It's over

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that the Republican plans always showed smaller cuts than the Dems?

Because the Republicans refuse to address the biggest drain of them all-- the military.

military is not unsustainable - medicare is.

Close, but no cigar. What's unsustainable is health care spending. Medicare is actually quite a bit better on this than the private sector; the Affordable Care Act actually addresses long-term health care costs. But, yes, providing health care to old people (which is what Medicare does) is going to be expensive.

These "old" people paid into Medicare and have every right to reap the benefits. Both Social Security and Medicare should have been kept in seperate accounts and not have been put in general funds. My parents paid into both anc, by damn, they deserve to receive both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that the Republican plans always showed smaller cuts than the Dems?

Because the Republicans refuse to address the biggest drain of them all-- the military.

military is not unsustainable - medicare is.

Close, but no cigar. What's unsustainable is health care spending. Medicare is actually quite a bit better on this than the private sector; the Affordable Care Act actually addresses long-term health care costs. But, yes, providing health care to old people (which is what Medicare does) is going to be expensive.

These "old" people paid into Medicare and have every right to reap the benefits. Both Social Security and Medicare should have been kept in seperate accounts and not have been put in general funds. My parents paid into both anc, by damn, they deserve to receive both.

nobody will take away anyone's medicare. they will lower the rate of increases and raise the age requirement. both fair fixes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you haven't tried this, I highly recommend it:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

It's encouraging in that it's so easy to balance the budget, then saddening/infuriating when you think of how far we are from doing anything useful.

Well, right, but that's because no on actually cares about the deficit--least of all the Teabaggers. What the conservative movement cares about is slaking it's thirst for "retribution" against perceived cultural enemies. That's why they're hugely supportive of, say, gutting school lunch subsidies at a savings of a few million dollars, and have no problems whatsoever with bloated defense spending.

The Tea Partiers are crazy, but I don't know if that makes them any worse than the others, including the Dems. Our government's top priority is supporting corporations; a close second is supporting rich people. After that, whatevs, man.

Of course, almost all of those on the left who do turn out in 2012 will just vote for Obama again. Remember the Democratic slogan: "Marginally better than the lunatic next to me."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that the Republican plans always showed smaller cuts than the Dems?

Because the Republicans refuse to address the biggest drain of them all-- the military.

military is not unsustainable - medicare is.

The US spends almost as much on the military as the rest of the world put together. And yet it is the only rich country not to have universal healthcare. I think that tells you all you need to know about this country's priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that the Republican plans always showed smaller cuts than the Dems?

Because the Republicans refuse to address the biggest drain of them all-- the military.

military is not unsustainable - medicare is.

The US spends almost as much on the military as the rest of the world put together. And yet it is the only rich country not to have universal healthcare. I think that tells you all you need to know about this country's priorities.

but you could easily freeze defense spending or cut it. even if you let it grow (at pace with the budget) it is not going to cause too many problems. medicare, however, is projected to grow to an extent that will swallow the budget whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that the Republican plans always showed smaller cuts than the Dems?

Because the Republicans refuse to address the biggest drain of them all-- the military.

military is not unsustainable - medicare is.

Close, but no cigar. What's unsustainable is health care spending. Medicare is actually quite a bit better on this than the private sector; the Affordable Care Act actually addresses long-term health care costs. But, yes, providing health care to old people (which is what Medicare does) is going to be expensive.

These "old" people paid into Medicare and have every right to reap the benefits. Both Social Security and Medicare should have been kept in seperate accounts and not have been put in general funds. My parents paid into both anc, by damn, they deserve to receive both.

You seem confused. Of course old people deserve health care. That's the whole point. Saying "Medicare is unsustainable" is missing the point: health care is unsustainable. The good news is that we spend more per capita on health care than any other country, and have worse health outcomes in many ways. So we *can* pay less. The easiest way to do that is through single payer. That's not politically feasible because, in general, our voting population is pig ignorant, and our political leaders are gutless.

So Medicare's going to need to be reformed. That can be done through the ACA framework. If that doesn't happen, we'll just run out of money, the government will collapse, and old people (or at least the vast majority of old people who aren't billionaires) won't get health care.

[Anonymous]

Incidentally, this doesn't make any sense:

Social Security and Medicare should have been kept in seperate accounts and not have been put in general funds.

SS and Medicare aren't in the same "account", and they're not in "general funds" (whatever that means). The SS trust fund holds a shit-ton of US bonds. The same ones the Chinese hold. So while we can decide not to make good on that debt, there's no reason to privilege the Chinese over our retirees, etc..

Also, SS is not in any kind of crisis. There's a funding shortfall somewhere around 2030 that will last for about 20 years (because of demographic factors). This can be addressed via small, temporary tweaks to the program, or by eliminating the "cap" on social security taxes on earnings over $100k or whatever it is currently, or possibly if the economy actually starts to grow again, by not doing anything.

Of course, Obama and the GOP are working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our return to growth will happen as far down the road as possible. At every step of the way, they seem to be trying desperately to implement the most recessionary policies imaginable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incidentally, this doesn't make any sense:

Social Security and Medicare should have been kept in seperate accounts and not have been put in general funds.

SS and Medicare aren't in the same "account", and they're not in "general funds" (whatever that means). The SS trust fund holds a shit-ton of US bonds. The same ones the Chinese hold. So while we can decide not to make good on that debt, there's no reason to privilege the Chinese over our retirees, etc..

Also, SS is not in any kind of crisis. There's a funding shortfall somewhere around 2030 that will last for about 20 years (because of demographic factors). This can be addressed via small, temporary tweaks to the program, or by eliminating the "cap" on social security taxes on earnings over $100k or whatever it is currently, or possibly if the economy actually starts to grow again, by not doing anything.

Of course, Obama and the GOP are working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our return to growth will happen as far down the road as possible. At every step of the way, they seem to be trying desperately to implement the most recessionary policies imaginable.

no, the most recessionary policies imaginable are what Obama tried to do the last two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incidentally, this doesn't make any sense:

Social Security and Medicare should have been kept in seperate accounts and not have been put in general funds.

SS and Medicare aren't in the same "account", and they're not in "general funds" (whatever that means). The SS trust fund holds a shit-ton of US bonds. The same ones the Chinese hold. So while we can decide not to make good on that debt, there's no reason to privilege the Chinese over our retirees, etc..

Also, SS is not in any kind of crisis. There's a funding shortfall somewhere around 2030 that will last for about 20 years (because of demographic factors). This can be addressed via small, temporary tweaks to the program, or by eliminating the "cap" on social security taxes on earnings over $100k or whatever it is currently, or possibly if the economy actually starts to grow again, by not doing anything.

Of course, Obama and the GOP are working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our return to growth will happen as far down the road as possible. At every step of the way, they seem to be trying desperately to implement the most recessionary policies imaginable.

no, the most recessionary policies imaginable are what Obama tried to do the last two years.

Have you got specifics, or is that just an article of faith? I'm curious, since Obama has basically pursued right-of-center Republican policy all the way down the line. I really am interested in getting a peer into what your thinking is on this. After all, it looks like we're going to be pursuing the exact same contractionary policies, only with even more recession-enhancing austerity measures, which means we're unlikely to see a turnaround anytime in the next several years. Was it just Obama being all Muslimofasicocialist and everything, and scaring the Galtians into shutting down the factories, or have you got a more comprehensive hypothesis?

[Anonymous]

how do you see any austerity cuts? first, there are no cuts. Only slight decreases in the rate of future increases that take effect after a few years.

as for Obama, increased govt spending has been shown to reduce growth. that, combined with the tighter regulations and now Obamacare, are causing more job cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It chills me to think what the teapartiers want this country to look like, as evidenced by their fiscal priorities. Armed to the teeth, grabbing everything you can and stepping on anyone who grabbed slower than you.

That would be WORKING as hard as they can. You may not agree with their political ideas, but they're not the folks who're trying to grab a bunch of freebies.

AMEN!

[Anonymous]

as for Obama, increased govt spending has been shown to reduce growth.

I'd be interested in seeing your source for that. My guess is that, unless it's on the WSJ editorial page, the argument is not what you think it is.

that, combined with the tighter regulations and now Obamacare, are causing more job cuts.

This is just hand-waving blather: Oh, noes! They have passed "the tighter regulations, and now Obamacare!"

The big problem here is that there are plenty of folks that a) haven't a clue what the problems at hand are; and b) have very, very strong opinions as to what should be done to address them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how do you see any austerity cuts? first, there are no cuts. Only slight decreases in the rate of future increases that take effect after a few years.

as for Obama, increased govt spending has been shown to reduce growth. that, combined with the tighter regulations and now Obamacare, are causing more job cuts.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Increased government spending can crowd out private sector investment in times of growth and inflation. However, right now, we have no growth and no inflation--if you don't believe me, read the WSJ and the Economist; you can't get more conservative than that and they are publishing article after article about the fact that there is no demand in this country because people are jobless, debt-laden and/or scared.
No demand means the private sector will not hire (again, read your WSJ), especially when it can plow all of its record profits from the "productivity-enhancing cuts" it did during the recession back into fast-growing economies abroad. We are in a classical Keynesian liquidity trap, and the remedy for that is increased government deficit spending (yes, all of those words belong in that phrase) to to create jobs (an inefficient job is better than no job) and jump start demand, which will lead the private sector to decide to invest..

So these cuts are about the last thing we needed. Add to that the fact that the Fed is running out of ammo if we have another crisis, and the big investment banks are hard at work trying to pass on crap investments to their clients (a WSJ article last week talked about a recent commercial mortgage-backed securities issuance by Goldman that got huge pushback from investors because they felt they were trying to cram in low-quality bonds that didn't belong--sounds familiar?--, and I wouldn't be surprised if the sky were to fall on our head in the next couple of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

as for Obama, increased govt spending has been shown to reduce growth.

I'd be interested in seeing your source for that. My guess is that, unless it's on the WSJ editorial page, the argument is not what you think it is.

that, combined with the tighter regulations and now Obamacare, are causing more job cuts.

This is just hand-waving blather: Oh, noes! They have passed "the tighter regulations, and now Obamacare!"

The big problem here is that there are plenty of folks that a) haven't a clue what the problems at hand are; and b) have very, very strong opinions as to what should be done to address them.

you are more absurd thinking slight cuts in future increases of govt spending is somehow going to devastate the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how do you see any austerity cuts? first, there are no cuts. Only slight decreases in the rate of future increases that take effect after a few years.

as for Obama, increased govt spending has been shown to reduce growth. that, combined with the tighter regulations and now Obamacare, are causing more job cuts.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Increased government spending can crowd out private sector investment in times of growth and inflation. However, right now, we have no growth and no inflation--if you don't believe me, read the WSJ and the Economist; you can't get more conservative than that and they are publishing article after article about the fact that there is no demand in this country because people are jobless, debt-laden and/or scared.
No demand means the private sector will not hire (again, read your WSJ), especially when it can plow all of its record profits from the "productivity-enhancing cuts" it did during the recession back into fast-growing economies abroad. We are in a classical Keynesian liquidity trap, and the remedy for that is increased government deficit spending (yes, all of those words belong in that phrase) to to create jobs (an inefficient job is better than no job) and jump start demand, which will lead the private sector to decide to invest..

So these cuts are about the last thing we needed. Add to that the fact that the Fed is running out of ammo if we have another crisis, and the big investment banks are hard at work trying to pass on crap investments to their clients (a WSJ article last week talked about a recent commercial mortgage-backed securities issuance by Goldman that got huge pushback from investors because they felt they were trying to cram in low-quality bonds that didn't belong--sounds familiar?--, and I wouldn't be surprised if the sky were to fall on our head in the next couple of years.

Basically crowding out is when it is more attractive to buy government debt than corporate debt. But it's really hard to crowd out private investment with the yields on treasuries so low. Unless of course we screw ourselves over in this debt debacle and end up paying a huge premium for our debt. Then we would crowd out investment.