Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
the 1780's?
Treasurydirect only goes back to 1791, but we were definitely in debt by then.
the 1780's?
Treasurydirect only goes back to 1791, but we were definitely in debt by then.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
LOL. The Boomers are in power. The Boomers main goal in life is "my stuff now". Their central focus is bankrupting the country in the interest of their comfort.
LOL. The Boomers are in power. The Boomers main goal in life is "my stuff now". Their central focus is bankrupting the country in the interest of their comfort.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Mandatory, shmandatory. That's a cowards' cop out. We legislated ourselves into "mandatory" spending, so we can darn well legislate our way out. Unless of course, you can find the section of the constitution that dictates the % of GDP that Congress must spend on SS and Medicare/Medicaid - and even that, as you point out a few posts later, would be amendable:
Even with as reasonable of a left as you are, and as reasonable of a righty as I *try* to be, it is still somewhat jarring and surprising (in a good way) when I read a post of yours that I agree with completely - and wish that I could have written as lucidly!It depends upon the demographic patterns -- if we restored a 1950 population pyramid:
it would in fact solve it completely. If we push retirement ages up and keep either making or attracting lots of young people to enter the workforce, SS and Medicare are sustainable.
But focusing entirely on spending is masking the bigger issue. Medical costs are going to show up somewhere in the economy -- either in the government account or in personal accounts. Moving health costs to the government side of the ledger is not, in and of itself, a bad thing, as long as it realizes efficiencies (this is what the debate should be about) and, if we do it, that they are paid for in revenues (also what the debate should be about, but never will be with one side claiming that all taxation is theft blah blah blah).
The main problem we have is not that we have grown government, it's that we have grown government and refused to pay for it. Some costs are certainly best left with individuals, some definitely should be pooled like insurance under government accounts. The rule for how we divide those costs should be utilitarian. I don't particularly think there are big Constitutional concerns, but say there were -- that's why the Constitution is amendable.
This is not intractable. It just requires honesty. The main problem is not politicians lying to the electorate; it's the electorate lying to themselves.
A friend's boyfriend works in the graphics dept - I'll let him know!
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I think the key to the budget deficit is private sector investing.
We got slammed by the crisis a couple of years ago. It was treated with bailouts and stimulus. Say what you want, but it appears to have worked. Now the govt is being managed largely flat. Whats driving that are cuts in many services while things like debt payments, social security go up. In fact, discretionary spending 'management' has resulted in cutting quite a few govt jobs. So the hope is that the private sector increases now that we're clearing the crisis. That growth has occurred. Indeed, corporate profits are excellent and the stock markets are quite high (including the Nasdaq hitting an all time high). Much of this has been driven by pretty good maneuvering to get us out of the crisis. The problem is now that we're losing govt jobs the private sector is not hiring nor investing. Frankly the private sector is how we balanced the budget at the end of the 90s. Unfort it was then that we went on an unwarranted spending spree. The hole is too deep...we will need the private sector to get going to have a chance to get out of this.
I think the key to the budget deficit is private sector investing.
We got slammed by the crisis a couple of years ago. It was treated with bailouts and stimulus. Say what you want, but it appears to have worked. Now the govt is being managed largely flat. Whats driving that are cuts in many services while things like debt payments, social security go up. In fact, discretionary spending 'management' has resulted in cutting quite a few govt jobs. So the hope is that the private sector increases now that we're clearing the crisis. That growth has occurred. Indeed, corporate profits are excellent and the stock markets are quite high (including the Nasdaq hitting an all time high). Much of this has been driven by pretty good maneuvering to get us out of the crisis. The problem is now that we're losing govt jobs the private sector is not hiring nor investing. Frankly the private sector is how we balanced the budget at the end of the 90s. Unfort it was then that we went on an unwarranted spending spree. The hole is too deep...we will need the private sector to get going to have a chance to get out of this.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Won't happen. The Private Sector has no interest in helping the country. Their only motivator is profit and if they don't see that they will sit on their huge piles of cash forever if necessary.
Won't happen. The Private Sector has no interest in helping the country. Their only motivator is profit and if they don't see that they will sit on their huge piles of cash forever if necessary.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
The country's best hope is during the lame duck session. Its the only time you can cobble together a working coalition to get things done. People who are retiring have no reason to carry water for their leadership anymore. If any grand bargain is going to happen, it'll be then.
So, think about it. Nelson, Webb, Kyl, etc are calling it quits. They now have the freedom to sign onto a hybrid tax hikes / entitlement cuts plan. Lets say something that raises taxes on the wealthy, means tests Medicare, but also broadens the tax code by limiting deductions and reduces more domestic spending but spares the military from any additional savings. You might also be able to count on pols who know they're not going to run for re-election the next time they're up but haven't announced it yet (Lamar Alexander possibly or even Graham in SC who will most likely get primaried). This gives cover for some others to join.
Unfortunately if it does not get done then I don't see it happening for awhile. Regardless of the Prez election outcome the House and Senate are going to be very narrowly divided either way making it that much harder for a compromise to be struck.
The country's best hope is during the lame duck session. Its the only time you can cobble together a working coalition to get things done. People who are retiring have no reason to carry water for their leadership anymore. If any grand bargain is going to happen, it'll be then.
So, think about it. Nelson, Webb, Kyl, etc are calling it quits. They now have the freedom to sign onto a hybrid tax hikes / entitlement cuts plan. Lets say something that raises taxes on the wealthy, means tests Medicare, but also broadens the tax code by limiting deductions and reduces more domestic spending but spares the military from any additional savings. You might also be able to count on pols who know they're not going to run for re-election the next time they're up but haven't announced it yet (Lamar Alexander possibly or even Graham in SC who will most likely get primaried). This gives cover for some others to join.
Unfortunately if it does not get done then I don't see it happening for awhile. Regardless of the Prez election outcome the House and Senate are going to be very narrowly divided either way making it that much harder for a compromise to be struck.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Actually, we had a surplus of $70M until the Civil War and by 1900 we were a whopping $991M in debt. Then we ran surpluses until WW1. We then ran surpluses through the Roaring 20's to the tune of about half the war debt. Then the Great Depression came and we ran deficits again. Still, as of 1980 the federal deficit was less than $1T. Then for some reason the deficit went haywire.
Actually, we had a surplus of $70M until the Civil War and by 1900 we were a whopping $991M in debt. Then we ran surpluses until WW1. We then ran surpluses through the Roaring 20's to the tune of about half the war debt. Then the Great Depression came and we ran deficits again. Still, as of 1980 the federal deficit was less than $1T. Then for some reason the deficit went haywire.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I blame Obama. Sure, he was only in college in 1980 but I'm sure it's his fault.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
So in the 1980s, with a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, it was the Republican's fault, and in the 2010s with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, it's the Republicans' fault? That seems pretty convenient for you...
Or did I misinterpret your unstated snide remark?
So in the 1980s, with a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, it was the Republican's fault, and in the 2010s with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, it's the Republicans' fault? That seems pretty convenient for you...
Or did I misinterpret your unstated snide remark?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I think the rise of inequality is due to forces much larger than either the Dems or Repubs - it's due to better communication and transportation infrastructure. In 2012, we only need one Facebook worldwide, so only a very small handful of people get very rich. In the 1950s, people connected with their friends at their local soda shops instead, so thousands of soda shop proprietors made a decent living but nobody got rich. The same thought process applies to almost any industry - shipping, manufacturing, even services (Merry Maids, etc) have become more consolidated into just a few huge global players rather than having hundreds of separate businesses focused on particular geographic markets.
You do realize that during the cited period (since the "late 70s"), the Democrats controlled the Presidency 43% of the time, the House 66%, and the Senate 54%, right? Of course, neither side had a 60-seat majority in the Senate, so that's a wash on both sides.
I think the rise of inequality is due to forces much larger than either the Dems or Repubs - it's due to better communication and transportation infrastructure. In 2012, we only need one Facebook worldwide, so only a very small handful of people get very rich. In the 1950s, people connected with their friends at their local soda shops instead, so thousands of soda shop proprietors made a decent living but nobody got rich. The same thought process applies to almost any industry - shipping, manufacturing, even services (Merry Maids, etc) have become more consolidated into just a few huge global players rather than having hundreds of separate businesses focused on particular geographic markets.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I'd point directly to what's documented in the book below.
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Tr...0907/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329253249&sr=8-1
I'd point directly to what's documented in the book below.
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Tr...0907/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329253249&sr=8-1
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I have to say, I was a bit skeptical, so I perused some of the negative reviews. The first one pretty much nailed it. Keep in mind that this was written in 2004:
really prescient reader said:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Meh. That's a very small subset of the book, which I've read in its entirety. The premise isn't just the fight for good schools in good districts, but that's certainly part of it. I could save a buttload of money on housing if I didn't want the comfort of living in a city that valued education, there's no question about that. Does the reviewers points have merit? Absolutely. But, that all could have been avoided if we had just left a nice simple law like Glass Steagall in effect. We didn't. And if I remember correctly that one was thrown out in the last 30 years as well. The point is our public policy has been as short sighted as 9/10 of Wall Street and it's cost everyone dearly.
Meh. That's a very small subset of the book, which I've read in its entirety. The premise isn't just the fight for good schools in good districts, but that's certainly part of it. I could save a buttload of money on housing if I didn't want the comfort of living in a city that valued education, there's no question about that. Does the reviewers points have merit? Absolutely. But, that all could have been avoided if we had just left a nice simple law like Glass Steagall in effect. We didn't. And if I remember correctly that one was thrown out in the last 30 years as well. The point is our public policy has been as short sighted as 9/10 of Wall Street and it's cost everyone dearly.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Policy matters. Inequality probably is ultimately driven by the internal dynamics of technology and economics, but that's why, crudely speaking, "leveling" is necessary to keep the population from dividing into a tiny elite and an enormous underclass. Every time we forget that -- the Gilded Age, the 20's, the 00's -- the system quickly subverts itself and everybody -- even the very wealthy -- loses.
If you want the benefits of capitalism to endure you have to regulate it. It's no different than fire.
Improvements in communication and transportation have continued unabated since before the industrial revolution. There have been intervals within that period when inequality has grown and they have been characterized by the sort of "devil take the hindmost" political rhetoric and governmental policy that has dominated the national discourse since Reagan.
Policy matters. Inequality probably is ultimately driven by the internal dynamics of technology and economics, but that's why, crudely speaking, "leveling" is necessary to keep the population from dividing into a tiny elite and an enormous underclass. Every time we forget that -- the Gilded Age, the 20's, the 00's -- the system quickly subverts itself and everybody -- even the very wealthy -- loses.
If you want the benefits of capitalism to endure you have to regulate it. It's no different than fire.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Fundamentally, the root cause is still people wanting what they can't afford and trying to beat the system (i.e. the laws of economics) to get it. It doesn't matter whether you chose to take an unaffordable mortgage because you wanted a bigger garage or because you wanted a better education for your kids. Unaffordable is unaffordable. There is always a pent-up desire for unattainable things (forbidden fruit), and the public policy makers pandered to that demand by adopting policies that promised those goodies for free. The public bought it hook, line, and sinker and trashed the economy in the process. Fan-freaking-tastic.
One part that certainly rings true is that relying on 2 incomes to pay your bills is *much* riskier than relying on one. If there's a 10% chance of losing each job, then relying on 2 jobs gives your family a 20% chance of a bankruptcy rather than the 10% you would have if you only had (and relied on) 1. The only way for 2 incomes to be less risky than 1 is if you truly can afford to lose either of the jobs and continue to pay your liabilities on the other one - in that situation, your "system" has a redundant backup rather than 2 single failures that can each cause a catastrophic failure.
You'll certainly get no argument from me on the last sentence.
Fundamentally, the root cause is still people wanting what they can't afford and trying to beat the system (i.e. the laws of economics) to get it. It doesn't matter whether you chose to take an unaffordable mortgage because you wanted a bigger garage or because you wanted a better education for your kids. Unaffordable is unaffordable. There is always a pent-up desire for unattainable things (forbidden fruit), and the public policy makers pandered to that demand by adopting policies that promised those goodies for free. The public bought it hook, line, and sinker and trashed the economy in the process. Fan-freaking-tastic.
One part that certainly rings true is that relying on 2 incomes to pay your bills is *much* riskier than relying on one. If there's a 10% chance of losing each job, then relying on 2 jobs gives your family a 20% chance of a bankruptcy rather than the 10% you would have if you only had (and relied on) 1. The only way for 2 incomes to be less risky than 1 is if you truly can afford to lose either of the jobs and continue to pay your liabilities on the other one - in that situation, your "system" has a redundant backup rather than 2 single failures that can each cause a catastrophic failure.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
The problem was the people who wrote the loans had no personal stake in making sure they could be repaid. Whether it is evil public sector villains or blessed private sector saints, the way to stop it from happening again is for the guy approving lending to know that if the checks bounce he, personally, is going to either the poorhouse or the big house.
There's plenty of room on the gallows for Goldman Sachs and the Senate.
The problem was the people who wrote the loans had no personal stake in making sure they could be repaid. Whether it is evil public sector villains or blessed private sector saints, the way to stop it from happening again is for the guy approving lending to know that if the checks bounce he, personally, is going to either the poorhouse or the big house.
There's plenty of room on the gallows for Goldman Sachs and the Senate.
Last edited:
- Status