for Reagan military buildup,

the unpaid for Bush Sr. Iraq war

...for starters...

And, so, without objection, I declare the OP thread title and premise pure horseshit.

 

[Ropey]

Fact Check is great. It looks as though Clinton and Reagan both kept their increases down. A Republican and Democrat.

Even when Presidents wish to cut spending, the Congress (s) won't allow it.

We need a change in the way the work and how much time they spend in Congress.

It would be a if that ever was accomplished.

 

[boedicca]

Social Security is solvent. Social Security does not add to the deficit or the debt...

...although the recent tax bill might change that equation.

You are sorely misinformed.

The SS "trust fund" has been raided and stuffed with obligations upon future taxpayers.

There is no Real Trust Fund, and SS is careening towards insolvency due to the deterioration of the demographic equation which enabled the original Ponzi Scheme.

 

[rdean]

Conason Reminds Scarborough That The Iraq War and Tax Cuts Ballooned the Deficit | Video Cafe

I thought it was hilarious on Morning Joe as he grilled a Republican Senator. You can’t oppose something when your vote is on “public record”.

He pointed out that the Republicans unpaid for Medicare Part D is going to cost 7 trillion dollars. That 7X Obamacare. While I don’t have a link to that, I do have one (above) with him repeating the 7 trillion dollar figure over and over again.

In other words:

Obamacare
1 trillion

Republicans Medicare Part D
1 trillion
+
1 trillion
+
1 trillion
+
1 trillion
+
1 trillion
+
1 trillion
+
1 trillion

Why the cost? Because the drug companies deserve the money. “Republican philosophy”.

Then add the 3 trillion from Iraq
1 trillion
+
1 trillion
+
1 trillion

All that adds up to a whole lotta trillions.

At least Obama has spent money that’s “good” for the country. How do we know? Because Republicans keep trying to take credit for “Stimulus Money” projects.

 

[Toro]

The proof that this is nonsense is to simply look at the government's own national debt summary- which I provided earlier.

Over the Clinton presidency there was a 41% increase in the national debt.

The national debt summary includes accruals to the trusts, which are noncash charges and do not measure the inflows and outflows of cash into the Treasury. Those liabilities can be created, and eliminated, with a stroke of a pen.

Over Clinton's two terms, national debt rose, but the government ran surpluses in the last years of the 1990s and paid down debt. You can see all this in the budget documents, of which I linked the 2000 budget above.

 

[Toro]

If you want to call them surpluses. Remember what the new Capitalist name for determining recession/depression?

Negative growth....

Its not what I call them. It's what everyone calls them, except those with an ideological axe to grind. I had never heard anyone argue that there weren't surpluses until a year or two ago when I read what right-wingers were writing here. And I've spent 17 years working in capital markets.

 

[boedicca]

The proof that this is nonsense is to simply look at the government's own national debt summary- which I provided earlier.

Over the Clinton presidency there was a 41% increase in the national debt.

The national debt summary includes accruals to the trusts, which are noncash charges and do not measure the inflows and outflows of cash into the Treasury. Those liabilities can be created, and eliminated, with a stroke of a pen.

Over Clinton's two terms, national debt rose, but the government ran surpluses in the last years of the 1990s and paid down debt. You can see all this in the budget documents, of which I linked the 2000 budget above.

That's really groovy other than the fact it is based on fictitious accounting.

 

[Toro]

That's really groovy other than the fact it is based on fictitious accounting.

It is not fictitious accounting. It is based on cash accounting. I think that's wrong but it is what it is.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You support the DEATH TAX, but think chidlren should receive SSI payments after they are legal adults?

Hypocrite.

My father died when he was 36. He paid into SSI and was a small business owner.

So all the money he paid in shouldn't go to his family?

Nice.

You can't have it BOTH ways. What big reason can you give that makes you so "entitled" to receive the money your father invested into, but deny another the same "benefit" of passing down THEIR savings earned to THEIR family strictly on the sole basis of income class? I don't support the Death Tax either, it's discrimination based on someone's status. What would be your view if, rather than status, you were to told by the government you had to pay a higher death tax because you happened to be born with the wrong skin color?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The proof that this is nonsense is to simply look at the government's own national debt summary- which I provided earlier.

Over the Clinton presidency there was a 41% increase in the national debt.

The national debt summary includes accruals to the trusts, which are noncash charges and do not measure the inflows and outflows of cash into the Treasury. Those liabilities can be created, and eliminated, with a stroke of a pen.

Over Clinton's two terms, national debt rose, but the government ran surpluses in the last years of the 1990s and paid down debt. You can see all this in the budget documents, of which I linked the 2000 budget above.

She's trying to pull an apples/oranges comparison. By making people think that by some arcane measure Clinton didn't technically balance the budget, and this is the important point,

that half-truth is meant to diminish Clinton vs. Republicans like Reagan and Bush, along the lines of well, Reagan and Bush didn't have balanced budgets, but hey!

neither did Clinton!

The problem, or the deceit, is that if you apply that same arcane measure to Reagan or Bush or Bush, their debt numbers increase proportionately.

The question I asked her the last time she tried to pull this, which of course she wouldn't answer, was:

Did Clinton come closer to balancing the budget than any president in the last 30 years?

 

[Ropey]

If you want to call them surpluses. Remember what the new Capitalist name for determining recession/depression?

Negative growth....

Its not what I call them. It's what everyone calls them, except those with an ideological axe to grind. I had never heard anyone argue that there weren't surpluses until a year or two ago when I read what right-wingers were writing here. And I've spent 17 years working in capital markets.

Let me put this another way. Do you think they are surpluses?

 

[Toro]

If you want to call them surpluses. Remember what the new Capitalist name for determining recession/depression?

Negative growth....

Its not what I call them. It's what everyone calls them, except those with an ideological axe to grind. I had never heard anyone argue that there weren't surpluses until a year or two ago when I read what right-wingers were writing here. And I've spent 17 years working in capital markets.

Let me put this another way. Do you think they are surpluses?

Yes.

 

[Ropey]

Then I have to agree with PC. I do not see them as surpluses. Where I disagree is that it would seem both parties do the same thing and why not? When they have those in the Capital industry giving them the thumbs up and supporting this 'decrease by increase'.

Working in Capital markets might have skewed your personal belief a bit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security is solvent. Social Security does not add to the deficit or the debt...

...although the recent tax bill might change that equation.

You are sorely misinformed.

The SS "trust fund" has been raided and stuffed with obligations upon future taxpayers.

There is no Real Trust Fund, and SS is careening towards insolvency due to the deterioration of the demographic equation which enabled the original Ponzi Scheme.

Yes, if our government defaults on its debt, S.S. is in trouble. lol.

Social Security was in at least as much trouble in 1983 when it was fixed. The idea that S.S. might now be somehow unfixable is not supported by the facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then I have to agree with PC. I do not see them as surpluses. Where I disagree is that it would seem both parties do the same thing and why not? When they have those in the Capital industry giving them the thumbs up and supporting this 'decrease by increase'.

Working in Capital markets might have skewed your personal belief a bit?

GW Bush called it a 'surplus' in 2001 when he declared that a tax cut was needed to give that 'surplus' back to the people...

...as opposed to, god forbid, paying down the debt.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Then add the 3 trillion from Iraq
1 trillion
+
1 trillion
+
1 trillion

All that adds up to a whole lotta trillions.

Again democrat liberals are basing there arguments on "exaggerated" data. As I have stated at an earlier post, the Los Angeles Times is quoted as saying the Iraq War under the Bush Administration costs taxpayers $700 Billion. That $3 Trillion is as bloated as the jobs figures that were created under the $787 Billion Stimulus bill.
Cost Of Iraq War - Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam by year's end - Los Angeles Times

At least Obama has spent money that’s “good” for the country. How do we know? Because Republicans keep trying to take credit for “Stimulus Money” projects.

Let's begin by looking at the $787 Billion "Stimulus" Bill which includes:
$75 Million - for "smoking cessation activities"
$25 Million - for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
$200 Million - to fund the LEASE of alternative energy vehicles for the use on military installations They are soldiers who make their time marching from building to building. Isn't that Michelle Obama who says that Americans need to be more physically fit?
$88 Million - for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health services. I wouldn't think of renovating my OWN house until I knew I could afford it.
$160 Million - for "paid volunteers" ... at the Corporation for national and Community Service. If they are paid they are not volunteers, they are called "employees"
$5.5 Million - for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veteran Affairs National Cemetery Administration. Electric hearses?? ... or are we talking about electric lawnmowers here?
... to name but a few


CBS Moneywatch reporting an ineffective stimulus. Moneywatch, back in October 8, 2010 reported that private sector employment has increased, however not far enough from ZERO to be statistically significant. Believing that the recovery under the stimulus to be weaker than was originally reported. With a total of 366,000 more people losing their jobs than was reported, the last revision showing the payroll estimate for the recession to be down by a record 824,000 jobs.
Following Jobs Report, Fed Likely to Stimulate Economy Further - CBS MoneyWatch.com


Using a Government Census to manipulate job creation reports. The month of May 2010 had release a report showing that the economy added 413,000 jobs, but nearly all of those jobs were through temporary positions hired by the Census. Whistle blowers working for the government made statements of frequent layoffs after only a few hours of employment, paving the way for the creation of four additional jobs. To further add to this uncovered effort to manipulate job creation reports, a history of government funding to perform the National census is as follows:
1970 - Census cost $247,653,000 Average cost per person $1.22
1980 - Census Cost $1,078,488,000 Average cost per person $4.76
1990 - Census Cost $2,492,830,000 Average cost per person $10.02
2000 - Census Cost $4,500,000,000 Average cost per person $15.99
2010 - census cost $14,500,000,000 Average cost per person $46.93(do you see the drastic increase in government spending, to support the notion of an administration attempting to manipulating monthly job creation figures?)
Is the Census Bureau Double Counting Jobs?
Two more Census workers blow the whistle - NYPOST.com
Census Costs Skyrocket 325% Versus 2000 - Houston Republican | Examiner.com
The Cost of the Census | How Much Does it Cost to Take the U.S. Census?


Local news networks reporting stimulus job numbers to be over-inflated:
12,000 jobs in Massachusetts, as first reported by the Boston Globe
Globe: Stimulus job numbers over-inflated

91,000 jobs created in Georgia over the last 3 months, and with unemployment at 10%, the news organization did it's own investigation of those figures:
Government estimates on stimulus jobs inflated. - 11Alive.com | WXIA | Atlanta, GA


Unemployment and under-employment statistics:
Looking at the month of November 2010 alone, reported figures found 39,000 jobs were added to the economy. However the underemployment rate, representing those unemployed and those working part-time while looking for work, remains unchanged at 17%. Long-term underemployment of those seeking work at 17 weeks or longer increases to 6.3 million.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/mays-jobs-report-unemployment-at-9-7-percent/19503324/

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics December 3, 2010 among the unemployed, the number of people who completed temporary jobs increased by 390,000. Long-term unemployment (27 weeks or more) changed very little at 6.3 million accounting for 41.9% of those unemployed. 2.5 million people, up from 2.3 million of the last year, represents those who were looking for work within the past 12 months but are not counted as unemployed because they had not looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to their survey.
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_alpha.htm

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then I have to agree with PC. I do not see them as surpluses. Where I disagree is that it would seem both parties do the same thing and why not? When they have those in the Capital industry giving them the thumbs up and supporting this 'decrease by increase'.

Working in Capital markets might have skewed your personal belief a bit?

Pardon....I never said that both parties did not behave in this manner....

I have pointed out that deficits have been the pattern in 44 of the last 50 years.

And explained that, since the 1983 Greenspan commission, every President has taken the SS surpluses and subtracted same from the deficits that they created.

They have carefully contructed methods to obfuscate the dire straits ahead.

 

[boedicca]

That's really groovy other than the fact it is based on fictitious accounting.

It is not fictitious accounting. It is based on cash accounting. I think that's wrong but it is what it is.

It is fraudulent for the government to not use proper accrual accounting. If a corporation used the nonsense accounting that the Feds do, it would be sued by the SEC.