Obama's Expedient Debt Logic

[psychictv]

Then it would have been about campaign finance illegalities, invasion of privacy, bribery, blackmail, treason and perhaps even murder (or at least the coverup of several possible murders).

Take it to the conspiracy theory forum.

 

[mhaze]

The bill(s) for mandatory spending are already enacted, you can’t veto a bill once it’s already law.

FRIKKING BS YOU CAN'T. You tell them the funding for the next year is not getting signed unless that dog of a mandate is kicked out.

 

[lomiller]

FRIKKING BS YOU CAN'T. You tell them the funding for the next year is not getting signed unless that dog of a mandate is kicked out.

So your proposal is that the president try to shut down the US military unless social security is revoked?

While I'm sure Republicans would like to see him try something like that, it wouldn't because they actually want it to happen.

 

[BeAChooser]

We create social programs to take care of needs that the market ignores.

The market wasn't ignoring poverty when the WOP was started. In fact, the number in poverty and poverty rate were dropping faster before the WOP began.

The market hasn't ignored health care. In large part, the success of America's health care system (and the health care system of UHC countries) is due to the market addressing peoples needs.

But yes, we do sometimes, collectively, create social programs that we agree to fund to help people who slip through the crack and who deserve to be helped. That doesn't mean we have to make living in poverty a lifestyle and subjecting the entire populace to state controlled health care a *benefit*.

Millions of elderly people were living on the streets before Social Security was created.

Prior to SS, millions of elderly people were taken care of by families (who didn't have to pay prohibitive taxes) and by charity (which actually used to be much greater before the attitude became "let the government do it" because of all the high taxes) and via the elderly's own savings (which again they were able to accumulate due to lower taxes). Then government intervened making the elderly ALL more dependent on future transfer payments to support them. The program was sold via the concept they'd just be *investing* in their own future.

Yet, here we are today with Social Security taking a higher percentage from people's income than ever before (now its over 15% in total). Why would we have to take so much more out of the current generation's pocket to support the previous generation if those people were *investing* in their own future? The government LIED. It broke the contract. And are you aware that SS will begin taking in less than it pays out next year? That's a fact that the government hid from the public.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/...cts-social-security-cash-deficits-in-2010-11/

Four years ago, George W. Bush attempted to reform the entitlement program Social Security, warning that the system was accelerating into collapse and would soon run deficits. Democrats scoffed and claimed the Social Security system was solid and wouldn’t have problems for at least 50 years, as Harry Reid told PBS’ Jim Lehrer in June 2005. Just last year, the CBO — under the direction of Peter Orszag, now budget director in the Obama administration — claimed that the first cash deficits in Social Security would not come until 2019.

Now, however, the CBO has determined that Social Security will run cash deficits next year and in 2010, and by 2017 will be more or less in permanent deficit mode. Hot Air has exclusively obtained the summer 2009 CBO report sent to legislators on Capitol Hill but not yet made public, which shows that outgo will exceed income for the first time ever on an annual basis in 2010

Now surely you don't think SS is a success?

Millions of people are now dying due to lack of private health care

LOL! Care to back up that claim with any source? That's nothing but GARBAGE. People may be uninsured but millions aren't dying from that lack of insurance. That's pure nonsense.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I say that if we had devoted that 10 trillion dollars we spent on the WOP over the last 45 years to other things, our economy would be stronger than it is now and poverty rates would be lower than now.

You can say it all you like but you have no evidence to support your point of view.

You sure? For example ...

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2208.cfm "Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth"

So why are American workers the most productive in the world?

Our WORKERS are productive and perhaps they are because they are incentivized to work hard. Because of capitalism and private property ... concepts that Obama does not really appreciate. But are those on welfare either productive or incentivized? No.

Why do we have the highest GDP in the world (or second if you count the EU as a single country)?

Perhaps because we still basically have a free market, capitalist system, not the socialist workers paradise that ACORN and Obama envision?

So increase revenues by raising taxes on the wealthy.

But history has already shown that doesn't work. Revenues go down. Don't you folks ever learn?

By the way, those 59-64 years that you seem to admire so much for the rapidly falling poverty had an upper tax bracket of 91%.

Yeah, but that 91% wasn't going to fund social programs of WOP order. That's the point.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
It really comes down to what mechanisms exist for deciding what is smart spending as opposed to dumb spending. The free market (if left alone) has mechanisms (including recessions) for encouraging smart spending ... for encouraging growth which in the end is the only thing that will make us all wealthier.

Ah, but we're not talking about making people wealthier.

Sure we are. That's everyone's goal. It's what has made America so prosperous. Because of that goal, that's why each generation of Americans has been more prosperous than the previous one ... lived a better life than the one before. Until, perhaps, the lastest one ... because we've let government grow too big and control too much of the economy and our lives.

That's not government's role

EXACTLY.

, and the market takes care of that function just fine.

Except when government, through taxes, over-regulation and unwise-regulation) interferes too much in the market. And that's what's been happening off and on through much of the last 70 years or so. Now it looks like that interference will just be "on", which doesn't bode well for the future, I'd say.

We're talking about taking care of basic needs like health care when the market chooses not to provide them.

That's not true. Even with 10 trillion dollars in War On Poverty spending, the number in poverty is still basically the same as it was 45 years ago. Government essentially threw that money away ... created a whole new set of problems by encouraging feelings of dependency and entitlement.

And are we taking care of education when HALF of all students in the 50 largest public school districts in the US don't graduate ... and the rest have been dumbed down to the point that we've had to adjust the SAT to artificially keep the scores high? When Jay Leno can conduct "man on the street" interviews with college students and find what can only be described as ignorance?

Luckily universal health care happens to be an example of smart spending and it will help the economy as our overall health care costs as a nation will drop

As you said to me, you can say that all you want but you can't prove it. You can't prove it on the basis of our government's performance in past large social spending programs ... like the WOP, WOD, Public Education. You can't even prove it on the basis of the government's past performance in the health sector. Medicare costs (per person treated) far more than what the US on average currently spends on health care. In 1990 it cost 8 times more than it's proponents said it would cost when first started. And now it's threatening to bankrupt the country. Obama has admitted this. Then he promises (without giving any real details) that he will eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars in waste from Medicare spending. Yeah sure. Well I say he demonstrate he can actually do that with Medicare before we turn over the keys of our entire health care system to him and his UHC proponents.

Where do you think the m Imagine how the auto manufacturers could better compete with the Japanese if they weren't saddled with huge legacy health care costs.

You really think health care costs are the problem with the auto companies? That it has nothing to do with unions? With wasteful practices? With the products they decided to build?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Like I say, there are mechanisms and forces that encourage dumb decision making in government. And no mechanisms to really punish those who make such decisions.

On the contrary. The government is, at least theoretically, run by the people and is from time to time forced to answer to the people and be responsive to their needs and concerns.

Well then name them. Don't just wave your hands and spout vague rhetoric. Don't just talk about theory. Do you think elections every 2 to 4 years have really worked to encourage smart decisions? Then where are those smart decisions. Name them. Let's talk about whether it's worked in practice. Ask the average American and they will shout NO. Not even close. Our government is now so bloated with failed programs that it is bankrupting us. Legislators are isolated from the American public. Even as you pontificate about the wonders of UHC, democrat legislators are making sure they don't have to participate in whatever monstrosity they concoct for the rest of us. Just like they made sure they didn't have to rely on social security. They have their own very very plush retirement plans ... that they get after only a few years in office. They don't rely on our public schools. Most of them send their kids to private schools. They do whatever they want and don't care about what actually happens. Because their pensions and benefits aren't really tied to what their actions do to the country. Democrats can even commit crimes and be re-elected by their constituents. Because they control the schools. And more important they control the media.

That's why the Republican party is currently not in power. That's the punishment for 8 years of incredibly dumb decision making.

No, that's the consequence of a one man one vote rule where the beggars have suddenly discovered they can outvote the choosers. That's the consequence of 30 years of control by democrats of the public education system, the unions, and most important, media. Democrats are in control now because the media failed it responsibility to inform the public and is mostly filled with democrats to whom the ends justify any means. So they lied to the public for the last eight years ... downplaying (or simply not reporting) all the good things that happened, while blowing out of proportion any bad thing that did. And during the last election they took sides. They helped democrats win and that's the opinion of most Americans. We're not dumb. We can see it.

Corporate CEOs only have to answer to their shareholders, or nobody if the company is privately held.

No, corporate CEOs ultimately answer to the public. If the product doesn't sell ... meet the needs of the public ... and do so in a timely manner ... the company doesn't do well and the CEO is out. Government has no comparable mechanism. That's why 45 years after failed multi-trillion dollar poverty programs were started, those programs are still going strong. That's why public education has allowed half it's students in the largest 50 school districts to not graduate for decades. And if you can't see this, it's only because you've been so indoctrinated that truth and logic no longer matters.

Huh? Since when are you not allowed to sue the government?

Are you really this uninformed? You can only sue the government in very limited ways and for very limited reasons. Go ahead ... name ONE law suit where members of the public have been allowed to sue elected public officials for making bad decisions that ended up costing the public billions or trillions. Because I can name plenty where the CEOs of private companies have been sued for making bad decisions that cost stockholders money. Go ahead, show us examples of this claimed ability to sue the CEOs in government.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Private companies go out business when they aren't successful, long before they can impoverish a country.

They can at least screw over an entire state though before they go under. See Enron/California.

Enron never came close to threatening the viability of California. It's taken years of democrats and rinos to do that. Again, open your eyes and listen to what I'm saying. Stop trying to defend democrats and government out of habit or indoctrination. Be a skeptic and look at the actual facts.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Just that when it comes to trillion dollar federal programs, we best be careful because those programs haven't really worked very well. It is hard to find success stories. Can you name any?

Name what, trillion dollar federal programs? No I can't, because the largest federal program, Social Security, only had a $544 billion budget in 2008.

Acting obtuse isn't going to win this debate either. Name a successful trillion dollar federal program.

Oh, did you mean successful social programs? That's easy. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc. Can you show me any evidence that any of these programs are unsuccessful?

I already quoted you evidence in each case. Closing your ears and shutting your eyes isn't going to win this debate either. It's only going to make you look foolish. NONE of those programs has met it's stated goal. Or even come close.

The only thing that has kept SS from going under has been repeatedly raising SS taxes. Such that they now take 15% of what most people earn. And now it's finally been revealed that next year the system will start paying out more than it takes in. It's on it's last legs, unless government seizes even more than 15% from people. The truth is that if most people had simply taken the money seized by the Social Security system and put it in very safe securities, they'd would have retired with more than they got from the system. Investment counselors will tell you not to rely on it. It's common belief that those putting money in the system now will never see it. And you call that a success?

Medicare and Medicaid are costing many times what they were supposed to and, as Obama admitted, they are filled with hundreds of billions of dollars in waste. Obama stated that they threaten to bankrupt the country. And you call that a success?

Public education fails to even graduate half the students in the largest 50 school district in the US. And you call that a success?

One can only laugh at such a claim. One can only laugh at someone making such a claim.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Your wikipedia source chart shows that the "number in poverty" in 1964 (about 33 million) is less than the "number in poverty" now (about 37 million).

Oh god. Really now? REALLY!? You're going to compare poverty numbers rather than rates?

You challenged me to prove that the numbers in poverty now are greater than the numbers back when the WOP began. I did. Don't think you will win this debate by changing the playing field.

We haven't seen any increase in population in the interim?

Of course it has. But the population was increasing even when the poverty rate was dropping like a rock in the decades before the WOP began. So why did the poverty rate level off and, in fact, start climbing again shortly after the WOP began? Coincidence? The stated goal of the LBJ's WOP was to END poverty and racism. Has it done either? After 10 TRILLION dollars in spending. NO. Just as many people are still poor and racism is, according to democrats, just as bad as ever. And you call that a success?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
To turn your question back on you, is there any evidence that the goals of Obama's spending programs (or the WOP, WOD, Medicare, Public Education) have been met? That what has been achieved is anywhere near worth the cost?

No, you got me there. I have no evidence of the success of any of Obama's programs since he's only been in office 9 months.

And likewise, I have no actual proof that the $10 trillion spent on welfare slowed growth of the economy because we didn't take that path. That's my point. But I can point to other data and logic to suggest that would be the case. While you can NOT show me data or logic that suggests Obama's spending programs will work (whereas, again, I can show you other data and logic that suggests they won't). As I've been doing already on this thread.

I always find these discussions amusing

I'm glad you're amused. I'm amused by your arguments too.

And if you would be so kind as to address any of the other points you dodged:

I've dodged nothing. I've addressed every one of your questions ... several times already. And again in this post. You need only learn to read and shut the liberal filters off for a moment when you process what you read.

 

[jimbob]

Prior to SS, millions of elderly people were taken care of by families (who didn't have to pay prohibitive taxes) and by charity (which actually used to be much greater before the attitude became "let the government do it" because of all the high taxes) and via the elderly's own savings (which again they were able to accumulate due to lower taxes). Then government intervened making the elderly ALL more dependent on future transfer payments to support them. The program was sold via the concept they'd just be *investing* in their own future.

I can't be bothered to wade through a scree of this post but the above stands out.

How well did charity work in the US?

I do know that it didn't work very effectively in the UK, which is why we voted to set up the welfare state.

Also what proportion of GDP do you think charity will need to be to replace the taxes for healthcare and social care? How much should the generous people pay as there will be many who won't give to charity, but who won't avoid paying taxes.

 

[MikeMangum]

If conservatives get to say "everything changed after 9/11", then the left gets to say "everything changed after the crash" .

Including basic economics, rights?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I was wondering who in the world would be foolish enough to bump a BAC thread ... now I know.

 

[BeAChooser]

I can't be bothered to wade through a scree of this post but the above stands out.

Then I can't be bothered to respond to you.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Threads like this are rather empty of utility, whereas a thoughtful essay by, say, Niall Ferguson, on why inflation and money management are important, is of utility. (Granted, I consider what Ferguson puts in this article to be a bludgeoning of the obvious, but for the sake of sanity, he compares different estimates and their impact on global power balance). That's important. It is therefore critical that Obama get the cash flow matter right, and that our Congress once again dust off the 1990's, and get a grip on deficit spending, which means mil spending drops (Ferguson cites Pentaton analysist shooting for 3.6 then 2.9 % GDP, which is a significant cut) and entitlements get curtailed somewhat. Without that second bit, the tipping point be reached about 2030-39.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1

Remember, for the past six decades, US policy has been to underwrite global security and stability ( as well as pursue own interests), a capacity which will go away if the economic implosion occurs.

But if the United States succumbs to a fiscal crisis, as an increasing number of economic experts fear it may, then the entire balance of global economic power could shift. Military experts talk as if the president's decision about whether to send an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan is a make-or-break moment. In reality, his indecision about the deficit could matter much more for the country's long-term national security. Call the United States what you like—superpower, hegemon, or empire—but its ability to manage its finances is closely tied to its ability to remain the predominant global military power.

Here's why

The rest of you lot need to PAY EFFING ATTENTION and start looking a hell of a lot harder on your security budgets and capabilities, if you want any regional, or close to global collective security structure to survive. You can count on the next major super power, hegemon, being the altruistic Chinese unless they go into a civil war in the next two decades.

Good effing luck, Rest of the World.

The last time the US waxed isolationist, the interwar period, the rest of you idiots began a world war, in Asia (1937) and in Europe (1939).

But if the United States succumbs to a fiscal crisis, as an increasing number of economic experts fear it may, then the entire balance of global economic power could shift. Military experts talk as if the president's decision about whether to send an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan is a make-or-break moment. In reality, his indecision about the deficit could matter much more for the country's long-term national security. Call the United States what you like—superpower, hegemon, or empire—but its ability to manage its finances is closely tied to its ability to remain the predominant global military power.

If we can't afford to stay on the world stage, we retract, and the UN becomes even more useless.

You can expect WW III, hopefully not nuclear, in less than a generation of the power retraction.

That's right, I'll be about dead, and our kids and grandkids will be slaughtering one another. President Obama, and the Congress of the next three or seven years, are in a position to get this right, or continue the momentum of irresponsible spending/money printing. At present, the myopia in the US has me convinced that they won't get it right, and they'll keep trying to bribe voters with tax dollars. That sort of habit argues for Ferguson being a bloody optimist, and the trouble coming sooner.

Sweet dreams.

DR

 

[Lurker]

Prior to SS, millions of elderly people were taken care of by families (who didn't have to pay prohibitive taxes) and by charity (which actually used to be much greater before the attitude became "let the government do it" because of all the high taxes) and via the elderly's own savings (which again they were able to accumulate due to lower taxes). Then government intervened making the elderly ALL more dependent on future transfer payments to support them. The program was sold via the concept they'd just be *investing* in their own future.

Blah, blah, blah. BAC, you talk but provide no numbers. If you had bothered to actually look at elderly poverty rates you would find they decreased dramtically after SS was instituted. Please, educate yourself before you make statements like you did above that are based on what you "think" instead of actual evidence.

 

[Lurker]

(In regards to taxing the wealthy more BAC responded

But history has already shown that doesn't work. Revenues go down. Don't you folks ever learn?

Care to actually provide evidence of revenue going down when teh top margianl rate was increased? Last time we increased the rate (under Clinton) tax revenue increased. Again, instead of just making wild guesses based on GOP talking points please back up what you say with evidence.

By the way, I read a statistical analysis attempting to link top marginal rates with revenue and not only could they find no causitive effect but they could als determine no correlation.

 

[Lurker]

The truth is that if most people had simply taken the money seized by the Social Security system and put it in very safe securities, they'd would have retired with more than they got from the system.

BAC, is SS solely a retirement program? Is my SS check dependent on the market? What happens if I die before retirement? What happens if I am disabled before I retire?

Investment counselors will tell you not to rely on it. It's common belief that those putting money in the system now will never see it. And you call that a success?

Hmm, is there any conflict of interest when it comes to investment counselors discussing retirement programs they have no control over? Anyway, no matter how "common" the belief is does not make it true. The CBO has said that even if no changes are made to SS between now and 2040 that SS payments would continue, but at a rdeduced rate starting around 2040. Expect to lose about 30% of the benefit. Not inconsequential but you would still receive 70% of what you initially thought you would get. Getting $0.70/$1.00 is a far cry from the scaremongering you and the "investment counselors" are saying when you say we will never see our money. I guess neither you nor they read CBO reports, eh?

 

[Tricky]

Some off-topic and bickerish threads moved to AAH. Please discuss the topic, not each other.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[BeAChooser]

If you had bothered to actually look at elderly poverty rates you would find they decreased dramtically after SS was instituted. Please, educate yourself before you make statements like you did above that are based on what you "think" instead of actual evidence.

LOL!

Sorry Lurker, but the elderly poverty rate has only gone down under Social Security because the current elderly got in on the ground floor of a ponzi scheme. SS takes money from one group (current workers) and gives it to another (the non-working elderly) while promising the group the money is currently being taken from that they too will eventually receive the same benefits from the program. But will they? Is that even possible? The answer is NO.

The current unfunded SS liabilities (i.e., the promised payments to the current payees into the program when they eventually retire) currently stands at $17.5 trillion dollars (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662 ). Now I ask you, where is that money going to come from when SS and Medicare (another ponzi scheme with current unfunded liabilities of almost $90 trillion) are projected to consume the entire federal budget by 2050? What Social Security and Medicare are really doing is robbing from one group (those still working) so that another group (the retirees) don't suffer the consequences of their own actions (failing to save, voting for socialists, etc). But eventually the bill for this robbery will come due. What those two programs are ensuring is that America will eventually go bankrupt ... and then watch poverty skyrocket to unprecedented levels ... to the sort of levels that exist in 3rd world countries (or at least to levels like those that existed in another failed socialist nirvana in it's final years ... the Soviet Union).

For those who really want to understand the harm that Social Security has done (and I don't believe Lurker falls in that category) ... read this:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2302

One of the most common arguments supporting Social Security is that it reduces poverty among the elderly. Last week, Barack Obama stated that, “Social Security has lifted millions of seniors and their families out of poverty. Without it, nearly 50 percent of seniors would live below the poverty line.” This is almost certainly untrue.

Social Security affects poverty among the elderly in two offsetting ways. While it reduces poverty by providing income to retired persons, it discourages private saving during the working years—ultimately decreasing the private assets people bring to their retirement. The net effect of this is increased poverty among the retired population.

To understand this conclusion, it is important to compare the rate of return on taxes paid that is generated by Social Security to the rate of return people could receive on their private saving. For those retiring in 2008, the average implicit real (inflation-adjusted) rate of return on Social Security taxes paid was slightly below 3 percent—and it is scheduled to decline to under 2 percent in the next forty years. In contrast, if people retiring in 2008 had invested the taxes they paid into Social Security in a balanced portfolio (60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds), they would have received a return of 5.5 percent.

The difference between a 5.5 percent return and a 3.0 percent return may not sound like much, but in annual returns compounded over a lifetime, this difference has a huge influence on the income available during retirement. In fact, the annual retirement income provided by a 5.5 percent return is double than that provided by the 3.0 percent return of Social Security. Even more compelling, an investment in the stock market averages a 7 percent real return, which would mean an annual income of three times what Social Security provides.

In short, it is likely that we would have fewer poor among the elderly had they been free to invest their taxes in private assets.

And that source points out another even more insidious effect of Social Security:

While this simple comparison is compelling, it overlooks the huge hidden costs of this system. By reducing the incentive for workers to save privately for their own retirement, we reduce the economy’s saving and investment in productive assets. This means the economy grows more slowly as a result of Social Security and people end up with lower incomes even before they pay their taxes. When this cost is taken into account, the real return from Social Security to those retiring today is actually negative!

Oh ... and by the way ...

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/07/twice-as-many-elderly-in-poverty-new-formula-new-policy-hope/

Poverty among the elderly is now nearly twice the normal rate. Traditionally, 10 percent of Americans over age 65 live below the poverty line, but the National Academy of Science has developed a new formula it hopes will replace the current nor, which has been in use for around 50 years -- and the results are astounding. This emerging approach to gauging the amount of older people living in poverty is beginning to gain clout with the White House.

The formula developed by the NAS estimates that 18.6 percent of Americans over 65 live below the poverty line: that's 6.8 million people. The traditional government formula, created in 1955, puts the elderly poverty rate at 9.7 percent (3.6 million people). The NAS claims that its methodology accounts for increases in the cost of medical treatment and other factors that the incumbent formula does not.