Author Topic: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier  (Read 8561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaypee

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19677
  • Astronaut Mike Dexter
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2010, 03:52:41 PM »
What giant social program? Private insurance exchanges? OMG! PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE! THE GOVERNMENT MUST SURELY BE ON THE HOOK FOR PEOPLE WHO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE, RIGHT?

Oh, if that's all it is then why is it going to cost over a trillion dollars?

btw, there's no reason to think that Obama didn't just make that story up to have a good political point. Anecdote, does not count as evidence  ;D

I love being a skeptic

It will? Where's that figure come from?

Surely you aren't referring to the cost of the bill after the cost savings in the same 10 year period actually reduce the overall budget deficit by ~$140bn. Sure, the program costs roughly $100bn/year, but it also reduces costs by a net $140 bn over the same 10 year period. See, there's this concept you need to understand: when writing a budget you include all costs as well as cost savings (and/or "profit" in the private sector), then add them together to get your net outcome.

Even if the health care reform package cost us $1tn in its first 10 years of operation (which it doesn't), the CBO score has it reducing the deficit by an addition $1.2tn in its second decade of operation.
"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine

Offline Knight VII

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #46 on: May 21, 2010, 04:03:34 PM »
What giant social program? Private insurance exchanges? OMG! PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE! THE GOVERNMENT MUST SURELY BE ON THE HOOK FOR PEOPLE WHO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE, RIGHT?

Oh, if that's all it is then why is it going to cost over a trillion dollars?

btw, there's no reason to think that Obama didn't just make that story up to have a good political point. Anecdote, does not count as evidence  ;D

I love being a skeptic

It will? Where's that figure come from?

Surely you aren't referring to the cost of the bill after the cost savings in the same 10 year period actually reduce the overall budget deficit by ~$140bn. Sure, the program costs roughly $100bn/year, but it also reduces costs by a net $140 bn over the same 10 year period. See, there's this concept you need to understand: when writing a budget you include all costs as well as cost savings (and/or "profit" in the private sector), then add them together to get your net outcome.

Even if the health care reform package cost us $1tn in its first 10 years of operation (which it doesn't), the CBO score has it reducing the deficit by an addition $1.2tn in its second decade of operation.

It comes from the fact that it's going to cost over $1T. If it saves even a dime off of any kind of defecit, debt, or anything I will literally eat my socks.

Healthcare Bill tops $1 trillion, CBO calls budget unsustainable
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/274326

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 04:11:22 PM by Knight VII »
So yes, the program will cost $1tn

Offline jaypee

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19677
  • Astronaut Mike Dexter
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #47 on: May 21, 2010, 04:28:44 PM »
Well I hope you do your sock laundry on a regular basis, I wouldn't want you to have to eat dirty socks.
"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine

Offline jaypee

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19677
  • Astronaut Mike Dexter
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #48 on: May 21, 2010, 04:34:44 PM »
P.S. That Digital Journal article? That's from June 17th, 2009 and has absolutely nothing to do with the bill which was eventually passed almost a full year later.

You know how I can tell?

Quote
The bill creates a government-funded health insurance option that would compete against private insurers. It also mandates individual and employer-sponsored health coverage.

No it doesn't. Not this bill. No-sirree.

You gotta work on those reading comprehension skills.. Do you need a tutor? I'm available nights and weekends.
"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine

Offline EvanHarper

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #49 on: May 21, 2010, 04:36:46 PM »
Keep government out of medicare? That makes absolutely no sense.

That was my point, KnightVII. Try and keep up.

Did you not look at this site? http://www.usdebtclock.org/

For christ sake, man! I started this entire thread with a long, detailed, technical discussion of fiscal issues. Do you really think that I am incapable of looking up the most banal figures about the national debt? Do you really think that just mentioning the existence of such figures somehow constitutes an argument against anything I've said?

How are we going to pay for $110 Trillion in unfunded liabilities? On top of which we just added another giant social program.

"$110 Trilion in unfunded liabilities" is a literally meaningless figure. It's like saying, "My car is so fast that it can go 500 miles." The unfunded liabilities of the United States federal government are not $110 trillion, they are infinite. So are the revenue-collection capabilities. Any time you talk about a government expenditure (or revenue-collection mechanism,) unless it's a single one-time event like the cost of cleaning up after some disaster, the units are not dollars but dollars over time.

You keep just throwing around billions and trillions and gazillions as if the mere size of the numbers somehow obviates the need to even know what they mean. "Oh, sure, EvanHarper has all his high-ferlutin-economics, but dang it, LOOK AT ALL THE ZEROS AFTER THIS NUMBER: WE'RE DOOOOOOMED!"

Offline Knight VII

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2010, 05:14:10 PM »
P.S. That Digital Journal article? That's from June 17th, 2009 and has absolutely nothing to do with the bill which was eventually passed almost a full year later.

You know how I can tell?

Quote
The bill creates a government-funded health insurance option that would compete against private insurers. It also mandates individual and employer-sponsored health coverage.

No it doesn't. Not this bill. No-sirree.

You gotta work on those reading comprehension skills.. Do you need a tutor? I'm available nights and weekends.

I could probably help you with your reading comprehension actually. Anyway...

The 2nd article I posted, which I guess your amazing reading comprehension skills failed to see, said this:

Quote
The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion.


So yes, the program will cost $1tn

Offline Knight VII

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #51 on: May 21, 2010, 05:23:07 PM »
Keep government out of medicare? That makes absolutely no sense.

That was my point, KnightVII. Try and keep up.

Did you not look at this site? http://www.usdebtclock.org/

For christ sake, man! I started this entire thread with a long, detailed, technical discussion of fiscal issues. Do you really think that I am incapable of looking up the most banal figures about the national debt? Do you really think that just mentioning the existence of such figures somehow constitutes an argument against anything I've said?

How are we going to pay for $110 Trillion in unfunded liabilities? On top of which we just added another giant social program.

"$110 Trilion in unfunded liabilities" is a literally meaningless figure. It's like saying, "My car is so fast that it can go 500 miles." The unfunded liabilities of the United States federal government are not $110 trillion, they are infinite. So are the revenue-collection capabilities. Any time you talk about a government expenditure (or revenue-collection mechanism,) unless it's a single one-time event like the cost of cleaning up after some disaster, the units are not dollars but dollars over time.

You keep just throwing around billions and trillions and gazillions as if the mere size of the numbers somehow obviates the need to even know what they mean. "Oh, sure, EvanHarper has all his high-ferlutin-economics, but dang it, LOOK AT ALL THE ZEROS AFTER THIS NUMBER: WE'RE DOOOOOOMED!"

Ok, so look at just the Medicare and Drugs costs, over $90T. Do you really think that it's good that we're on the hook for this? How can you advocate the welfare state while looking at those numbers?

Our national debt is $117,917 per taxpayer. Our unfunded liabilities is an additional $351,669 per citizen. This is exactly the right time to ask the question, that's nice, who is going to pay for it?

So yes, the program will cost $1tn

Offline jaypee

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19677
  • Astronaut Mike Dexter
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #52 on: May 21, 2010, 05:53:08 PM »
P.S. That Digital Journal article? That's from June 17th, 2009 and has absolutely nothing to do with the bill which was eventually passed almost a full year later.

You know how I can tell?

Quote
The bill creates a government-funded health insurance option that would compete against private insurers. It also mandates individual and employer-sponsored health coverage.

No it doesn't. Not this bill. No-sirree.

You gotta work on those reading comprehension skills.. Do you need a tutor? I'm available nights and weekends.

I could probably help you with your reading comprehension actually. Anyway...

The 2nd article I posted, which I guess your amazing reading comprehension skills failed to see, said this:

Quote
The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion.

Is Jake Tapper retarded? This article makes no sense. So yes, the program will cost $1tn, BUT

Quote
Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said in response that the health care law "will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it. If these authorizations are funded, they must be offset somewhere else in the discretionary budget. The President has called for a non-security discretionary spending freeze, and he will enforce that with his veto pen."

So it costs $115bn more but still reduces the deficit by over $100bn over 10 years? I'm convinced that Jake Tapper let his 5 year old write this article for him because it is entirely self-contradictory.
"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine

Offline MacDaddy

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #53 on: May 21, 2010, 06:16:08 PM »
Doesn't surprise me at all the Shermer is into this Tea Pary Glenn Beck stuff, he fits right in with them

Offline Knight VII

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #54 on: May 21, 2010, 06:19:06 PM »
Doesn't surprise me at all the Shermer is into this Tea Pary Glenn Beck stuff, he fits right in with them

He used to be an economics professor apparently. He should never write for MSNBC.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 06:37:51 PM by Knight VII »
So yes, the program will cost $1tn

Offline MacDaddy

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #55 on: May 21, 2010, 06:29:14 PM »
Haha yeah, they should get mad at him and tell him not to associate with shows on competing network

The Sherminator

Offline Black_Magic

  • Forum Troll
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4368
  • Woody dies in "Toy Story 3" :o
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #56 on: May 21, 2010, 08:43:14 PM »
Doesn't surprise me at all the Shermer is into this Tea Pary Glenn Beck stuff, he fits right in with them
See, this is why titling the post "Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier" is a stupid thing to do.
Big Brother* is watching you!

*beleth

Online stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10420
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #57 on: May 21, 2010, 09:12:28 PM »
It sounds like there are actually two semi-related but theoretically separate issues. Can you have a welfare state paid for with tax? No doubt. Can welfare and entitlement programs encourage excessive borrowing, possibly to the point where the debts are difficult or impossible to pay back (cough, Greece). If not properly run, yes.

FTFY

I'm too cynical to hope that it can be done properly without  explicit limits on spending. What politician would make the choice of cutting spending or raising taxes when they can just borrow more? I mean, it's only two or four more years, and besides your constituent's programs are important. Really Congress should be focused on cutting all the other stuff that's wasteful.

Offline EvanHarper

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #58 on: May 21, 2010, 11:17:51 PM »
I'm too cynical to hope that it can be done properly without  explicit limits on spending. What politician would make the choice of cutting spending or raising taxes when they can just borrow more? I mean, it's only two or four more years, and besides your constituent's programs are important. Really Congress should be focused on cutting all the other stuff that's wasteful.

No doubt that phenomenon exists, but then, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security alone make up the majority of the budget, and those are pork-free and (except for medicaid) efficiently administered. When you actually look at the budget on a pie chart, it turns out that most of these stupid wasteful programs -- while they are indeed stupid and wasteful -- don't actually amount to that much, proportionally:



Essentially all of those notorious "pork" programs fall under "other discretionary." And even that overstates the problem, because "other discretionary" spending has shown no tendency to rise over time, while Medicare / Medicaid continue to grow exponentionally. So if you project that pie chart into the future, you have to imagine the Medicare/Medicaid slice just balooning, squeezing everything else.

So the problem really isn't just selfish politicians coming up with earmarks; it's structural. If you eliminated 100% of federal non-defense discretionary spending, it still wouldn't solve the problem. It wouldn't even go all that far towards solving the problem; the problem is inflation in Medicare/Medicaid costs.

Offline jaypee

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19677
  • Astronaut Mike Dexter
Re: Dr. Michael Shermer, Tea Partier
« Reply #59 on: May 21, 2010, 11:22:25 PM »
Yeah, IIRC "pork" spending only really amounts to something like $4bn a year.. that's a pittance, there's probably more Medicare fraud in a given month then there is "pork" spending in a whole year.
"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine