Author Topic: Part of the problem in the Economics field  (Read 10400 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Part of the problem in the Economics field
« on: September 06, 2010, 10:46:38 PM »
Every solution I hear being bandied about involves some sort of stimulus spending or another, the debate is often what sort of stimulus spending we should engage in.  It is really a nasty victory of the Keynsians and banking clans (people who loan money love the idea of people going deeper in debt).

Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument.  It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.

I have a different opinion.  I view this as a debt problem.  Sacrifice as a nation, pay off our debt, bunker down and we regain prosperity.  Let people learn from the pain.

Any thoughts?

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline Lacarnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4154
  • Reputation: +316/-315
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2010, 12:12:11 AM »
Every solution I hear being bandied about involves some sort of stimulus spending or another, the debate is often what sort of stimulus spending we should engage in.  It is really a nasty victory of the Keynsians and banking clans (people who loan money love the idea of people going deeper in debt).

Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument.  It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.

I have a different opinion.  I view this as a debt problem.  Sacrifice as a nation, pay off our debt, bunker down and we regain prosperity.  Let people learn from the pain.

Any thoughts?



Yep. cut spending and cut taxes. More pain is not we need. BTW, the government does give me a damn thing without taking it from me or someone else.

Offline RightCoast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3438
  • Reputation: +185/-24
  • Semper Fi means more than most will ever know
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2010, 01:10:45 AM »
Quote
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument.  It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.

I'll disagree with you here because the liberal mantra from a few months ago was that the Bush tax cuts were never funded in the budget year they passed. Regan's tax cuts weren't funded in the budget either, however, if you stop looking at government budgets the way governments do and start looking at them the way businesses do you'll see the smart investment of tax cuts.  Both the Regan and Bush tax cuts grew revenue, period. So under the budget they were passed they show a loss, yet over the next few years the treasury takes in more money then it would have otherwise, thus using a business world view, tax cuts are not only funded; they are profitable. Tax cuts don't stimulate demand, they create growth. Growth creates wealth, wealth creates new tax revenue.

As an example of the government outlook: this past fiscal year CT showed a surplus of over 400 million dollars. They did that through nothing short of generational theft by not making scheduled pension payments (which have to be made later), taking money out of the "rainy day" fund (which has to be paid back later) and by accounting for all possible future federal stimulus payments (which may or may not ever be allocated. And if they are they will not just drop into the general fund, they will go to other projects already planned). Next year the outlook is a very bleak .5-1.3 BILLION dollar deficit. But this year by golly we had a surplus, so that's good news. CT never had a surplus, but by accounting like a government they were able to lie and say we did.
nine eleven is a car
nine one one is an emergency service
September 11, 2001 was an attack
Never Forget, or Minimize.

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2010, 05:47:15 AM »
I'll disagree with you here because the liberal mantra from a few months ago was that the Bush tax cuts were never funded in the budget year they passed. Regan's tax cuts weren't funded in the budget either, however, if you stop looking at government budgets the way governments do and start looking at them the way businesses do you'll see the smart investment of tax cuts.  Both the Regan and Bush tax cuts grew revenue, period. So under the budget they were passed they show a loss, yet over the next few years the treasury takes in more money then it would have otherwise, thus using a business world view, tax cuts are not only funded; they are profitable. Tax cuts don't stimulate demand, they create growth. Growth creates wealth, wealth creates new tax revenue.

As an example of the government outlook: this past fiscal year CT showed a surplus of over 400 million dollars. They did that through nothing short of generational theft by not making scheduled pension payments (which have to be made later), taking money out of the "rainy day" fund (which has to be paid back later) and by accounting for all possible future federal stimulus payments (which may or may not ever be allocated. And if they are they will not just drop into the general fund, they will go to other projects already planned). Next year the outlook is a very bleak .5-1.3 BILLION dollar deficit. But this year by golly we had a surplus, so that's good news. CT never had a surplus, but by accounting like a government they were able to lie and say we did.

CT appears to be stupid.  Our problem is debt in the country right now on all balance sheets whether you are talking about the governments, private sector employers, and consumers.

Going back to basic Macro-Economic theory.

This is a demand problem, it is not an inventory problem i.e. supply.  

A tax cut could free up the supply side of the equation.  It will not have the desire effect on the demand side.

In any economic policy, whether it be a tax cut or tax hike there are diminishing returns to what happens after said policy is enacted.   Tax cuts have reached their diminishing returns.  

The Bush tax cuts did not provide lasting wealth, they freed up money to be lent into the system that led to a large debt crisis while increasing the debt of the federal government.

As a nation we have reached our credit card limit, the only solutions are

1) Insolvency (that won't be pretty) and that is what taking on more debt will do

2) Inflate your way out of the debt problem (totally unfair to savers and the responsible in society)

3) Pay down the debt (Painful, but better than option 2 or option 3)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 05:49:24 AM by Allentownjake »
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2010, 06:05:05 AM »
Supply side economics isn't getting us out of the problem this time.

We've neglected demand for way too long.

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline RightCoast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3438
  • Reputation: +185/-24
  • Semper Fi means more than most will ever know
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2010, 10:57:19 AM »
Money in my pocket means I will buy more, meaning more demand, if I know another government agency isn't going to take it out of the other pocket. Federal tax breaks that create a perceived loss in state funding will cause my state taxes to go up, leaving me with the same empty pockets.

For demand to increase in all sectors the government has to get off the field. Uncertainty about the next tax, health, or other change is causing people & companies to stay out of the game. No players, no demand. Remember the stories of trillions of corporate dollars not being spent? That money will never be spent under the current circumstances. We need a true small government administration with a friendly congress to see any real turn around.
nine eleven is a car
nine one one is an emergency service
September 11, 2001 was an attack
Never Forget, or Minimize.

Offline Zeus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265
  • Reputation: +174/-112
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2010, 12:03:45 PM »
A major part of the problem is the insecurity of the unknown of what the current administration is going to do. Obama needs to come clean and tell folks just exactly what does he have in mind as far as tax increases, Tax incentives etc etc.

All the Class envy stick it to the "rich" policies are squeezing out the small business owner.  Small Business still do the majority of the job creation and hiring.

If Obama wants to really see the economy pick up all he needs to do is say he want's the Bush Taxcuts of 2 001/2003 made permanent in Total. That would be akin to a couple trillion in stimulus.

No additional spending needed that money has already been accounted for. Any spending cuts able to be inacted would be gravy.
It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.

Offline true_blood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6221
  • Reputation: +652/-817
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2010, 12:06:10 PM »
Every solution I hear being bandied about involves some sort of stimulus spending or another, the debate is often what sort of stimulus spending we should engage in.  It is really a nasty victory of the Keynsians and banking clans (people who loan money love the idea of people going deeper in debt).

That's why the imposter in the Oval Office should making the "correct" calls, instead of driving us deeper into debt. But yet, he fails!!!!

Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument.  It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.

I have a different opinion.  I view this as a debt problem.  Sacrifice as a nation, pay off our debt, bunker down and we regain prosperity.  Let people learn from the pain.

Any thoughts?

Of course tax cuts is a stimulus of sorts, but would you rather "spend" our lives and future away, or pay less in taxes and maybe get this economy moving in the right direction again! I agree with you there.

Offline Doc

  • General Malcontent and
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Reputation: +2/-3
  • Sic transit gloria mundi
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2010, 04:20:19 PM »
The 800 pound gorilla in ATJ's room, that is never mentioned by the left in discussions of our economy is the subject of SPENDING........

Some of ATJ's points are valid, however, without a Constitutional Amendment that mandates a balanced budget every year, it is just rhetoric.

His suggestion that we all pony up and pay off the debt is a valid economic premise, however, what safeguard do we have against a bunch of limp-wristed liberals hoodwinking the public into another majority and running up the deficit again in the future........the answer, unfortunately is none.  The entire political effort of the left is to buy the votes of the uninitiated by promising them 'bread and circuses" for their votes, witness ObamaCare........."free" housing, a "living wage", free university educations, and on and on are all on their list........all of which have to be paid for by someone.

There is only one universal economic concept, vis-a-vis government budgets, and that is.....short of printing more currency, the government doesn't produce a dime in revenue ALL wealth is created by the private sector.......the government in the strictest economic terms is simply "burden".

Without an inviolate spending limit, "supply side" is the only method of increasing government revenues to a sufficient extent to reduce the deficit measurably.

doc
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 04:47:07 PM by Doc »

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2010, 04:25:55 PM »
The 800 pound gorilla in ATJ's room, that is never mentioned by the left in discussions of our economy is the subject of SPENDING........

Some of ATJ's points are valid, however, without a Constitutional Amendment that mandates a balanced budget every year, it is just rhetoric.

His suggestion that we all pony up and pay off the debt is a valid economic premise, however, what safeguard do we have against a bunch of limp-wristed liberals hoodwinking the public into another majority and running up the deficit again in the future........the answer, unfortunately is none.

Without an inviolate spending limit, "supply side" is the only method of increasing government revenues to a sufficient extent to reduce the deficit measurably.

doc

Substitute liberal with politicians.

Spending money isn't something only democrats love to do.  It is part of the D.C. culture.  You are correct on your premise. 

I would include a provision of allowing for deficit spending in a declared war by the US congress.
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline Doc

  • General Malcontent and
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Reputation: +2/-3
  • Sic transit gloria mundi
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2010, 04:40:11 PM »
Substitute liberal with politicians.

Spending money isn't something only democrats love to do.  It is part of the D.C. culture.  You are correct on your premise. 

I would include a provision of allowing for deficit spending in a declared war by the US congress.

To an extent you are correct.......however the current crop has managed to increase spending more than any administration in history, with the possible exception of WW II.

In order for our economy to flourish, government spending must be capped at around 3% of GDP........which means absolutely no more promises of givaways by politicians, or if they do, the giveaways are limited to only a single budget year.........the goal being the death of the "entitlement" as we know it, and THAT would be a giant step forward.

You DO realize that "discretionary spending" by congress is a relatively small portion of the budget, right?  The rest is "entitlements", of one type or another.

doc

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2010, 04:46:35 PM »
To an extent you are correct.......however the current crop has managed to increase spending more than any administration in history, with the possible exception of WW II.

In order for our economy to flourish, government spending must be capped at around 3% of GDP........which means absolutely no more promises of givaways by politicians, or if they do, the giveaways are limited to only a single budget year.........the goal being the death of the "entitlement" as we know it, and THAT would be a giant step forward.

You DO realize that "discretionary spending" by congress is a relatively small portion of the budget, right?  The rest is "entitlements", of one type or another.

doc

Social Security is not a terrible program and is funded for a long period of time.  I don't really understand why it is being talked about other than it is a huge pot of money they want to loot further than they already have.

Medicare needs to be totally revamped and there is no political will to do so.

The largest line item in the budget outside of Social Security is the department of defense, which has its own issues.  Mostly with the contracting process and how weapon systems are determined to be built.  We build a lot of things no one wants in the Military or needs.

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline Doc

  • General Malcontent and
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Reputation: +2/-3
  • Sic transit gloria mundi
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2010, 04:58:27 PM »
Social Security is not a terrible program and is funded for a long period of time.  I don't really understand why it is being talked about other than it is a huge pot of money they want to loot further than they already have.Medicare needs to be totally revamped and there is no political will to do so.

The largest line item in the budget outside of Social Security is the department of defense, which has its own issues.  Mostly with the contracting process and how weapon systems are determined to be built.  We build a lot of things no one wants in the Military or needs.



Actually it is not......estimates vary, but it will not remain solvent without modification more than a few decades at absolute best (we ARE depending on "government accounting" to make that determination after all)  SS can and should be "privatized", as a mandatory savings program funded as it is now, but placed in trust for every citizen, and placed beyond the clutches of the politicians.  It would be a gradual process.......likely over 50 years, but is can be done without trauma.

We don't need Medicare at all.......people were not dying in the streets prior to 1965, and the government has absolutely no place in the arena of healthcare.......people are just beginning to wake up to the nightmare that is ObamaCare, and when they fully do, so long as you are going to rip it apart and start from scratch, eliminating Medicare gradually would be relatively easy, and replacing it with long-term competitive health insurance contracts, individually funded in the same manner as retirement.

doc

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2010, 05:00:29 PM »
Actually it is not......estimates vary, but it will not remain solvent without modification more than a few decades at absolute best (we ARE depending on "government accounting" to make that determination after all)  SS can and should be "privatized", as a mandatory savings program funded as it is now, but placed in trust for every citizen, and placed beyond the clutches of the politicians.  It would be a gradual process.......likely over 50 years, but is can be done without trauma.

We don't need Medicare at all.......people were not dying in the streets prior to 1965, and the government has absolutely no place in the arena of healthcare.......people are just beginning to wake up to the nightmare that is ObamaCare, and when they fully do, so long as you are going to rip it apart and start from scratch, eliminating Medicare gradually would be relatively easy, and replacing it with long-term competitive health insurance contracts, individually funded in the same manner as retirement.

doc

I don't think you want to have the privatization fight in the next 2 years.  Just a feeling.  The equity market is not going to look so hot in a few months nor are the 401(k) statements.
 :popcorn:


I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline Doc

  • General Malcontent and
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Reputation: +2/-3
  • Sic transit gloria mundi
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2010, 05:14:40 PM »
I don't think you want to have the privatization fight in the next 2 years.  Just a feeling.  The equity market is not going to look so hot in a few months nor are the 401(k) statements.
 :popcorn:




Who said anything about the equity market........it can be invested in T-bills, and will likely do as well as the present system......

The difference between your position and mine (I surmise), is that my heart does not weep for those too stupid to make decent decisions in their lives.......and I frankly resent having to pay for those poor decisions on the part of others.

I'm more than willing to give a hand to those who have fallen on hard times, but fostering a system that makes a "career" out of multi-generational entitlements, just isn't in my political or economic repertoire.

doc

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2010, 05:22:25 PM »
Who said anything about the equity market........it can be invested in T-bills, and will likely do as well as the present system......

The difference between your position and mine (I surmise), is that my heart does not weep for those too stupid to make decent decisions in their lives.......and I frankly resent having to pay for those poor decisions on the part of others.

I'm more than willing to give a hand to those who have fallen on hard times, but fostering a system that makes a "career" out of multi-generational entitlements, just isn't in my political or economic repertoire.

doc

I frankly think the system is a little unfair to force everyone to buy an annuity.  Some people know they have lower life expectancies than others.

Frankly asking someone who has cancer and knows they are going to die in 3 years to pay social security when they are still able to work is a little disgusting.

On the other side, I trust Wall Street less than the government.  Any such vehicles would require maximum scrutiny.  The separate accounts of 401(k) and IRAs and variable annuities.

I also believe the money saved should be tax free in its entirety.  It makes no sense to tax retirement.
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline Lacarnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4154
  • Reputation: +316/-315
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2010, 06:40:11 PM »
I frankly think the system is a little unfair to force everyone to buy an annuity.  Some people know they have lower life expectancies than others.

Frankly asking someone who has cancer and knows they are going to die in 3 years to pay social security when they are still able to work is a little disgusting.

.

If you are going to nit pick the tax system, it is rigged in favor or to the detriment of others. For example, why should I have to pay property taxes for schools when I don't have any kids. A consumption tax for federal and state governments would be a better way to fly .

Medicare is a good program. The politicians under LBJ decided to rob and pillage the fund. Money goes in the front door and comes out the back into the general fund. Trillions that should be there has been spent by Democrat and Republician Administration. If that money had been invested, the SS Trust Fund and Medicare would have their coffers filled with money. They have stole our money. Instead it is loaded with worthless IOU's.

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2010, 06:50:05 PM »
If you are going to nit pick the tax system, it is rigged in favor or to the detriment of others. For example, why should I have to pay property taxes for schools when I don't have any kids. A consumption tax for federal and state governments would be a better way to fly .

Medicare is a good program. The politicians under LBJ decided to rob and pillage the fund. Money goes in the front door and comes out the back into the general fund. Trillions that should be there has been spent by Democrat and Republician Administration. If that money had been invested, the SS Trust Fund and Medicare would have their coffers filled with money. They have stole our money. Instead it is loaded with worthless IOU's.


You aren't talking about a lock box now are you  :rotf:
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline Lacarnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4154
  • Reputation: +316/-315
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2010, 06:57:32 PM »
You aren't talking about a lock box now are you  :rotf:

It is locked with IOU's dumb ass, and the horse left that barn over 40 years ago.

Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2010, 06:59:48 PM »
It is locked with IOU's dumb ass, and the horse left that barn over 40 years ago.

It was a tease.  We can't have a sense of humor.
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline Lacarnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4154
  • Reputation: +316/-315
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2010, 07:11:27 PM »
It was a tease.  We can't have a sense of humor.

Okey dokey Smokey :cheersmate:

Offline Doc

  • General Malcontent and
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Reputation: +2/-3
  • Sic transit gloria mundi
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2010, 07:27:32 PM »
It is locked with IOU's dumb ass, and the horse left that barn over 40 years ago.

You and I are likely in the same boat, as my wife and I are both at the mercy (to an extent) of the Medicare system, and it really isn't a good program.  I've been paying "premiums" since 1965, and if they would write me a check for my premiums, plus compound interest over that time I could buy a "Cadillac" health care plan, plus pay Obama's penalty tax on it, and they could forget I exist.

The program was "good" only for the first decade or so, for the folks that received the benefits, but didn't have to pay the premiums for very long.......I don't consider a plan that I pay forty plus years of premiums on, and (actuarily at least) receive perhaps ten/fifteen years of benefits from.......a good deal.

I feel the same about SS, not a good deal from an investment perspective.  In actuality, the program has been "bastardized"  through SSI, and SSDI, to include a plethora of people that it was never intended to cover.....hence the problem......hell, at least half the denizens of DU are receiving some form of SSI/SSDI/Medicaid/welfare........and we can logically ask why it's going broke?

Now they have removed the "Advantage"  plans (which we have), so I don't really have the option to even pay extra to get a decent version of the program.......I'm more than happy to pay my own way........I planned for that eventuality, as every thinking person should.  Unfortunately the "equality of outcomes" folks struck again......

doc

Offline Lacarnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4154
  • Reputation: +316/-315
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2010, 12:50:35 AM »
You and I are likely in the same boat, as my wife and I are both at the mercy (to an extent) of the Medicare system, and it really isn't a good program.  I've been paying "premiums" since 1965, and if they would write me a check for my premiums, plus compound interest over that time I could buy a "Cadillac" health care plan, plus pay Obama's penalty tax on it, and they could forget I exist.

The program was "good" only for the first decade or so, for the folks that received the benefits, but didn't have to pay the premiums for very long.......I don't consider a plan that I pay forty plus years of premiums on, and (actuarily at least) receive perhaps ten/fifteen years of benefits from.......a good deal.

I feel the same about SS, not a good deal from an investment perspective.  In actuality, the program has been "bastardized"  through SSI, and SSDI, to include a plethora of people that it was never intended to cover.....hence the problem......hell, at least half the denizens of DU are receiving some form of SSI/SSDI/Medicaid/welfare........and we can logically ask why it's going broke?

Now they have removed the "Advantage"  plans (which we have), so I don't really have the option to even pay extra to get a decent version of the program.......I'm more than happy to pay my own way........I planned for that eventuality, as every thinking person should.  Unfortunately the "equality of outcomes" folks struck again......

doc

I am retired and waiting to see how my Medicare supplemental plan with the state is going to shake out. It looks like a huge cut in Medicare Advantage plans is going to take place in the next year or two to pay for those that do not have any coverage. I don't mind an increase in costs but I damn sure want a plan that pays for approximately 90% of my medical costs.

I might get pissed and go Galt.


Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23048
  • Reputation: +2232/-269
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2010, 01:46:45 AM »
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument.  It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.

Any thoughts?
How is not taking money out of the economy the same as giving money?

The Kenysians want raw debt, money borrowed from the future (yet interest must come due) or fiat currency (inflation).

Not taxing people out of taking risk is not debt unless government spending outpaces tax revenue.

Keynes cannot work even in the best of times.

Supply side only works if there is spending discipline but then again nothing will ever allow you to spend more than you make.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline TheSarge

  • Platoon Sergeant
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Reputation: +411/-252
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2010, 02:20:27 AM »
Quote
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument.

Yes and the best kind of stumulus.  Letting people keep more of the money they earn so they can decide how and where it's spent.


Quote
It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.

Tax cuts don't cause the debt...nor do they prevent the government from paying it off.  That's typical Liberal tripe.

OUt of control spending of other people's money and an unwillingness to put actual meaningful reform and cuts into the bloated social welfare programs run by the Fed are a large part of the problem.

Name one welfare program or aid program that has EVER been cut.

Quote
Any thoughts?

Yes.  You're misguided.
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years.  The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

If it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey and smells like a donkey - it's Cold Warrior.  - PoliCon



Palin has run a state, a town and a commercial fishing operation. Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. - Mark Steyn