Democracy - We had a good run

[Guy Kilmore]

Its not applicable to all legislation. Just entitlements. The difference is that entitlements are self-escalating absent legislative cost control measures that this country has been unable to adhere to historically.

Huh? I am going to have to call shennanigans, you are interjecting your own value judgement on the worth of entitlements to have this arguement make any sense. It would be like someone heavily liberal saying the same inregards to military spending.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Tormund,

Would you agree that the problem with Federal systems is that unless power at the national level is very clearly deliniated the "national" government tends to accret power to itself? Heck that even happens when power is clearly deliniated.

I would agree entirely. I would go farther and say that it is inevitable that the national government will eventually gather all authority to itself. The law could be "the national government doesn't get to do anything, anywhere, ever". But unfortunately the national government has to be the one to decide what "anything", "anywhere", and "ever", mean. And in a CATASTROPHIC EMERGENCY in which our ENTIRE EXISTENCE is threatened by GREAT EV0L!!!11!! They will always mean whatever they want it to mean. The only thing to do is hit the reset button every once in a while. Hence the original topic of this thread before it was hijacked by you healthcare peoples who have to turn every discussion into bloody healthcare.

[Kalbear]

One issue is the fetal heart moniter used by hospitals. I was told the fetal heart moniter the hospital insists upon using restricts the freedom of movement of the laboring woman, this was in 2003 so if this has changed or if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.

You're wrong. Even back then you were wrong, though that's partially due to new stuff. Carrie had a fetal heart monitor and all it was was an elastic strap wrapped around her belly. She could move around freely. There were some wires eventually, but nothing particularly restrictive - and before things got real it was wireless.

[BloodRider]

ljkeane,

One issue is the fetal heart moniter used by hospitals. I was told the fetal heart moniter the hospital insists upon using restricts the freedom of movement of the laboring woman, this was in 2003 so if this has changed or if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me. This would have been a big deal during my daughter's delivery. Laura had been on her back through most of the labor. My daughter had crowned and wasn't progressing. The midwife had her shift to her hands and knees. Two pushes later our daughter was born.

I was told that in a hosptial the normal thing to do would have been to push the baby back into the uterus and do a c-section if the birth wasn't progressing because they do not want to remove the fetal heart moniter due to liability issues. Again, this could be incorrect and was back in 2003, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I get this. But I think it is erroneous to think that this is a problem of Technology. Sounds to me like the way hospitals practice medicine is messed up, and far too constricted. Technology is but a tool. Don't yell at the hammer because it won't unscrew your light bulb.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Huh? I am going to have to call shennanigans, you are interjecting your own value judgement on the worth of entitlements to have this arguement make any sense. It would be like someone heavily liberal saying the same inregards to military spending.

The subjective "worth" of entitlements has nothing to do with it. It's a legislative fact that entitlement programs contain statutory eligibility criteria and benefits that are self-escalating. The legal obligation to make those payments happens independent of any congressional action, which is why those obligations are always considered "liabilities" of the government when looking into the future. As people age, they qualify automatically for Social Security and Medicare. If they drop below a certain income threshold, they qualify automatically for Medicaid. This is part of what creates what is sometimes referred to as the entitlement time-bomb as the population ages. Here, see what the CBO says about that time-bomb.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7851/03-08-Long-Term%20Spending.pdf

As a matter of law (not values), that is not true for the military. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly provides that no military appropriation may be for more than two years. There is no legal requirement for a certain level of military spending, and that's why its not considered part of the long-term liabilities of the federal government.

Of course, it is theoretically possible for Congress to pass laws each year cutting entitlement spending, or enacting a mechanism that automatically limits such entitlement spending. That's what happened both with the SGR cuts and the proposal in this bill. But that's why I discussed such benefit-cutting mechanisms and said that the country "has been able unable to adhere to [them] historically," and provided support for that upthread by discussing how Congress keeps stepping in each year and waiving those supposedly "automatic" cuts. So the result is self-escalating programs whose growth has been almost impossible to stop. And as I've said, I find it particularly ironic that the people who drafted this bill and promise us the cuts will stick "this time", are the very same people who recently voted to waive the SGR cuts yet again.

Heck, don't believe me. Heritage has put together a bunch of statements from the President in which he acknowledges that something has to be done about entitlement spending, or we're all fucked.

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/sr0043.cfm

But put aside all the arguments and rhetoric, and just look at what has actually happened budget-wsie in the past. Military spending as a percentage of GDP has been all over the map, going up in response to some events, and down in response to others. As a matter of law, it is not self-escalating. With the exception of 1948, military spending as a percentage of GDP was never lower than 4.6% until 1993, and dropped to under 4% for much of the next decade. You can see various spikes, like for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and then it drops. It actually got down to 3.0 for a time until 9/11. But the point is there is no case to be made that, historically, military spending as a percentage of GDP has been increasing inexorably.

That obviously cannot be said for entitlement spending. SS, Medicare, and Medicaid spending went from being 2.5% of the GDP in 1962 to 7.9% in 2002. Defense spending went from 9.6% to 3.0%. Based on current legal obligations under SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, it's going to get a whole lot worse due purely to demographics.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/35xx/doc3521/125RevisedJuly3.pdf

You could eliminate the defense budget completely, and we'd still be running a huge annual deficit. Do you recall the latest push for a freeze on spending? The President called for a freeze on discretionary domestic spending, albeit using a basline year that saw a massive increase in discretionary spending. And John Boehner said he supported a freeze on military spending as well. But notice that nobody talked about a freeze on entitlement spending.

This has nothing to do with how a particular person may value subjectively defense spending versus entitlement spending. It's just a budgetary fact.

[dolorouseddwasright]

Kilroy was here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DEWR,

Kilroy was here.

I see no evidence of his presence other than your representation.

[Guy Kilmore]

Stuff

While that was imformative and we can argue that the mechanisms and the designs of the laws are at fault, it has really very little to do with the statement that it appears you were making the arguement it is pointless to legislate something because the next congressional body can undo that said legislation. When Triskele asked you about that statement you replied it was only true of entitelment programs. To which, I say is logical shennanigana. There is nothing preventing a legislative body from over turning anything you stated above. And it can be applied to any legislative matters.

Now if you are making an arguement that the way the current legislation decides its funding and that funding mechanism is an issue, that istotally different statement than a statement that ineffect reads that any legislation that is enact is useless to curtail funding because it can be overturned by the next Congressional section.

[Swordfish]

While that was imformative and we can argue that the mechanisms and the designs of the laws are at fault, it has really very little to do with the statement that it appears you were making the arguement it is pointless to legislate something because the next congressional body can undo that said legislation. When Triskele asked you about that statement you replied it was only true of entitelment programs. To which, I say is logical shennanigana. There is nothing preventing a legislative body from over turning anything you stated above. And it can be applied to any legislative matters.

Now if you are making an arguement that the way the current legislation decides its funding and that funding mechanism is an issue, that istotally different statement than a statement that ineffect reads that any legislation that is enact is useless to curtail funding because it can be overturned by the next Congressional section.

Is there some history of what you are describing happening to non entitlements?

I think the context of the statement is pretty clear if you take into consideration what has happened in this exact situation wit SS and medicare, which makes the hair splitting you are doing sound like a pretty pedantic argument.

[Guy Kilmore]

Is there some history of what you are describing happening to non entitlements?

I think the context of the statement is pretty clear if you take into consideration what has happened in this exact situation wit SS and medicare, which makes the hair splitting you are doing sound like a pretty pedantic argument.

Yes. If you are a pro-peace liberal the continue increase and wastes in Military (the infamous expensive hammer, illegal wars, etc., etc.) spending would raise the same hackles. I would take the same issue with them if they made the statement that if legislation was passed in an effort to curtail this issue, it doesn't matter because this legislation could be over turned.

I disagree that this is pedantic as there are potentially different arguements that can be made if our language is not precise. If you have issue with how existing laws on the books and their funding mechanism then it becomes a discussion of what legislation is needed to fix this and/or a discussion on why that perception is correct or incorrect. If you are arguing that it is pointless to pass legislation on this issue because a hypothical future congress will overturn that legislation then you are having a discussion about the basic way our representative democracy works.

ETA: If we are talking about car repair are we arguing about methods of repairing said car and/or about how it was manufactured, or are we arguing that it is pointless to repair/maintain a car because it will break again.

[Swordfish]

Yes. If you are a pro-peace liberal the continue increase and wastes in Military (the infamous expensive hammer, illegal wars, etc., etc.) spending would raise the same hackles. I would take the same issue with them if they made the statement that if legislation was passed in an effort to curtail this issue, it doesn't matter because this legislation could be over turned.

If there was a history of that happening, then you would have a valid point.

Again, context matters.

I disagree that this is pedantic as there are potentially different arguements that can be made if our language is not precise. If you have issue with how existing laws on the books and their funding mechanism then it becomes a discussion of what legislation is needed to fix this and/or a discussion on why that perception is correct or incorrect. If you are arguing that it is pointless to pass legislation on this issue because a hypothical future congress will overturn that legislation then you are having a discussion about the basic way our representative democracy works.

the argument was that, in this specific case, there is no reason to believe that the commission will actually provide the cost control service being put forth, and that argument was backed up with existing examples of similar processes that are failing.

It was in no way shape or form a discussion about the overall way in which our democracy performs, except in reference to entitlement spending.

For your point to be valid, you have to ignore the entire context of the discussion.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

While that was imformative and we can argue that the mechanisms and the designs of the laws are at fault, it has really very little to do with the statement that it appears you were making the arguement it is pointless to legislate something because the next congressional body can undo that said legislation.

There is a difference between the statement you claim I "appeared" to be making, and the one I actually made. Here's what I actually said at the outset:

Its not applicable to all legislation. Just entitlements. The difference is that entitlements are self-escalating absent legislative cost control measures that this country has been unable to adhere to historically.

You haven't disputed factually either of the two factors I identified that make entitlements different from both defense spending and discretionary domestic spending. Instead, you acknowledge that its "informative", but then just sweep them under the rug without even trying to explain why they aren't significant.

When Triskele asked you about that statement you replied it was only true of entitelment programs. To which, I say is logical shennanigana. There is nothing preventing a legislative body from over turning anything you stated above. And it can be applied to any legislative matters.

Except other "legislative matters" are not self-escalating, nor do they have a history of the government being unable/unwilling to cut them. Facts are facts -- I pointed out how defense spending has dropped as a percentage of GDP, demonstrating that there are no systemic political factors pushing it ever higher. And I pointed out how entitlements as a percentage of GDP have been rising steadily for more than 4 decades. That's not opinion -- that's how it has actually been occuring for decades, despite decades-long promises from members of both parties that we need to get entitlements under control.

Now if you are making an arguement that the way the current legislation decides its funding and that funding mechanism is an issue....

No, the funding has nothing to do with it. It is the money going out, the legal entitlements to benefits, that is the problem. Your attempt to characterize this as just a pro-defense bias on my part is ridiculous. I freely acknowledge that this problem does not exist, at least to this extent, with non-defense related discretionary domestic spending. It is the nature of the self-escalating individual entitlement that has been the problem.

[Guy Kilmore]

If there was a history of that happening, then you would have a valid point.

Again, context matters.

Are you stating that there are pro-peace liberals who feel that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal out there who support the wars those aforementioned wars? Are you stating that they are pro the expenditures for those wars?

I am stating that when a timetable was placed for the withdrawl of troups for Iraq and they state that this timetable was pointless because the next congressional session could over turn it. If they then stated that this situation only applies in the context of military spending, I would call shennanigans.

the argument was that, in this specific case, there is no reason to believe that the commission will actually provide the cost control service being put forth, and that argument was backed up with existing examples of similar processes that are failing.

It was in no way shape or form a discussion about the overall way in which our democracy performs, except in reference to entitlement spending.

For your point to be valid, you have to ignore the entire context of the discussion.

So are you contending that FLoW did not answer Triskele's question posted earlier? He asked a fairly specific question and FLoW answered it by stating that his arguement only applies to entitlement legislation because of the funding mechanisms. Which lends to the implicit answer that legislation cannot regulate entitlement spending, but can regulate other spending. I state that this is logical shennanigans.

[Shryke]

The problem with SS isn't that it's an entitlement, it's that instead of raising taxes to pay for shit, the US government has been raiding the SS "trust fund" as it were.

[Guy Kilmore]

Stuff

Do you believe that legislation can be crafted to deal with the issues that you see with funding for entitlements? Do you feel it is worthwhile to craft such legislation?

[Swordfish]

Are you stating that there are pro-peace liberals who feel that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal out there who support the wars those aforementioned wars? Are you stating that they are pro the expenditures for those wars?

I am stating that when a timetable was placed for the withdrawl of troups for Iraq and they state that this timetable was pointless because the next congressional session could over turn it. If they then stated that this situation only applies in the context of military spending, I would call shennanigans.

So are you contending that FLoW did not answer Triskele's question posted earlier? He asked a fairly specific question and FLoW answered it by stating that his arguement only applies to entitlement legislation because of the funding mechanisms. Which lends to the implicit answer that legislation cannot regulate entitlement spending, but can regulate other spending. I state that this is logical shennanigans.

There is no implicit answer there. you are fishing.

he answered the question explicitly, not implicitly.

if there is some specific part of his answer that you have issue with, then by all means, address it.

other than that, i don't know what to tell you.

[Guy Kilmore]

There is no implicit answer there. you are fishing.

he answered the question explicitly, not implicitly.

if there is some specific part of his answer that you have issue with, then by all means, address it.

other than that, i don't know what to tell you.

Great! I was in the process of doing that. I am glad that you are supportive of me seeking clarification.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Do you believe that legislation can be crafted to deal with the issues that you see with funding for entitlements? Do you feel it is worthwhile to craft such legislation?

Not really, but I suppose there is a caveat. But first, the problem really is a political one. Once you tell a large enough group of voters that they are entitled to income or health care from the government, it is almost impossible politically to take that back. The real kicker with entitlements is that you are legally entitled to benefits under law if you meet the legislative qualifications, either age, income, or both. What that means is that if the number of people who become entitled to such benefits increase, the cost of the program will increase even more than the cost of living. So the only way to keep increases in the program's cost at or below the rate of inflation is to reduce the benefits provided to each individual, and politically, we haven't shown the will to do that.

The caveat would be that you might reach a different conclusion if the government demonstrated, over a significant period of time, the willingness to make the cuts that it so far has been unable to make. But as I pointed out upthread, the very people who ask us to trust them to make the cuts in the future just voted to eliminate the scheduled cuts for this year. Oh, and I suppose another caveat would be a constitutional amendment of some kind.

I am stating that when a timetable was placed for the withdrawl of troups for Iraq and they state that this timetable was pointless because the next congressional session could over turn it.

To some extent, that's true. But the political pressures are entirely different. If voters are told that the troops are going to be home after a certain date, they are likely to be pissed if that promise isn't kept. On the other hand, in the case of entitlement spending, pissed-off recipients are going to be pushing hard to waive/amend the supposedly automatic deduction.

Again, I don't know how you can ignore the reality that defense spending historically has shown considerable response to political pressures, but that entitlements seem almost completely immune.

[Guy Kilmore]

Not really, but I suppose there is a caveat. But first, the problem really is a political one. Once you tell a large enough group of voters that they are entitled to income or health care from the government, it is almost impossible politically to take that back. The real kicker with entitlements is that you are legally entitled to benefits under law if you meet the legislative qualifications, either age, income, or both. What that means is that if the number of people who become entitled to such benefits increase, the cost of the program will increase even more than the cost of living. So the only way to keep increases in the program's cost at or below the rate of inflation is to reduce the benefits provided to each individual, and politically, we haven't shown the will to do that.

So the barebones answer to my questions are "yes" and "yes". Thank you, I apologize for not asking this clearly earlier. (I should remember that in the future questions are better for clarification over that of statements.)

Why do you think that we don't have the will to do this on the federal level, but it can be done on the state level? Many states have cut their income/healthcare options from their budget, look at Minnesota's recent budgetary and programming adjustments as an example.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So the barebones answer to my question is "yes" and "yes". Thank you.

I guess that depends on whether you consider a constitutional amendment to be "legislation".

Why do you think that we don't have the will to do this on the federal level, but it can be done on the state level? Many states have cut their income/healthcare options from their budget, look at Minnesota's recent budgetary and programming adjustments as an example.

Because Minnesota has a constitutional amendment that prohibits deficit spending. So they can choose either to cut benefits, and piss off the people who receive those benefits, or increase taxes, and piss off everyone else.