# Deficit Denial?



## jwoodie (Jan 21, 2013)

Are you concerned about never-ending trillion dollar deficits?  If so, what can or should be done about them?  Given our demographic trends, the current debates about taxes and spending reforms are almost laughably inadequate to address the enormity of our impending liabilities.  In coming years, we may look back at a deficit of only a trillion dollars with nostalgic fondness.

So what are we to do, if anything?  It seems to me that economic growth (jobs) can only take us so far, and rest will result in a massive (30-50%) reduction in our purchasing power.  Any thoughts?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 21, 2013)

The debt is so large that it is impossible to pay off, Right now it is at 16.4 trillion dollars and the ceiling has been, or shortly will be, raised to 20 trillion dollars.
If you pay a billion dollars a year (plus the interest) it would take a thousand years to pay back each trillion dollars. That means 16000 years and it is still not paid off. 
If you pay 100 billion dollars each year (plus interest) then paying off 16 trillion dollars takes 160 years. 
To pay off the national debt in a single presidential term would require paying 4 trillion dollars (plus interest) for each of the four years. The taxes collected last year were less than 3 trillion dollars. That includes Social Security taxes that are separate from income tax.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 22, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The debt is so large that it is impossible to pay off, Right now it is at 16.4 trillion dollars and the ceiling has been, or shortly will be, raised to 20 trillion dollars.
> If you pay a billion dollars a year (plus the interest) it would take a thousand years to pay back each trillion dollars. That means 16000 years and it is still not paid off.
> If you pay 100 billion dollars each year (plus interest) then paying off 16 trillion dollars takes 160 years.
> To pay off the national debt in a single presidential term would require paying 4 trillion dollars (plus interest) for each of the four years. The taxes collected last year were less than 3 trillion dollars. That includes Social Security taxes that are separate from income tax.



There is no way it would be paid off in a single term.   That much is true.

But the solution to the debt is a relatively simple one.    Stop running up more debt (that alone would mean big cuts and tax increases).   Pay the interest for the next 20-30 years.

By then inflation (running at roughly 2-4% a year) would nibble away at it until 20 Trillion is worth more like 5 Trillion in todays dollars.  

But it would mean  being fiscally responsible for 20-30 years, by both parties.    The odds on that happening make the lottery a good bet.


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Feb 2, 2013)

Nobody with a financial background, either inside or outside government, actually *wants* the United States Treasury to pay off all its debt. 

For one thing, having no debt would mean being completely unable to issue any type of government bond, which would not be at all good for anyone's economy. For another, a certain level of debt is inevitable when there has to be recovery from things like natural disasters. 

That doesn't mean that the debt should be anywhere as high as it is, of course. Only that the focus has to be on managing it instead of paying it off.


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

big debt and super duper bailouts do not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bushs tax cuts for the very wealthy.

This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

What about it ...debt?

If it used properly debt is fine. Households and business people do it everyday. 

To cover the cost of tax breaks,corporate welfare,weapons the military doesn't want and bailing out mismanaged financial industry and the auto industry then it is abused big time.

Creating new industry for the USA thus jobs, and rebuilding the interstate highway system is wise use of 
borrowed money = investments in our country = new economic growth = new wealth for all.


----------



## sparky (Feb 2, 2013)

Gargantuan and Growing: The US Debt Figure You've Probably Never Heard Of | InflationData.com

~S~


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> *Are you concerned about never-ending trillion dollar deficits?*  If so, what can or should be done about them?  Given our demographic trends, the current debates about taxes and spending reforms are almost laughably inadequate to address the enormity of our impending liabilities.  In coming years, we may look back at a deficit of only a trillion dollars with nostalgic fondness.
> 
> So what are we to do, if anything?  It seems to me that economic growth (jobs) can only take us so far, and rest will result in a massive (30-50%) reduction in our purchasing power.  Any thoughts?


'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
Ronald Reagan


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 2, 2013)

> Deficit Denial?



Its more like deficit prioritizing. 

Jobs and the economy first, then the deficit.


----------



## blackhawk (Feb 2, 2013)

Everyone knows what has to be done the problem is both the Democrats and the Republicans only want to do half of it. The Republicans just want to cut spending and the Democrats just want to raise taxes on the rich just doing one of these will never solve the problem.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 2, 2013)

Liberals feel the government just doesn't spend enough now.
The only out of our debt problem is we need to spend more....

Go figure.

Not kidding folks...
Just find some video of that bearded ferret faced economist that the Libs love so much.
He will go on and on about how we need to spend more.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 2, 2013)

We have a spending problem.

Bush spent too Much and Obama has already outspent him.

It is time to reign it in.......The longer we wait the worse the belt tightening will have to be.......

I'm willing to give up 10% if the government would just cut every thing by the same 10 %....

I don't know if that would be enough but it would be a nice start......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2013)

merrill said:


> big debt and super duper bailouts do not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.
> 
> In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:
> 
> ...



*In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bushs tax cuts for the very wealthy.*

That's an interesting claim. You have any proof?


----------



## Rozman (Feb 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > big debt and super duper bailouts do not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.
> ...







> *This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bush&#8217;s tax cuts for the very wealthy.*




There really is no such thing as the Bush tax cut for the very wealthy.
All tax payers received a tax cut.The middle class as well.

The proof of this comes from Obama and the Dems themselves.
Just recently the Libs were bitching if the recent extension of the Bush tax cuts were to go away the Middle class would lose the benefit of .....you guessed it kiddies.
The Bush tax cut...

Have a good night.


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Rozman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...




The upper 1% or whatever have been receiving tax breaks,tax loopholes and Cayman Island for going on 33 years. They owe the 99% a large refund.


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > big debt and super duper bailouts do not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.
> ...



From the source:

What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts. 

Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office. 

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the governments deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years. This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. 

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion. Over half of that amount had been created by Bushs tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

Dollars and Sense


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 2, 2013)

From what source?


----------



## blackhawk (Feb 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > big debt and super duper bailouts do not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.
> ...


Here is something people might find interesting note the source is not FOX or any other conservative leaning group.
National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2013)

merrill said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They owe a refund for keeping more of their own money? LOL! You're funny.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2013)

merrill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



*In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion. Over half of that amount had been created by Bush&#8217;s tax cuts for the very wealthy. *

Yes, I saw the silly claim, I was looking for proof.


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Doug Orr is a professor of economics at Eastern Washington University. He speaks and writes regularly about Social Security.

Is this Doug Orr person wrong?


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. Reagan,Bush and Bush never complained instead they expanded the debt under Supply Side Economics which is all about borrow and spend, borrow and spend , borrow and spend etc etc etc.

Obama will need to borrow more to make up for the 8 years Bush/Cheney spent destroying the economy. There is no other way because the banks that got bailed out gave the money away to the executives as a bonus.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference. The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth. 

The millions of jobs losses have yet to come back. Where are they? Where did they go? 

How many more home loan scams do republicans have in store for the USA? One under Reagan/Bush and one under Bush/Cheney is not enough?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2013)

merrill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



I don't know, I haven't seen the proof of his claim. Have you?


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

BTW no one is denying there is a deficit? Local and state governments also have deficits. All of us on this board have some deficit going. 

Why is it so wrong to have deficit?


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Neither have you seen any type of rebuttal against this man's research. The fact is no rebuttal is out there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2013)

merrill said:


> This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. Reagan,Bush and Bush never complained instead they expanded the debt under Supply Side Economics which is all about borrow and spend, borrow and spend , borrow and spend etc etc etc.
> 
> Obama will need to borrow more to make up for the 8 years Bush/Cheney spent destroying the economy. There is no other way because the banks that got bailed out gave the money away to the executives as a bonus.
> 
> ...



*There is no other way because the banks that got bailed out gave the money away to the executives as a bonus.*

Tha bank TARP was repaid, with a decent profit to the Treasury.

*How many more home loan scams do republicans have in store for the USA?*

Yeah, that Fannie and Freddie scam was awful. Cost us over $125 billion in taxpayer money so far. Damn Republicans. Oh, wait, that was the Democrats, never mind.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2013)

merrill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



He threw out a huge number, with no backup. How can an imaginary number be rebutted?


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If it were available it would be there. Obamas impact on the rise of the debt, as it was not just spending, but a decline in revenue that is responsible for the sharp rise in federal budget deficits. Obama has proposed policies to help reduce the deficit and it seems strange to suggest he has done nothing about it.

Who's saying it is a problem? 

The deficit is over exaggerated as a problem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2013)

merrill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



*If it were available it would be there.*

He made a claim with no available backup? 
That's funny.
Pretty weak for a professor of economics.


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




YOU certainly cannot prove him wrong.


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Let's educate thyselves:


--- This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers 124.6 billion $$$$, in addition to millions  of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance which could substantially
increase the cost to taxpayers.
The Bush family and the S&L (Savings and Loan) Scandal

 --- This GOP ENTITLEMENT Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.
What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense

--- This GOP ENTITLEMENT -  Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3?  One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go?  Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?
"Good Billions After Bad"?One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went


--- RECKLESS GOP Tax cuts = THE GOP ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy which do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs. Tax cuts are a tax increase to others in order to make up the loss in revenue = duped again. Bush Tax Cuts aka  

This GOP ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy is at the expense of the middle class = duped one more time.
Still a Bad Idea | Dollars & Sense


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Obviously the new breed of repubs are not the economic giants of our times.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



Well, if I saw his source, I'd be able to see if he was correct.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> Let's educate thyselves:
> 
> 
> --- This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions  of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.
> ...



*(Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion)*

Wow, your sources are funny. Off by a factor of about 10.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ai96123.pdf

I wonder if the professor's sources are as "accurate" as your's?


----------



## merrill (Feb 3, 2013)

There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today. 

 Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).

Between 1981 and 1989, when George Bush finally announced that there was a Savings and Loan Crisis to the world, the Reagan/Bush administration worked to cover up Savings and Loan problems by reducing the number and depth of examinations required of S&Ls as well as attacking political opponents who were sounding early alarms about the S&L industry.  

Industry insiders were aware of significant S&L problems as early 1986 that they felt would require a bailout.  This information was kept from the media until after Bush had won the 1988 elections.

Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56 million loan from Broward Federal Savings in Sunrise, Florida. After federal regulators closed the S&L, the office building that Jeb used the $4.56 million to finance was reappraised by the regulators at  $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The taxpayers had to pay back the remaining 4 million plus dollars.

Neil Bush was the most widely targeted member of the Bush family by the press in the S&L scandal.  Neil became director of Silverado Savings and Loan at the age of 30 in 1985.  Three years later the institution was belly up at a cost of $1.6 billion to tax payers to bail out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today.
> 
> Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).
> 
> ...



*which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars *

Thanks for another made-up number.
The GAO said the actual cost was about $132 billion.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 3, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



And that is nearly a year old, add another trillion to Obama......


----------



## merrill (Feb 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today.
> ...



That $1.4 trillion is not my number however what I have discovered as actual paid out tax dollars was around 124.6 billion dollars from several sources which was a large number in the late 80's-early 90's. 

Also millions were laid off as a result of that fraudulent endeavor costing taxpayers money for unemployment,food stamps plus the cost of the investigation which would put the cost higher but at $1.4 trillion I am not so sure.  

Did the government also buy up homes that were left going into foreclosures I'm not sure. 

There was a ton of economic chaos during the Reagan/Bush years. The oil market went to hell creating more unemployment and foreclosures in big time oil states.

Lesson: be sure your savings are insured or lose it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



*That $1.4 trillion is not my number *

I know, it was a number made up by one of your sources.
A wildly inaccurate number.


----------



## merrill (Feb 3, 2013)

Correction...

--- This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers 124.6 billion $$$$, in addition to millions of job losses, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance which could substantially increase the cost to taxpayers.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 3, 2013)

Don't you folks get it? It doesn't matter one bit what caused this debt. I don't even care what Obama has added so far. But it is time to start fixing it. Place blame after we solve the problem..........


----------



## merrill (Feb 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Don't you folks get it? It doesn't matter one bit what caused this debt. I don't even care what Obama has added so far. But it is time to start fixing it. Place blame after we solve the problem..........



We're going to have to borrow to fix the problem. Investing it properly should help pay it back.

Government borrowing is NOT a new concept.  Some debt is always going to be part of the deal.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 3, 2013)

Borrow from Peter to pay Paul?   That's part of what got us into this.....

Stop spending more than we take in..... We have a spending problem.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> Correction...
> 
> --- This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers 124.6 billion $$$$, in addition to millions of job losses, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance which could substantially increase the cost to taxpayers.



*Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal *

The scandal was more than just "Reagan/Bush".
Whitewater and Madison Guaranty cost the taxpayers $73 million, after all.


----------



## merrill (Feb 3, 2013)

The repub party declared the day Obama was elected their primary function would be to make Obama a one term president. They are still trying.  Consequently their millions of NO votes became the disastrous campaign against women,The USA and jobs for Americans.
Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Meanwhile the GOP continue their efforts to destroy the USA economy over new economic growth.

Congress in general has ways to reduce obligations that are safe and would not endanger the recovery.

1. Recall the $1.6 billion tax rebate from Goldman-Sachs

2. Place all US government employees and Vets on Medicare for ALL Single Payer Insurance = about $250 billion annual savings

3. Stop the war thus halting the numbers of disabled vets = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings 

4. Cut off special interesting financing of all elections = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

5. Stop forcing taxpayers to guarantee construction costs of nuke and coal power plants = billions of tax $$$$$ savings

6. Stop forcing taxpayers to be the insurance arm for coal and nuke power plants

Plus 10 other reasonable,prudent and fiscally responsible options:
10 Ways to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 3, 2013)

No thank you, they already forced this vet onto Medicare. After promising me free medical care for life.

My medical expenditures are well over $3000 a year... A far far cry from the agreement i had with the American people...

And most of that stuff has little to do with the GOP.


----------



## jwoodie (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



YOU don't understand that the burden of proof lies with the person making the affirmative assertion.  (That would be YOU.)  In addition, your repetitive entries indicate an inability to organize your thoughts in a coherent manner.  Finally, you present "facts" that you know or should know to be false.  For example, the National Debt was approximately $10 trillion when GWB took office and $14 trillion when he left.  Simple arithmetic shows this to represent an average deficit of $500 billion over 8 years, not over $ 1 trillion as you you stated.   I am no GWB fan, but why the need for revisionist history?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 3, 2013)

Date 	Dollar Amount
09/30/2012 	16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 	14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 	13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 	11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 	10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 	9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 	8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 	7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 	7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 	6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 	6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 	5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 	5,674,178,209,886.86


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 3, 2013)

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> The repub party declared the day Obama was elected their primary function would be to make Obama a one term president. They are still trying.  Consequently their millions of NO votes became the disastrous campaign against women,The USA and jobs for Americans.
> Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> 
> Meanwhile the GOP continue their efforts to destroy the USA economy over new economic growth.
> ...



*1. Recall the $1.6 billion tax rebate from Goldman-Sachs*

Neither source had any detail about this. 

*3. Stop the war thus halting the numbers of disabled vets = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings* 

Didn't Obama already do this?

*4. Cut off special interesting financing of all elections = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings*

Huh?

*5. Stop forcing taxpayers to guarantee construction costs of nuke and coal power plants = billions of tax $$$$$ savings*

When is the last time we built a nuke plant in this country?

Tell you what would save real money, now, end the ethanol mandate.
End all "green energy" boondogles.
Open up drilling in ANWR. Stop trying to kill fracking and drilling in the gulf.
Start sunsetting ridiculous regulations instead on constantly piling on new ones.
End the sugar tariffs and import restrictions.
End boutique gasoline blend requirements.


----------



## jwoodie (Feb 3, 2013)

Sorry, I was using GDP numbers.  Same result, though.


----------



## merrill (Feb 3, 2013)

What impact would the converting of Social Security to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts. 

Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office. 

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government&#8217;s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years. 

This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion. 

Over half of that amount had been created by Bush&#8217;s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy 
under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html


----------



## merrill (Feb 3, 2013)

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if Social Security private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk&#8212;it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor.

 While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension. 

When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things. 

In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income. If the move to private accounts reduces elders&#8217; spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality&#8212;and increased inequality hinders economic growth. 

For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced. Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme. 

The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression. And the rapid increase in inequality under the Reagan and two Bush administrations was one of the causes of the current &#8220;Great Recession.&#8221;

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html


----------



## merrill (Feb 3, 2013)

The bottom line borrowing money to make money is smart business.

Borrowing money to cover the cost of money holes is reckless spending thus wreckanomics.

Americans love to borrow money to make money or invest in their homes or invest in a small
business or invest in a garden tiller. It is simply American.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> What impact would the converting of Social Security to private accounts have on the national debt?
> 
> The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.
> 
> ...



*Over half of that amount had been created by Bushs tax cuts for the very wealthy.*

Prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if Social Security private accounts replaced the current system?
> 
> Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at riskit would likely put the entire economy at risk.
> 
> ...



*How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if Social Security private accounts replaced the current system*?

People investing their savings in the real economy will increase investment and grow GDP.

Government investing our savings in government spending will grow government and leave future taxpayers on the hook to pay future Social Security benefits.

I think the first option is better. Which do you prefer?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 3, 2013)

merrill said:


> Over half of that amount had been created by Bushs tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy
> under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.* Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.*
> 
> Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense



Bullshit. Use a real source, like right from the Government instead of some BS site you want to use. I already posted it for you once... Or don't you read official numbers?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012


----------



## Underhill (Feb 3, 2013)

Wonky Pundit said:


> Nobody with a financial background, either inside or outside government, actually *wants* the United States Treasury to pay off all its debt.
> 
> For one thing, having no debt would mean being completely unable to issue any type of government bond, which would not be at all good for anyone's economy. For another, a certain level of debt is inevitable when there has to be recovery from things like natural disasters.
> 
> That doesn't mean that the debt should be anywhere as high as it is, of course. Only that the focus has to be on managing it instead of paying it off.



I would agree with that.   But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.   Our debt levels are too high and should be at least half (as a percentage of GDP) what they are now.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, that Fannie and Freddie scam was awful. Cost us over $125 billion in taxpayer money so far. Damn Republicans. Oh, wait, that was the Democrats, never mind.



no, you were right, it was bush.
President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

or more accurately the republicans attitude of weak oversight that let banks run amok, taking piles of garbage, and dividing it into traunches so that it could be sold as triple A.

The Subprime Mortgage Primer

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Financial_Crisis/FinancialCrisisReport.pdf?attempt=2





Rozman said:


> There really is no such thing as the Bush tax cut for the very wealthy.
> All tax payers received a tax cut.The middle class as well.
> The proof of this comes from Obama and the Dems themselves.
> Just recently the Libs were bitching if the recent extension of the Bush tax cuts were to go away the Middle class would lose the benefit of .....you guessed it kiddies.
> The Bush tax cut...



One for me and a million for you isnt exactly a square deal. Im not sure why you are so gung ho to crush the working class with taxes, but the rich can afford to pay for the services America provides them, which allow them to create their wealth.









Toddsterpatriot said:


> This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bushs tax cuts for the very wealthy.[/B]
> That's an interesting claim. You have any proof?








[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9G8XREyG0Q]Why Obama Now - YouTube[/ame]



SFC Ollie said:


> Borrow from Peter to pay Paul?   That's part of what got us into this.....
> Stop spending more than we take in..... We have a spending problem.......


What revisions to our spending policy are you advocating?


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > The repub party declared the day Obama was elected their primary function would be to make Obama a one term president. They are still trying.  Consequently their millions of NO votes became the disastrous campaign against women,The USA and jobs for Americans.
> ...



I agree with some of that, but fracking is a dangerous process.   I live 20 miles from the fracking sites in North Western PA, where people can turn on their water faucet and set it on fire...   

And when it comes to domestic drilling, I am diametrically apposed to it. 

In fact, I would say we should stop all drilling if we really want what is best for our countries long term health.   And it has nothing to do with green initiatives (as I think we will end up drilling in all these places eventually anyway).   

But import all our oil.   Let the rest of the world diminish their reserves.   Then our oil will be worth exponentially more.    Why force the issue now?    It's like pulling money out of your 401k.   It will be worth much more later if we don't.

And we really don't need it.   It will have a negligible impact on anything if we drill now.    That may not be the case if we keep those reserves available in the future.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



My Great Uncle used to show us his burning water when we were kids 50+ years ago...And there was no Fracking going on....

And if we had started drilling the way we should have 40 Years ago those places that get our money and hate us at the same time would not be so powerful today and our economy would be booming still.... Drill here, Drill now......


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well, it sounds like you may be getting your way.    But I doubt it will have the outcome you think it will...

U.S. To Become World's Biggest Oil Producer - But Hold The Applause - Forbes

And it looks like Forbes agrees with me.

"Further, let&#8217;s get realistic about how much oil we have compared to Saudi Arabia. The faster we pump it, the faster it will be gone. According to the EIA, Saudi production was more than 11 million barrels per day in 2011, about five times its domestic consumption. Estimates of Saudi reserves vary widely, but EIA says 262 billion barrels.

The U.S. is up there in terms of production, with 10 million barrels per day in 2011, but in that same year we consumed more than 18 million barrels per day. We haven&#8217;t lost our collective appetite for the stuff (right). Oil is traded internationally, and our net deficit in terms of imported oil was more than 8 million barrels daily. But EIA&#8217;s latest analysis leaves a big blank when it comes to proven oil reserves for the U.S. The agency&#8217;s estimate at the end of 2010 was 25 billion barrels &#8212; a 10th that of Saudi Arabia."

In the long run it won't change anything.   In fact it may make our position weaker than it currently is.   

Right now, if the taps were turned off in the middle east, we have reserves we can go into.    If we crank up production, as we are, then those reserves will dwindle, leaving us at the mercy of other countries long term.    

And we will always need oil.    Maybe not in the quantities we use today, but it will always be important for manufacturing and transportation.

Oh and the burning water...   

The one woman I know with contaminated water lives in a house with a well that pumped out clean good water for over 70 years.   And within months of fracking moving into the area, her water (and most of her neighbors) is now filled with chemicals, not to mention flammable.   

I have gas and oil in the shale under my property.   The ground water bubbles up in rainbow colors whenever it rains.   But my wells are good.    I sure as hell don't want them fracking in my area.


----------



## jwoodie (Feb 4, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that Fannie and Freddie scam was awful. Cost us over $125 billion in taxpayer money so far. Damn Republicans. Oh, wait, that was the Democrats, never mind.
> ...



*Just suspend COLA's until the budget is balanced.  Why keep adding fuel to the fire?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that Fannie and Freddie scam was awful. Cost us over $125 billion in taxpayer money so far. Damn Republicans. Oh, wait, that was the Democrats, never mind.
> ...



*no, you were right, it was bush.*

No, Fannie and Freddie were the Dems.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



*I live 20 miles from the fracking sites in North Western PA, where people can turn on their water faucet and set it on fire... *

Yeah, they could do that before fracking. I've never seen a proven case where that was caused by fracking.

*And when it comes to domestic drilling, I am diametrically apposed to it. *

Right, why would we want to help our economy or get cheap energy?

*Why force the issue now? *

We need jobs, money and cheap energy now.

*And we really don't need it.  *

LOL! You're funny.

*It will have a negligible impact on anything if we drill now.*

Fracking cut the price of natural gas, a lot. 
You're not silly, you're stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Love your Forbes "source"

By Jim Motavalli, Mother Nature Network

LOL!


----------



## oldfart (Feb 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:
> 
> This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bushs tax cuts for the very wealthy.*
> 
> That's an interesting claim. You have any proof?



I suppose you know how to look up economic statistics. If you do, why don't you do so rather than badger people to look them up for you?  If yo truly don't know where to find this kind of information, let me know and I'll give you the directions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:
> ...



*I suppose you know how to look up economic statistics.*

I do! I'm not as good at looking up numbers that somebody made up out of whole cloth.

*If you do, why don't you do so rather than badger people to look them up for you? *

I don't want anyone to look up numbers for me, merely provide proof for the claims they made.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 4, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You mean like the 2 years in a row we didn't get any COLA? And then the little trick they pulled on Military retirees this year, gave us a COLA and doubled our Copay for prescriptions....I can't speak for all retirees but I'm at a net loss.

Like I said just cut everything by 10% and see where that gets us. At least it's a start.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



False claims for certain, which is why no one can prove them..........


----------



## merrill (Feb 4, 2013)

Some thinking that perhaps should be included when discussing DEFICITS.

PUT 25 MILLION unemployed back to work at no less than $17.50 per hour! Pronto!

3. Sign on to a People's budget 

A Peoples Budget does everything this country needs = Smart Economics
* Reduces Debt by $10 trillion
* Creates good-paying jobs
* Fully maintains our social safety net
* Invests in education
* Ends our costly wars
* Closes the tax loopholes that have made offshoring jobs profitable
* Ends oil and gas subsidies that pollute our country at taxpayer expense
* Creates a national infrastructure investment bank to help us make intelligent investments for the future

A fiscally responsible budget represents the future we believe in as Americans.

This is one of those occasions we all hope we'll live to see. We really can make a difference right now if we speak up loudly with one voice.

This fiscally responsible budget represents not just common sense; it represented the will of the American people.

These aren't just words on a page or numbers in a tablethese dollars and cents mean lives helped or hurt, people succeeding or falling by the wayside, and families lifted up or dragged down. 


--- What this budget does very specifically:

Congressional Progressive Caucus : The People's Budget 

The Nation: Obama Should Fight For 'People's Budget' : NPR

While Obama Touts Compromise with GOP, Progressive Lawmakers Unveil "People?s Budget"

Fighting for a People's Budget | The Nation


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 4, 2013)

merrill said:


> Some thinking that perhaps should be included when discussing DEFICITS.
> 
> PUT 25 MILLION unemployed back to work at no less than $17.50 per hour! Pronto!
> 
> ...



Couldn't find any further left wing sites trying to make you believe they want to work on the debt?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 5, 2013)

Budget Overview | The White House
Framework for Deficit Reduction | The White House


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 5, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Are you concerned about never-ending trillion dollar deficits?  If so, what can or should be done about them?  Given our demographic trends, the current debates about taxes and spending reforms are almost laughably inadequate to address the enormity of our impending liabilities.  In coming years, we may look back at a deficit of only a trillion dollars with nostalgic fondness.
> 
> So what are we to do, if anything?  It seems to me that economic growth (jobs) can only take us so far, and rest will result in a massive (30-50%) reduction in our purchasing power.  Any thoughts?



Most of our current deficits are due to the bad economy.  If we can reduce the growth of military spending and get people back to work, revenues will increase, and some spending will decrease, especially in the form of safety net/welfare payments to those currently not working.  

Our big problem is long term and it's all about Medicare and Social Security.  Bottom line is that we are eventually going to have to raise the retirement age for both.  A lot of people are against this, but this is the most logical solution, and I will be shocked if it doesn't happen.  One last thing; this country is going to have an economic boom in about eight years.  It's a long way off for those of us struggling right now, but I am predicting boom times ahead.  I am basing this all on the fact that the Y Generation, which is 71 million strong, the majority of which are currently between the ages of 20 to 30 years of age.  They are just starting to enter their peak purchasing years, which last for about 30 years for most people.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 5, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Budget Overview | The White House
> Framework for Deficit Reduction | The White House



Lip service, from an administration that is yet to pass a budget, and please,  lower the deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years? Really? Now if he said lower the debt by $4 trillion then he would be accomplishing something...

But lowering the deficit just means we won't go into the hole quite as fast.........


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 5, 2013)

I keep hearing not passing a budget, what are the ramifications of this?

What else can you ask for? thats the difference between not having enough to pay your bills and working with your creditors; or simply putting everything on the credit card and spending your rent on scratch off lottery tickets. We have the last 30 years as a track record, most of the national debt is from republican presidents.

little dated, but still relevant
Why the Republican National Debt is $12 Trillion


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 5, 2013)

Blame whoever you want, I don't give a rats ass where the debt came from, It is time to fix it...

Wake up!!!!!!!!!

And your info is old the debt is 16 trillion not 12......


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 5, 2013)

The debt is so high now that even a 30% cut in the budget won't have any affect on the debt. It would keep the debt from increasing but we still have to pay more than 45 billion dollars just in interest each year. The first time that we can't make the interest payment the debt comes due.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 5, 2013)

That's why we have to stop talking about paying off the debt right now.  

It's a waste of time.   There is absolutely no way we can make a dent in the debt.

What we need to be focused on is the deficits today.   Not the debts of yesterday.   We could get current deficits under control and at least stabilize things.  

Then we won't need to pay down the debts.   Time will take care of it for us.   We pay off our obligations as they come due and a chunk of the debt will come down on it's own over the next 7-10 years. 

The rest will be an opportune victim of inflation.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 5, 2013)

Unless the deficit ceases to exist then we are not making progress........

Show me that the debt will go down by $10 a year and I'll vote for the people who make it happen.....But stop the debt clock from climbing.......


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 5, 2013)

Underhill said:


> That's why we have to stop talking about paying off the debt right now.
> 
> It's a waste of time.   There is absolutely no way we can make a dent in the debt.
> 
> ...



 In 2011 the IRS collected less than 2 trillion dollars in income taxes. (the rest was in social security and other taxes - and oh ... the 2+ trillion that was borrowed) Inflation will never take care of the debt it will remain until it is paid off and we have to keep paying the interest every year. You forget that with inflation anything it does to the debt it also does to the rest of the economy and the interest will go up as our credit rating drops. 

In seven to ten years we, as a country, will be bankrupt and there is no way out without paying the debt down and doing so now in a signifigant manner.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 5, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Blame whoever you want, I don't give a rats ass where the debt came from, It is time to fix it...
> Wake up!!!!!!!!!
> And your info is old the debt is 16 trillion not 12......



Thats what I said.



ReallyMeow said:


> *little dated, but still relevant*
> Why the Republican National Debt is $12 Trillion



heres some more
Daily Kos: The national debt? Republicans built that
GOP Debunked: Obama did not create $5 trillion in new debt - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

So, are they just bad at math, or is this something deeper?

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 5, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Blame whoever you want, I don't give a rats ass where the debt came from, It is time to fix it...
> ...



And why then, is the current administration asking for the debt ceiling to be lifted to 20 trillion dollars. I suppose the GOP secretly took the last 3 trillion fromthe last increase and gave it to corporations to get votes.... Yes, virginia, there is sarchasm in this post.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 5, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > That's why we have to stop talking about paying off the debt right now.
> ...



You are confusing debt with deficits.  

I agree we need to get rid of the deficit.   Meaning the current overspending.   

But the 16 Trillion in debt isn't going anywhere.    To pay it off in the next 10 years would mean cutting all spending by 50% or more.   Not going to happen.   Ever. 

Inflation will certainly help with the debt.   Yes we will have the same dollar amount of debt.   And yes we will have to pay the interest.   But every year that debt exist, the 3% of inflation will mean it's that much easier to pay it off.    In 20 years, that debt could easily be worth (in spending power) less than half what it is today.

By then, even if the tax rates stay the same, we should be collection 5-6 Trillion in tax revenue.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 5, 2013)

My point was that if we keep borrowing to cover our spending the debt will be considerably higher and grow much faster than inflation. The spending will rise at least as fast as inflation so we will still have no money to pay the debt - even if we can stop the debt from climbing. 

The fact is that the debt will climb to over 20 trillion in the next four years - the administration is asking for it to be raised to 20 trillion now so it may be over 23 trillion in four years.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 5, 2013)

Because the bush administration left us 1.4t underwater, you cant just turn on prosperity like a light switch. If we want to talk in terms of household economics, the republicans wrecked the car, so not only is there a big bill to repair the damage, but it is also in the shop requiring us to spend money on a rental. Or from a different angle, if you are in the situation where you have drunk your paycheck away, do you pay rent with your credit card or get thrown out on the street?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 5, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Because the bush administration left us 1.4t underwater, you cant just turn on prosperity like a light switch. If we want to talk in terms of household economics, the republicans wrecked the car, so not only is there a big bill to repair the damage, but it is also in the shop requiring us to spend money on a rental. Or from a different angle, if you are in the situation where you have drunk your paycheck away, do you pay rent with your credit card or get thrown out on the street?



Yes, It's all Bush's fault. 4 years later and it's still all bush's fault.

Just STFU and fix it or get the hell out of the way..........

I can't believe it's still bush's fault after 4 years you guys are still selling that BS and the uninformed are still buying it......

Fact is that The current administration is doubling down on Bushs debt and getting a pass for doing so.....


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 5, 2013)

You do realize that the debt has been increasing almost non-stop for a very long time?
It really doesn't matter which party you point to the debt has been raised by both. 
It is now being raised in single digit trillions and before it hits double digit additions we will have a completely broke government. In October of last year it was raise to 16.4 trillion - and now it will be raised to 20 trillion. 
This is like having multiple parents staying drunk for a very long time and always charging their bills to your credit card and never paying even the minimum due - because the feds only pay interest on the loan so the amount of the principal continues to grow and never goes down. 

As for being thrown out on the street that is exactly what will happen when this pyramid collapses. with no money there is no services, no business, no jobs, no food, no infrastructure, nothing.

Rather than facing the problem our politicians just keep borrowing more and inventing more programs to spend it on. In your example the parents are now using the credit card to buy everything to make you happy and still not making payments.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 5, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> *You do realize that the debt has been increasing almost non-stop for a very long time?
> It really doesn't matter which party you point to the debt has been raised by both. *
> It is now being raised in single digit trillions and before it hits double digit additions we will have a completely broke government. In October of last year it was raise to 16.4 trillion - and now it will be raised to 20 trillion.
> This is like having multiple parents staying drunk for a very long time and always charging their bills to your credit card and never paying even the minimum due - because the feds only pay interest on the loan so the amount of the principal continues to grow and never goes down.
> ...


We also realize that during this very long time, whenever there was a Republican president like Reagan and Bush I we were told deficits don't matter, but as soon as a Democrat was elected like Clinton deficits suddenly became generational theft. Once another Republican was elected like Bush II deficits no longer mattered again, at least until the next Democrat like Obama was elected.

CON$ have no credibility when deficits only matter when Democrats are president.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > *You do realize that the debt has been increasing almost non-stop for a very long time?
> ...



*We also realize that during this very long time, whenever there was a Republican president like Reagan and Bush I we were told deficits don't matter*

I've never said that.

Bush spent and borrowed way too much.

Obama is much, much worse than Bush, in those regards.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 5, 2013)

At some point we all must wake up and look and realize that enough is enough and it has to stop...Both sides are guilty of the spending and it will take both sides to fix it.

I don't see anything from any of them where they seriously give a rat's ass.......


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 5, 2013)

You are right on both counts! It will take, at the very least, generations to fix it. and it could all be ruined by one bad apple.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 5, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > Because the bush administration left us 1.4t underwater, you cant just turn on prosperity like a light switch. If we want to talk in terms of household economics, the republicans wrecked the car, so not only is there a big bill to repair the damage, but it is also in the shop requiring us to spend money on a rental. Or from a different angle, if you are in the situation where you have drunk your paycheck away, do you pay rent with your credit card or get thrown out on the street?
> ...



Of course bush still retains responsibility for his actions after 4 years, this will still be bush's fault after 400 years. Maybe the lesson will stick this time? Its only the same exact same toxic recipe that produced the great depression (low taxes on the rich producing an excess of wealth at the top, saturating the investment market making it prone to bubbles and cons; and a lack of regulation on said market, exacerbating said fraud)



> Just STFU and fix it or get the hell out of the way..........








Seems like its the republicans who need to get out of the way
http://republicanjobcreation.com/2012.html


----------



## Underhill (Feb 6, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> My point was that if we keep borrowing to cover our spending the debt will be considerably higher and grow much faster than inflation. The spending will rise at least as fast as inflation so we will still have no money to pay the debt - even if we can stop the debt from climbing.
> 
> The fact is that the debt will climb to over 20 trillion in the next four years - the administration is asking for it to be raised to 20 trillion now so it may be over 23 trillion in four years.



Yep, and until we get out of this recession there isn't much to be done about it.

Every time we cut spending, it means lost jobs, which equates to lost revenue which takes us right back where we started. 

We have to have hiring back to the levels they were pre 2008 to have any hope of balancing things.    Otherwise we could just end up in free fall like Spain.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

But we have been told the recession ended 4 years ago.....

And think about it, for 6 years of Bush things went pretty well, though he spent too much, unemployment was basically around 5%. Then the Democrats took over congress and we dropped straight into the great recession. But they had no part of that, can't blame any of them........

Facts are a real bitch sometimes, and the fact is that under this administration we have had the worst and slowest recovery in history.

So once again, fix it or get out of the way. The deficit must be zero and we have to pay something on the debt, every year...... A good start might even be with having a budget for the first time in 4 years....


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> But we have been told the recession ended 4 years ago.....
> 
> And think about it, for 6 years of Bush things went pretty well, though he spent too much, unemployment was basically around 5%.* Then the Democrats took over congress and we dropped straight into the great recession. But they had no part of that, can't blame any of them........
> 
> ...


Fact is Bush had his veto pen and the GOP senate had their filibuster. There was nothing that the Dems could do without Bush's full and complete approval. If you remember the Dems could not even pass an increase in the minimum wage without giving Bush more tax cuts!! Tax cuts that put us further in debt, but the powerless Bush is not responsible for anything HE did after the Dems were elected, or even before for that matter.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 6, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Are you concerned about never-ending trillion dollar deficits?  If so, what can or should be done about them?



Require the federal government to live within the confines of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.  We bring in PLENTY of tax revenues to fund that.  Anything else is up to states to fund or not.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > But we have been told the recession ended 4 years ago.....
> ...



Actually If you were to pay attention you would find that I have stated many times that both sides are to blame..... But i do get so tired of hearing it's Bush's fault......

Bush spent too much and Obama is trying his best to double down on that......

It is past time to stop the wild ass spending and end all deficits........ And i don't give a shit what party does it......


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


No offense, but saying that things were great for Bush's first 6 years and then the Dems were elected and we fell into a great recession hardly sounds like you are blaming both sides. As I said earlier, it is hard to take the Right's concern about the deficit very seriously since they are only upset about it when the Dems have the presidency. When the GOP have the presidency we are told that "Reagan PROVED that deficits don't matter."

Most of Obama's deficit spending is interest on the GOP National Debt he inherited when he entered office and Bush cary-overs like two wars and their continuing medical costs, the unfunded Medicare Pard D, etc.

You may not like it, unless you want the economy not to recover, but now is not the time to make spending cuts. Once the economy fully recovers it will be time for spending cuts.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I have serious doubts that the path we are on will give us a full recovery...... And in the mean time inflation and the debt get worse and worse. And no one gives a shit.......


----------



## Underhill (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> But we have been told the recession ended 4 years ago.....
> 
> And think about it, for 6 years of Bush things went pretty well, though he spent too much, unemployment was basically around 5%. Then the Democrats took over congress and we dropped straight into the great recession. But they had no part of that, can't blame any of them........
> 
> ...



The facts are both sides have spent us into this mess.   It wasn't just the democrats.   Bush was spending like a blond in a bath and body works before the democrats came along.   

And of course we have the slowest recovery in history.   It's the direct result of the debt.   We can't spend our way out like we have in the last 4 recessions because we can't afford it.  

I am all for having a budget.   I'm just not sure how much good it will do.   It's a bill that lays out spending.   But it means no more than any other spending bill.   They can add to it at will, just as they do in years without a budget.  

I can write up a household budget.   That does not mean I will stick to it.   And the chances of Washington passing a budget and not adding additional spending weekly is essentially zero.  

What is happening is simple.   The debt is catching up with us and it's too late for easy fixes.    If we had stuck with the direction Clinton and the republican congress had us in, we'd be in good shape right now and I suspect the debt would be at least 30-40% lower than it is today...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

Maybe, but we still have to find a way to fix it instead of making it worse....

But some refuse to put party aside and get to the hurt that has to happen..... And the sooner the better off we'll be....


----------



## Blooper (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Or we could raise taxes and spending. Private markets create inequality and, within current conditions, strategic use of the government is a good way to solve that.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

Blooper said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No.....


----------



## Blooper (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Blooper said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Okay leaving it up to the invisible forces of markets - a.k.a. the very visible forces of the rich - is a _way to solve our economic problems_. Because if Austrian pseudo-economists paid by the heritage foundation say it, it's a-okay by me!


----------



## Underhill (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Maybe, but we still have to find a way to fix it instead of making it worse....
> 
> But some refuse to put party aside and get to the hurt that has to happen..... And the sooner the better off we'll be....



I agree for the most part...


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 6, 2013)

The top percent who benefit most from our democratic republic could easily pay down the deficits. That along with a rebuilding of America would reduce the deficit to manageable levels. See the link in my signature for past tax rates. Build here, make here, buy here, seems pretty simple. Do you buy American made? If not go to a mirror and see a deficit cause.  

*"This is when the Republican Party set its trap. Meeting in closed sessions at the beginning of the Obama regime, the party of tax cuts for the rich, unfunded wars, and the largest deficit in the history of the country redefined itself. It suddenly became the party of deficit reduction through lean government joined to supreme confidence in unregulated financial and corporate markets. *It even opposed the bail out of General Motors and Chrysler, though these actions stopped unemployment from reaching a dangerous tipping point, allowed the two companies time to reconstruct themselves, and enabled them to pay back the loans within two years&#8211;-creating one of the most successful bailouts in the history of Euro-American economic life." The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine


*"The GOP dreams of a world in which the very rich arrogate to themselves the vast wealth a capitalist economy produces, an outcome made possible by rules, regulations, and practices they devise; given the force of law thanks to &#8220;representatives&#8221; they usher into office courtesy of a political system they have bought; and sanctified by an activist Supreme Court they have installed. *It&#8217;s a vicious economic-political noose that threatens to tighten the grip on democracy and make it yield to the slightest pressure from its masters. Republicans must rule the country they profit from, even pillage, while the rest are to be marginalized and dismissed, essentially foreigners in their own land. Those who think Romney and the GOP live in the 1950s may need to reset their calendars. They&#8217;re not nearly so modern." Steven Johnston The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Imperium


----------



## Underhill (Feb 6, 2013)

Blooper said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Blooper said:
> ...



I don't deny there is a problem there as well.   And I'm all for either raising the rate or getting rid of loopholes for the wealthy who are paying less, as a percentage, than I am.

But big new spending plans are a bad idea right now.    

If I had my way (and I won't) we need to move our economy away from the military biased approach it's built on now and towards a more equitable manufacturing base.   But that is a long road and damn near impossible to take with all the money behind the MIC.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

Really, we've got 16,000 billionaires we can take a Billion a piece from?


----------



## Underhill (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Really, we've got 16,000 billionaires we can take a Billion a piece from?



I think he means they can pay enough to balance the budget and even pay down the debt a bit.    And he's right.    

But it won't happen so it's pissing into the wind.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 6, 2013)

Underhill said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Really, we've got 16,000 billionaires we can take a Billion a piece from?
> ...



Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion).  You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt.  In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.


----------



## Blooper (Feb 6, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





Actually, what I'm saying is this.

Raise taxes and funding to services - while using more progressive tax brackets. Everyone pays more into the government and everyone gets more out of it. Provided we stop wasteful spending on things like military and traditional fuel subsidies, there's little need for austerity.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 6, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> The top percent who benefit most from our democratic republic could easily pay down the deficits.



Due respect, someone's pants are on fire...

The top 1% of income earners in America collectively have an adjusted gross income of about $1.3 trillion.  Therefore, you'd have to tax them at nearly a 100% rate in order to cover one year's deficit, while making the massively optimistic assumption they'd keep working for nearly no pay.  Hardly easy.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


There are plenty of other wealthy people besides billionaires. The top 1% of wealth have a net worth of over 20 trillion. if you "CONFISCATE" that you could pay off the entire GOP National Debt and still have enough left over to throw one hell of a party.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 6, 2013)

Blooper said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



We already have the most progressive tax structure in the world, meaning our rich pay a higher percentage of the overall tax burden than in any other country.



> Everyone pays more into the government



Not likely.  Raising tax rates often results in less revenue to government.  



> and everyone gets more out of it.



More inefficient, costly, and poor performing government programs?  Pass.  Free people making voluntary choices always produces a superior outcome to central planning.  Always.



> Provided we stop wasteful spending on things like military and traditional fuel subsidies, there's little need for austerity.



Tell you what, you stop that wasteful spending and see what we actually save.  When you've saved about a trillion dollars per year, you might have a point, and THEN we can talk about raising tax rates.  Until then, we have a spending problem...a really big spending problem.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 6, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



So, is that your plan...to confiscate the personal possessions of everyone earning over $343,000?  That ought to go over well, and what a boom to jobs that would be, eh?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


No, my "plan" was just to point out the flaw in your confiscation plan.

And the top 1% of WEALTH are not the wage earners over $343,000 as you well know. Or do you? 

Do you really think that wealth and wages are the same?


----------



## Blooper (Feb 6, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Blooper said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



That's technically true, but misleading. When talking about redistributive taxation(simply, reducing inequality) we're nowhere near the top.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Blooper said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


Again this depends on how you define "rich." The tax structure is only "progressive" on wage earners. It is quite regressive on the wealthy, so much so even MessiahRushie has to admit it.

January 09, 2013
RUSH: * Taxing wages at a higher rate than profits is wealth redistribution.*

August 7, 2007
CALLER:  And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but* the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income,* and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH:  *It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret* if you ever to pull it off.  It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. * You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. * I'm out of time.  I'll explain that. *There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income.  Earned income is what the income tax rate is on.  That's how "the rich" do it.  They don't have "earned" income. *
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH:    I've told you before: *the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! * There is no "wealth" tax.  So this is a big misnomer.  ...  
But* there's no tax on wealth.  There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.*
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 6, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Wasn't my plan.  



> And the top 1% of WEALTH are not the wage earners over $343,000 as you well know. Or do you?



Of course I do.  Made that clear in my posts.  



> Do you really think that wealth and wages are the same?



Of course not.  Again, I made that clear.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 6, 2013)

Blooper said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Blooper said:
> ...



Good gawd, another one that thinks wealth is finite, a pie to be divided up...

Just because a fat man is standing next to a skinny man doesn't mean the fat man took the skinny man's food.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

Face it, you cannot tax enough to handle the deficit let alone start lowering the debt. We have to cut spending. 

The military has already done part of it for you. They gave me a COLA raise this year and then took back double the raise in what my Prescriptions will cost me... Thank you taxpayers..... All you had to do was ask and I'd have given up 10%, as long as all the other federal checks were cut by the same 10%....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2013)

Blooper said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Blooper said:
> ...



Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?


----------



## Blooper (Feb 6, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Blooper said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Cute rhetoric, but practical application makes it largely irrelevant. 

Is it not troubling to you that we're developing a class that controls the well being of another?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 6, 2013)

> Face it, you cannot tax enough to handle the deficit let alone start lowering the debt. We have to cut spending.



No, firing people is the opposite of recovery. Contrary to popular belief, the govt does do things for you:





The problem isnt that we spend too much on the elderly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 7, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> > Face it, you cannot tax enough to handle the deficit let alone start lowering the debt. We have to cut spending.
> 
> 
> 
> No, firing people is the opposite of recovery. Contrary to popular belief, the govt does do things for you:



You're right. Obama needs to hire half the unemployed to dig holes. And the other half to fill them in.

We'll all be rich!!! What could go wrong?


----------



## Blooper (Feb 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > > Face it, you cannot tax enough to handle the deficit let alone start lowering the debt. We have to cut spending.
> ...



I know that was a joke, but it sounds a whole lot like the new deal.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > > Face it, you cannot tax enough to handle the deficit let alone start lowering the debt. We have to cut spending.
> ...



Heres a wacky idea, maybe if instead of hiring people to do busy work, we hired them to do things like cure diseases, solve our energy problems or even maintain our bridges.


----------



## Blooper (Feb 7, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...



It really bugs me when a jobs guarantee program stays out of the public eye. Such a great idea, with very little recognition.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 7, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



We aren't talking about billionaires, but those over $250k.   And we aren't talking about taking all their money clearly.

And I realize that alone isn't enough.    But with moderate and reasonable cuts it could certainly be.

The question I have is this.    What is the alternative?

We can only cut programs so far.   People have needs whether we like it or not.    And cuts mean more unemployment (which accounts for much of the reason the economy hasn't sprung back, as states have been cutting left and right).   

And taxing everyone sounds good.    But half the country don't make enough to hit harder with more taxes.    Even that next 40% will struggle with incomes of 75-150k (who are already paying a higher (affective) rate than those in the top brackets).   

So that leaves us with few options.   Moderate cuts (10% or less) to programs.   And taxing the higher income brackets.    Cutting the military is a popular option too, among some.   But it has many of the same side affects as cutting social programs.


----------



## editec (Feb 7, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Are you concerned about never-ending trillion dollar deficits?  If so, what can or should be done about them?  Given our demographic trends, the current debates about taxes and spending reforms are almost laughably inadequate to address the enormity of our impending liabilities.  In coming years, we may look back at a deficit of only a trillion dollars with nostalgic fondness.
> 
> So what are we to do, if anything?  It seems to me that economic growth (jobs) can only take us so far, and rest will result in a massive (30-50%) reduction in our purchasing power.  Any thoughts?



Jwoodie, do you believe that the government is printing FIAT money?  

If you do then you must also accept the fact that the DEBT is equally worthless.

That's pretty much where I'm at.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 7, 2013)

94% is a perfectly reasonable rate to set the upper level of income to, over say a million dollars, we did it after ww2, we can do it again now.






It doesnt need to pay off the whole debt in one year, taxing the rich more is just the difference between making the minimum payment on a credit card and putting in a little overtime to get the finances in order.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 7, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Billionaires is exactly what we were talking about.  SFC Ollie wrote, rather sarcastically, "Really, we've got 16,000 *billionaires *we can take a Billion a piece from?"

You responded "*they* can pay enough to balance the budget"

Again, no *they *can't, not unless you're talking about confiscation of assets.

Now, if you're talking about the top 1% of income earners, the income figure to get into that percentile is not $250,000 but more like $343,000.  Whatever the figure is, it ain't billionaires, which is what was referenced.



> And I realize that alone isn't enough. But with moderate and reasonable cuts it could certainly be.



I disagree.  Raising tax rates even higher on high income earners (however determined) will not likely result in more tax revenue but less.  Capital for new and smaller businesses, the traditional driver of jobs, is already sitting on the sidelines.  Higher taxes won't help.  We'd see more capital and more jobs go overseas and even less growth here.  

You cannot tax your way out of this kind of spending.  No way.



> The question I have is this. What is the alternative?



Living within our means.  We take in plenty of tax revenue.  Stop spending what we don't have.



> We can only cut programs so far. People have needs whether we like it or not.



Needs they managed in the past without stealing from others.  Just because somebody got on the dole doesn't mean they must remain there.  Besides, we don't have to cut people off today but we can certainly phase out these ridiculous entitlement programs that ultimately do more harm than good.  For example, since 1970, when we started spending heavily on entitlements, the rate of poverty is UP.  We've done more harm than good!

And yes, we can spend less on military by refocusing our boys to protect our borders, our airspace, and international waters.



> And taxing everyone sounds good.



No, it sounds really bad.



> So that leaves us with few options.



Only if you find the current level of entitlement spending anything close to acceptable.  You'll NOT get the revenue from higher income earners and continuing to borrow from the future to support our largess is not only immoral, it will eventually crash the entire system, as every culture in history that has gone down this path experienced.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 7, 2013)

Blooper said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Blooper said:
> ...



Why?  Because you say so?



> Is it not troubling to you that we're developing a class that controls the well being of another?



The only group that can control a "class" of citizens is government.  And yes, that bothers me.  So please, stop supporting the epidemic of nanny state meddlers, central planners, and cronyism in our society.  Rich people are a byproduct of a free and successful society.  They're not the problem to poverty, which is hardly a problem at all in America when you consider our poorest citizens rank in the 84th percentile (if I remember the figure correctly) of world wide wealth.  Our "poor" own more assets than the rich did just a few decades ago.  Nobody is starving here.  Of course, every society will have a few mindless drones walking into walls...they are charity cases, but normal folks in the country do not know true poverty.  I've lived in Africa.  THAT'S true poverty.

Point is, please stop blaming successful people, generally the job creators, for the rate of poverty, however defined, in this country.  Blame the central planners that are just sure government must provide charity.  Blame the nanny staters that are just sure they know what's best for everyone else.  Blame the breakdown of the family and all the men that walk out on their children.  Whatever.  But please, don't blame hard working, successful people.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 7, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Yes, except you missed the post before his.    He wasn't talking specifically about billionaires but the wealthy. 



> Again, no *they *can't, not unless you're talking about confiscation of assets.
> 
> Now, if you're talking about the top 1% of income earners, the income figure to get into that percentile is not $250,000 but more like $343,000.  Whatever the figure is, it ain't billionaires, which is what was referenced.



I'm not talking about specific brackets, more a question of who is paying how much.    Above a certain point (and it varies depending on location, cost of living and the effort put into it by the tax payer) people have more disposable income.     These tend to be the people who negotiate loopholes and pay significantly less.

I mentioned the top 2% because that is the point at which their really is no arguing, they are wealthy.

And yes they can.    This year we are on track to run about a 1 trillion dollar deficit, with the cuts already in place.    If we continue to cut to the tune of about 10% overall (10% of our 4 Trillion in spending being roughly 400 billion) we would be short roughly 600billion.   

The top 10% made 1.7 Trillion in 2010.   At a 36% actual rate, the deficit would be gone (36% of 1.7 Trillion being 612 Billion).  

There is a bit more to it than that but clearly is could be done.   



> I disagree.  Raising tax rates even higher on high income earners (however determined) will not likely result in more tax revenue but less.  Capital for new and smaller businesses, the traditional driver of jobs, is already sitting on the sidelines.  Higher taxes won't help.  We'd see more capital and more jobs go overseas and even less growth here.
> 
> You cannot tax your way out of this kind of spending.  No way.



History disagrees with you.    But I agree that taxes alone aren't the answer.  I never said it was.   Look back at every one of my post and I've said spending needs to be cut too. 



> Living within our means.  We take in plenty of tax revenue.  Stop spending what we don't have.



Sounds good.   That's what everyone says.   I even agree.   But a few issues.

First, look at history.   In the 1970's the top tax rates were vastly higher.   Double what they are today.   In the mid 80's we cut taxes by almost half on the upper class.   (we also lost a lot of revenue from tariffs).   

And we started running up deficits and haven't stopped since.    So the notion that this is entirely a spending problem is shit.   





> Needs they managed in the past without stealing from others.  Just because somebody got on the dole doesn't mean they must remain there.  Besides, we don't have to cut people off today but we can certainly phase out these ridiculous entitlement programs that ultimately do more harm than good.  For example, since 1970, when we started spending heavily on entitlements, the rate of poverty is UP.  We've done more harm than good!



Yep and it has been done.   In NY State (one of the most liberal states in the union) we have tried just that.    We make our people on social services work for the county after 3 months (with the exception of single moms).    It hasn't seemed to help. 

Everyone talks about getting people off the dole, but it isn't nearly as easy as people think.   It cost money to put them to work.   Training, supervision....   every estimate I've seen says the program cost us money and not saved us a dime. 



> Only if you find the current level of entitlement spending anything close to acceptable.  You'll NOT get the revenue from higher income earners and continuing to borrow from the future to support our largess is not only immoral, it will eventually crash the entire system, as every culture in history that has gone down this path experienced.



Which culture would that be?    This is a relatively new model.    This is not communism or socialism.   It's a hybrid.    There are problems, no doubt.   But there is no glaring examples of collapse all over the globe.    

France, and many other European countries, spends vastly more than we do, and yes they are having problems.    But we are no where near their league in social spending.

Where we outspend them by a wide margin is our military spending.    And I would say that is immoral and could crush the entire system.


----------



## Tambellini (Feb 7, 2013)

Underhill said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > The debt is so large that it is impossible to pay off, Right now it is at 16.4 trillion dollars and the ceiling has been, or shortly will be, raised to 20 trillion dollars.
> ...



They have no desire to bring down the debt and that is both sides of the political spectrum.  The govt is too fat with lazy overpaid workers and the military wants their toys.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 7, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



So many false assumptions, untruths, and misunderstandings of history.  You watch what happens to tax revenues from wealthier citizens in the months ahead.  Just like they're experiencing California, France and the UK where revenues are down following tax rate hikes, so shall we see across the nation.  And you want to raise rates even higher?  No way that will result in anything but even less growth, fewer jobs, and less tax revenue.  

And every culture, hybrid or not, that has spent beyond any reasonable measure, spread itself thin militarily and devalued it's currency, just like we're doing, ended up failing, usually following hyperinflation and war.  Whatever the specifics, they ALL failed.  Of course, nobody thinks it will happen to them, until it does.

Obviously, we are on different planets when it comes to spending, taxes and government meddling.  What you advocate I find offensive and immoral.  I suspect you feel the same.

But, don't take my word for it.  If you care to expand your worldview of these topics, I'd recommend the following:

The Road to Serfdom - Hayek.  History about where we're headed...  
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Serfdom-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0226320618]The Road to Serfdom: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition: F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman: 9780226320618: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


The End of Prosperity - Laffer.  History of tax rates and revenue...
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/End-Prosperity-Higher-Economy--If-Happen/dp/B0064XGGVE/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360257407&sr=1-3&keywords=art+laffer]The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen: Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, Peter Tanous: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


No They Can't - Stossel.  Great overview for beginners as to why free people making voluntary choices always gives superior results to central planing...
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/They-Cant-Government-Fails-But-Individuals/dp/1451640943/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360257532&sr=1-1&keywords=john+stossel+no+they+can%27t]No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed: John Stossel: 9781451640946: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Good to chat with you.  Best of luck.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 7, 2013)

You realize I could post the same types of books taking the opposite tact?

It's clear we aren't going to agree.    The funny part is, the only thing I suggested if you actually read my post, is that the rich pay slightly more than the middle classes and that we cut spending as a solution. 

And you find that immoral?   

Odd.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 7, 2013)

Underhill said:


> You realize I could post the same types of books taking the opposite tact?



Yes, and I have read those books...or similar ones.  I've studied all sides of these issues with an open mind.  I was simply hoping you might consider the same.



> It's clear we aren't going to agree.



Not at this point, no.



> The funny part is, the only thing I suggested if you actually read my post, is that the rich pay slightly more than the middle classes



They already pay lots more.  Again, we have the most progressive tax structure in the world.  My point is attempting to extract even more will not get us more revenue and will harm the economy thereby hurting the very people you're defending.



> and that we cut spending as a solution.



There we agree.  Please, show me someone, anyone, that is supporting an actual cut in spending...not just a slight decrease in the proposed rate of increased spending.

Personally, I like the Mack Penny plan.  Worth a look:

Penny Plan



> And you find that immoral?



I find the very idea of taxing a man's labor to be immoral.  I find the notion of spending trillions on entitlements over decades, only to have the rate of poverty increase, to be immoral.  I believe burdening those yet to be born with the debt from our largess to be immoral.  I find the very idea of central planning, and those that are just sure they know what's best for everyone else, to be immoral.   

The key, IMO, to avoiding all this immorality can be summed up in one word:  voluntary.  You want to help poor people?  That's great.  Just don't steal from others.  No matter the cause or how well intentioned the legislation, theft is wrong.  Free people making voluntary choices.  That's what we should be shooting for whenever and wherever possible.

Anyway, thanks for the chat.  All the best.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 7, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > You realize I could post the same types of books taking the opposite tact?
> ...



I think there was a time when we lived with voluntary charity and no central government control.    It was called the dark ages.   

I think voluntary giving would mean people dying.    Something I find immoral.   

Our government system is imperfect, no question.   And nobody likes taxes.   But the idea that taxes are immoral...   far fetched.    And that is being generous.   Our government is of the people for the people and by the people.   That means if it is imperfect, if it needs changing, then we have that power.   

But it can, and has done a lot of good.   You talk about social programs as a burden, and they are.    But as someone who has used them in times of need I see them as what they are.   A helping hand.    Some abuse that generosity.   And I am all for trying to fix that.    But dismissing a system that has helped tens of millions of people legitimately in need because you don't like paying your taxes.... that seems immoral to me.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 7, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Exaggeration.  Nobody is calling for "no" central government, just one that lives within the confines of the enumerated powers.  And yes, we lived that way for generations, a time during which more poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in human history.  Then the central planners came along, just sure they knew what was best.  They did not.



> I think voluntary giving would mean people dying.    Something I find immoral.



That was not the case in America before the entitlement programs, not compared to other advanced countries.  That said, we get you're attempting to justify theft.  Reminds me of the old saying about liberals...ideas so good they have to be mandatory...



> Our government system is imperfect, no question.   And nobody likes taxes.   But the idea that taxes are immoral...   far fetched.



Ever wonder why the Constitution specifically outlawed an income tax?  Not so far fetched.



> And that is being generous.   Our government is of the people for the people and by the people.   That means if it is imperfect, if it needs changing, then we have that power.



Then feel free to amend the Constitution.  Good luck.



> But it can, and has done a lot of good.   You talk about social programs as a burden, and they are.    But as someone who has used them in times of need I see them as what they are.   A helping hand.    Some abuse that generosity.   And I am all for trying to fix that.    But dismissing a system that has helped tens of millions of people legitimately in need because you don't like paying your taxes.... that seems immoral to me



Ah, but people have NOT been helped, your anecdotal example aside.  As I stated previously, the rate of poverty has INCREASED under these entitlement programs.  You've made the problem worse.  Again, immoral, especially when you did so by taking other people's money.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 7, 2013)

Wow.   

So a few questions.   

First.   Which generations lived without social programs and thrived?

Second.   So you think social programs are theft?    Seriously?

Third.   The constitution does not outlaw income tax.   Ever hear of the 16th Amendment.. you know, 1913?

Fourth.   What are you talking about?    

And fifth.   You are wrong.   It's that simple.   Anecdotal or not, I was helped.    There are a great many things that affect poverty.    And blaming it completely on social programs is dishonest as is claiming these programs have not helped people.    Millions of people will tell you otherwise.  

As for your claim that I was taking other peoples money, yes I was.    My fathers money.   My grandfathers money.   The generations of people who paid taxes long before them.     They built this country and it's social programs.    And if you don't like them,  try to change them.    But don't try to equate my taking assistance in a time of need as stealing.   It is no more stealing than someone collecting on an insurance policy.  

That is where you have this all backwards.    Social programs are not stealing from anyone.   They are a national insurance plan.   Everyone pays in and hopes they never use it.   Stingy bastards never want to pay for their insurance.    But they sure as hell are glad it's there when they need it.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 7, 2013)

eflatminor, 

You say you like reading.   Here is a paper for you, researched and written by Lane Kenworthy  Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Arizona.

http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 7, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Wow.
> 
> So a few questions.
> 
> First.   Which generations lived without social programs and thrived?



Pretty much from colonial days up until the start of the so called 'great society', a MASSIVE failure.  



> Second.   So you think social programs are theft?    Seriously?



No, but confiscating the money to fund those programs?  Theft.  You know, we used to have a term for when when a minority of citizens were forced to labor on behalf of others they don't even know.  A practice I'm just sure we outlawed...



> Third.   The constitution does not outlaw income tax.   Ever hear of the 16th Amendment.. you know, 1913?



Exactly, the original Constitution embodied the idea that taxing a man's labor is immoral, which you called "far fetched".  It took a central planner and his sheeple to change that in 1913.  Doesn't make it less immoral.



> Fourth.   What are you talking about?
> 
> And fifth.   You are wrong.   It's that simple.   Anecdotal or not, I was helped.    There are a great many things that affect poverty.    And blaming it completely on social programs is dishonest as is claiming these programs have not helped people.    Millions of people will tell you otherwise.



OF COURSE, the recipients appreciated the handouts.  Who wouldn't?  The problem is that when you look at overall trend of poverty, there is no escaping the fact that the rate of poverty, which was heading down before the entitlement spending took off (late sixties), has INCREASED since then.  Trillions of dollars spent over decades and the problem is worse. 



> As for your claim that I was taking other peoples money, yes I was.    My fathers money.   My grandfathers money.   The generations of people who paid taxes long before them.     They built this country and it's social programs.    And if you don't like them,  try to change them.    But don't try to equate my taking assistance in a time of need as stealing.



But it was.



> It is no more stealing than someone collecting on an insurance policy.



Yes, thanks for making my point.  Insurance is purchased on a VOLUNTARY basis.  Not so the money taken for entitlement redistribution.



> That is where you have this all backwards.    Social programs are not stealing from anyone.



Yes, they are.



> They are a national insurance plan.



Then it would conducted on a voluntary basis.  Government forcing money from some citizens with the threat of incarceration is not an insurance plan.  It's theft.



> Stingy bastards never want to pay for their insurance.



Then they shouldn't be able to collect it when a loss occurs, which is exactly how actual insurance works.  Not the case with forced redistribution.

We could do this all day.  When you're ready to reconsider your collectivist worldview, you may begin to see the flaws and immorality in central planning.  Again, I've recommended reading material that I hope you will consider.

All the best.


----------



## Tambellini (Feb 7, 2013)

First. Which generations lived without social programs and thrived? *None and cocial security and medicare are good. Medicaid is so abused and they need to pay a small co-pay for medical services to cut down on abuse*

Second. So you think social programs are theft? Seriously? *There are a considerable amount of social programs which are way out of line and produce negative or no results, definitely some can be cut, especially free cell phones, food stamp programs in some states need to be reigned in a little also*

Third. The constitution does not outlaw income tax. Ever hear of the 16th Amendment.. you know, 1913? *I agree with an income tax, but I would like to see them bring back tariffs and use the revenue to subsidze US manufacturing. Also, I think they need to add a 1 percent sales tax on everything to help bring down the deficit, that way everyone pays something*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 7, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



*Even that next 40% will struggle with incomes of 75-150k (who are already paying a higher (affective) rate than those in the top brackets). *

People making 75-150K don't pay a higher effective rate than those in the top bracket.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 7, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor,
> 
> You say you like reading.   Here is a paper for you, researched and written by Lane Kenworthy  Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Arizona.
> 
> http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf



I've read it.  Two problems with the study.  First, it was conducted in 1998, pretty much the peak of an extraordinary economic boom, so of course poverty rates were declining around that time.  However, when you compare poverty rates over the entire period of major spending on entitlements (1970 until today), poverty rates are up, at least in America.

Secondly, the study fails to account for assistance to those in poverty in the absence of government enforced programs.  All the study does is to look at poverty across several countries and proclaim that because there is generally less poverty around the world today compared to decades past, it must be the government programs that made it so.  I say nonsense.  The study does not, nor could it, account for what might have been accomplished with voluntary charitable contributions in lieu of forced redistribution.  I can cite examples of where the charitable nature of humans did more for those in need than any forced program could of...the Texas seed drought under Grover Cleveland for one.  In addition, the study fails to account for the downward pressure on poverty rates brought about by innovation, technology, and the continuing division of labor, all of which help to keep poverty low.  

In other words, the entitlement programs did not help with poverty, which was headed down before we started the spending.  Once we started spending, poverty rates stopped heading down leveled off and in the case of America, they increased.  That's hardly reason for celebration, especially considering the trillions spent in the effort....money taking involuntarily from the most productive citizens.

Thanks for reminding me of the study, but it's far from convincing.


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Feb 7, 2013)

When did this become a thread on how best to cut down the deficit to a thread about protesting income taxes?


----------



## Blooper (Feb 7, 2013)

Wonky Pundit said:


> When did this become a thread on how best to cut down the deficit to a thread about protesting income taxes?



Post #103 started talk about taxes, and it just snowballed from there.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 7, 2013)

Tambellini said:


> First. Which generations lived without social programs and thrived? *None and cocial security and medicare are good. Medicaid is so abused and they need to pay a small co-pay for medical services to cut down on abuse*



see this is what the conservative media does, it leaves gaps in your knowledge and lets you fill those gaps in with bad info. its not people ON medicare that are committing fraud, its drs, hospitals or organizations that do business with them that will concoct elaborate excuses to bill medicare/medicaid for things their patients dont need, providers didnt ask for, or were never provided.




Tambellini said:


> Second. So you think social programs are theft? Seriously? *There are a considerable amount of social programs which are way out of line and produce negative or no results, definitely some can be cut, especially free cell phones, food stamp programs in some states need to be reigned in a little also*



Im sorry, I thought I was here for a debate, not for a litany of assertions. The free cell phone thing is not paid for by tax dollars, phone use has a surcharge for this program. so its basically a marketing gimmick, the cell phone companies get to give cell phones to people who will genuinely appreciate having one, who are VERY likely to show that appreciation by being a loyal, paying customer when that cellphone is the ONE THING that enabled them to get a job. how are you going to land a job without a contact number? the govts only role in that is saying "yup, dudes broke as a joke".



> No, but confiscating the money to fund those programs? Theft. You know, we used to have a term for when when a minority of citizens were forced to labor on behalf of others they don't even know. A practice I'm just sure we outlawed...


No, you taking those services without paying for them is theft.

http://i.imgur.com/Mpaco.png

Its a confused sense of entitlement, the foundation of the progressive income tax is that low taxes on the working poor lets them get ahead, to become middle class and even wealthy. Many people start off like this and cant wrap their head around the fact that they dont get to be cheapskates forever. The first nibble of income is taxed just the same as it was when they were starting out, thats fair, but now they want all of their income to be taxed like they're poor? No.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 8, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.
> ...



We live in a representative democracy.

We the people chose these programs through the people we elected.   The majority wants them.   You don't like them, you can move or try to change things.   

As for your claim that we had a panacea before the first social programs started, you obviously aren't reading any history books.    There are reasons why every one of those programs were started.    And as the research paper I posted shows, they worked.    

Trying to make a point based around revisionist history will get you no where.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 8, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral.  I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history. 



> As for your claim that we had a panacea before the first social programs started, you obviously aren't reading any history books.



You're not supposed to lie in the clean zone.  I never said it was a panacea, I stated the rate of poverty was headed down, a trend that ceased once we started spending heavily on entitlements.  Big difference.



> There are reasons why every one of those programs were started.



Yes, recipients want to receive...we get that.



> And as the research paper I posted shows, they worked.



That research paper showed no such thing.  Highly flawed and incomplete work, as I and many others have pointed out.  Heck, even that studied acknowledged that entitlements in America have not done the job of lowering the rate of poverty.  It only calls for even more European style nanny statism without considering any aspect of voluntary assistance.  

Pass.



> Trying to make a point based around revisionist history will get you no where.



Of course, I've revised nothing.  Only stated the facts.  I get you don't like what those facts demonstrate...so let's just ignore them.  You're not the first to try that tact.


----------



## jwoodie (Feb 8, 2013)

*Since "sequestration" is in the law, I say let's enforce it!*


----------



## Underhill (Feb 8, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Most of what we think of today as welfare came about in the 60's in most of the civilized world...

Poverty in the US in 1960.   21%.   Poverty in the US in 1991.  11.7% 

Poverty in France in 1960.   36.1%   Poverty in France in 1991.  9.8%

Poverty in the UK in 1960.  16.8%  Poverty in the UK in 1991.  8.7%

Poverty in Germany in 1960.  15.2%    Poverty in Germany in 1991.  4.3%

The definition of poverty being anyone under 40% of US median household income.   

I think it's fairly clear it has worked.   But I'm sure you'll wriggle your way out.   You seem skilled at twisting things.


----------



## Tambellini (Feb 8, 2013)

US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 8, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



More accurately, what we think of welfare today started in the mid sixties.  HOWEVER, there was next to nothing spent in the way of funding on those programs during the 60s.  It was a pittance at best.  Tiny, tiny, tiny!

We didn't really begin spending on welfare in any significant amount until around 1970.  Even since, the spending has increased exponentially.

So, while poverty was about 21% in 1960, what you've failed to grasp is that it was MUCH higher in 1950 and even higher in 1940, higher still in 1930, etc.  The point being that the rate of poverty was headed down, BIG TIME, prior to any entitlement spending.

Then, when entitlement spending really took off around 1970, that downward trend in poverty STOPPED heading down and leveled off.  No matter how you try to slice and dice the numbers, the rate of poverty has INCREASED during the period in which we spent significantly on entitlements (1970 - today).  By our own government's figures, the rate of poverty is up over 2% since 1969/1970.  

Trillions spent over decades and the problem is worse.  That's a massive failure of central planning.  The truth sometimes hurts.  Deal with it.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 8, 2013)

Tambellini said:


> US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991



Correct.  It would appear the more we spend on entitlements, the worse the rate of poverty gets.  Unfortunately, for some, it's not about actual results but about what _feels _right.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 8, 2013)

Tambellini said:


> US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991



No they really haven't.   About the only thing that has changed is some additional medicare drug benefits Bush put in place.    

And comparing the poverty rate during a recession isn't exactly reasonable.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 8, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Tambellini said:
> 
> 
> > US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991
> ...



Wow, brilliant.  

Except you have that backward.   The recession means more poverty, which means more spent on entitlements.    It's absurd to blame the recession on entitlements.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 8, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral. I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history.



Maybe you should try to spell out what you think is "immoral" about helping your countrymen. Then move to some country where you arnt subjected to this tyranny.

Fraud on wallstreet caused the crash, not people being given the medical help they need or offering them the opportunity to pay for a home.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 9, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Tambellini said:
> ...



Answer us this:  If more entitlement spending means a lower rate of poverty, how is that the rate of poverty is higher today than when we began spending on entitlements around 1970?

You keep ducking the obvious:
1) The poverty rate was headed down before the entitlement spending
2) Once we started entitlement spending, the downward trend ceased and leveled off
3) Since spending TRILLIONS over the last 43 years, the rate of poverty is up, over 2%.

How do you square that with your claim that I "have it backward"?


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 9, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral. I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history.
> ...



Forcing charity with the threat of incarceration is immoral, no matter how just you think the cause.  For example, if I rob you of your wallet, but give your money to a homeless guy, I've still stolen from you.  Theft is immoral.



> Then move to some country where you arnt subjected to this tyranny.



I could say the same thing to you.  But then, I try not to make ridiculous over-the-top statements that in no way contribute to the conversation at hand.

Good luck with that.



> Fraud on wallstreet caused the crash,



Yes, cronyism on Wall Street, which requires politicians willing to meddling in markets and to pass laws that benefit their big businesses, caused an economic slump.  No doubt.  So, do you vote for those same politicians or the few that stand against central planning?  

Remind us, Wall Street is in Chuck Schumer's (D) district, isn't it? 



> not people being given the medical help they need or offering them the opportunity to pay for a home.



Again, you're free to start a charity for those that need medical help.  If you're actually saying people have a right to own a home (!), then by all means, start a charity for that too.  

Otherwise, you're epitomizing the old saying about progressive policy:  Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.   

Pass...


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 10, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> If more entitlement spending means a lower rate of poverty, how is that the rate of poverty is higher today than when we began spending on entitlements around 1970?


Why should we ignore the great depression? No cherry picking.



> The poverty rate was headed down before the entitlement spending





> Since spending TRILLIONS over the last 43 years, the rate of poverty is up, over 2%.
> How do you square that with your claim that I "have it backward"?


This is as absurd as declaring that because you get wet when it rains, you getting wet will cause it to rain. Or that fire extinguishers caused your belongings to become singed. Republicans crashed the economy and the boomers are retiring for no longer being able to work, despite being robbed of their retirements; in response to this, "entitlements" have shot up.



> Once we started entitlement spending, the downward trend ceased and leveled off


 Again, new deal, look it up. The prosperity you are referring to is largely on account of the rest of the industrialized world was reduced to rubble after ww2. Keep in mind that we were able to save the world and ourselves with it with big govt spending and a 94% tax rate to back it (on the equivalent of a million dollars), let that roll around in your mouth a little before you start on about how 35% is too high.




eflatminor said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


You have a choice; live in a country where people are obligated to help eachother, or live in one where you arnt. You may think that you were born in a log cabin you made with your own two hands, but you're simply taking everything your country does for you for granted.

"ask not what your country can do for you &#8211; ask what you can do for your country." -JFK




> > Fraud on wallstreet caused the crash
> 
> 
> Yes, cronyism on Wall Street, which requires politicians willing to meddling in markets and to pass laws that benefit their big businesses, caused an economic slump.  No doubt.  So, do you vote for those same politicians or the few that stand against central planning?


No, outright fraud. all that politicians had to do was roll back regulation and human nature took over. You going to keep stepping on the same rake or learn to watch where you step; some things need regulation.




> Remind us, Wall Street is in Chuck Schumer's (D) district, isn't it?


Oh boy, here comes a conspiracy theory.




> > not people being given the medical help they need or offering them the opportunity to pay for a home.
> 
> 
> Again, you're free to start a charity for those that need medical help.


Im not sure why you hate Americans so much that you want to watch them die in front of hospitals for lack of medical care: get help.



> If you're actually saying people have a right to own a home (!), then by all means, start a charity for that too.
> Otherwise, you're epitomizing the old saying about progressive policy:  Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
> Pass...


The housing market crash was not caused by homes being "given out". The only thing remotely similar to that is that bush started a program where the govt would cover part of the down payment or closing costs.

Here is how the market crashed:
The Subprime Mortgage Primer


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 10, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > If more entitlement spending means a lower rate of poverty, how is that the rate of poverty is higher today than when we began spending on entitlements around 1970?
> ...



You keep harping on about the new deal while IGNORING the period of heavy entitlement spending (1970-today), during which poverty has increased.  But hey, you want to go back to the level of entitlement spending in the 1930s?  Deal!

And when you talk about "obligations", you're really taking about force; the involuntary confiscation of wealth from working people.  We used to have a term for when government forced some people to labor on the behalf of others.  But hey, if it's for a good cause, what's a little theft between friends, eh?

I also love just how badly you've misinterpreted JFK's quote.  Only a true nanny stater would think he was referring to involuntary confiscation.  Hint:  He was not.  He was talking about VOLUNTARY actions for the good of one's country.  Exactly the opposite of what the central planners brought us with the so called 'great society'...forced charity with ever worsening results to the rate of poverty.  Bravo... 

Your other comments are so biased and lacking of historical evidence they're laughable.  

Collectivism is evil.  Theft is immoral.  You do NOT know what's best for everyone else and history proves you're doing more harm than good.  

But again, if it _feels _right...


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 11, 2013)

So you're saying that  you're a parasite, a feral animal, if you were to succeed in procreating, you would certainly abandon your wife and child. I get it, no need to drive the point home, you have made your lack of character quite clear. You are not morally superior for being a freeloading, irresponsible deadbeat. The govt does things for you, those things cost money, which you are obligated to assist in covering the burden for. You get to live in the land of opportunity, opportunity is not the default state of the world, it is provided through meticulous govt intervention.












What you are ignoring in the decay of America over the last few decades is the rights systematic efforts to destroy the middle class. Lower taxes on the rich paid for with tax and fee hikes on the working class/"everyone" is class warfare. The restrictions put on peoples ability unionize is class warfare. The outright fraud we saw in the housing crash where the working class had their retirements outright stolen is class warfare. The discrepancy in treatment received by those with money and those without is class warfare. edit, lets not forget about the postal service under siege by congresses insane demands that the retirement funding must be met for the next 75 years. or how the cost of education is ten times higher than it was in the 50's with inflation accounted for.

Survival is predicated upon acting as a group, thats why we even have nations, because all of the places that are just alot of people who happen to live together but with no obligation to each other get conquered. The age of nations is not over.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 11, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



I just gave the numbers.   Your claim isn't accurate.    Even using the latest numbers of 15.1% the rate is lower than it was in 1960.   Using 1970 as a start date is inaccurate as the programs passed congress in 1965.   

1960 Poverty Rate - 21%

1991 Poverty Rate - 11.7%

And 2012, even in the midst of the worst recession in recent history it is still 15.1%.

From 1960-1968 we increased spending on social services by 3000%.  30X.   

So I have no doubt your numbers from 1970 - present show it leveling off.   That was after the programs started.


----------



## editec (Feb 11, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Are you concerned about never-ending trillion dollar deficits?  If so, what can or should be done about them?  Given our demographic trends, the current debates about taxes and spending reforms are almost laughably inadequate to address the enormity of our impending liabilities.  In coming years, we may look back at a deficit of only a trillion dollars with nostalgic fondness.
> 
> So what are we to do, if anything?  It seems to me that economic growth (jobs) can only take us so far, and rest will result in a massive (30-50%) reduction in our purchasing power.  Any thoughts?



Yes I have a radical POV about the national debt.

These DEBTS are AS FAKE AS THE MONEY that the DEBT that is counted in.

Either the Banksters will be forced to take enormous haircuts, or their AUSTERITY plans are going to force people to topple their governments all over the world.

Social disintegration is coming to a nation near you, kiddies.  

Be prepared for things to fall apart rather quickly when this entirely CONTRIVED DEBT situation reaches its tipping point.

What that tipping point will be, I cannot say,  but the first symptom of it will manifest in the TOO BIG TO FAIL banks, first.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 11, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Of course, the MOST dis-ingeniousness way possible to look at it would be to take a starting year BEFORE we began entitlement spending, say 1960, and an ending year during a recession, say 1991.  Wow, how transparently dishonest.  You get to live with than kind of deception.  Good luck with that.

But fine, let's take 1964/5 as the starting point, when the first 'great society' laws were passed (however minuscule the funding).  You still can't show anything but a leveling off of the poverty rate DESPITE the trillions spent.  You still can't deny that poverty rates where headed down in the prior decades.  All you have is that continued decline from 1965 until 1969, before the rates leveled off as entitlement spending skyrocketed.  And you call that a victory?  Pathetic!

By your logic, we should go back to the level of entitlement spending the produced the halcyon days of 1965 to 1970.  Deal!

Look, the bottom line is you cannot seem to grasp that there might be an alternative to forced charity through government central planning.  Why is it so impossible for you to think that real charity would have seen to the needs of the truly needy, without making them depending on the dole?


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 11, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> So you're saying that  you're a parasite, a feral animal...


----------



## Underhill (Feb 11, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Of course, the MOST dis-ingeniousness way possible to look at it would be to take a starting year BEFORE we began entitlement spending, say 1960, and an ending year during a recession, say 1991.  Wow, how transparently dishonest.  You get to live with than kind of deception.  Good luck with that.



So better to start after the entitlements started and use the depths of recession as your control?    



> But fine, let's take 1964/5 as the starting point, when the first 'great society' laws were passed (however minuscule the funding).  You still can't show anything but a leveling off of the poverty rate DESPITE the trillions spent.  You still can't deny that poverty rates where headed down in the prior decades.  All you have is that continued decline from 1965 until 1969, before the rates leveled off as entitlement spending skyrocketed.  And you call that a victory?  Pathetic!



Entitlements did not start in 1965.   That is simply when the largest changes took place.    But the social security act was in 1935.   Unemployment compensation and the AFDC also started around the same time.  But they certainly had an impact as time went on and their funding increased.   

So it makes perfect sense that poverty was on the decline from 1935-1960.   



> By your logic, we should go back to the level of entitlement spending the produced the halcyon days of 1965 to 1970.  Deal!



We have other issues that have caused things to stagnate.   The fall of manufacturing and the rise of the service economy in this country being top of my list.   But it would have to be a long list.

It's foolish to take one fact and try to blame the entirety of our countries issues on that one thing.  



> Look, the bottom line is you cannot seem to grasp that there might be an alternative to forced charity through government central planning.



Of course there are alternatives.   They just do a lousy job of it.   They are always underfunded.   The intent is good, but when giving is optional, many, if not most, opt out.  



> Why is it so impossible for you to think that real charity would have seen to the needs of the truly needy, without making them depending on the dole?



Who on earth thinks any different?    Do you honestly believe that I think we should create a society of welfare dependent people?    Do you think anyone does?    That's complete nonsense.

But you made a fraudulent claim.   I have shown it as such. 

This revisionist history you seem intent on spouting is garbage. 

If you don't want to pay for social services there are plenty of places around the globe which can accommodate you.    I would suggest visiting before you move to one of them.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 11, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the MOST dis-ingeniousness way possible to look at it would be to take a starting year BEFORE we began entitlement spending, say 1960, and an ending year during a recession, say 1991.  Wow, how transparently dishonest.  You get to live with than kind of deception.  Good luck with that.
> ...



*If you want to live in a country that supports theft and economic slavery, feel free to move.  See how silly that was?*

*Ah well, maybe if take another 50 years an spend even more trillions of dollars, we can begin to see the decrease in poverty rates we saw before the so called 'great society'.  Maybe not.*


----------



## Underhill (Feb 11, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> *Nope, just looking at the long term trend.  Before any significant entitlement spending, poverty was headed down.  As the spending took off, no more downward trend, and in fact, poverty increased.  Slice and dice all you like, that's a fact.*



Except that isn't true.   And I showed how it isn't true.   



> *Great, let's go back that level of entitlement spending.*



Brilliant idea. 



> *So, your central planners screwed with manufacturing in America, so now those same guys should be given the right to redistribute wealth?  Pass.  *



Um, no.   It was the relaxing of trade barriers that sent manufacturing overseas.    You know, deregulation. 



> *Becasue you say so?  *



No, because I have shown my evidence.   You have failed to do so.   



> *If you want to live in a country that supports theft and economic slavery, feel free to move.  See how silly that was?*



I'm not the one complaining.   I like our social programs in this country.   They could certainly use some tweaking, but by and large, they work.  



> *Ah well, maybe if take another 50 years an spend even more trillions of dollars, we can begin to see the decrease in poverty rates we saw before the so called 'great society'.  Maybe not.*



The decrease to 21% from 15.1%?     You really need to work on your math skills.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 11, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > *Nope, just looking at the long term trend.  Before any significant entitlement spending, poverty was headed down.  As the spending took off, no more downward trend, and in fact, poverty increased.  Slice and dice all you like, that's a fact.*
> ...



You go with that.  Rational people can see the long term decline in poverty before the so called great society and the increase in poverty afterwards.  

But hey, maybe just a few more trillion will fix it...


----------



## Underhill (Feb 11, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> You go with that.  Rational people can see the long term decline in poverty before the so called great society and the increase in poverty afterwards.
> 
> But hey, maybe just a few more trillion will fix it...



1935 we enact social security, AFDC and unemployment.   We see decreases in poverty starting marginally and increasing over time until 1965 when we dramatically increase spending.   

The rate drops another 5% in 5 years.    

Since then our manufacturing sector has tanked, our work force has almost doubled (with 90% of women in the workplace), and wages have been stagnant.  

But poverty has hovered around 11% (+/-4% variations for recessions and boom cycles).

You have claimed that social services hurt our poverty rate.   You were wrong.    

It's that simple. 

You could make the argument that they haven't been cost effective.   You might even have a point.    But you were wrong to claim it made the situation worse.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 11, 2013)

Underhill said:


> You could make the argument that they haven't been cost effective.



History's biggest understatement.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 12, 2013)

So the argument goes, because nothing is perfect all effort is futile, its the thinking of the sheltered and the lazy.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 12, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> So the argument goes, because nothing is perfect all effort is futile, its the thinking of the sheltered and the lazy.



Agreed.

And, like anything, there is only so much you can do.    The law of diminishing returns takes hold.  

This is true of all spending.   The military and education are other big examples.  Just throwing more money at them isn't the solution beyond a certain point.

The big question has always been, where is that sweet spot?   Is 10% poverty acceptable?   Or a 20% high school drop out rate?   Do we need our military in a position to take on Korea?   Or China?   Or all comers?    

It would be nice to see a cost benefit analysis of all of these programs.   Difficult perhaps, but these programs have all been around long enough, at different funding levels...    It should be possible.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 12, 2013)

education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 12, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.



Actually I think in some ways education is easier to quantify.   We can see the results of any change in scores. (on the macro level anyway).   

But you are right.    There are fundamentals that are beyond question.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 12, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> So the argument goes, because nothing is perfect all effort is futile, its the thinking of the sheltered and the lazy.



Nope.  All effort is not futile.  What is futile is the lingering hope that central planners will produce superior results to free people making voluntary choices in free markets.  It's the thinking of the arrogant and the envious.    

When you spend trillions over decades and can't show appreciable improvement, that's not an imperfect effort, it's a unmitigated disaster.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 12, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.



Or, we could end the government monopoly on affordable education and let the people choose which schools and teachers suit their needs.  

Once again, central planners that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else...


----------



## Underhill (Feb 12, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.
> ...



Ahh yes.   But you are forgetting one important detail.

They do know better than most people.    Not everyone, but the majority of people have no clue.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 12, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...



Spoken with the arrogance of a true central planner.  Thank you for proving my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.  

Personally, I believe individuals have an inalienable right to choose for themselves, to do what they believe is best for themselves and their families.  It's what we used to call freedom.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 13, 2013)

A free market isnt the default state of the word, it is produced with meticulous govt oversight. You arnt fee to lie, you arnt free to coerce, you arnt free to hold a monopoly.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 13, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



I think arrogance is claiming that the average American with no educational background knows better than those who's life long goal has been the education of our children.  

So what is the downside?   Do you think someone out there is scheming to undereducate your kids?   Do you think think anyone involved in education, from the top on down to the teachers, wants kids to fail?  

The problem with education is not the schools.   It's the parents.   We've become a country that believes, thanks primarily to the media, that those who are successful got there by luck.    That a hundred dollars of lottery tickets is a retirement plan.

And these are the people you think should be in charge of education.


----------



## editec (Feb 13, 2013)

> We've become a country that believes, thanks primarily to the media, that those who are successful got there by luck



I went to school with the scions of America.

Let me tell ya, not one of them was wealthy because their own hard work or brilliance.

I'd call their happy state of affairs "luck".  


Now that is NOT to say that every wealthy person just got lucky.

But to deny the fact that FATE plays a role in one's life is overstating things a bit, doncha think?


----------



## Underhill (Feb 13, 2013)

editec said:


> > We've become a country that believes, thanks primarily to the media, that those who are successful got there by luck
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say that is true more of the rich than the successful.   And it's an important distinction.   Success implies hard work.   Those born rich, or who fall into their positions thanks to family connections are not successful, simply lucky. 

And there are a lot of people who are successful in life and who worked hard to get there.   Of course my definition of success doesn't entirely line up with the medias.    I would call success having enough money to live comfortably without undue stress while enjoying life and the relationships you have with those around you. 

But either way, a society who focuses on the lucky and not the successful, will not prosper.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 13, 2013)

Underhill said:


> So what is the downside?



The current state of affordable education in this country. 

Skyrocketing costs, lousy results and a shameful drop out rate among minorities.  Without competition and consumer choice, that's what we get.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 13, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> A free market isnt the default state of the word, it is produced with meticulous govt oversight.



I would agree with you, but you're wrong.  It has to do with the division of labor and voluntary choice.



> You arnt fee to lie, you arnt free to coerce, you arnt free to hold a monopoly.



I suggest you have much to learn about economics.  For your consideration:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/1469971917/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1360769047&sr=8-6&keywords=ludwig+von+mises]Liberalism: Ludwig von Mises: 9781469971919: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0048EJXCK/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0226320618&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0PAQC6NASSBXWKCRWB2X]The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2): F. A. Hayek, Bruce Caldwell: Amazon.com: Kindle Store[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Milton-Friedman-Influence-Free-Market-Economist/dp/0857190369/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360769198&sr=1-10&keywords=milton+friedman]Milton Friedman: A Concise Guide to the Ideas and Influence of the Free-Market Economist: Eamonn Butler, Eamonn F. Butler: 9780857190369: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## Underhill (Feb 13, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > So what is the downside?
> ...



Right, except in those test markets where they have opened it up, the outcomes aren't markedly better.   Some are great.   Some average.   Some below average.   Oh there are great charter schools out there.  But there are also great public schools out there.   My kids public school boast a 90+% graduation rate.

I think the difference is easy to see.   It's the parents.   In poor neighborhoods where parents are uneducated and don't see the value in education, kids do poorly.    

How are charter schools and more choice going to fix that?    The answer is they aren't.

Look at countries with the highest educational standards in the world and you find it is not countries with lots of private schools.    It's countries where the culture puts education on top of their priority list.


----------



## Redbone (Feb 13, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The debt is so large that it is impossible to pay off, Right now it is at 16.4 trillion dollars and the ceiling has been, or shortly will be, raised to 20 trillion dollars.
> If you pay a billion dollars a year (plus the interest) it would take a thousand years to pay back each trillion dollars. That means 16000 years and it is still not paid off.
> If you pay 100 billion dollars each year (plus interest) then paying off 16 trillion dollars takes 160 years.
> To pay off the national debt in a single presidential term would require paying 4 trillion dollars (plus interest) for each of the four years. The taxes collected last year were less than 3 trillion dollars. That includes Social Security taxes that are separate from income tax.



One can destroy a nation in the same way as a company. By forcing it into bankruptcy that forces drastic and violent change . A pattern I see being employed now. One must first destroy the existing house before building a new one on the same property. We are seeing the systematic demolition of the old house now. Problem is the house is not empty nor have its occupants been informed that it is being demolished. When the plaster starts falling and the walls start buckling a lot of people will wake up and decide to abandon the house , the rest will decide to go out and stop the demolition. When that happens America and the rest of the world will quickly discover what has been being purposely done to our nation.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 13, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



The market for affordable education has never been "opened up".  Charter schools do not represent anything close to a free market.  They're still government controlled, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.  

Perhaps Carolyn Lochhead said it best:

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."


----------



## Underhill (Feb 13, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> The market for affordable education has never been "opened up".  Charter schools do not represent anything close to a free market.  They're still government controlled, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.
> 
> Perhaps Carolyn Lochhead said it best:
> 
> "Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."



Wow,  what a load of shit.   

There is a difference between a farmer growing potatoes and a teacher trying to educate kids.   Ideally about 15-20 differences in each classroom.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 13, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > The market for affordable education has never been "opened up".  Charter schools do not represent anything close to a free market.  They're still government controlled, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.
> ...



Strawman argument.

But feel free to explain to us how public school teachers innovate, operate efficiently, and produce results their customers demand.  What choice do those customers have if they're not rich enough to afford the choice private education offers?

The fact remains that the government monopoly on affordable education has produced crappy results and skyrocketing costs, just like any centrally controlled market.  Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 13, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



It isn't true.

You can see what our education puts out, the potential, if you look at schools in the best neighborhoods.    Those schools turn out a lot of well educated kids.   

What you are trying to claim is that because some schools don't meet that same level of education, the whole system is faulty.  

But clearly that just isn't the case.    The problem is with the parents in these neighborhoods.  

As for innovation, go to the web.   There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innovations across the country on any given day made by public school teachers.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 13, 2013)

Oh and about the straw man.   

You posted this quote, 

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

Lack any incentive....

And I pointed out the incentive. 

Please explain to me how that is a straw man?


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 13, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Even better educated are those kids that went to private schools.  Now why should kids of more modest means not have choice in education?



> What you are trying to claim is that because some schools don't meet that same level of education, the whole system is faulty.



The whole system is faulty because the whole system would be so much better for ALL students if they had competition and choice.  You don't get that with monopolies, particularly government controlled monopolies.



> But clearly that just isn't the case.    The problem is with the parents in these neighborhoods.



Right, parents don't know what's best for their kids, government does...



> As for innovation, go to the web.   There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innovations across the country on any given day made by public school teachers.



Oh my goodness that's precious.  Yea, all those public teachers out there fighting every day to earn the tuition dollars of their prospective customers...

Horse hockey.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 13, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Oh and about the straw man.
> 
> You posted this quote,
> 
> ...



And what would that incentive be?

They face no competition for affordable education.  They face no need to earn their customer's education dollars.  Their customers have no choice in the matter.

So, tell us, with specificity please, what is the incentive for public teachers to produce excellent results and to operate efficiently and cost effectively?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 13, 2013)

Exactly what magical elixir do private schools posses which public schools are innately prohibited from possessing? Nothing. Its a marketing gimmick. Just like housing prices always go up, you are a chump and you are going to be taken for a ride.

Republican-backed for-profit school caught deleting bad student grades | The Raw Story


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 13, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Exactly what magical elixir do private schools posses which public schools are innately prohibited from possessing?



The pressure of competition.  The existence of which requires that providers please their customers, lest they loose them and therefore loose their very livelihood.  In public education, we have exactly the opposite: no choice, no competition, and it's next to impossible to fire anyone...the results of which are self evident.



> Nothing. Its a marketing gimmick. Just like housing prices always go up, you are a chump and you are going to be taken for a ride.



One, this is supposed to be clean.  Two, I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 14, 2013)

The first big red flag you should be able to see in your reasoning is that you arnt able to define what needs to be improved with public education, what makes private education superior, more competitive. You only make the assertion that one product is superior to the other, that special k is better than tricks, or nikes are better than pumas. The only thing that seems to set private education ahead is that it is picky, it is able to tell the dumb kids to stay out.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Even better educated are those kids that went to private schools.  Now why should kids of more modest means not have choice in education?



Evidence of that? 



> The whole system is faulty because the whole system would be so much better for ALL students if they had competition and choice.  You don't get that with monopolies, particularly government controlled monopolies.



And you do with privately controlled monopolies...



> Right, parents don't know what's best for their kids, government does...



Most don't.    And even among those who do, there are already mechanisms in place.    I went to the best public school in the area and all it took was my parent's filling out some forms and an interview. 



> Oh my goodness that's precious.  Yea, all those public teachers out there fighting every day to earn the tuition dollars of their prospective customers...
> 
> Horse hockey.



It's not about tuition.   It's about teaching kids.   And most teachers do a very good job. 

This an absurd conversation.   How does one convince a person who believes teachers will not do their jobs because they work for a monopoly?   Have you been to school?   

I have 3 kids in schools.   Not all the teachers are wonderful but 9 out of 10 are.    I meet with them once a month.   From what they tell me, that is extremely rare.     But the teachers are there, the parents aren't.  

So explain to me again how you just know it's all the teachers fault and not the parents?   Because anyone who has any involvement in education knows better.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> The first big red flag you should be able to see in your reasoning is that you arnt able to define what needs to be improved with public education,



If you believe the state of public education is acceptable, make the case.  Given the tremendous drop out rates, particularly among minority students, our ranking of high school graduates around the world, they way we 'teach to the test', and sheer number of kids that simply cannot read, write or do math at a proficient level, it's going to be quite a challenge to defend the status quo.  Good luck.



> what makes private education superior, more competitive.



Uh, because private schools face competition from other private schools, thereby forcing them to EARN their customer's education dollars.  Not the case with public schools.

How is this not blatantly obvious?



> You only make the assertion that one product is superior to the other, that special k is better than tricks, or nikes are better than pumas.



No, the CUSTOMER get's to make that assertion.  That's the point.  It's that CHOICE that drives private institutions to innovate, to become efficient, to not overcharge from what the market will bear, and to produce results that please their customer base.  Exactly the opposite from public education where no one gets to choose what product/service is better than the other.



> The only thing that seems to set private education ahead is that it is picky, it is able to tell the dumb kids to stay out.



Horse hockey.  There are plenty of private schools that cater to children with learning disabilities.  Unfortunately, they're expensive, which is not unexpected when you consider that a private school hoping to attract students of any intelligence level must compete with the government's monopoly on affordable education.  This is why private schools tend to compete for the students of affluent families.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> If you believe the state of public education is acceptable, make the case.  Given the tremendous drop out rates, particularly among minority students, our ranking of high school graduates around the world, they way we 'teach to the test', and sheer number of kids that simply cannot read, write or do math at a proficient level, it's going to be quite a challenge to defend the status quo.  Good luck.



Now that is a good question.   And I think you are right to ask it.    There are major problems.   But it isn't inherent to public schools but to the methods they have been forced to use.  

No child left behind is a large part of the problem.   Even the school my kids attends was better before that program started.    It forces teachers to teach for the test.   

But it's an easy fix. 



> Uh, because private schools face competition from other private schools, thereby forcing them to EARN their customer's education dollars.  Not the case with public schools.
> 
> How is this not blatantly obvious?



As someone who attended a private school I would say it's a pipe dream.   Sure some will do as you say.    But they will do so by excluding the worst students.   

Then again some will attract customers dollars through other methods.   Teach religion as science as an example...

And the biggest problem is that while your competitive model means some will excel, it also means the education of others will be worse.    The best schools will get the best students, and those who need the most help will be relegated to the dregs.   

The goal with public education is for everyone to get the same good (albeit imperfect) education.    

I would also point out that at least some of the problems you talk about are the result of the states.   States regulate most of the schools operations with a mixture of federal, state and county funding. 

My kids go to a NYS school, which are among the best in the country.   We have some dogs, but most of our schools are generally very good.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> And what would that incentive be?
> 
> They face no competition for affordable education.  They face no need to earn their customer's education dollars.  Their customers have no choice in the matter.
> 
> So, tell us, with specificity please, what is the incentive for public teachers to produce excellent results and to operate efficiently and cost effectively?



The students.

The fact that they pay taxes too.   

The fact that they are a part of the community and do not like to see it fail. 

How many teachers have you met who didn't care about any of these things?


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Even better educated are those kids that went to private schools.  Now why should kids of more modest means not have choice in education?
> ...



*It's not the teacher's fault.  It's the central planners fault.*


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe the state of public education is acceptable, make the case.  Given the tremendous drop out rates, particularly among minority students, our ranking of high school graduates around the world, they way we 'teach to the test', and sheer number of kids that simply cannot read, write or do math at a proficient level, it's going to be quite a challenge to defend the status quo.  Good luck.
> ...



*They'd be better if you could choose the school that best suited the needs of you and your kids.  That's all I'm saying.*


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > And what would that incentive be?
> ...



A nice thought, but I'm afraid it takes more than a caring for students.  Only fierce competition results in innovation, efficiency and the drive to keep the customer happy.



> The fact that they pay taxes too.



But face no pressure afterwards.  Heck, it's even near impossible to fire a bad teacher or administrator.  Again, a nice thought but not what it takes to produce excellence.



> The fact that they are a part of the community and do not like to see it fail.



Sorry but Carolyn Lockhead was right.  The soviets hoped their farmers would work hard, innovate and produce excellent results for the good of the community.  It didn't work out that way.  Without competition, people are simply not going to do the job they otherwise would have been forced to do.  This is why we see crappy results in education and skyrocketing costs....no competitive pressure to produce results to contrary.  



> How many teachers have you met who didn't care about any of these things?



I've never stated teachers don't care.  Most do, and many should be paid MORE than they currently make.  Others less.  The point is not to pick on teachers, it's to remove the central planning from the market for education and to introduce consumer choice and competition, which is ALWAYS required to produce excellence.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Then quit bitching about how the teachers don't innovate.   

As for the "central planner" who the hell is that?    There are some regulations from the Federal government (desegregation rules, no child left behind, etc..) a whole pile more from the states and the rest comes from the county or the school board.   

There is no central planner.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



But they don't.  They have no incentive to because they face no competition.  That's the point.



> As for the "central planner" who the hell is that?    There are some regulations from the Federal government (desegregation rules, no child left behind, etc..) a whole pile more from the states and the rest comes from the county or the school board.



Central planning is when government in general controls a market, not just a single person.  That is exactly what we face with education, a monopoly on affordable education where government determines everything, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.

No choice, no competition...that's central planning.  Lousy outcome, skyrocketing costs...that's the result.

I'm not sure why you defend the status quo so vigorously.  Choice is a good thing.  Competition produces excellence and the results consumer's demand.  It also keeps costs down.

Why would you stand in the way of more choice, lower costs and better results?  Are there other markets you think the government should control?  Why?



> There is no central planner.



The market for affordable education is about as far from a free market as you get.  Call it whatever you like, it's resulted in no choice, no competition, lousy results and costs that far outpace the overall rate of inflation.  Call it was it is, a dismal failure compared to what a competitive environment brings.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Sorry but Carolyn Lockhead was right.  The soviets hoped their farmers would work hard, innovate and produce excellent results for the good of the community.  It didn't work out that way.  Without competition, people are simply not going to do the job they otherwise would have been forced to do.  This is why we see crappy results in education and skyrocketing costs....no competitive pressure to produce results to contrary.



So one question.  

How do you explain then that the best school systems in the world manage it without this competitive model you speak of?


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Alright then, here is the next question.  

Feel free to show me an example of competition working to better public schools?   since you claim it doesn't exist here...


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but Carolyn Lockhead was right.  The soviets hoped their farmers would work hard, innovate and produce excellent results for the good of the community.  It didn't work out that way.  Without competition, people are simply not going to do the job they otherwise would have been forced to do.  This is why we see crappy results in education and skyrocketing costs....no competitive pressure to produce results to contrary.
> ...



Generally, it is considered impolite to ask a question when you have yet to answer mine.  Why would you stand in the way of more choice?  How is that not a good thing?



> How do you explain then that the best school systems in the world manage it without this competitive model you speak of?



The best schools in the world are private institutions.  Sure, among school "systems" (meaning government controlled), there are some that are better than others.  That's true when comparing countries or one community to another.  So what?  The point is that the entire market for education could only improve with competition and choice.

Again, why would you stand in the way of consumer choice?


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Uh...there is no competition in public schools.  There is therefore no example to cite.  That's the point.

I'm arguing for the removal of government control of the education market, to give consumers choice and to experience the improvements in results, innovation and efficiency that only competition can bring.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



I already answered that question. 

But here is a more detailed answer.   

When I make a decision like this, I try to look for examples where we have privatized.   I then get an idea how that may work in another sector.   

The obvious choice for comparison is in the military where they made the decision to privatize much of their transportation and services.     So food prep, transportation, even security for many government people is now handled by private companies.

What has been the result.    The initial cost was low.   But as soon as the Pentagon became dependent on these services the cost went up incrimentally until now, contractors are making tens of millions of dollars profit doing what the military used to do at half the cost.

Is the service better?   I don't know.   I don't really care.   Twice the cost and now we are completely dependent on them as we have gotten rid of all our equipment and no longer have the capability.

This is why I am against privatization.    There are problems now in the system.   But we control it, so we can fix it.   It just takes the will of the people.  

If we relinquish control, that decision is permanent.    We won't be able to go back and build all new schools 20 years from now when we realize they are gouging us on the cost.    

On top of this, nothing will change.  When you talk about central planners, they will still exist.  They will still want their test.   They will still want their numbers so they can stand up and claim they did something.

So I am not willing to take the risk of handing control of one of our largest and most important institutions to private interest.    It's too important.   

And since you failed to answer my question I will answer it for you.

The best schools in the world are in Finland and South Korea.    

The Finish have a public system similar to ours with one major difference.   The teachers have control.   The national education model is "whatever it takes".    And it works.   The parents work with teachers to design programs for individual students who are struggling.   They have a 97% graduation rate. 

The South Koreans also have a public school system.   They offer no sports as they see them as non educational.    But the entire culture is geared towards education.   Even middle income parents spend large sums of their income on tutors and are very involved in education.

This is why I was so focused on teacher dedication and parental involvement.    They are key.   Teachers know how to reach our kids.    They know what needs to be done.   Parents have to be involved.  

So in one small way you are correct.    I think the federal and state governments (along with the counties and school board) need to stop micro managing and start allowing teachers to do their job.   

But privatizing the system is a mistake.   And it's one that we won't easily be able to take back once we realize it.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Major flaw in your argument.  You're comparing the market for education with another government monopoly, the military.  Regardless of where and when private companies are used in the military, it's still the government that controls everything.  And when it comes to the military, the Constitution REQUIRES federal government oversight.  There is no such requirement in education.

Further, school systems use private contractors all the time.  I'm not arguing for more privatization with the government still in control, I'm arguing to get the government top-down control out of the market for education.  I standing for a free market of education, just like we have free markets for so many other products and services.



> If we relinquish control, that decision is permanent.    We won't be able to go back and build all new schools 20 years from now when we realize they are gouging us on the cost.



You're still thinking in terms of government control.  If private businesses competed in the market for education, no school could 'gouge' anyone for very long before those customers choose another competitor.

Works beautifully when the consumer has choice.



> On top of this, nothing will change.  When you talk about central planners, they will still exist.  They will still want their test.   They will still want their numbers so they can stand up and claim they did something.



Not all of them.  Here's one that spoke the notion of choice and competition in schools just this week:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zv4Wufggik]Rand Paul Responds To The State of the Union 2013 [In Full] - YouTube[/ame]



> So I am not willing to take the risk of handing control of one of our largest and most important institutions to private interest. It's too important.



It's too important not to.  Again, no competition, no choice brings lousy results and skyrocketing costs.  Only consumer choice can change that.



> And since you failed to answer my question I will answer it for you.
> 
> The best schools in the world are in Finland and South Korea.



You mean the best government-controlled schools.  A thriving free market for education would trounce any attempt at a centrally planned market.



> This is why I was so focused on teacher dedication and parental involvement. They are key. Teachers know how to reach our kids. They know what needs to be done. Parents have to be involved.



Agreed.  And in a competitive market for education, teachers would still know how to teach and would be motivated to produce better results, less they loose their customers.  Similarly, parents would be more involved because it would be their dollars directly on the line.  With no choice of schools and no choice how to pay for them, it's no wonder parents are not engaged.  What can they change when government controls all affordable education and it's near impossible to fire a bad teacher or administrator?



> So in one small way you are correct. I think the federal and state governments (along with the counties and school board) need to stop micro managing and start allowing teachers to do their job.



A start, but it won't change a thing without real competition.



> But privatizing the system is a mistake. And it's one that we won't easily be able to take back once we realize it.



Again, it's not privatization I'm talking about (the idea of government employing private businesses), it's about getting the top-down control out of the market and letting competition and consumer choice drive superior results and more cost effective options.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



So, here's the thing.   I gave you examples of schools that are thriving under a public system.   But you have yet to show me examples of what you claim will work.  

We know public education can work.   So the onus is on you to show me the evidence, not just idle speculation that you think it will work better...


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Not thriving, only doing better than other public systems.  Big difference.

And I have showed you examples of what works, which is private education.  Private schools produce superior results in a far more efficient manner...and that's with government controlling the lion's share of the market.  Imagine what a free market for the entire education system could do!



> We know public education can work.



All evidence to the contrary?  Doesn't work well at all in this country.  May work marginally better in other, culturally homogenized countries, but nothing beats private education where consumers have choice.



> So the onus is on you to show me the evidence, not just idle speculation that you think it will work better...



Private school results are evidence as is the common sense notion that without competition, there is NO WAY to foster innovation and superior results.  

Again, I don't understand why you would stand against consumer choice.  Any other markets in which you think a government monopoly would be preferred?  Just imagine if government produced everything we need in life, from toilet paper to televisions.  How's that worked out throughout history?

If you value education, the LAST place it should be entrusted is the hands of bureaucrats with no incentive to thrive and no impetus to keep costs competitive.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 14, 2013)

> It's not the teacher's fault. It's the central planners fault.


Its clear republicans are bad at planning, central or otherwise, the way that red states are objectively ranked worse than blue states for a myriad of issues (income, poverty, literacy, teen pregnancy etc, except texas). Are you familiar with the line "fail to plan, plan to fail"?

Education doesnt respond to normal market forces, you dont know what end result you're going to get until you've sunk a decade into it and then the other kids are still half way through it anyway, and even then theres the whole "maybe the parents are shitty, maybe kids are just stupid anyway" dynamic. Education is under assault, republicans talk out of one side of their mouths about how private schools are better because they have small class sizes and pay a competitive salary for teachers, while at the same time gutting education funding resulting in huge class sizes and unattractive salaries. You believe in competition? Start by paying a competitive salary.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



*We know public education can work.*

It's working great here in Chicago, not.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 14, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> But feel free to explain to us how public school teachers innovate, operate efficiently, and produce results their customers demand.  What choice do those customers have if they're not rich enough to afford the choice private education offers?
> 
> The fact remains that the government monopoly on affordable education has produced crappy results and skyrocketing costs, just like any centrally controlled market.  Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda.



You can't compare educating children to producing products people want, because parents are the worst possible people to be deciding school cirriculum.  Schools need to produce graduates with the knowledge and skills which will make them marketable to corporations in a highly scientific global economy.  Sending your child to a Christian school where they will be taught the earth is 6000 years old and science is a hoax, will not be helpful to their potential or their future.

Every country where teachers salaries are comparable to other professions with a similar level of education, has better outcomes than the US, and yet the US has more non-public schools than any other nation.  Buying the education you want for your child is foolish.  Having the public sector provide a quality education for everyone, regardless of income and place of residence should be the gold standard in US education.

Right now where you are born and grow up determines what kind of public education you receive.  Children in low income areas have about as much chance of making it in life as someone who is taken out in a row boat, has rocks tied to their ankles, and is thrown overboard with instructions to swim to shore.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 15, 2013)

Although, market forces arnt a particularly good metric to measure educational targets by either,


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > But feel free to explain to us how public school teachers innovate, operate efficiently, and produce results their customers demand.  What choice do those customers have if they're not rich enough to afford the choice private education offers?
> ...



Right, because you know what's best for other people's children...

Pass.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 15, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> > It's not the teacher's fault. It's the central planners fault.
> 
> 
> Its clear republicans are bad at planning



Yea, THAT'S who runs the schools.

OVERWHELMING bias.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 15, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Although, market forces arnt a particularly good metric to measure educational targets by either



Because we can't what people making voluntary choices about what's best for their needs.  No way!


----------



## Underhill (Feb 15, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Private school results are evidence as is the common sense notion that without competition, there is NO WAY to foster innovation and superior results.
> 
> Again, I don't understand why you would stand against consumer choice.  Any other markets in which you think a government monopoly would be preferred?  Just imagine if government produced everything we need in life, from toilet paper to televisions.  How's that worked out throughout history?
> 
> If you value education, the LAST place it should be entrusted is the hands of bureaucrats with no incentive to thrive and no impetus to keep costs competitive.



Private schools are evidence of nothing.   They cater to kids whose parents pay for them to attend so of course they will be much better than the norm.   

I'm asking a simple question.   What is the evidence that nationwide private schools can do better with all kids?   

You are making an awful lot of assumptions.   

Where the private sector sucks is where they have to serve everyone.   The profitable, and those difficult cases that are not profitable.   Schools are nothing like making TV's.

It requires attention to all children, regardless of ability and background.   It requires that they put aside the profit motive when a kid needs additional help.   And private enterprise sucks at that.    

I'm sure they could do it cheaper.    I'm sure it would be fine for the average child.   But when a child requires hundreds of thousands in additional help over the course of his school career, the profit motive means those children will be left out in the cold.   And we have hundreds of thousands of those kids.  

It's the same reason private enterprise sucks at health care.    It's the same problem.


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

I have not read through the entire thread; I'll go back and try to skim the rest.  But after reading the first page, I wanted to respond with this:

I believe that one of the biggest problems with the government's deficit is that the politicians don't have a lot of skin in the game, personally.  They like to be able to say "oh yes I voted to give millions of dollars of aid or tax relief to some group or some organization" but it's not really their money they are giving away.
So I would propose the following change.  For every 100 billion dollars of deficit spending, all members of the federal government (President, Congress, even the Supreme Court) have their personal income tax rate increased by 1%.  In other words, if the politicians think they spending they are voting for is so vital, then let them put their money where their mouth is.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 15, 2013)

Underhill said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Private school results are evidence as is the common sense notion that without competition, there is NO WAY to foster innovation and superior results.
> ...



Right, what does vastly superior results with a lower overhead really mean anyway.  Why should we want to emulate that???



> They cater to kids whose parents pay for them to attend so of course they will be much better than the norm.



Parents with kids in public schools don't pay for them to attend?  Hmm...



> I'm asking a simple question.   What is the evidence that nationwide private schools can do better with all kids?



Since we've never had such a system, we must rely on logic and reason.  The evidence lies in the crappy results and skyrocketing costs of the status quo compared to what we know happens when competitive forces drive prices down and improve results.  Again, if the consumer has no choice, there is no motivation for the supplier to excel.

Common sense.



> You are making an awful lot of assumptions.



No, just rational observations of the failure of top-down planning in markets.



> Where the private sector sucks is where they have to serve everyone.



Nobody in a free market HAS to do anything.  If a business in the private sector sucks, the consumers will make an alternative choice.

Business 101, really.



> Schools are nothing like making TV's.



Sure they are.  The consumer decides if the TV is priced within their means, if it provides the features and quality they demand, and if it's provided by a supplier they like to do business with.  

No different than any other product or service, including the market for education.



> It requires attention to all children, regardless of ability and background.



Why exactly would businesses in the education market not supply their service when a demand exists?  OF COURSE they would!  Schools for bright kids, schools for slow learners, mixed schools, expensive schools for rich kids, schools focused on minority communities, schools for rural kids, suburban kids, urban kids...where there's a demand, businesses will compete to supply a service. 

If a businesses doesn't pay attention to a child, they'll loose that child's business.  Simple.



> It requires that they put aside the profit motive when a kid needs additional help.   And private enterprise sucks at that.



No, it requires that the business EARN THAT CHILD'S tuition dollar or loose it to a competitor.  Private enterprise is GREAT at that...or they quickly go out of business to a superior offering.



> I'm sure they could do it cheaper.    I'm sure it would be fine for the average child.



Businesses specialize to meet all kinds of demand.  Where there's profit to be made, there will be a business to meet the demand, for "average" consumers or unique ones.



> But when a child requires hundreds of thousands in additional help over the course of his school career, the profit motive means those children will be left out in the cold.   And we have hundreds of thousands of those kids.



Hundreds of thousands?  What are you talking about?  Dollars?

If a kid, I'm assuming a severely handicap person, requires such extraordinary measures to get them through the day of learning, there will be businesses that specialize in that.  There already are!

You do realize we're not talking about how poor people might pay for their children's tuition, right?  If you want to levy a tax to redistribute money to poor people for the purpose of paying for their kids's school, have at it.  Your state, or your local community, is free to engage in such.  What we're talking about however, is ending the government CONTROL of schools, not who pays for it.



> It's the same reason private enterprise sucks at health care.    It's the same problem.



Thank you for making my point.  What are the two markets in which costs are skyrocketing most in excess of the overall rate of inflation while producing every worsening results?

Why it's the same to markets in which government meddles most!  Education and healthcare.

Starting to see a connection?


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 15, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Thank you for making my point.  What are the two markets in which costs are skyrocketing most in excess of the overall rate of inflation while producing every worsening results?
> 
> Why it's the same to markets in which government meddles most!  Education and healthcare.
> 
> Starting to see a connection?



Yes, I see a connection and here it is.  The US has the most free market education and health care of any country in the world.  You have more private schools, charter schools and religious schools than any country in the world, and homes schooling, and yet your world-wide education scores are falling.

Parents are buying whatever eduction they believe is best for their child.  And if that school denies science, teaches creationism and other teaching based on what the parents want their child to learn, well then the consumers got what they paid for.  

But what about the kids?  Are they learning what they need to compete in a world driven by science, math and technology.  How can they solve the problems associated with climate change if they don't believe it exists.

The free market has given the US the most expensive health care in the world.  But the cost of health care is behind half of all personal bankruptcies.  Health care costs are rising far faster the either the GDP or inflation, and the model isn't sustainable.

You are completely incapable of acknowledging that there are SOME things that government does better than private market and health care is one of them.  Every other health care system in the first world costs less and gets more done for the $$$ expended than US health care.  The US has a lower life expectancy than countries which spend sustantially less on health care.

Ditto education.  The US is one of the top spenders in the world when it comes to education, but it's ranking is low in relation to the $$$ spent.

Perhaps if there was a standard cirriculum, and all schools had enough text books, computers, and teacher were well enough paid that the career attracted bright people, the quality of education wouldn't be dropping like a stone.  But then parents wouldn't be able to decide what their kids learn.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The US has the most free market education and health care of any country in the world.



We USED to have a free market for healthcare, whose inventions and advancements benefited health providers the world over.  That's coming to an end.

To state that we have a free market for AFFORDABLE education is laughable.  This being the clean zone, we'll leave it at that.


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Yes, I see a connection and here it is.  The US has the most free market education and health care of any country in the world.  You have more private schools, charter schools and religious schools than any country in the world, and homes schooling, and yet your world-wide education scores are falling.



Are Private Schools Really Better? - TIME

This piece by Time Magazine seems to come to the conclusion that private schools, particularly religious ones, impart a greater benefit to their students then public schools.  So if there are problems with the education system, then it doesn't lie in the private-school sector.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 16, 2013)

Deepbluediver said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I see a connection and here it is.  The US has the most free market education and health care of any country in the world.  You have more private schools, charter schools and religious schools than any country in the world, and homes schooling, and yet your world-wide education scores are falling.
> ...



That's not what the study said at all.  It said that public schools only do better because they parents are more engaged and have more money to enrich their child's education.  Taking out that variable meant that private school kids would do well at whatever school they attended.  The exception was the Jesuit schools, which taught critical thinking better than public schools.

A friend who taught at Upper Canada College years ago told me what a pleasure it was to teach kids who were expected to run the country one day - how engaged both the students and the parents were, how the resources the children had at the school and at home were top notch, and if he told a parent Johnny was having a problem, such information got results.  Although he added that having to tell the Prime Minister of Canada that his son needed to pull up his socks in science class was a daunting thing to do.

That doesn't happen in public schools, not across the board.  For some families, yes, but not all.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 18, 2013)

Special Report: Class Struggle - How charter schools get students they want | Reuters


----------



## FA_Q2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> and yet your world-wide education scores are falling.



This is ONLY true of the public education system.  People come from all over the world to study at the private institutions here.  We have the best schools in the world bar none.  Our universities are excellent.  The problem is wholly in the public education system.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 20, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > and yet your world-wide education scores are falling.
> ...



only by being selective.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > and yet your world-wide education scores are falling.
> ...



The problem is recent, ever since charter schools and home schooling became the new way for parents to segregate their children from the world.  It hasn't made its way up to the university level yet, but the kids are in high school so it won't be long now.  As soon as home schooling because acceptable, and charter schools started getting vouchers, the public school system has been starved for cash.  The US teachers have some of the lowest pay, in relation to other professions, in the first world.  The result is there is little incentive for smart people to become teachers.  With the every rising cost of tuition, becoming a teacher is a poor investment. 

The dumbing down of American has begun.  Teaching children that science is a fraud, there is no global warning, and there's lots of oil, along with failure to invest in renewal energy sources is leaving your economy is the dust.  But keep on believing that the Republicans got it right.  If crashing the world economy isn't enough evidence that the Republicans couldn't possibly have gotten it MORE WRONG, I don't know what is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



*Teaching children that science is a fraud, there is no global warning, and there's lots of oil, along with failure to invest in renewal energy sources is leaving your economy is the dust.*

Science isn't a fraud. Just look at the strides we've made in GMO. Of course idiot lefties don't like that science.
As far as global warming, I'm all for it.
Just a short 11,000 or so years ago, my Chicago home was under 1 mile of ice. 
I'm thankful the globe warmed since then.
Not lots of oil? Don't tell the US oil industry because they're busy making huge strides in increased production.
Feel free to invest in "renewal [sic] energy sources", just do it with your own damn money, not tax dollars.

Here's a little light reading for you.....

_U.S. oil production grew more in 2012 than in any year in the history of the domestic industry, which began in 1859, and is set to surge even more in 2013.

Daily crude output averaged 6.4 million barrels a day last year, up a record 779,000 barrels a day from 2011 and hitting a 15-year high, according to the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group. 

It is the biggest annual jump in production since Edwin Drake drilled the first commercial oil well in Titusville, Pa., two years before the Civil War began.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts 2013 will be an even bigger year, with average daily production expected to jump by 900,000 barrels a day._

U.S. Oil-Production Rise Is Fastest Ever - WSJ.com


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

The world is moving to renewable energy.  Those who don't embrace these technologies, will be like horse and buggy builders of the 19th century.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The world is moving to renewable energy.  Those who don't embrace these technologies, will be like horse and buggy builders of the 19th century.



LOL!

That's why Solyndra did so well.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's why Solyndra did so well.



One business out of thousands worldwide.  US infrastructure is aging and Americans don't want to invest.  The US started the internet, yet the US has fallen behind in wiring the nation for high speed internet because it was left to the private sector to do it and the upgrade isn't profitable.

Roads and bridges are crumbling.  $$$ currently spent on maintaining military bases around the world would be better spent on investment in education and infrastructure at home.

Germany was the powerhouse European economy of the latter half of the 20th century precisely because its infrastructure was destroyed in the war and the completely rebuilt and modernized after.  Factories were rebuilt with all of the latest technology.

US automakers lost world-wide markets because they didn't adapt to worldwide emissions standards, under protection of US law.  You are in danger of falling behind the rest of the world yet again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That's why Solyndra did so well.
> ...



Yes, one business that the US government wasted over $500 million on. Great job!

*The US started the internet, yet the US has fallen behind in wiring the nation for high speed internet because it was left to the private sector to do it and the upgrade isn't profitable.*

That's one thing Obama is good at, investing money in unprofitable investments.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The US started the internet, yet the US has fallen behind in wiring the nation for high speed internet because it was left to the private sector to do it and the upgrade isn't profitable.


That's actually not true.  The private sector has nothing to do with the fact that we are falling behind in wiring localities for high speed internet.  We are falling behind precisely because we invented it.  You see, when you invest in the early technology you are left with what you invested in.  You don't upgrade until you need to.  Other countries are just putting the systems in place that we already have and therefore, they have the newer tech.

China is one such nation but again, I doubt that you could make the argument that they have better internet infrastructure than America where virtually everyone has access.  That is simply not true in China.

Interestingly enough, I find that things like internet are still far better here than in most of the world.  Where do you think that they are doing better with internet speed and availability.  I can tell you that Germany sure as hell is not better than here, I have been there.  Things are far more limited in Australia as well where customers need to pay per unit used.  There are very few countries where they connections that are available here to all are better.  



> Roads and bridges are crumbling.  $$$ currently spent on maintaining military bases around the world would be better spent on investment in education and infrastructure at home.


I hear this a lot but it is utter nonsense.  Roads and bridges here are doing just fine.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 20, 2013)

oil isnt produced, its dug up. theres only so much of it in the ground, the only way out is to gently let constrained supply wean off demand so the market can settle in gently. or we can make like a colony of single celled organisms and continue accelerating our rate of consumption right until the moment its all gone.

also, solyandra's market advantage was that it had a manufacturing process that didnt rely on silicon, giving it a market advantage when silicon was expensive, when the price of silicon tanked, they were no longer competitive.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 21, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > The US has the most free market education and health care of any country in the world.
> ...



I have shown where the best schools in the world are public.    The same is true of the best health care systems in the world.   

You have yet to show anything close to evidence of your conclusions yet claim they are simply logical.    Yet what you are describing was tried here and failed.   

These government programs were started for a reason.    They need work.   But instead of working to fix the problems, you would rather revert back to the flawed system (or lack of a system) that led us to this point.  

It's nonsense.


----------

