GOP to punish Bi-Partisan Politicians?
I find it simply sickening that the apparent goal of the Republican party is to totally stymie any and all bi-partisan work? Then of course they and their Far Right base will complain that nothing gets done in Washington DC. Of course, the DEMs and their Far Left base play the same stupid game when the tables are turned.
They seem just fine driving this country into the ground as long as they stop their "opponent". Given the 2 polarized tribes we have gathered into and who we elect. I guess we Americans are getting the government dysfunction that we deserve.
158 comments:
"Of course, the DEMs and their Far Left base play the same stupid game when the tables are turned."
Do you have an example of something that the GOP did or tried to do when Trump was president with a GOP congress? The dems did not obstruct them because they did not try to do anything. If they had debated an infrastructure bill I think there would have been a lot of dem support for it.
off topic link:
Kyle Rittenhouse’s story is a tragedy. The right thinks it’s a triumph.
https://wapo.st/307e03M
If I was on the jury I would find him guilty of something. I don't know the exact details of the charges, but it should be some level of murder.
They refused Trump and the GOP's Immigration agenda.
What was the Trump / GOP immigration agenda? What did they try to pass? I am kind of moderate on immigration. I don't remember congress tying to pass any immigration bill.
Here you go
It looks to me that some dems were working with GOP senators to offer bipartisan plans. It looks to me that the reason nothing passed is the GOP couldn't agree on a plan. Do you have any stories about the dems filibustering or preventing debate or votes on immigration bills. I just don't see the 2 parties as equally obstructionist.
Laurie, obstruction is in the eye of the beholder. Right now, Democrats are furiously trying to pass a MASSIVE "social welfare" bill, the "Build Back Better" bill (ick), but commonly known as the "reconciliation bill." It is such a terrible idea that no Republican Senator will vote for it, and the only way it passes is with every Democrat Senator voting in favor, AND Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote. Now is stopping an absolutely horrible bill from becoming law "obstruction"?
Laurie,
Before the Progressives started flexing their muscles, they probably were not. And usually the obstructionism becomes most obvious and egregious when the President and House are controlled by one party and the Senate by the other.
I will need to give your question some thought.
Jerry and Laurie,
When a Party insists on trying to pass something all of their members can not support, that definitely is a sign of an extreme bill.
Be it the GOP immigration plan or healthcare bill, or the DEM social infrastructure plan.
I think a good example of obstructionism is when McConnell would not even bring House passed bills to the Senate for discussion.
Food for thought: perhaps your "map" of ideologies is too simple?
Pew research
And yet, There are only two sides to Congress, or to a yes/no question.
I think I agree with your author's summary.
" If you wanted a “category” to completely describe a person’s preferences on every major issue of the day, as well as how enthusiastic or ambivalent they were toward those subjects, you’d have roughly 300 million categories in America."
"But at the end of the day, we do line up into two camps because of the bicameral nature of our electoral system. Even if you disagree with most of your “side” on a couple of issues, be it abortion, gay marriage, or anything else, you’re not going to flop across the fence and vote for the other “team” because you’re unlikely to get anything else you want."
So I am okay with ~5 categories of "active voters / citizens".
Progressives, Democrats, Moderates, Republicans, Trumpers (historically labelled TEA)
I mean if they are not voting, they really are a minimal factor in our system. Unless one of the parties entices them to become active.
I mean no one really cares why you joined Trump's cult...
All that matters is that you bought it hook, line and sinker.
Kind of like extreme Progressives / near Socialists...
When a Party insists on trying to pass something all of their members can not support, that definitely is a sign of an extreme bill.
I very much disagree, at least on the Democratic side of thing. My party simply isn't very disciplined. Within the party Democrats quite simply disagree with each other a lot, and there is no central authority strong enough to keep them in line. Trump talked a lot about how 96% of Republicans supported him. It thought that told us a lot about how Democrats and Republicans are different, how they often see the world in fundamentally different ways, and have a tendency to project those views elsewhere. The fact is, there is nothing 96% of Democrats agree on. But in addition, it wouldn't occur to Democrats that such unanimity on any even issue would even be desirable. It's not just that we are a fractious lot, we are proud of being a fractious lot. We believe fractiousness is natural and find it hard to comprehend that the other party doesn't value it as much as we do.
--Hiram
Hiram
I Disagree...
"The fact is, there is nothing 96% of Democrats agree on."
Right now you DEMs have to moderate Senators. (Manchin and Sinema)
And maybe Warnock and Tester..
And in this House there are Gottheimer and Cuellar. Maybe Kind...
The simple reality is that our 2 party primary system ensures that few moderates get a chance to be elected. I am sure the Progressives will be working to oust Sinema and Manchin ASAP.
John, very interesting observation. I have long held that the two-party system is highly desirable because it means that ONLY moderates-- those representing 51% of the voters' views-- can be elected. But as you point out, the caucus/primary system is controlled by the extremists in both parties, those willing to actually get out, and participate. I much prefer the caucus system because it lets anybody compete, whereas a primary usually goes to the candidate with the big money and time, though it represents a larger swath of the electorate. I think there are two reasons for the current sad state of affairs:
1) Somehow (probably the internet) has made us ill-informed, quick to judgment AND intolerant of opposing views. That is, people used to THINK, and trust their representatives to do likewise.
2) Our representatives have given up trying to educate and persuade in the pursuit of good policy. They go with the emotional appeal, propagandizing and tribal mentality. Example: calling the "Build Back Better" bill the "Bummer Beyond Belief" bill or even just the "Reconciliation bill" can change public perception and support. It's like when support for the "Affordable Care Act" is much higher than for "Obamacare." He who names a thing seals its fate.
Right now you DEMs have to moderate Senators.
I don't think either Manchin or Sinema are particularly moderate. For one thing, neither one seems to have any political views. They are simply taking advantage of the power position opportunities a closely divided senate always offers individual members. In any event, senators are hardly representative of party. Neither Manchin nor Sinema's name has ever appeared on a ballot I have cast. Trump's 96% number was in reference to Republicans generally, not to senators. I have no doubt that most Republican senators deeply despise him, but can't say so out of fear for their jobs.
--Hiram
Our representatives have given up trying to educate and persuade in the pursuit of good policy.
Interesting. One problem is that when representatives try to educate us, they are accused of all sorts of things, of lecturing us, of elitism, of arrogance, of condescension, there are many labels and charges on the shelf which are used to undermine any politician presumptuous enough to educate us.
Lately, I have been bemused by Republicans. Lacking a platform of their own, they are freed up to criticize President Biden for everything bad that happens in the world. Take inflation which Republicans are currently in a tizzy about. I am in something of a tizzy about it too. But inflation is the downside of a thriving economy. When things are going well, pricing pressures will build. I don't like it, but that's basically the way the economy works. Republicans complain about it, but they are very careful to avoid providing the solution for it, which is to slow economic growth. They don't tell you they want to raise interest rates and throw people out of work, and without a platform commitment, they don't have to. They just whine without recourse.
--Hiram
Hiram,
That is because you are sitting in the Left seats.
Jerry,
Unfortunately the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of cable news / social media end our country's normal distribution. Now the right gets to live in their echo chamber and the Left in theirs. :-(
Therefore as noted in the graphic we have a bi-modal distribution, with Centrists like me in short supply. :-O
This seems timely
Back in the day, there was a pretty standard political understanding of the economics of inflation. When inflationary fears arose, the Fed would tighten. They would raise interests and reduce the money supply. They would slow the economic growth that was seen as driving inflation. Politicians lived in fear of that. It meant that unemployment would rise or at least not fall as much as was seen as politically advantageous.
During the Obama years, Republicans, disturbed by the generally favorable, searched for some ways to disrupt it. The most famous tactic was fight the raising of the debt limit, which was intended to create an economic crisis. They mostly failed in that but the solution required the kicking of a lot of economic cans down various roads. Among other things, it meant the increase of the debt level which was good for Republicans because it made their tactic of opposing the debt limit increase even more powerful.
Now, after a year in an economic coma, the economy is beginning to thrive again. The stock market, contrary to Republican predictions, is at record highs. Help wanted signs are every. Supply cannot keep up with demand. The entirely predictable result was inflation, something nobody worried about in the last year of the previous administration when Americans were dying by the hundreds of thousands and nobody was spending money.
What are Republicans to do? Fortunately for their political interests, they made the forward looking decision not to have a platform. They made the brilliant political choice to stand for nothing. Their insight was that by not having positions of their own from which they could mount a political critique of a Democratic administration, they could stand for nothing allowing them to attack the president from all directions. We see that now when they complain about inflation, without advocating the economically painful and politically damaging measures that would contain it, the actions politicians of both parties have always been reluctant to take. The painful measures we created the politically independent Federal Reserve to take.
--Hiram
You are correct, I missed making a lot of money because of those hypocritical GOPers.
I had pulled a significant amount of my wealth out of stocks expecting a COVID caused recession. I mean I remember the GOPers fighting against massive government bailouts in 2009. :-O
And yet Trump and the GOPers passed bail out after bailout.
However on the other hand, who except me likes recessions?
As a matter of principle, where stocks are concerned, I am always bullish. A huge reason for that is that in many different ways the stock market is rigged to go up. My bullishness was challenged by the pandemic in 2020, the days when the market went below 20,000 were scary, but my bullish rationale held. What happened is that Trump was deceptive about the true extent of the pandemic, and in a number of different ways signaled that he would work to hold up markets, even at the cost of lives. For this, he had bipartisan support in Congress. With fears eased, greed took over, and confidence in the markets returned. It was a near run thing as the Duke of Wellington might have said, but it worked.
The Fed, historically, has not been averse to recessions. It's their primary objective to keep the value of the dollar stable, and they have been willing to slow down the economy to do it. It's just that with the sluggish economy we have had in the last two decades, they haven't found it necessary to do that.
I do believe Republicans want to provoke recessions when Democrats are in the White House. It's why they resist debt limit increases. It's why they are willing to play chicken with default on the debt. It's why they advocated interest rate increases in a recessionary economy. It's why today, they say they want to limit inflation, without in any way associating themselves with the harsh policies which could well result in a recession which would relieve recessionary policies. I know of no better reason to vote Republican than the fact that if they are not in power, they will try to wreck the economy for political advantage, and that as a minority party in a consensus requiring government, they have the power to do it.
--Hiram
You are both missing the boat on inflation. There is a single cause, and that is the ability of the government to spend unlimited amounts of money that doesn't exist, and allowing the Federal Reserve system to simply create that money out of thin air. The mechanism is the purchase of unsold US Treasury bonds by the Fed, and simply putting all that money on their books as an asset. That expands the money supply without an increase in the underlying output of the economy, thus inflation. What SHOULD happen is, like in Germany, that unsold bonds do NOT get bought, but instead trigger an increase in interest rates until they ARE bought. This creates a rapid rise in interest rates which drives the public to demand the deficit spending stop. Simple as that.
There is a single cause, and that is the ability of the government to spend unlimited amounts of money that doesn't exist, and allowing the Federal Reserve system to simply create that money out of thin air.
Money has never existed in the way it doesn't exist today. That has never meant we have always had inflation.
This point has always seemed obvious to me, but I am aware it isn't to others. Money has value because we think it has value. That's true of any form of money. It's value is in it's credibility, and credibility is not something pulled out of thin air. It's an end product of centuries of economic transactions.
I saw a reference to Germany. I think that was a reference to the German inflation of the early 1920s when it took a billion marks to buy a loaf of bread. The reason for that inflation was simple, and it afflicted German and world history as a whole. The German people, after WW I had lost or I guess never had confidence in the Weimar government. I could talk a lot about that, WW I and the years between the wars have always fascinated me, but briefly the mark became worthless because the German people didn't believe in the government that issued it. What scares me is the possibility that we are facing the same problem today. Do we believe in or have confidence in our government? Forty percent of the population say that the last election was rigged and the president that emerged from it is illegitimate. Two presidents in this century lost the popular vote. Have we lost confidence today in our government as the Germans did in the post World War I period? Things turned out very badly for them. Can we expect a choice not to have confidence in our government turn out better for us?
--Hiram
After World War I, part of the problem in Germany was that nobody knew why or how the war ended. This information vacuum opened the door to conspiracy theories and the blaming of individuals and groups for "stabbing Germany in the back". That's one of the things I think as some individuals are working to conceal the history of the last administration. History doesn't belong to politicians, it belongs to us.
--Hiram
The problem pretty simply is "fiat money." That is, money not backed by any real asset. We went off the gold standard 50 years ago, probably a sensible decision then, but the money supply is supposed to be constrained by something akin to GDP. When we just "print money," which is what the Fed is doing, we have more money than the economy needs to produce and purchase the GDP. Prices rise because the money loses value.
That is, money not backed by any real asset.
Money is backed by confidence. Confidence is an asset. Unlike a bar of gold, confidence generates income. Confidence allows one to get dates. Confidence may not make food edible, but do you make a point of eating food in which you don't have confidence?
Prices rise because the money loses value.
Prices rise for a lot of reasons. The reason why a Van Gogh costs more today than it did in 1889 isn't related to a drop in the value of the Franc.
--Hiram
Not my school of economics. Assets create confidence, not the other way around. It's why banks ask for collateral. Assets appreciate in value, making fiat currency less valued. Had the dollar remained pegged to gold at $35/ounce, nobody would own dollars worth two cents; they would own the asset instead. That's what the inflation of fiat currency is-- the more dollars floating around, unmatched to the assets available, means "too many dollars chasing too few goods." When the Fed "prints money" they are doing exactly that, inflating the dollar. It is inescapable. It once was that the Fed was very careful in matching the money supply to the economy, printing just enough to avoid deflation (plus a little). Federal deficit spending has been allowed to alter that sensible control and now inflation runs rampant.
You are right about one thing. People lose confidence in the economy, rationally (they lose their job) or not so much (Covid panic), and the economy contracts and needs LESS money than is "floating around," thus creating "stagflation." Throw crazy government spending on top of that, and people not wanting to buy bonds because of the artificially low return, and the problem gets just like it is today. Treasury interest rates should be restored to market, and the Fed should be prohibited from buying them.
Unfortunately most citizens want to avoid recessions and personal loss.
Therefore politicians must prevent them to stay in office. That is Trump and the GOP approved huge bailouts and encouraged the FED to take drastic actions.
It wasn't Trump that allowed the Fed to buy up worthless Treasury securities. From "history of the federal reserve": "In January 1951, Eccles broke with this real bills tradition when he stated that it was the unrestrained creation of bank reserves in defense of the rate peg that made the Federal Reserve into “an engine of inflation.”
Assets create confidence,
The asset that backs the dollar is the United States of America. But of course lots of things create confidence. A gallon of milk and a bar of gold are both assets. Which one can you drink?
You can peg the dollar to something, but you still have to have confidence in the peg. One reason the gold standard became untenable was because governments could no longer guarantee that that they could redeem currency with gold. They couldn't handle what would in effect be a run on the bank.
With respect to any pegged currency value will float. After all, what we use money for is to buy detergent, not by gold. If you fix the number of dollar and peg it to the value of gold, what will happen? Let's say the federal government issues a thousand dollar bills, and each dollar bill is redeemable for one thousandth of the gold supply at Fort Knox. What would be the consequences for money in the United States? Could you or anyone you know afford to have a dollar bill that was worth so much? Would it be something you would carry in your wallet to Target? Or would that money disappear into highly secure vaults never to be seen again. If it did, we still need money to conduct our daily affairs. Where would we get it? Would Whampum make a comeback?
==Hiram
It wasn't Trump that allowed the Fed to buy up worthless Treasury securities.
If you have any Treasury securities you think are worthless, feel free to bundle them up and send them to me.
--Hiram
Gresham's law: Bad money drives out good money.
--Hiram
I still remember Trump saying that the FED was working against him because they were being to anti-growth / anti-inflation. Then he nominated Powell.
I don't have any. If I did, I would have expected them to pay a LOT more interest than what they are currently being sold for, the "fixed rate." They are worthless because they are not needed in the economy, and that is the problem. Not many people DO buy them, so the FED puts them on their books as an asset, and "prints" the money to finance the deficit spending. Yes, the government agrees to pay off the bonds, but how? The "full faith and credit," it appears to me, is in jeopardy. One solution, to me, is to simply abrogate all Treasury notes held by the FED. (and deny them the right to "print" more.) Instant National Debt reduction.
Again, most currencies in the world now float in value-- currency trading is a real "thing"-- their value does indeed reflect the "confidence" others have in the nation's underlying economy to support the value of their currency. Inflation must erode that confidence, since it will take more dollars to buy the "asset" of another currency or "basket" of currencies.
I still remember Trump saying that the FED was working against him because they were being to anti-growth / anti-inflation.
Presidents usually avoid commenting in very specific terms on economic matters. With monetary matters, I always wondered if what Trump said on these things was derived from his history as a real estate guy. His world is one of loans and investors. As a professional debtor he likes interest rates. He wouldn't have problem with inflation because it allowed him to pay back expensive dollars with cheap dollars. Like all politicians, he would prefer a full employment economy with high inflation to a low employment economy with low inflation. Trump always seemed to believe that the government worked for him, that he didn't work for the government.
--Hiram
Something to understand about the national debt. The government doesn't owe the money, the American people owe the money. We could refuse to pay it, but that wouldn't mean the debt would go away.
--Hiram
Actually it is the government that owes the money.
Of course, our wealth is only ours because of the government.
They keep our land titles, vehicle titles, corporation records, etc.
The government fails and we are back to anarchy...
Actually it is the government that owes the money.
If the government collapsed, Americans would still owe the money. That's the way government debt works. Money is being loaned to America, not any given government.
--Hiram
Of course, our wealth is only ours because of the government.
Americans were wealthy before this government was created, presumably they would still be wealthy if this government were dissolved or replaced. One thing to keep in mind that the United States of America existed before this government existed. The USA was created on July 4th, 1776. This government was created when the constitution was ratified, over a decade later.
--Hiram
How old ARE you guys? Yes, there was a time (Alexander Hamilton, maybe, or Woodrow Wilson) when "we" were "the government." It was a responsive, responsible, sensible "corporation" of which we were all shareholders. Somehow, The Board got it in their idea that they knew better than all the rest of us, almost akin to gods that could violate the laws of physics, chemistry, economics and human nature, and now here we are. Yes, the taxpayers have a government debt. One of those Debts is Social Security, and there is NOTHING which says that our government has to honor that debt on our behalf. That would be ugly. What would be far less ugly is if the government, on behalf of the taxpayers, simply repudiated all debt held by the Federal Reserve. It's all just sitting there, creating inflation, and requiring interest payments that do NOTHING for the taxpayers except burden them.
If the government cannot do the right thing, then we shouldn't be blaming the taxpayers and voters for it not getting done. "Don't blame me, I voted for Trump" bumper stickers have yet to be seen, but are probably overdue.
Hiram,
Source that citizens are the debt holders?
Jerry,
You voted for Trump. $7.5 TRILLION of the debt and growing.
Source that citizens are the debt holders?
Who else would be? It has to be someone.
--Hiram
But the fact is loans are always to countries, not governments. It simply wouldn't make sense to loan money to a government which somehow disappeared if the government dissolved. This is perhaps a little more difficult to understand because we think of our government as permanent not transitory. But America is older than it's government, and debts entered into prior to the formation of constitutional government have always been held valid and enforceable. This is indeed Alexander Hamilton's most famous, most important and most long lasting contribution to American finance. His policy, and it was extraordinarily controversial at the time was to honor Revolutionary War debt, thereby establishing the federal government's creditworthiness from the start of the Constitutional government. America has never dishonored it's debt, a policy that has only just now come into question after 230 years or so.
--Hiram
Hiram
Who exactly would the bond holder sue? Hiram...
"Savings bonds are issued by the federal government and backed by the "full faith and credit" guarantee. But unlike Treasuries, savings bonds may be purchased for an investment as low as $25. Like Treasuries, the interest earned on your savings bonds is subject to federal income tax, but not state or local income taxes.
Savings bonds can be purchased from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at banks and credit unions, and are often offered by employers through payroll deduction. But unlike most other Treasuries, savings bonds cannot be bought and sold in the secondary market. In fact, only the person or persons who have registered a savings bond can receive payment for it."
John, you insist on blaming Trump for deficits. Fine, you have fixed the blame. Now, how do you fix the problem??? Answer, repudiate the debt held by the FED, and prohibit their purchase of unsold Treasuries.
Who exactly would the bond holder sue?
The American people, through their agent, whatever government they put in place. Creditors aren't effected by any sort of reorganization that debtors might choose to enter into. Would you want that not to be true?
I am not sure what the point is about Savings Bonds. Yes it is possible to loan money to the American people by buying the bonds they issue. Before this current government was created, Americans loaned money to America through the purchase of Revolutionary era bonds. Those represented debt, and the debts were honored.
--Hiram
Jerry,
You fix deficits / debt by taxing more and spending less. Seems pretty simple.
Hiram,
"through their agent"... My point exactly... The government is responsible for creating and servicing the debt.
Now the new government may undo property rights, tax differently, seize assets, etc. (ie Taliban in Afghanistan)
The government is responsible for creating and servicing the debt.
The government didn't create the debt and it doesn't benefit the debt. The decision to create the debt was made by the people you chose to elect to public office. And you benefit from the debt by living in America.
--Hiram
You do not solve deficits with tax increases. If you cut spending enough you pay down debt but Congress will never do it. It must be forced on them. Stop printing money!!!
Hiram,
Of course the government "created" the debt with the blessing of the citizens.
The citizens wanted low taxes and high services, and were willing to send the bills to their kids.
Jerry,
Of course you can increase revenues by raising taxes.
Really? How about a "yacht tax"? It seems logical, but people respond to incentive s, that makes tax increases unlikely to do what is claimed for them but the money gets spent anyway,
This from the guy who supports a consumption tax?
I have to wonder which wealth oriented people will stop working / investing just because the government takes half of their top dollars?
I read a news report recently that based on some bad news report that day, Mark Zuckerberg lost a huge amount of money, something in the billions. The implication was, I suppose, that he was off somewhere weeping about the huge fortune he had lost. It's very unlikely that any such weeping occurred. When the stock market goes down, you don't money because stocks aren't money, they are stocks. And they go up and down in ways that are, if not random, sure look that way. Being rich is like that.
There is a scene near the end of one of my favorite movies, "Chinatown" where Jake Gittes asks Noah Cross how much money he has. "I have no idea", Cross replies. "Are you a millionaire", Jake asks. "Oh my yes." Cross answers. Being rich is like that. Being rich means you have little or possibly no idea how much wealth you actually possess. Your wealth goes up or down somewhat randomly but mostly up. Your wealth is a thing onto itself, and there is little you can do about it on a day to day basis. One of the things that means is that you can't affect it, it doesn't make sense to be motivated by it. Like Cross rich people just aren't motivated by wealth because they understand there is little they can do about it.
--Hiram
"This from the guy who supports a consumption tax?"
Yes, absolutely! Unlike taxes on things like yachts, which are highly discretionary and thus never raise the expected revenues (and in fact LOSE revenues because the boat-builders don't make any money to pay taxes on), consumption taxes are reliable because the necessities are NOT discretionary, and because the only incentive to avoid sales taxes is to incentivize saving and investing. And if you choose to spend, you pay tax for high living. Do you honestly believe that Congress can spend your money more wisely than you can, or that they have any incentive whatsoever to NOT spend every penny that comes in, two or three times over?
Do you honestly believe that Congress can spend your money more wisely than you can, or that they have any incentive whatsoever to NOT spend every penny that comes in, two or three times over?
I know Congress can buy an interstate highway system and I can't. Does that mean they are wiser? Or that I am dumber?
But Congress people were chosen by people like me. They work for me. That being the case, how can they be wiser than me?
--Hiram
"consumption taxes are reliable because the necessities are NOT discretionary,"
So you are going to tax food?
Perhaps we should again review the four kinds of spending.
1. You spend your own money on yourself. This is the most efficacious form of spending. You will search for exactly what you want, at exactly the price you are willing to pay for it. In economics that is called "marginal utility" or perhaps "first utility," depending.
2. In this case, you spend your money on someone else, you buy them a gift. You are very careful to spend only the amount you have or are willing to spend on that person, and try to select something that they will appreciate and use.
3. This is the case where you spend somebody else's money on yourself. Your sainted grandmother gave you cash for Christmas, for example. You really don't care what it costs, and while you will shop and consider carefully, you will probably buy something that you would not have if you had to use your own money.
4. The least efficacious spending is when you spend somebody else's money on a third party. You don't care how much you spend, and you don't really care whether the recipient can use what you buy. Your purpose, generally speaking, is to get the money spent as quickly as possible and be done with the task. This is particularly dangerous when members of Congress do it, because they do not feel constrained by the amount of money available and are perfectly willing to spend more than they actually have, on things they only imagine people want.
It basically comes down to the fundamental Democrat theory of government budgeting, that "there is no limit to the amount of good that can be done with somebody else's money." There are only two ways this insanity can be stopped. One is by "obstruction" from the opposing party (or Sane members of the ruling party), or by limiting their Currently-unlimited borrowing.
Yes, I am going to tax food. There is no tax on used food. And then I'm going to give everybody a refund (equal to the tax on poverty level spending) of that tax. Your strawman is burning.
"But Congress people were chosen by people like me" no wonder we are in the trouble we are in. :-)
Oh, and you CAN buy an interstate highway. The government builds it, then charges tolls to pay it off. If it is in the wrong place nobody pays, and the taxpayers get stuck. Too bad we don't let private enterprise do it. Oh, wait, we DO. Government specifies the route and the specs, but goes out for private contractors to do the building. NOT like education, for example.
You spend your own money on yourself.
That's what happens when I pay for interstate highways.
In this case, you spend your money on someone else, you buy them a gift.
the idea is that if I spend money on myself but someone else benefits they have received a gift. If that's the case, I should receive more thank you notes than I do.
"But Congress people were chosen by people like me" no wonder we are in the trouble we are in. :-)
I am aware of this growing view, that our institutions of government are not legitimate. Two of our presidents in this century, after all, lost the popular vote. But what worries me is the consequences if we decide our institutions of government are not legitimate. I don't know if that means they need to be dissolved and replace, or how we go about doing that. That next step seems to be one nobody seems to want to address.
--Hiram
1. You spend your own money on yourself. This is the most efficacious form of spending.
Efficacious: "having the power to produce a desired effect"
I guess I disagree... And I certainly do not think a bunch of selfish people spending to maximize their utility would work for the good of a society.
What country do you think does what you are proposing?
Any attempt I would make to build an interstate highway system would not be efficacious. Any attempt I would make to create a public school system would not be efficacious. The efficacious way I do spend money to build and do these things is through taxes.
--Hiram
Obviously, you do not understand basic human nature. I think it is up to you to define a country which acts in a truly altruistic fashion, or even a government that does so. Sorry to disappoint your excessive idealism, but such a utopia does not exist, even under socialism. Capitalism and free markets work because everyone optimizes the value, to themselves, of every exchange. Even donations to charity provide us with an intangible benefit that we value more than the money, goods or time that we spend on it. Taxes? Not so much.
Congress spends what the Democrat majority wants to spend on things they want to spend money on, and rarely consider what citizens/taxpayers want, or what they are willing to spend for such things. For example, ask how much people want to spend, say on renewable energy, and you find a headline like "People Will Pay To Stop Climate Change -- But Only $5." And if they knew that this money would NOT affect the climate, they certainly would not be willing to pay even that.
HIram, you are wrong twice. The institutions of government are creating their own illegitimacy By arrogating power unto themselves and then acting against the wishes of their constituents. What needs to happen is that they must be forced to pay attention. One way that happens is through elections but those are too infrequent and unreliable. Another is strict limits like balanced budget requirements, or prohibiting the Federal Reserve from financing deficit spending.
Nobody asked you to create a public school system. The government has already done that. But what you can do is attempt to require the local school board to be financially prudent and to educate to community standards. If not, it is your personal obligation to find an alternative for your kids, or to help finance an alternative for others. What would be really good would be if you could deny your tax dollars to this deviant school system, and spend them as you saw fit. It's a great example of your dollars being spent by someone else, on things you don't want. That is NOT efficacious.
The institutions of government are creating their own illegitimacy
If I wanted to make that argument, what I would point to are the two presidencies where the loser of the popular vote won the White House. That's a good argument for the illegitimacy of our elected government, that it was not elected.
Going forward, we are entering into a period of intense gerrymandering. The argument could be made that people elected by a gerrymandered system are not legitimate.
It's easy enough to argue that our system of government is illegitimate. There are lots of pretty good arguments I could make for that. The real issue, is whether and why we would take that position. What goal do we have in mind that we can reach by rejecting the legitimacy of this government. Or perhaps rejecting the legitimacy of any government. I don't see the point of that, and I don't know what would replace it if anything would.
--Hiram
Nobody asked you to create a public school system.
Nobody asked Steve Jobs to create a computer company. We are the bosses. It's not our job to be asked for thing, it's our job to do the asking.
In our system, power and political legitimacy derives from the people. That's what it says in the first sentence of the constitution. I used to believe that our system was a rejection of the divine right of kings, where power derived from God. But I took this course on English history which argued pretty well that the divine right of kings was rejected in Britain when Parliament tossed out the Stuarts and turned over the crown to their distant relations, the Hanoverians. Arguably, the real King of England in the First World War might have been the Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria. Unfortunately, he was commanding a German army at the time, and so was unavailable.
--Hiram
Jerry,
You believe the USA should be more Capitalistic...
And you can not show me a successful country that is more Capitalistic...
The USA is a Mixed Economy like all the others. We are just more Capitalistic than most of them for better or worse.
No, I believe the USA should be more free market. It was once pointed out to me that both the Russians and Chinese were becoming more capitalistic than we were, and that eventually our declining would "cross over" their rising adoption of such an economic system. My response was "about one more Democrat administration." There is a "good mix" and a "bad mix." I'm hard pressed to see that the balance is correctly on the side of the good, or that it is getting better. Especially with Congress spending us into oblivion.
Accepting that government is legitimate doesn't mean one agrees with everything it does. As for something like a free market, well that's a pretty complicated issue. I have been obsessed with markets for many, many years, and one thing I am pretty sure of is that there is no consensus at all as to what free means relative to them. The fact is, markets and market behavior are dominated by rules, regulations and laws, and always have been. Within markets themselves one continually finds concentrations of various kinds of power which make he concept of "free" meaningless.
Society is and always has been a balancing of freedom and security. You can't have one without the other. The alternative is the jungle, and I bet there are lots of rules and regulations there too, it's just that lions and tigers don't write them down or otherwise litigate them.
--Hiram
Apparently Jerry would prefer to live in China and Russia...
Where the politically connected get rich and the rest make do.
There are areas of American business where markets are unregulated. That happens is isolated shadowy areas of our economy. The deep 'net is perhaps where a lot of it goes on. We let that go on for a number of reasons, some of them not very nice. People are often victimized there, but we choose not to care about it that much. They are unsympathetic because they are the wrong sort, or because they are powerless, or because we think it's their fault for getting themselves in the messes they get themselves in. People in those areas are hardly free, but perhaps the fact that they are free from government regulation consoles them.
--Hiram
John Apparently wants to live in a USA that is just like Russia or China. Not sure which.
Explain why companies that profit from so-called "climate change" government money are better than those who sell something useful to the public, at market rates? Ever hear of "earmarks"?
You believe the USA should be more Capitalistic...
And you can not show me a successful country that is more Capitalistic...
The USA is a Mixed Economy like all the others. We are just more Capitalistic than most of them for better or worse.
A country more capitalistic? USA 1985, 2005, 2018. All of them successful.
Explain why companies that profit from so-called "climate change" government money are better than those who sell something useful to the public, at market rates? Ever hear of "earmarks"?
Ironically you named the dates where the USA had the HIGHEST deficits.
This confirms that you are not a fiscal conservative... You just low taxes.
Please tell me how you will STOP Congress from running deficits. I've given you my suggestion. And for the umpteenth time, raising taxes isn't it.
It is pretty simple...
You raise taxes and cut spending...
Unfortunately folks like yourself want your welfare checks and your low taxes.
Not an answer, or pure BS. What I want is an end to deficit spending. I have seen repeatedly that raising taxes does not do anything except increase spending, and either distorts or depresses, maybe both, the economy. Now, I am not getting enough "checks" or other benefits of all that federal spending, so I'll agree to cut spending on everything else. Now YOU tell me what possible incentive you will offer Congress to do any of that, even just a little.
How do you stop a charging elephant (or donkey)?
You keep cashing your welfare checks while venting about wasteful spending...
It is unfortunate that those elephants believe in cutting taxes, increasing spending and borrowing the difference.
If it had only happened once, I could call it an accident. But after 3 times in 40 years and that huge national debt, it is just stupidity and greed.
You didn't answer the question: How do you stop a charging elephant (or donkey)? Simple, you cut up their credit cards. You either get Congress drunk and they pass a balanced budget amendment, like 49 states do. OR you could prohibit the FED from buying unsold US Treasuries.
You want to blame Republicans, and me, but that doesn't do one d**n thing to reduce the deficit, now does it? Do you have any realistic, practical ideas, other than those two?
We have had this discussion before, but you can never come up with where to cut $1+ Trillion from the budget.
That unfortunately leaves us with the need to tax more.
The thing to do would be to reassess what our government does. Do we need the military that we have? Do we want to be a global power or should we just withdraw to our borders? That was our policy for most of our history, and apart from WW II, it didn't work out too badly.
Lots of people want an America First policy. Maybe what they really want is an America Only policy. Do we really need international trade? Maybe we should erect walls around our country, both metaphorically and politically. Trump ran on that platform and came very close winning the popular vote with it. The term for such an economic system is "autarky".
A huge cost that drives up spending are the old and the young. Maybe we should close down Social Security and our schools. Old people should instead depend on their children for support. Children should be home schooled. Drugs should be price controlled.
Are these things what people who want to get rid of deficits have in mind? Are they things we want to do?
--Hiram
OK, turn Medicare into optional premium support, turn Medicaid over to the States with fixed premium support. End Obamacare subsidies, as required by law. Cancel ALL Climate change spending. Reclaim any unspent stimulus money. End earmarks. Reform Social Security. End all means-tested welfare in favor of a single negative income tax, with a work requirement. Reform the tax code in favor of the FAIR tax, saving $400 billion in compliance costs alone. Kill the BBB bill, saving ~$3T.
That leaves no excuse for taxing more, and it wouldn't do any good if we did. Something has to curb spending and it is NOT going to be done voluntarily by Congress. Look what the Democrats in the House just passed, without a single Republican vote! Massive new spending, tax breaks for the rich, tax increases for the rest of us, and STILL massive deficits as far as the eye can see.
We entered WW II because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. What historians will tell you is that WW II really started in 1935 with the Japanese invasion of China. The Japanese attack on the United States was in response to various sanctions we imposed on Japan along with various strategic threats we posed related to our presence in the Philippines. Had we not had a presence in Asia, in all likelihood, the Japanese would never have attacked us. Without Pearl Harbor we might never have entered WW II. Were our foreign entanglements worth it then? Are they worth it now? Wouldn't make sense to reduce our deficit by simply retreating behind the two oceans that protect us? Something that has worked very well for most of our history?
--Hiram
It is interesting that you only choose cuts that do not impact you.
Were you born this selfish or did you grow into it. :-O
Of course you are a typical American...
Cut THEIR programs...
Tax THEM instead of me...
I choose programs that need cutting, and the deficits and inflation they cause DO affect me. It is strictly fantasy thinking that, if budgets need to be cut, it can be done without cutting the budget. SOMETHING has to be reduced in cost, and it is Congress' job to prioritize those reductions in spending (or at least reduce the rate of growth) according to some sensible and reasonably non-political criteria. Dollars to donuts they will never do it willingly. Some of them, Democrats in particular judging by the BBB just passed, continue to believe the fantasy that they can spend trillions, raise taxes by billions, and all at zero cost to the economy.
You are all over the map. You insist spending must be cut, but offer no suggestions. You ask me to suggest cuts, and when I offer them you reject them, STILL offering none of your own. You continue to enjoy that Democrat fantasy that we can raise taxes to cover profligate spending, while spending still more, and magically reducing the deficit while growing it. It's as if you do not WANT the solution you claim.
It's important to think in terms of cutting programs, not just shifting costs around. It's the spending that's the problem, not the account on which the checks are written.
Health care is an example. If we spend too much on health care in America, if that's the problem than we have to find ways either to reduce it's cost, or to provide less of it.
--Hiram
Jerry,
The easiest thing to cut without impacting anything is to eliminate welfare checks to the wealthy. Let's say we discontinue SS and Medicare benefits to those who have a net worth of $500,000...
By the way, I would think you know that I do not support the Build Back Better bill. And that is not a cut since it has not been passed.
Hiram,
You are correct, many of Jerry's proposed "cuts" just transfer the costs for better or worse.
And they also will in no way add up to the $1+ TRILLION we need.
I think what is being proposed here is that what we do should be decided by what we are willing to spend. Having things like a military is but maybe it is time to decide that it is a luxury that we simply cannot afford. And the argument that the foreign entanglements that seem to go along with having a military simply aren't with it are certainly tenable.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Well eliminating the military totally takes care of half the problem.
Maybe giving the world to folks like China and Russia will work out just fine... :-O
"many of Jerry's proposed 'cuts' just transfer the costs for better or worse."
Wrong on several levels. Social Security can be reformed such that deficits are not only reduced, but actually pay down the debt, and everybody still gets all they were promised unlike the current Ponzi scheme. Medicaid can be run by the states more efficiently, at less cost, even with the federal government funding at its current level (saving money in the out years), and that would simply eliminate Obamacare which, as we all know, INCREASED costs with no benefit. Any one of these reforms would almost eliminate the deficit pre-Biden.
As for "welfare checks to the rich" you are sounding like a Democrat talking point. You keep saying SS is welfare, but it is paid for from your SS taxes, regardless of income. And reforming it, again, would reduce the deficit AND debt. Of course, government subsidies for electric cars or windmills are terrible economic policy, accomplishing nothing, and should be eliminated. Real "welfare," the means-tested kind, wastes at least 70%. That's at least $700 billion right there.
And I point out that you are only objecting to all of this economic good sense simply to avoid having to actually address the problem, and refusing to accept my two real proposals.
We have reviewed your proposals in detail in the past.
They are just wishful thinking.
Where as mine can be implemented quickly and with little pain to citizens.
Refresh my memory. When have you actually done the complex math on SS reform, proving it can be done? When have you addressed the very costly "Affordable Care Act" that raised costs for everybody and is in open violation of the law? Is it "wishful thinking" to believe the law should be followed, at least? When have you even hinted at a realistic proposal for welfare reform, as I have? What proposals have you made that can be "implemented quickly" OR "with little pain" AND would make a dime's worth of difference? My memory is slipping on all those points. Simple assertion is not convincing.
"Simple assertion" is all you do. :-O
Therefore none of us are ever convinced.
Maybe giving the world to folks like China and Russia will work out just fine
It's a risk, but in determining policy based on how much we are willing to spend, it's the sort of risk we have to take. In general, what we are talking about is scaling back what we think of as America, the return to a more isolated and bucolic past. Maybe a better past.
--Hiram
Simple assertion, yes, but not without backing. Two days of exhaustive math AND numerous congressional studies back up SS reform. We have experience with Obamacare and know it drove up prices, AND that much of the cost violates the law. There exists no evidence that fossil fuels will or even can create a "climate catastrophe" 100 years from now. Known facts, not "assertions." And simply calling my proposals "assertions" does NOT tell us what your "quick, no-pain" proposals are.
Jerry,
Please stay safe and happy in your delusional world.
I think stop giving people with money, welfare tax dollars and services seems pretty simple.
And if you want to convince us.
Give us some plan that has been evaluated by someone other than just Jerry..
The GOP must have some solution in mind?
all very real proposals, evaluated by Congress and/or able researchers, which are either suppressed by the media or not found by your blinkered search efforts. The confirmation bias is strong in you. I even offered you the chance to do your own math on the Social Security proposal (first proposed in Congress in 1999). You never did.
OK, you think the problem can be solved by "stop giving people with money, welfare tax dollars and services." Tell us, EXACTLY, what dollars and services you would cut, for whom, and how much could be saved? And if any of those dollars come from entitlements, how can you cut them without reform of those entitlements?
Speaking of denial, you want to deny that Obamacare subsidies are illegal? That all spending to "stop Climate Change" is futile as well as expensive? That costs of compliance for the IRS code are very high? You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.
Please provide links to these then.
"all very real proposals, evaluated by Congress and/or able researchers"
Why?
So I can research them...
Research them yourself. It's the only way you will believe what you find. Better yet, start with admitting to known facts, as cited above. You could research the actual dollars involved in those, and then see how much farther Congress needs to "cut."
It is particularly galling to me that you simply refuse to do the intensive math involved in Social Security reform, as I had to do because I did not think it was possible, either. Let me know when you want to do that, or you can just take my word for it. Math is math, once the basic assumptions are set.
Do the easy ones first. And then, if math is too hard for you, try reading:
105th Congress
Or offer details and support for your "quick and easy" cuts. Either way.
Here is a discussion of that or a similar proposal.
It seems to have had some holes in it.
Maybe they should have just let the SS Trustees invest in the stock market?
Ah... But the government was using those funds...
Another discussion of the PRA's
The primary challenge I see is what do we do about people who run out of money?
- their incomes were low
- they invested poorly
Those professors get paid by the word, and don't even begin to address the actual proposal or math thereof. And your other "discussion," while more on point, likewise misses the point.
"Do the easy ones first. And then, if math is too hard for you, try reading:
105th Congress"
You keep arguing against your own straw man. And ignoring the real facts, while proposing nothing concrete. You're like the "problem solvers caucus" in Congress.
I pose a simple question. And you have no answer...
That is why we do not trust your solutions.
The primary challenge I see is what do we do about people who run out of money?
- their incomes were low
- they invested poorly
What do we do now about people who die before collecting SS? Or who cannot live on the "basic" amount that (truly a welfare handout) SS provides? And the proposal I analyzed was based on allowing ONLY investments in the same US Treasury bonds that are in the SS Trust Fund.
Since those in or near retirement get their full SS benefit, "running out of money" is not a problem. Since those far from retirement-- say 25 year olds, will retire with many times their "Social Security account" it won't be a problem for them, either. PLUS, we still have a massive welfare system for everybody, plus private charity, and do not need Social Security duplication. You're looking for problems that do not exist, but I suppose it is easier than doing the actual math. Much easier.
And you have not answered my questions: Will you "cut" unspent stimulus money? Will you cut the huge IRS compliance costs by passing the FAIR tax? Will you cut out all the pointless and expensive "Climate Change" spending? Will you insist on real welfare reform that eliminates the massive overhead and provides real incentives for people to better themselves, with real assistance? Will you finally get the federal government OUT of health care so that costs can drop, by eliminating Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid mandates, and turning that into a simple premium support system, mostly operated by the States?
And here's just one little tidbit for you. Minnesota's renewable energy requirements-- carbon free by, 2050, is it? Would require 160% of the WORLD's cobalt supply every year. It's not even practical for MN, let alone the USA.
So many opinions and no proof.
What proof is needed? Do the math yourself, or find a reliable source. It is NOT an opinion, but an "inconvenient truth" to the true believers like yourself.
And I have asked a lot of "inconvenient questions" which you ignore. I find that telling.
Your questions are based on your opinions, so somewhat pointless.
Cut stimulus money?
Pass FAIR tax?
Change SS?
Welfare reform?
"Climate Change"?
ACA, Medicare, Medicaid?
None of these are sure wins...
Where as "stop sending tax dollars to wealth people who do not need it seems pretty cut and dry"...
So, it is my "opinion"
--that there is still unspent stimulus money?
--That the FAIR tax eliminates almost all IRS compliance costs?
--That the math (which you refuse to do) for SS reform confirms it is better than the current system?
--That, as even you admit, welfare needs to be reformed?
--That spending on climate change has done nothing for the climate (temperatures aren't rising), or that the models are wrong, or that the EPA admits renewables do nothing and cost more? That solar and wind make no economic sense?
--That my own experience with health care is NOT real? That sounds like YOUR opinion, totally untethered from all fact.
But OK, let's try it your way. "stop sending tax dollars to wealthy people..." Look at the "tax balance" for the various states-- the amount of federal spending in each state, versus the amount of federal taxes paid. Rich states like MN get substantially LESS than what they pay in, and poor states like MS get considerably more. There, we're already done doing it your way, yet we still have the problem. What's next?
Want to try again?
My solution was even simpler...
If you have a net worth of $500,000...
You don't get SS and Medicare benefits...
As for opinion... You believe that those changes will improve things.
Where as they may actually make things worse.
What personal hit are you willing to take to cut the deficit?
I am perfectly willing to stop all spending on climate change, a "hit" that will lower my electric bills. I am willing to take the FAIR tax, which will likely raise my taxes a bit since I otherwise have a lot of deductions. I am willing for welfare to be reformed, which will cause me to work harder for charitable causes and lessen my disdain for freeloaders. I am willing to have my health care costs cut by 50%. I am willing to have Social Security reformed in ways that give me more money at retirement. I am willing to forego my entire share (zero so far) of "stimulus money."
Now, explain to me why it is only OPINION that hard facts and numbers don't matter, and that "things" will get worse. Be specific, and no speculation-- just hard facts. You want to cut the deficit but you don't want to do anything with that as the natural and obvious result. It's hardly a persuasive argument.
Oh, and your favorite hobby horse, breaking the promises of Social Security to the "rich" (saving a few measly bucks), and breaking the law on Medicare (saving a few more), seem rather extreme and grossly unfair, considering the paltry sums involved. How about simply cancelling the entitlement called welfare? Many times the number of dollars saved.
I think you failed to answer one one simple question.
What personal hit are you willing to take to cut the deficit?
Why should I take a "hit"? How about we all share in the great benefits? How badly do you want to hurt all the rest of us, just so Democrats can spend us into oblivion, for no good result?
The only "hit" I have taken so far is to have Democrats elected to "represent" me. It's proven disastrous.
The entitlements were passed and repeatedly upheld by both parties.
And they are the problem.
So yes you voted for this mess, therefore you should help pay for it.
Except if they are reformed, the cost does down and nobody takes a "hit." It's a case of finding solution, not perpetuating a problem. You seem to think that is impossible and we are doomed, or that the only solution is to confiscate every dollar from the private economy to cover government spending. Please, try to offer SOMETHING realistic, or feel free to accept one of mine.
So who exactly is resisting your miracle cure and for what reason?
"reformed, the cost does down and nobody takes a "hit.""
Congress, the Senate, the White House, the "problem solvers caucus," the major media, and you. So long as it is seen as a game of political gotcha, with winners and losers, these common sense solutions will never be tried. And it isn't just real winners and losers that matter, but POLITICAL winners and losers-- we can't let THEM get credit for solving a problem, even if we don't know how. After all, we could have reformed Social Security back in 1990 and been almost out of the woods, with a lot of the National Debt paid down by now, but we didn't. You know, the granny over the cliff thing?
Well I have provided sources that discuss the problems with your SS proposal.
I do not think you addressed any of them.
Neither do your sources. Pretty easy to oppose a straw man. Find one that addresses the actual proposal, and I will look at it again. Maybe I just missed the best one. I still think the best solution is for you to do the math yourself.
The easiest solutions are:
- Raise the FICA tax cap
- Eliminate payments to wealthy people
I mean SS and Medicare are just welfare programs, let's admit it finally.
Congress will not even admit that they are Ponzi schemes and to many of them, welfare is a positive, while for the rest, the illusion this is an "investment" is a selling point. You want actual honesty, from politicians, who have for decades sold us the lie?
I am OK with raising the FICA cap, so long as the benefits cap is removed, though I am really surprised to hear you advocate for a flat tax.
Look, if Congress will admit this is a welfare program and eliminate the charade, all they have to do is raise taxes (preferably the FAIR tax) enough to cover this new (hopefully reformed) welfare system and allow (or mandate) private retirement accounts. Pretty much the plan you refuse to entertain. The difference is sudden vs. a smooth transition over 40 years. It took 40 years to get into this mess...
It never was an investment, it has always been welfare / insurance for the elderly, disabled, and survivors. (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) That is why the courts determined that we have no account / balance.
Not sure why you keep misunderstanding this?
"Misunderstanding"? Because I have been told forever (OK, I understand politicians are liars, but) for years, I would get a mailing from SSA telling me what benefits I was PROMISED. You are correct, it was not an investment because I did not choose it; it was a tax but unlike most taxes, I was promised a defined benefit in exchange.
And if I recognize this as a complex welfare scheme and not an investment with a promised return, why is it impossible for Congress to admit the same, and set out a plan to reform it, THIS YEAR, while we are still putting in more than we are taking out?
BTW, the math I did shows the Trust Fund (a nice term for a huge stack of IOUs) does steadily drop over the next (IIRC) 10 years, but NEVER goes to zero, rising steadily after that and paying down the national debt.
As we all know, forms are sent out that estimate future benefits.
They do not promise them. A change in law can change them at anytime.
You are sounding like a union worker complaining that a company needs to change benefits programs because the industry and world changed.
I am sounding like a lot of people who expect to get what I was promised, fingers crossed behind the back or not, and I don't want future retirees to be short-changed either, when all it takes is a simple change to the program to fix it and actually make it better for everybody. You sound like a typical Democrat politician who refuses to admit the problem and is content to let the program go broke, and will then blame Republicans for it. Or lie about and blame Republicans for trying to fix it.
The big SS FIX was done under Reagan...
I acknowledge the problem... Too many benefits given for Too many premiums paid.
And I am happy to let the trust funds go broke, then the can will not be kicked any further.
Benefits will be cut 25% or taxes will be raised.
Just a reminder.
Evaluation 1
Evaluation 2
Neither one addresses the actual proposal.
Wow. Talk about stubborn. You are willing to inflict untold hardship on millions, cutting benefits to retired senior citizens and raising taxes on everybody else, just so you can steadfastly refuse to consider the far better alternative? And claim the moral high ground doing it? Wow.
I am still waiting to see an analysis of your miracle proposal.
The 2 links were an analysis of what the GOP politicians were proposing back when.
The simple reality is that 100% of my FICA is going to pay for your benefits.
And if we send my money elsewhere, your benefits have to be paid for by another funding source.
That is one of the reasons it is a non-starter.
So MUCH misunderstanding! But I guess that is preferable to doing the extensive math involved, as I have done, in evaluating the ACTUAL proposal put forth in Congress, which was a GRADUAL transition to private accounts. Nobody gets less, the Trust Fund never goes to zero, and the system is self-sustaining without raising taxes. It is a "non-starter" in your mind only because you do not WANT the problem to be solved sensibly. Like the politicians you suspect of WANTING the system to collapse.
Well, as I said...
The burden is on you to provide the analysis.
I have provided 2 and you dislike them.
There is no way to post a 114KB spreadsheet in this comment section. If you are serious, I will post the assumptions made and you can use them to make your own analysis, or you can trust mine, or you can, as I suspect you will, simply argue pointlessly with the assumptions made. The burden is NOT on me. I have the facts and the numbers. You do not, yet.
Of course the burden is on the person trying to convince others.
Send it to me and I will look it over and/or find someway to share it.
give2get@live.com
Or find some way to trash the whole idea, as you have been doing?
I am sure I will find flaws in you proposal...
Otherwise someone else would have proposed it...
I mean it is a miracle solution... Same taxes and a lot more income...
While protecting the poor and stupid.
You missed the whole point, that somebody else DID propose it, in Congress, 30 years ago. All I did was to run the math and was surprised that it STILL works. It works because the people drawing the most benefits will, over time, die off, and be gradually replaced by people who do not draw full benefits, replaced by their private accounts. Does that make sense to you?
Maybe this will help:
The reform assumes that immediately:
-Those 55 and older continue with taxes and benefits unchanged
-those 45-55 move 2% of their pay to private accounts and receive 2/6.2 or 32% less benefit at retirement.
-those 35-45 move 4% of their pay to private accounts and receive 4/6.2 or 65% less benefit at retirement.
-those under 35 move 6.2% of their pay to private accounts and receive no SS benefits after retirement.
-the employer's 6.2% continues unchanged.
I will wait for the spreadsheet.
Maybe after Christmas... I'm still waiting for some indication that you even care about opinions/facts/knowledge/truths other than your own.
Does the reform as described, never mind the math, make sense? It's like the idea of laying off high-paid teachers and replacing them with cheaper young people, or converting your company retirement plan from defined benefit to defined contribution, for the newer employees, to save money.
And when layoffs occur, and pensions are replaced... Many people suffer...
As I said, you want others to suffer while you keep yours... Where as I want you old folks who elected the officials, under paid and are over collecting to suffer along with the future citizens.
I mean it only fair. Thankfully I have always planned on getting $zero back, so I will be fine either way.
"As I said, you want others to suffer while you keep yours... "
Why do you continue to spout lies about me, and about something you obviously not only know nothing about, but apparently do not even think about? Declining numbers of people receiving high benefits, replaced with people receiving lower benefits, reduces the total outgo of the SSA. Undeniable, yet you deny it. Obviously no point in discussing it further with you.
Maybe if you were willing to cut your benefits and save the tax payers money, you would have more credibility.
Instead you just want to...
The reform assumes that immediately:
-Those 55 and older continue with taxes and benefits unchanged
Post a Comment