I didn't bother reading any further down the list, since I'm assuming they're all either anecdotal, or also prove my point.

Posted by antonsirius on 9/19/2011 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/19/2011 11:43:00 AM (view original):
The US Government is Suing 12 Banks for Mortgage Fraud totaling $200 billion.  How is this not 'proof' and how is this not a 'huge' amount when libs ***** about oil companies making $15 billion or CEOs making $30 million and claiming those are huge amounts of money?

I can find a similar article in ANY news source you'd prefer just so my sources pass your 'good source' standards.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/foreclosure/chi-report-us-to-sue-12-large-banks-over-mortgage-portfolios-20110901,0,1787675.story?page=1

Umm, so all fraud is government fraud now? Interesting.

do you even understand why the gov't is suing?  

Its because GSE's (FNM and FRE) were being lied to by banks.  In this one case against 12 banks - the banks allegedly defrauded the US gov't of approximately $200 billion. 


and by the way - how can you deduce that " all fraud is government fraud now" when we are specifically discussing the US GOVERNMENT.  I'm sure I cheated on a test at some point in middle school but I don't feel its relevant to a discussion about how the US GOVERNMENT wastes tax payer money, and a big part of that waste is fraud.   

The healthcare fraud article was about how Obama cracked down on it... and how doctors, nurses, insurance companies. pharma companies, etc are defrauding medicaid and medicare.  Aren't medicare and medicaid government programs?

60 billion is a pittance?

I think this is why our government is so wasteful.   If 60b is nothing, a $60 hammer isn't worth mentioning. 

Posted by antonsirius on 9/19/2011 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/19/2011 12:26:00 PM (view original):
THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE - sources are at the bottom with links for Anton...  but it shows how ridiculous waste and fraud is in the US gov't.   HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READ!


A Preview:

Health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion annually.[13]


A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, including “over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold.” The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece.[8]


More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.[22]


The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.[29]




http://hoguenews.com/?p=4834


^^^^ Is it any wonder why I wouldn't want ANYONE to pay more in taxes??????????????????????


Notice I even supported Obama in some of these articles in previous posts or bashed Bush.  That's because both political parties are guilty of knowingly turning a blind eye to these kinds of waste and fraud.  I'm of the opinion that you are just too stupid to see it Anton.  At least that's how you make yourself appear in your posts.

$60 billion in health care costs out of $2.5 trillion? Thanks for proving my point.

by that logic you don't care if a CEO makes $30 million as long as the company profits $30 billion.  Why ***** about CEO bonuses when Its small change?


by the way - If I wanted to SPIN the fact that $60 Billion is A LOT of money I could have just said that $60 Billion on an annual basis is about 85% of what the Federal Government spends on pre-primary thru secondary education each year ($73 Billion in 2010) or the same as what the Federal Government spends on Housing Assistance ($58.6 Billion in 2010).  But I don't need to spin this - any SANE person understands that $60,000,000,000 is a BIG ******* NUMBER. 

It's a big ******* number that's only 2-2.5% of the industry.

That number, oddly enough, comes up a lot in all kinds of different areas when discussing fraud. California welfare and UI fraud? 2% of the costs. Retail shrinkage rates? Just shy of 2%.

We're talking about the burden on taxpayers, right? This isn't a moral discussion about punishing wrong-doers, it's a discussion of how government expenditures can be reduced, correct? In that case, explain to me how a 2.5% fraud rate is a HUGE problem in the health care industry when large-scale enterprise conducted in the United States all seem to involve loss rates due to fraud or theft somewhere around 2%, almost as if it were a law of nature or something.

I'll take it one step further though. It'd be impossible to reduce fraud loss to 0%, no matter how much effort gets put into it. (Stop me when I say something in this paragraph you disagree with). There will also be a point of diminishing returns at which it costs more to reduce fraud than you'd actually end up saving. So when you talk about 2.5% fraud, there will be some portion of that amount which can't be eliminated, or at least from an economic perspective shouldn't be eliminated because it would be a net loss to do so.

Let's assume the retail shrinkage rate is a good approximation for that 'optimal' (for lack of a better word) loss rate - free market efficiency and all that. That rate's been floating around 1.5%-1.7% the last few years, so for the sake of argument let's say 1.5% is the 'optimal' loss rate. That means, of your $60 billion in health care fraud, only about $23 billion could really be effectively cut from the government's bottom line before the costs of regulation and enforcement exceed the savings they produce.

Is $22 billion a HUGE number? To you and me, sure. To the government, it's a pittance. Cutting $23 billion out of the federal budget would produce a change of approximately nada in your life or mine.

Now, if you cut 1% out of every department's budget across the board by reducing fraud, that would absolutely have some impact. Not a HUGE impact, but some. But all of this is beside the point. Your bullshit talking point -- and I want to be perfectly clear here, it is political boilerplate that is completely unsupported by the numbers -- that "Democratic" programs like health care and welfare have HUGE fraud problems isn't designed to get people focused on reducing fraud and cutting 1% of the cost of those programs. It's designed to undercut support for those programs entirely by delegitimizing them.

You're simply a more literate slogan-spouting machine than swamp is at this point, moy. Same factually incorrect bullshit in prettier clothes.

I'm not even going to read that whole post based on your first sentence. 

$60 Billion is what is defrauded from the government every year, not the industry, which makes up about 8% of what the government spent on Healthcare in 2010 ($784 Billion).  If we could get the fraud % down to 2% the government would have $45 Billion more to reinvest in Healthcare every year (2% of $784 Billion is $15 Billion) without having to tax more.  

Okay - I bit.  I read it. 

I said high waste/high fraud.... you've steered the conversation towards fraud only.  Cutting JUST FRAUD from 8% to 2% saves $45 Billion in Healthcare alone.  Now do the same for Defense, Welfare, and Social Security..... It will add up.... now go after WASTE which is (just guessing here) probably WAY WAY more money than fraud.  

From the article I posted - Here are the 6 categories of waste they describe (the 6th includes fraud):

The six categories of wasteful and unnecessary spending are:

1. Programs that should be devolved to state and local governments;
2. Programs that could be better performed by the private sector;
3. Mistargeted programs whose recipients should not be entitled to government benefits;
4. Outdated and unnecessary programs;
5. Duplicative programs; and
6. Inefficiency, mismanagement, and fraud.

Posted by antonsirius on 9/18/2011 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/17/2011 10:55:00 PM (view original):
I never claimed to have any empathy for my 'fellow' man... especially when they are mooching off me. I earn my money and I like to horde it. I live by the mantra that one can never save enough (because inevitably something that costs money will come up). Unfortunately Democrats TAKE my money and squander it on poorly run/high fraud welfare, social security, and healthcare programs.

"High fraud"? Bullshit. That's as based in reality as the Nancy Pelosi field mice thing.

You need to stop trusting sources of information that lie to you to your face, moy.

oh, 'poorly run' is what I said. sorry - I will clarify ..... poorly run = WASTE'*******'FUL ;) 

Posted by antonsirius on 9/20/2011 3:03:00 PM (view original):
It's a big ******* number that's only 2-2.5% of the industry.

That number, oddly enough, comes up a lot in all kinds of different areas when discussing fraud. California welfare and UI fraud? 2% of the costs. Retail shrinkage rates? Just shy of 2%.

We're talking about the burden on taxpayers, right? This isn't a moral discussion about punishing wrong-doers, it's a discussion of how government expenditures can be reduced, correct? In that case, explain to me how a 2.5% fraud rate is a HUGE problem in the health care industry when large-scale enterprise conducted in the United States all seem to involve loss rates due to fraud or theft somewhere around 2%, almost as if it were a law of nature or something.

I'll take it one step further though. It'd be impossible to reduce fraud loss to 0%, no matter how much effort gets put into it. (Stop me when I say something in this paragraph you disagree with). There will also be a point of diminishing returns at which it costs more to reduce fraud than you'd actually end up saving. So when you talk about 2.5% fraud, there will be some portion of that amount which can't be eliminated, or at least from an economic perspective shouldn't be eliminated because it would be a net loss to do so.

Let's assume the retail shrinkage rate is a good approximation for that 'optimal' (for lack of a better word) loss rate - free market efficiency and all that. That rate's been floating around 1.5%-1.7% the last few years, so for the sake of argument let's say 1.5% is the 'optimal' loss rate. That means, of your $60 billion in health care fraud, only about $23 billion could really be effectively cut from the government's bottom line before the costs of regulation and enforcement exceed the savings they produce.

Is $22 billion a HUGE number? To you and me, sure. To the government, it's a pittance. Cutting $23 billion out of the federal budget would produce a change of approximately nada in your life or mine.

Now, if you cut 1% out of every department's budget across the board by reducing fraud, that would absolutely have some impact. Not a HUGE impact, but some. But all of this is beside the point. Your bullshit talking point -- and I want to be perfectly clear here, it is political boilerplate that is completely unsupported by the numbers -- that "Democratic" programs like health care and welfare have HUGE fraud problems isn't designed to get people focused on reducing fraud and cutting 1% of the cost of those programs. It's designed to undercut support for those programs entirely by delegitimizing them.

You're simply a more literate slogan-spouting machine than swamp is at this point, moy. Same factually incorrect bullshit in prettier clothes.

Actually I agree with Anton 100% on this. No one has ever cut government costs by eliminating fraud.

The whole system is corrupted. Any project that would cost a for profit company $20 million would cost the government $100 million.

Posted by antonsirius on 9/17/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 9/15/2011 4:25:00 AM (view original):
Another consideration is since LBJ started the war on poverty in 1964, we have literally given away over 100 trillion dollars, and the % of poor has remained stagnant over that time period of nearly 50 yrs now.

Let's accept the fact that giving money to people doesn't fix the problem.

Another real life example:

A new section 8 housing development was built, residents were moved out of delapitated housing and put into brand new shiny apts.
Less than 1 yr later the place was a pig-sty and pretty well trashed.

There's isn't usually a sense of pride or a desire to take care of personal belongings unless you had to go out and EARN them.

Giving money to the poor isn't designed to "fix" the problem, it's designed to alleviate the problem.

If you want to rail against something, at least understand what it is.

What I understand is the govt is wasteful and far from efficient in the first place.
Add to that fact a "plan" to "alleviate" the conditions that MANY bring on themselves by holding that hand out instead of trying to improve the condition themselves, is a losing proposition in a day and age that can not afford so many losing propositions.

Quote post by antonsirius on 9/17/2011 2:23:00 PM:

Posted by antonsirius on 9/18/2011 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/17/2011 11:12:00 PM (view original):
And I know the political difference between giving money to the poor and the 'proposed' job stimulus ..... that doesnt change the fact they are both costly band aids that don't solve a problem. Nothing permanent ..... that's why I said giving $10k to 47,700,000 people would go a lot farther than $477 billion to create 50,000 TEMPORARY jobs.

No, it wouldn't. The goal is not just to provide temporary jobs, it's to get people back into the work force so that they are ready to take permanent jobs once the private sector gets their thumbs out of their ***** and creates them.

I can deduce from this post that you have never tried to start your own business. 

What on Earth can you be thinking? "Get their thumb out of their a$$e$ and creates them" It would be funny, except it is far too common for the lefties to really feel this way.

When you run a business, and you have to actually BALANCE you BUDGET, (unlike the govt.) you only create new jobs when 
1) market demand rises and there is an actual need for more positions
2) the economy & market conditions are favorable enough to risk expansion and growth before market dictates.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/19/2011 2:50:00 PM (view original):
60 billion is a pittance?

I think this is why our government is so wasteful.   If 60b is nothing, a $60 hammer isn't worth mentioning. 

Right.

If you are exempt from having to be financially responsible, then you can scoff at a mere $60 Billion. Which is exactly why we are in this mess.

PAY FOR YOUR WARS ,TAX CUTS, AND SOP TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPS. BEFORE YE OPEN YER TRAPS