Gloat over my stupidity--two points I never see mentioned

[jpgray]

1. The primary reason Medicare is exploding the deficit in the medium and long term is that we pay more in this country than anyone else for medical care.

Taking people off the program, whether by raising the eligibility age or cutting back on benefits, shunts older Americans to the private system, which is even more expensive. There is a health care costs crisis that affects the deficit, not a deficit crisis caused by or specific to Medicare, and it will persist even if Medicare never existed, unless the plan is to consign seniors to the private sector without any government assistance.

As people lose eligibility or benefits with Medicare, if we are to care for them at all, we we will have what amounts to government subsidies to private insurers, which will be more expensive.

2. Payroll tax cuts and hiring tax credits for employers are not targeted stimulus.

While it is true that they at least focus on wages below $100k or so and employer payroll up to $5 million, as I understand them the cuts apply to everyone with wages or payroll. In other words, that a very rich fellow has a large tax cut on that first $100k, and a massive employer sitting on billions pays half its taxes on that first $5 million in payroll. Clearly Apple has enough cash to start expansion and hiring when it chooses, having almost $80 billion in cash on hand--the cut means little to them, but it is lost revenue for us. High earners have enough wages to spend and increase demand when they choose--the cut means little to them, but again is lost revenue for us. An example of a targeted stimulus would be, well, hiring people or providing direct benefits to the poor or working class. Then there is no lost revenue wasted on people for whom it makes no difference, as they would not qualify for or desire the job or benefit.

Instead, while we assist the poor, we also give up a great deal of revenue from people and employers who can most afford to pay, with no guarantee or even likelihood that it will return to the economy and increase demand.

[Turbineguy]

1. You are right.

(No, not the part about being stupid!)

As a society we pay in one form or another. Our healthcare delivery system has very high built-in inefficiencies. The insurance providers hire armies of analysts who primary job is to say "it's not covered". Bankruptcy lawyers deal with the ultimate financial results. There are tons of people who are not involved in health care, and in fact make it worse, yet make a living from it. They have to be paid. The capacity of the system to provide care is hampered by this built-in inefficiency. Instead of building hospitals and clinics, we build office buildings for people who say "No".

And instead of taking a fairly efficient delivery administration system like Medicare (large enough to have some bargaining power) and making it better, we try and destroy it.

We pay for lost production because people cannot go to the doctor and pass their illness on to others.

Time and money are wasted and lives are broken. Ultimately these are the real costs even though republicans can choose to magically ignore them.

The health care system works well for Rush Limbaugh, or so he says. The way the republicans want it, means it has to work well for him, but not for millions of others in exchange for that.

[jpgray]

4. It's as though if health care gov't debt isn't -Medicare- debt, we've solved a problem

Even if we end up deeper in debt or not caring for seniors. I can't understand how anyone thinks this is addressing the crisis.

[femrap]

7. It simply blows

my mind that a Democratic Prez is the one who is going to kill SS. The money from this cut in SS should be placed in an IRA and not CONSUMED. People don't realize that this will reduce their SS/retirement income.

Do you think the 'temporary' reduction in the amount put into SS will ever end??? He's killing SS.

People are just short-sighted and care only about having a bit more $$$....they're bought off so cheaply and easily.

I remember back in the W Administration when he gave everyone a tax refund....I think as a single person, I got like $250. I gave it all to 2 different charities and told my co-workers who were so greedy and happy that, "My respect and vote is not bought for a measly $250...you guys are a bunch of cheap prostitutes." We were all on commission and made a decent, but very middle-class living. By 2004 many of my co-workers voted for Kerry.

W ruined this nation and O is not doing much to fix it. WASF. Serfing, USA. I'm glad I'm old. The Audacity of Austerity will hit us very hard in 2012. I wish my fellow citizens less willfully ignorant...W made Stupidity cool. F*ck. No wonder I'm depressed.

[Turbineguy]

8. I think the math will show us a different result.

An improving economy would pave the way for an increase in interest rates. People who save (or still have savings left) would see an improvement. There is $2.6 trillion in the SS trust fund earning zero interest. It only takes an increase of 0.67% to pay for the cost of the revenue loss.

I see this as a way to bridge the gap to the 2012 election. Then, hopefully, fewer middle class (and newly poor) Americans will be self-destructive enough to vote for republicans.

Ultimately the system has to change to put a small amount of wealth back into the pockets of many instead of the current system of putting large amounts of wealth into the pockets of a few.

[femrap]

9. I guess I

disagree w/ your assumption that we will have 'an improving economy.'

And that $2.6 trillion in the SS Trust Fund is invested in Treasuries that pay varying rates of interest and mature at various times. Where do you get 0%??? Those Treasuries are the same as the Treasuries that the Chinese and Japanese own. They're not getting 0%. The only entities getting close to 0% are the banksters borrowing from The Fed and investing it in commodities, markets, metals, etc....creating bubbles due to Bernanke printing $$$$ 24/7.

So is the US gov't just going to default on its own citizens when they retire???

Inflation is simply the worst tax ever....the decline of purchase power. Take a look at this from Zero Hedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/september-11-10-years-later

This is the Decline of the American Empire....just like Rome....too much wasted on wars. We're becoming a 3rd world fascist nation of a small number of very wealthy elite who buy politicians and multitudes of poor and working poor. Serfing, USA. WASF.

Get ready for 2012 when The Audacity of Austerity hits the US of A.

[Sirveri]

14. The SS trust fund earns interest. Most T-notes do, which is all it is.

In fact the interest from the trust fund is calculated into the budgeting when they talk about bankrupting Social Security in 2037. We're currently near equal on income to social security (except some of that comes from the general fund now in stead of payroll taxes thanks to the current holiday). However because of interest from the T-notes, Social Security is still running a surplus.

[jpgray]

16. Well, the trust fund goes bankrupt. SSA predicts 3/4 of benefits could be paid until 2085

There's a sort of semantic idea that bankruptcy means nothing left to pay, whereas absent changes Social Security will always have money coming in, just not enough to pay full benefits.

[bvar22]

2. Thank You.

There is a persistent fallacy being propagated on DU that the Payroll Tax Cut is "Progressive".
It is not. It is another across the board Tax Cut.

"Instead, while we assist the poor, we also give up a great deal of revenue from people and employers who can most afford to pay, with no guarantee or even likelihood that it will return to the economy and increase demand."
---Quote from the OP

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[RKP5637]

3. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors bullshit that is shoveled onto the masses

in this country full of lies and distortions. IMO you are exactly correct!!!

Many Americans are too gullible, many too ignorant and many don't give a F. And, a complicit/complacent tabloid MSM. Hence, TPTB know they can get away with just about anything in this country.

[dawg]

5. No gloating here.

1. Any move to reduce eligibility for Medicare would be an abomination. Just a stupid, stupid policy. People would die, and overall health costs to the country would not be reduced.

2. The payroll tax cut isn't bad. It puts money into ordinary people's pockets - money that they are likely to spend. Targeted spending programs, such as infrastructure and aid to state governments, would be more stimulative. But the payroll tax cut is still much better than a tax cut for the rich or even an across-the-board tax cut.

[suffragette]

6. Spot on analysis

K&R

[LWolf]

10. Good points. nt

[hfojvt]

11. well you already have almost twice as many recs as I got

but who's counting? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1907585&mesg_id=1907585

I think I made the 2nd point.

"Under Obama's proposal every business, including Wal-mart, with more than $5,000,000 in payroll gets a tax break of $155,000. That's over ten times my annual salary going to rich business owners and rich corporations. Most of those businesses with $5 million in payroll have owners who are doing pretty well. It's simple math. If you have employees making $50,000 a year then 100 of them will give you a payroll of $5 million. If you make $1 in profit from every hour they work, then you make $200,000 from their labor.

Under this plan, bigger businesses get bigger breaks. The payroll of $5 million gets a $155,000 break, the payroll of $60,000 gets a $1,860 break. And if a business adds jobs, as corporations like Wal-mart and Dollar General probably will, then they get a $1,550,000 break (since it goes up to $50 million in payroll, although I am not clear if that is just new payroll, or all payroll).

Again, that is a transfer up. Bigger businesses get bigger breaks than smaller businesses. An unemployed person gets a $20,000 a year job while his employer gets a $155,000 a year tax break."

I have seen people argue that it helps small businesses because of the $5 million cap, but it seems clear to me that bigger business benefit more than all the smaller businesses with less than $100,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 in payroll.

So I would say that it IS targetted stimulus, and the target is the big business people of the US Chamber of Commerce.

[jpgray]

13. There is rarely any clear path laid down for hiring in these proposals

The progress from point to point is always murky. Businesses pay less in taxes, but will that lead to hiring? Wage earners pay less in taxes, but will they spend and stimulate the economy? Given that we are in a period where every private concern, employee and employer, are anxious to pay down debt and save rather than spend, how we get from point A to point B is less than clear.

[woo me with science]

12. Thank you. K&R

[Supersedeas]

15. k&r

[WinkyDink]

17. "...government subsidies to private insurers" = You're catching on. ;-)