Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came across this eye-opening video yesterday. Even though I already knew we were in deep doodoo; Molyneux's figure based rationale shows the true state of the once united, States.
Grab a drink and some popcorn, it's an hour well spent.
There are more people riding in the cart, than pulling it.
The debt is an issue but not as pressing as the GOP talking heads want you to think. We DO Need to become deficit hawks but not until the economy is stabilized...short term spending cuts in the mean time WILL HURT US.
As far as the food stamp thing goes....
"According to Keynesian economic theory, like other forms of government spending, SNAP, by putting money into people's hands, increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy. In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.[35]
In 2011, Secretary of AgricultureTom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate: "Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."[36] Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 George W. Bush-era USDA study which found that "Ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments) of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100," or $1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent."
The labor force will continue to increase as the economy improves.
Free Trade agreements like NAFTA hurt US workers....are you a protectionist? Thats your real issue with outsourcing American workers to the third world.
Nanny state mentality? I think our previous president had a handle in increasing that a bit, don't you?
There's just too much here to address.
So, you subscribe to Keynesian economics. If the money being used to stimulate the economy actually made it into the hands of the poor and middle class, it might have a better chance of working. The problem is that it doesn't. By the time the government overseers are done taking their cuts, paying for their pet projects, the trickle down is ridiculous. Just look at how the bill for Sandy Relief went down, as an example of bureaucracy gone mad. A new roof on the Smithsonian? New cars for FEMA agents? $6m for trees to be planted in a state not affected by Sandy? REALLY???
You can blame the GOP for a lot of things, but you better start facing the reality of Democrats being just as, if not more, corrupt. When you can, with a straight face, blame the GOP for their minor part in the overall scheme of things is simply myopic. Our problems have been created by 90% of the politicians over the last 50 years. They decided that to serve, means the people are their servants, as they enrich themselves. No amount of economic prowess can account for the rampant corruption in DC, state and local governments (see City of Bell, San Bernardino, Stanton...etc.)
YES, BUSH had a handle in it (GET OVER IT), and Obama has codified EVERYTHING HE (BUSH) DID; by doing it exactly the same way x10. Signed NDAA, loaded up his administration with lobbyists, and takes being a Corporate Shill to an entirely new level.
Stop being a pot calling the kettle black. It's getting old, and solves no problems.
The funny thing about unfunded liabilities is that we will only incur them in theory, the law can change before they need to be paid. Our debt on the other hand has already been incurred, and though not ideal, can be inflated away.
The vast majority of our "welfare state" is due to retirees and the aging baby boomers. Once you take them off balance sheet we are in a pretty good position, but retirees will never vote for less entitlements and it is too late to expect them to pay for their own retirement.
So if we take out the 80M retirees, we'll be in great shape! Maybe a targeted designer flu that only kills people over 65?
Everything you said was prefaced with an "if". The REALITY is that liabilities are liabilities. IF the laws are changed, IF contracts are changed, IF the retirees that have high incomes take a drop in SS benefits, IF retirement ages are pushed up to reflect the increasing span of life, if, if, if...
In order for the liabilities to come down, the IFs have to become a reality. In twenty years we'll all be talking about the what-ifs, just as we do for the last few decades. Talk is cheap and what-ifs are chump change.
Didn't Obama run on strengthening SS benefits, while at the same time stealing $700B from SS to fund Obamacare? So much for unfunded liability what-if's ever materializing. The Dems are hell-bent on bankrupting this country, so they can start over in their own vision of what the US should be.
The new mantra is double-down on everything done wrong, and it'll fix itself. Good luck with that.
The funny thing about unfunded liabilities is that we will only incur them in theory, the law can change before they need to be paid. Our debt on the other hand has already been incurred, and though not ideal, can be inflated away.
The vast majority of our "welfare state" is due to retirees and the aging baby boomers. Once you take them off balance sheet we are in a pretty good position, but retirees will never vote for less entitlements and it is too late to expect them to pay for their own retirement.
HowTF much do you expect a burger flipper to pay? Oh, and if the private sector had been allowed to sell him a home he could afford to buy, he'd be able to retire on that burger flipper income, instead of never being able to retire and paying half his income on rent. So when he refuses to vote for "less entitlements", the property rights nannies have only themselves to blame.
The challenges of the private sector are talked about frequently in the forum, for example the growing number of people that are turning too on line shopping. And the consequences are the closing of physical stores and the laying off of workers. How technology and robots are replacing workers, how we give visas to foreigners and a already over saturated job market, etc, etc.
These types of stories are important since we have a economy that is 72 % consumer spending and it looks like in the future for that too be a driver our broke ass gvt would have to prop it up with social programs. It is in the bag that the U S can not compete in a global economy in production, even with a major break thru in some technology would it be produced here? The only thing I see that would be a boom in production is war.
Where is the next boom going to come from that would boost GDP above 2 or 3% that is mostly propped by the gvt? How can we replace jobs that could be shrinking in a service sector economy? Not only does it look dire for our sad A$$ gvt it looks just as bad in the private sector. Maybe the best case scenario is we will just stagnate along.
So, you subscribe to Keynesian economics. If the money being used to stimulate the economy actually made it into the hands of the poor and middle class, it might have a better chance of working. The problem is that it doesn't. By the time the government overseers are done taking their cuts, paying for their pet projects, the trickle down is ridiculous. Just look at how the bill for Sandy Relief went down, as an example of bureaucracy gone mad. A new roof on the Smithsonian? New cars for FEMA agents? $6m for trees to be planted in a state not affected by Sandy? REALLY???
You can blame the GOP for a lot of things, but you better start facing the reality of Democrats being just as, if not more, corrupt. When you can, with a straight face, blame the GOP for their minor part in the overall scheme of things is simply myopic. Our problems have been created by 90% of the politicians over the last 50 years. They decided that to serve, means the people are their servants, as they enrich themselves. No amount of economic prowess can account for the rampant corruption in DC, state and local governments (see City of Bell, San Bernardino, Stanton...etc.)
YES, BUSH had a handle in it (GET OVER IT), and Obama has codified EVERYTHING HE (BUSH) DID; by doing it exactly the same way x10. Signed NDAA, loaded up his administration with lobbyists, and takes being a Corporate Shill to an entirely new level.
Stop being a pot calling the kettle black. It's getting old, and solves no problems.
I don't understand the first line of your rebuttal. You say, "So you subscribe to Keynesian economics," which the answer to would be yes. But then you follow with a line that could just as easily be attached to a proponent of trickle down econ or Reaganomics..."If the money being used to stimulate the economy actually made it into the hands of the poor and middle class, it might have a better chance of working. The problem is that it doesn't. By the time the government overseers are done taking their cuts, paying for their pet projects, the trickle down is ridiculous." Presumeably the money used to "stimulate" would be from the wealthy buying items and you could just as easily swap "government overseers with stashed money in overshores tax havens....either way the "money doesn't see it's way to the poor" parallels just the same. However I would contend that it does. Look at the Gini coefficient in ANY country that has a more progressive tax strucrure VS one that has a flat or barely progressive tax rate. Most countries that have a very progressive tax structure tend to follow Keynesian economic policy (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Belgium, etc.) and their GINI coefficient is very good. Now look at the countries that have a flat tax rate or one that heavily favors the wealthy...income inequality in these countries is through the roof (Mexico, Colombia, Peru, South Africa, etc.)
Now I won't contest that politicians of any breed (R or D) are almost always the problem. They are almost always inherently corrupt. I don't think that Democrats are MORE corrupt as you say, but they are certainly a part of the problem.
My issue with George Bush is that he preached fiscal prudence....while he slashed our revenue base...shifted the tax burden away from the wealthy onto the middle to lower middle class...wasted our surplus...started two foreign wars against two nations that hadn't attacked us...expanded the war on drugs...founded a new branch of government...spent tons on medicare d...oversaw institutionalized torture...and did so all as an advocate of morality and fiscal prudence.
Now...Obama hasn't been my ideal president either. IMO (and the opinion of a good deal of reputable, objective economists both Keynesian and not) the stimulus wasn't nearly large enough to bounce back an economy of our size, he should have not caved nearly as often to Boner(not a spelling error) and McConnell on the arbitrary debt ceiling, and he needs to move the taxes back to Clinton levels. Further...we do NOT need spending cuts right now. Even the GOP knows that these cuts attached to the sequester will be murderous to our recovery yet they are using it as a bargaining chip to hold our revenues lower under the misguided notion that it will "Spur" growth.
So...In summartion I do blame the democrats for some of our issues...I just blame the GOP a little more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
