Jump to content
IGNORED

Man, I'm glad this could never happen here in the US.

steve.foote

By steve.foote
in Riders Discuss Other Topics

Recommended Posts

steve.foote

steve.foote

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I don't think it is fair that I have been matching my employees FICA for 28 years now and I won't get anything for it.

 

Unfortunately, they probably won't either. :S

 

 

Link to comment
Ken H.

Ken H.

Posted
Posted
Growth is not the answer, that is just what created the problem. We can't grow continuously forever.

Oh I so disagree! The very foundation of any economic system (of any type) is growth. Social/economic models are at their basic design a giant Ponzi scheme. If there isn’t a continuous influx on more and more people spending more and more - the system declines and ultimately fails. There is no such thing as maintaining the status-quo. Not only should and can it continue to grow continuously forever, it must.

Link to comment
steve.foote

steve.foote

Posted
  • Author
Posted
..how bout dog bones for Mooo?

 

Mooo only has to ask and it's all his, to fund the revolution of course.

 

Now there is the funny quote of the thread. :grin:

Link to comment
Whip

Whip

Posted
Posted
Growth is not the answer, that is just what created the problem. We can't grow continuously forever.

Oh I so disagree! The very foundation of any economic system (of any type) is growth. Social/economic models are at their basic design a giant Ponzi scheme. If there isn’t a continuous influx on more and more people spending more and more - the system declines and ultimately fails. There is no such thing as maintaining the status-quo. Not only should and can it continue to grow continuously forever, it must.

 

Last year we agreed on mortgages and banking. Now this in 2011.

 

WOW!!!!

 

 

:grin:

 

 

Link to comment
Bob Palin

Bob Palin

Posted
Posted

I assume you negatories are talking about economic growth, I was talking about population growth because my response was to the immigration as a fix post. Continuous economic growth may be possible, but I think we have to plan it not allow some mystical free market to gamble with our futures. Not that I care that much, no kids, limited lifespan, low opinion of humanity etc (especially in the mornings).

Link to comment
Whip

Whip

Posted
Posted
I assume you negatories are talking about economic growth, I was talking about population growth because my response was to the immigration as a fix post. Continuous economic growth may be possible, but I think we have to plan it not allow some mystical free market to gamble with our futures. Not that I care that much, no kids, limited lifespan, low opinion of humanity etc (especially in the mornings).

 

LOL....Who is qualified to do the planning???

 

Monkeys beat pro stock pickers over time?

 

Politicians are no smarter than you and me....often times dummer than me. :)

 

 

No such entity exists.

 

BTW......where do you keep your 401K...just in case.

Link to comment
Ken H.

Ken H.

Posted
Posted
I assume you negatories are talking about economic growth, I was talking about population growth because my response was to the immigration as a fix post.

I don’t think we can separate the two (economic and population growth). Economic growth, or the lack of, is the result of the actions of people. (Well mostly, computer trading for example is having more and more to do with it.) Without an increase in both the economic activity of the existing populous, and an increasing populous; economic growth cannot be sustained.

 

Economic growth at its core is about purchasing. The total pooled purchasing power has to be rising. Think about every type of purchases done, from an infant, to an adolescent, to a young adult, to the elderly – it all is fueled by an influx of more and more people making more and more purchases. Without the “more and more” there can be no economic growth. While its' true a certain finite number of people making more purchases helps, in the end though, overall; one existing person cannot outspend three new people.

 

A specific society, for the sake of discussion say Canada, basically has only two ways to increase the number of people available to make purchases – ‘grow your own’ i.e. have babies or have them coming in from elsewhere. I.e. immigration. Which is why I say the smart countries have come to realize the value of enabling immigration. (There are other advantages too, in particular the diversity of ideas for solutions to problems goes up, but that’s even more of a thread hijack!)

 

Link to comment
Twisties

Twisties

Posted
Posted

We spend more on defense than the next 22 countries combined IIRC. Sounds like a great place to start. Maybe cut it to 2%. Plenty of money for everything else then.

Link to comment
tallman

tallman

Posted
Posted

If we put Defense and Education at the same level, say 5%, there would be plenty for doubling the rate of debt reduction and putting 7% in a rainy day fund to "rescue" SocSec.

Probem is, cutting Defense leads to a host of other problems, employment, research and development, etc.

I know we need to invest in infrfastructure (just search for bridges that need repair maintenance).

Education at 3%? Give me a break.

There is money available, even at the current rate of taxation to solve some of the problems, but convincing special interest areas to cut $$ isn't easy.

Link to comment
Whip

Whip

Posted
Posted

I think everything has to be cut equally.

 

....about 10% for each of the next three years.

 

That would do it.

 

 

Almost forgot.

 

 

...and go get those 401Ks and pensions.......cause I would feel better if people than have more than me get punished.

 

:wave:

 

 

 

Link to comment
tallman

tallman

Posted
Posted

Problem with across the board cuts is that it doesn't address possible pre-existing inequities.

 

A big part of the problem, IMO, is the lack of spending on education. Isn't education the key to...?

 

 

Link to comment
Twisties

Twisties

Posted
Posted
If we put Defense and Education at the same level, say 5%, there would be plenty for doubling the rate of debt reduction and putting 7% in a rainy day fund to "rescue" SocSec.

Probem is, cutting Defense leads to a host of other problems, employment, research and development, etc.

I know we need to invest in infrfastructure (just search for bridges that need repair maintenance).

Education at 3%? Give me a break.

There is money available, even at the current rate of taxation to solve some of the problems, but convincing special interest areas to cut $$ isn't easy.

 

You are quite correct, significant cuts to defense will never happen. Security might... if we rationalize our drug and immigration policies.

 

However, in dreamland, and even on this board before, I have advocated a ten year transition plan in which defense and security spending is decreased 10% year... 5% of the savings go to increased spending in other areas, and 5% are used to transition workers and businesses into meaningful goods and services. At the end of the ten years the military is at 10% of current levels and the other spending is up 45% of the military budget. We now drop the transition program and achieve a savings of about half the military budget, and as well the benefits of spending that money we still spend more usefully.

 

Of course this would require major policy changes. Our military would need to be for our defense of our soil only. That would never fly, but it is what I want.

Link to comment
steve.foote

steve.foote

Posted
  • Author
Posted
PolicyBasic_WhereOurTaxDollarsGo-f1_rev4-14-10.jpg

 

So, where do we cut spending?

 

Tim, why do they tally Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP separately from Safety Net Programs. Aren't they all safety net programs? That's a whopping 55% of the budget!

 

I agree with Whip on cutting across the board. Begin with 10% and adjust as necessary until the debt is gonesky.

Link to comment
Pilgrim

Pilgrim

Posted
Posted
Problem with across the board cuts is that it doesn't address possible pre-existing inequities.

 

A big part of the problem, IMO, is the lack of spending on education. Isn't education the key to...?

 

IMHO, federal spending on education shouldn't even be visible on the chart except for GI benefits.

 

Pilgrim

Link to comment
Pilgrim

Pilgrim

Posted
Posted
If we put Defense and Education at the same level, say 5%, there would be plenty for doubling the rate of debt reduction and putting 7% in a rainy day fund to "rescue" SocSec.

Probem is, cutting Defense leads to a host of other problems, employment, research and development, etc.

I know we need to invest in infrfastructure (just search for bridges that need repair maintenance).

Education at 3%? Give me a break.

There is money available, even at the current rate of taxation to solve some of the problems, but convincing special interest areas to cut $$ isn't easy.

 

You are quite correct, significant cuts to defense will never happen. Security might... if we rationalize our drug and immigration policies.

 

However, in dreamland, and even on this board before, I have advocated a ten year transition plan in which defense and security spending is decreased 10% year... 5% of the savings go to increased spending in other areas, and 5% are used to transition workers and businesses into meaningful goods and services. At the end of the ten years the military is at 10% of current levels and the other spending is up 45% of the military budget. We now drop the transition program and achieve a savings of about half the military budget, and as well the benefits of spending that money we still spend more usefully.

 

Of course this would require major policy changes. Our military would need to be for our defense of our soil only. That would never fly, but it is what I want.

 

Ain't that the truth! We'd have to change our policy from being the biggest dog on the block to rolling over for whomever decided he wanted to be.

 

The world is not, never has been, a nice place. I'd rather that we be so strong nobody wants to take us on.

 

That being said, we could handle military expenditures more prudently, I think.

 

Pilgrim

Link to comment
tallman

tallman

Posted
Posted

The Fed has set up programs starting from pre K and continuing thruogh post secondary levels.

 

To remove them would eliminate most college and university opportunity for the majority of people.

It would cripple the school meal programs.

Same for Title I

 

Etc.

Etc.

 

Whether it is right or wrong, there is no way the states can absorb those costs.

 

Education would once again become an elitist privilege widening the gap of opportunity to an unbridgeable chasm.

 

Too much off topic perhaps, so Whip may be right.

Link to comment
russell_bynum

russell_bynum

Posted
Posted
Some of you may enjoy this little game called "You Fix The Budget" shown here at the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

Hard choices aren't made because Americans and American politicians especially aren't very interested in an outlook that extends beyond the next fiscal quarter.

 

-MKL

 

I love "tools" like that because they really show the bias of the organization that is putting them out there.

 

Link to comment
moshe_levy

moshe_levy

Posted
Posted

Russ-

 

There are a few others with a rightward slant, for sure, but from what I've seen the numbers don't change all that much.

 

-MKL

Link to comment
russell_bynum

russell_bynum

Posted
Posted
Russ-

 

There are a few others with a rightward slant, for sure, but from what I've seen the numbers don't change all that much.

 

-MKL

 

Bah. Even using their tool, I cut the deficit by 75% without giving up anything that I care about.

Link to comment
Whip

Whip

Posted
Posted
Some of you may enjoy this little game called "You Fix The Budget" shown here at the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

Hard choices aren't made because Americans and American politicians especially aren't very interested in an outlook that extends beyond the next fiscal quarter.

 

-MKL

 

I love "tools" like that because they really show the bias of the organization that is putting them out there.

 

 

It is funny.

 

They really have no clue how the economy works.

 

:dopeslap:

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...