Analytics

Friday, May 26, 2017

Post #3230 M

Quote of the Day

I got a fortune cookie that said, "To remember is to understand." 
I have never forgotten it. 
A good judge remembers what it was like to be a lawyer. 
A good editor remembers being a writer. 
A good parent remembers what it was like to be a child.
Anna Quindlen  

Tweet of the Day



















The Human Cost of Welfare




Choose Life: The Violent Reality of Killing Preborn Babies




Facebook Corner


(RNC Clip). (I could not embed the video, but basically Mulhavey is talking about the political talk about budget cuts and mandatory spending. where budget cuts amount to reductions in planned increases. A young relative pooh-poohs the comparison of federal and household budgets, e.g., unlike the government, a household can't monetize the debt. This is my response.)

Some of the things you're saying are true (but irrelevant), but what is being said in the video is also true. By the way, the guy in the clip is discussing Medicaid, not Medicare. Medicaid does not involve the pretense of a lock box (like Medicare and social security) but is more of an ongoing expenditure with costs split with the state (typically the highest line cost in a state budget). The spending for senior entitlements (plus disability payments) is from ongoing FICA revenues plus trust withdrawals (if applicable). (Surplus FICA goes into the trust.). Medicaid is funded through general revenue.

 What Mulvaney is talking about is MANDATORY SPENDING, the 70+% of the government's $4+T budget, and it operates as discussed. The funding is pre-established with planned increases for projected beneficiaries and for relevant COLAs; that is part of what the SSA actuaries look at.

 The government typically plans in 10 year budgets. The government can, of course, modify mandatory spending, but it's a difficult political process. As I mentioned, there are PLANNED INCREASES that aren't subject to the annual budget battle, accounting for the remaining 30-% in spending, including defense and social welfare programs.

 When the political whores (especially Democrats) talk cuts in spending, they are not speaking of budgets, like in a household. Your household budget does NOT automatically increase for inflation, etc: it's basically some fixed amount for your expenditures. If you lose your job, you will cut your budget to accommodate your spending; you can't arbitrarily decide your budget line items will grow 4% every year. you don't know your income will grow enough to accommodate those planned increases. If those budget items do increase, you have to find the money from other items in your budget or fund them from your savings. THAT is what Mulhavey is talking about.

 So, in the Alice in Wonderland world of Washington, when they talk about "cuts", they aren't talking about retiree quotas or reducing retiree benefits. What they are talking about is reducing PLANNED INCREASES. Is it a "cut"? ONLY IN THE SENSE OF CUTTING AN INCREASE. Using the real world, maybe you were hoping for a 6% raise. You get a 4% raise. But what you would call a pay cut is a reduction in your current salary, not your hoped-for salary with a 6% increase. With a 4% increase, your salary is NOT being cut.

(National Review). For a second time, the courts are in the wrong. [Trump's immigration ban.] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447999/donald-trump-muslim-ban-struck-down?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=williamson&utm_content=pre-crime
The Constitution does NOT deny the unalienable right to migrate, you BIg Government whores!

Political Cartoon


Courtesy of Steve Breen via Townhall


Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists


Neil Diamond, "Thank the Lord For the Nighttime"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,