It's Over

[periopdoc]

Overwhelming Debt, it's as American as Mom and Apple Pie.

- pod

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hoyden]

Appreciate the responses, especially this one ^^, thats f----- funny.

I still wonder if a lot of us (liberals and repubs) aren't somewhat on the same page when it comes to welfare. I think you all would still want to provide welfare for those who really need it (single moms, disabled, etc.) but are fed up with people who are lazy and just abuse the system. .

If you take the single moms out of the equation - you will have those who need help. Single moms are exactly the ones who are abusing the system and have made having babies out of the wedlock, starting from age 13, a profession.
Won't have anything against help for ONE baby until she reaches age 3-5 for a WORKING single mom - to help her hire the help while she is working.

I agree with all of that. I just don't think there is any way to police it properly .

Of course there is. There is no WILL to do it, because breeding dependents of the state feeding tube is actually a goal for some - hordes of uneducated fat *****s who are used to be taken care of are very easy to manage and direct the needed way

 

[Narcotized]

No, deficit spending really took off back in the Reagan years. It's not a D vs R problem.

2 greatest presidential myths of our time are that Reagan was great for the economy, and Clinton was fiscally responsible.

We're in serious trouble guys.

Yes we are.

 

[McLovin]

The costs of medicare, medicaid, and social security far outweigh those of the actual debt. Those are all socialist democrat programs.

Fair enough, but but federal spending increased by a higher percentage (according to Wikipedia anyway....I'm too lazy to find real sources) under reagen and both bushes than it did in the democratic presidency's following (ie Clinton and Obama). The largest increase in our debt happened under republican precidency's....so I don't think we can pin all of this on the socialist democrats.

 

[countingdays]

Fair enough, but but federal spending increased by a higher percentage (according to Wikipedia anyway....I'm too lazy to find real sources) under reagen and both bushes than it did in the democratic presidency's following (ie Clinton and Obama). The largest increase in our debt happened under republican precidency's....so I don't think we can pin all of this on the socialist democrats.

It's true that Repubs rarely live up to the libertarian ideal envisioned by our Founders, but at least they believe in that vision to some degree (except Bush 2 didn't). Few representatives wants to be in the government that puts away money for a rainy day, future war, or future depression. Idiot voters want the government to do things they should do for themselves, and governments are happy to oblige for the most part. Campaigning on 'not doing anything to hurt us' (which is really the best thing a government can do) doesn't make for great sound bites on the campaign trail.
At least Republicans believe in limited government and personal responsibility. Dems really don't, so they'd be impossible to convince to do the right thing. It's very promising to hear some representatives answer the the question about what they would do to create jobs. The promising answer is that government doesn't create jobs, businesses do.

 

[Narcotized]

It's very promising to hear some representatives answer the the question about what they would do to create jobs. The promising answer is that government doesn't create jobs, businesses do.

It's quite amusing to hear the msnbc'ers say Obama spent too much time on healthcare and not enough on job creation. The reality is he spent too much time (and wasted money) on "job creation" when, as you say, he needed to get the frik out of the way and not bury us further in debt.

 

[hoyden]

Fair enough, but but federal spending increased by a higher percentage (according to Wikipedia anyway....I'm too lazy to find real sources) under reagen and both bushes than it did in the democratic presidency's following (ie Clinton and Obama). The largest increase in our debt happened under republican precidency's....so I don't think we can pin all of this on the socialist democrats.

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

http://www.theobamadebt.com/

 

[GoodmanBrown]

It's true that Repubs rarely live up to the libertarian ideal envisioned by our Founders, but at least they believe in that vision to some degree (except Bush 2 didn't). Few representatives wants to be in the government that puts away money for a rainy day, future war, or future depression.

So you're giving Repubs points for being hypocrites?

Idiot voters want the government to do things they should do for themselves, and governments are happy to oblige for the most part. Campaigning on 'not doing anything to hurt us' (which is really the best thing a government can do) doesn't make for great sound bites on the campaign trail.

Like stopping businesses from screwing over the little guy?

At least Republicans believe in limited government and personal responsibility. Dems really don't, so they'd be impossible to convince to do the right thing. It's very promising to hear some representatives answer the the question about what they would do to create jobs. The promising answer is that government doesn't create jobs, businesses do.

I personally hate personal responsibility.

As much as I enjoy playing the liberal devil's advocate, I think it's hardly black and white. Obama has done some great things, and he's done some not-so-great things. But I still like him better than the people who would hope to replace him in 2 years.

What the F--- has Obama done so far?

 

[countingdays]

So you're giving Repubs points for being hypocrites?



Like stopping businesses from screwing over the little guy?



I personally hate personal responsibility.

As much as I enjoy playing the liberal devil's advocate, I think it's hardly black and white. Obama has done some great things, and he's done some not-so-great things. But I still like him better than the people who would hope to replace him in 2 years.

What the F--- has Obama done so far?

No, I'm talking about newly elected folks who are anxious to do the right thing.

You probably do hate personal responsibility. You probably think people deserve government (taxpayer) handouts to avoid the results of their bad decisions.

Obama has not done a single great thing.

It's hard to imagine anyone being worse than Obama, even Palin or Clinton. I don't mean worse according to Jon Stewart, I mean worse as in more harmful to future generations of Americans.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

GypsySongman (sweet name, btw.),

Sorry for being someone antagonistic in my first post. My bad. So, thoughts on your post:

No, I'm talking about newly elected folks who are anxious to do the right thing.

Fair enough. I will also be watching with interest at how the Repubs play ball in the next couple of years. Tea Partyers seems pretty uninterested in following along the traditional Republican paths.

You probably do hate personal responsibility. You probably think people deserve government (taxpayer) handouts to avoid the results of their bad decisions.

It's not that I hate personal responsibility. I think we come at it axiomatically differently. If there's a sliding scale of bad things happening to people, with one end being "It's all your fault." and the other end being "Nothing was your fault.", I obviously end up closer to one end and you end up closer to another.

For instance, I really don't feel like many people got laid off in this current recession due to their own bad judgement/actions. I think more got laid off due to some else's bad judgement/actions (e.g. Wall Street bankers).

I'm not saying there aren't people who don't screw up their own lives. I just think there are many who did nothing wrong and are getting screwed over anyhow. And I believe there should be a robust safety net so those people don't end up homeless and starving on the streets.

Obama has not done a single great thing.

We could argue about this one forever, but I think history will look pretty favorably on Obama.

It's hard to imagine anyone being worse than Obama, even Palin or Clinton. I don't mean worse according to Jon Stewart, I mean worse as in more harmful to future generations of Americans.

Hopefully we'll both be around 20-30 years to see how his actions pan out.

 

[countingdays]

GypsySongman (sweet name, btw.),

Sorry for being someone antagonistic in my first post. My bad. So, thoughts on your post:



Fair enough. I will also be watching with interest at how the Repubs play ball in the next couple of years. Tea Partyers seems pretty uninterested in following along the traditional Republican paths.

It's not that I hate personal responsibility. I think we come at it axiomatically differently. If there's a sliding scale of bad things happening to people, with one end being "It's all your fault." and the other end being "Nothing was your fault.", I obviously end up closer to one end and you end up closer to another.

For instance, I really don't feel like many people got laid off in this current recession due to their own bad judgement/actions. I think more got laid off due to some else's bad judgement/actions (e.g. Wall Street bankers).

I'm not saying there aren't people who don't screw up their own lives. I just think there are many who did nothing wrong and are getting screwed over anyhow. And I believe there should be a robust safety net so those people don't end up homeless and starving on the streets.

We could argue about this one forever, but I think history will look pretty favorably on Obama.

Hopefully we'll both be around 20-30 years to see how his actions pan out.

I'm all for helping people get back on their feet. I just don't think welfare should be a way of life.

Hopefully we won't have to wait 20-30 years to what happens due to Obama's policies. Hopefully see everything Obama has done reversed in 2 years before the harm gets any greater than it already is.

 

[powermd]

No, I'm talking about newly elected folks who are anxious to do the right thing.

You probably do hate personal responsibility. You probably think people deserve government (taxpayer) handouts to avoid the results of their bad decisions.

Obama has not done a single great thing.

It's hard to imagine anyone being worse than Obama, even Palin or Clinton. I don't mean worse according to Jon Stewart, I mean worse as in more harmful to future generations of Americans.

How do you feel about the GOP perspective on corporate 'personal' responsibility? Is "heads I win, tails you lose" a good strategy for sustainable prosperity? I could be wrong, but I don't think all those utterly pathetic "handout seekers" are the ones truly bankrupting our economy. Unless you think I'm referring to AIG, GS, MS, C, etc.

 

[countingdays]

How do you feel about the GOP perspective on corporate 'personal' responsibility? Is "heads I win, tails you lose" a good strategy for sustainable prosperity? I could be wrong, but I don't think all those utterly pathetic "handout seekers" are the ones truly bankrupting our economy. Unless you think I'm referring to AIG, GS, MS, C, etc.

I think the government has no right or ability to decide which businesses survive and which fail. It's attempts to do drags out the end of bad businesses while driving good ones under.
They still aren't the same though beause banks are paying back their loans. Welfare, social security, and medicare are not loans.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I'm all for helping people get back on their feet. I just don't think welfare should be a way of life.

I think we can both get behind that.

Hopefully we won't have to wait 20-30 years to what happens due to Obama's policies. Hopefully see everything Obama has done reversed in 2 years before the harm gets any greater than it already is.

Dunno. Only time will tell.

I think the government has no right or ability to decide which businesses survive and which fail. It's attempts to do drags out the end of bad businesses while driving good ones under.

Really? Really??? A good number of companies come to mind right now. GM would absolutely have disappeared without government intervention. As is, they went bankrupt and restructured and renegotiated a lot of their debt. They're about to go public again, and my read from the WSJ is that they're predicting pretty decent profitability for the next few years. How was it a bad idea to save American auto manufacturing?

They still aren't the same though because banks are paying back their loans. Welfare, social security, and medicare are not loans.

I agree lots of companies are paying back their bailouts, and one could therefore consider the government to have loaned the companies money. I've read that the $700 billion for TARP (or whatever it was) is predicted to actually end up costing the government between $0 - $50 billion. No chump change certainly, but there's also a chance the government will make a slight profit. So, to me, TARP was a no-brainer. The government prevented much wider panic in the banking industry for a relatively slight cost.

Now, as to individuals. I would argue social security and medicare are most definitely loans. The government actually loaned the money from the individuals. If you're 65, you've been paying your social security and medicare taxes your entire life. You deserve what you're getting now.

As for welfare, I see that as a different kind of loan. WIC, for instance, pays for a child's nutritional needs. I think it's been pretty clearly shown that nutritional deficits in children result in lower IQs. So, by providing nutrition to kids, we're trying to help them be more productive members of society. For unemployment benefits, we're paying to keep a family in their house for a few extra months until they can get back on their feet with minimal disruption. Throwing someone out onto the street or into a homeless shelter is going to make it that much harder to get back into the job market and be a productive member of society.

Are there people who abuse the system? Sure. TANF (i.e. welfare) can be exploited to provide a constant stream of revenue. You can buy cigs, alcohol, or drugs with the extra food stamp money. But, I think those cases shouldn't ruin in for the larger percent of people who need that assistance temporarily to keep their family going until the next paycheck.

 

[countingdays]

Now, as to individuals. I would argue social security and medicare are most definitely loans. The government actually loaned the money from the individuals. If you're 65, you've been paying your social security and medicare taxes your entire life. You deserve what you're getting now.

As for welfare, I see that as a different kind of loan. WIC, for instance, pays for a child's nutritional needs. I think it's been pretty clearly shown that nutritional deficits in children result in lower IQs. So, by providing nutrition to kids, we're trying to help them be more productive members of society. For unemployment benefits, we're paying to keep a family in their house for a few extra months until they can get back on their feet with minimal disruption. Throwing someone out onto the street or into a homeless shelter is going to make it that much harder to get back into the job market and be a productive member of society.

You just don't understand social security. It is a welfare program/ponzi scheme.

WIC is another bad example. Why should we pay for infant formula for the unemployed? They have no excuse to not breast feed, but we pay them to provide arguably inferior nourishment to their children.

 

[McLovin]

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

http://www.theobamadebt.com/

I guess here is where my lack of knowledge gets exposed.

1) If national debt is "U.S. Treasury securities held by institutions outside the United States Government", how exactly can it go up that much when federal spending is actually down?

2) If there is no relationship b/w federal spending and national debt, what exactly drives the debt?

- McLovin

as always, I get all my information from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

[pgg]

You just don't understand social security. It is a welfare program/ponzi scheme.

The term "Ponzi scheme" is being overused of late.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. There's no guarantee or even expectation that all contributors to SS will collect more than they contribute, or even live long enough to collect anything at all.

Ponzi victims, on the other hand, contribute their cash with an expectation of profit (and an acknowledged but underappreciated risk of loss). They're investing, - moreover, they do so with the expectation that their investment would be collectible by their heirs if they die. There's no scenario where a Ponzi scheme can deliver on its promise yet return NOTHING to a subset of its investors.


Social Security would work in perpetuity as the keep-helpless-widows-and-geezers-off-the-streets program it was conceived to be, if
- there was some intrinsic/codified way to increase the age of eligibility as life expectancy increases
- the money collected wasn't diverted to other government spending

I don't really want to live in a country full of 70-year-old homeless people. So I'm in favor of some kind of government-run, tax-supported program. Social Security is a nice name for it, more palatable than "Keep The Geezers Off The Streets And Out Of Sight" ...



As for WIC, we all know that some mothers won't breastfeed no matter what the circumstances or incentives or disincentives. Yeah, free formula for babies is government cheese, but it's good cheese.

$ for $, it's probably the most cost effective way to get calories into poor kids. Malnourished kids become dumb adults, and god knows we've met our national quota there already. Even if mom & dad are worthless idiots, the kid deserves enough functional neurons to give him a shot at clawing his way to a better life than his parents. IMO, this is as much a collective national interest as public education.

 

[pgg]

1) If national debt is "U.S. Treasury securities held by institutions outside the United States Government", how exactly can it go up that much when federal spending is actually down?

I haven't fact or number checked any of those links, but federal revenues are also way down.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

You just don't understand social security. It is a welfare program/ponzi scheme.

In a polite discussion, I just don't see where this has a place. I understand social security quite well. pgg gives a more extensive overview, but it is much closer to retirement insurance than any sort of Ponzi scheme.

WIC is another bad example. Why should we pay for infant formula for the unemployed? They have no excuse to not breast feed, but we pay them to provide arguably inferior nourishment to their children.

Dude, honestly, I hate to be blunt, but your argument here has some flaws. WIC pays for the nutritional needs of a mother and her child. So, the mother can spend WIC dollars on nutritional foods that would help her produce breast milk if she so chooses to breastfeed. Additionally, WIC goes until a child is 5 years old. My mom didn't breastfeed me until I was 5, and I doubt yours did. But WIC pays for the child's food until that point because nutrition is so key to good development at that age.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Social Security would work in perpetuity as the keep-helpless-widows-and-geezers-off-the-streets program it was conceived to be, if
- there was some intrinsic/codified way to increase the age of eligibility as life expectancy increases
- the money collected wasn't diverted to other government spending

pgg,

Appreciate the social security breakdown. Two interesting points from an article I read recently. (I can't find it, otherwise I'd link.)

1) If you look at 65 year olds, the life expectancy has actually increased only minimally. The life expectancy was suppressed by women dying in childbirth and men dying at war. So, in the 1940's and 50's, a 65-year-old was expected to live another 15 years or so, and it's roughly the same now. Kinda shocking.

2) If you look past the baby boomers who are set to start collecting soon, social security is actually in okay shape. So, if we can get through the next 25 years, social security will actually be in pretty decent shape for the foreseeable future. We just have to agree on how to get through the next 30 years without bankrupting the government. Pretty much every disagrees on whether the solution should be a) increasing the retirement age, b) reducing benefits, or c) increasing taxes going toward social security, or d) some combo of a, b, and c.

Your second point is spot on. We've been robbing Peter to pay Paul for a long time. Don't know when it'll come due, but it can't be too long.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I guess here is where my lack of knowledge gets exposed.

1) If national debt is "U.S. Treasury securities held by institutions outside the United States Government", how exactly can it go up that much when federal spending is actually down?

2) If there is no relationship b/w federal spending and national debt, what exactly drives the debt?

- McLovin

as always, I get all my information from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

As a final prop to pgg, he's correct in that federal tax revenues are pretty volatile. So, as the recession hit and lots of people got laid off, taxes collected dropped off pretty dramatically. Thus, outstanding obligations drove up the debt instead of being taken from taxes collected by the IRS and stored by the U.S. Treasury.

 

[Narcotized]

I guess here is where my lack of knowledge gets exposed.

1) If national debt is "U.S. Treasury securities held by institutions outside the United States Government", how exactly can it go up that much when federal spending is actually down?

2) If there is no relationship b/w federal spending and national debt, what exactly drives the debt?

Nothing wrong with asking questions. The problem with question 1 is federal spending is thru the roof. Definitely not down. Obama took it to the stratosphere. As for 2, there definitely is a relationship. Spending minus revenue is what gets added to the total debt. Hope that helps.

Whoever told you spending is down should look at this:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/federal-spending_01-580.jpg

Now, even if they are saying maybe we are spending a tiny bit less this year than last year (not exactly sure), we are so far in the stratosphere with spending versus revenue that a slight year dip in spending is still adding massively to debt.

 

[countingdays]

The term "Ponzi scheme" is being overused of late.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. There's no guarantee or even expectation that all contributors to SS will collect more than they contribute, or even live long enough to collect anything at all.

Ponzi victims, on the other hand, contribute their cash with an expectation of profit (and an acknowledged but underappreciated risk of loss). They're investing, - moreover, they do so with the expectation that their investment would be collectible by their heirs if they die. There's no scenario where a Ponzi scheme can deliver on its promise yet return NOTHING to a subset of its investors.


Social Security would work in perpetuity as the keep-helpless-widows-and-geezers-off-the-streets program it was conceived to be, if
- there was some intrinsic/codified way to increase the age of eligibility as life expectancy increases
- the money collected wasn't diverted to other government spending

I don't really want to live in a country full of 70-year-old homeless people. So I'm in favor of some kind of government-run, tax-supported program. Social Security is a nice name for it, more palatable than "Keep The Geezers Off The Streets And Out Of Sight" ...



As for WIC, we all know that some mothers won't breastfeed no matter what the circumstances or incentives or disincentives. Yeah, free formula for babies is government cheese, but it's good cheese.

$ for $, it's probably the most cost effective way to get calories into poor kids. Malnourished kids become dumb adults, and god knows we've met our national quota there already. Even if mom & dad are worthless idiots, the kid deserves enough functional neurons to give him a shot at clawing his way to a better life than his parents. IMO, this is as much a collective national interest as public education.

A Ponzi Scheme pays benefits to earlier investors (the elderly) with funds received from later investors (the young). It will collapse when the number of new investors is inadequate to maintain payments to earlier investors that are greater than what they paid in. Sounds exactly like social security.
I realize that we are threatened by the government if we refuse to 'invest' rather than us being tricked into investing like a traditional Ponzi scheme, but I think 'Ponzi scheme' pretty much describes social security in it's current form. It's supported by the elderly who know it is going to collapse but just want to keep the scheme going until they get 'their' money out even though that will leave the young with no return on their investment.
The fact that WE don't think we will get a return on our investment in social security just shows that it has begun to collapse, not that it isn't set up as a Ponzi scheme.
If there were a social security balanced budget amendment that prevented payments from exceding receipts, then it would no longer be a Ponzi scheme. I obviously don't want old homeless people either. I just think social security needs to be change now to let it function as the welfare program it is instead of it continuing to fleece the young to make payments to the elderly, even if those elderly welfare recipients are filthy rich. Payment levels and qualification age need to be changed and means-testing needs to start before the scheme fallsw apart completely.

 

[pgg]

A Ponzi Scheme pays benefits to earlier investors (the elderly) with funds received from later investors (the young). It will collapse when the number of new investors is inadequate to maintain payments to earlier investors that are greater than what they paid in. Sounds exactly like social security.

Only superficially. Yes it's a semantic difference, but words have meaning and we should use the right ones.

A Ponzi scheme is a scam-by-design by which a few early investors (who are not necessarily in on the scam) are indeed paid their profits from the victims. There is no money for the victims, it's gone. It's mathematically impossible for all contributors to get what they were promised.

Social Security is more akin to insurance, where a current benefit is paid from funds obtained from previous pooled premiums. It's designed with the expectation that many who contribute will never collect anything (a person who dies at age 60 after contributing for 40+ years), and many more will collect far less than what they contribute (a person who dies at age 70, collecting a fraction of what he contributed over his 40+ year working life). Benefits aren't transferable to heirs the way the "asset" a Ponzi victim expects that "asset" to be his. It is absolutely possible for the system to remain solvent in perpetuity.

I just think social security needs to be change now to let it function as the welfare program it is instead of it continuing to fleece the young to make payments to the elderly, even if those elderly welfare recipients are filthy rich. Payment levels and qualification age need to be changed and means-testing needs to start before the scheme fallsw apart completely.

I agree.

 

[Cleavername]

Overwhelming Debt, it's as American as Mom and Apple Pie.

- pod

oh oh oh, professor, pick me, pick me plz, does ur avatar mean "easy A" ? if it does, then ur freakin awesome.

/lady gaga poker face song plays in the background.

 

[Narcotized]

I was afraid of this:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40220609

The fiscal irresponsibility of both worlds brought together. Republicans will get to slash government revenues as long as Democrats get to keep on spending. And they call this a compromise. The big winner here will be Xerox; gonna take a whole lotta money printers for Bernanke to keep up with this foolishness.

We so screwed, not even funny.