Republicans flunk math

[Dr. Zaus]

But tax rate cuts increase revenues!

That's why the new Republican plan is for a negative tax rate - they say it'll raise more in taxes than the size of the GDP!

Why was the best name for their bad economics supplied by a Republican, 'voodoo economics'?

Fun fact:
Voodoo worked.

It worked because it influenced people.
It worked because it was a sociological construct with the society it existed in.
.... Guess what economics is?

I was just thinking about this today. Voodoo economics worked because it changed the intentions of those with wealth.

 

[Craig234]

Valid point but I think its semantics. We both know what politicians want people to think when they say that they cut spending or so and so program has been cut. The specific example I was replying to was that not giving a cost of living increase to Social Security recipients was indeed a "cut". The program is simply not increasing the amount they pay to individuals and that is considered "cutting" spending on the program.

Like I said, I see that as not increasing spending which is far different than "cutting" (or reducing) spending.

Sorry, you're just wrong IMO. Social Security is a 75 year old program that has current laws and planned cost of living increases.

If you change those laws to reduce the cost of living increases, you are cutting the amount Social Security will pay compared to the law in effect. That's a cut.

The only semantics are the ones you're attempting to find a way to say otherwise. No one is confused about the meaning of these 'Social Security cuts'.

 

[Craig234]

I would be happy to.

That's good for one half of the issue, the history of the rates. Missing the plan's rates.

 

[shira]

Ration care like the rest of the world does.

Cut back on medical research too.

Eliminate expensive experimental treatments as well.

Lower our cancer survival rates.

I am sure we can find a few more ways to make it worse and cheaper too.

All you've done is provided ways to make our health care system even worse than it already is. What you haven't done is shown us how we can spend half as much on health care (on a per capita basis), yet increase life expectancy by three years.

What, impossible you say? Guess what, Canada spends only slightly more than half as much on health care as the U.S., yet their life expectancy is three years longer.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Republican Math: is my profit at LEAST 85% more than my operating expenses - then, it's a great move.

That is the only math republicans know.

 

[Darwin333]

Sorry, you're just wrong IMO. Social Security is a 75 year old program that has current laws and planned cost of living increases.

If you change those laws to reduce the cost of living increases, you are cutting the amount Social Security will pay compared to the law in effect. That's a cut.

The only semantics are the ones you're attempting to find a way to say otherwise. No one is confused about the meaning of these 'Social Security cuts'.

The Government has said, and many people on your side of the aisle have argued, that the cost of living has not increased. If the cost of living has not increased then not giving more money to offset the non-increase of cost of living would not be a cut.

OTOH, I have repeatedly argued with people here, almost exclusively people on the left, that the cost of living has indeed increased and that the .gov is intentionally flubbing the numbers. It looks like your side won that argument.

 

[Darwin333]

That's good for one half of the issue, the history of the rates. Missing the plan's rates.

I am not going to pour over every line item in a plan that you are supporting.

Either the plan intends to reduce spending to within 20% of GDP or it intends to raise revenue to above 20% of GDP. Which is it?

 

[Craig234]

I am not going to pour over every line item in a plan that you are supporting.

Either the plan intends to reduce spending to within 20% of GDP or it intends to raise revenue to above 20% of GDP. Which is it?

You made the claim the Progressive budget requires revenues 'the government has never been able to come close to'.

So, you should 'pore over' the budget enough to be able to show that what you said is the case, not just say it. Show where it's 'not even close to' the 20% peak.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that you should support the allegations you claim.

 

[Craig234]

The Government has said, and many people on your side of the aisle have argued, that the cost of living has not increased. If the cost of living has not increased then not giving more money to offset the non-increase of cost of living would not be a cut.

I haven't seen anyone, government or here, claim the cost of living has not increased.

I'm not so interested if someone here did, as your claim the government has. Links?

OTOH, I have repeatedly argued with people here, almost exclusively people on the left, that the cost of living has indeed increased and that the .gov is intentionally flubbing the numbers. It looks like your side won that argument.

The government has played games with numbers and understated inflation. That's not calling it zero.

You're really contradicting yourself, since the increases in Social Security are 'cost of living increases', they're based on the cost of living increasing according to the government.

 

[alkemyst]

The Government has said, and many people on your side of the aisle have argued, that the cost of living has not increased. If the cost of living has not increased then not giving more money to offset the non-increase of cost of living would not be a cut.

OTOH, I have repeatedly argued with people here, almost exclusively people on the left, that the cost of living has indeed increased and that the .gov is intentionally flubbing the numbers. It looks like your side won that argument.

When all the government jobs that get COLA don't take it and don't get another type of raise, then they can skip it for social security.

 

[Darwin333]

I haven't seen anyone, government or here, claim the cost of living has not increased.

I'm not so interested if someone here did, as your claim the government has. Links?



The government has played games with numbers and understated inflation. That's not calling it zero.

You're really contradicting yourself, since the increases in Social Security are 'cost of living increases', they're based on the cost of living increasing according to the government.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/06/may-update-2012-social-security-cost-of.html

.gov said the cost of living went down by 2.1% in 2009 which technically means that Social Security payments should have been reduced but they can not do that by law. 2010 the cost of living went up by 1.5% so per the .gov they are still getting more money than the cost of living increase (2.1% decrease + 1.5% increase). So per existing payments this years cost of living must increase by .6% just for them to get even with the existing payments. They should see an increase next year barring a change in the law.

So per the .gov, Social Security recipients should be grateful because they are receiving to much money, per the cost of living formula. Not exactly what I was arguing but I was being lazy.

At any rate, the argument that social security was cut because it was not increased due to cost of living is in fact false (per the .gov). Using that argument it was actually raised because cost of living went down but payments did not.

 

[ProfJohn]

You made the claim the Progressive budget requires revenues 'the government has never been able to come close to'.

So, you should 'pore over' the budget enough to be able to show that what you said is the case, not just say it. Show where it's 'not even close to' the 20% peak.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that you should support the allegations you claim.

I poured over the budget, nearly read the whole thing, and it requires revenue that are FAR more than we have ever achieved.

I don't think we could ever achieve the level of revenue that they want because that rate of taxation would slow down the economy and once it slows down revenue drops as well.

 

[Craig234]

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/06/may-update-2012-social-security-cost-of.html

.gov said the cost of living went down by 2.1% in 2009 which technically means that Social Security payments should have been reduced but they can not do that by law. 2010 the cost of living went up by 1.5% so per the .gov they are still getting more money than the cost of living increase (2.1% decrease + 1.5% increase). So per existing payments this years cost of living must increase by .6% just for them to get even with the existing payments. They should see an increase next year barring a change in the law.

So per the .gov, Social Security recipients should be grateful because they are receiving to much money, per the cost of living formula. Not exactly what I was arguing but I was being lazy.

At any rate, the argument that social security was cut because it was not increased due to cost of living is in fact false (per the .gov). Using that argument it was actually raised because cost of living went down but payments did not.

I thought we're talking about now; the government is not saying the cost of living is not increasing, so it's not the case SS is increasing when the cost of living isn't.

As for the 2009 figures saying the cost of living went down - SS was not increased, so that also was not a case of 'social security going up when cost of living didn't' as you said.

As for saying the law that SS doesn't go down even if the cost of living does making that a sort of increase in SS; I agree. Doesn't happen that often, does it.