tunicoco: Random Reality Check

Are you saying that, on average, it costs 100% more to buy something now then it did back in 2000. That means EVERYTHING is growing at an average of 10% per year if you are saying it is doubling every 7.2 years (rule of 72). Also, the numbers I gave are not core numbers but total inflation based on a basket of goods that keeps getting changed by the government.

By your calculations, no one should ever save any money that earns them less then 10%. Do you get that?

Scary isn't it?

Let's talk food - not that food is the entire picture or anything.

Beef - in 2000 my family used to buy Top Round for $1.99/lb regular price and $.99 on sale. Today? $4.99'lb and $3.99 on sale.

Cheap white bread went from $.69/loaf a year ago to $1.19 today. Eggs? $.99/dozen (Jumbo) three years ago to $2.09 today.

What happens is that we hear about clothes costing less (they do, dramatically) and this somehow tends to balance out the inflation rate but you need to buy food regularly and clothes are an occasional expense.

Let's talk heating oil.

In 2000, we were paying $1.19/gallon cash, yesterday my wife spoke to her grandparents (we have gas now) and they just paid $4.19/gallon.

Take a look at gasoline or diesel fuel - all of that plays a larger role in our lives because we live in a society that is based on goods being shipped from all over the world.

And is it scary?

You betcha!

Shaggy_C: Random Reality Check: Harvard would like a word with you about that, unless you don't consider them as credible.

You quoted the wrong section:

One half of workers in the lowest-compensation jobs and one-half of workers in mid range-compensation jobs either had problems with medical bills in a 12-month period or were paying off accrued debt. One-quarter of workers in higher-compensated positions also reported problems with medical bills or were paying off accrued debt.14

Now, the question is: is such debt accrued because of a trip to the hospital, or is this for something like a piss test? I still think my point holds that the 'people are going to the hospital and can't afford care' is a small percentage of the overall population without health insurance. Many people don't have it because they choose not to.

Well let's talk about what might become Fark's rapidly rising second favorite state, West Virginia.

This year, health insurance for a family of four costs roughly $1,000/month and if the rates keep climbing, by 2012 we should see a real cost to cover a family of four coming in at about $17,000/year.

Now add that into the reality that in many of West Virginia's poorer counties the median household income in somewhere in the mid twenties per year - BEFORE TAXES.

I don't think there is anyone out there that doesn't want medical insurance - a large portion of this country just can't afford it.

Dancin_In_Anson: Shaggy_C: You know, the 'purposely obtuse' method of trolling is getting really old. Can you really take yourself seriously when you have to force yourself to act like a braindead moran to support your 'side'?

So they didn't promise anything different.

Define "anything different."

Could it be possible that you interpret "different" to mean more than the rest of us understood it to mean?

And no, I am not entirely happy with what the democrats have done but I do believe it has been a marginal improvement over what the Republicans had done for the six previous years - and I'll gladly anything I can get at this point.

Shaggy_C: You know, the 'purposely obtuse' method of trolling is getting really old.

Dancin_In_Anson: So they didn't promise anything different.

Random Reality Check: I don't think there is anyone out there that doesn't want medical insurance - a large portion of this country just can't afford it.

That's like saying there isn't anyone out there who doesn't want a BMW, they just can't afford it. There is a legitimate need out there for some people. But a lot of the uninsured are young people with no need for it. There are also people who are simply willing to take the risk after examining their own cost/benefits. I think both Clinton and Obama's plans are disasters because they basically tell the higher wage earners to subsidize people below who had previously chosen to forego healthcare. Now you're increasing demand, which increases price. I'm all for a single payer system, but I think this blend solution is only going to lead to even higher costs due to a negative effect of government interference in the market.

Random Reality Check

You are just picking and choosing things that have gone up. By your logic, unless we get 10% raises each year, we are falling behind. An example. If coke was a nickel in 1920, then it would be a dime in 1927, $0.20 in 1934 etc etcoontil it was $25.60 in 1983 (I stopped there). Do you get 10% raises each and every year? There is such a thing as cost of living raises that are tiesd to thr CPI.

You realize that what you are saying is impossible right. If the cost of everything increased on average 10% every year, then our GDP would go up about 10% every year. That is not happening. Can you give me ANY data to back up what you say?

tunicoco: You realize that what you are saying is impossible right. If the cost of everything increased on average 10% every year, then our GDP would go up about 10% every year. That is not happening. Can you give me ANY data to back up what you say?

Link (new window)

It's not that hard to search this stuff mang. Durables have decreased in price (computers, cars) while consumables have gone up. It's not 'everything' but it's a lot more than 3%.

Mnemia: 4) Wealth is getting more concentrated in the hands of a few people who are in the highest tax bracket.

Oooh.. so close. Actually the growing economy is creating more people who are deemed to be wealthy.

trixter_nl: You do realize that the current tax structure makes it easier for rich people to get a ton of deductions and not pay tax.

And at the same time those who are wealthy aren't seeking to shelter as much money which leads to actual higher receipts through a lower tax rate. Lets go back to taking 90% of income from the rich and see what happens again to that tax revenue; I can guarantee you that you won't actually see all of those dollars being handed over to the treasury.

Shaggy,

That really doesn't explain why the deficit is increasing. Also, I can give you links to where they explain CPI. Why isn't GDP increasing by over 3% per year if the cost of goods is going up by that amount. Also, can you give me any peer reviewed data, not "CPI lie" data? That is like linking to Drudge...

tunicoco --
Factor in trade deficits. Imports don't contribute to GDP.

I understand that imports aren't part of GDP but all goods and services created domestically are. If these goods rose on average by 10%, then GDP would rise by 10%. The only way their math works is if domestic goods grow at a smaller rate or decline while imports grow at a larger rate. It would have to be a pretty distinct split.

Dancin_In_Anson: Random Reality Check: Define "anything different."

Different as in not the same.

I see nothing different. I see more of the same. What have yopu noticed that is different between the Congress of 2004 and the Congress of 2006? Different as in not the same.

Other than the party in charge.

Less of the same is still an improvement.

Just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're not better by every reasonable standard of measurement.

tunicoco: I understand that imports aren't part of GDP but all goods and services created domestically are. If these goods rose on average by 10%, then GDP would rise by 10%. The only way their math works is if domestic goods grow at a smaller rate or decline while imports grow at a larger rate. It would have to be a pretty distinct split.

You're starting to understand. That's the first step. Now ask 'why'.



Look up the term 'neoliberal'.

Shaggy_C: Korovyov: 49 states have zero say about what any given senator does. 434 districts have no say about any representative who believes in throwing money at his own district. And, in practice, they have a hell of a lot more motive to do so -- since throwing money at one's district in exchange for votes is *legal*, so long as it's not an explicit quid-pro-quo, whereas a civil servant is actually under stricter conflict-of-interest rules than any legislator.

That's a huge assumption there. How many people do you think explicitly vote for Senator X because he brought 3 million dollars in for a new museum in his state. I mean, really...you think that is really a big factor in deciding how people vote? Give me a break.

Have you ever worked in politics? Most of the people who work at the museum, and the community that gets the museum, the mayor of the town that gets the museum -- who usually has a decent political network locally himself -- and the patrons of the arts throughout the state, will remember this at election time. Do you think senators and house members get appropriations for the states and districts just for the hell of it?

TunesofGlory: Have you ever worked in politics? Most of the people who work at the museum, and the community that gets the museum, the mayor of the town that gets the museum -- who usually has a decent political network locally himself -- and the patrons of the arts throughout the state, will remember this at election time.

I guess it depends on the situation. If you're a self-aggrandizing prick like Robert Byrd, you name all of your earmarked buildings, parks, and centers after yourself.

Still, I think that actual policy trumps 'earmarks' in most voters' minds. But maybe I'm just an effete overeducated liberal.

Dancin_In_Anson: Poopspasm: Less of the same is still an improvement.

Less indeed

Meh. Honestly, I don't know enough about farming to sermonize on wether it's a good idea, but it probably isn't. That said, the linked article seems to say that the Republicans are every bit as much to blame. Either way, bad on both of them for that one.

FWIW though, pretty much every "rising commodity" is tied in directly or indirectly with the energy complex, which has been skyrocketing. I highly doubt that the increased corn prices (for instance) do much besides compensate farmers for increased expenses as well as provide a reasonable rate of return for the capital they have to deploy in order to keep their farm operational.

Would it be so bad to expect our government to audit themselves (with the IRS) and go after themselves for the same fraudulent accounting practices they do (like Social Security) like they went after Enron?

It's time for a Boston Tea Party like we've never seen before.

Who's with me?

farkuufarkinfark: Would it be so bad to expect our government to audit themselves (with the IRS) and go after themselves for the same fraudulent accounting practices they do (like Social Security) like they went after Enron?

It's time for a Boston Tea Party like we've never seen before.

Who's with me?

A Boston Tea Party for Social Security? Are we throwing the elderly over the side of a ship? Cuz if that's the plan I'm in.

Begs the question: How much money does the government need?

The answer, always, is "more."

Subby The good bad news: Tax receipts are setting all time records. The really bad news: So is the deficit

FTFY

The Republicans last budget that they were responsible for is 2007. The deficit was 160 billion dollars. The democrats take over now the deficit is projected to be 450 billion dollars.

zefal: The Republicans last budget that they were responsible for is 2007. The deficit was 160 billion dollars. The democrats take over now the deficit is projected to be 450 billion dollars.

The president creates the budget. The congress approves it and adds riders. The original budget put up by Bush was over 3 trillion dollars. The pittance they added is hardly indicative of liberal inability to restrain spending. You've no one but your 'team' to blame.

Shaggy_C: zefal: The Republicans last budget that they were responsible for is 2007. The deficit was 160 billion dollars. The democrats take over now the deficit is projected to be 450 billion dollars.

The president creates the budget. The congress approves it and adds riders. The original budget put up by Bush was over 3 trillion dollars. The pittance they added is hardly indicative of liberal inability to restrain spending. You've no one but your 'team' to blame.

5/10 It had a good beat and you could dance to it.

Shaggy_C: The president creates the budget. The congress approves it and adds riders. The original budget put up by Bush was over 3 trillion dollars. The pittance they added is hardly indicative of liberal inability to restrain spending. You've no one but your 'team' to blame.

Just like there was no one else to blame for Reagan's deficits, for Bush41's deficits, and for Bush43's deficits. I'm waiting for zefal and his kind to of course give the Republicans credit for Bill's budget surplus.

Shaggy_C

No. Congress appropiates the money. The White House submits a budget but that's just a mere ritual now as Congress has usurped the Executive branch's authority through the years.

The democrats always push spending onto the Republicans the media screams on their behalf if the Republicans don't go along. Then the Republicans cave and approve the spending then the democrats and their shills in the media scream about the runaway deifits. Rins and repeat.


Standard media article from when Republicans controlled Congress:

Lawmakers reject emergency bird flu funds
Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:44 PM GMT

U.N. warns against panic in China

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Emergency money that President George W. Bush requested to combat a looming influenza pandemic has been deleted from a U.S. health-funding bill after conservative Republicans insisted it would have to be paid for by cutting other government programs.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday was set to debate the massive health-funding bill. After days of intensive talks between the House and Senate, negotiators dropped a plan for $8 billion in funds that Democrats pushed through the Senate last month.

Following that Senate vote, Bush on November 1 asked Congress for $7.1 billion in emergency money.

The funding fight erupted after conservative Republicans in the House insisted that an emergency U.S. effort to stockpile vaccines and anti-viral drugs that could be effective against the deadly flu would have to be paid for by cutting other government programs.

Republican leaders in the House said that instead of attaching the bird flu money to a massive $602 billion health and labor spending bill that is rapidly moving through Congress, they would try separate legislation later this year or early next year.

Avian flu has been killing poultry flocks in Asia and the animal disease has spread globally. More than 100 people have been infected with avian flu and about half have died.

Scientists fear a pandemic-style human outbreak if the virus mutates in a way that people could easily pass the disease to each other.

POTENTIAL FOR PANDEMIC

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, a California Republican, helped block the emergency funds. But earlier this week he acknowledged, "The more I study it, the more I see the potential for a pandemic."

Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake, one of several conservative Republicans pushing for less government spending, told Reuters he would try to kill any avian flu legislation that does not offset the spending with cuts to other programs.

But Rep. Ralph Regula, the Ohio Republican who oversees health-care funding in the House, said it's such a big-ticket item that "There's no way to offset $7 billion or $8 billion."

Democrats in Congress have been urging quick approval of the money, which also would be used to step up worldwide surveillance of the disease and help localities cope with an outbreak.

But with Congress already reeling over $62 billion in emergency spending for the fall's hurricane cleanup and with huge budget deficits becoming chronic, conservatives have warned their leaders that they will not tolerate an open checkbook.

As a result, the House on Thursday also was set to debate $50 billion in spending cuts that hit social programs for the poor and have generated a broad debate over government priorities. At the same time, House Republicans are advancing tax cuts that help the wealthy.

Link (new window)

Remove all Republicans

The Republicans controlled congress for the last 6 years of clinton's presidency. The "surpluses" happened when they were in control of spending. At that time the democrats didn't push unnecesary spending on them because clinton would have been culpable for the deficits at the time. That's why they didn't pull those shenanigans then.

BTW, There were no real surpluses during clinton's two terms. The national debt increased every year under clinton and yes the Republican controlled congress.

BTW, I don't claim the majority of Republicans are real fiscal conservatives, just pretend to be to get elected. Therein lies the problem.

Rich people need more money. I will gladly pay more in taxes so that Paris Hilton can continue to stimulate the economy.


/not really...