The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[Piggy]

You make it sound like republicans are the ones preventing democrats from doing that.

I say the Dems don't have the savvy and muscle to make things happen, and you interpret that to mean I'm blaming Republicans?

You're beyond hope.

 

[BeAChooser]

So what about when Bush was president, and the Republicans had complete control of the presidency and both houses of Congress? Did THEY rein in spending? No they did not - they turned the surplus Clinton left into the biggest deficit in history.

You're being a more than a little fast and loose with the facts, DG.

First, it's not clear there was a surplus. If you check out the official national debt, you find that it went up during each year of Clinton's term including FY 1999, FY 2000 and FY 2001. Don't believe me? Visit http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 . That site links data from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np , which is a site linked by the US Treasury website at http://www.ustreas.gov , to arrive at the following figures:

FY1993 $4.411 trillion
FY1994 $4.692 trillion, deficit = $281 billion
FY1995 $4.973 trillion, deficit = $281 billion
FY1996 $5.225 trillion, deficit = $250 billion
FY1997 $5.413 trillion, deficit = $188 billion
FY1998 $5.526 trillion, deficit = $113 billion
FY1999 $5.656 trillion, deficit = $130 billion
FY2000 $5.674 trillion, deficit = $18 billion
FY2001 $5.807 trillion, deficit = $133 billion

How can there be a surplus when the Treasury Department is telling us the national debt went up every single year? The answer is given at that website and turns out to be … as they say … "smoke and mirrors".

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

Now granted, the deficit went down to only $18 billion one year, but that was not a surplus. There was no surplus. Furthermore, note that Clinton, liar that he was, actually claimed to have generated a surplus totaling $360 billion the last three years in office. Don't believe me?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus

From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion. ... snip ... the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone. This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

That's not true. What Clinton did was pay down the public debt, NOT the national debt. And there's a difference. He paid down the public debt by borrowing money in the form of intergovernmental holdings ... which is included in the national debt. In essence, he hid the problem. And the democrat-friendly mainstream media helped him do it. And you bought it.

Note that the actual deficit went back up in FY2002 ... which was also a year based on Clinton's budget proposals, not Bush's. So in fact, Bush inherited a deficit of $133 billion from Clinton. Not quite the picture the democrat-friendly media falsely presents to the unwashed masses.

Second, as to the reduction in the deficit during Clinton's term, how do you think that came about? You will note that the deficit in FY1994 and FY1995 was $281 billion dollars. The deficit only began to fall in FY1996 and thereafter. Now what was different about the later years from the first two? Well to begin with, republicans took control of congress away from the democrats in January 1995. So FY1996 was the first year based on their budgeting. And balancing the budget was the heart of Republican fiscal policy during that time. Remember the government shutdown in late 1995? That was about balancing the budget and in the end President Clinton folded. Republicans retained control of congress, even if by a slim margin, until after Clinton left office, which explains why the deficit continued to fall during Clinton's term. Clinton just went along for the ride because he was always good at going whichever way the wind seemed to be *blowing* at the time.

Third, that period of time in the mid to late 90s had the benefit of a trillion dollar Peace Dividend (thanks again to republicans winning the Cold War) and the internet boom (which was not of Clinton's doing) during his administration. So again, it looks like you are giving Clinton accolades for something he really didn't do.

Fourth, the CBO made the projection that we would be running surpluses during Bush's term, prior to the collapse of the tech industry. And that collapse began at the end of Clinton's term, not after Bush took office, so it's dishonest to blame Bush for it. The effect of such a collapse wasn't included in the CBO analysis.

Fifth, the CBO's analysis didn't predict 9/11 or the WOT, and the effects they would have on the economy and spending. It is actually remarkable that despite all three of those serious negative influences on the economy, the economy recovered quite nicely. From 2003 to 2007, GDP growth was far above what it now is under Obama (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/SRW6q8D0whI/AAAAAAAABf4/Aq3MMdgFY2Y/s400/GDP+growth.jpg ). It remained strong until democrat's gained control of Congress in late 2006, then thing headed south, as you can see in that chart.

And sixth, this chart (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGk...sh_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpg ) clearly shows that the deficit during all eight fiscal periods of the Bush administration was far below what it now is and is projected to be during all 8 (heaven help us) years of the Obama administration. As you can see from that chart, the deficit peaked at about -400 billion in 2003-2004, following the recession and massive military spending that was required to fight the WOT, then headed dramatically downward. It was at about -150 billion in 2007, when democrats took over both houses of Congress. And then it jumped back up to over -400 billion in just one year. Now whose fault do you really think that is?

 

[BeAChooser]

I did the exact same thing. I only compared non adjusted numbers to non adjusted numbers.

LIAR. You threw a chart showing non-adjusted unemployment into a thread where all the other unemployment figures that had been cited were seasonally adjusted numbers. And then tried to compare your number to those numbers.

 

[PixyMisa]

Clearly, a single-payer system would be more efficient for us, too.

We don't have a single payer system.

You can get public healthcare (paid for by a special levy).

You can get private health insurance, and get a rebate on the normal levy.

You can just pay out of your own pocket.

Whatever you choose.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also, if private companies are inefficient, look first to the government for the cause. Not always true, but true often enough.

 

[Piggy]

Also, if private companies are inefficient, look first to the government for the cause. Not always true, but true often enough.

It's not that the companies are inefficient. It's that the providers are forced to deal with so many of them, in an adversarial relationship.

The problem is with the larger set-up, not the business models of the individual insurance companies.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's not that the companies are inefficient. It's that the providers are forced to deal with so many of them, in an adversarial relationship.

The problem is with the larger set-up, not the business models of the individual insurance companies.

As I said, look to the government. The McCarran-Ferguson Act, for example, which ensures that there is no national market for health insurance in the US.

 

[Piggy]

As I said, look to the government. The McCarran-Ferguson Act, for example, which ensures that there is no national market for health insurance in the US.

I think the biggest problem here -- and there are many reasons for this -- is that the patient is not the customer in our health care system. The customer is either the gov't (e.g. Medicare) or the insurance company.

That's why medical bills are quite literally incomprehensible.

Because they're not written for the patient. Nobody cares if the patient can understand them or not.

And all of this means that market forces simply do not operate.

I have a high-deductible plan with a health savings account. Which means it matters to me how much things cost, because it's coming out of my pocket, so I have to make decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis, just like I have to do if I want to get work done on my house or car.

But my doctors have no idea what things cost. They're not concerned about it.

Just try to find out what your options are, cost-wise, in this system, and it's like you're asking them the altitude of the peaks in the Grand Tetons. Not only don't they know, they think it's bizarre that you would even inquire.

 

[quixotecoyote]

We don't have a single payer system.

You can get public healthcare (paid for by a special levy).

Uhh, yeah. That's a single payer system.

You also have other systems, but it's silly to say that because you have others, you don't have this.

Definitions and explanations of what single-payer means:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2008/MB_cgi?mode=&index=17627&field=all&HM=&II=&PA=&form=&input=

An approach to health care financing with only one source of money for paying health care providers. The scope may be national (the Canadian System), state-wide, or community-based. The payer may be a governmental unit or other entity such as an insurance company. The proposed advantages include administrative simplicity for patients and providers, and resulting significant savings in overhead costs. (From Slee and Slee, Health Care Reform Terms, 1993, p106)

http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/SinglePayer101.sflb.ashx

There is also a single payer system in America: the Medicare program, which is the health insurance program for almost every American aged 65 and over. A provider taking care of a Medicare patient has only one entity to bill: the government. In contrast, a provider has multiple entities to bill when dealing with privately insured individuals due to the large number of private insurance companies in America.

 

[Malerin]

Uh... the report I heard today was of thousands more jobs added to the public sector, continuing that trend since, I think, July.

We need to generate 100,000+ jobs a month just to keep up with the growth of the workforce.

Since the stimulus was passed, there has been a net decrease of jobs.

ETA: The public sector shed 159,000 jobs last month. I think you meant private sector. that grew by 64,000.

 

[Piggy]

We need to generate 100,000+ jobs a month just to keep up with the growth of the workforce.

Since the stimulus was passed, there has been a net decrease of jobs.

ETA: The public sector shed 159,000 jobs last month. I think you meant private sector. that grew by 64,000.

Thanks for the correction; I did mean private sector.

But look, the thing is, nobody expects that we'll start adding jobs at a rate that is going to get us on track to optimal employment quickly, with or without a stimulus.

That's pie in the sky, even though it's suicide for any politician to admit it.

It took about a decade for us to blow this bubble up. It will take many years for us to recover.

That's the reality.

The best we can hope for is to not start sliding backward again.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think you meant private sector. that grew by 64,000.

But that statistic is actually quite deceptive.

According to http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage_rates/blog/175730.aspx , one of the largest increases in private sector employment is in health care (32000) … a sector which mostly consumes wealth, rather than producing it. And that increase is probably more a function of staffing to handle the new regulations imposed by the Health Care bill than any measure of the economic health in the country.

Likewise the Leisure and hospitality industry increased jobs by 38 million. But do those jobs actually create wealth? Or just burn it?

At the same time manufacturing employment (people who actually do produce wealth) declined by 6,000. And construction jobs decreased by 21,000 (the stimulus is over). Retail trade went up 5700 but does that industry create wealth? Or just reflect consumers consuming it?

And within the professional and business services sector, employment in temporary help services increased by 17,000. But how many of those are actually good jobs?

All in all, I don't really see much good in this latest jobs growth claim.

 

[PixyMisa]

Uhh, yeah. That's a single payer system.

You also have other systems, but it's silly to say that because you have others, you don't have this.

No, that's the definition of a single-payer system: There's a single payer.

An approach to health care financing with only one source of money for paying health care providers.

We don't have that.

 

[Cavemonster]

But that statistic is actually quite deceptive.

(snip)

one of the largest increases in private sector employment is in health care (32000) … a sector which mostly consumes wealth, rather than producing it. And that increase is probably more a function of staffing to handle the new regulations imposed by the Health Care bill than any measure of the economic health in the country.

Likewise the Leisure and hospitality industry increased jobs by 38 million. But do those jobs actually create wealth? Or just burn it?

(snip)

And within the professional and business services sector, employment in temporary help services increased by 17,000. But how many of those are actually good jobs?

My god, he's right! None of those jobs are true Scotsmen!

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, that's the definition of a single-payer system: There's a single payer.


We don't have that.

We're somewhat off topic to the thread here, but if you want to take it to a new one, we can try to move beyond the first sentence of the definition. Possibly even to the second or third.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hmm. I've looked up how the term is commonly used, and there's just a fine semantic difference here. Australia has a single-payer system, but healthcare in Australia isn't a single-payer system. Confusing, but I can live with it.

 

[joobz]

LIAR. You threw a chart showing non-adjusted unemployment into a thread where all the other unemployment figures that had been cited were seasonally adjusted numbers. And then tried to compare your number to those numbers.

personal attack noted and reported.

Fact is I was NOT comparing other charts to my chart. I was unemployment rates from 81/82 to present using a google searched chart. That's an honest comparison.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6288827#post6288827

This is an important point as it exposes a serious problem with your debating style. You often assume a position of others that is simply not there. You may have legitimate points, but they are lost amongst the partisan rhetoric you wallow in.

My honesty is not in doubt. I know you would prefer to believe otherwise, but the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

 

[joobz]

It's not that the companies are inefficient. It's that the providers are forced to deal with so many of them, in an adversarial relationship.

The problem is with the larger set-up, not the business models of the individual insurance companies.

and that is only half of it.
Insurance companies often attempt to deny coverage through a variety of clever loopholes. Hospitals must invest money into people scanning for denial of coverage statements to find trends that often expose dishonest coverage denials.

 

[PixyMisa]

That comes about, I think, through the payment model.

If you are shopping for your own health insurance, you won't go with a company with a bad reputation, even if you have to pay a bit more.

If you get your health insurance as a package with your salary, though, everything's one step removed. Your employer simply won't care as much about the quality of service, and neither will the healthcare company.

(And when it happens through the government, everything is even more removed and the quality of service goes down even further - albeit in different ways. That's why it's critically improtant to keep the options open, and not have a forced single-payer system.)

 

[Piggy]

and that is only half of it.
Insurance companies often attempt to deny coverage through a variety of clever loopholes. Hospitals must invest money into people scanning for denial of coverage statements to find trends that often expose dishonest coverage denials.

Yes, I mentioned that earlier. The relationship is combative rather than cooperative.

And the costs of that combat come out of our pockets, whether we're patients paying directly, or insurance subscribers, or taxpayers.