What a...
- Thread starter AlterEgo99
- Live activity
- Replies 270
- Views 4K
-
- Tags
- proximity licks sack
Yeah, right, I'm a hypocrite, blah, blah, blah. Not of that proves me wrong about that quote. Instead of constantly attacking me personally, attack my view.
Here, to make it easy, I'll say it again.
To retain the same amount of revenue, then a huge sales tax is going to have to be created. It WILL shift more burden onto the poor and middle classes (or else why would you, or any conservative, be in favor of it?), it WILL reduce their spending ability and it WILL harm the economy.
Am I wrong, or am I right? It's really simply, dude.
...in effort to prove my economic opinions wrong. Yes, that is the definition of ad hominem. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You have to make an argument, which you've proven yourself too scared to do.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
All of that would make a lot more sense if I wasn't constantly seeing you using dishonest tactics to portray your arguments as artificially correct, moral, and factual.
Example one, you claimed you never said something that you did say. You even went on to say that "even you" would consider it "crazy". But when I proved you did say it, you try to dodge it by playing word games.
Example two, you still haven't 'found the time' to address facts I posted, in the form of lists and links discussing wasteful govt spending.
This is why I say you are a hypocrite, you constantly say Im the one not providing 'logical arguments', but every time I do, you simply ignore them and move on. This is one of the reasons debating you gets boring, you refuse to concede any point what so ever that makes you look incorrect. Clearly to you its more important to 'win' a debate, than to be correct. This is also why I say you have too much ego wrapped up in these discussions, which is exactly what leads to you being so intellectually dishonest.
Three days ago you said this. For three days now you've had plenty of time to keep making your arguments, but found zero time to address mine. Again, you are more concerned about 'winning' than being correct, and you are failing at both.
As for my 'hostility', again more hypocrisy from you...
Now, three days later, you are the one crying about my hostility? At least when I call you a hypocrite, I show exactly where you are being hypocritical, such as this latest hostility nonsense.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
You keep calling me scared, yet you keep dodging my lists/links to wasteful govt spending. Maybe you are so quick to use the term 'scared' because you know you are the one who is actually scared to take on his opponent's points directly. So you can keep calling me scared if you want to, but it will continue to blow up in your face until you actually gain the courage to address my linked/proven facts that govt spending is bloated and many times very very wasteful. It will continue to blow up in your face until you grow the balls to admit you were completely wrong when you claimed wasteful spending will only add up to "a few billion dollars".
As for proving you wrong, where have you proven that a flat sales tax will destroy the middle class? You still haven't provided one iota of info, links, facts, or even theories as to why it would. All you have done is capitalized the word "WILL" to demonstrate your emotion. Does that prove your theory is correct? No. But here you are demanding I prove it wrong. A typical double-standard from you. Bt even though you haven't proven, or even attempted to prove, your theory, I will still address it, for the sake of being the bigger man here...
No, a flat sales tax will not destroy the middle class. Again, the people who buy more stuff would pay more in taxes. As you have pointed out many times, the upper class has more money to spend, owns more wealth than the lower/middle class, and thus will spend more and pay more in taxes.
"To retain the same amount of revenue..."
First off, as I have said all along, there is no proof we need to retain the same amount of revenue, and plenty of proof our govt doesn't need as much revenue (see my list/links of reckless govt spending). Second, how large of a flat sales tax would need to be used to retain the same revenue? You say it would be a "huge" sales tax, so you obviously think you know what it would be, so enlighten us. Im not afraid to admit I dont know exactly what it would need to be, as Im too lazy to go look up yearly sales figures nation-wide, compare that to our current govt revenue, and do the simple math involved in deriving this "huge" flat sales tax. The burden to find out exactly what that sales tax would need to be is not on me, as Im not the one portraying it as "huge", small, or otherwise. You are the one discussing what it would need to be, but as usual, you expect others to disprove your theory that you have put zero effort into proving in the first place. you just state your opinion, characterize it as a fact, and then scream bloody murder that its up to everyone else to prove you are wrong. For a decently book smart kid as you seem to be, you seem to lack much common sense.
Sure, I attack you personally, but much rarer than you attack me. Deny it, I dare you. I have already linked to a few examples of you doing it the past few days, and I can come up with a very large list of other examples. So quit crying that me calling you an extremist or hypocrite is so unfair, while calling me a "fucking jackass" every time you get backed into a corner and dont want to address my points. Im fine with talking facts, Im even fine with calling names. What Im not fine with is you calling names, and then crying that Im attacking you personally. You think Im the only one here who notices this? Think again. Im confident its no small part of the reason why precious few people tend to take your side in these debates (aside from the fact that, imo, you are wrong a lot). If you would cease with your intellectual dishonesty and 'win at all costs' mentality, these discussions would be a lot more productive.
Have a nice day.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
To sum up, you seem to fail to realize how much it weakens your entire position when you 'dont have the time' to address facts I have presented. Not only does it make you look hypocritical when you claim Im the one "scared" to talk about facts, but it also makes you look immature when you claim Im the one only interested in making personal attacks against the other.
You need to sign up for a debate class next semester.
You need to sign up for a debate class next semester.
thevic24
5,000+ posts
my silence is deadly...
That is all typical of the left...
"The problem with the ideology of the left - and I include all its variations from socialism, Marxism and Fabianism to its most virulent modern forms eco-fascism and communitarianism - is that it has no rational basis. It is based on raw emotion, abstract theory not empiricism. Wherever it has been tried - Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union; Castro's Cuba; Mao's China; Pol Pot's Cambodia; Hitler's Germany; Obama's America - it has failed utterly, making people poorer, unhappier and very often more dead. So what's the only thing you can do when you have no evidence to support your argument, when indeed the facts of life and history are entirely against you?
You can't play fair, so you play dirty."
The 8 stages of Liberal Discussion
Generally, liberal hate facts and love feelings. If they can make each other feel good, they are happily thrilled to ignore the facts.
When liberals completely run out of responses they resort to name-calling. When you can get a lib to call you a racist or a whatever-phobe or whatever-nut, you know they’re out of ammunition but still trying to shoot.
Finally, liberals love the term “progressive”. FDR used it instead of “socialist”, and FDR is their equivalent to Moses. FDR invented the nanny state. Nice job. Big government is working REAL well.
1. Ignore the story - pretend it is not happening, or deflect like crazy.
2. Find some sort of moral equivalence or a story from 30 years ago saying a Conservative did something sort of similar.
3. Come up with some conspiracy theories. This is usually the most amusing part, reading and hearing all the strange stuff they come up with in their reality based chat rooms.
4. Blame Conservatives for bringing the truth to light. How dare they do dat!!!!
5. Concoct strange defenses based on wild psychological discourse, which no one understands, including the writer, but it sounds good, and allows a liberal/progressive to say there is no problem.
6. Whine about the discussion of the topic, proclaiming that it means nothing, and why aren't we talking about X? This is usually the point where Liberals truly understand how bad the issue really is for them, typically when even the NY Times cannot ignore it, so, now they want to have an in-depth discussion on the point of the Iraq War, which you have had 1,000 times, but, they strangely have never had.
Alternately, this is the point where some liberals realize that they did not receive their talking points emails, so haven't a friggin' clue how to respond.
7. Declare victory! Those dastardly Conservatives have been proven wrong again, and why do you keep asking so many questions?
8. Ignore the issue. It never happened.
thevic24
5,000+ posts
my silence is deadly...
Here are some of the things liberals do!
The Outraged Spokesman: In an attempt to generate support from his/her listeners the liberal speaks with persistent whiny, angry or outrage tone, while implying that a tremendous injustice has been deliberately or indifferently perpetrated.
The Revolving Response: When asked a question or challenged, the liberal’s answer will drift over to different subjects that have nothing to do with the question you asked. The liberal’s answers will continue to branch out like an ever-growing tree, and you will never have the answer you sought.
The Conspiracy Theory: This is where a liberal claims that circumstances working against him/her due to deliberate and hidden planning from greedy and powerful forces.
The Race Card: This is where a liberal claims that racism is the motivation of his/her enemies and/or he/she claims that he/she understands and wants to help YOUR mistreated race.
The Oppression Claim: This is where a liberal claims that someone or some group is deliberately trying to keep his/her listeners down, so as to motivate them to support him/her.
The Talk-Over Response: This is where a liberal ignores you and continues talking or yelling in order to prevent a rebuttal.
The Devaluation Response: This is where a liberal emotionally belittles your opinion while expecting you to believe him/her because he/she passionately disagrees with you.
The Cut Off: This is where the liberal gives up on you, frequently with parting shot of, “racist” “Fascist” "teabagger" or “nazi”ect..
Feelings Over Facts: The liberal will be able to tell you how he/she FEELS about something, but will be much less capable and/or willing to explain or defend any alleged facts claimed to be CAUSING his/her feelings.
Categorization of Human Beings: The liberal will see you not as a INDIVIDUAL Person, but as a member of a special recognized, race, color, ***, religion, age, income level, ****** orientation or other, “ community” member.
Special Protection and Advantages: The liberal will single out specific races of human beings or people of a specific *** interest as worthy of special legal protection and/or advancement in a place of employment.
The Outraged Spokesman: In an attempt to generate support from his/her listeners the liberal speaks with persistent whiny, angry or outrage tone, while implying that a tremendous injustice has been deliberately or indifferently perpetrated.
The Revolving Response: When asked a question or challenged, the liberal’s answer will drift over to different subjects that have nothing to do with the question you asked. The liberal’s answers will continue to branch out like an ever-growing tree, and you will never have the answer you sought.
The Conspiracy Theory: This is where a liberal claims that circumstances working against him/her due to deliberate and hidden planning from greedy and powerful forces.
The Race Card: This is where a liberal claims that racism is the motivation of his/her enemies and/or he/she claims that he/she understands and wants to help YOUR mistreated race.
The Oppression Claim: This is where a liberal claims that someone or some group is deliberately trying to keep his/her listeners down, so as to motivate them to support him/her.
The Talk-Over Response: This is where a liberal ignores you and continues talking or yelling in order to prevent a rebuttal.
The Devaluation Response: This is where a liberal emotionally belittles your opinion while expecting you to believe him/her because he/she passionately disagrees with you.
The Cut Off: This is where the liberal gives up on you, frequently with parting shot of, “racist” “Fascist” "teabagger" or “nazi”ect..
Feelings Over Facts: The liberal will be able to tell you how he/she FEELS about something, but will be much less capable and/or willing to explain or defend any alleged facts claimed to be CAUSING his/her feelings.
Categorization of Human Beings: The liberal will see you not as a INDIVIDUAL Person, but as a member of a special recognized, race, color, ***, religion, age, income level, ****** orientation or other, “ community” member.
Special Protection and Advantages: The liberal will single out specific races of human beings or people of a specific *** interest as worthy of special legal protection and/or advancement in a place of employment.
thevic24
5,000+ posts
my silence is deadly...
Defining “Income”
Part of the problem here is in how you define “income” and the relevant “rate.” Buffett pays himself a very low salary, but earns a great deal of income in capital gains from his speculative activity. Those gains are indeed taxed at a lower rate — 15 percent — than his secretary’s top rate of 30 percent or more. The reason the capital-gains rate is so low is that those gains are taxed first at the corporate level — at 35 percent — before being taxed again as Buffett’s income at 15 percent. In addition, it’s not clear what Buffett included in his secretary’s taxes and income.
In any case, we have aggregate data on the relationship between income and average tax rates. According to the Tax Foundation, 2008 IRS data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average 23.27 percent of their income, with the top 5 percent paying 20.7 percent; top 10 percent, 18.71 percent; top 25 percent, 15.68 percent, and top 50 percent, 13.65 percent.
The bottom 50 percent paid an average 2.59 percent. So either Warren Buffett is an outlier because so much of his income is from capital gains (which appears to be the case) or he has a terrific accountant whom his secretary should hire. We might agree that taxes should be lower for everyone, but to claim that the system is regressive, as Buffett and Obama do, is simply wrong. The Truth Squad says: “FALSE!”
What about paying “their fair share?” Defining “fair” and “share” is tricky and subjective of course, but consider this from that same Tax Foundation report: In 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income but paid 38 percent of all total income tax receipts. The top 10 percent earned 46 percent of all income and paid 70 percent of total taxes. Seems like more than their fair share.
Percentage of Total Income
Suppose instead we think “fair share” means that people should pay the percentage of total tax receipts that corresponds to their income’s percentage of total income. We can sort of compute this for Warren Buffett. He paid about $6.9 million in taxes last year, a rate of 17.4 percent. If you do the math, that means he reported about $39 million in income. Total 2010 national personal income (wages/salaries minus transfer payments) was about $6 trillion. So Buffett’s income was about 0.00065 percent of total income. Total income taxes paid by Americans in 2010 was about $900 billion.
Nine-hundred billion multiplied by 0.00065 percent is $5.85 million, hence, Buffett’s “fair share.” Except Buffet paid $6.9 million. So by that standard, Warren Buffett is overtaxed! Yes “fair share” is subjective, but these data are strong enough for the Truth Squad to declare: “FALSE!”
Not Enough Money
Finally, would taxing the rich help close the deficit? The 2009 data show that the slightly more than 250,000 households making more than $1 million earned a total income of $727 billion. A 10 percent surtax would generate at most about $73 billion, which amounts to a whole 2 percent of federal spending. This also assumes the rich take no actions to avoid that additional tax. Taxing millionaires will help the deficit? The Truth Squad once again says, “FALSE!”
In the end all that’s left of the argument for taxing the rich more heavily is pure demagoguery and a desire to avoid the real solution: reducing the size and cost of government. The danger here is that in emulating FDR’s Depression-era attacks on “economic royalists,” Obama will repeat FDR’s results: entrepreneurs and investors sitting on the sidelines, afraid to innovate, invest, and take risks lest their hard-earned income be confiscated. Engaging in fact-free class warfare is the last thing we need when private investment continues to lag, keeping the economy in the doldrums and too many people unemployed.
Part of the problem here is in how you define “income” and the relevant “rate.” Buffett pays himself a very low salary, but earns a great deal of income in capital gains from his speculative activity. Those gains are indeed taxed at a lower rate — 15 percent — than his secretary’s top rate of 30 percent or more. The reason the capital-gains rate is so low is that those gains are taxed first at the corporate level — at 35 percent — before being taxed again as Buffett’s income at 15 percent. In addition, it’s not clear what Buffett included in his secretary’s taxes and income.
In any case, we have aggregate data on the relationship between income and average tax rates. According to the Tax Foundation, 2008 IRS data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average 23.27 percent of their income, with the top 5 percent paying 20.7 percent; top 10 percent, 18.71 percent; top 25 percent, 15.68 percent, and top 50 percent, 13.65 percent.
The bottom 50 percent paid an average 2.59 percent. So either Warren Buffett is an outlier because so much of his income is from capital gains (which appears to be the case) or he has a terrific accountant whom his secretary should hire. We might agree that taxes should be lower for everyone, but to claim that the system is regressive, as Buffett and Obama do, is simply wrong. The Truth Squad says: “FALSE!”
What about paying “their fair share?” Defining “fair” and “share” is tricky and subjective of course, but consider this from that same Tax Foundation report: In 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income but paid 38 percent of all total income tax receipts. The top 10 percent earned 46 percent of all income and paid 70 percent of total taxes. Seems like more than their fair share.
Percentage of Total Income
Suppose instead we think “fair share” means that people should pay the percentage of total tax receipts that corresponds to their income’s percentage of total income. We can sort of compute this for Warren Buffett. He paid about $6.9 million in taxes last year, a rate of 17.4 percent. If you do the math, that means he reported about $39 million in income. Total 2010 national personal income (wages/salaries minus transfer payments) was about $6 trillion. So Buffett’s income was about 0.00065 percent of total income. Total income taxes paid by Americans in 2010 was about $900 billion.
Nine-hundred billion multiplied by 0.00065 percent is $5.85 million, hence, Buffett’s “fair share.” Except Buffet paid $6.9 million. So by that standard, Warren Buffett is overtaxed! Yes “fair share” is subjective, but these data are strong enough for the Truth Squad to declare: “FALSE!”
Not Enough Money
Finally, would taxing the rich help close the deficit? The 2009 data show that the slightly more than 250,000 households making more than $1 million earned a total income of $727 billion. A 10 percent surtax would generate at most about $73 billion, which amounts to a whole 2 percent of federal spending. This also assumes the rich take no actions to avoid that additional tax. Taxing millionaires will help the deficit? The Truth Squad once again says, “FALSE!”
In the end all that’s left of the argument for taxing the rich more heavily is pure demagoguery and a desire to avoid the real solution: reducing the size and cost of government. The danger here is that in emulating FDR’s Depression-era attacks on “economic royalists,” Obama will repeat FDR’s results: entrepreneurs and investors sitting on the sidelines, afraid to innovate, invest, and take risks lest their hard-earned income be confiscated. Engaging in fact-free class warfare is the last thing we need when private investment continues to lag, keeping the economy in the doldrums and too many people unemployed.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
To be completely honest, over the past year or so of debating him on this stuff, he has made *some* compelling points. Way back in the "unconstitutional" thread, I agreed that our tax rate probably does need to be adjusted up for the upper class. But he's long ago forgotten that (or more accurately, ignored it pretty much since I said it), attempts to portray me as wanting to give the upper class a "free ride", and basically uses his intellectually dishonest tactics to attempt to 'win'. I would have no problem conceding a point he's made, if he'd actually prove one. But as I said above, he doesn't debate like that. He presents opinions, calls them facts, and demands other people prove his 'facts' are wrong, even going so far as to ignore actual facts that are presented that contradict his 'facts' (opinions).
Id really like to have some valuable and meaningful discussions on politics here, I think we have some intelligent people who know a lot. But he always shows up to these discussions, plays to 'win', and turns the entire thread into 147 page argument about how he and his opinions are being oppressed. Im sure he will just call this another personal attack, but I feel its fair to say he acts like just another know-it-all college kid who thinks he has all the world's problems figured out, if only people would listen to him. He definitely thinks he was born with some innate super-human common sense that nobody else seems to have. This is the recipe for a discussion that goes nowhere.
Sorry Prox, I know you think this is just me being mean to you, but its actually me trying to get you to be self-aware of your own shortcomings. And no, Im not suggesting I have no shortcomings, I have plenty myself. I just chose to (try) and accept and address them, you do not. I use to be a lot more willing to be patient with you, try to have a meaningful debate with you, but you've proven time and again that you are just here to 'win' and boost your ego. You will always be stuck in an intellectual rut until you realize this. I say this from experience, I use to think I had all the answers when I was 19 too. Id like to say you'll grow out of it, but you seem to be extremely absorbed in your own self-opinion. The day you stop listening to opposing viewpoints is the day you stop learning.
I was very hesitant to write this reply. One reason being that I know he will simply dismiss this as a personal attack. The other reason being that I know he will use this as a spring board to try and move the discussion away from those facts he is unwilling to address, and move the discussion in a 'poor me everyone is picking on me personally because Im just so right' direction. I say I "know" this because Ive seen him do it time and time again.
Id really like to have some valuable and meaningful discussions on politics here, I think we have some intelligent people who know a lot. But he always shows up to these discussions, plays to 'win', and turns the entire thread into 147 page argument about how he and his opinions are being oppressed. Im sure he will just call this another personal attack, but I feel its fair to say he acts like just another know-it-all college kid who thinks he has all the world's problems figured out, if only people would listen to him. He definitely thinks he was born with some innate super-human common sense that nobody else seems to have. This is the recipe for a discussion that goes nowhere.
Sorry Prox, I know you think this is just me being mean to you, but its actually me trying to get you to be self-aware of your own shortcomings. And no, Im not suggesting I have no shortcomings, I have plenty myself. I just chose to (try) and accept and address them, you do not. I use to be a lot more willing to be patient with you, try to have a meaningful debate with you, but you've proven time and again that you are just here to 'win' and boost your ego. You will always be stuck in an intellectual rut until you realize this. I say this from experience, I use to think I had all the answers when I was 19 too. Id like to say you'll grow out of it, but you seem to be extremely absorbed in your own self-opinion. The day you stop listening to opposing viewpoints is the day you stop learning.
I was very hesitant to write this reply. One reason being that I know he will simply dismiss this as a personal attack. The other reason being that I know he will use this as a spring board to try and move the discussion away from those facts he is unwilling to address, and move the discussion in a 'poor me everyone is picking on me personally because Im just so right' direction. I say I "know" this because Ive seen him do it time and time again.
thevic24
5,000+ posts
my silence is deadly...
More wasteful spending facts...
1. The Missing $25 Billion
Buried in the Department of the Treasury's 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position," which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2]
The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report concludes that locating the money is "a priority."
The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.
2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million
A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused.[3]
Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inexplicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.
This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture
Federal employee credit card programs were designed to save money. Rather than weaving through a lengthy procurement process to acquire basic supplies, federal employees could purchase job-related products with credit cards that would be paid by their agency. What began as a smart way to streamline government has since been corrupted by some federal employees who have abused the public trust.
A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees' purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.
The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 that are still held by people who no longer work at the USDA.[4]
4. Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense
The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[5]
5. Medicare Overspending
Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program efficiencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recipients billions of dollars annually.
For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently compared the prices paid by Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare's equipment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.[7] (See Table 1.)
These higher prices not only cost the program more money, but also take more money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries. In 2002, senior citizens' co-payments accounted for 20 percent of the $9.4 billion in allowed claims for medical equipment and supplies.[8] Higher prices mean higher co-payments.
Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare's payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Although Medicare is supposed to pay wholesale prices for drugs, it relies on drug manufacturers to define the prices, and manufacturers have strong incentives to inflate their prices.[9]
Nor are inflated prices for drugs and supplies the most expensive examples of Medicare's inefficiencies. Basic payment errors-the results of deliberate fraud and administrative errors-cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off.[10] Finally, while Medicare contracts claims processing and administration to several private companies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million.[11]
Putting it all together, Medicare reform could save taxpayers and program beneficiaries $20 billion to $30 billion annually without reducing benefits. That would be enough to fund a $3,000 refundable health care tax credit for nearly 10 million uninsured low-income households.
1. The Missing $25 Billion
Buried in the Department of the Treasury's 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position," which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2]
The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report concludes that locating the money is "a priority."
The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.
2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million
A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused.[3]
Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inexplicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.
This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture
Federal employee credit card programs were designed to save money. Rather than weaving through a lengthy procurement process to acquire basic supplies, federal employees could purchase job-related products with credit cards that would be paid by their agency. What began as a smart way to streamline government has since been corrupted by some federal employees who have abused the public trust.
A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees' purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.
The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 that are still held by people who no longer work at the USDA.[4]
4. Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense
The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[5]
5. Medicare Overspending
Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program efficiencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recipients billions of dollars annually.
For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently compared the prices paid by Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare's equipment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.[7] (See Table 1.)
These higher prices not only cost the program more money, but also take more money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries. In 2002, senior citizens' co-payments accounted for 20 percent of the $9.4 billion in allowed claims for medical equipment and supplies.[8] Higher prices mean higher co-payments.
Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare's payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Although Medicare is supposed to pay wholesale prices for drugs, it relies on drug manufacturers to define the prices, and manufacturers have strong incentives to inflate their prices.[9]
Nor are inflated prices for drugs and supplies the most expensive examples of Medicare's inefficiencies. Basic payment errors-the results of deliberate fraud and administrative errors-cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off.[10] Finally, while Medicare contracts claims processing and administration to several private companies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million.[11]
Putting it all together, Medicare reform could save taxpayers and program beneficiaries $20 billion to $30 billion annually without reducing benefits. That would be enough to fund a $3,000 refundable health care tax credit for nearly 10 million uninsured low-income households.
thevic24
5,000+ posts
my silence is deadly...
Cont....
6. Funding Fictitious Colleges and Students
In 2002, the Department of Education received an application to certify the student loan participation of the Y'Hica Institute in London, England. After approving the certification, the department received and approved student loan applications from three Y'Hica students and disbursed $55,000.
The education Department administrators overlooked one problem: Neither the Y'Hica Institute nor the three students who received the $55,000 existed. The fictitious college and students were created (on paper) by congressional investigators to test the Department of Education's verification procedures. All of the documents were faked, right down to naming one of the fictional loan student applicants "Susan M. Collins," after the Senator requesting the investigation.[12]
Such carelessness helps to explain why federal student loan programs routinely receive poor management reviews from government auditors. At last count, $21.8 billion worth of student loans are in default, and too many cases of fraud are left undetected.[13] Tracking students across federal programs, verifying loan application data with IRS income data, and implementing controls to prevent the disbursement of loans to fraudulent applicants could save taxpayers billions of dollars.
7. Manipulating Data to Encourage Spending
The Army Corps of Engineers spends $5 billion annually constructing dams and other water projects. Yet, in a massive conflict of interest, it is also charged with evaluating the science and economics of each proposed water project. The Corps' "strategic vision" calls on managers to increase their budgets as rapidly as possible, which requires approving as many proposed projects as possible.[14] Consequently, the Corps has repeatedly been accused of deliberately manipulating its economic studies to justify unworthy projects.
Investigations by the GAO, The Washington Post, and several private organizations have found that Corps studies routinely contain dozens of basic arithmetic errors, computer errors, and ridiculous economic assumptions that artificially inflate the benefits of water projects by as much as 300 percent.[15] In one case, a study's authors inflated a project's benefits by using a 2.5 percent interest rate that dated back to 1954. In many cases in which the Corps calculated that a project would be a net benefit, arithmetic corrections revealed that the costs would be many times greater than the benefits.[16] By that point, of course, the unnecessary and wasteful project is often underway and cannot be stopped.
These errors appear to reflect more deception than sloppiness. A Washington Post investigation uncovered managers ordering analysts to "get creative," to "look for ways to get to yes as fast as possible," and "not to take no for an answer." After a public outcry, in 2002, the Corps suspended work on 150 projects to review the economics used to justify them.[17] However, given the combination of Congress's thirst for pork-barrel projects and the Corps' built-in incentives to approve projects that will increase its budget, real reforms seem unlikely.
8. State Abuse of Medicaid Funding Formulas
Significant waste, fraud, and abuse pervade Medicaid, which provides health services to 44 million low-income Americans. While states run their own Medicaid programs, the federal government reimburses an average of 57 percent of each state's costs.
This system gives states an incentive to overreport their Medicaid expenditures in order to receive larger federal reimbursements. Not surprisingly, the GAO has identified state schemes that shift money between state accounts to create an illusion of higher Medicaid expenditures. Similarly, some states have spent their federal Medicaid dollars on non-Medicaid purposes. Tight state budgets like those experienced by most states today have increased the pressure to use such deceptive tactics.
The GAO and the HHS Inspector General have also uncovered some states' practice of recovering improper payments, retaining the funds, and then spending them on unrelated programs-a practice that costs the federal government well over $2 billion per year. Congress could enact legislation to prohibit these actions more effectively.
Minor reforms enacted by HHS in 2001 and 2002 are expected to save Medicaid $70 billion over the next decade. A small sample of financing schemes uncovered in a few states suggests that, if Congress acts, even larger savings are available.[18]
9. Earned Income Tax Credit Overpayments
The earned income tax credit (EITC) provides $31 billion in refundable tax credits to 19 million low-income families. The IRS estimates that $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion of this amount-nearly one-third-is wasted in overpayments.
The complexity of the EITC law leads to many of these mistakes. Calculating the credits is more complex than calculating regular income taxes. While the credit amount depends on the number of children in a household, the tax code does not clearly define how a child qualifies for the credit. In addition, fraud and underreporting of income are common, and the IRS lacks the resources to verify the qualifications of all EITC claimants.
Efforts are being made to address this problem, but Congress can do more by requiring better verification of incomes and by clearly defining the standards by which a child qualifies for the EITC
10. Redundancy Piled on Redundancy
Government's layering of new programs on top of old ones inherently creates duplication. Having several agencies perform similar duties is wasteful and confuses program beneficiaries who must navigate each program's distinct rules and requirements.
Some overlap is inevitable because some agencies are defined by whom they serve (e.g., veterans, Native Americans, urbanites, and rural families), while others are defined by what they provide (e.g., housing, education, health care, and economic development). When these agencies' constituencies overlap, each relevant agency will often have its own program. With 342 separate economic development programs, the federal government needs to make consolidation a priority.
6. Funding Fictitious Colleges and Students
In 2002, the Department of Education received an application to certify the student loan participation of the Y'Hica Institute in London, England. After approving the certification, the department received and approved student loan applications from three Y'Hica students and disbursed $55,000.
The education Department administrators overlooked one problem: Neither the Y'Hica Institute nor the three students who received the $55,000 existed. The fictitious college and students were created (on paper) by congressional investigators to test the Department of Education's verification procedures. All of the documents were faked, right down to naming one of the fictional loan student applicants "Susan M. Collins," after the Senator requesting the investigation.[12]
Such carelessness helps to explain why federal student loan programs routinely receive poor management reviews from government auditors. At last count, $21.8 billion worth of student loans are in default, and too many cases of fraud are left undetected.[13] Tracking students across federal programs, verifying loan application data with IRS income data, and implementing controls to prevent the disbursement of loans to fraudulent applicants could save taxpayers billions of dollars.
7. Manipulating Data to Encourage Spending
The Army Corps of Engineers spends $5 billion annually constructing dams and other water projects. Yet, in a massive conflict of interest, it is also charged with evaluating the science and economics of each proposed water project. The Corps' "strategic vision" calls on managers to increase their budgets as rapidly as possible, which requires approving as many proposed projects as possible.[14] Consequently, the Corps has repeatedly been accused of deliberately manipulating its economic studies to justify unworthy projects.
Investigations by the GAO, The Washington Post, and several private organizations have found that Corps studies routinely contain dozens of basic arithmetic errors, computer errors, and ridiculous economic assumptions that artificially inflate the benefits of water projects by as much as 300 percent.[15] In one case, a study's authors inflated a project's benefits by using a 2.5 percent interest rate that dated back to 1954. In many cases in which the Corps calculated that a project would be a net benefit, arithmetic corrections revealed that the costs would be many times greater than the benefits.[16] By that point, of course, the unnecessary and wasteful project is often underway and cannot be stopped.
These errors appear to reflect more deception than sloppiness. A Washington Post investigation uncovered managers ordering analysts to "get creative," to "look for ways to get to yes as fast as possible," and "not to take no for an answer." After a public outcry, in 2002, the Corps suspended work on 150 projects to review the economics used to justify them.[17] However, given the combination of Congress's thirst for pork-barrel projects and the Corps' built-in incentives to approve projects that will increase its budget, real reforms seem unlikely.
8. State Abuse of Medicaid Funding Formulas
Significant waste, fraud, and abuse pervade Medicaid, which provides health services to 44 million low-income Americans. While states run their own Medicaid programs, the federal government reimburses an average of 57 percent of each state's costs.
This system gives states an incentive to overreport their Medicaid expenditures in order to receive larger federal reimbursements. Not surprisingly, the GAO has identified state schemes that shift money between state accounts to create an illusion of higher Medicaid expenditures. Similarly, some states have spent their federal Medicaid dollars on non-Medicaid purposes. Tight state budgets like those experienced by most states today have increased the pressure to use such deceptive tactics.
The GAO and the HHS Inspector General have also uncovered some states' practice of recovering improper payments, retaining the funds, and then spending them on unrelated programs-a practice that costs the federal government well over $2 billion per year. Congress could enact legislation to prohibit these actions more effectively.
Minor reforms enacted by HHS in 2001 and 2002 are expected to save Medicaid $70 billion over the next decade. A small sample of financing schemes uncovered in a few states suggests that, if Congress acts, even larger savings are available.[18]
9. Earned Income Tax Credit Overpayments
The earned income tax credit (EITC) provides $31 billion in refundable tax credits to 19 million low-income families. The IRS estimates that $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion of this amount-nearly one-third-is wasted in overpayments.
The complexity of the EITC law leads to many of these mistakes. Calculating the credits is more complex than calculating regular income taxes. While the credit amount depends on the number of children in a household, the tax code does not clearly define how a child qualifies for the credit. In addition, fraud and underreporting of income are common, and the IRS lacks the resources to verify the qualifications of all EITC claimants.
Efforts are being made to address this problem, but Congress can do more by requiring better verification of incomes and by clearly defining the standards by which a child qualifies for the EITC
10. Redundancy Piled on Redundancy
Government's layering of new programs on top of old ones inherently creates duplication. Having several agencies perform similar duties is wasteful and confuses program beneficiaries who must navigate each program's distinct rules and requirements.
Some overlap is inevitable because some agencies are defined by whom they serve (e.g., veterans, Native Americans, urbanites, and rural families), while others are defined by what they provide (e.g., housing, education, health care, and economic development). When these agencies' constituencies overlap, each relevant agency will often have its own program. With 342 separate economic development programs, the federal government needs to make consolidation a priority.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
To address the wasteful spending point, and to move on from the fact that prox was/is obviously wrong with his generalized opinion that it will only add up to a "few billion", he has said, as many others have, that removing the Bush tax cuts will earn $590 billion over 10 years. 10 years. What's the national debt at right now, 14 trillionish? So this big huge plan of his to save our economy and revenue/spending problem is a plan that will only reduce the national debt by a very small amount, and will take 10 years to do so.
This is another reason I say we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Wealth in this country is finite. IOW, our potential revenue for the govt is finite. But our govt spends at a rate that exceeds what it takes in. Again, the govt passed legislation to reduce their revenue (the Bush tax cuts) but did not pass legislation to reduce their spending. The ultimate example of our govt not acting fiscally responsible. Yet another point Prox 'hasnt found the time' to address. He has plenty of time to talk about his side of the argument, and no time to talk about anyone elses.
This is another reason I say we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Wealth in this country is finite. IOW, our potential revenue for the govt is finite. But our govt spends at a rate that exceeds what it takes in. Again, the govt passed legislation to reduce their revenue (the Bush tax cuts) but did not pass legislation to reduce their spending. The ultimate example of our govt not acting fiscally responsible. Yet another point Prox 'hasnt found the time' to address. He has plenty of time to talk about his side of the argument, and no time to talk about anyone elses.
thevic24
5,000+ posts
my silence is deadly...
To honestly answer the question "do we have a spending problem or a revenue problem" we need to first know what the actual bills are.
We need to know what is being spent on the bills and then spent on things that are not necessary.
Example,
If I make 1k a month, spend $500 a month on hookers, blow, beer and car audio and then have $700 a month in rent, water and lights...
well I have a SPENDING problem. If I am wasting that money, I should not have to ask(or force) my job to give me a raise(increase taxes) until I
QUIT wasting money.
If I was not wasting that money, I could be able to pay my bills.
Same exact thing with the government. It is 100% fact and obvious that they waste a LOT of money. That should be stopped before they get anymore taxes from us FIRST.
Just like in my above example. If I go to my parents for money to pay my bills, the first thing they will ask is "what are you wasting your $$$ on? Stop wasting your money and then we will help if needed"
And to be honest, if the government dose raise taxes, how much do you think will be used to really help people other than themselves?
It will be just like any other time taxes were raised, it will just go to lining their pockets and continued to be wasted on useless crap. With hardly any of
it going to help the "poor"
We need to know what is being spent on the bills and then spent on things that are not necessary.
Example,
If I make 1k a month, spend $500 a month on hookers, blow, beer and car audio and then have $700 a month in rent, water and lights...
well I have a SPENDING problem. If I am wasting that money, I should not have to ask(or force) my job to give me a raise(increase taxes) until I
QUIT wasting money.
If I was not wasting that money, I could be able to pay my bills.
Same exact thing with the government. It is 100% fact and obvious that they waste a LOT of money. That should be stopped before they get anymore taxes from us FIRST.
Just like in my above example. If I go to my parents for money to pay my bills, the first thing they will ask is "what are you wasting your $$$ on? Stop wasting your money and then we will help if needed"
And to be honest, if the government dose raise taxes, how much do you think will be used to really help people other than themselves?
It will be just like any other time taxes were raised, it will just go to lining their pockets and continued to be wasted on useless crap. With hardly any of
it going to help the "poor"
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
I honestly dont even think we even need to know what the bills are. I say this, knowing many of our bills (our govt's bills) are reckless and unjustified (as proof by mine, yours and other people's lists/links). All you have to know to realize this is a spending problem is, again, our govt passed legislation to decrease their revenue (for political reasons) but did not pass legislation to curb their spending proportionately. That is all you need to know to realize our govt is not fiscally responsible, and has a spending problem.
hispls
5,000+ posts
CarAudio.com Veteran
If I'm sick and need to go to a doctor but am a little short on cash, do I have the right to come to your house with a gun and demand money? If so why (and post your address just in case). If not, then why is this right if the "gun" I use to extort your hard earned money is the collective guns of the federal government? This is the core of my objection to collectivism, particulary in the context of American ideals. The principal of our republic is that the government ONLY has powers given to it by the people and if individually we don't have the right to do something, we can't give that right to our representatives.
That all being said, we have seen periods where Republicans control congress and the white house and they didn't abolish these programs. I'm not sure where you get this impression that "republicans" attack social security every day? Beyond rhetoric what have they actually done?
Here again your ignorance of how money works has you missing the bigger picture and being distracted by petty rhetoric. The hidden tax on EVERYONE is inflation. You could tax the "rich" 99% and tax the "poor" and "middle class" nothing or whatever you think would help. The fact is a dollar today is worth about 1/40th or less of what it was 50 years ago and about half of what it was only 2 years ago. We could just print up a few quadrillion dollars and pour them out of C130's across the country and soon everyone would be a millionaire. The problem then becomes when everyone is up to their waist in worthless paper scraps who would go to work for 50K of them a year? 50 Million? Borrowing money we don't have to pay for things we don't need ONLY benefits the usurer in the long run. Once you understand how money works and who controlls it you will see why things happen the way they do. "Follow the money" is a very very good strategy to figure out why things happen in politics. Bloated socialist entitlements, endless wars, wateful government make-work projects and the like ONLY enrich the people to whom our children are condemned to pay back for the loans, and while all the extra cash sloshing around looks nice in the very short term it isn't so nice when the overal purchasing power of that cash is worth less and less, and even worse when it all goes up to paper-money heaven and we're left with only the debt.
How about taxes on gas, booze, smokes, etc. Democrats seem to champion these causes. Do you think those taxes disproportionately impact those who can afford them least? Just for the sake of arguement we could sit here all day and list things "the democrats" have done to screw the average person.
Really at the end of the day they are the same ****, just different piles and there is a distinct continuity of agenda going on. You're like a 8 year old watching pro wrestling really believing that those guys are the worst of enemys. When you grow up a little and start REALLY watching how the show works you'll realize that they are all buddy buddy, belong to the same little clubs, send their kids to the same elite private schools, etc. and that while you're being entertained and getting emotionally involved in the pagentry, the people who own the league are getting enormously rich.
Have you ever checked into who bankrolls the democrat's campaigns? Here's a hint, you can't run a campaign for a national office without a shitload of money. The same groups bankroll both sides.
Wow that's a triumph. Did you know the big bad evil insurance companies wrote that bill? If it were really going to hurt them do you think they would have pushed it? Or are the insurance companies (and the banks who own them) really that big hearted?
How about de-regulating things, limiting assinine lawsuits, and generally government keeping their hands off to bring the collective cost for everyone down? How about changing our entire western health paradigm which consists of basically eating "food" that is basically devoid of nutrition and often toxic, getting no excercise, then drugging people to overcome symptoms when they become sick, then applying more drugs to counteract the effects of the last drug. When that isn't good enough we can just make up new illnesses and new drugs. Big pharma will get paid at the expense of the masses and the government regulators and insurance giants will collect quite a bit as the middle-men. With healthcare we have much deeper fundamental issues than can be fixed by redistributing more wealth. Our entire medical system is basically just dope pushers in suits and lab coats. Throwing more government at it will not fundamentally change anything except further enrich big pharma, the insurance companies, and again those who reap the interest on even more debt from our children.
We have this in Massachusetts and it is particularly onerous. The bottom line is that EVERYONE is forced to buy insurance. This is tyrrany in its most blatant form, the right to freely contract used to be a very basic right. Being forced to buy a service from an oligarcy at gunpoint is the antithesis of freedom. Why not just make a law requiring everybody to buy a car from Ford or GM? It would help the economy right? It would support America right? If people can't afford it then there will be a national pool to pay theirs for them!
Also see my other point about who REALLY benefits. We borrow more money we don't have to pay for more pork, waste, and inefficiency and the groups who we borrow our money from are the ultimate winners, and the people whose money is being de-valued and our children who are going to be on the hook for more debt are being harmed.
OK, we owe 14 trillion USD, and there is about 9.5 trillion in existance. How are we going to pay back 14 trillion when only 9.5 exist? (remember the analogy of the chicken). We owe somebody 4 eggs for the 3 we borrowed and he is the only one who has chickens.
How are the democrats going to pay back a debt larger than all the dollars in existance?
Again, more meaningless rhetoric. Until you educate yourself about how money works we cannot have a real discussion about this topic.
Again, you don't understand the first thing about economics so you can boil this down to the absurd "republicans are against jobs". Are you ******* kidding me? Do you really believe this?
Well the last "stimulus" package was a real success huh? Toss a few trillion dollars at foreign banks to cover their bad bets at the casino and put up a few road signs. Have you noticed that the banks haven't really increased lending with all the cash they got from that one? They are making a better return investing in derrivatives with the knowledge that they can always get another handout if they get unlucky. How does rewarding corporate greed and irrisponsibility jive with your "common man" arguement?
We were promised that last package was going to fix things and how did that work out? We are even deeper in debt and have about 50% real inflation.
If you put the government in charge of the sahara desert they would run it out of sand in 3 or 4 years. I'm sure we'll get some lovely new beaurocracy and some crony coroporations and unions will make out OK, but at the end of the day, the usurers who loan us the money to finance this next barrel of pork are the only winners.
Have you read the new "jobs" bill? Do you really believe it will fix things?
Again, as long as we have the current money/banking system the rest is all bullshit, rhetoric, and window dressing. The "middle class" or let's call them the producers for the sake of arguement regardless of their tax burden can never get ahead due to the destruction of their savings by inflation. Educate yourself about how money works, then follow it to find some answers assuming you even care.
That being said, yes I believe collectivism is immoral (do I have the right to hold you up at gunpoint if I'm hungry or need to pay my health insurance bill?)
When you realize that it is a private, for-profit, banking cartel that is actually responsible for ALL economic boom and bust cycles your left vs. right pro-wrestling show will lose a lot of it's appeal for you.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
