Progressive ideas on the budget defecit

[venkman]

When it comes to economics, that is way above my pay grade. But this seems like a reasonable approach:

http://news.goldseek.com/MillenniumW...1350396180.php

BaAsically the Mitt Romney approach.

[Eddie]

BaAsically the Mitt Romney approach.

Exactly thought that occurred to me when I read it.

[snowcat]

When it comes to economics, that is way above my pay grade. But this seems like a reasonable approach:

http://news.goldseek.com/MillenniumW...1350396180.php

I go to Europe a couple of times a year. The European press has framed the arguement that you can have either growth (their term for government spending) or austerity (reduction in govenrment spending). They see no other alternatives. They then fight against any austerity.

It drives me crazy to see the problem boiled down to these two alternatives. The other options are discussed above. Exploit resources and unleash the private sector. Grow your way out of debt without spending more government money. The US can do this (it would be more difficult for EU countires), but I fear that we won't.

Elections have consequences and I fear that one of the results of our election is that we will not do what is suggested above.

[U-Ute]

BaAsically the Mitt Romney approach.

How would you know? He never said specifically what he would do.

[Eddie]

How would you know? He never said specifically what he would do.

Or...could it be that you weren't listening?

I don't care to look for it - because it really doesn't matter now. But I watched an interview with Mitt in which he said that spending needed to be cut - but that it couldn't all be cut at once. Essentially describing what the article uses the term "slow glide path" to describe slowly cutting back in certain areas and not expecting to balance the budget immediately with massive cuts.

This is coming from someone who admittedly didn't spend a ton of time following the election.

[Ma'ake]

It's interesting that all the Utah members of Congress (Hatch, Lee, Bishop, Chaffetz and Matheson) are in favor of punting on the Fiscal Cliff issue, coming up with a temporary agreement that preserves the status quo, likely because the State of Utah stands to lose disproportionately if defense is cut.

My hunch is Obama and Boehner will come up with a compromise that looks at growing revenue slightly (closing a few loopholes or letting the marginal rates on the $250,00+ go back to 39% from 36%) and beginning the process of entitlement reform.

Defense is a toughie, because we're set to spend the equivalent of Australia's GNP on the F-35 fighter, when the average tax payer is losing economic power. Defense probably needs to be flatlined and reformed some, like everything else.

One of my colleagues told me that the amount of high end science research has declined in the US, while Asia has gone up, and (interestingly) Europe has gone up quite dramatically. Definitely food for thought.

[statman]

[QUOTE=byu71;917685]No, it is the fault of those who think they will help the financially less well off and don't think of the consequences of how they plan on doing it. Their well intentioned goals are not well thought through when it comes to reality.[QUOTE]

And it's worse than that. As they told the banks they had to lend to minorities (and not just for mortgages, as CRA calls for, but for all regulated loans), they set up & expanded the ability of Fanny and Freddy to buy bundled mortgages. And when the definitions of what 'conformed' to Fanny/Freddy standards got in the way, they had Fanny and Freddy lower (DRAMATICALLY) the standards for what constituted a 'conforming loan.' As F&F told the market that they'd now buy bundles of absolute junk with essentially no lending standards, banks were magically absolved for selling junk with no lending standards. And the huge surge of sub-prime trash mortgages rolled out from 'Wall Street.'

I have a big problem with people blaming this on 'The Banks.' None of this (NONE OF THIS) would have happened without 1) compulsion from the Feds under CRA (and its expansion) and 2) the changing of standards for loan conformance by Fanny and Freddy. Without those two changes instituted by government, we would have never left mid-1990's lending standards.

[byu71]

I can't believe some economists and their view of reality. Jeffry Saks from some professor from some noted school was on Morning Joe.

Asked how we prevent going over the fiscal cliff.

We get this tax rate increased on the rich. Rich is income over $250,000 if married, $125,000 if not by the way.

OK, Joe asks what else? We close corporate loopholes and go after more revenue from corporations.

Now Joe goes OK, but what about spending, what do you think about spending?

Jeffry answers, we have to get the shelter in the Bahama's cleared up. Europe wants to now tax transfer of money from US citizens to foreign banks. We should be taxing those transfers.

Joe keeps asking about spending and raise another couple of ways to tax entities or people.

Finally Jeff says, we should cut spending on defense by 5% by not going to war with anyone.

Joe doesn't ask about spending anymore.

[statman]

The good news is that we can probably finagle it just right...

I don't think there's a way to finagle it just right.

When you consider the money we've promised to pay to retirees in SS and MC, the US's current real debt is much closer to $75 trillion than it is to $16 trillion (if a private company had a pension that promised to pay the benefits of SS and MC, it would have to have about $50 - $60 trillion in its reserves to be considered 'solvent.' Add that $$ into the 'national debt' to get the REAL national debt.) That's about $1 million per US HOUSEHOLD. Besides decades of double-digit inflation, with concurrent freezes on SS, MC outlays, and all other governemnt spending, there's just no way to dig out of that hole.

The only way to salve this problem is with MASSIVE entitlement reform (basically, if you have assets, you get nothing from SS or MC - and that includes current retirees. Don't like it? Well, you shouldn't have caused the problem then...). Since that's not going to happen - CERTAINLY not under Obama, at this point, I think we're all just rearranging deck chairs...

[byu71]

The only way to salve this problem is with MASSIVE entitlement reform (basically, if you have assets, you get nothing from SS or MC - and that includes current retirees. Don't like it? Well, you shouldn't have caused the problem then...). Since that's not going to happen - CERTAINLY not under Obama, at this point, I think we're all just rearranging deck chairs...

Again, each time this comes up I have a hard time understanding the "don't like it, you caused it". I understand someone who operates with their head up their ass saying it, but I never pegged you as one of those.

So, explain it to me. Thanks

[statman]

Again, each time this comes up I have a hard time understanding the "don't like it, you caused it". I understand someone who operates with their head up their ass saying it, but I never pegged you as one of those.

So, explain it to me. Thanks

Who voted for the politicians that ran perpetual deficits since the 1960's? Who elected the government that passed the Great Society and codified Social Security as a ponzi scheme? It certainly wasn't the Gen Xers or later. It was most certainly the generations of current retirees.

They say we get the governments that we deserve. Unfortunately those that deserve those bad governments aren't the ones stuck with the check at the end of the feeding frenzy. And for some utterly bizarre reason, politicians can't find the moral fortitude to say 'you're the richest generation ever to live on the face of the planet, you had am great thing going and you completely fucked it up for your kids and grandkids and great grandkids. Yes you currently have more money than any other age cohort, but don't worry, we're not going to make you pay for anything. Your social security is safe - even though you've got a couple million in an IRA, a house that's paid for, and have a full pension (something that your kids will never get). This group skated through life and DIDN'T pay their way. They stuck the next generations with the bill for government largesse they sanctioned. They get the benefit of actually being able to retire rich, and expect to live almost as many years after retirement as they spent working.

There most definitely are people in that age group that need assistance from government. But there is am very large segment that doesn't. And they shouldn't get it.

Step one in actually balancing our budget woes - entitlement reform starting with means testing (both income and assets) for social security and medicare benefits - including for current retirees. Until that reform is on the table, we're not serious about balancing our budget...

[byu71]

Who voted for the politicians that ran perpetual deficits since the 1960's? Who elected the government that passed the Great Society and codified Social Security as a ponzi scheme? It certainly wasn't the Gen Xers or later. It was most certainly the generations of current retirees.

They say we get the governments that we deserve. Unfortunately those that deserve those bad governments aren't the ones stuck with the check at the end of the feeding frenzy. And for some utterly bizarre reason, politicians can't find the moral fortitude to say 'you're the richest generation ever to live on the face of the planet, you had am great thing going and you completely fucked it up for your kids and grandkids and great grandkids. Yes you currently have more money than any other age cohort, but don't worry, we're not going to make you pay for anything. Your social security is safe - even though you've got a couple million in an IRA, a house that's paid for, and have a full pension (something that your kids will never get). This group skated through life and DIDN'T pay their way. They stuck the next generations with the bill for government largesse they sanctioned. They get the benefit of actually being able to retire rich, and expect to live almost as many years after retirement as they spent working.

There most definitely are people in that age group that need assistance from government. But there is am very large segment that doesn't. And they shouldn't get it.

Step one in actually balancing our budget woes - entitlement reform starting with means testing (both income and assets) for social security and medicare benefits - including for current retirees. Until that reform is on the table, we're not serious about balancing our budget...

Let's see. Gen x'ers birth began in the early 60's, so they began voting in the early 80's. That is some 30 years of voting. Let's take the last election. College age students and single women especially between I think 21-31 were part of the group that voted heavily for Obama and the dems. It is Nanci Pelosi who said there will be no reduction in SS and medicare benefits.

I think medicare, the entitlement in the biggest trouble I think began in 1966. I also think the dems were in power on that one. Following your silly theory, let's just take away SS and medicare from anyone who has voted for a democrat.

I think there has only been one generation labeled the "greatest generation". The generation that went through the depression and fought world ward two. In actuality they and those born before them especially got the greatest benefti from SS. They as a group definitely didn't pay in as much as they got out.

My father who started paying SS in the early forties and fought in WWII paid in plenty. He probably got it all back and then some, but he lived a long life. How about the single guy with the same story except he only lived to be 65, do you think he got his back?

I imagine you also know SS is paid with after tax $$. He was supposed to get that back tax free. However do to "means testing", he ended up paying taxes on it, as will I.

As far as my generation, I can only speak for myself. Using only a 4% ROI, which is a modest return over the last 47 years, my portion of what I paid in lasts until I am about 87. I would go for this. When I hit 87 and if I have any assets, stop paying me.

Here is another deal I would go for that would be really fair, but never done. WE know how much everyone has paid in. Find out how much the treasury owes the SS system right now. Based on what everyone has paid in, including your generation, tansfer that debt to each individual based on the percentage. I bet I get a bigger percentage of the pot than you do, but that is fair since I have paid in a hell of a lot more than you have.

AS far as gen x'ers go, I would be interested to see which generation has more of their group on welfare and food stamps. I don't think it is fair to call us lazy and other things.

Now, I would be willing to be subject to means testing. I would be willing to do that so the burden of not fixing this thing doesn't fall all on the back of my kids. However, when people come out with your arguments, I think screw it, I paid in to take care of those who came before me, so can the selfish gen x folks.

Note: I don't believe in class or generation warfare. I only use it when someone else starts talking nutty.