2016 Presidential Candidate

[dramaman]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump. 

Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world  of course

But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.

I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.

bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.

You have that right.  Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years.   Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton?   Actual budget surpluses.  At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.   

I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path.  Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.   

What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt?   If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range.  Amazing really.   

Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household.   Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan.  Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this.   Haven't heard Trump address it.  One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes.   Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.

We're screwed.

Why would assume that?  Most dems I know want a balanced budget.

Most of the dems I know are supporting Bernie Sanders and he's proposing programs at a cost of an additional $18T over 10 years, with tax increases of just over $6T during the same period. Maybe they don't understand what 'balanced' means.

At least one analysis showed that the $18T cost actually was a total savings of $500M because a single payer system is so much more efficient than how existing system of private insurers. I think that may have been societal savings, as opposed to government spending. Unsure as I haven't read the actual analysis, only news reports on it.

[milesdividendmd]

The point must be made once again. All of these conservative crocodile tears over debt are a calculated deception.

Supply side economics blow up deficits, democratic tax increases shrink them. See Reagan, bush 1, bush 2, Clinton, and Obama.

If deficits are your primary concern, (and frankly they are not mine) one thing is clear:  never vote republican for president.

The truth is that most conservatives are just anti-social safety net (Medicare Medicaid, social security, etc) and pro tax cuts to the rich for ideological reasons. But since this is an unappetizing message to most Americans they march out their Trojan horse deficit argument, conveniently ignoring that the deficit is of their own creation.

[MDM]

So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?

The federal govt. collects many different taxes.  It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things. 

There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y. 

We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.

The charts in http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs are merely pictures based on OMB numbers.

[sol]

the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.

When you say it that way, it seems clear that only one party even has a possible option for balancing the budget, and it involves raising taxes.

To paraphrase...
Group one: must spend more, can't earn more.
Group two: must spend more, trying to earn more.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs

Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report.  Heritage openly admits to being a partisan mouthpiece advocacy group funded by corporate interestd like the Koch brothers, the Coors family, Chase, Exxon/Mobil, and Dow chemical.  They are not a reliable source for anything.

[dramaman]

The point must be made once again. All of these conservative crocodile tears over debt are a calculated deception.

Supply side economics blow up deficits, democratic tax increases shrink them. See Reagan, bush 1, bush 2, Clinton, and Obama.

If deficits are your primary concern, (and frankly they are not mine) one thing is clear:  never vote republican for president.

The truth is that most conservatives are just anti-social safety net (Medicare Medicaid, social security, etc) and pro tax cuts to the rich for ideological reasons. But since this is an unappetizing message to most Americans they march out their Trojan horse deficit argument, conveniently ignoring that the deficit is of their own creation.

Googling balanced budgets in us history, I found a CATO publication written in 1998 claiming that the Republicans deserved credit for balancing the budget. Even so, I found these paragraphs quite revealings...

"Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?"

So it really wasn't a balanced budget that these 'fiscal conservatives' were after. That was merely a means to another ideological end, shrinking government and cutting/ending the social safety net. Their worst fear was that some of the budget savings might 'GASP' be used to find new ways to help people.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

[MDM]

Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report. 

Facts are facts.  Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations.  Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts?  If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.

[dramaman]

So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?

The federal govt. collects many different taxes.  It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things. 

There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y. 

We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.

I don't disagree.

But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?

Later Edit
Actually it turns out that income from payroll taxes and interest on the trust fund itself exceeds the payments going out. SS Trustees anticipate this continuing through 2019, when payments will exceed payroll taxes and trust fund interest.

I have no problem with changes to SS to keep the program long term viable. I just see that as a separate issue from budget balancing. Ideally SS and similar programs should have no impact whatsoever on the budget and thus should not necessarily be part of some grand budget balancing solution.

[Jeremy E.]

So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?

The federal govt. collects many different taxes.  It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things. 

There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y. 

We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.

I don't disagree.

But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?

There is a 2.9% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 2.9% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.

[dramaman]

So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?

The federal govt. collects many different taxes.  It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things. 

There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y. 

We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.

I don't disagree.

But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?

There is a 1.45% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 1.45% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.

So you are comparing apples with apples, oranges and bananas? Sure all three are fruit, but how about sticking with apples to apples.

More telling would be the balance of the medicare trust fund, the specific incoming dollars from the payroll deduction and the specific outflowing medicare payments. That at least would give us an understanding in terms of how to make medicare solvent over the long term.

[MDM]

There is a 2.9% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 2.9% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.

The % sign doesn't necessarily mean "percent of the same thing."  Need to look at absolute dollars coming in vs. going out.  E.g., 2.9% of $1,000,000 would be more than 25% of $100.

[Jeremy E.]

So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?

The federal govt. collects many different taxes.  It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things. 

There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y. 

We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.

I don't disagree.

But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?

There is a 1.45% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 1.45% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.

So you are comparing apples with apples, oranges and bananas? Sure all three are fruit, but how about sticking with apples to apples.

More telling would be the balance of the medicare trust fund, the specific incoming dollars from the payroll deduction and the specific outflowing medicare payments. That at least would give us an understanding in terms of how to make medicare solvent over the long term.

Well where does the money for medicaid and other health care programs come from?

[Jeremy E.]

There is a 2.9% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 2.9% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.

The % sign doesn't necessarily mean "percent of the same thing."  Need to look at absolute dollars coming in vs. going out.  E.g., 2.9% of $1,000,000 would be more than 25% of $100.

I'm aware that the average effective federal tax rate is only like 20% or something, but 2.9% of 20% is not 25% of 20%.

[MDM]

There is a 2.9% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 2.9% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.

The % sign doesn't necessarily mean "percent of the same thing."  Need to look at absolute dollars coming in vs. going out.  E.g., 2.9% of $1,000,000 would be more than 25% of $100.

I'm aware that the average effective federal tax rate is only like 20% or something, but 2.9% of 20% is not 25% of 20%.

Except they are not "of the same thing."  The 2.9% is "of total company payrolls" while the 25% is "of federal spending."

[zoltani]

Where can I find a brick wall to bash my head against?

[dramaman]

So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?

The federal govt. collects many different taxes.  It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things. 

There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y. 

We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.

I don't disagree.

But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?

There is a 1.45% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 1.45% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.

So you are comparing apples with apples, oranges and bananas? Sure all three are fruit, but how about sticking with apples to apples.

More telling would be the balance of the medicare trust fund, the specific incoming dollars from the payroll deduction and the specific outflowing medicare payments. That at least would give us an understanding in terms of how to make medicare solvent over the long term.

Well where does the money for medicaid and other health care programs come from?

Heh, to keep the fruit analogy going, I made a comment about peaches, which you then responded to by comparing apples with apples, oranges and other types of fruit. Now, after I pointed out your false comparison, you eliminate the apples and just want to talk about oranges and other types of fruit that are not peaches nor apples.

I'm not sure that has anything to do whatsoever regarding what I wrote about peaches, or even apples for that matter, but to satisfy your curiosity, I believe that oranges and some other types of fruit are purchased out of general revenues.

So can we concede that peaches and apples that are paid for out of their own special peach and apple funds do not need to be part of our overall budget balancing for fruit? :)

[MDM]

But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?

Later Edit
Actually it turns out that income from payroll taxes and interest on the trust fund itself exceeds the payments going out. SS Trustees anticipate this continuing through 2019, when payments will exceed payroll taxes and trust fund interest.
I have no problem with changes to SS to keep the program long term viable. I just see that as a separate issue from budget balancing. Ideally SS and similar programs should have no impact whatsoever on the budget and thus should not necessarily be part of some grand budget balancing solution.

That's a great question.  Unfortunately, agreeing on the premises of the question itself, let alone the answer, is not easy.  Malaysia41 highlighted why:

Social Security Wiki (tl;dr even experts argue over whether the Social security trust fund of nearly $2.8 trillion 'exists' (since all but $18 billion has been borrowed in inter-governmental loans)- skip to the end of the page for that head-spinner).

FWIW, let's go with "payroll taxes are $100 and SS payments are $80."  Now, what happens to the $20 difference?  It seems (but see M41's note for caveats) that $20 goes into "special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government."  In other words, bonds that will be repaid by future taxes of all types collected by the federal govt.

Much as we might like to designate our individual taxes for our own favorite spending, and no other, it just doesn't work that way in the long run.  The govt. takes in what it takes in, and spends what it spends, paying no more than lip service to designations.  This may get more interesting when the "trust funds" are depleted, but I suspect congressional and/or executive action will remove any impediments irritating to the political majority at that time.

[Jeremy E.]

So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?

The federal govt. collects many different taxes.  It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things. 

There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y. 

We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.

I don't disagree.

But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?

There is a 1.45% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 1.45% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.

So you are comparing apples with apples, oranges and bananas? Sure all three are fruit, but how about sticking with apples to apples.

More telling would be the balance of the medicare trust fund, the specific incoming dollars from the payroll deduction and the specific outflowing medicare payments. That at least would give us an understanding in terms of how to make medicare solvent over the long term.

Well where does the money for medicaid and other health care programs come from?

Heh, to keep the fruit analogy going, I made a comment about peaches, which you then responded to by comparing apples with apples, oranges and other types of fruit. Now, after I pointed out your false comparison, you eliminate the apples and just want to talk about oranges and other types of fruit that are not peaches nor apples.

I'm not sure that has anything to do whatsoever regarding what I wrote about peaches, or even apples for that matter, but to satisfy your curiosity, I believe that oranges and some other types of fruit are purchased out of general revenues.

So can we concede that peaches and apples that are paid for out of their own special peach and apple funds do not need to be part of our overall budget balancing for fruit? :)

Oh so you say they are paid by from general revenues, not their own specific revenue like someone previously claimed all entitlements were? So we could take and reduce some of these entitlements to help balance the budget you mean? Who ever would of thought.

[Gin1984]

Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report. 

Facts are facts.  Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations.  Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts?  If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.

I am not going through all the data when a decent percentage of times, when that is done, it is inaccurate.  I'd rather get the data (for both sides) from BBC which is the least biased.

[Johnez]

I'm going with the "anyone but Trump option."  I am actually against illegal immigration and agree with some of Trump's other stands, but am afraid of where the country would be headed with him at the helm...

[Malaysia41]

Which candidates are capable of crafting foreign policy that takes a long view? 

Our country has a distinguished history of pursuing myopic foreign policy. Here are a couple examples off the top of my head:

* CIA/MI6 murder of Iran's Mussadegh. 
Ostensible Short term objective: oust a commie. 
Real short term objective: let UK keep oil profits rather than share equitably with Iranian people & gov't. 
Long term outcome: Rise of radical Ayatollah regime and current animosity between nations.  Showing the world we could be played like an accordion.  MI6 says, "that guy's a commie" and the CIA goes in and smokes his ass. (Facepalm).
The right long term play would have been to work with the democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation and respect his government, negotiate oil deals as respectful equals.

* Iran Contra Affair
Ostensible Short term objective: Free hostages and hey, while we're at it, stop communism in South America!
Real short term objective: I don't know - those freaking administration officials under Reagan were straight up nutso. 
Long term outcome: Showing the world we could be played like a flute.  (Again, "look - commies!")  Compromising our values. 
The right long term play would have been not sell arms to an Iranian carpet salesman, and not send weapons to the Contras.

I could go on, but don't want to push the discussion toward debating the merits of past policies.  Oh it's so hard to cut out that list I just typed up.  But cut it out I must.  Stay focused M41... come back to present day... ah yes, here we are.

In the modern day, our policies of drone strikes and looking the other way as children are raped by Afghan leaders (our allies) in Afghanistan* echo the shamefully short-sighted strategies of yore.  These policies are disastrous in the long run, not to mention outrageously and morally wrong. (No, child rape isn't a cultural difference.  It's a crime against humanity.  We are obligated to act** when we see such atrocities.)

What's the long game here?  There is none. President Obama is following in the footsteps of those who came before him and pursuing losing strategies that focus on the short game; he's creating a dangerous future and compromising our values all at once.   I want a president who will play the long game, who will be guided by what we all agree we stand for (human rights, justice, freedom, ... other good stuff), and who can be played by neither ally nor enemy, both of whom may be playing much, much longer games. 

Who would that person be? 

Just think for a sec, what current candidates, if they had been elected in 2008 for example, would have lead the military to adopt policies that protected children from child rape / aka / crimes against humanity in Afghanistan?

*Watch Ben Anderson's This is What Winning Looks Like a year ago, to goose your outrage further on this subject.
** Yes, the current policy is to "do something", and that "something" is to report bad acts to the Afghan authorities.  But this path is so utterly ineffective, that in reality, the de facto policy is "look the other way."

Sorry to be such a buzzkill.  I try to not get caught up in the horrors of the world, and I strive to follow a low info diet.  But I voted for the guy currently in office.  I'm disappointed in his short-sighted leadership on these two very awful policies overseas. He's irreparably damaging children, their families, and our poor troops who are made to bear witness.  I want our next leader to do better. 

So I repeat my question: who would do better?  Who will craft strategy with our values and the long view in mind?

[milesdividendmd]

Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report. 

Facts are facts.  Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations.  Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts?  If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.

This is one of those comments that seems inherently balanced and reasonable but in fact it is not.

And the reason is simple. The heritage foundation has a clear record of lying. Not of representing a perspective that I disagree with, but of lying.

Their studies and figures have the veneer of truth, but are complete fabrications.

As an example heritage teported that health-care premiums paid by taxpayers would skyrocket under Obamacare by conveniently ignoring the healthcare subsidies.  They also famously estimated the cost of immigration reform by ignoring the economic growth associated with immigration.

In other words Heritage is nothing more than a fringe right wing propaganda shop with a proven record of lying.

So your advice to consider "the facts" on their own merits is analogous to considering the "facts" presented by a pathological liar on their own merit, and completely ignoring the context, and the overwhelming likelihood that the "facts" are in fact deceptions.

The base rate probability is that Heritsge's claims and figures are false. There is simply not enough time to investigate each and every lie individually. It's far wiser to simply discount any "studies" coming from the heritage foundation in a way that would not be appropriate for those coming from a standard journalistic endeavor, or even a run of the mill right or left leaning think tank.

[MoonShadow]

Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report. 

Facts are facts.  Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations.  Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts?  If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.

This is one of those comments that seems inherently balanced and reasonable but in fact it is not.

And the reason is simple. The heritage foundation has a clear record of lying. Not of representing a perspective that I disagree with, but of lying.

Their studies and figures have the veneer of truth, but are complete fabrications.

As an example heritage teported that health-care premiums paid by taxpayers would skyrocket under Obamacare by conveniently ignoring the healthcare subsidies.  They also famously estimated the cost of immigration reform by ignoring the economic growth associated with immigration.

In other words Heritage is nothing more than a fringe right wing propaganda shop with a proven record of lying.

And, sadly, they are far from the only institution with an agenda willing to do this in our modern world.  It makes me wonder, sometimes, how long this has been going on, and if we really know anything true about history.

[milesdividendmd]

Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report. 

Facts are facts.  Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations.  Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts?  If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.

This is one of those comments that seems inherently balanced and reasonable but in fact it is not.

And the reason is simple. The heritage foundation has a clear record of lying. Not of representing a perspective that I disagree with, but of lying.

Their studies and figures have the veneer of truth, but are complete fabrications.

As an example heritage teported that health-care premiums paid by taxpayers would skyrocket under Obamacare by conveniently ignoring the healthcare subsidies.  They also famously estimated the cost of immigration reform by ignoring the economic growth associated with immigration.

In other words Heritage is nothing more than a fringe right wing propaganda shop with a proven record of lying.

And, sadly, they are far from the only institution with an agenda willing to do this in our modern world.  It makes me wonder, sometimes, how long this has been going on, and if we really know anything true about history.

That's undoubtedly true MS. We all have our own cognitive biases, regardless of our specific ideologies. The truth looks a little different to all of us.

But there are obvious differences of degree. Propaganda is an effort to knowingly lie to persuade others that that which is not true is in fact true.

This is different practically and ethically from subconsciously underemphasizing some facts and overemphasizing others, I think.

Kind of like fudging your own taxes with a home office deduction is not the same thing as embezzling millions of dollars from unsuspecting retirees. It's a question of scale.

[MoonShadow]

But there are obvious differences of degree. Propaganda is an effort to knowingly lie to persuade others that that which is not true is in fact true.

I'm going to have to disagree here, Doc.  Propaganda is basicly marketing; it's advertising for an idea, an agenda; that uses your emotional reactions to the story you are being told to affect your thinking.  It's certainly possible for propaganda to be based in facts, and that is often when it is most effective.

[MDM]

This is one of those comments that seems inherently balanced and reasonable but in fact it is not.

And the reason is simple. The heritage foundation has a clear record of lying. Not of representing a perspective that I disagree with, but of lying.

Their studies and figures have the veneer of truth, but are complete fabrications.

As an example heritage teported that health-care premiums paid by taxpayers would skyrocket under Obamacare by conveniently ignoring the healthcare subsidies.  They also famously estimated the cost of immigration reform by ignoring the economic growth associated with immigration.

In other words Heritage is nothing more than a fringe right wing propaganda shop with a proven record of lying.

So your advice to consider "the facts" on their own merits is analogous to considering the "facts" presented by a pathological liar on their own merit, and completely ignoring the context, and the overwhelming likelihood that the "facts" are in fact deceptions.

The base rate probability is that Heritsge's claims and figures are false. There is simply not enough time to investigate each and every lie individually. It's far wiser to simply discount any "studies" coming from the heritage foundation in a way that would not be appropriate for those coming from a standard journalistic endeavor, or even a run of the mill right or left leaning think tank.

Fortunately I have nothing to do with Heritage so I won't take that personally.

The examples you give here refer to estimates about the future.  As the saying goes, such estimates can be difficult under the best of circumstances, let alone when assumptions are hidden to manipulate the prediction.

The cited links, however, have nothing to do with predictions.  They are (I believe, until shown otherwise) nothing more than regurgitation of OMB numbers in graphical form, showing that spending on entitlements makes up a huge portion of federal spending.  Are you saying that entitlement spending is not such a large portion of federal spending?

Discussing the last question seems more interesting than discussing the merits or lack thereof of Heritage.

[milesdividendmd]

The cited links, however, have nothing to do with predictions.  They are (I believe, until shown otherwise) nothing more than regurgitation of OMB numbers in graphical form, showing that spending on entitlements makes up a huge portion of federal spending.  Are you saying that entitlement spending is not such a large portion of federal spending?

Obviously not. A simple reading of the thread will tell you that that has never been my claim.

As the baby boom generation ages, entitlements will be a major outlay in the future.

Lots of ways to address that, but that's a completely seperate topic.

This whole tangent started with Jeremy's statement that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.

Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.

It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.

[MDM]

Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.
It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.

Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.

In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes:       $758B   
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes:       $232B
Medicare spending: $526B

There's more, but that should be enough for starters.

For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

[dramaman]

Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.
It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.

Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.

In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes:       $758B   
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes:       $232B
Medicare spending: $526B

There's more, but that should be enough for starters.

I don't know about Medicare, but the difference between SS taxes and spending is currently covered by interest earned from the SS trust fund. Even once that is no longer the case, SS benefits can be paid by SS taxes and by drawing down the trust fund.

Is this sustainable? No.

Is this a separate issue from general budget balancing? Yes.

[milesdividendmd]

Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.
It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.

Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.

In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes:       $758B   
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes:       $232B
Medicare spending: $526B

There's more, but that should be enough for starters.

For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it MDM.

To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.

Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that our current debt is caused by "entitlements."

If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Posting non sequitur links adds nothing.

[beltim]

To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.

Social Security, yes.  Medicare has never been fully funded through its payroll tax deduction, however:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/medicare

[beltim]

For a better link with more historical data, from Medicare itself, see https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/reportstrustfunds/downloads/tr2014.pdf page 246-248, and "General Revenue" contributes to Medicare spending every year since 1970.

[Jeremy E.]

The cited links, however, have nothing to do with predictions.  They are (I believe, until shown otherwise) nothing more than regurgitation of OMB numbers in graphical form, showing that spending on entitlements makes up a huge portion of federal spending.  Are you saying that entitlement spending is not such a large portion of federal spending?

Obviously not. A simple reading of the thread will tell you that that has never been my claim.

As the baby boom generation ages, entitlements will be a major outlay in the future.

Lots of ways to address that, but that's a completely seperate topic.

This whole tangent started with Jeremy's statement that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.

Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.

It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.

It actually started with you saying it is laughable to vote for a republican if you want to balance the budget. Even though the only balanced budget since we landed on the moon was thanks to republicans, chiefly John Kasich.

[dramaman]

Medicare is a bit more complicated as there are 2 different trust funds that pay for different services.

Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare part A) does not receive funds out of general revenues and is projected to be solvent through 2030.

Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare parts B and D) pays 75% of benefits from general revenues. The remaining 25% comes from premiums paid in and apparently these premiums are set each year to cover 25% so the ratio shouldn't change.

Thus, I think the 75% of benefits that come from the general revenue for Medicare parts B and D are legitimate candidates for budget balance discussions. On the other hand, Medicare A's issues are like that of SS. We need to consider changes to prolong the solvency of the trust fund, but it should not be part of generic budget balancing discussions.

https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt

[milesdividendmd]

Jeremy, anyway you slice it, In the modern era , deficits have uniformly  increased under republican presidents and decreased under Dems.

So you can attribute that reality to a single republican congressman If you want, but you would be an idiot to vote republican for president unless larger deficits are your goal.

[dramaman]

It actually started with you saying it is laughable to vote for a republican if you want to balance the budget. Even though the only balanced budget since we landed on the moon was thanks to republicans, chiefly John Kasich.

How much was Kasich really responsible for balancing the budget? I'm not disagreeing that the Republicans pushed to slow federal spending, but would that have been enough to balance the budget without the tax increases that Clinton pushed through a few years prior? I wonder if anyone has any figures comparing the extra money gained from the tax increases versus the money saved from slowing spending increases.

[forummm]

It actually started with you saying it is laughable to vote for a republican if you want to balance the budget. Even though the only balanced budget since we landed on the moon was thanks to enormous increases in revenue due in part to tax increases, a great economy and an incredibly overvalued stock market (about triple historical average valuation)republicans, chiefly John Kasich.

FTFY

Tax revenues increased 58% from 1992 to 2000, increasing from 17% to 20% of GDP. Spending also increased. If you want to brag that Kasich was responsible for those increased taxes that caused the balanced budget, I'd be happy to hear your argument.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

[MDM]

Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.

In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes:       $758B   
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes:       $232B
Medicare spending: $526B

There's more, but that should be enough for starters.

For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it MDM.

To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.

Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that our current debt is caused by "entitlements."

If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Posting non sequitur links adds nothing.

It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it miles.

Currently we are spending more in social security and Medicare than we collect in taxes nominally targeted for those programs.  Budget for mandatory programs (mostly entitlements) is $2.5B.  Budget for discretionary programs is $1.2B. 

Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that any worthwhile strategy to reduce our current debt can ignore "entitlements."

If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically.  Denying data adds nothing.


Yes, your statements are more historical in nature while the similar sentences in this post deal more with the current and future situation, so it is possible we are both correct. 

[milesdividendmd]

To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.

Social Security, yes.  Medicare has never been fully funded through its payroll tax deduction, however:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/medicare

Fair point. Medicare accounting is complex and difficult to pin down as above.

But again, recall that this whole discussion is about Jeremy's factually incorrect claim that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.

Please remember that Medicare was enacted by president Johnson in the 60s long after FDR had died. So again the central point here is that that claim is 100% false, as  SSN (which is the entitlement that FDR enacted unlike Medicare  )has run a surplus and therefore has contributed less than nothing to our federal deficit.

[beltim]

To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.

Social Security, yes.  Medicare has never been fully funded through its payroll tax deduction, however:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/medicare

Fair point. Medicare accounting is complex and difficult to pin down as above.

But again, recall that this whole discussion is about Jeremy's factually incorrect claim that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.

Please remember that Medicare was enacted by president Johnson in the 60s long after FDR had died. So again the central point here is that that claim is 100% false, as  SSN (which is the entitlement that FDR enacted unlike Medicare  )has run a surplus and therefore has contributed less than nothing to our federal deficit.

Oh yeah, no disagreement about the ridiculousness of Jeremy's claim, which I posted a chart to completely debunk.  Oddly enough, he hasn't responded to that, even though it completely destroyed his argument.

[milesdividendmd]

Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.

In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes:       $758B   
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes:       $232B
Medicare spending: $526B

There's more, but that should be enough for starters.

For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it MDM.

To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.

Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that our current debt is caused by "entitlements."

If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Posting non sequitur links adds nothing.

It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it miles.

Currently we are spending more in social security and Medicare than we collect in taxes nominally targeted for those programs.  Budget for mandatory programs (mostly entitlements) is $2.5B.  Budget for discretionary programs is $1.2B. 

Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that any worthwhile strategy to reduce our current debt can ignore "entitlements."

If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically.  Denying data adds nothing.


Yes, your statements are more historical in nature while the similar sentences in this post deal more with the current and future situation, so it is possible we are both correct.

Bingo.

You are arguing with me about the future drivers of debt, which are not the same as the past drivers of our current debt, (which was the subject being discussed.)

[LadyStache in Baja]

What I love about Bernie Sanders is that he's not taking big money from corporations.  That says everything.  Every other candidate (except Trump I guess) is beholden to the interests of their corporate sponsors.  I'm all for democracy not oligarchy!  Have you seen the graphs?  Hilary isn't a democrat, she's just a corporate chess piece.  Same with Bush and all the others. 

With Sanders we have a chance at an actual democracy, which would be nice. 

And if you dont think he can win... he's already head to head with Hilary in the polls, and many people don't know who he is.  Once more people hear from him, more will support him. 

And then I actually think he's more likely to attract Republican votes in the general than someone like Hilary.

Go Bernie!

[MoonShadow]

What I love about Bernie Sanders is that he's not taking big money from corporations. 

Neither is Larry Lessig....

https://lessig2016.us/

[MDM]

You are arguing with me about the future drivers of debt, which are not the same as the past drivers of our current debt

Yes, we agree!

(which was the subject being discussed.)

Probably too many subjects being discussed.  The "Heritage kerfuffle" did arise from a post about current and future budgets.

[Jeremy E.]

Jeremy, anyway you slice it, In the modern era , deficits have uniformly  increased under republican presidents and decreased under Dems.

So you can attribute that reality to a single republican congressman If you want, but you would be an idiot to vote republican for president unless larger deficits are your goal.

About 50% of the country votes for Republicans and I promise that large deficits aren't their goal, I guess they are all idiots.

[milesdividendmd]

Your conclusion not mine.

[Jeremy E.]

To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.

Social Security, yes.  Medicare has never been fully funded through its payroll tax deduction, however:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/medicare

Fair point. Medicare accounting is complex and difficult to pin down as above.

But again, recall that this whole discussion is about Jeremy's factually incorrect claim that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.

Please remember that Medicare was enacted by president Johnson in the 60s long after FDR had died. So again the central point here is that that claim is 100% false, as  SSN (which is the entitlement that FDR enacted unlike Medicare  )has run a surplus and therefore has contributed less than nothing to our federal deficit.

"A large part is from entitlements" I never said the war had nothing to do with the debt, the war is how we incurred a majority of the debt. But the entitlements were also a large part. Maybe the depression also affected the debt based on the fact that it encouraged him to create the entitlements and they had less tax revenue.

[Bob W]

Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.

In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes:       $758B   
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes:       $232B
Medicare spending: $526B

There's more, but that should be enough for starters.

For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it MDM.

To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.

Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that our current debt is caused by "entitlements."

If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Posting non sequitur links adds nothing.

It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it miles.

Currently we are spending more in social security and Medicare than we collect in taxes nominally targeted for those programs.  Budget for mandatory programs (mostly entitlements) is $2.5B.  Budget for discretionary programs is $1.2B. 

Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that any worthwhile strategy to reduce our current debt can ignore "entitlements."

If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically.  Denying data adds nothing.


Yes, your statements are more historical in nature while the similar sentences in this post deal more with the current and future situation, so it is possible we are both correct.

Bingo.

You are arguing with me about the future drivers of debt, which are not the same as the past drivers of our current debt, (which was the subject being discussed.)

Alexi --  since presumably 100% of your earned income is derived from either Medicare, Medicaid or the ACA insurance tax/scam, you may wish to add that as a disclaimer to all your posts on this thread,  lest your propaganda be confused with objective opinions. 

To back up to your point about Republicans being opposed to entitlements.  This simply isn't true.  The Republican money backers (you know the Koch brothers and wall street bankers) sing this song.   I live in a very Red area of the state and I can tell you that A.  Republican voters do not consider Medicare or Soc Sec entitlement programs as they have paid into them and B.  They are very much in favor of them.    Of course they dislike Medicaid as this is a total give away with no copays and encourages laziness.   Disclaimer -- My family derives our income 100% from Medicaid based programs.

I might also mention that a many if not a majority of Republican voters have no problem with taxing high income earners like yourself at very high rates.  As I recall that Republican (Eisenhower) rate prior to Kennedy was in the 90% range.  You may also notice that Mr. Trump (not in with or supported by the Republican funders by the way) has already mentioned raising taxes on some classes of swindlers.  Most Republicans will back a sensible tax on higher income earners in order to reduce the deficit.

Here's hoping that Bernie pushes for a 90% tax on those earning over 200K per year and redistributes that to me. 

[milesdividendmd]

I don't take ethics suggestions from anti-Semites. That would be stupid.

[MOD EDIT: if you're going to throw stuff like that out there, you're going to have at least quote what you're talking about and who said it.]

[midweststache]

When I originally made this poll, I figured "Other" would mostly be John Kasich (more moderate in the Republican field). I left Carly Fiorina off, because I (like many people) thought she was basically a non-issue.

I'm wondering how people who have already voted in the poll might update... (For the more forum-savvy of you, is there a way in the poll to reflect these updates?)

1. Clearly, Scott Walker is gone.
2. Lindsey Graham is basically a non-issue at this point (not just because he's still at the kiddie table, and the most hawkish of conservatives, but also because of poll numbers).
3. Carly Fiorina probably belongs on the poll now, given her polling numbers nationally.
4. I wonder if any Rand Paul supporters on this forum would change their vote, given his performance in debates.
5. There is still a question of whether Biden will throw his name in for the Dem. nomination, which would make that a more spirited primary than simply Hillary vs. Bernie.

Thoughts?

[firewalker]

Where are Pat Paulsen and Wavy Gravy when you need them?