I've worn my calculator pad out trying to crunch numbers coming up with a logical and realistic way that our government and we the people can pay off our debt plus interest.
We're running a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit with no plan to eliminate making the debt bigger.
Right now our Inter Rates are being kept at 0% by the Federal Reserve, it's been like this since 2008, when the interest rate rises, each point will represent an extra $200 billion that the USA has to pay in interest.
Almost every major economy has a debt larger than its GDP.
So...
I think this is an important question that needs to be answered...
How does the USA pay off a 15 trillion dollar debt?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I've worn my calculator pad out trying to crunch numbers coming up with a logical and realistic way that our government and we the people can pay off our debt plus interest.
Maybe a spreadsheet would be a better tool for that task next time.
Fortunately, calculators aren't that expensive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Raising Taxes would be a start. Seriously all the Republican whining about high taxes when they have not been lower in about 70 years.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
America should get a job! The lazy bum.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, entitlement programs make up more than 60% of the Federal Budget. So I'd probably start there.
Once we adjust that, I'd be fine with looking at tax revenue.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I don't know if it is feasible to actually get rid of the insane debt we have. In fact, it seems counter-productive to try.
Here's a question: what would happen if we did get rid of it? Would it change anything?
I curious about that because I don't see how it really would.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Here's a question: what would happen if we did get rid of it? Would it change anything?
danlo might be forced to diversify his thread output
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, entitlement programs make up more than 60% of the Federal Budget. So I'd probably start there.
Most entitlement programs are transfers or near transfers. That is, money is taken in, then immediately handed out, with very little administration going on in the middle. There's very little to reform, and most of the plausible reforms for the big entitlement programs (I'm lookin' at you, social security) involve at least some tax restructuring (that is, tax increases for some, tax decreases for others).
Further, tackling a huge overhaul of something as thorny as entitlement programs as a prerequisite for any tax increases is irresponsible. Starting moderate tax increases in the places we know are best able to sustain tax increases is the action of someone truly interested in being fiscally responsible, since a very simple few calculations show that both tax increases and spending cuts will be required.
Of course, I'd like those tax increases to start with tax simplification, as that's a lot of what's hindering government reform efforts of all sorts.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Fugu is awesome, and he speaks for me in this matter. Send him $20.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I guess I just don't trust the government to wisely handle any additional money that we would give them through additional taxes. With the amount of spending they are doing with the current income, I really don't trust that they will use any additional income to pay down the debt. If they showed some responsibility and initiative in the past or currently I'd be willing to go along with it.
I would be fine with tax simplification, but there are many that would just tell you that 10% is easier to pay for a millionaire than for a poor person. I don't agree with it, but that is the argument I've seen. It would also effectively eliminate the need for a large IRS (unless corporate income taxes were also simplified) , which could cause thousands of people to lose their jobs.
The jobs issue is the main reason I don't see this ever happening. Most politicans wouldn't want it to come up during a re-election campaign that they voted to get rid of thousands of jobs. The other issue is with all of the people not paying taxes right now that would be taxed at a flat rate. A lot of politicians would be attacked for that.
I'm thinking of just moving to my wife's country of origin for a few years. Albania is such a young democracy I should be able to make a killing by opening a business there. I'm thinking a Taco Bell would make a ton of money. Last time I visited my in-laws we drove by the McDonalds they had opened, and there was about 60 people in line at 2:00 in the afternoon.
[ June 15, 2011, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
According to basic economic theory, it's generally better to leverage debt than capital, assuming taxation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Raising Taxes would be a start. Seriously all the Republican whining about high taxes when they have not been lower in about 70 years.
Gah. You could tax everyone 100%, and it still wouldn't cover the debt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, did you look at the information I linked?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Gah. You could tax everyone 100%, and it still wouldn't cover the debt.
Of course it wouldn't. However, we almost certainly could tax everyone at a rate that would cover the debt. That would be bad for numerous other reasons, though.
quote:I guess I just don't trust the government to wisely handle any additional money that we would give them through additional taxes. With the amount of spending they are doing with the current income, I really don't trust that they will use any additional income to pay down the debt. If they showed some responsibility and initiative in the past or currently I'd be willing to go along with it.
This is a reasonable fear. Of course, additional money earned wouldn't go to paying down the debt anyways: right now, outlays exceed revenues by a goodly amount. Additional money earned from a modest tax increase would go towards not getting as much more debt.
quote:I would be fine with tax simplification, but there are many that would just tell you that 10% is easier to pay for a millionaire than for a poor person. I don't agree with it, but that is the argument I've seen. It would also effectively eliminate the need for a large IRS (unless corporate income taxes were also simplified) , which could cause thousands of people to lose their jobs.
I have a hard time following this, but to respond to one part, employing IRS agents and tax preparers is an extremely bad reason for keeping the tax code complicated. The harm of the complicated tax code far, far outweighs any "good" by keeping people employed navigating it.
quote:The jobs issue is the main reason I don't see this ever happening. Most politicans wouldn't want it to come up during a re-election campaign that they voted to get rid of thousands of jobs.
That's the least of the reasons politicians don't support tax simplification.
quote:I'm thinking of just moving to my wife's country of origin for a few years. Albania is such a young democracy I should be able to make a killing by opening a business there. I'm thinking a Taco Bell would make a ton of money. Last time I visited my in-laws we drove by the McDonalds they had opened, and there was about 60 people in line at 2:00 in the afternoon.
Go for it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: there are many that would just tell you that 10% is easier to pay for a millionaire than for a poor person. I don't agree with it, but that is the argument I've seen.
Why do you not agree with this?
No joke, I make about 10,000 dollars a year (not living in the states). Do you know what 1,000 dollars represents to me? Do you know the difference it makes in my life, between eating one thing and another? Do you think $100 thousand in the hands of a millionaire has the same effect on his daily life? How do you suppose that is true?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
All we need to do is come up with something, some kind of new technology, market it and sell it throughout the world, and make a crap-ton of money. You know, like what we did after WW2 when we were the only manufacturer of automobiles---our other two competitors were sifting through the rubble of their respective decimated countries. Of course, after that they couldn't use their militaries anymore so they refocused their resources back into industry (in a way, we helped create Nintendo. So, yeah, you're welcome!).
Seriously though, I think Donald Trump had some good ideas about our stance on war. Granted, he was mostly kind of nutty, but he raised an interesting point. For starters, whenever we invade a country (like Iraq), we should take the resources and make money off of them (we used all that cash to get there and have nothing to show for it, after all). Not too many invading forces do what we do, and I feel like our economy is suffering because of it. What do you guys think?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Other than it is evil? Seriously, you don't see the problem with blatantly killing other people to take their stuff? Haven't we learned to at least pretend altruism when we rape and pillage? Geez!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, did you look at the information I linked?
I did, but unfortunately there are articles that say the complete opposite than the point of view presented in the ones you linked, so who am I to believe?
I actually found that the articles were a little dishonest. Tax cuts themselves do not cause deficits, and showing tables that say they do is just bad form. Deficits are caused by spending more than you have, not by taking in less. Tax cuts are fine, but spending cuts have to go hand in hand. I would agree that Bush era tax cuts, especially with two wars going on, was a bad idea.
The articles do not mention the tax cuts by Coolidge or JFK.
Here's an article that references their tax cuts:
quote:
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
It goes on to talk about Reagan and Clinton era tax cuts / increases.
So who am I supposed to believe? One group says tax cuts hurt the economy, another says it helps.
Is tax revenue really the issue? Or is spending the bigger issue?
Like someone said earlier, you could tax everyone at 100% and it wouldn't solve the debt issue. Well that indicates there is something else wrong. Increasing taxes may bring in a bit more revenue, but unless something changes fundamentally with the way we manage that tax revenue, we are just going to keep digging ourselves into a deeper hole.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, what happened to the economy in 1929?
According to your information, our economy grew just fine with a top tax rate of 70%. I would have no problem with a top tax rate of 70%.
The "big spender" in our budget is the military. Try to get Congress to cut military spending. Watch what happens when defense plants start closing in their districts.
The rest of discretionary spending is nickle and dime stuff. Easy to rant about but peanuts when it comes to spending. Also, the time to address government spending is not during a recession. President Clinton should have done it. Right now, when people are in worse shape is not the time to remove social safety nets and cut jobs. If you want the economy to grow, more money in the hands of people who will spend it (middle class and poor) is the way to go.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:According to your information, our economy grew just fine with a top tax rate of 70%. I would have no problem with a top tax rate of 70%.
The real top tax rate was not 70%. The structure of the tax code makes it hard to determine what the effective tax rate was back then, but given how astonishingly little effective tax rates vary over times we do have information, the real marginal rate was probably somewhere from 30 to 40%.
quote:If you want the economy to grow, more money in the hands of people who will spend it (middle class and poor) is the way to go.
Even a modest tax increase will need to include a good chunk of the middle class to have any hope of making a dent in the differential. What's more, people spending too much money is exactly part of the problem with the current economy. The driver of long term growth, which is the big problem we're looking at, isn't spending, it is saving.
By the way, we aren't in a recession right now. So by your own prescription, now's the time to cut from the budget. No, growth isn't so hot, but it's looking like it won't get much better than this before the next recession. So if you we're going to have any spending cuts, and we better, because we need them, now is the time to get around to them.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The "big spender" in our budget is the military. Try to get Congress to cut military spending. Watch what happens when defense plants start closing in their districts.
The big spender in our budget is health care (more the 25% of the budget), some of which falls under military spending through the VA, but most of which comes through Medicare and Medicaid. The other big spender is Social Security. And unlike health care and social security, military spending is shrinking as a portion of the federal budget.
I agree with fugu that taxes need to be raised (and simplified) across the board. I also believe that military spending should be cut. But any solution that doesn't take into account growing entitlement burdens is being willfully blind to the structural trends in the federal budget. If we cut all discretionary (19%) and military (20%) spending and repealed the Bush tax cuts entirely, we'd still be running a $200 billion deficit.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What's more, people spending too much money is exactly part of the problem with the current economy.
Could you explain that one to me?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom Coburn's budget amendment to end ethanol subsidies, which would have resulted in about $6 billion in savings, just went down in flames.
Republicans voted 35-12 to end the subsidies, Democrats voted 47-5 to keep them. This seems to me like the kind of wasteful spending that there should be a consensus on cutting.
<edit>To fix bad numbers.</edit>
[ June 15, 2011, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:According to your information, our economy grew just fine with a top tax rate of 70%. I would have no problem with a top tax rate of 70%.
The real top tax rate was not 70%. The structure of the tax code makes it hard to determine what the effective tax rate was back then, but given how astonishingly little effective tax rates vary over times we do have information, the real marginal rate was probably somewhere from 30 to 40%.
Well, no. I was using Geraine's figures.
quote:
quote:If you want the economy to grow, more money in the hands of people who will spend it (middle class and poor) is the way to go.
Even a modest tax increase will need to include a good chunk of the middle class to have any hope of making a dent in the differential. What's more, people spending too much money is exactly part of the problem with the current economy. The driver of long term growth, which is the big problem we're looking at, isn't spending, it is saving.
By the way, we aren't in a recession right now. So by your own prescription, now's the time to cut from the budget. No, growth isn't so hot, but it's looking like it won't get much better than this before the next recession. So if you we're going to have any spending cuts, and we better, because we need them, now is the time to get around to them.
Is your point that people are better off enough now that we can cut safety net programs? Or are you just pointing out that despite unemployment (which lags behind other indicators) it isn't technically a recession?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Tom Coburn's budget amendment to end ethanol subsidies, which would have resulted in about $6 billion in savings, just went down in flames.
Democrats foil attempt to end ethanol subsidies.
Republicans voted 35-12 to end the subsidies, Democrats voted 47-5 to keep them. This seems to me like the kind of wasteful spending that there should be a consensus on cutting.
<edit>To fix bad numbers.</edit>
If I understand correctly, there was a link between the Democrats' behavior on this one and the Republicans' defeating an attempt to reduce agricultural subsidies to cut out payments to huge corporate farms.
Both are obvious places where the government spending is misplaced at best. But that's not really a primary concern of either party.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It wasn't all that long ago that we were running a budget surplus and people like Greenspan we arguing we needed to cut taxes because otherwise we would be paying off the national debt too quickly.
The solution is really very simple. We raise taxes back to Clinton era levels and we stop fighting so many freaking wars.
After that's done, the only remaining real problem will be the skyrocketing cost of medical care -- and the budget deficit is not the most important reason that we need to fix that problem.
I posted my rant on the entitlements excuse a while back. What most people forget, is that most of the entitlements shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of the budget. They are funded by special taxes that by law can only be spent on those programs. Those programs are (averaged over the last decade), running a surplus not a deficit.
If you separate all the programs that have trust funds and special taxes, what you see is that the "real" budget is about double what we are collecting in taxes to pay for it. The problem isn't those "lazy people" collecting entitlements. Those people are primarily senior citizens who have worked hard for decades and are getting back from the system what they have paid into it. The problem is that working American "tax payers" are spoiled children who want government services (military, FBI, DEA, INS, DOT, etc.) but don't want to pay taxes to get those services.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Forgive me for not reading the whole thread...how about this for paying off our debt: the US government legalizes all drugs, and then taxes them heavily. That would prolly make a small dent in the debt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It wasn't all that long ago that we were running a budget surplus and people like Greenspan we arguing we needed to cut taxes because otherwise we would be paying off the national debt too quickly.
The solution is really very simple. We raise taxes back to Clinton era levels and we stop fighting so many freaking wars.
After that's done, the only remaining real problem will be the skyrocketing cost of medical care -- and the budget deficit is not the most important reason that we need to fix that problem.
Lifting the cap on social security payments would help, too.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Forgive me for not reading the whole thread...how about this for paying off our debt: the US government legalizes all drugs, and then taxes them heavily. That would prolly make a small dent in the debt.
What astounds me is that the US isn't using standard alchemy practices to develop enough gold to solve the debt problem.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
jebus, they do that, but all the gold is being used to bribe the aliens to stay away...pfff...everyone knows that!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
More fool you if you believe that. Aliens aren't interested in gold, only space dollars.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Aliens aren't interested in gold
Hey now, Battlefield Earth said they love that stuff. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I posted my rant on the entitlements excuse a while back. What most people forget, is that most of the entitlements shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of the budget. They are funded by special taxes that by law can only be spent on those programs. Those programs are (averaged over the last decade), running a surplus not a deficit.
If you separate all the programs that have trust funds and special taxes, what you see is that the "real" budget is about double what we are collecting in taxes to pay for it. The problem isn't those "lazy people" collecting entitlements. Those people are primarily senior citizens who have worked hard for decades and are getting back from the system what they have paid into it. The problem is that working American "tax payers" are spoiled children who want government services (military, FBI, DEA, INS, DOT, etc.) but don't want to pay taxes to get those services.
I read your rant, and I remain unconvinced. Medicare is now running a deficit, regardless of what happened over the past decade. That deficit will grow. Soon (like six to eight years, even if we turn the economy around) the trust fund will be depleted. What will happen then? Will we face the fact that Medicare benefits need to be cut, or will we fund it through deficits or raise FICA taxes or what?
Considering Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security separate from the rest of the budget hides where we spend money, because the money that I pay in FICA taxes is money that I can't pay in Federal income taxes. Entitlement spending accounts for more and more federal spending every year. We could cut _everything_ discretionary (NEA, NSF, energy, everything) and _all_ military spending (wars, soldier pay, VA, everything) and raise taxes back to Clinton levels (on everyone) and we'd _still_ be running a deficit on debt interest, entitlements and contractual obligations alone. We have a structural problem and it's not going away until we face that entitlements are eating up more and more federal revenue.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Aliens are only interested in Bitcoin, the laughably useless libertarian cryptocurrency.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It wasn't all that long ago that we were running a budget surplus and people like Greenspan we arguing we needed to cut taxes because otherwise we would be paying off the national debt too quickly.
The solution is really very simple. We raise taxes back to Clinton era levels and we stop fighting so many freaking wars.
After that's done, the only remaining real problem will be the skyrocketing cost of medical care -- and the budget deficit is not the most important reason that we need to fix that problem.
Lifting the cap on social security payments would help, too.
But lifting that cap means there's less leeway to raise federal income taxes on top earners. FICA taxes have gone up 10% over the past 50 years, from 5% of income to about 15% now, and they haven't kept pace with the total costs. You simply can't tax your way out of the way the federal budget is growing; you need to address the structural issues that are causing outlays to grow faster than GDP. Otherwise, no matter how high you raise taxes it'll eventually catch up with you.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, entitlement programs make up more than 60% of the Federal Budget. So I'd probably start there.
Once we adjust that, I'd be fine with looking at tax revenue.
Entitlements can't be seriously cut. That's why they are entitlements. Any politician dumb enough to cut off old people from Social Security and medicare (the two largest by far)won't be politicians for very long. Cutting all entitlements except those two won't even make much pf a dent. Really the only thing that could really be cut that would be anything more than a token is the military.
As I said Taxes have not been this low in 70ish years. Our economy did better, even thrived with much higher taxes before.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Raising Taxes would be a start. Seriously all the Republican whining about high taxes when they have not been lower in about 70 years.
Gah. You could tax everyone 100%, and it still wouldn't cover the debt.
Not all at once. But increased Taxes could create a surplus. A surplus over time could pay it down. We had a surplus until Bush went spending crazy.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: there are many that would just tell you that 10% is easier to pay for a millionaire than for a poor person. I don't agree with it, but that is the argument I've seen.
Why do you not agree with this?
No joke, I make about 10,000 dollars a year (not living in the states). Do you know what 1,000 dollars represents to me? Do you know the difference it makes in my life, between eating one thing and another? Do you think $100 thousand in the hands of a millionaire has the same effect on his daily life? How do you suppose that is true?
Yeah a 10% tax on a poor man making 20K a year is 2 or 3 months rent. 5 months food, 4 car payments or a fraction of a life saving hospital visit. For a billionaire it means he can only have 49 private vacation islands instead of 50.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, just lifting the cap doesn't make sense. I favor lifting the cap, lowering the rate, and means testing, in combination.
quote:You simply can't tax your way out of the way the federal budget is growing; you need to address the structural issues that are causing outlays to grow faster than GDP.
Sure you can, though it wouldn't be a good idea. We've got a big burp to get through with the baby boomers, but long term our projected population proportions entirely support the possibility of this. The largest non-military driver of the deficit is the increased aging of the population, but with immigration the US population's age profile remains pretty stable, except for the period where baby boomers go through retirement.
That is, this isn't true:
quote:Otherwise, no matter how high you raise taxes it'll eventually catch up with you.
quote:Those people are primarily senior citizens who have worked hard for decades and are getting back from the system what they have paid into it.
Well, no. I support providing the support services that our elderly deserve, but it is not correct that they're getting back what they paid into it. They'll be getting out a lot more, because medical care has become much, much more expensive (in part because we're now able to treat, expensively, so many things that weren't treatable before), and because the population ratio is becoming significantly more top-heavy than when they were paying into social security.
quote:Forgive me for not reading the whole thread...how about this for paying off our debt: the US government legalizes all drugs, and then taxes them heavily. That would prolly make a small dent in the debt.
Can't tax them too heavily or they'll remain black market items. But yes, drug law liberalization (which can take many forms) would be a major step towards reducing a lot of outlays, and potentially provide a new revenue stream. Plus be the morally right thing to do.
quote:Could you explain that one to me?
The middle class, especially the upper middle class, is used to spending quite a bit. The recent financial crisis was in part because that spending was artificially propped up beyond many's means for too long. Continuing to artificially prop up that spending is a bad idea, especially as there doesn't look to be a major boom coming that we can use to ease out of the situation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That is, this isn't true:
quote:Otherwise, no matter how high you raise taxes it'll eventually catch up with you.
Unless the structural issues aren't demographic, in which case it still could be. The rate of increase in outlays isn't just a function of changing demographics. One thing I like about the Ryan plan is it sets revenue and spending targets (around 18%). I disagree with how low the targets are, but I feel any honest budget discussion needs to start with something like that instead of, "we'll figure out a way to pay for it."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Kate, your question strikes me as quite absolutist. I don't know that there is one answer for everyone, and I certainly don't feel that I could give a sufficient answer here.
How much (as a percentage of GDP) do you think we should spend on supporting those who are too old or too sick to work?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The more accurate question is how much to spend on as much people as possible to account for economics of scale and lower prices.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Aliens aren't interested in gold
Hey now, Battlefield Earth said they love that stuff.
I actually liked that book and part of the reason I like Romney.
In the book there was actually a much larger number of alien civilizations many of them in a sort of cold war with the psyclos, so there was a plausible reason for their obsession with gold.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I second and third pretty much every single thing fugu has said in this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Kate, your question strikes me as quite absolutist. I don't know that there is one answer for everyone, and I certainly don't feel that I could give a sufficient answer here.
How much (as a percentage of GDP) do you think we should spend on supporting those who are too old or too sick to work?
As much as we need to spend. Seriously. If we can come up with $1.3 trillion for two unnecessary wars, we can take care of our old, sick and poor. It is a question of priorities.
How many people should we allow to be hungry and homeless? Without access to medical care or unable to obtain needed medicine?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Kate, your question strikes me as quite absolutist. I don't know that there is one answer for everyone, and I certainly don't feel that I could give a sufficient answer here.
How much (as a percentage of GDP) do you think we should spend on supporting those who are too old or too sick to work?
As much as we need to spend. Seriously. If we can come up with $1.3 trillion for two unnecessary wars, we can take care of our old, sick and poor. It is a question of priorities.
50% of GDP is acceptable? 75%? All of it? That seems untenable to me, but I guess if you're serious...
quote:How many people should we allow to be hungry and homeless? Without access to medical care or unable to obtain needed medicine?
You keep asking for blanket answers for individual cases and I think it betrays a lack of nuance in your thinking on the issue.
If you're asking whether I think its wrong that the federal government doesn't provide a home, a meal, a doctor and a prescription for everyone who can't afford those things on their own, the answer is no. I think the federal government plays a role in providing welfare, but that role should be ancillary to family, community, and the broader civil society.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How do you define "broader civil society"?
You think that my thinking lacks nuance. I think that yours lacks a clear vision of real human beings who would and are suffering because of the policies you would enact.
As I said it is a question of priorities. Are tax breaks for the wealthy (or even wealthier corporations) worth what it costs in actual human beings?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How do you define "broader civil society"?
Broader civil society, for me, includes churches, businesses, friends, sports leagues, and all the myriad social connections that a person has.
quote:You think that my thinking lacks nuance. I think that yours lacks a clear vision of real human beings who would and are suffering because of the policies you would enact.
You can think that as long as you recognize you have little insight into my personal experiences or what real suffering human beings I might (or might not) know, love, and interact with daily.
quote: As I said it is a question of priorities. Are tax breaks for the wealthy (or even wealthier corporations) worth what it costs in actual human beings?
The wealthy, even members of corporations, are actual human beings. So the question is whether taking money from this group of actual human beings (the wealthy) and giving it to that group of actual human beings (the poor, sick, elderly, etc.) is both the right thing to do and also in the proper purview of the federal government. I think broadly it is on both counts, but I'm unsettled by the rapid growth in federal spending on welfare, frustrated by the lack of long-term vision on the issue, and disturbed by the amount of <edit>wishful</edit> thinking that otherwise rational people engage in when the subject is brought up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I am unsettled by the enormous and growing gap between the wealthiest actual human beings and the rest of us. I am unsettled by the percentage of wealth that is accumulating in the hands of those that already have obscene wealth. I am unsettled by the unbalanced political influence this gives those who already have power and influence where the poor have none.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am unsettled by the enormous and growing gap between the wealthiest actual human beings and the rest of us. I am unsettled by the percentage of wealth that is accumulating in the hands of those that already have obscene wealth. I am unsettled by the unbalanced political influence this gives those who already have power and influence where the poor have none.
I'm unsettled by all those things too (although I'd say the poor have relatively little influence, not none, but don't let me hinder your absolutism).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey. If you are unsettled enough to vote for people who will fix it, then I have no problem with you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Left wing social engineering works, thats the thing however.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
According to the Table 3.1 here, spending broadly on social services has increased approximately linearly from about 3% of GDP at the end of FDR's administration to about 16% of GDP now.
According to Table 2.3 at the same site, total receipts (including FICA taxes) have bounced between 17% and 19% of GDP, only barely exceeding 20% during WWII and for one year at the end of Clinton's presidency.
So even if we return taxes to what they were at the time of FDR or JFK, and even if we kill all military spending permanently, and even if we were able to wipe out interest payments on the debt somehow, and killed all spending on roads, schools, energy, R&D, etc. Even if we did all that, if the long term trend continues we'd have about 15 years before we were running a deficit on social programs alone. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hey. If you are unsettled enough to vote for people who will fix it, then I have no problem with you.
I imagine you and I disagree on whether the people we're respectively voting for will fix it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenojRetep, what do you have to suggest?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Unless the structural issues aren't demographic, in which case it still could be. The rate of increase in outlays isn't just a function of changing demographics.
They pretty much are, for the purposes of our entitlement programs. We could raise taxes enough to fund every entitlement program we have, most definitely. As I said, bad idea, but entirely in the realm of possibility.
Unless you're doing something silly like including new federal gov't programs in your projection? If so, yes, eventually you'd have more government programs than it was possible to handle. That's a silly sort of thing to argue about, though, so I assumed you were talking about the growth in entitlement programs.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Unless the structural issues aren't demographic, in which case it still could be. The rate of increase in outlays isn't just a function of changing demographics.
They pretty much are, for the purposes of our entitlement programs. We could raise taxes enough to fund every entitlement program we have, most definitely. As I said, bad idea, but entirely in the realm of possibility.
Unless you're doing something silly like including new federal gov't programs in your projection? If so, yes, eventually you'd have more government programs than it was possible to handle. That's a silly sort of thing to argue about, though, so I assumed you were talking about the growth in entitlement programs.
Okay. Besides demographics and new government programs, isn't there also a persistent expansion of current government programs? Medicare has expanded (both in the number and, more significantly, the costliness of procedures and products covered), SSDI enrollment has expanded, thresholds for food stamps have gone down, etc. The federal government has not been effective at limiting the expansion of programs, nor the addition of new programs, which makes me think that the political will to do so will not exist in the future, barring pretty hard caps on increasing spending. So I believe that whatever expansion in spending is due to that, rather than the demographic shift, won't be solved when (if?) demographics stabilize.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you have to suggest?
With regards to what? Decreasing income disparity or balancing the federal budget?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Balancing the budget.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am unsettled by the enormous and growing gap between the wealthiest actual human beings and the rest of us. I am unsettled by the percentage of wealth that is accumulating in the hands of those that already have obscene wealth. I am unsettled by the unbalanced political influence this gives those who already have power and influence where the poor have none.
I agree fully and the problem isn't simply that the poor suffer, the situation is destabilizing. Once people amass a certain amount of power (whether that's economic, political, physical, social or religious power) they are able to use it to accumulate more power. That creates a positive feedback loop that creates greater and greater disparity. Once you get off balance by some amount, the process becomes auto-catalytic and it's almost impossible to stop before society explodes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The guillotine is such an ugly method of wealth redistribution.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Kate, your question strikes me as quite absolutist. I don't know that there is one answer for everyone, and I certainly don't feel that I could give a sufficient answer here.
How much (as a percentage of GDP) do you think we should spend on supporting those who are too old or too sick to work?
I think your question is ridiculous at many levels. Clearly, the percentage of GDP that should be spent on the old and sick depends on dozens of factors include the percentage of the population that are old and/or sick and the over all wealth of the society.
We are the wealthiest society the world has ever seen. We aren't even close to needing to throw the sick and the old out in the cold so we can continue to feed the children. We can afford to care for everyone, the question is whether or not we consider that a priority or would rather sacrifice the weak in preference to individual economic freedom.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Balancing the budget.
I think we should start by setting targets for spending and receipts, first for the overall budget (including SS, Medicare and Medicaid) and then for individual programs within the federal budget. Personally I would target it at 20% of GDP. I think there should be hard checks in place when revenues fall under or spending exceeds the target, including automatic tax increases and forced spending cuts.
Next I think we should decide how to apportion spending and receipts, given the income/outlay targets. Personally I favor increased spending on infrastructure and investment and decreased spending on military and social programs. For receipts I think we should lower corporate tax rates to more closely resemble global averages, simplify the tax code to three brackets while eliminating most or all non-charitable tax deductions, lift the cap on FICA exemption while folding it into income taxes (ending the fiction that social spending is different than other federal spending), and return to Clinton-era tax levels.
Once we've done that, I think we should focus much more on "last mile" questions of how to deliver services effectively. Greater integration and empowerment of local organizations, smoother coordination with state and federal agencies, including requiring federal (and preferably state, although that's a separate issue) politicians to act as true liasons to their constituents.
That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are lots of holes in it, but I think the biggest issue is setting hard targets and sticking to them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The guillotine is such an ugly method of wealth redistribution.
Ugly, but effective.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Kate, your question strikes me as quite absolutist. I don't know that there is one answer for everyone, and I certainly don't feel that I could give a sufficient answer here.
How much (as a percentage of GDP) do you think we should spend on supporting those who are too old or too sick to work?
I think your question is ridiculous at many levels. Clearly, the percentage of GDP that should be spent on the old and sick depends on dozens of factors include the percentage of the population that are old and/or sick and the over all wealth of the society.
We are the wealthiest society the world has ever seen. We aren't even close to needing to throw the sick and the old out in the cold so we can continue to feed the children. We can afford to care for everyone, the question is whether or not we consider that a priority or would rather sacrifice the weak in preference to individual economic freedom.
Okay. For today, though, at our current levels of GDP and wealth and age distribution, what is the proper percentage. How much of every dollar someone making $50,000 a year this year in the US earns do you think the federal government should take to pay for social programs this year in the US? When you say we aren't even close, how would you know when we were?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenojRetep, can you put that in terms of actual people who will be hungry and without medical care? We agree that things can and should be done more efficiently. What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is that cutting social programs will hurt people.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, can you put that in terms of actual people who will be hungry and without medical care? We agree that things can and should be done more efficiently. What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is that cutting social programs will hurt people.
Cutting social programs will hurt people.
<edit>That was maybe glib. I acknowledge cutting social programs will hurt people, just like cutting military spending puts guys like Jeff C. in a tough spot. I think there are ways to cut that will hurt less and ways that will hurt more, and think we should focus on how to decrease outlays as painlessly as possible (for instance, raising retirement ages, means testing, rationalizing prescription drug benefits, etc.) At 20% of GDP, I think that we could do a good job (although maybe not as good as we do now) at providing for the needs of the poor and the old and we could do a good job (although maybe not as good as we do now) of providing for our common defense while still spending only what we take in and we would be doing a much better job at providing our children and grandchildren a prosperous and hopeful future.</edit>
[ June 16, 2011, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The really, really difficult thing is, having social programs can also hurt people. It would be wonderful if the government could just take money from people without making anyone too much worse off (note: effects often extend beyond the people money is taken from), then unequivocally make others better off.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. While the benefits of social programs can seem obvious if you imagine just subtracting the direct effect of the social program, that frequently isn't the case.
For instance, take unemployment insurance. Would people be better off if unemployment insurance didn't have a limited term? It seems like they would be -- except during times of high employment, there's a dramatic upsurge in people going off unemployment (into jobs of roughly equivalent pay to their old one) directly before their benefits run out. If there isn't that deadline, that increased incentive to get a job, a lot of people take a lot longer getting a new one. (Note: I'm not saying I wouldn't tweak many things about our unemployment insurance situation, just pointing out that extending a social program can have severe negative consequences even as it looks good for the people receiving it).
This is not a general argument against social programs. But it is an argument towards being extremely aware of the counterfactuals, especially given the reality of growth. Even a small increase in growth, over the long run, ultimately lifts the standards of living of even the poorest far more than even extensive social programs. A smaller piece of a much larger pie really does matter, as illustrated by the differential between the poor in developing (and even many fairly developed countries, such as in eastern Europe) and the poor in the US.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
fugu...as a social trend, perhaps you are right, to actually having an impact into people's lives on a day to day basis, I disagree.
Example: A family who can't quite make ends meet gets food stamps. $400 extra a month only to be spent on food. This makes a real impact in their lives, helping to make ends meet (plus helps the economy by all the products purchased).
Now take all the money out of the food stamps program and put it into, say, small businesses, as grants, or low to no interest loans. Some of the families who were on food stamps will get a job in those small businesses, but some will not, and will not make ends meet and either not have enough to eat, or not make rent or not have money for gas etc ad nauseum.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Another point: if we spend 1% less in GDP than we take in every year and if GDP increases at 5-7% a year then our federal debt would be paid off in just 60-80 years!
<edit>Of course the last time we had four consecutive years, let alone 80, when spent 1% GDP less than we took in was...never.</edit>
[ June 16, 2011, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's another fun note. If the federal government seized all deposited savings* of every person in the United States we could pay off a third of the federal debt right now! Of course, under the current budget plan it would be right back where we started five years from now (although savings might take a little bit longer to recover).
*Not counting Swiss bank accounts or other offshore holdings.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What do you guys think of setting a limit on private holdings, such as 1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars), and after that has been reached, all other profits are distributed?
I know that is a very vague consent and a lot of details would make it into either a good or bad thing, but as an idea, what do you think?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BTW, my suggested 20% of GDP, presuming local and state taxes remained (on average) at current levels, would put our total tax burden at around 29% of GDP. That's still fairly low for an OECD country, but higher than, for instance, Australia, S. Korea, and Ireland and on par with Switzerland, Spain, Canada and New Zealand.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What do you guys think of setting a limit on private holdings, such as 1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars), and after that has been reached, all other profits are distributed?
I know that is a very vague consent and a lot of details would make it into either a good or bad thing, but as an idea, what do you think?
It wouldn't generate much revenue. The number of people with holdings at that level is fairly small. Assuming it had no further economic impact (which it certainly would), such a policy applied right now would net a one time payoff on the order of $600 billion. And each year going forward it would be probably less than a twentieth of that amount. That's not nothing, but it's also not the solution.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Would it make a big difference if the limit was half a billion SR?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Would it make a big difference if the limit was half a billion SR?
I don't know. I was using the Forbes list of 400 richest Americans for my data and it doesn't list anyone with less than $1 billion.
My guess, though, is that it would net something like an additional $300 billion for the one time payment and maybe $15 billion (plus the $30 billion or so from before) a year going forward. Still not that significant.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The point is that density matters. The billionaires are super rich, but there aren't that many of them. If we want to significantly increase total tax take it means increasing the tax burden on households making 2-3 times the median income. There just aren't enough rich folks for soaking them to make up the deficit. That's one reason why, back in the 50s and 60s when the top marginal rate was much higher than today total receipts as a percentage of GDP weren't that much higher than they were 10 years ago.
The real negative impact on federal revenues of Bush's tax cuts isn't due to the cuts for the wealthy, it's due to the cuts for the middle and upper-middle class.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:fugu...as a social trend, perhaps you are right, to actually having an impact into people's lives on a day to day basis, I disagree.
Example: A family who can't quite make ends meet gets food stamps. $400 extra a month only to be spent on food. This makes a real impact in their lives, helping to make ends meet (plus helps the economy by all the products purchased).
Now take all the money out of the food stamps program and put it into, say, small businesses, as grants, or low to no interest loans. Some of the families who were on food stamps will get a job in those small businesses, but some will not, and will not make ends meet and either not have enough to eat, or not make rent or not have money for gas etc ad nauseum.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here, but I'm fairly confident you didn't follow my post, either.
quote:What do you guys think of setting a limit on private holdings, such as 1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars), and after that has been reached, all other profits are distributed?
I know that is a very vague consent and a lot of details would make it into either a good or bad thing, but as an idea, what do you think?
It doesn't matter what other details there are, anything like that is a drastically bad, counterproductive idea. It would do nothing but encourage people to circumvent it, likely in harmful ways, and make people less likely to do things that create great good in the world.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not saying it is a catch all solution for the deficit/economy, but I think that at a certain point, these mega wealthy people are just tying up the life blood of this country.
So, let's say for the sake of argument that we do it, and take that 900 billion and spread it out to the people, and the 45 billion or so per year as well. If my math is right, then that's $9,000 for the big one time, and $450 a year to every single man, woman and child in the US.
Think about what that would do to our economy in the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. Joeblow vs the mega rich who sit on their golden egg and don't actually spend it!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fugu, what I'm saying is this:
quote:Even a small increase in growth, over the long run, ultimately lifts the standards of living of even the poorest far more than even extensive social programs.
I disagree with the above statement as it effects real people in the real world. My example was why.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The point is that density matters. The billionaires are super rich, but there aren't that many of them.
And yet they own a huge portion of the national wealth.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I don't see how it is feesible to pay off this debt. If you watch that stupid digital debt counter, the interest alone is going up so fast that it's unrealistic for us to think we can bring it down. I think the gov't knows this and they mostly use it as an excuse to point fingers at the other side of the political table. In the end, despite what each side says, neither will ever be able to solve the problem.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I disagree with the above statement as it effects real people in the real world. My example was why.
But your example doesn't make any sense in relation to what I wrote.
quote:I'm not saying it is a catch all solution for the deficit/economy, but I think that at a certain point, these mega wealthy people are just tying up the life blood of this country.
This is a massive, fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. Wealthy people are generally wealthy by holding ownership of large chunks of corporations. For instance, huge amounts of Bill Gates' wealth (which, I should point out, he's giving away nearly entirely for exactly the causes you say the money should be spent on) are tied up in Microsoft corporation. That wealth is Microsoft. The only way to turn it into cash is to sell it to someone else, who will then be rich people "holding onto" a bunch of wealth. The only way to "get rid" of the wealth is to "get rid" of Microsoft and all the benefits (pains aside) it provides by its existence (including paying lots of salary to lots of people and providing a platform for huge numbers more people to make money with).
quote:And yet they own a huge portion of the national wealth.
No, actually. Billionaires in the US have a little over 2.5% of US net wealth. That's not a huge portion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:But your example doesn't make any sense in relation to what I wrote.
How is that...you said that if the money used for "entitlements" was used for growth in the long run poor families would be better off.
My point was that "growth" does not put groceries on the table, and food stamps do. What's not relevant?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:How is that...you said that if the money used for "entitlements" was used for growth in the long run poor families would be better off.
My point was that "growth" does not put groceries on the table, and food stamps do. What's not relevant?
You completely missed that what I was talking about was understanding the full effects of entitlement programs, not saying all entitlement programs should be cut.
As for growth not putting groceries on the table, considering growth has put more groceries on the table than any food stamps program, by orders of magnitude, I think I disagree pretty strongly. Growth is what's feeding the billions of the world who weren't being fed before (the number of people who are undernourished is dropping precipitously -- and not due to food stamps -- and a substantial portion of the remainder is due to war and ethnic strife, which is outside the realm of economic growth and food stamps).
Coincidentally, I think the food stamps program is great. Well, sort of. I favor increasing the amount, and giving it in cash.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:You completely missed that what I was talking about was understanding the full effects of entitlement programs, not saying all entitlement programs should be cut.
No, I got what you are saying. And I even said I agree, on a huge scale. My point you keep missing (which isn't that it's wrong to cut entitlements) is that while growth helps everyone in the long run, entitlements help right now and they help a lot.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:No, I got what you are saying. And I even said I agree, on a huge scale. My point you keep missing (which isn't that it's wrong to cut entitlements) is that while growth helps everyone in the long run, entitlements help right now and they help a lot.
Then you're still missing what I'm saying, which is entirely compatible with that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If we agree then what was your point?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wasn't even responding to you initially, but to a totally different discussion, and you were the one who said you disagreed with me, when, as you say, we actually agree. Which confused me, because I didn't see any way you were disagreeing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure thing tiger.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If we agree then what was your point?
Not speaking for fugu, but I took his point to be twofold: 1) that short run pain (like the loss of unemployment insurance) sometimes (often?) leads to personal long run benefits (getting a job) and 2) that if decreased spending on social benefits increased economic growth (even just a little) it could have a net positive effect on the total number of people going hungry each year.
As an example, if my taxes were raised in order to pay for more food stamps I couldn't afford to buy quite so many cheap plastic Walmart toys for my kids and therefore lots more people in China (and Walmart employees in America) would be hungrier as a result.
<edit>My response was OBE, but I'd be interested in knowing if my understanding of fugu's point was accurate.</edit>
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's basically it. This doesn't mean I don't support programs that try to address most directly those people who without assistance are going to be ill nourished, or undereducated, or unhoused, but that just because a program provides a proximate benefit to a person who appears to need that benefit when the program is in place doesn't mean that if the program didn't exist the person would still need that benefit.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Let me ask a different question that maybe Rabbit will find less ridiculous than my last (evidently even in its amended form). <edit>Not that I'm asking Rabbit specifically to answer, although I'd be interested in her opinion. I'd be interested in anyone's response.</edit>
This year the US federal gov't will spend about $2 trillion on social programs, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and the VA. Do you feel that's about right, or that we should be spending more? If we should be spending more, about how much more do you feel it would take such that we were able to cover the needs of the population?
I'm fine (for the purposes of discussion) with the idea of spending a significantly larger amount of money on social welfare. I just want to know how much of a portion you feel is needed. I'd also be interested in how you would propose to structure taxes such that revenues covered the amount of spending. And whether you think the amount needed to cover social welfare expenses of the population is likely to continue increasing as it has in the past.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BTW, after a tweak the proposed amendment to end ethanol subsidies passed the Senate today, with the same 33 Republicans being now joined by 38 Democrats in voting for it.
Unfortunately Pres. Obama has previously said he will veto such a bill (although I guess technically if the bipartisan love holds, they have a veto-proof majority for ending the subsidies, at least in the Senate).
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Why are they willing to end ethanol subsidies but not tax breaks for Big Oil?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Which tax breaks are those? As far as I know, Big Oil's "tax breaks" fall into two general categories: standard business deductions (which aren't really tax breaks at all, and apply to every business), and alternative energy research subsidies. Is there some other kind they're getting? Which would you like to end?
(edit: also, as far as I'm aware, oil companies pay more in taxes, measured as a percentage of before tax earnings, than non-oil industrial companies. Not exactly the sign of companies living on fat tax breaks).
And I'd think Congress is willing to end ethanol subsidies because those subsidies are harmful to pretty much everyone except corn farmers.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Just to give a sense of how much can be gained by increasing income taxes on the wealthy, consider Jan Schakowsky's suggested progressive tax rates, proposed as part of the "People's Budget" from the House Progressive Caucus. They would increase marginal rates to 45% on income over a million dollars and 49% on income over a billion dollars.
The result is about $80 billion a year (according to liberal estimates); again, that's not nothing, but it's nowhere near sufficient to cover deficits. There's just not that much you can do to increase revenues without increasing taxes on the middle class.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's an interesting read from Alan Auerbach (UC Berkley economist) on the mid and long term debt projections. He calculates deficit projections under the assumptions of perpetuating the AMT and Medicare Doc fixes and compares it to the CBO scores. Essentially it shows that the CBO score for the budget likely underestimates total deficits over the next 10 years by about $5 trillion. And that's assuming Bush tax cuts expire as does stimulus spending. If those assumptions are reversed it adds another $5 trillion over 10 years.
But for me the real story is Figure 3 (page 22). Under every projection, revenues (as a percent of GDP) will be flat after 2013 and spending (as a percent of GDP) will linearly increase. All non-mandatory (i.e. non-social) spending will fall, as a percentage of the budget as more and more money (absolutely and proportionally) goes to providing social goods.
The good news is Auerbach is reportedly on Obama's short-list to replace Austen Goolsbee as the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. So if he's appointed, and he manages to avoid being captured by Washington interests, maybe he can bring some sense to the budget process.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I shouldn't have scanned this thread... I shouldn't be replying... Heck, I shouldn't be reading hatrack, it's bad for my mental health... I didn't even find the Dr Who thread I was looking for yet...
Anyway...
The debt will be inflated away. This is effectually a tax on people with savings, so you people out there who ran up debt, good for you. For those of us who scrimped and saved to do the right thing all these years, yeah... buy gold or something cuz we're screwed.
kmb: You expressed concern over the divide between the wealthiest and the poorest... Why? the poorest in this country are still better off than in most other countries. Heck, the poor in California are doing so well they cash their checks in Casinos. Why should the fact that some people are very rich be a problem?
Stonewolf: If we limited wealth to 1 billion dollars in this country, the billionaires would take their money and relocate to a country without such a limit. They'd get fast-tracked to citizenship and would happily pay the much lower taxes in their new country and the USA would be out in the cold. You can see this in action in this country where people of means move from high tax states like NY and CA to no tax states like TX and FL.
And even if we got away with it it wouldn't do a bit of good. We can not TAX our way out of this. The debt is too approaching GDP. When that happens, even if we took everything everyone in the country made we'd still have a debt.
We have to cut spending. Since that isn't going to happen, and spending will continue to increase, we're back to my initial assertion. Inflation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We can not TAX our way out of this.
Can you back that up with any evidence?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:And even if we got away with it it wouldn't do a bit of good. We can not TAX our way out of this. The debt is too approaching GDP. When that happens, even if we took everything everyone in the country made we'd still have a debt.
GDP is a flow quantity. Debt is a stock quantity. Your statement here betrays a complete misunderstanding of the interaction between debt and GDP.
It would be a bad idea to not cut spending and only tax our way out, but it could certainly be done. There's no barrier to it being done that appears when debt equals GDP. The saner course, however, is to both increase taxes judiciously and cut spending.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Hey fugu, I wanted to let you know that I always appreciate your thoughts in threads like this one. I don't always agree with you, but I enjoy hearing your reasoning.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: And even if we got away with it it wouldn't do a bit of good. We can not TAX our way out of this.
We've been here before. Tom's right, you need some citations on this, because we can't take you at your word.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You can tax your way part of the way, obviously taxes alone are not the solution but its a huge part of the need. You experimented with the concept of low taxation to increase economic growth and it completely failed.
Next spending isn't bad in of itself, spending, on hard investments like infrastructure, R&D and education have longterm multiplier effects on GDP and *do* par for themselves.
The problem is Keynesians who think ALL forms of spending irregardless of target will serve to foster GDP growth, this is incorrect and only serves to create bubbles at best that screws over million of people and benefits only those who bet against the success of the country.
Spending is good when it make sense.
What you need is to cut down spending on broken window fallacious "Broken Windows" whose only justification for existing is "because otherwise THE JOBS!!!!".
Military spending needs to be cut, severely. Preferably by half and America to withdraw from its wars, regional organizations for NATO are utterly incapable of acting in a coordinated fashion and lack the budgets or endurence to project even 20,000 men outside Europe, this is because they rely too much on the US.
Pull 90% of US support and they'll be forced to reorient.
Close loopholes, simplify the tax code, ramp up investment in railways, transportation and education, improve standards.
Switch to single payer/universal healthcare, prices will drop like a rock and the cost of healthcare will lurch back to sane levels as HMOs and private insurence is forced to provide better service for lower prices.
Cut spending, AND raise taxes back to their sane levels AND divirt wasteful spending that only enriches people into proper spending that makes the people as a whole prosper.
Most importantly strengthen the welfare state, eliminate the need of bailouts. People losing jobs don't matter with enough support, pay for their living expenses so they'll have time to find more work and offer to pay 4x more for a short time period for them to go back to school and retrain for something better and fastrack the workforce to better employment.
HIGHER SOCIAL AND WORK MOBILITY and you completely eliminate the need for bailouts, because it won't matter of 80k go out of work, that 80k can find better work within 2 years if some what are otherwise prohibitive expenses are taken care of in the short term.
All of this at a fraction of the cost of bailouts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What you need is to cut down spending on broken window fallacious "Broken Windows" whose only justification for existing is "because otherwise THE JOBS!!!!".
... um, what?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It makes complete sense.
Do you know of the "Broken Window Fallacy"? If yes then your simply nitpicking grammar.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Asking what you meant when you wrote something that didn't make a lot of sense isn't 'nitpicking grammar.' Especially when one is stuck wondering if you're talking about the parable of the broken window or broken windows theory. It's an important distinction because spending on the latter has usually done quite a bit of good.
Also I don't know of many keynesians (or today's post-keynesian derivatives or whatever) who are behind 'ALL forms of spending irregardless of target,' really.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Blayne, I know about the broken windows fallacy. You're misapplying it (and I say that as someone who's not so hot on a lot of the recent/current stimulus efforts).
I even agree with some of what you think are good ideas, but it reads like you're reciting a magic incantation. It doesn't sound like you know very much about the actual details of anything involved, or care to know (due to things like misusing the broken windows fallacy).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So Blayne, to boil your statement down:
1) Don't spend money on wasteful things (like defense) but productive things (like workforce training, infrastructure, and the social safety net).
2) Raise taxes back to "sane" levels, close tax "loopholes" and move to a single payer healthcare system.
I would guess the amount of revenue generated by the suggestions under (2) would be about 7% of GDP (depending on how aggressively you define loopholes, and interpreting "sane" as the tax code under any modern administration before Bush). Cutting defense dramatically might net another 4% at the outside. The additional infrastructure and social spending you seem to be suggesting could easily cost twice the proposed increase in revenues.
I think your heart is in the right place, but the truth is either taxes need to be moved to a level never before seen in the US (or most non-Scandinavian developed countries) or the growth of spending needs to be significantly curtailed. That means containing the persisent creep in mandatory spending on social programs. If we don't want to pay more (and by "we" I mean the broad middle class) then we need to start to expect less.
<edit>And even if taxes were moved to Denmarkian levels, we'd still have to solve the problem of social spending creep within the next thirty years or we'd be facing the same problem all over again. Maybe if demographics stabilize that would solve it, but my guess is the continual increase in life expectancy and the increasing cost of keeping old people alive longer (among other things) will result in persistent cost growth in mandatory spending even if/when demographics stabilize.</edit>
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It has already been pointed out that things like Medicare, Social Security etc, can be adjusted to remain within reasonable cost parameters for the indefinite future as people live and can work longer due to improving healthcare. What this will do is help force people earlier on to realize that hey working sucks, and be more proactive in saving up for retirement while still having that safety net there even if things don't work out.
The biggest problem is that this isn't a video game, you can't magically wave the debt gone through sliding tax and spending sliders to wherever you want; because the cuts in spending would need to be so ridiculously large that it would massively disrupt the country and the standard of living. There *might* be a successful adjustment, or there might be a Communist Revolution by angry poor people and wealth redistribution and simply do what the Russians did and say "we aren't paying this debt and aren't obligated to pay it".
What you *CAN* do is be fiscally responsible in the long term, work on investments that might cost a lot NOW but will cost SEVERAL TIMES MORE LATER that will pay dividends in that same later, reduce spending and waste work on reforms that are very likely to reduce costs overall and create a surplus.
Once you have a significant enough surplus you'll be able to gradually pay off the debt and restructure it to present relief, it'll take decades but most people with credit cards also have decades to pay off their debts too.
quote: Especially when one is stuck wondering if you're talking about the parable of the broken window or broken windows theory. It's an important distinction because spending on the latter has usually done quite a bit of good.
Also I don't know of many keynesians (or today's post-keynesian derivatives or whatever) who are behind 'ALL forms of spending irregardless of target,' really.
"What the spending is on doesn't matter, JUST GET SPENDING GOING" from that Hayek vs Keynes video seems to imply this.
But regardless the overall point is sound, military spending is like a broken window. Its existence depends on the rallying cry of "If we cut spending it'll cost American jobs!" when it would cost a fraction to simply retrain with government encourage to have better jobs elsewhere, ala Japan and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
Military spending is like any other kind of bubble, something happens, you spend money to replace it (munitions, the window, etc) that creates a bunch of jobs and presents work and profit to a bunch of people down the production line that all comes crashing down once your out of windows to replace or countries to invade and nothing to show for it but inflated artificial GDP and a whole lot of debt. (Because who had to pay for the window?)
Not that some things like military R&D couldn't have an effect on growth ala infrastructure investment and other military forms of spending like it. But at this point I suspect a majority of it is with partnerships with private industry who might even be more efficient without relying on government subsidies.
Go through it line by line with a scalpel, mandate massive reductions in costs without hurting benefits and salaries, start down sizing focus on mobility and rapid reaction with partnerships with regional organizations that now have to step up to fill the void.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:But regardless the overall point is sound, military spending is like a broken window. Its existence depends on the rallying cry of "If we cut spending it'll cost American jobs!" when it would cost a fraction to simply retrain with government encourage to have better jobs elsewhere, ala Japan and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
You're looking at Japan, the country with a phenomenally larger debt as a percentage of GDP, no credible path out of a deepening population well, and huge unemployment problems after nearly three decades of economic stagnation (excepting a brief intermission) as an example of good macroeconomic policy?
quote:Military spending is like any other kind of bubble, something happens, you spend money to replace it (munitions, the window, etc) that creates a bunch of jobs and presents work and profit to a bunch of people down the production line that all comes crashing down once your out of windows to replace or countries to invade and nothing to show for it but inflated artificial GDP and a whole lot of debt. (Because who had to pay for the window?)
As nobody's been making the argument that wars increase GDP, this is nothing but straw man jousting, and continuing to misunderstand both the point of the US military and the broken windows fallacy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: You're looking at Japan, the country with a phenomenally larger debt as a percentage of GDP, no credible path out of a deepening population well, and huge unemployment problems after nearly three decades of economic stagnation (excepting a brief intermission) as an example of good macroeconomic policy?
I'm looking at when this was SOLID foundation of the "Japanese Miracle" and their record breaking growth during the 50's to 80's.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: simply retrain with government encourage to have better jobs elsewhere
was not in any way the foundation of the Japanese miracle and their very high growth.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Partially it was the case, the MITI euthansized unprofitable/uncompetitive firms and allocated the worthforce to else where.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You're looking at Japan, the country with a phenomenally larger debt as a percentage of GDP, no credible path out of a deepening population well, and huge unemployment problems after nearly three decades of economic stagnation (excepting a brief intermission) as an example of good macroeconomic policy?
Well dude. It's *Japan*. Nuff said, amiright?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Partially it was the case, the MITI euthansized unprofitable/uncompetitive firms and allocated the worthforce to else where.
There might have been a tiny boosting effect. Nowhere near a "foundation". The foundations of Japanese growth in that time were an extremely well educated population ready to change employment from agriculture for low wages, access to the technology of more advanced nations, an industrial policy that made capital restructuring and trade expansion feasible, and extremely beneficial trading terms with US trading partners as part of rebuilding, to name some of the most obvious. The activities you called "the foundation" wouldn't make any foundations list I can imagine, even if it extended for twenty or thirty items.
And I think you'll find unprofitable firms tend to be a self-solving problem, absent gov't efforts to keep them in business.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote: You're looking at Japan, the country with a phenomenally larger debt as a percentage of GDP, no credible path out of a deepening population well, and huge unemployment problems after nearly three decades of economic stagnation (excepting a brief intermission) as an example of good macroeconomic policy?
I'm looking at when this was SOLID foundation of the "Japanese Miracle" and their record breaking growth during the 50's to 80's.
That growth came at the cost of their economic stagnation since the 80's. The "miracle," of the Japanese economy was really just the result of the Japanese government giving preferential loans to companies in Japan, who could then outcompete foreign competitors and keep cash flow coming into the country. This money was then deposited back into government administered banks, who loaned it back to its people again to fuel even more growth. Unfortunately, having begun by giving away money to the tech industry in order to make it artificially competitive, the Japanese government then was forced to continue giving it more money, for fear that without preferential treatment, it would stop being competitive.
The industrial growth was rapid, but continued to depend on ever rising profits from foreign sales, and continued governmental subsidies in the form of low interest loans. This left Japan in a deceptively weak position, because it has to also buy all of its raw materials from abroad. When the need for raw materials becomes too pressing, and prices increase, the cost of manufacturing goes up, the cashflow from foreign sales is cut off (because Japan is no longer beating competition), and the nation finds itself having loaned all of its money to an economy that is suddenly not profitable, and cannot return on the investment.
Basically, Japan has the ages old problem of having nothing to offer except being able to do things better than others do them. This means they depend entirely on never failing to be the best, and never failing to find resources to work with.
That's not a "solid" foundation, any more than the current trade deficit between the US and China places China on "solid" economic footing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:That growth came at the cost of their economic stagnation since the 80's. The "miracle," of the Japanese economy was really just the result of the Japanese government giving preferential loans to companies in Japan, who could then outcompete foreign competitors and keep cash flow coming into the country. This money was then deposited back into government administered banks, who loaned it back to its people again to fuel even more growth. Unfortunately, having begun by giving away money to the tech industry in order to make it artificially competitive, the Japanese government then was forced to continue giving it more money, for fear that without preferential treatment, it would stop being competitive.
That's not an accurate account of Japan's situation, either. Japan's public debt was extremely manageable all the way through the end of the 80s, and only as they kept trying to compensate past the oil shocks did they start sinking into the trap you indicate. What's more, even when gov't funding has not been forthcoming to Japanese manufacturing and tech industries, they've been extremely competitive; the loans and other support seem to be more a symptom of excessive public/private entanglement than a belief that the industries would lose competitiveness. Indeed, if Japan's demographics weren't in the hole like they are, they'd still be sitting pretty.
quote:Basically, Japan has the ages old problem of having nothing to offer except being able to do things better than others do them. This means they depend entirely on never failing to be the best, and never failing to find resources to work with.
Since pretty much every first world nation's external trade is based in the vast majority on doing things (relatively) better than others do them, I think it's a rather reasonable basis for an economy. Comparative advantage is a remarkable thing .
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
As to the first point, of course you're right. They could have floated that kind of system for a lot longer if they didn't have such demographic problems, and if resources had been more forthcoming. But I still think that's a key issue for Japan. They are a totally value-added economy, with no natural resources to exploit. This was a huge contributing factor in their engagement in WWII, and will be a major factor in all of their future political decisions. America, and many other developed nations, could afford a serious leveling off of international trade and huge hikes in energy prices, and still maintain some economic stability just by more aggressively exploiting their own resources and land. Japan has no such options.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If they weren't so dense, they'd be fine, too; they're actually incredibly well-off in terms of arable land, and have some of the best cropland in the world (especially measured as a percentage of their total land area).
But yes, in a total catastrophe situation, they'd be pretty screwed. I just don't see that as being anywhere near where things are at.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
The current economic format of the United States requires reductions on all fronts. Most of the issues result from the corruption and greed that plagues us at all levels of society. The solution revolves around all facets of government and societal influence. Below I've listed things that will, in my opinion, assist in decreasing the debt while also providing a higher opinion for those who would be putting them into action.
#1) Reduce the pay rates for all government officials. The President does not need to be making $400,000 a year. Members of Congress do not need to be making, on average, $174,000 a year. Drop the President's salary to $150,000 a year and members of Congress to $80,000 a year. They are public servants. This will save ~$22 million per year considering just Congress and the President. Reductions of this across the board for public employees will save billions per year. The cuts need to come from the top down, however, as both a sign of good faith and because those who are making six figure salaries can afford a slight reduction in wages. Superintendents of school districts should not be making $200,000+ as some currently do.
#2) Eliminate political parties and revamp the political process. This is a social and political issue in one, though not as much economic. The government can save money on this one by stopping the massive campaigning and instead hold a series of debates on topics that are nationally broadcasted. Additionally, end all political advertising. The reasoning for this is that it is wasted money, frequently public money, and has made a mockery out of the electoral process.
#3) Close the loopholes in the tax code, this alone will supposedly gain the government ~$1 trillion a year. As well, end the corporate welfare especially for companies (like Big Oil) who are consistently showing a profit despite the fact that gas prices have gone up repeatedly. They will survive.
#4) End the billions and billions in foreign aid until we are in a position where we can again assist our allies. If our own country collapses under the debt, we'll be no good to them anyway. Additionally, this will ease some of the danger that exists from terrorist groups as they will no longer be able to hold our alliance with Israel against us.
#5) Expand government to replace government contracts and force government accountability. Too often the contractors provide poor service and poor quality. Lowest bidder doesn't work when they are pocketing half the funds provided.
#6) Cut the military budget and withdraw troops from foreign nations, save for those places we are currently bound (South Korea). Protect our own country and put those men and women to work protecting our nation and rooting out both illegal immigrants and home grown terrorists.
#7) New technologies! Our country has become service based and cannot be sustained. We do need to invest in new technologies and then sell these products internationally. If we need to return to taxing inbound goods to help businesses who make their product within the United States, so be it.
I'm sure there are other things that I could think of and some of my statements do increase government spending, but they also a counterbalance. I'd love to discuss the matter further as this is a topic near and dear to my heart.
[ June 22, 2011, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Johivin ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: kmb: You expressed concern over the divide between the wealthiest and the poorest... Why? the poorest in this country are still better off than in most other countries. Heck, the poor in California are doing so well they cash their checks in Casinos. Why should the fact that some people are very rich be a problem?
Are you suggesting that we should wait until our poor are as poor as the worst off people in the world before we fix it?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'd guess that she's suggesting that you come across as not so much being worried about people actually being poor, but worried that there are too many people around that are too rich in comparison.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:The national debt will exceed the size of the entire U.S. economy by 2021 — and balloon to 200 percent of GDP within 25 years — without dramatic cuts to federal health and retirement programs or steep tax increases, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday...Over the long term, the CBO said, a projected explosion in government spending outside interest on the debt is “attributable entirely” to the ballooning cost of “Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and (to a lesser extent) insurance subsidies” intended to help finance coverage for the uninsured under President Obama’s new health-care law.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'd guess that she's suggesting that you come across as not so much being worried about people actually being poor, but worried that there are too many people around that are too rich in comparison.
When everyone has access a decent place to live, good food, clothing, education, transportation, and health care the rest of you can be as rich as you like.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'd guess that she's suggesting that you come across as not so much being worried about people actually being poor, but worried that there are too many people around that are too rich in comparison.
When everyone has access a decent place to live, good food, clothing, education, transportation, and health care the rest of you can be as rich as you like.
Kmbboots, I'm curious how much time you've spend speaking to the poor and homeless? I, during my college years, spent a great deal of time speaking with those who were. One gentleman who was in his late 50s talked to me about where he could get free food and free housing/clothing from different organizations in the community. Another gentleman, who was also a crackhead, spent an hour talking to me because he believed that I'd give him money if he spoke to me about himself. When I offered to buy him something to eat, myself, he got angry and left. He wasn't interested in food, just the money to buy more drugs.
It would be nice to think that all people want a good job, medical benefits, food and shelter. Giving everyone that would be wonderful, if the people wanted them and would work hard to maintain that. That's not the case though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Johlvin: much of your list is ill conceived.
One: Lowering salaries for Congress, given the extreme travel demands, is only going to make it even harder for anyone who isn't rich to become a member of Congress. What's more, while some aspects of public sector salaries could use mild adjustment, there aren't billions in savings out there. The numbers just aren't that out of whack. And even a few billion dollars is such a tiny drop in the bucket that this isn't worth much discussion in any serious debt reduction plan.
Three: considering that Big Oil benefits from no loopholes to speak of, and has quite low profits (and high taxes) compared to other similar industries, you might want to revisit your assumptions. Further, it ignores the incentive problem -- remove those "loopholes" just as a way to raise taxes, and businesses will change how they operate (likely to the detriment of the economy). I'm in favor of tax simplification, but that needs to be mostly revenue neutral, with tax increases saved until the landscape readjusts.
Four: Hardly anything goes to foreign aid, as a percentage of the budget. Further, some of the "foreign aid" you specifically identify is in the form of purchase rights. That is, Israel is given the right to purchase our weaponry, and we make money on the deal.
Five: I don't think you have any idea how huge an expense and expansion of government you are proposing here.
Six: put the military to work rooting out illegal immigrants? Wow. You might want to look into how the economy of Georgia is doing after they cracked down in illegal immigrants. That's ignoring the gross misunderstanding of the role of most of our military endeavors (excepting Iraq and Afghanistan).
Seven: I don't think you understand what service-based means. Most of the technology-related jobs in the US are counted in the service sector. As for tariffs helping create new products, the result would be quite the opposite.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: That's not the case though.
Yeah. Who could possibly refute a proof by two dubious anecdotes? Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: That's not the case though.
Yeah. Who could possibly refute a proof by two dubious anecdotes?
How many more do you want, Mucus? I have hundreds of people whose stories I can give to prove my point. I can also give the viewpoints of those who would be worthy of such a society. As kmbboots stated that it was something for everyone, I merely pulled two people who I had spoken to who lacked the motivation to pull themselves into a "regular life".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't care if they lack motivation and you have no idea how hard it may be for some people to "pull" themselves into a "normal life" or how much farther they have to pull themselves than you did.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
#1) I love that you want to negate drops in the bucket, fugu. These are public sector employees, fugu. They are there to serve the public. Going into public service, you are there to serve others not become a millionaire. From NJ alone, cutting the salaries of superintendents to $100k a year would save $40 million. That's one state and ONLY the superintendents, not including the Vice Superintendents. If that was a similar amount for each state on just the superintendent level, you'd talking about savings of 2 billion per year from a very minor sector of society. Ignoring these "drops" because you don't seem capable of taking from a plethora of different areas is your choice, but they are viable.
#3) As far as Big Oil, if you really want to compare them to "comparable" companies, I have severe concerns for your ethical standpoint. $11 billion profit for Exxon Mobil while throwing excuses about how gas prices going up isn't related to them doesn't give them much room to stand on.
#4) "Some" of the aid, fugu, and of the billions that we've given to Israel, how much have they repaid and how much will they have to repay? The fact is that most of it has not and will not be repaid and yet we continue to provide them with ~$3 billion a year.
#5)I don't think you really understand how much waste occurs from GOVERNMENT FUNDS under the current process.
#6)There is a loss in revenue for the government by the presence of illegal immigrants. Personally, I feel that we should just shoot a group that have been rounded up to discourage illegal immigration into the country.
#7) I understand completely what a service-based. Technology, seeing as you clearly do not understand, includes the making and crafting of new tools to improve life and efficiency. Tariffs would potentially help to return to the production of products on U.S. soil. It would open old industries back up that have moved overseas.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why can't that anecdotal crackhead just *will* himself into sobriety, amiright? He just lacks motivation.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't care if they lack motivation and you have no idea how hard it may be for some people to "pull" themselves into a "normal life" or how much farther they have to pull themselves than you did.
I've had to revamp my life repeatedly in order to survive. I did what needed to be done in order to survive. I received basic skills from my parents and my education and that's it. I put myself through college without a single penny of financial aid or outside help. I had an average start but I always made choices to make sure that I and mine survived.
You choose how you respond from the cards that you're dealt. Two people given the same circumstances can go in different directions. The individual makes their choice. Some people choose to marry for money, others for love. Some people follow their religion fanatically while others follow it from a distance.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why can't that anecdotal crackhead just *will* himself into sobriety, amiright? He just lacks motivation.
Who made his choice for him? Do we have free will or is it destiny? If I killed a man tomorrow, can I say that someone made me do it or did I do it of my own volition?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How many crack dealers were selling in your neighborhood? And I note you say 'parents'. Had both of 'em in your life, then? How exactly did you put yourself through college without any kind of financial aid? Got a job early, started saving? Guess you didn't need to get a job to keep the lights on when you were a kid then.
And so on and so forth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:#1) I love that you want to negate drops in the bucket, fugu. These are public sector employees, fugu. They are there to serve the public. Going into public service, you are there to serve others not become a millionaire. From NJ alone, cutting the salaries of superintendents to $100k a year would save $40 million. That's one state and ONLY the superintendents, not including the Vice Superintendents. If that was a similar amount for each state on just the superintendent level, you'd talking about savings of 2 billion per year from a very minor sector of society. Ignoring these "drops" because you don't seem capable of taking from a plethora of different areas is your choice, but they are viable.
This is a public choice problem. If we demand public sector servants get ridiculously low wages (as $100k for someone managing a large school district is), there will be only a few kinds of people who take such jobs. People who are altruistic and willing to take a huge wage hit to serve the public, people who will use the job to gain some other compensation, and people who will look for the job purely for the power it brings. It feels good to demand they work for low wages as a sacrifice for the good of the whole, but it is stupid policy.
quote:#3) As far as Big Oil, if you really want to compare them to "comparable" companies, I have severe concerns for your ethical standpoint. $11 billion profit for Exxon Mobil while throwing excuses about how gas prices going up isn't related to them doesn't give them much room to stand on.
Exxon Mobil's profit is a lot more than that if you want to make them sound bad .
quote:#5)I don't think you really understand how much waste occurs from GOVERNMENT FUNDS under the current process.
I do, quite well. But you aren't proposing anything that would help with the problem.
quote:#6)There is a loss in revenue for the government by the presence of illegal immigrants. Personally, I feel that we should just shoot a group that have been rounded up to discourage illegal immigration into the country.
The first statement is factually incorrect, and has been repudiated again and again in studies. The second demonstrates amply the true roots of your attitude, I think.
quote:#7) I understand completely what a service-based. Technology, seeing as you clearly do not understand, includes the making and crafting of new tools to improve life and efficiency. Tariffs would potentially help to return to the production of products on U.S. soil. It would open old industries back up that have moved overseas.
You're missing some words, there. What's more, I don't understand why you want to return industries that can't manage to be profitable at substandard wages to the US. The fact that our technology is assembled overseas is a cost savings, both for US companies and US consumers, not a loss.
quote:How many more do you want, Mucus? I have hundreds of people whose stories I can give to prove my point. I can also give the viewpoints of those who would be worthy of such a society. As kmbboots stated that it was something for everyone, I merely pulled two people who I had spoken to who lacked the motivation to pull themselves into a "regular life".
Hundreds? Excellent, please provide a list.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How many crack dealers were selling in your neighborhood? And I note you say 'parents'. Had both of 'em in your life, then? How exactly did you put yourself through college without any kind of financial aid? Got a job early, started saving? Guess you didn't need to get a job to keep the lights on when you were a kid then.
And so on and so forth.
So every child who grows up with crack dealers in their neighborhood becomes a crackhead?
I put myself through college by working as an RA on campus and working 40 hours a week. I started working at the age of 12 after my father lost his job. My junior and senior year in high school I worked 40 hours on top of attending school to save up money. During the summers, I worked 60-80 hours a week.
I did what was necessary in order to achieve what I wanted. I had both of my parents, so what? Does having only one parent mean that you're immediately at a disadvantage? Do only people with two parents become successful? What about the people who have two parents and don't become successful? Where do you want to throw the blame for that? Maybe instead people should take responsiblity for their choices and actions to the extent that they can instead of making excuses.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why do you care about how hard they may or may not have worked? How hard does an heiress work?
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
#1, $100k per year is low for someone who has few actual responsiblities, especially in districts that also have 1 or 2 Vice superintendents? When the teachers are making 1/6th of what the superintendent is and are being attacked for their "outrageous" benefits, it is absurd to think that someone who has minimal responsiblities is somehow entitled to 200k a year.
#3) not refuting my point? #5) Too often the contractors don't have to show reciepts after the fact. Having it internalized along with accountability measures forces it into public domain. #6) Many illegal immigrants will receive medical care under Medicaid programs if needed. The hospitals bill Medicaid, thus it does cost the government. As far as my "attitude", I disapprove of people breaking the law, in general. My friends are quite aware that were they to commit a serious crime that I would report them to the police. Adults who choose to sneak into the country illegally do so knowingly and must be held accountable for their actions. As an open door policy has serious complications, I'd prefer limited immigration. Those who choose to break the law must be held accountable for their actions. #7)Because it isn't sustainable. You cannot continue to do back-end work forever. Many Americans aren't capable of providing basic customer service.
You want me to post all the people who I've spoken with? Can I get a mod to confirm that I won't be warned for spamming?
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why do you care about how hard they may or may not have worked? How hard does an heiress work?
And I disagree with the lifestyle of an heiress as well, kmbboots. I care about society and how it functions. I know I err by having expectations for people, it's one of my faults.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The nice thing about heroic achievement stories in an online setting: much like anecdotes, they don't have to be at all substantiated.
Shoot illegal immigrants? Why, what a wonderful idea! We just need to *kill 'em!*, that'll do the job. It's amusing how quickly you go from (supposedly) addressing causes of problems in the economy to addressing just a symptom.
And as for responsibility, the point was (obviously) not that background determines result, but that achieving given results is easier for some people than others. And to point out, "Hey, when was becoming addicted to crack *ever* a serious possibility for you?
Anyway, please tell us more about how many hours you work or worked, that's *like* an actual argument rather than completely unsubstantiated preening.
Shoot illegal immigrants. Frickin' hell.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And...no. You posting dozens or hundreds of anecdotes isn't, y'know, *evidence* of anything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:#1, $100k per year is low for someone who has few actual responsiblities, especially in districts that also have 1 or 2 Vice superintendents? When the teachers are making 1/6th of what the superintendent is and are being attacked for their "outrageous" benefits, it is absurd to think that someone who has minimal responsiblities is somehow entitled to 200k a year.
Minimal responsibilities? You don't actually know what a superintendent does, I think. A superintendent is the CEO of a school district, and a school district of even moderate size is a huge business.
I'm not bothering to respond to most of your post because it's clear you're not actually interested in any information. You're just spewing things; I pointed out how drastically inaccurate your number on Exxon-Mobil's profits was to emphasize how little relation to reality your views have.
And, as far as I know, no person on this board who is not posting advertising has ever been warned for spamming. A list of hundreds of people you've talked to with a short account of how every single one of them fits the narrative you've given wouldn't even come close to being one of the longest legitimate posts ever.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johivin:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'd guess that she's suggesting that you come across as not so much being worried about people actually being poor, but worried that there are too many people around that are too rich in comparison.
When everyone has access a decent place to live, good food, clothing, education, transportation, and health care the rest of you can be as rich as you like.
Kmbboots, I'm curious how much time you've spend speaking to the poor and homeless? I, during my college years, spent a great deal of time speaking with those who were. One gentleman who was in his late 50s talked to me about where he could get free food and free housing/clothing from different organizations in the community. Another gentleman, who was also a crackhead, spent an hour talking to me because he believed that I'd give him money if he spoke to me about himself. When I offered to buy him something to eat, myself, he got angry and left. He wasn't interested in food, just the money to buy more drugs.
It would be nice to think that all people want a good job, medical benefits, food and shelter. Giving everyone that would be wonderful, if the people wanted them and would work hard to maintain that. That's not the case though.
Dude, I work with this population on a daily basis, and have for years. For the most part you are dead wrong. And if you actually spent any time with these people outside of a few "feel-good" soup kitchen moments you'd already know that.
What is the overall rate of mental illness in homeless people? What types of mental illness are most common? What is the overall level of education of these people? What is the average length of stay on the streets?
Just because you talked to a couple of winos in college doesn't make you an expert. All it does is expose your bias, and your lack of actual experience.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Use contact information too. At this point I don't respect anything you have to say enough to actually take your word for any of it. You'd probably just cut and paste a phone book.
I've had well over 1500 people at my place of work this year alone. Since January. Probably 20% MIGHT fit PART of the profile you put forth. And most of them are still fighting serious mental illness.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well they *chose* to get a mental illness, obviously. Or chose not to get help. You believe in predestination or something?
Hey, know what'd work great? Cap a few of those homeless, right in the dome. Lesson to the others. Also a cure for mental illness, *and* endorsed by Sam Kinison!
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And...no. You posting dozens or hundreds of anecdotes isn't, y'know, *evidence* of anything.
Consider them what you will, however, these are people who I -actually- spoke to, because I care about learning about other people.
As far as shooting illegal immigrants, has there been ANY conclusion that has been given by a politician in the last twenty years to create a viable solution? Sometimes a tough response is necessary.
You were the individual who tried to make the claim that someone's background plays a role. Each person is an individual who makes their own choices. Instead of blaming society for someone, why aren't people responsible for their own actions?
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:#1, $100k per year is low for someone who has few actual responsiblities, especially in districts that also have 1 or 2 Vice superintendents? When the teachers are making 1/6th of what the superintendent is and are being attacked for their "outrageous" benefits, it is absurd to think that someone who has minimal responsiblities is somehow entitled to 200k a year.
Minimal responsibilities? You don't actually know what a superintendent does, I think. A superintendent is the CEO of a school district, and a school district of even moderate size is a huge business.
I'm not bothering to respond to most of your post because it's clear you're not actually interested in any information. You're just spewing things; I pointed out how drastically inaccurate your number on Exxon-Mobil's profits was to emphasize how little relation to reality your views have.
And, as far as I know, no person on this board who is not posting advertising has ever been warned for spamming. A list of hundreds of people you've talked to with a short account of how every single one of them fits the narrative you've given wouldn't even come close to being one of the longest legitimate posts ever.
#1, you know absolutely nothing about the role of a superintendent. I was a teacher for three years and went to college for education. My brother is a principal, my father a Supermarket teacher at a VoTech school, my mother is a 4th grade Special Ed. teacher, my uncle works at a school for the mentally handicapped. My aunt works at a college. I have more knowledge of the education system then you will ever have. So, please don't dare to have a pissing match with me on it. Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
I left my job as a teacher to be a stay-at-home father to my daughter. I strongly support public servants, however, the waste at the administrative level needs to be cut. These people are overpaid and it is not reasonable to expect teachers to pay more into their pensions and benefits when they are barely scraping by and allowing administrators to not be effected because it's "drops in a bucket".
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Use contact information too. At this point I don't respect anything you have to say enough to actually take your word for any of it. You'd probably just cut and paste a phone book.
I've had well over 1500 people at my place of work this year alone. Since January. Probably 20% MIGHT fit PART of the profile you put forth. And most of them are still fighting serious mental illness.
You are missing the point I was making, Kwea. The person I originally responsed to stated that everyone should have those things. Not everyone wants those things or destroys their own lives by their choice via drugs, alcohol, etc.
Mental illness is NOT a choice. Whether it was a genetic abnormality, the result of injury or abuse is not the same as those who chose to drink or do drugs. You have a choice in that, don't you? Do people force you to do those things or do we actually have free will?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
Are you sure? This seems like something that would require a heck of a lot more than 3 years (in how many districts? I'm guessing one, but surely no more than 3) in teaching to know firsthand. So is there some study or something that you've seen that substantiates this belief?
Have you ever so much as spent a day with a superintendent to see what they did that day? I mean, at least 9 to 5?
Edit: anyway, surely you know that leaders of organizations aren't paid based on how much raw effort they put in each day.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well they *chose* to get a mental illness, obviously. Or chose not to get help. You believe in predestination or something?
Hey, know what'd work great? Cap a few of those homeless, right in the dome. Lesson to the others. Also a cure for mental illness, *and* endorsed by Sam Kinison!
Grow up, Rakeesh. Are the people coming illegally slaves, Rakeesh? Are they coming at gunpoint against their will? No government official has ever made a statement that would actually solve the problem. Human beings respond best to fear. Fear has always been the greatest motivator in the world. People who believe in God are fearful of Hell, so what do they do? They follow the laws the religion have set out for them. People who have severe allergies are fearful of the reaction, so they take care to make sure they don't expose themselves to the allergen.
Even if the shooting was faked, it would still send the intended message. The country cannot have an open border policy unless we are going to be annexing foreign nations so that we can grow enough food to support the population. The population of the world without population controls will grow until it cannot support it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:#1, you know absolutely nothing about the role of a superintendent. I was a teacher for three years and went to college for education. My brother is a principal, my father a Supermarket teacher at a VoTech school, my mother is a 4th grade Special Ed. teacher, my uncle works at a school for the mentally handicapped. My aunt works at a college. I have more knowledge of the education system then you will ever have. So, please don't dare to have a pissing match with me on it. Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
I'm not getting in a pissing match with you. You're the one getting in a pissing match. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong, and fairly obviously so. For instance, picking a random-ish school district in New Jersey that isn't particularly large, the Camden City Public Schools, the budget there is over a third of a million dollars, not counting major construction expenditures, which have in some years totaled another hundred million plus (edit: actually, I'm not sure if that number is already included in the previous number or not; either way, it's a darn big number). So, that's managing the equivalent of a business that does nearly a half a billion dollars in expenditures. And you're saying that's a heck of a lot easier than managing a single school, in large part because there are a whole two vice superintendents to help out? Want to look into what comparable positions in the private sector pay?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Johivin, you do realize that people die trying to cross the border all the time. Right? And yet they are desperate enough to keep trying. Leaving everything and everyone behind and risking their lives to get here to take a job no one else wants.
What the hell makes you so much more worthy?
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
Are you sure? This seems like something that would require a heck of a lot more than 3 years (in how many districts? I'm guessing one, but surely no more than 3) in teaching to know firsthand. So is there some study or something that you've seen that substantiates this belief?
Have you ever so much as spent a day with a superintendent to see what they did that day? I mean, at least 9 to 5?
Edit: anyway, surely you know that leaders of organizations aren't paid based on how much raw effort they put in each day.
I grew up in a household where I was exposed to every facet of the educational field. No, I haven't spent a day watching an individual superintendent. My mother-in-law, however, is a secretary at the board office of her district. This houses the superintendent and the TWO vice superintendents. She has frequently complained about the 2-3 hour lunches that are taken and the superintendent's secretary does most of the superintendent's work as the superintendent dictates most of his work via the secretary. The school board won't allow him to even send out announcements without having the secretary reading it over and making corrections because the last time he did, they received dozens of parental complaints from how unorganized and poorly written it was.
Schools are more top heavy then they should be. Teachers and support staff bear the brunt of cutbacks, rarely the administration. Principals are removed only after several years of poor test scores or personal issues. Superintendents generally are only removed for personal reasons.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Johivin, you do realize that people die trying to cross the border all the time. Right? And yet they are desperate enough to keep trying. Leaving everything and everyone behind and risking their lives to get here to take a job no one else wants.
What the hell makes you so much more worthy?
I certainly never said I was, kmbboots. I, however, do not justify people's illegal actions that they did knowingly. Should people not be responsible for their actions? If someone commits a crime, shouldn't they be held accountable for it? or should we continue to make excuses for them?
Responsiblity for your actions. A man just robbed a bank the other day so that he could go to prison and get medical aid that he needed. He did this action willingly and understanding the consequences of his actions. Should he have to go to jail in order to get the medical aid he requires? No. Is that the society that we currently have? Yes. Should that be changed so that people have access to health care without the overwhelming burdens associated with it? Yes.
The fact is that there are many atrocities in the world. These people are coming from nothing and are looking for something better. For that they are willing to risk everything. Do I understand why they do it? yes. Do I still expect people to obey the laws? Also yes. They are making a choice. The consequences must still be applied. Failure to apply substantial consequences to deter the act results in disregard for the law.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:#1, you know absolutely nothing about the role of a superintendent. I was a teacher for three years and went to college for education. My brother is a principal, my father a Supermarket teacher at a VoTech school, my mother is a 4th grade Special Ed. teacher, my uncle works at a school for the mentally handicapped. My aunt works at a college. I have more knowledge of the education system then you will ever have. So, please don't dare to have a pissing match with me on it. Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
I'm not getting in a pissing match with you. You're the one getting in a pissing match. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong, and fairly obviously so. For instance, picking a random-ish school district in New Jersey that isn't particularly large, the Camden City Public Schools, the budget there is over a third of a million dollars, not counting major construction expenditures, which have in some years totaled another hundred million plus (edit: actually, I'm not sure if that number is already included in the previous number or not; either way, it's a darn big number). So, that's managing the equivalent of a business that does nearly a half a billion dollars in expenditures. And you're saying that's a heck of a lot easier than managing a single school, in large part because there are a whole two vice superintendents to help out? Want to look into what comparable positions in the private sector pay?
But you are not understanding the roles of these people in education. The superintendent is a politician who is often merely the face of the district to the school board. Frequently the superintendent is bypassed and principals and school staff will deal directly with the school board.
Let's look at Camden. What are Camden's largest citywide problems? Drugs and violence. These are due to societal situations that are detrimental and poor family structures, generally speaking. Many of the students are involved in gangs from an early age and due to a continuing trend regarding parental involvement, many of these students will be out until after midnight even as a young child. I did my student teaching in Paulsboro and 2 years of observation in Camden. As well, I have a good friend who works in the Camden school district. Over the course of many years, millions and millions of dollars have been thrown at Camden to improve it's school district, to little avail. They spend roughly $16,000 per student and they still have not made any progress. The solution for Camden is to get caring individuals into the classroom who can be a life support for these students. The solution is also to educate the parents so that the children can improve their education at home as well. Instead of cutting police as was recently done, an effective police staff that works with the populus is also necessary.
Camden can be improved from the current educational pit that it currently is. It requires a much larger role then just throwing money at it. A new building doesn't fix the problems. Money won't solve Camden's problems. Until someone addresses the societal issues that exist in Camden, Camden's school district will not improve.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, can't win the argument so you change the game. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Nobody's been saying throwing money at the problem will solve education. What I've been saying is fairly clear: managing extremely large enterprises (over a third of a billion dollars for a medium-sized school district in a poor area!), be they businesses or schools, is a difficult, time-consuming task that deserves a commensurate salary, especially if you want to get someone competent. I'm not talking some revolutionary superintendent who will make education miraculously better, I'm just talking about not drastically mismanaging everything.
As for principals going directly to the board and whatnot, how large did you say the school district was you were talking about? Also, one or two badly managed districts (as yours apparently are) does not sink the argument in the least. If anything, it strengthens my argument.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: [qb] kmb: You expressed concern over the divide between the wealthiest and the poorest... Why? the poorest in this country are still better off than in most other countries. Heck, the poor in California are doing so well they cash their checks in Casinos. Why should the fact that some people are very rich be a problem? ]
Because, widening gaps in wealth distribution can squeeze the middle class out of existence, and eventually lead to a situation where a small number of the rich dominate politically and economically, which can in turn lead to populist movements and subsequent political oppression. That's part of how Rome fell- the rich became rich enough to vie for total political control of the state, and it became about manipulating the masses through populism, who were poor and disenfranchised, into siding with one faction or the other- always comprised of very rich people.
A widening wealth gap is correlated strongly with a widening gap in political representation. That is something which should concern lovers of democracy. I really can't believe you still need to ask this kind of question- do you not know what the answer will be?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: Grow up, Rakeesh. Are the people coming illegally slaves, Rakeesh? Are they coming at gunpoint against their will? No government official has ever made a statement that would actually solve the problem. Human beings respond best to fear. Fear has always been the greatest motivator in the world. People who believe in God are fearful of Hell, so what do they do? They follow the laws the religion have set out for them. People who have severe allergies are fearful of the reaction, so they take care to make sure they don't expose themselves to the allergen.
Even if the shooting was faked, it would still send the intended message. The country cannot have an open border policy unless we are going to be annexing foreign nations so that we can grow enough food to support the population. The population of the world without population controls will grow until it cannot support it. [/QB]
Your view of the necessity of major fear as a motivator isn't supported by even a *brief* look at human history. As generations pass, things have consistently grown *less* frightening throughout much of the world, yet in the many places where that happens (say, all of the 'Western world'), things don't descend into fearful chaos of scofflaws. The very real fear of death and pain doesn't put a stop or even much inhibit things like the drug trade, or even as you mention illegal immigration. As Kmbboots rightly points out, illegals often deal with much worse than a ridiculous vengeful American policy. It's just fundamentally stupid, and suggesting it puts you in some *really* nasty company; all for law and order, I'm sure *rolleyes*.
And as for the reason we need to better control illegal immigration...let me see if I understand you right: we need to stop it because we *can't feed them?* There are a whole host of reasons why that is just deeply foolish, but here's a quick one: we pay farmers *not* to grow things. Another would be that, yknow, we waste vast amounts of food here in the USA. I have to admit I've heard lots of out-there reasons why we need to be more violent and retaliatory about it, but *lack of food?* Give me a break.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, ignoring everything else, that argument wraps itself up rather handily.
- we can grow enough food to support said population - we can do so without annexing foreign nations - problem solved?!?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Just to give a sense of how much can be gained by increasing income taxes on the wealthy, consider Jan Schakowsky's suggested progressive tax rates, proposed as part of the "People's Budget" from the House Progressive Caucus. They would increase marginal rates to 45% on income over a million dollars and 49% on income over a billion dollars.
The result is about $80 billion a year (according to liberal estimates); again, that's not nothing, but it's nowhere near sufficient to cover deficits. There's just not that much you can do to increase revenues without increasing taxes on the middle class.
Here's another estimate on how much raising income taxes on the wealthy, including reclassifying carried interest as income could impact our deficit. The upshot: total revenue increases (making some heroic assumptions about people's lack of strategic behavior) on the order of about $50B a year.
Not saying it's not a good idea, but it's not in and of itself going to have a real impact on our fiscal outlook.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: I've worn my calculator pad out trying to crunch numbers coming up with a logical and realistic way that our government and we the people can pay off our debt plus interest.
We're running a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit with no plan to eliminate making the debt bigger.
Right now our Inter Rates are being kept at 0% by the Federal Reserve, it's been like this since 2008, when the interest rate rises, each point will represent an extra $200 billion that the USA has to pay in interest.
Almost every major economy has a debt larger than its GDP.
So...
I think this is an important question that needs to be answered...
How does the USA pay off a 15 trillion dollar debt?
I spent 45 seconds with MY calculator and came up with a pretty simple plan, really. Have every American send the government $5000 per month for the next year. The debt will be paid off before the election.
Feel free to send me a thank you card for solving this ostensibly unsolvable enigma.
Thank you, and good nite.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Supposedly the liabilities for social security and medicaid if added to the federal debt would balloon the debt to between 50 and 85 trillion$, supposedly. What is this number about?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm going to go ahead and be the guy who skips (most of) the entire discussion and simply leaves a comment.
I don't think we'll ever pay off the debt. It's too much, and the interest is building too steadily, for us to realistically acheive this without completely destroying our economy.
But just out of curiousity (I asked this a few posts into the first page, but here it is again), would anything happen if we didn't pay it off? I mean, we've been in debt since our nation was founded (we borrowed from the French initially), so it's not really anything new.
I feel like the debt is probably just another issue that the two parties use to get votes. You know, by promising to solve the issue and then never doing anything (at least as far as I'm aware). Anyway, I'm not really very informed about the debt issue, so take what I said with a grain of salt (and feel free to correct me).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Great Depression. Your GDP would drop by 50 or possibly 80%, ALL USD are loaned into existence which are loaned out by fractional banking to create and expand the money supply.
There's a difference between your current debt, and current monetary policy which has only been in existence for the last 27 (37?) years since the abandonment of the Bretton Woods system allowing for unlimited inflationary spending. When you were on the gold standard inflation from wars always came back down to baseline levels. The last 20 years of US history has been different from any other period of US history, and the next 20 will be interesting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'm going to go ahead and be the guy who skips (most of) the entire discussion and simply leaves a comment.
I don't think we'll ever pay off the debt. It's too much, and the interest is building too steadily, for us to realistically acheive this without completely destroying our economy.
But just out of curiousity (I asked this a few posts into the first page, but here it is again), would anything happen if we didn't pay it off? I mean, we've been in debt since our nation was founded (we borrowed from the French initially), so it's not really anything new.
I feel like the debt is probably just another issue that the two parties use to get votes. You know, by promising to solve the issue and then never doing anything (at least as far as I'm aware). Anyway, I'm not really very informed about the debt issue, so take what I said with a grain of salt (and feel free to correct me).
We have not always been *this* much in debt. Having debt isn't a problem, being unable to pay it off is. Way back when the country was founded Alexander Hamilton with sound fiscal policy and a central bank, put us on the road to paying off the debt. As early as Bill Clinton the government was in a very good position to tackle the debt, but it wasn't politically important. So instead we got involved in two major wars, continued to ignore spiraling medicare/medicade costs, cut taxes, and experienced a crash/recession.
While all of that is terrible and absolutely needs to be addressed, we could tackle the debt if we were serious by actually making payments on the principle. We need to have federal budgets that run surpluses, and start making annual 500 billion - 1 trillion payments. With a debt of about 14.5 trillion, and an annual GDP of 14 trillion, that should be entirely doable over the next 30-40 years. Even if we stop short and simply pull the debt back into 5-7 trillion, that in of itself a big deal, and is possible.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I hear Krispy Kreme has fundraising programs. We could all sell donuts. I'd be happy to do my part. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
supposedly the debt is 90 trillion.
[ August 22, 2011, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"our"?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Pic or it didnt happen.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
All we need to do is make more than we are spending, even if the debt is going down 1m a year it's always going to be better than the debt going up.
I am more hung up on HOW do we pay this 'money', do we sell it to other countries as goods and services or do we just straight up give them the dollars O_o they've got no use for dollars.... so what do they do some digital bank transfer where it converts into their money... Unless we intend on paying them in goods & services, I don't understand how exactly this will work........... --------------------------- While also trying not to derail the topic, as I said first, the only thing we should be concerned with is making the debt stop climbing and start falling even if it's a small amount, the biggies are all concerned with trying to pay it off in the shortest amount of time possible which is a mistake itself...
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Pic or it didnt happen.
That's the kevin trudeau method for getting out of debt right there
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Unless we intend on paying them in goods & services, I don't understand how exactly this will work........... --------------------------- While also trying not to derail the topic, as I said first, the only thing we should be concerned with is making the debt stop climbing and start falling even if it's a small amount, the biggies are all concerned with trying to pay it off in the shortest amount of time possible which is a mistake itself...
The debt is primarily composed of bonds. The US issues the bond, and it is bought by an investor, a fund, or sometimes even directly by a foreign government (though a lot of this activity is not happening directly at the state level, but through intermediary brokerages). The US then spends that money. They owe interest on the bond, until that bond is payed. A large portion of the debt is actually owed to American citizens who are bondholders through their various investments. So not paying off the debt is not paying yourself back, in a way.
The idea is not to pay back the bond as quickly as possible, but to pay back the bond at the right speed, so that you can benefit from the infusion of cash to expand your economy, and then pay the bond back at a rate of interest, over a period of time, that makes it advantageous to have borrowed the money in the first place. Your economy has grown to be worth more than the debt requires to be payed back. The investor gets a safe security, and the economy grows. Bonds are how governments grow when they need to grow, and paying them back (normally by raising taxes) is a way of equalizing some pressure to expand. If the economy isn't expanding fast enough, you raise taxes in order to pay back the bonds, easing pressure on your economy to continue to grow despite lack of demand.
One problem with the whole conservative viewpoint, is essentially that they refuse to accept that taxes, bonds, and debt are equalizing valves for economic expansion. And you have to have some form of control on all the valves for it to make any sense. If you just try to pay back the debt by reducing your spending, you drive the economy further into recession- the bonds are payed back, but less money moves around. Whereas paying back the debt with a mix of cuts and increased taxes allows that transition to happen much more smoothly- and at a much lower overall economic price.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Markets pricing in QE3.
So the Fed's Balance sheet of 2.7 trillion will grow to 4.2 trillion. And, since the Fed is backstopped by the Treasury,
you can add the Fed's 4.2 to the 14.5 trillion debt.
I imaging the hyperinflation line is between 20 trillion and 25 trillion
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)