Political Roundtable Part VIII

[dckingsfan]

The insolvency crisis is greatly overstated. SS is paid for until 2037. Raising taxes on the wealthy by a few percentage points literally solves the insolvency problem.

We could take each part of the unfunded liabilities - just look at those and then the problems don't look so big. But if you look at all of the unfunded liabilities of the entitlement programs - well that is a different story that "a few percentage points" would take care of... the liabilities are much larger than you state.

It is this kind of simplicity that has gotten us into these financial straights. The democrats put forward a plan where the programs grow faster than our receipts. The Republicans endorse reducing taxes which increases our debt.

Both are very irresponsible. In the case of fiscal matters, I rate Bernie Sanders as the most irresponsible candidate running - and that is really saying something.

How is what Bernie is proposing irresponsible? He is proposing taxes on the rich to pay for his programs, and he's proposing cutting the defense budget to an acceptable amount closer to norms of other 1st world industrialized nations. Military expenditures is the most expensive government program by far.

He isn't balancing the budget and his taxes don't pay for his programs and no - military expenditures are NOT the most expensive part of government (although he often intimates that they are). The military is 16% of the budget. Entitlements and debt are well over 50% of the budget.

His proposal is irresponsible because it will most definitely cause our entitlement programs to cross our total budget.

[dckingsfan]

Both sides have to willing to build a reasonable consensus when it comes to SS - and that means not putting it all on the wealthy and not tearing it down with unworkable plans (such as individual accounts which at one point was being pushed by Republican back in Bush 2). Letting it fall apart is not an option. I'd wager that over 90% of the posters here have or have had relatives that rely/relied on SS in order to live.

Amen, Ruz. Sometimes when I hear people talking about the problems with Social Security it often sounds like they forget that SS is an important and lifesaving program for many, many Americans. (Props to FDR). It should be pointed out that people aren't just given SS as some kind of "gift" for retiring or for growing old. Fact is most people earned the right to receive SS by paying a SS tax throughout their working lives.

I'm not saying that SS is perfect or that it doesn't have problems that need to be fixed, but SS may be the most significant "entitlement" program that our govt. has ever created--and it needs to be preserved at all costs, imo.

Social Security is the most successful anti-poverty program ever created.

Yep, but then we kept adding to all the entitlement programs until they starting to strain under their own weight. So, we come to a crossroads - do we fix it or let it die by doing nothing (Rs) or make it die faster (Bernie).

[FAH1223]

We were able to spend trillions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think we can do the same thing on Social Security and rebuilding America's old ass infrastructure.

Makes sense to me.There is absolutely no winning decision. Either spend more and raise the debt ceiling, or cut and privatize the hell out of everything. In the end, dollar will become worthless, creating mad Zimbabwean-style chaos, or hoards of people will be out of work. It's only a matter of how fast you rib the bandage off. Pain is inevitable.

Dollar hegemony ain't going anywhere tomorrow. Maybe in a couple decades?

If you've invested your worth in fiat currencies instead of something physical, you're screwed. Essentially, vast majority of us are getting reamed

[dckingsfan]

We were able to spend trillions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think we can do the same thing on Social Security and rebuilding America's old ass infrastructure.

Makes sense to me.

Well, the math almost works. Our budget is ~ 3.8 trillion. The cost of the stupid wars were about .2 trillion annually. Careful when politicians start throwing numbers around willy nilly.

So, no we don't have the money to "rebuild our infrastructure" AND "increase entitlement spending" even IF we blow our defense spending to smithereens (which I endorse).

There are some nice "half-truths" in Bernie's formula.

[dckingsfan]

There is absolutely no winning decision.

Actually there is...
1) Spend within the constraints of your receipts
2) Try to optimize your receipts as a percentage of GDP and reduce the burden on the lowest earners
3) Reduce defense spending to a manageable level and constrain to a certain percentage of GDP
4) Constrain entitlement spending to a certain percentage of GDP with the largest benefits going to the lowest earners

[Zonkerbl]

I will also add - I don't think you can be a true progressive without being a fiscal conservative. You can't really help those who need help without being a fiscal conservative over the long-haul. And, I haven't seen that from either party.

I would condition this - you don't have to balance the budget to be a fiscal conservative. I've said this several times and it's worth repeating.

Because we are the awesomest economy in the world we pay really low interest rates on loans from other countries, and we get really high interest on loans we make to other countries. As a result of this we earn $100 Billion (with a capital B) a year FOR FREE, which we can roll into our deficit for nuthin'. We also get roughly that amount from increases in labor productivity. So we can finance a $200 billion deficit each year forever.

We still need to get our national debt down to about 75% of GDP, like the IMF forces everybody else to do.

[TGW]

We could take each part of the unfunded liabilities - just look at those and then the problems don't look so big. But if you look at all of the unfunded liabilities of the entitlement programs - well that is a different story that "a few percentage points" would take care of... the liabilities are much larger than you state.

It is this kind of simplicity that has gotten us into these financial straights. The democrats put forward a plan where the programs grow faster than our receipts. The Republicans endorse reducing taxes which increases our debt.

Both are very irresponsible. In the case of fiscal matters, I rate Bernie Sanders as the most irresponsible candidate running - and that is really saying something.

How is what Bernie is proposing irresponsible? He is proposing taxes on the rich to pay for his programs, and he's proposing cutting the defense budget to an acceptable amount closer to norms of other 1st world industrialized nations. Military expenditures is the most expensive government program by far.

He isn't balancing the budget and his taxes don't pay for his programs and no - military expenditures are NOT the most expensive part of government (although he often intimates that they are). The military is 16% of the budget. Entitlements and debt are well over 50% of the budget.

His proposal is irresponsible because it will most definitely cause our entitlement programs to cross our total budget.

I should have clarified and said the military is the largest discretionary expenditure by far. Yes, our entitlement programs are the biggest mandatory expenditure, but that is being spent on the American people and not on some frivolous wars. Decrease the military budget from 598B to 400B, which will free up about 200B a year, and pay off the interest on the debt, which is roughly 220B.

The education bill that Bernie proposed costs 70B a year (two-thirds paid for by the fed, other third by the states), so about 45B will go to fund this. Again, a re-investment into our younger generation, who will be paying for my SS and medicare benefits.

Simply put, the math is there to make this possible by increasing taxes on the super-wealthy.

[dobrojim]

We need to spend money on things that will improve our economy
in the broadest sense. A major issue with a lot of historical discretionary
spending is that too often it improves the economy for very narrow portions
of the country. Too much socializing the costs/risks while privatizing the benefits.

Having a well educated population is essential in today's global
economy. We could do a lot better job of providing higher education
as well as with providing relevant and useful vocational training for
those who are less suited, prepared or motivated to go to college.

[dckingsfan]

How is what Bernie is proposing irresponsible? He is proposing taxes on the rich to pay for his programs, and he's proposing cutting the defense budget to an acceptable amount closer to norms of other 1st world industrialized nations. Military expenditures is the most expensive government program by far.

He isn't balancing the budget and his taxes don't pay for his programs and no - military expenditures are NOT the most expensive part of government (although he often intimates that they are). The military is 16% of the budget. Entitlements and debt are well over 50% of the budget.

His proposal is irresponsible because it will most definitely cause our entitlement programs to cross our total budget.

I should have clarified and said the military is the largest discretionary expenditure by far. Yes, our entitlement programs are the biggest mandatory expenditure, but that is being spent on the American people and not on some frivolous wars. Decrease the military budget from 598B to 400B, which will free up about 200B a year, and pay off the interest on the debt, which is roughly 220B.

The education bill that Bernie proposed costs 70B a year (two-thirds paid for by the fed, other third by the states), so about 45B will go to fund this. Again, a re-investment into our younger generation, who will be paying for my SS and medicare benefits.

Simply put, the math is there to make this possible by increasing taxes on the super-wealthy.

Clarification is good

60% of the budget goes to entitlements.
6% of the budget goes to debt.
34% of the budget is discretionary. And the military accounts for 16% or 620B.
Guess we agree there.

We took in nearly 19% of the GDP in federal taxes - you might be able to raise that to 20% without the economy taking a large hit and getting to the point of diminishing returns.

Current Federal revenues are 3.25T so you might be able to get to 3.58T (rounding up) but that is a big if (kind of like Rs when they say they will reduce taxes to generate more revenues).

Our outlays were 3.9T. So you still have a shortfall of 300B. And that is with raising taxes, before the standard hikes and increases in entitlement spending and before his additional education and entitlement spending Bernie is proposing. Note: Most analysts put at close to 450-600B per year (I know, all politicians under estimate the costs - I am not singling him out).

So, the numbers don't add up. And the federal mandates will just further push our local and state entities into the red. Illinois is bankrupt, how are they going to swing the costs - answer, they can't.

[Zonkerbl]

We have a lot more control over the discretionary than the entitlement budget. So it's relevant and meaningful to point out that military adventurism is expensive and OPTIONAL.

[dckingsfan]

We have a lot more control over the discretionary than the entitlement budget. So it's relevant and meaningful to point out that military adventurism is expensive and OPTIONAL.

And stupid

[dobrojim]

Or as I like to say, peace is a moral AND and an economic imperative.

Too bad there is a certain part of our population, many of whom are voters,
that thinks it's okay to attempt to solve 'problems' outside of the US by
the application of military force. They are buoyed by the fact that in the
short term, it may appear to work. But they ignore the lessons of history
that show these problems eventually rise back up again and all the money
they spent, not to mention lives lost as well as opportunities to foster good
will, were wasted. Nothing was really solved. Many of these same people
appear to have no moral qualms about killing people who they view as problems.

[Zonkerbl]

I don't know if I said this in this thread but I had a conversation with my kids the other day.

Suppose you kill a terrorist. You have made enemies of everyone in that terrorist's family. 5-10 people. Of those, probably one or two will end up taking up arms against you. You can't win the war on terrorism by killing terrorists.

And the same calculus applies to civilians who are accidental collateral victims of your attack.

[dckingsfan]

I don't know if I said this in this thread but I had a conversation with my kids the other day.

Suppose you kill a terrorist. You have made enemies of everyone in that terrorist's family. 5-10 people. Of those, probably one or two will end up taking up arms against you. You can't win the war on terrorism by killing terrorists.

And the same calculus applies to civilians who are accidental collateral victims of your attack.

If the argument starts from: people are nuetral and then I kill one of them, your argument holds.

But if the argument starts from: they already hate you, your assertion is off.

And if the argument starts from: they are already trying to kill me, your assertion is way off.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, hate's a relative term. I hate Republicans but none of them have ever murdered anyone in my family.

Yet.

[dckingsfan]

Well, hate's a relative term. I hate Republicans but none of them have ever murdered anyone in my family.

Yet.

So, if they don't kill a family member - you probably will continue to hate them but won't try to kill them. But you will still "hate them".

But if you start planning attacks on them, and try to kill them, that changes the dynamic, no?

Hence the problem with your assertion - it is too limited, right?

[dckingsfan]

Or as I like to say, peace is a moral AND and an economic imperative.

Too bad there is a certain part of our population, many of whom are voters, that thinks it's okay to attempt to solve 'problems' outside of the US by the application of military force.

They are buoyed by the fact that in the short term, it may appear to work. But they ignore the lessons of history that show these problems eventually rise back up again and all the money they spent, not to mention lives lost as well as opportunities to foster good will, were wasted.

Nothing was really solved. Many of these same people appear to have no moral qualms about killing people who they view as problems.

Four parts to this?:

1) They attach you
2) They attach an ally
3) There is an ongoing atrocity
4) You are trying to achieve a change of state or maintain status quo for political purposes

I think folks get 1,2&3 confused with 4? I think Obama did a bit of this without military intervention - just the suggestion of military intervention can cause the problem too - right?

[Zonkerbl]

Well, hate's a relative term. I hate Republicans but none of them have ever murdered anyone in my family.

Yet.

So, if they don't kill a family member - you probably will continue to hate them but won't try to kill them. But you will still "hate them".

But if you start planning attacks on them, and try to kill them, that changes the dynamic, no?

Hence the problem with your assertion - it is too limited, right?

The way you've phrased the bolded text doesn't make any sense. Who does "you" and "them" refer to?

I probably will not join the underground anti-GOP Jihadist group, even if I hate the Republicans, unless and until some open carry gun nut actually opens fire on a family member and kills them. Then and only then am I likely to start planning terrorist attacks against Republicans. (Although probably my Rabbi would talk me down and I would go on the talk show circuit lobbying for an absolute ban on handguns instead.)

I think the same likely applies to terrorism-prone families abroad. I might turn a blind eye to my son joining the Jihadists but won't want to get involved in that sort of stuff myself - until my son gets killed.

Don't think about it from an "I hate all Muslims and they are all evil" perspective. Put yourself in their shoes. It's one thing to participate in the general badmouthing of the other that all racists do. It's quite another to pick up a gun and start murdering them.

[dckingsfan]

Yep, makes my point Zonk.

If someone already hates you, they probably are going to continue to hate you.

If some is trying to kill you, they are probably going to try to continue to kill you.

If you kill a terrorist that is trying to kill you, well you are probably not making more enemies. They and their community already hates you and are trying to kill you - and the father has already tacitly or directly endorsed his son's behavior.

Think of it from the "I hate all xxx" and the xxx could be Americans.

Makes more sense?

[Zonkerbl]

Yep, makes my point Zonk.

If someone already hates you, they probably are going to continue to hate you.

If some is trying to kill you, they are probably going to try to continue to kill you.

If you kill a terrorist that is trying to kill you, well you are probably not making more enemies. They and their community already hates you and are trying to kill you - and the father has already tacitly or directly endorsed his son's behavior.

Think of it from the "I hate all xxx" and the xxx could be Americans.

Makes more sense?

You are not getting my point at all. Please read what I wrote instead of seeing what you want to see.