DNC Thread

[ExiledInIllinois]

Oh OK. I see what you're getting at. Should have phrased it better tho

 

But trust me, my Dad (the Reagan Democrat), my older brother (the Christian Conservative), and I (the Libertarian/Black Sheep) have all tried to get her involved. But she cares more about her 3 guys than the other 300 million people in the US

 

 

I am cool with it and understand... She should still vote, as should anyone of proper voting age! She obviously loves your father and doesn't want to get him all worked up is also a guess?

[/dev/null]

I am cool with it and understand... She should still vote, as should anyone of proper voting age! She obviously loves your father and doesn't want to get him all worked up is also a guess?

 

Like I said, we have all tried to get her to vote. But she won't. I'm pretty sure she is where I get my cynicism from

 

We've all tried to get her to vote. But her 3 guys mean the world to her more than the rest of the world

[Nanker]

After all is said and done, and after watching it again, with due credit given to the spin people, I honestly don't think Obama's speech was Obama-e enough. It probably doesn't matter, but it certainly wasn't as good as some of the others in the past, in terms of "hitting the high note". I'm not saying it wasn't good, I am saying it wasn't anywhere near what I expected. I have seen him do 4-5 other ones that were better, IMO, and this is the big one.

 

I wonder why? Perhaps too many chefs in the kitchen? It just seemed way to dogmatic and sounded more like Hillary than Obama. Perhaps I am immune? I don't know if this was intentional, maybe it was. But, I would think he would want to go with what got him there, and even exceed that. Along the lines of "why does it matter if people say his speeches lack substance, aren't they the thing that got him here"?

 

Normally when he's on, its like the other candidates don't even exist(of course the next day is a different story). I have no idea why they got away from that, and kept bringing up McCain. I would think the last thing he would want to do was put a straw McCain on the stage with him.

 

Oh, and there's no doubt that McCain has made his VP choice. His people pulled this lame "we were gonna release it tonight but thought better of it to let Obama have his night" higher standards BS. As if they expect Obama to let McCain have his, or the rest of to not see how phony they are being. This was a political mistake in my opinion, regardless of being the right thing to do in terms normal life. They should have announced the VP right after the speech and stole the news cycle or done/said nothing at all. But, instead they come off as phony or stupid, or both, take your pick. The great weakness of "Rapid Response"....

 

My guess as to why his speech fell flat is because it wasn't like a convention nomination acceptance speech, but in their efforts to super-aggrandize the moment it became more like a civil rights rally and then Obama went negative. He shared little of his vision (I suppose he has one) of how great this country and its people are. The more the Dems continue the mantra of doom and gloom, America is a bad place, Americans are stupid, ignorant, selfish, lazy and uncaring the more people who don't buy into that "we're all a victim" mentality get turned off. You don't want a third Bush Presidency? Guess what? Over half of America doesn't want a second Carter Presidency either.

[OCinBuffalo]

My guess as to why his speech fell flat is because it wasn't like a convention nomination acceptance speech, but in their efforts to super-aggrandize the moment it became more like a civil rights rally and then Obama went negative. He shared little of his vision (I suppose he has one) of how great this country and its people are. The more the Dems continue the mantra of doom and gloom, America is a bad place, Americans are stupid, ignorant, selfish, lazy and uncaring the more people who don't buy into that "we're all a victim" mentality get turned off. You don't want a third Bush Presidency? Guess what? Over half of America doesn't want a second Carter Presidency either.

You're right. The fact is that the challenge for progressives is to talk about progress without pissing people off. If I am trying to do a good job, create jobs at my company, pay good wages, work 50 hours a week, no vacation, etc., the last thing I want to hear is that I'm a fat cat, taking advantage of the poor, or that the only reason I'm where I am is because something was handed to me or that I'm not trying hard enough. = Jimmy Carter.

 

The fact is that they need to define progress truthfully, for the whole country. They have yet to do that. Instead, they define progress only for their special interest groups which only serves to divide, not unify the country. If they put together a plan that was fair, had clear, reachable goals, and didn't rely on demonizing a large segment of the population, especially the part that creates jobs, innovates, and takes ALL the risk, they might actually get somewhere with this stuff. If they did that, and were successful with it, people might be more inclined to believe them.

 

As it stands, now, we haven't this kind of nonsense since Jimmy Carter, and if they continue it, they will lose once again, and then start blaming everyone but themselves. We will go from BushBad to McCainBad, and still will not have fixed SS, Medicare, Mediacaid --> which make up 75% of the federal budget.

[Andrew in CA]

As it stands, now, we haven't this kind of nonsense since Jimmy Carter, and if they continue it, they will lose once again, and then start blaming everyone but themselves. We will go from BushBad to McCainBad, and still will not have fixed SS, Medicare, Mediacaid --> which make up 75% of the federal budget.

Link on this? According to wikipedia, these three make up 42% of the budget- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_(United_States)

[OCinBuffalo]

Link on this? According to wikipedia, these three make up 42% of the budget- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_(United_States)

It depends on how you define it. Is it: the funds themselves only specific to the act of recognition of revenue? = 42% Or is it: All entitlement programs and the cost of their administration? = 75%. Just like "it depends on the definition of the word 'is'". Also, it depends on whether you are fond of financial accounting or cost accounting. Hint: financial allows you to swag everything, which is why you won't see a cost accountant within 50 miles of DC unless s/he is working for Lockheed Martin or some other corporate entity that lives off the government. Activity Based Costing(part of what I do) is so far removed from anything that goes down in DC, it's like pork chops in Mecca. Whenever I have been involved in meeting with any part of the government, they are shocked and amazed, or totally baffled, by ABC as a concept, never mind it's practical application.

 

Look at the GAO site. See the "all other entities"? And "Other HHS"(complete crap that number is definitely higher)? How about the fine print at the bottom? "Medicare Cost is net of related premium revenue". Now go and read here: GAAP Accounting principles

 

Back to the GAO. See how they are amortizing the cost = pretending like only some of it happens now and the rest later, over time, when in fact all of the cost is happening NOW? So in this fanciful display, the cost of gaining revenues(um, the entire REAL administrative costs that support these programs-->it's not like they have to pay sales guys or sell anything, hence no real cost bringing in revenue, hence no reason in hell for this treatment approach) isn't really happening now, it's happening later. Which is like saying that we aren't really paying the utility costs, paychecks, and benefits of the 10s of thousands of employees of these over-bloated systems now, we are paying them later. No, we are paying them now.

 

They are breaking with GAAP wrt to "how to run and insurance system properly", because they aren't doing what is stated in the link in terms of revenue recognition, but THEY ARE doing what is stated in terms of cost, even though the argument for handling cost in this manner doesn't apply here. Since there is no risk for these programs(until we come to our senses and either get rid of them, or fix them permanently=better choice) and they amortize the cost instead of looking at it correctly = cost of operations, the cost appears to be less than it is.

 

So, by playing games with accounting they get to post that the cost of entitlements is only 42%, when, in terms of operations, it's actually around 75%.

 

The fact is that you can play games with accounting all day in general, and doubly so if you are the Federal Government. Who's going to catch you? Congress? Most of those tards are how we got here in the first place, Republican and Democrat. To be fair: under Clinton, Bill, we had 30,000 less FDA employees than we do now. What, was there some kind of massive food problem I wasn't aware of? In fact we have more government employees now than we ever have, yet we couldn't get Katrina right? Medicare is the mother of all F-ups as evidenced by their failure regulate, prevent fraud, and pay benefits properly, yet they have more employees than 98% of the companies in this country, most of whom have a bigger job. They can't get anything right, and more money for more employees only means more "managers" to "supervise" them, not more results.

 

In all cases, your wiki link is misleading at best, scurrilous at worst.

 

My question for you is: why in the hell is any entitlement program larger than Education spending? Science/Grant spending? Business/R&D spending? Even if you want to play accounting games, why in the hell are we spending 42% on entitlements?

[Andrew in CA]

Ooh boy, a lot to handle, even a few days later. Thanks for the info- I've only just scanned it, but downloaded the citizens guide and will peruse it more thoroughly when I have some time. Economics and accounting are not my strong points, but I'm trying to get better. I realized wikipedia wasn't the best source, but I scoped it out and it conflicted with your statement, so I wanted to see more sources. Thanks for the info.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

It depends on how you define it. Is it: the funds themselves only specific to the act of recognition of revenue? = 42% Or is it: All entitlement programs and the cost of their administration? = 75%. Just like "it depends on the definition of the word 'is'". Also, it depends on whether you are fond of financial accounting or cost accounting. Hint: financial allows you to swag everything, which is why you won't see a cost accountant within 50 miles of DC unless s/he is working for Lockheed Martin or some other corporate entity that lives off the government. Activity Based Costing(part of what I do) is so far removed from anything that goes down in DC, it's like pork chops in Mecca. Whenever I have been involved in meeting with any part of the government, they are shocked and amazed, or totally baffled, by ABC as a concept, never mind it's practical application.

 

Look at the GAO site. See the "all other entities"? And "Other HHS"(complete crap that number is definitely higher)? How about the fine print at the bottom? "Medicare Cost is net of related premium revenue". Now go and read here: GAAP Accounting principles

 

Back to the GAO. See how they are amortizing the cost = pretending like only some of it happens now and the rest later, over time, when in fact all of the cost is happening NOW? So in this fanciful display, the cost of gaining revenues(um, the entire REAL administrative costs that support these programs-->it's not like they have to pay sales guys or sell anything, hence no real cost bringing in revenue, hence no reason in hell for this treatment approach) isn't really happening now, it's happening later. Which is like saying that we aren't really paying the utility costs, paychecks, and benefits of the 10s of thousands of employees of these over-bloated systems now, we are paying them later. No, we are paying them now.

 

They are breaking with GAAP wrt to "how to run and insurance system properly", because they aren't doing what is stated in the link in terms of revenue recognition, but THEY ARE doing what is stated in terms of cost, even though the argument for handling cost in this manner doesn't apply here. Since there is no risk for these programs(until we come to our senses and either get rid of them, or fix them permanently=better choice) and they amortize the cost instead of looking at it correctly = cost of operations, the cost appears to be less than it is.

 

So, by playing games with accounting they get to post that the cost of entitlements is only 42%, when, in terms of operations, it's actually around 75%.

 

The fact is that you can play games with accounting all day in general, and doubly so if you are the Federal Government. Who's going to catch you? Congress? Most of those tards are how we got here in the first place, Republican and Democrat. To be fair: under Clinton, Bill, we had 30,000 less FDA employees than we do now. What, was there some kind of massive food problem I wasn't aware of? In fact we have more government employees now than we ever have, yet we couldn't get Katrina right? Medicare is the mother of all F-ups as evidenced by their failure regulate, prevent fraud, and pay benefits properly, yet they have more employees than 98% of the companies in this country, most of whom have a bigger job. They can't get anything right, and more money for more employees only means more "managers" to "supervise" them, not more results.

 

In all cases, your wiki link is misleading at best, scurrilous at worst.

 

My question for you is: why in the hell is any entitlement program larger than Education spending? Science/Grant spending? Business/R&D spending? Even if you want to play accounting games, why in the hell are we spending 42% on entitlements?

 

You know most of the crap you just spewed is off target and I understand the different types of accounting.

 

First off SS is or should be considered off budget, is self funded and its admin costs are low and the rest are funded as of right now! The Pentagon and defense budget currently make up over 50% of the budget, but the war has been taken some if off budget, which even more full of crap.

 

Medicare is expensive and makes up a significant portion of the budget in today's dollars, cost or financial, but from what I remember transportation and commerce makes up about 25%, so your number can't be right.

 

Social entitlement programs including education, food stamps and wic and welfare programs most of which are discretionary, "needing reauthorization every year" make up on average 20 percent.

 

Part of the reason there is financial accounting and maybe you are right, is should all be done by cost accounting methods, but is justified because the money remains in the treasury until it is actually spent. That often takes a few years and sometimes it is not all spent, returned to the treasury, because it was authorized, but not appropriated, it was appropriated but the funds were not released because it was not authorized. It was cut or reduced in a subsequent bill and used as an offset for something else.

 

So you may know something about an individual program or department and how it works and is accounted for, but it is not apparent you understand how Congress puts together it spending bills and why the financial accounting is used. I do agree that it opens up the potential for a lot of manipulation and abuse by using financial accounting, but with the numbers changing mid-game often times, it is almost impossible to keep track of until the money is actually spent.

 

Your comment about Bureaucracy increasing under Bush is correct. Clinton with rival Whip Tom Delay, whose quote generated my login name, cut well over 200,000 bureaucrats. Now these bureaucracies are above the Bush I levels. So while Bush has been cutting taxes, he has been increasing the bureaucracy, the deficit and the debt, mostly under a Republican Congress. Borrow, Spend, Make War and mortgage our future is what the Republican Mantra should be. Heck even Palin and her pork projects for Wasilla contributed $12 million to the debt.