Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I am fine with a number of these things except for the increase of age for Medicare/SS because medical costs and need for medical attention increases at the age of 65. If you raise it to 70, there is five years that put seniors at risk in our country and would probably lead to an increase of deaths at a younger age.
|
Then go to a universal health system so that you can increase deaths at a younger age.
Health care is "cheaper" only because in other countries they spend less, and the reason they spend less is because they budget less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
In 2011 our total cost for two wars was $3.7trillion and rising, it will be much higher than that when you add in the cost for the troops now that they have returned home and their medical expenses.
But don't you mind that, the $3.7+trillion is no big deal is it.
|
And?
What is the cost
for not engaging in those wars?
Did you calculate the total cost of that?
Having the Petro-Dollar comes with a price -- it ain't free.
Do you understand that the 5 Central Asia States are sitting on 5x to 7x more oil than the entire Middle East/North Africa? And that doesn't even count the natural gas, strategic metal and mineral ore, and non-metallic mineral ore deposits.
Do you understand that when they start ramping up production to 9 Million barrels per day your life ain't gonna be worth squat....unless those 9 Million barrels per day are sold in US Dollars instead of Euros and Rubles?
Do you understand that when completed in about 3 years, at least 5 Million barrels per day are going to be headed from Baku through a Russian pipeline to Stachi and Novorossiysk on the Black Sea and sold in Rubles and Euros?
1 Euro = $1.36? Nope, more like 1 Euro = $1.64.
The value of any currency on the world market is a function of its Supply & Demand. The Euro is more valuable than the US Dollar because the Euro is in greater demand --- in part because Russia sells all 9 Million barrels of oil it pumps per day exclusively in Euros and Rubles.
I'm guessing you'd be okay with a late 1960s standard of living, you know, 1,350 sq ft houses instead of 4,400; only 0.7 cars per licensed driver per household (yeah that means for the most part one car per household); 1 telephone per household; 1 TV per household; and that kind of thing.
Your auto industry isn't going to make on 0.7 cars per licensed driver per household.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
I think it's reasonable to increase the eligibility age for both, but maybe not all the way to 70. 65 isn't what it used to be, now that the average lifespan is nearing 80. I think 68 would be a reasonable compromise.
|
Uh, just because people are living longer means that the quality of life runs parallel to that.
The retirement age is already 67 for those born after 1960, and sorry to rain all over your parade, but raising the retirement age will do absolutely nothing, except drain the Trust Fund faster. Those who could legitimately go on Social Security Disability will simply do exactly that and they'll draw 100% of their benefits instead of a reduced benefit rate.
And seeing how most people are totally ignorant about Social Security, those who are taking early retirement right now this minute at 62 years are taking a 25% reduction in benefits....
....and that reduction
is permanent.
When they reach their full-retirement age of 66 years, their benefits
do not increase....they continue to draw benefits at a reduced of 25% until they die and their spouse takes a permanent 30% benefit cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Rising health care costs are certainly contributing, but liberals have offered solutions; allowing the government to negotiate prescription medication, public option, or single payer.
|
And none of those things will cause health care costs to grow at a slower rate.
You forgot to mention the fact that "negotiated prescription medication" is for generic drugs, not name brand drugs.
Is there some reason you intentionally withheld that information? Are were you not aware?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Our deficits are primarily caused by past policies; wars, Bush tax cuts, and the economic crisis which led to a substantial decline in tax receipts. Granted Obama has continued in the groove of our ME operations and Bush tax cuts.
|
And declining/stagnating wages/salaries?
That didn't play any role at all, right?
Same data, different agencies....
National Average Wage Index
1951-1960: 4.09%
1961-1970: 4.45%
1971-1980: 7.31%
1981-1990: 5.34%
1991-2000: 4.35%
2001-2010: 2.64%
Next we can look at wages and salaries from IRS data:
1990 $37,655.... -0.72%
1991 $36,847.... -2.15%
1992 $37,900..... 2.86%
1993 $37,602.... -0.79%
1994 $37,926..... 0.86%
1995 $38,259..... 0.88%
1996 $38,503..... 0.64%
1997 $39,600..... 2.85%
1998 $41,073..... 3.72%
1999 $42,027..... 2.32%
2000 $43,066..... 2.47%
2001 $42,609.... -1.06%
2002 $41,952.... -1.54%
2003 $41,718.... -0.56%
2004 $42,425..... 1.70%
2005 $42,296.... -0.31%
2006 $42,206.... -0.21%
2007 $42,430..... 0.53%
2008 $41,773.... -1.55%
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
He also did not pass as effective policies to deal with the economic downturn, but that would require spending which Republicans are against.
|
There are no economic policies that would be effective.
You have surplus/excess labor, and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.
As the evidence I provided clearly proves, your inability to compete globally due to the inequality of wages between Americans and the rest of the world resulted in a loss of jobs in your global economic sector.
The loss of jobs in your global economic sector in turn put downward pressure on domestic wages, resulting in stagnant/declining personal and household income.
The decline in personal/household income triggered the housing crisis.
The housing crisis in turn created a brief credit crunch combined with a drop in consumption, since Americans stupidly uses their credit cards as houses....ooops....I mean houses as credit cards.
No amount of "stimulus" will alter the fact that you cannot compete globally, nor will it alter the fact that your wages will continue to stagnate/decline for decades to come as major manufacturing development shifts from Southeast Asia to Southwest Asia --- India --- and then to Central Asia and then on into sub-Saharan Africa.
The shift to Southwest Asia has already started as major auto makers (like Ford) are scrambling to build plants there.
I won't even bother to address the impact of technology causing job losses (since it is secondary).
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Republicans are against policies that promote a full and robust recovery, such as rehiring the hundreds of thousands of teachers who lost their jobs, policemen, emergency responders, air traffic controllers, etc.
|
None of those things are relevant to your economy. They are service jobs that produce absolutely nothing; but they consume lots of Capital, resources, cash and credit.
Had you studied Economics, you'd be aware of something called Diminishing Returns, as well as Diminishing Marginal Returns. There is a relationship between inputs and outputs. The general rule of thumb is that you continue to increase inputs if, and only if, your marginal benefit exceeds your marginal costs.
The issue with the service sector is that this general rule of thumb often does not apply, when it does apply, you find that increasing your inputs rapidly results in an increase in marginal costs with no gain in marginal benefit or a loss of marginal benefit.
Increasing spending in health care does not result in better outcomes; increasing spending in education does not result in better outcomes; increasing spending in law enforcement and other such services does not result in better outcomes.
And where you have grotesque inefficiency in a system, more spending does even greater damage.
At one time in America, you had 5 teachers for every administrator or staff member; now you have 1 teacher per administrator/staff member.
That is grotesquely inefficient. Neither Republicans nor Conservatives caused teachers to lose their jobs......that was an administrative decision by local school boards.
The entire education system in the US from the universities down to the day-care need to reinvent themselves and if cutting off the money --- necessity is the mother of all invention --- is what must be done to force efficiency, then so be it.
And police and fire-fighters were laid off?
So what? Prove to me they those who lost their jobs were even necessary in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
They are also against investing into America through infrastructure projects, which America needs badly.
|
Infrastructure investment is not beneficial.
You need to change the way you do things in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
This spending would help fill the gap left by the housing bubble, increasing aggregate demand, and promoting a full recovery which would help our debt, not hurt it. The best policy to combat our deficits is to pass policies that promote a full and robust economic recovery.
|
As I have repeatedly proven......aggregate demand is not the issue. The issue is that you have surplus/excess labor and there is no where for it to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
This is factually wrong. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
|
I already debunked that.
As I have repeatedly proven, your wages are stagnant/declining.
What did the tax cut do?
It actually save jobs and kept your recession from starting sooner and lasting longer.
And your war spending? That kept your recession from starting sooner and lasting longer as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Spending has stabilized. In fact, the federal government is spending $28 biilion less on goods and services now than when Obama took office.
Total Spending has hardly increased for the past two years. Since April of 2009, total spending has only increased by a $100 billion.
|
Did you read the chart?
Do you understand the difference between Real and Nominal?
Apparently you don't. Anything that is "Real" in Economics has been adjusted for Inflation, and that includes:
Real GDP (vs Nominal GDP)
Real GNP (vs Nominal GNP)
Real Interest Rates (vs Nominal Interest Rates)
Real Productivity (vs Nominal Productivity)
Real Wages (vs Nominal Wages)
"Real average hourly earnings fell 0.5 percent, seasonally adjusted, from November 2011 to November 2012. The decline in real average hourly earnings, combined with an unchanged average workweek, resulted in a 0.4 percent decrease in real average weekly earnings over this period."
See? We're talking about Real Wages, not Nominal Wages.
That would be part of the stagnant/declining wages I mentioned earlier that you continue to pretend never happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Total tax receipts are still below 2006 levels.
|
Gosh, I wonder why. Could it be declining/stagnant wages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
The data is in. We don't have a spending problem, we have an economic growth problem. Attacking the elderly, slashing state and local employment, and not investing into America will not solve our debt problem.
|
Where did you copy all that stuff from? That ain't you talking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
You're right, it was a mistake on both sides that was founded on false information that was provided by the White House.
|
And where did the White House get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
And that is a problem and signals a stagnant economy. With a growing economy, tax receipts increase due to increased economic activity, people working who were not before, and people earning more money.
|
That is not necessarily true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Are you purposely ignoring the data that I provided?
|
I could ask you the same question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Essentially, you want to attack old, poor people for a deficits that were primarily caused by the shadow banking industry crashing the global economy, the Bush tax cuts, and our warmongering.
This stance is beyond disgusting. It is unethical, immoral, and perverse.
|
Uh, who voted in the idiots that created the conditions for the events you believe took place?
That would be "old, poor people" right? Looks to me like you're getting your just desserts.
If you have a solution then offer it....I mean show, don't tell. Any idiot can a lot. Show the math.
Economically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
the problem with your argument is that your #5 makes no sense. People seem to forget that You have to finish the equation.
taking the age up to 70 saves the government 5 billion, but cost the government 11.7 billion because those people not able to qualify for medicare will now be able to qualify for other programs. The only way moving the age back would save money is for you to also tell those older people that they are not allowed in all those other programs as well.
You are basically shifting cost, and shifting it to a more expensive place.
|
Excellent.
Impressed...
Mircea
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.
