SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Friday morning, Bloomberg reported that it had seen a copy of a questionnaire sent by the Trump transition team to the Department of Energy (DOE). The questionnaire includes 75 questions directed at the DOE and the Energy Information Agency (EIA), as well as any labs underneath the DOE's purview. The New York Times then obtained and published a copy of the document.
Although the questions are broad in nature, they seem to set the department up for budget and staffing cuts. They also appear to favor nuclear power and fossil fuel.
Questions that address cuts to the DOE's mission include: "Which Assistant Secretary positions are rooted in statute and which exist at the discretion and delegation of the Secretary?", as well as "If the DOE's topline budget in accounts other than the 050 account were required to be reduced 10% over the next four fiscal years (from the FY17 request and starting in FY18), does the Department have any recommendations as to where those reductions should be made?" A 050 account indicates national defense spending.
With respect to renewables and research, the questionnaire asks the DOE to provide a complete list of the projects shouldered by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds early-stage energy technology that would otherwise not be funded on the private market. ARPA-E opened its doors in 2009 under President Obama and works on battery research, biofuel production, and wind turbine projects.
Efforts to modernize the US' aging and inefficient grids also seemed to get a critical eye. "What is the goal of the grid modernization effort?" the questionnaire asks. "Is there some terminal point to this effort? Is its genesis statutory or something else?"
[Continues...]
[...] While divining the motivations behind the questions is difficult, some of them have potentially nefarious undertones. One of the questions asks for a list of all employees or contractors who attended meetings about the social cost of carbon, as well as a list of materials distributed at those meetings. Another asks "Can you provide a list of Department employees who attended any of the Conference of the Parties (under the UNFCCC) in the last five years?" According to the Washington Post , one unnamed Energy Department official expressed concern that "the Trump transition team was trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama." Scientists have asked the administration to "refrain from singling out individual researchers whose work might conflict with the new administration's policy goals."
[...] The questionnaire also has pointed questions for the EIA, an independent agency under the DOE umbrella that provides energy market analysis. The questionnaire seemingly accuses the EIA of overlooking the costs of renewable energy when comparing it to fossil fuels. "Renewable and solar technologies are expected to need additional transmission costs above what fossil technologies need," the questionnaire states. "How has EIA represented this in the AEO [Annual Energy Outlook] forecasts? What is the magnitude of those transmission costs?"
Thomas Pyle, the head of the pro-fossil fuel American Energy Alliance, is leading Trump's Department of Energy Transition team, and he likely had a hand in assembling these questions. According to the Washington Post, Pyle recently wrote a fundraising pitch decrying "the Obama administration's divisive energy and environmental policies" and promising that "the Trump administration will adopt pro-energy and pro-market policies."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:13AM
We have a basic debt if $20 Trillion, off book liabilities several times that and an annual budget that doesn't balance as far out as they can project. Cutting stuff should be the default position. End baseline budgeting and make every single program justify every single dollar it requests every year. Make Congress actually do their primary job.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:27AM
The job of Congress is figuring out how to turn $20 trillion debt into zero INSTANTLY by refusing to pay. And without starting a nuclear war.
Sounds like a job for the Deal Man.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:35AM
The problem with that strategy is that it works once. Then nobody will lend to you again.
This actually came up in US history before, when the country was first getting off the ground and was deep in debt because of the revolutionary war. Some said we should blow off our debt. Alexander Hamilton stepped up and said no, we'll make good on it and show lenders we pay back our debts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:46AM
That's fine. I'd ruin my credit rating for $20 trillion.
(Of course, if you have 20 trillion you don't need any credit, you just pay cash.)
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:13AM
Something like that happened in 1979.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Credit_default [wikipedia.org]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/debt-ceiling-breach-1979_n_4058492.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:40AM
The job of congress here is to tax the wealthy people who hoarded all the wealth through loopholes in the first place. That $20tn debt is composed almost entirely of debts that came from tax cuts to the rich and bailouts of the rich. Very little of that debt went to making America great and as such, we should get a refund.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:24AM
Do you have a citation for all that class envy, or should we just take your word for it?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:54AM
Here is a graph of government spending as a percentage of GDP [usgovernmentspending.com] over time. While tax cuts may have contributed to the debt, ever-increasing spending has contributed, too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:59AM
That $20tn debt is composed almost entirely of debts that came from tax cuts to the rich and bailouts of the rich.
Like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and defense spending. All tax cuts to the rich and bailouts of the rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:02PM
Yay false flags!
Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain, just believe the giant heads that tell you its all the fault of the poor!!
Hahaha heeehhhhhhh oogh. You are the antithesis of the person you replied to. Our debt come from both things and we should reprioritize what we spent on. So far it's clear that the weapons industry needs to be reigned in, and our social safety nets restructured to be more efficient and sane.
Austerity measures are just a clever way to say "let's solve our problems by fucking over the poor" instead of dealing with the real problems. Why do we do this batshit crazy stuff? Because corruption is off the scales and the people with lots of money and power are not going to give it up. But hey khallow at least they have brave soldiers like you willing to fight the good fight on their behalf... Lawl
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @07:56AM
Austerity measures are just a clever way to say
"We borrowed too much and now we're at the mercy of our debt holders." Ok, it's not very clever.
If you're complaining about the poor when austerity hits, then you're way too late - the US's debt holders are in control, not you. Now is the time. And I'll note that spending is always way out of hand no matter how much revenue is collected. That's why I emphasize spending reduction not revenue increase.
But there is a higher level that I missed in my first sarcastic post. We have in Francis's post, the idea that because supposedly all of our spending is tax cuts and bail outs of the rich, then we need to raise the taxes on the "wealth hoarders" (whatever that is supposed to be) so that we have so much more money to spend on tax cuts and bail outs of the rich.
It is so pure.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday December 13 2016, @09:27PM
> Like Social Security [...]
You're insinuating that payments from the Social Security programme have exceeded payments into it, adding to the national debt, aren't you? The actual situation is that more money has been collected, ostensibly to fund Social Security, than has been paid out. The excess has been used for other purposes. In its place, special non-negotiable bonds are issued by the Treasury. It would be correct to reckon those bonds as governmental debt--but it's incorrect to say that that debt is due to spending by the Social Security system. The Social Security administrators project that the programme's surpluses will run out around 2034.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html [ssa.gov]
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html [ssa.gov]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:09PM
You're insinuating that payments from the Social Security programme have exceeded payments into it, adding to the national debt, aren't you?
Yes. This has happened off and on over the last few years. Without a substantial benefits cut, it will be a permanent part of Social Security going forward.
The actual situation is that more money has been collected, ostensibly to fund Social Security, than has been paid out.
It's pay as you go. The first thing they do is issue an imaginary bond and dump the revenue into the general fund. So it's irrelevant how much has been collected. The actual mechanics are that the surplus revenue from Social Security was spent as it was obtained.
In its place, special non-negotiable bonds are issued by the Treasury. It would be correct to reckon those bonds as governmental debt--but it's incorrect to say that that debt is due to spending by the Social Security system.
That is fantasy debt. The Social Security program and the US government haven't been doing anything to cover the actual liabilities that they're promising to pay back. If a real business tried to pull this crap, there wouldn't be any "but they say it'll be ok till 2034". People would be demanding reform now. Financial people would probably be jail for failing to implement GAAP accounting.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 14 2016, @01:44AM
Yes. This has happened off and on over the last few years.
From one of the pages I linked:
Over the program's 80-year history, it has collected roughly $19.0 trillion and paid out $16.1 trillion, leaving asset reserves of more than $2.8 trillion at the end of 2015 in its two trust funds.
Without a substantial benefits cut, it will be a permanent part of Social Security going forward.
Something along those lines is predicted. A decline in the average lifespan would remedy that. So would an increase in the tax.
It's pay as you go. The first thing they do is issue an imaginary bond and dump the revenue into the general fund. So it's irrelevant how much has been collected. The actual mechanics are that the surplus revenue from Social Security was spent as it was obtained.
I think I see. The money collected through payroll taxes is irrelevant to you; only the money paid to pensioners is noteworthy. Hence you see the programme as a cost centre.
The Social Security program and the US government haven't been doing anything to cover the actual liabilities that they're promising to pay back.
Again, more money was collected in tax for Social Security than was paid out to pensioners. The difference has been used to pay for other activities. The "fantasy debt" (non-redeemable bonds) is owed to Social Security, not the other way round.
If a real business tried to pull this crap, there wouldn't be any "but they say it'll be ok till 2034".
As I understand it, not being a business was the rationale for Social Security. Company pensions aren't always well-run:
Although he continues to work for the company that took over Penn Specialty, he has medical problems and is eager to retire. But his retirement savings, generated over a long career in the chemical industry, are tied up in his 401(k).
“As long as they keep the accounts from us,” he said, “my wife and I are worried that they can dip into our funds and quietly consume them.”
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/401-k-woes-when-a-company-goes-bankrupt-fair-game.html [nytimes.com]
The suit alleges that Enron "locked down" 401(k) retirement accounts on Oct. 17, preventing employees from changing the investments they held in their accounts until Nov. 19.
During that period Enron reported its first quarterly loss in four years and took a charge of $1.2 billion against stockholders' equity as a result of off-balance-sheet deals that later came under investigation by U.S. regulators.
-- http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/401k/q_retire_enron_re/ [cnn.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:31AM
Over the program's 80-year history, it has collected roughly $19.0 trillion and paid out $16.1 trillion, leaving asset reserves of more than $2.8 trillion at the end of 2015 in its two trust funds.
I wish you wouldn't pay attention to fantasy accounting. What Social Security eventually pays out to current and future participants will have nothing to do with those numbers. That is a sunk cost and no longer relevant to Social Security's activities which will be determined more by future revenue and costs.
I think I see. The money collected through payroll taxes is irrelevant to you; only the money paid to pensioners is noteworthy. Hence you see the programme as a cost centre.
You should too. I'll note further that it is a grotesquely inefficient service for what little it actually does and costs (drives US labor costs up by roughly 15% so old ladies don't need to eat cat food).
Company pensions aren't always well-run
Same problems are coming up with government pensions too at all levels of government. Social Security exhibits similar problems, particularly since government refuses to acknowledge the huge liabilities in the program.
Something along those lines is predicted. A decline in the average lifespan would remedy that. So would an increase in the tax.
Decline in average lifespan? Think about the conflict of interest that represents.
And of course, why should we force future generations to pay more for the irresponsibility of past generations? Will that even stick down the road?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 14 2016, @05:43AM
What Social Security eventually pays out to current and future participants will have nothing to do with those numbers. That is a sunk cost and no longer relevant to Social Security's activities which will be determined more by future revenue and costs.
It is indeed past, but it's relevant to whether the programme has been running a deficit.
I'll note further that it is a grotesquely inefficient service for what little it actually does and costs (drives US labor costs up by roughly 15% so old ladies don't need to eat cat food).
It sounds as though you are making a comparison to workers who don't save for their old age.
Decline in average lifespan? Think about the conflict of interest that represents.
Yes, but it may be happening:
In 2015, life expectancy at birth was 78.8 years for the total U.S. population—a decrease of 0.1 year from 78.9 years in 2014. For males, life expectancy changed from 76.5 years in 2014 to 76.3 years in 2015—a decrease of 0.2 years, and for females, life expectancy decreased 0.1 year from 81.3 years in 2014 to 81.2 years in 2015.
-- https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm [cdc.gov]
And of course, why should we force future generations to pay more for the irresponsibility of past generations? Will that even stick down the road?
One reason is that generations do exist: births and deaths aren't typically in equilibrium. Likewise, macroeconomic conditions vary. People in the "baby boom" generation paid heavily into Social Security to fund their parents' pensions as well as their own; they were able to do so because they lived in prosperous times.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:00PM
It is indeed past, but it's relevant to whether the programme has been running a deficit.
I already noted that Social Security transitioned to deficit only in the past few years and unless something is adjusted will continue to do so indefinitely.
And of course, why should we force future generations to pay more for the irresponsibility of past generations? Will that even stick down the road?
One reason is that generations do exist: births and deaths aren't typically in equilibrium. Likewise, macroeconomic conditions vary. People in the "baby boom" generation paid heavily into Social Security to fund their parents' pensions as well as their own; they were able to do so because they lived in prosperous times.
That is a non sequitur.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 14 2016, @08:36PM
I already noted that Social Security transitioned to deficit only in the past few years and unless something is adjusted will continue to do so indefinitely.
As we touched upon before, the agency holds special Treasury bonds that only it can redeem. Were it a privately run pension which held conventional government bonds that anyone can redeem, I imagine that a fair-minded reader would count those bonds as having value. The table I linked to before [ssa.gov], which has data going until the end of 2015, shows their value increasing except in 1976 through 1981, and 1983. The other page I linked [ssa.gov] says that those bonds are interest-bearing, and notes that interest from them amounted to about 10% of the agency's income (emphasis added):
The OASDI reserves are projected to grow in 2016 because total income ($944.6 billion) will exceed total cost ($928.9 billion). This year's report indicates that annual OASDI income, including payments of interest to the trust funds from the General Fund, will continue to exceed annual cost every year until 2020, increasing the nominal value of combined OASDI trust fund asset reserves. Social Security's cost is projected to exceed its non-interest income by $73 billion in 2016, and annual non-interest income deficits will persist through 2090. The trust fund ratio (the ratio of projected reserves to annual cost) will continue to decline gradually (Chart E), as it has since 2008, despite this nominal balance increase. Beginning in 2020, net redemptions of trust fund asset reserves with General Fund payments will be required until projected depletion of these reserves in 2034.
[...]
The trust funds also receive income from interest on their accumulated reserves, which are invested in U.S. Government securities. In 2015, interest income made up 10 percent of total income to the OASDI trust funds [...]
Earlier you had written:
It's pay as you go. The first thing they do is issue an imaginary bond and dump the revenue into the general fund. So it's irrelevant how much has been collected. The actual mechanics are that the surplus revenue from Social Security was spent as it was obtained.
You seem determined to disregard the agency's bond income and define "deficit" as meaning that the money it receives through payroll taxes each month falls short of what it expends on disbursements and its own administration.
That is a non sequitur.
It should be, if we consider the bonds held by the agency as having value. But clearly you want to ignore their value. In an pension system of the sort you imagine, that held no investments but took in money through a payroll tax, the working people would, each month, bear the cost of the pensions paid out to an older generation. Leaving aside your assertion of "irresponsibility," one generation paying for an older generation's pensions would be inherent to such a system.
We can expect that unless a static equilibrium exists in the population of older people, the number of pensioners will vary over time. We can also expect that unless static equilibria exist for both the population of working-age people and for general economic conditions, the number of workers and their taxable income will vary. With the sort of system you envision that makes no investments, the inevitable fluctuations in population or in the economy will mean that some generations (ignoring administrative costs and ignoring what happens at the inception of the programme) pay more than they later receive, and others will receive more than they paid.
With the actual system, there are investments—admittedly of an unusual sort—which could in theory be used to even out such unfairness. However, due to the inception of the programme, due to the large population bulge that the "baby boom" generation represented, they essentially made double payments. That, I think, could have been managed better. Yet the programme, as I understand it, remains a popular one, almost a shibboleth. You had asked, "Will that even stick down the road?" which I take as a question of what people will put up with. I gave the example of the "baby boom" as an answer: they put up with quite a lot. Whether that will be true among later generations—or whether the programme's unfairness will again reach such a degree—are open questions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 15 2016, @06:59AM
You seem determined to disregard the agency's bond income and define "deficit" as meaning that the money it receives through payroll taxes each month falls short of what it expends on disbursements and its own administration.
You should too. The bond income is purely imaginary. Every bit of revenue and "bond income" Social Security comes from current tax revenue. If a private company tried this accounting crap with a pension fund, someone would go to jail.
I gave the example of the "baby boom" as an answer: they put up with quite a lot.
About half the baby boomers (the oldest part of the group) will get back more than they put in for Social Security. That means they're putting up with less than you expect. Assuming benefits are not reduced to match input payments now, it will be the late baby boomers and subsequent generations that will have to deal with falling payouts from Social Security.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by toddestan on Sunday December 11 2016, @08:03PM
The three big causes in the last 15 years for the increase in the debt or so are the Bush taxcuts (mostly benefiting the rich), various wars (benefiting the military-industrial complex), and various bailouts and stimulus spending since 2008 (mostly benefiting the banks and Wall Street). If it wasn't for those there things, we'd be in much better shape.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday December 13 2016, @09:44PM
In 2011 it was reported that
The portion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that went to banks has now turned a profit for the federal government, the Treasury Department announced [...]
-- http://thehill.com/policy/finance/152835-government-now-turning-a-profit-on-tarp-investment-in-banks [thehill.com]
but a 2012 story said that
Companies that were bailed out during the financial crisis still owe U.S. taxpayers nearly $133 billion.
-- https://web.archive.org/web/20120129015337/http://www.ajc.com/business/report-taxpayers-still-owed-1317741.html [archive.org]
In 2010, Fox News said that
General Motors announced this week that it repaid its multibillion-dollar taxpayer-backed TARP loans. [...] GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department.
-- https://web.archive.org/web/20150709012523/http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/23/did-general-motors-really-repay-taxpayer-bailout.html [archive.org]
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:45AM
It's easily doable even right now. However the country will pay for that move by international [financial] isolation. The flow of goods from Asia will stop; the flow of dirt-cheap oil from Saudi Arabia will stop. Only a few companies will be earning international currency, and even if their revenue is confiscated it still won't be enough to buy essential goods for the entire country. Inside the country all savings, including the social security, will instantly crash and burn, causing major social disturbances. Why would anyone want to waste a perfectly good nuke or two on a new Somalia?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 11 2016, @05:16AM
It could work. Perhaps 3D printing, other technologies, and our natural resources (gas, oil) could be in the right place at the right time to make that isolation worthwhile.
Social security is already dying as is.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:33PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by Francis on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:38AM
We have plenty of money to service our debts, we lack the political will to make the people who make all the money pay their fair share. Which is another reason why we shouldn't be allowing wealth to accumulate in the hands of a small number of oligarchs. If it were the poor people who had a quarter or more of the wealth in the country, we'd have no problem raising the funds to pay off our debt.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday December 11 2016, @05:35AM
make the people who make all the money pay their fair share
Ok, I'm going to go total bastard on ya. Define fair share. If someone EARNS $100,000, tell me what is the amount you think you should be able to direct the use of, but taking another dollar would be unfair.
I use this one on a regular basis, never get an answer.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:12AM
Define fair share. If someone EARNS $100,000, tell me what is the amount you think you should be able to direct the use of, but taking another dollar would be unfair.
Ok, I'll bite. Fortunately, you've phrased the issue using a standard tax category (EARNED income). Fair? It's certainly fair if everybody pays the same rate on "EARNED" income. We won't even delve into whether those CEOs with the multimillion dollar paychecks actually earned that much, even if their corporation says it lost money. But charge a multiple of that rate (say, 4X) on "UNEARNED" income. What's unearned income? That's the stuff that's not paycheck income, that you don't pay FICA taxes on. You know, dividends, capital gains, etc. I'd argue that since corporate "persons" don't pay FICA on their own income, that should count as unearned. A consideration in exchange for the government-bestowed privilege of being a corporation, if you like.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:44AM
Your question is not as reasonable as you present it to be, but you should not have been down-modded for asking. Most people don't understand the meaning of the words they use. They say 'fair share' because they heard it someplace but they don't know what it is and have never really thought about it. It's not reasonable to expect that they'll suddenly understand.
For each $100,000 given for goods or services in a nation-state, what amount should the government of the nation-state be able to direct the use of, past which another dollar is unfair?
The correct answer, for as long as the question is asked, is the nation-state should take the equilibrium amount. No more. No less. The equilibrium amount is the amount where the budget is balanced. If the nation state takes less it is unfair for future citizens who one day must pay the bill for their predecessors excess.
The budget is not balanced. It is not nearly balanced. Most of the dollars made go to those that, According to Francis, 'make all the money'. It stands to reason that they are not paying their fair share.
It is a different question to ask how much a nation-state should spend or try to spend. We know 0 doesn't work. We know that those that must pay for it generally want it to do less. The rest falls to the realm of politics.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:35PM
Most of the dollars made go to those that, According to Francis, 'make all the money'.
About 40% of that goes to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Francis might not be entirely right here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:10PM
Sounds like a very good reason to socialize healthcare, you know, like most other successful western countries. If you find that unfair because "muh monies" then you should be hit with a major illness that racks up insane hospital bills and you will have recently been laid off so no insurance from work. We can stop letting insurance companies and hospitals make money off of sick people! Maybe ask yourself why something costs more when insurance covers it...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @07:24AM
Sounds like a very good reason to socialize healthcare, you know, like most other successful western countries.
Because? You do realize that the US already has a remarkably bad single payer system in the Veterans Administration. And another one in Medicaid. And another one in Medicare. If the US were in the habit of implementing successful health care systems, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
Maybe ask yourself why something costs more when insurance covers it...
Maybe you should do that too? My answer seems to be because government mandated a very expensive (rather than a very effective) level of care with a variety of ways that excessively high costs get passed on to insurance pools.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:58PM
Interesting that you define getting more care and getting it at around 60% of the cost to be "remarkably bad".
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/21/news/economy/medicare-doctors/index.html [cnn.com]
What metric are you using by which you consider these programs to be failures?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:01PM
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:12PM
As the article I cited explained, what I mean is that Medicare users receive more treatment, and part of the reason for that is that they're less likely to have their claims rejected compared to private insurance. (Although some of the difference is just that Medicare users are on average older or low income and therefore *need* more care).
And the source I cited for those facts reported them in 2014, so the 2009 benefit cuts should already be accounted for there.
So yes, even after significant cuts, Medicare is *still* more likely to approve your claim than a private insurer. And they're still going to get that treatment at a lower cost. So once again, how is that a failure?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:58PM
All three programs I mention are failing, but failing in different ways. The Veterans Administration, for example, underwent a remarkably ill-thought cost reduction process that resulted in widespread denial of service with a fair number of dead patients to show for it. Medicaid has a bunch of people dumped on it while simultaneously cutting back on benefits. And Medicare is currently paying out much more per patient than it takes in per patient over the lifetime of the patient.
Further, these sorts of problems are showing up in other countries' more socialist health care systems too. In particular, every developed world country has a problem with health care costs growing much faster than their GDP does.
So I still dispute the idea that "socializing" health care will work better in the US, when we have several examples of it not doing so, no examples of it working in the US, and the same problems that the US experiences showing up in those other health care systems.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @09:41PM
Currently, healthcare spending is 17.5% of the US GDP. So if it's only 15% of the federal budget, that looks fine. Especially since much of the federal spending on healthcare is for the poor or elderly, who generally require more care.
The VA is a slightly different situation -- it's not really a public healthcare system, it's a job benefit. And in that regard it's hardly unique -- there's plenty of jobs with equally atrocious (and often significantly worse) private healthcare benefits. So any problems there say more about how the nation values our soldiers than it does about public healthcare in general.
We pay more than countries with universal healthcare for the same treatments. And while their costs are indeed increasing, our costs are increasing *faster*. So if every other country has a *problem* with rising healthcare costs, the US would seem to have a goddamn catastrophe.
https://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/ [wordpress.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 15 2016, @07:19AM
Currently, healthcare spending is 17.5% of the US GDP. So if it's only 15% of the federal budget, that looks fine. Especially since much of the federal spending on healthcare is for the poor or elderly, who generally require more care.
Somewhere near 1% of US GDP is spent on illegal recreational drugs. So we should expect the US government should be spending a few tens of billions on the sale or distribution of those drugs (since that would be roughly 1% of the federal budget)? Conversely, a bit more than 15% of the US budget is spent on national defense. So we should expect the GDP contribution from national defense to be 15% of the US's GDP? It doesn't work that way.
Medicare is only part of the medical care that the federal government pays for. There's also, as I already mentioned, Medicaid, the VA, and some other stuff. In any case, as of 2015 medical spending [nationalpriorities.org], excluding veteran benefits, was 27% of the US federal budget with some addition health care spending in veteran benefits and Social Security. Whether or not that number appears out of line depends on your priorities, of course.
The VA is a slightly different situation -- it's not really a public healthcare system, it's a job benefit.
Is VA public? Why yes, it is. Is it a health care system? Why yes it is. And why can't job benefits be public health care systems? I would assert that the VA is the obvious counterexample.
We pay more than countries with universal healthcare for the same treatments. And while their costs are indeed increasing, our costs are increasing *faster*. So if every other country has a *problem* with rising healthcare costs, the US would seem to have a goddamn catastrophe.
And what makes you think that's going to stop being the case? My point here is that we already have several examples that indicate the socialized health care approach is already failing on a significant scale in the US with similar cost inflation to the non-socialist approaches (being that they're both dependent on the same medical infrastructure with its notable deficiencies).
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday December 12 2016, @04:53AM
You're reading the wrong financial statements. The 40% is a tax - a portion of jmorris' $100,000 that is already taken by current taxation. And if you're going to roll in employment taxes and total compensation into the mix, jmoris' $100k becomes $125k and your 40% becomes 33%. But we're still talking about lots of money.
For top earners this falls to Francis might not be entirely right here.
I realized that the first time he posted here. Did I miss something?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @07:14AM
You're reading the wrong financial statements.
Look at the US's budget [wikipedia.org] sometime. The pie chart I linked to has almost 50% of the budget in Social Security and "health care" which is mostly Medicare/Medicaid.
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday December 12 2016, @08:02AM
Agreed. That's the budget. It doesn't change anything. It's immaterial unless you have something to add.
The link you provide speaks to the expenditures - the budget. Jmorris asked about the revenue side - specifically how much revenue is fair to take. I asserted that anything less than the amount which balanced the budget was fundamentally unfair. I'll further assert that the fact that the budget is not balanced, even on paper, on any time scale, is criminal. Francis indicated that the balance should be taken from those that 'make all of the money' - which, while somewhat simplistic, implies a knowledge that those that 'make all of the money' are more likely, logically speaking, to have some of that money, at any given time, than those that make none of it (which is, again logically, everyone else).
I'm assuming (feel free to correct me) that you are trying to offer a negative commentary on the wisdom of the particular expenditures. Expenditures are not revenues...
But, since I believe that absolutely all expenditures not supported by revenues, at least on paper, are criminal, I am forced to agree with your position. The sick should be denied treatment for even the simplest things and should be made to die in pain, the elderly should be left to starve and freeze, the the army should dismiss its soldiers by the division, the air force should sell its bombers to ISIS* and the navy should scuttle one ship each hour, and the prisons should turn loose all they hold, all this until the expenditures match the existing revenues... or until the revenues are raised.
*strategically this might keep some of the world busy not exploiting the chaos that the rest of this would cause.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @08:18AM
It's immaterial unless you have something to add.
I already added what I needed to add to make it material.
The link you provide speaks to the expenditures - the budget. Jmorris asked about the revenue side - specifically how much revenue is fair to take.
And I wrote about Francis's terrible characterization which you accepted. One can't look at a budget and say, this piece is the sole piece responsible for the budget exceeding revenue. All of the budget creates the deficit, not just the piece you don't like. As a result, I found an easy 40% of the federal budget which wasn't tax breaks for the rich or bailouts. There we go.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Sunday December 11 2016, @08:13PM
That's easy. Courts have already ruled that you can consider corporations as people. As such, scrap the absurdly low company tax rate, and tax those "people" at the same rate as Joe Public.
Next problem?
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:36PM
You're arguments are soooo bad. You're like the middle school dropout of SN. I notice you got answers and never replied back yourself, looks like your attempt at "a point" just stabbed you in the back.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 11 2016, @11:35PM
Nobody has even tried to answer the question. I have used this one many time, in many places. Nobody EVER tries to answer the question. I'll leave answering the obvious followup question of WHY as an exercise for the student.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Monday December 12 2016, @02:43PM
You honestly don't think BK answered your question?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday December 12 2016, @03:33PM
Nope. He, correctly in my opinion, asserts that revenues should equal expenditures. But note what is carefully avoided. Nobody wants to point to the hypothetical stack of cash and say THIS much is fair for the State to seize but no more. Thus "Fair Share" remains undefined, capable of encompassing the 90%+ tax rates of the 20th Century or even the 100% more than a few Progressives of today speak of. And on the other hand, by remaining undefined it is free to assume in each listener's mind the amount they want to imagine as "Fair" and thus never being imagined as onerous.
But at bottom, this is all about the sins of Envy and Greed. It is the most common failure mode of Democracy and the primary reason our Founding Fathers warned so strongly against allowing our Republic to degenerate into one. It is always possible to convince those who do not produce, and thus pay no taxes, to vote for sharing in the spoils of those who do produce; and it only requires a demagogue of ordinary talent to convince the takers they are moral in doing so.