Cenk Debates Rep. Franks (R - AZ) On MSNBC - PolitiFact Proves Congressman Was Wrong Here!

Run time: 05:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPEI-f0Uaec   Posted on YouTube: July 10, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 5914   Posted on DU: July 12, 2010 By DU Member: CherylK Views on DU: 1450

 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/09/trent-franks/trent-franks-says-top-1-percent-pays-over-half-ent/

simply ask "Thank you sir, my I have another?" It's maddening!

Here this ass hole is talking about deficits and his hero put us deeper in debt than any other president in US history. Cenk should have turned the tables on him the second he brought up Reagan and said "But I thought you cared about deficits and keeping the debt down? Then why is your hero the guy who put us so deep in the whole by cutting taxes on the wealthy?"

in employment and GNP, etc. Was during WWII and the second biggest period was the decade of the 30s (except for the 1937 blip because of a wrong-headed attempt to balance the budget proposed by the Repubs). Reagan was a good growth but not as good as the 30s or WWII. He got his fx wrong as usual. Reagan not only exploded the deficit, he also failed to get a great growth in the economy especially considering how much deficit spending he was doing. It was a good growth and it pulled us out of a recession but to say it was the greatest in history is just bologney.

To be fair, Cenk says that all the time on TYT, the fact that he didn't here had to do with being new to hosting a tv show with teleprompters and time crunched segments. Interviews on TYT are much, much longer than under 6 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews

I know it's more difficult with such limited time. He might have commented further after they returned.

It's in the Republican DNA.

Franks spoke of percentages of the GDP. A typical mechanism that Republicans use to confuse people - equating GDP percentages with budget percentages. That's comparing apples and oranges. The facts.

People aged 65+ made up 12.6% of the U.S. population in 2007.
People under 20 made up 27.6% of the U.S. population that same year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Social Security in the US is also reported to be about 12.6% of the GDP -- same percentage as the population of older citizens.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_soc_sec_exp_as_of_gdp-economy-social-security-expenditure-gdp

Seems fair enough to me. Remember, Social Security benefits are very small. The average monthly benefit per recipient is only between $1,000 to $1,200 per month. Many recipients live only on Social Security.

As for Medicare costs, remember that the most expensive medical care you will ever receive will probably be in the last years of your life. That applies to virtually all of us, whether we die at the age of 10 or the age of 105.

I do not have any numbers on the percentages of Medicare recipients who die while receiving Medicare, but I would venture to guess that it is 100%. The portion of our GDP that would be spent on care for the elderly would probably decline only if we either let poor seniors die without medical care or forced their children to pay for the medical care of their parents.

In so far as the cost of Social Security and Medicare are concerned, if Social Security and Medicare did not exist, these costs would have to be paid either by the children of seniors or by -- you guessed it -- the federal government. It is unrealistic to think that Americans under the age of 65 would simply allow their parents to die hungry, homeless and without medical care. So what are the alternatives?

If seniors are forced to spend down their savings (probably very limited and would presumably include the equity in seniors' homes) of their lifetimes before they qualify for Social Security or Medicare, the amount of wealth passed from the middle class seniors to middle class children will decline drastically. It is that money (most seniors have meager savings) that permits ordinary kids to buy houses, start businesses and fulfill their dreams. Of course it is that money that Wall Street and our creditors overseas want to grab.

In terms of the 2011 federal budget of 13.1 trillion,
19% went to Social Security
19% went for defense
37% went for Medicare (primarily seniors) AND MEDICAID (includes children and the indigent, not just seniors)
18% went for other things
7% went for interest on debt (which would go back into the economy if the U.S. government aggressively sold its debt to the American people as Roosevelt did in WWII.)

My source: the chart in Cenk's video

For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of the US GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

I'm relying on Wikipedia because it is easy to find facts there. If someone has a more reliable source that shows different numbers, please post them.

Second, if Medicare covered every man woman and child, it could become solvent by using a model of pay into based on income. Once everyone was enrolled, the system if delivery could be better regulated, the govt would have insentive to look at natural methods of health care along with modern standards. The govt could insist on less work time so families could have "work out" time. The govt could give discounts based on healthy living models. Is it not the govt who is supposed to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Isn't a healthy productive person going to create a better society?

Then again, that would mean actually governing on the side of people and not the wealthy assholes who could care less about this country.

I enjoyed single payer when I lived in Europe. It spreads the care and the cost.

When Cenk meant it as a bad thing.

What a shame the time was so limited, you can see the frustration in Cenk's eyes. Hopefully he'll do a complete followup debunking on TYT soon. It's really good that Politifact picked up on it, let's hope it gets lots of hits.

So he's off at least this week.

"Well, you should. You should be able to tell me what our potential enemies spend on armaments. How can you properly support our military if you are ignorant of what the other side has? I bet you look at polls of how your opponent is doing, why is it you don't know what other countries' military budgets are?"

All presidents in US history up to Carter, combined -- added a bit under 1 trillion to the national debt.

Reagan -- added 2 trillion to the national debt, so he doubly outspent all of his predecessors combined, (though he ran a campaign that featured a lot of wailing about the national debt).

George Herbie Poppy Walker -- added one trillion to the national debt, so he outspent all other presidents combined, excepting raygun (he only had 4 years in office, or he could have done better).

Clinton -- added 1.7 trillion to the debt, but left office with a 10 year projected surplus of five trillion, if the repugs kept the country's tax and economic policy on his path (Just a projection, maybe we wouldn't have had a five trillion dollar surplus, but keep in mind it's a projection that was the excuse used by l'il bush to push his trillion dollar tax cuts through).

L'il bush -- spent almost 6 times as much as every US president through Carter, combined. He did it in 8 years.

5.7 trillion was the national debt for every president combined, at the start of l'il bush's junta. He single handedly doubled that number, and then some.

That is no mean feat, when you're trying to doubly outspend Reagan and Poppy. He crashed the economy, and left Obama with more than half of the tab, in terms of the bailouts. And his budget authority assumed that the cost of the Iraq war was ZERO dollars, since they couldn't calculate it. We also owe a debt to our injured troops, also not calculated in the budget, to provide care for the record number of survivors of Traumatic Brain Injury, caused by Improvised Explosive Devices. We have to support our disabled vets, you remember, 'Support the Troops!', as the war-monger chicken-hawk war-profiteers so eloquently screamed it, when they were rushing us to war. If we don't support them now, they are going to be left slugging it out with the rat population at Walter Reed over food crumbs.

This video puts the total debt at 13.1 trillion, currently, not quite the 14 trillion that repug Congressman Franks is whining about. 9 trillion + of the debt comes from the last 3 repug presidents. 4 trillion in debt comes from all other presidents. I'll be liberal and generous, and give Obama the blame for the entire 1.3 trillion added to the debt, since dimwit left office. Add a little under 1 trillion for all presidents through Carter, and 1.7 trillion from Clinton. Still, the projected 5 trillion dollar Clinton surplus would have eliminated the whole 4 trillion, and even Poppy's 'contribution' to the banking leeches that are currently collecting the interest on the national debt.

Where were all these repug deficit hawks in 1980 - 1992, and 2000 - 2008? Wait, that's right, I forgot. If the repugs bankrupt the country, in the pursuit of a healthy profit for their pals at Exxon, Enron, Halliburton, Blackwater, Chase, Morgan, Mellon, etc., that is ok because deficits don't matter.

Sure, the repugs drain our nation's treasury to steal the money for themselves, but they also want to make sure there will be no funds left to help the old, the children, the sick, the unemployed, the injured troops. Nothing for the US taxpayer, consumer, soldier, worker, or citizen (you know, 95% of our country), because we're 'broke', and the money isn't there. They'd love to be 'compassionate conservatives' and help out, but the money just isn't there. Honestly, they're not just being deficit hawks because they opposed those social programs in the first place.