Fix the economy

[youngterrier]

What would you do?

Here's how we solve all our problems in my opinion

We can't afford entitlements in the next 50 years we'll eventually have to cut them (sad but true), we've spent something like $9 trillion on welfare in the last 46 years and the poverty level has stayed about the same we can cut that too. 40% of our budget (circa 2007 it may be different now) comes from income taxes, I say get rid of it, no FairTax necessary, our budget would be the same as it was in 1997 and would be based on the other ways we raise money not to mention the fact that most the spending will be out the door. We also need to reform or end the Federal Reserve system, get out of a war or 2, and open trade with countries we've embargoed (such as Iran). the only thing government needs to do in the economy is protect consumers. I know people like the ideas of the welfare state and entitlements, but they DON'T WORK.

Thought? Ideas? I know there's disagreements....

[Skjellyfetti]

I know people like the ideas of the welfare state and entitlements, but they DON'T WORK.

That's a very broad brush that is true in some instances and wrong in others.

Medicare/medicaid is welfare. It works very well.

[youngterrier]

I know people like the ideas of the welfare state and entitlements, but they DON'T WORK.

That's a very broad brush that is true in some instances and wrong in others.

Medicare/medicaid is welfare. It works very well.

but we can't afford it and though quality may be good/great it has inadvertently hurt the cost of private healthcare

[Grizalltheway]

What would you do?

Here's how we solve all our problems in my opinion

We can't afford entitlements in the next 50 years we'll eventually have to cut them (sad but true), we've spent something like $9 trillion on welfare in the last 46 years and the poverty level has stayed about the same we can cut that too. 40% of our budget (circa 2007 it may be different now) comes from income taxes, I say get rid of it, no FairTax necessary, our budget would be the same as it was in 1997 and would be based on the other ways we raise money not to mention the fact that most the spending will be out the door. We also need to reform or end the Federal Reserve system, get out of a war or 2, and open trade with countries we've embargoed (such as Iran). the only thing government needs to do in the economy is protect consumers. I know people like the ideas of the welfare state and entitlements, but they DON'T WORK.

Thought? Ideas? I know there's disagreements....

Tell that to Sweden and Denmark.

[Grizalltheway]

That's a very broad brush that is true in some instances and wrong in others.

Medicare/medicaid is welfare. It works very well.

but we can't afford it and though quality may be good/great it has inadvertently hurt the cost of private healthcare

I heard somewhere that the #1 healthcare system in the world (it's either in Malaysia or Indonesia) was purely a free market system and if there is any truth to that we can surely follow suit

[youngterrier]

What would you do?

Here's how we solve all our problems in my opinion

We can't afford entitlements in the next 50 years we'll eventually have to cut them (sad but true), we've spent something like $9 trillion on welfare in the last 46 years and the poverty level has stayed about the same we can cut that too. 40% of our budget (circa 2007 it may be different now) comes from income taxes, I say get rid of it, no FairTax necessary, our budget would be the same as it was in 1997 and would be based on the other ways we raise money not to mention the fact that most the spending will be out the door. We also need to reform or end the Federal Reserve system, get out of a war or 2, and open trade with countries we've embargoed (such as Iran). the only thing government needs to do in the economy is protect consumers. I know people like the ideas of the welfare state and entitlements, but they DON'T WORK.

Thought? Ideas? I know there's disagreements....

Tell that to Sweden and Denmark.

GDP of United States $14,264,600 million

GDP of Sweden $341,869 million

GDP of Denmark $204,060 million

next

social capitalism leads to socialism through the means of inflation and an increased welfare state

Free market> social capitalism> socialism

[youngterrier]

but we can't afford it and though quality may be good/great it has inadvertently hurt the cost of private healthcare

I heard somewhere that the #1 healthcare system in the world (it's either in Malaysia or Indonesia) was purely a free market system and if there is any truth to that we can surely follow suit

just going with what I heard, but I don't think they're free markets on a second look

[Grizalltheway]

Tell that to Sweden and Denmark.

GDP of United States $14,264,600 million

GDP of Sweden $341,869 million

GDP of Denmark $204,060 million

next

social capitalism leads to socialism through the means of inflation and an increased welfare state

Free market> social capitalism> socialism

I won't argue with your last point, but both of those countries have a higher average standard of living than the US. Just sayin'.

[youngterrier]

GDP of United States $14,264,600 million

GDP of Sweden $341,869 million

GDP of Denmark $204,060 million

next

social capitalism leads to socialism through the means of inflation and an increased welfare state

Free market> social capitalism> socialism

I won't argue with your last point, but both of those countries have a higher average standard of living than the US. Just sayin'.

True but as my second point states their taxation system will lead to less economic growth and more inflation (which will increase poverty which means they will expand their welfare state and raise taxes and the cycle continues)

the bottom line is that entitlements to more harm in the long run than good in the short term

[Grizalltheway]

I won't argue with your last point, but both of those countries have a higher average standard of living than the US. Just sayin'.

True but as my second point states their taxation system will lead to less economic growth and more inflation (which will increase poverty which means they will expand their welfare state and raise taxes and the cycle continues)

the bottom line is that entitlements to more harm in the long run than good in the short term

I agree that you shouldn't let social welfare programs get out of control. I'm more in favor of a 'safety-net' type system, as opposed to one where people can easily get on it and never have any reason or incentive to get off of it. But I don't think social capitalism necessarily leads to outright socialism, as evidenced in Scandinavia.

[AZGrizFan]

True but as my second point states their taxation system will lead to less economic growth and more inflation (which will increase poverty which means they will expand their welfare state and raise taxes and the cycle continues)

the bottom line is that entitlements to more harm in the long run than good in the short term

I agree that you shouldn't let social welfare programs get out of control. I'm more in favor of a 'safety-net' type system, as opposed to one where people can easily get on it and never have any reason or incentive to get off of it.

BS. If you truly believed that, you'd be a conservative.

[native]

I agree that you shouldn't let social welfare programs get out of control. I'm more in favor of a 'safety-net' type system, as opposed to one where people can easily get on it and never have any reason or incentive to get off of it.

BS. If you truly believed that, you'd be a conservative.

Watch GATW scramble out of that one like a cat on a hot tin roof!

[native]

What would you do?

Here's how we solve all our problems in my opinion

We can't afford entitlements in the next 50 years we'll eventually have to cut them (sad but true), we've spent something like $9 trillion on welfare in the last 46 years and the poverty level has stayed about the same we can cut that too. 40% of our budget (circa 2007 it may be different now) comes from income taxes, I say get rid of it, no FairTax necessary, our budget would be the same as it was in 1997 and would be based on the other ways we raise money not to mention the fact that most the spending will be out the door. We also need to reform or end the Federal Reserve system, get out of a war or 2, and open trade with countries we've embargoed (such as Iran). the only thing government needs to do in the economy is protect consumers. I know people like the ideas of the welfare state and entitlements, but they DON'T WORK.

Thought? Ideas? I know there's disagreements....

Well said, YT!

[death dealer]

YT, never forget, in the words of O'Rourke, that when a private entity does not produce the desired results, it is done away with. But a public entity that is a failure only gets bigger.

[death dealer]

Another great quote from the sage: America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damned well pleased.

When did we lose sight of that? When did it become the mission of the govt. to pull everyone's ass out of the fire? As O'Rourke so eloqently puts it, the only true human right is the right to do what the fuck I please, and along with it comes the only true human responsiblity, to live with the consequences. It's time we let a bunch of people live with the consequences of their choices. Govt. assistance should only be there for two groups, those unable to care for themselves due to mental or physical debilitation (and that should be very narrowly defined), and those citizens who up until very recently have been contributing, and just need a hand up to get back in the game. Otherwise, fuck you. If you've never brought anything to society, society doesn't owe you shit. So fuck off and die already.

[youngterrier]

let me clarify this though, I think it is acceptable for the government to financially assist the disabled and those who are special needs (those who can not work) as they are not a growing population and we can afford it.

[youngterrier]

True but as my second point states their taxation system will lead to less economic growth and more inflation (which will increase poverty which means they will expand their welfare state and raise taxes and the cycle continues)

the bottom line is that entitlements to more harm in the long run than good in the short term

I agree that you shouldn't let social welfare programs get out of control. I'm more in favor of a 'safety-net' type system, as opposed to one where people can easily get on it and never have any reason or incentive to get off of it. But I don't think social capitalism necessarily leads to outright socialism, as evidenced in Scandinavia.

the problem with the whole safety net thing is that the government doesn't know when to stop expanding it...

[death dealer]

let me clarify this though, I think it is acceptable for the government to financially assist the disabled and those who are special needs (those who can not work) as they are not a growing population and we can afford it.

Only an asshole would be against that. It's a given that society must take care of it's children and imfirm. The problem is most democrats consider laziness, shiftlessness, stupidity, lack of ambition, etc. as infirmity, and not just lack of worthiness to be a member of society.

Right now is an extraordinary time. When we have a leg down in the private sector, as will inevitably happen, is when we should most be ready to come to the aid of the people put on their heels by this mess. The problem is the last president, a supposed conservative by the way, spent like a drunken sailor in a whore house, and the current one looks upon making him seem frugal. So our sovereign debt load is becoming unsustainable. Just when, as I said, we need to be able to spend like hell to help people get through this tough spell (which we are doing, we just without any other fiscal restraint to compensate. Isn't it so telling about the nature of govt. and politicians that we are in this fix after eight years with a darling of the republican party at the helm?

[youngterrier]

let me clarify this though, I think it is acceptable for the government to financially assist the disabled and those who are special needs (those who can not work) as they are not a growing population and we can afford it.

Only an asshole would be against that. It's a given that society must take care of it's children and imfirm. The problem is most democrats consider laziness, shiftlessness, stupidity, lack of ambition, etc. as infirmity, and not just lack of worthiness to be a member of society.

Right now is an extraordinary time. When we have a leg down in the private sector, as will inevitably happen, is when we should most be ready to come to the aid of the people put on their heels by this mess. The problem is the last president, a supposed conservative by the way, spent like a drunken sailor in a whore house, and the current one looks upon making him seem frugal. So our sovereign debt load is becoming unsustainable. Just when, as I said, we need to be able to spend like hell to help people get through this tough spell (which we are doing, we just without any other fiscal restraint to compensate. Isn't it so telling about the nature of govt. and politicians that we are in this fix after eight years with a darling of the republican party at the helm?

As long as we dont deficift spend Im ok with the above but I dont agree with the standpoint of unemployment benefits. I'll allude to it later...i have school

[OL FU]

i have school

Whatever you do don't listen to them

[ASUMountaineer]

i have school

Whatever you do don't listen to them

It's like Mark Twain said, "I never let me schooling interfere with my education."

[kalm]

As the article below points out, there are times when temporary deficit spending makes sense, and the impact of said spending provides long term stimulus. An educated and healthy workforce is a productive workforce. A strong an innovative public infrastructure is the building block of private industry.

As for entitlements, yes they are bloated, but using the example of medicare, imagine what it would be like if our parents and grand parents with all of their maladies had to buy private insurance of which many couldn't afford? With all of the life extending advances in medicine, you and I would be spending our hard earned cash helping them out with their medicine instead of being good little consumers and helping to grow the economy.

BTW, does perpetual growth exist anywhere in nature?

Are there lazy people in Scandinavia?

Published on Thursday, March 11, 2010 by The Capital Times (Wisconsin)
The Dangers of Deficit Reduction
by Joseph E. Stiglitz

NEW YORK - A wave of fiscal austerity is rushing over Europe and America. The magnitude of budget deficits -- like the magnitude of the downturn -- has taken many by surprise. But despite protests by yesterday's proponents of deregulation, who would like the government to remain passive, most economists believe that government spending has made a difference, helping to avert another Great Depression.

Most economists also agree that it is a mistake to look at only one side of a balance sheet (whether for the public or private sector). One has to look not only at what a country or firm owes, but also at its assets. This should help answer those financial-sector hawks who are raising alarms about government spending. After all, even deficit hawks acknowledge that we should be focusing not on today's deficit, but on the long-term national debt. Spending, especially on investments in education, technology and infrastructure, can actually lead to lower long-term deficits.

Faster growth and returns on public investment yield higher tax revenues, and a 5 to 6 percent return is more than enough to offset temporary increases in the national debt. A social cost-benefit analysis (taking into account impacts other than on the budget) makes such expenditures, even when debt-financed, even more attractive.

Finally, most economists agree that, apart from these considerations, the appropriate size of a deficit depends in part on the state of the economy. A weaker economy calls for a larger deficit, and the appropriate size of the deficit in the face of a recession depends on the precise circumstances.

It is here that economists disagree. Forecasting is always difficult, but especially so in troubled times. What has happened is (fortunately) not an everyday occurrence; it would be foolish to look at past recoveries to predict this one.

In America, for instance, bad debt and foreclosures are at levels not seen for three-quarters of a century; the decline in credit in 2009 was the largest since 1942. Comparisons to the Great Depression are also deceptive, because the economy today is so different in so many ways.

Yet, even with large deficits, economic growth in the U.S. and Europe is anemic, and forecasts of private-sector growth suggest that in the absence of continued government support, there is risk of continued stagnation -- of growth too weak to return unemployment to normal levels anytime soon.

The risks are asymmetric: If these forecasts are wrong, and there is a more robust recovery, then, of course, expenditures can be cut back and/or taxes increased. But if these forecasts are right, then a premature "exit" from deficit spending risks pushing the economy back into recession.

As the global economy returns to growth, governments should, of course, have plans on the drawing board to raise taxes and cut expenditures. The right balance will inevitably be a subject of dispute. Principles like "it is better to tax bad things than good things" might suggest imposing environmental taxes.

The financial sector has imposed huge externalities on the rest of society. America's financial industry polluted the world with toxic mortgages, and, in line with the well established "polluter pays" principle, taxes should be imposed on it. Besides, well-designed taxes on the financial sector might help alleviate problems caused by excessive leverage and banks that are too big to fail. Taxes on speculative activity might encourage banks to focus greater attention on performing their key societal role of providing credit.

Over the longer term, most economists agree that governments, especially in advanced industrial countries with aging populations, should be concerned about the sustainability of their policies. But we must be wary of deficit fetishism. Deficits to finance wars or giveaways to the financial sector (as happened on a massive scale in the U.S.) lead to liabilities without corresponding assets, imposing a burden on future generations. But high-return public investments that more than pay for themselves can actually improve the well-being of future generations, and it would be doubly foolish to burden them with debts from unproductive spending and then cut back on productive investments.

These are questions for a later day -- at least in many countries, prospects of a robust recovery are, at best, a year or two away. For now, the economics is clear: Reducing government spending is a risk not worth taking.

[blueballs]

Another great quote from the sage: America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damned well pleased.

When did we lose sight of that? When did it become the mission of the govt. to pull everyone's ass out of the fire? As O'Rourke so eloqently puts it, the only true human right is the right to do what the **** I please, and along with it comes the only true human responsiblity, to live with the consequences. It's time we let a bunch of people live with the consequences of their choices. Govt. assistance should only be there for two groups, those unable to care for themselves due to mental or physical debilitation (and that should be very narrowly defined), and those citizens who up until very recently have been contributing, and just need a hand up to get back in the game. Otherwise, **** you. If you've never brought anything to society, society doesn't owe you ****. So **** off and die already.

Perhaps the best post I've ever read in one of these political forums... it brought a tear to my eye.

[youngterrier]

As the article below points out, there are times when temporary deficit spending makes sense, and the impact of said spending provides long term stimulus. An educated and healthy workforce is a productive workforce. A strong an innovative public infrastructure is the building block of private industry.

As for entitlements, yes they are bloated, but using the example of medicare, imagine what it would be like if our parents and grand parents with all of their maladies had to buy private insurance of which many couldn't afford? With all of the life extending advances in medicine, you and I would be spending our hard earned cash helping them out with their medicine instead of being good little consumers and helping to grow the economy.

BTW, does perpetual growth exist anywhere in nature?

Are there lazy people in Scandinavia?

when you deficit spend there are 3 ways to get out of it

either we run up a deficit which by no means is healthy, we tax for which will do no good, or we inflate our currency as it will make the value of our debt go down...sadly the third choice is used too often.

the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security will explode to $50 trillion in the coming decades(that's more than our economy unless we quadruple our economy in the that time) and consume our federal budget by 2040, the point being THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T PROVIDE FOR EVERYONE OR THE "DEFINED CLASS" THAT IS ALREADY PROVIDED

there are a lot of restrictions on healthcare insurance providers in terms of where they can sell and that's one of the reasons prices don't go down.

[Skjellyfetti]

the cost of Medicare and Medicaid will explode to $50 trillion by 2040

source? No way in hell that's true.