Looking forward to government run medicine?

[rightwinger]

so thats a great answer RW.....in other words if you dont sit on your ass all day and you are actually out there busting your ass......if you cant work till you are 70....oh well.....kinda sounds "Republican".....

NFL players have a career that lasts 8 years if they are lucky. They have to ensure that either the money they make will last a lifetime or that they have other skills that will support them in later life

You are no different. If you have a job that you know you cannot do in your 50s and 60s you need to plan ahead. Put more money aside in your 401k. Have plans where you can do less strenuous jobs when you get older

To say that the entire Social Security program must compensate for you is ridiculous.

Might as well just do away with it...

I could start investing the same money today - retire when I was ready (instead of waiting til 70) and still come out ahead and I'm in my 40s...

Social Security is a joke. Just like every other gov't run social program.

The key to retirement is not putting your eggs in one basket

A balanced retirement will have a guaranteed annuity, savings, healthcare and a paid off house. You will be able to face any crisis

Nobody gives an annuity anymore. Trying to compensate with savings leaves you vulnerable to an economic collapse like we saw six years ago

Social Security is a safety net and it works

 

[Obamanation]

NFL players have a career that lasts 8 years if they are lucky. They have to ensure that either the money they make will last a lifetime or that they have other skills that will support them in later life

You are no different. If you have a job that you know you cannot do in your 50s and 60s you need to plan ahead. Put more money aside in your 401k. Have plans where you can do less strenuous jobs when you get older

To say that the entire Social Security program must compensate for you is ridiculous.

Might as well just do away with it...

I could start investing the same money today - retire when I was ready (instead of waiting til 70) and still come out ahead and I'm in my 40s...

Social Security is a joke. Just like every other gov't run social program.

The key to retirement is not putting your eggs in one basket

A balanced retirement will have a guaranteed annuity, savings, healthcare and a paid off house. You will be able to face any crisis

Nobody gives an annuity anymore. Trying to compensate with savings leaves you vulnerable to an economic collapse like we saw six years ago

Social Security is a safety net and it works

Social Security is a rip off. The vast majority of Americans will never get back what they put in, let alone see gains on their investment. You push it to 70 --- that many fewer Americans will see the benefits.

The "collapse" did very little to hurt investments long term. ...and putting the same money under your mattress for your worklife would give you more options and typically more money TO SPEND in the long run.

 

[westwall]

Might as well just do away with it...

I could start investing the same money today - retire when I was ready (instead of waiting til 70) and still come out ahead and I'm in my 40s...

Social Security is a joke. Just like every other gov't run social program.

The key to retirement is not putting your eggs in one basket

A balanced retirement will have a guaranteed annuity, savings, healthcare and a paid off house. You will be able to face any crisis

Nobody gives an annuity anymore. Trying to compensate with savings leaves you vulnerable to an economic collapse like we saw six years ago

Social Security is a safety net and it works

Social Security is a rip off. The vast majority of Americans will never get back what they put in, let alone see gains on their investment. You push it to 70 --- that many fewer Americans will see the benefits.

The "collapse" did very little to hurt investments long term. ...and putting the same money under your mattress for your worklife would give you more options and typically more money TO SPEND in the long run.

Yep, both my mom and dad died before they could get a dime. Just imagine what they could have done with the money the government took from them. Maybe actually taken a vacation out of the big city for instance.

 

[boedicca]

In response to the OP: No.

But just as Private Insurance is flourishing in the UK, I suspect the market will find ways around ObamaCare. We will end up having a two tier system. The one for the poor slobs who are forced into ObamaCare and the one for people who choose to purchase private health care outside of the exchange system. My guess is that the latter will eschew insurance altogether for routine care.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If you have a physical job that you can't do till you are 70, I would suggest you invest heavily in a 401k as well as other investments. In addition, you might want to learn some skills that would make you employable in your later years.

If not, you can always be a WalMart greeter in your 70s.

so thats a great answer RW.....in other words if you dont sit on your ass all day and you are actually out there busting your ass......if you cant work till you are 70....oh well.....kinda sounds "Republican".....

NFL players have a career that lasts 8 years if they are lucky. They have to ensure that either the money they make will last a lifetime or that they have other skills that will support them in later life

You are no different. If you have a job that you know you cannot do in your 50s and 60s you need to plan ahead. Put more money aside in your 401k. Have plans where you can do less strenuous jobs when you get older

To say that the entire Social Security program must compensate for you is ridiculous.

NFL players have a career that lasts 8 years if they are lucky.

pro athletes make a little more money than most people dont they RW?..... i guess i can plan ahead with a huge signing bonus....and great money per year while it lasts...like $700,000 a year avg.....what a ridiculous comparison...


If you have a job that you know you cannot do in your 50s and 60s you need to plan ahead.

how many kids at the age of 20-25 are thinking if they can do their job 30-40 years from that time?.....


To say that the entire Social Security program must compensate for you is ridiculous.

is that what i said?.....

you sound like some of the more far right people here RW.....

 

[Londoner]

T. Roosevelt....................
38%

Taft................................
40%

Wilson ...........................
52%

Harding...........................
49%

Coolidge.........................
48%

Hoover............................
42%

F. Roosevelt.....................
50%

Truman...........................
50%

Eisenhower................ ....
57%

Kennedy.........................
30%

Johnson..........................
47%

Nixon..............................
53%

Ford................................
42%

Carter.............................
32%

Reagan............................
56%

GH Bush..........................
51%

Clinton
..........................
39%

GW Bush........................
55%

Obama.............................
8%

George Bush, the man with the third most private sector experience on this list, had abysmal job creation and was in office when both the housing and financial sectors were destroyed, initiating the greatest economic downturn in since the 30s.

To get out of his recession and boost employment and meet his policy goals Reagan added 258,000 workers to the federal workforce. He expanded government like no human on god's green earth.

Clinton reduced the federal workforce by 307,000.

Bushed increased it by 52,000

Obama has only increased it by 2000.

Reagan also kept funding open to the states so they coud maintain cops, firemen, teachers (all of whom, because they had jobs, pumped money into their local economies so more jobs could be saved). Obama, on the other hand, was forced to cut aid to the states.

I like your contributions. And I agree with some of them, but it looks like you are recycling cliches that have been around since Reagan - and not really adding to them, or explaining some of the problems that have happened by letting business run government, which is what we now have. Energy policy is written by big oil. Drug policy is written by big pharma. And ObamaCare was written with and for the large health insurance carriers. Crusty government supported monopolies are now in control of most major sectors. Big government and Big Business have become one. If you don't understand this, than you need to do more research on lobbying and the influence of money on the political process, including election funding. Most congressmen have very cushy lobbying jobs waiting for them when they leave office. Why do you think Fannie/Freddie paid Gingrich so much money for access to the Republican Congress during the Bush years? The private sector pays trillions of dollars a year to gain access to the centralized power of the federal government. Don't kid yourself my man, the free-market was killed along time ago.

FYI: I'd take Eisenhower and Nixon over anyone on your list, not because they had business experience (which I admit is a plus) - but because they believed in the power of big government to grow the middle class. And once you have a large middle class of consumers (with extra spending money to be captured), capital has an incentive to invest, innovate and add jobs. If the government (through enlightened labor policies and entitlements) puts more money in middle class wallets, than business will drive over the bones of the living and the dead to get at that money. This is why the 50s thru 73, during the height of postwar Keynesianism, saw greater economic growth than any period thereafter.

But, lez-be-honest bro-nameth. Reagan - mr. private sector himself - grew the federal government more than anyone in living memory, and then he and his movement lied about it. Also, his private sector job growth was in concert with the greatest expansion of credit in history to that date. Starting in the 80s the American family went on a 30 year spending orgy financed by easy credit. Morning in America was brought to you by MasterCard, Visa and American Express. Do some of your own research on this stuff. Try to isolate the historical period when the American consumer went from wage based consumption to debt-based consumption - and why... Turn off Hannity and Limbaugh. Go to a library.

And don't kind yourself about Reagan. The man grew government more than anyone in my lifetime.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the data for how much each president grew or reduced the federal workforce is:

 

[Avatar4321]

No. I like living.

 

[Londoner]

Nixon, another private sector guy.

He was more of a big government kook than any president that came after. Ask Milton Friedman, who called him more of a Keynesian than Clinton was on his worst day.

Nixon = first Earth Day in April 1970 presaged a wave of voter interest on the subject, and sought to Nixon = Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Nixon = Clean Air Act of 1970
Nixon = Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA);
Nixon = National Environmental Policy Act
Nixon required environmental impact statements for many Federal projects.
Nixon proposed government lead health insurance reform
Nixon called for federalization of Medicaid for poor families with dependent minor children

How long you got?

You want to do Eisenhower next?

(These guys make Carter, Clinton, and Obama look like Friedrich Hayek)

 

[auditor0007]

What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.

Here is a better idea, much better...

That is another option. My suggestion is not for anyone to work an extra ten years, although many are choosing to do so these days. In reality, if you are 50 or younger, your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70, leaving those who choose to retire at 67 with a reduced benefit, the same as they do now for those who choose to retire before their full retirement age.

The point is that there are a number of realistic solutions to fix the shortfall. We just need to make a choice and get it done. The reason I tend to lean toward increasing the retirement age is that Medicare faces an even larger problem, and it's going to take a lot more tax dollars to fix it compared to SS. Raising the retirement age for Medicare from the current 65 to 70 would cut cost substantially. The other thing it does is brings more money into the system as people are paying in longer.

As for what happens to those trying to enter the job market if people continue to work longer, I don't see it as a problem. When people are working longer, they will spend more, the economy will grow, and there will be enough jobs for everyone. The biggest reason the economy can't seem to gain any traction is that the baby boomers quit spending money, in part due to the fact so may lost their asses when the market crashed, but also just because they don't have as much reason to spend.

your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70,

so what about the people with physical jobs that break the body down,for some of them even working till your 65 would be unrealistic....unless you want to be a cripple........not all of us sit on our asses all day long....

That would have to be covered by SSI disability insurance until they hit the retirement age. I understand there are some people who work very physical jobs and it does beat down their bodies making working longer much more difficult, so that would need to be addressed. That being said, more people than ever before now work in service type jobs that do not place physical abuse on the body. A much bigger problem is that many people can't work longer because they have abused their bodies for so long by smoking and/or overeating. Nothing we do will ever be perfect or work 100% for every single person.

 

[auditor0007]

You really do not understand ACA, do you lad?

I can tell because you are attempting to compare socialized medicine to ACA.

You do not have to remain so ignorant, you know.


You could start here and perhaps in just a few minutes you'll know enough to know why the post you wrote above makes you look so completely clueless.

Now remember, I am NOT a fan of ACA.

But unlike you I actually KNOW WHY I don't like it.

They just don't understand that Reagan's EMTALA is socialized medicine.

I'm only a semi-fan of ACA. We needed to have the single payer option the Rs fought against because they knew it was the right thing to do.

But,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...c-opinion-and-conservative-self-delusion.html

so you want what the UK and Canada have? Why don't you move to one of those countries and try it for a few years? I think you would change your opinion.

you fools that keep crying for single payer think it will be free for you and someone else will foot the bill for you. WRONG. YOU will be paying more and getting less. It won't be free for you or anyone else----except maybe illegal aliens.

You really don't know much about anything, do you? I have friends in Canada. They laugh at us when it comes to our healthcare system. They pay half of what we do and everyone is covered. Is it perfect? No. But it's just a matter of how much they are willing to pay. I wouldn't want their system because they have zero options other than the health system available. Many countries with universal healthcare also have supplemental insurance available that gives those who choose to purchase it some advantages over those who just want to use the government run health option.

 

[Obamanation]

They just don't understand that Reagan's EMTALA is socialized medicine.

I'm only a semi-fan of ACA. We needed to have the single payer option the Rs fought against because they knew it was the right thing to do.

But,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...c-opinion-and-conservative-self-delusion.html

so you want what the UK and Canada have? Why don't you move to one of those countries and try it for a few years? I think you would change your opinion.

you fools that keep crying for single payer think it will be free for you and someone else will foot the bill for you. WRONG. YOU will be paying more and getting less. It won't be free for you or anyone else----except maybe illegal aliens.

You really don't know much about anything, do you? I have friends in Canada. They laugh at us when it comes to our healthcare system. They pay half of what we do and everyone is covered. Is it perfect? No. But it's just a matter of how much they are willing to pay. I wouldn't want their system because they have zero options other than the health system available. Many countries with universal healthcare also have supplemental insurance available that gives those who choose to purchase it some advantages over those who just want to use the government run health option.

Then it ends up like education --- I have to pay taxes to cover the cost of schools even if I want to send my kids to a private school. I pay twice... tough to do on middle class income.

 

[auditor0007]

so thats a great answer RW.....in other words if you dont sit on your ass all day and you are actually out there busting your ass......if you cant work till you are 70....oh well.....kinda sounds "Republican".....

NFL players have a career that lasts 8 years if they are lucky. They have to ensure that either the money they make will last a lifetime or that they have other skills that will support them in later life

You are no different. If you have a job that you know you cannot do in your 50s and 60s you need to plan ahead. Put more money aside in your 401k. Have plans where you can do less strenuous jobs when you get older

To say that the entire Social Security program must compensate for you is ridiculous.

Might as well just do away with it...

I could start investing the same money today - retire when I was ready (instead of waiting til 70) and still come out ahead and I'm in my 40s...

Social Security is a joke. Just like every other gov't run social program.

It is true that many people might actually do better investing the payroll tax privately, although there would be greater risk. What gets missed here is that just because it works for you, it wouldn't work for everyone. Millions of low income earners would be left out in the cold, because they would never put the money away into a savings plan. We would end up with tens of millions of retirees with no income at all. Then guess what would happen? The government would still have to support them in one form or another costing us trillions of dollars.

 

[westwall]

T. Roosevelt....................
38%

Taft................................
40%

Wilson ...........................
52%

Harding...........................
49%

Coolidge.........................
48%

Hoover............................
42%

F. Roosevelt.....................
50%

Truman...........................
50%

Eisenhower................ ....
57%

Kennedy.........................
30%

Johnson..........................
47%

Nixon..............................
53%

Ford................................
42%

Carter.............................
32%

Reagan............................
56%

GH Bush..........................
51%

Clinton
..........................
39%

GW Bush........................
55%

Obama.............................
8%

George Bush, the man with the third most private sector experience on this list, had abysmal job creation and was in office when both the housing and financial sectors were destroyed, initiating the greatest economic downturn in since the 30s.

To get out of his recession and boost employment and meet his policy goals Reagan added 258,000 workers to the federal workforce. He expanded government like no human on god's green earth.

Clinton reduced the federal workforce by 307,000.

Bushed increased it by 52,000

Obama has only increased it by 2000.

Reagan also kept funding open to the states so they coud maintain cops, firemen, teachers (all of whom, because they had jobs, pumped money into their local economies so more jobs could be saved). Obama, on the other hand, was forced to cut aid to the states.

I like your contributions. And I agree with some of them, but it looks like you are recycling cliches that have been around since Reagan - and not really adding to them, or explaining some of the problems that have happened by letting business run government, which is what we now have. Energy policy is written by big oil. Drug policy is written by big pharma. And ObamaCare was written with and for the large health insurance carriers. Crusty government supported monopolies are now in control of most major sectors. Big government and Big Business have become one. If you don't understand this, than you need to do more research on lobbying and the influence of money on the political process, including election funding. Most congressmen have very cushy lobbying jobs waiting for them when they leave office. Why do you think Fannie/Freddie paid Gingrich so much money for access to the Republican Congress during the Bush years? The private sector pays trillions of dollars a year to gain access to the centralized power of the federal government. Don't kid yourself my man, the free-market was killed along time ago.

FYI: I'd take Eisenhower and Nixon over anyone on your list, not because they had business experience (which I admit is a plus) - but because they believed in the power of big government to grow the middle class. And once you have a large middle class of consumers (with extra spending money to be captured), capital has an incentive to invest, innovate and add jobs. If the government (through enlightened labor policies and entitlements) puts more money in middle class wallets, than business will drive over the bones of the living and the dead to get at that money. This is why the 50s thru 73, during the height of postwar Keynesianism, saw greater economic growth than any period thereafter.

But, lez-be-honest bro-nameth. Reagan - mr. private sector himself - grew the federal government more than anyone in living memory, and then he and his movement lied about it. Also, his private sector job growth was in concert with the greatest expansion of credit in history to that date. Starting in the 80s the American family went on a 30 year spending orgy financed by easy credit. Morning in America was brought to you by MasterCard, Visa and American Express. Do some of your own research on this stuff. Try to isolate the historical period when the American consumer went from wage based consumption to debt-based consumption - and why... Turn off Hannity and Limbaugh. Go to a library.

And don't kind yourself about Reagan. The man grew government more than anyone in my lifetime.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the data for how much each president grew or reduced the federal workforce is:

I see you need help with accurate facts....no surprise there....eh what!


"Since the beginning of the last recession (December 2007) the private sector workforce has shrunk by 6.6% while shedding more than 7.5 million jobs. Over that same time period, the federal government workforce (excluding Census and Postal workers) has grown by 11.7% while adding 230,000 jobs."


Federal Workforce Continues to Grow Under Obama Budget | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

Read more: Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter

 

[auditor0007]

In response to the OP: No.

But just as Private Insurance is flourishing in the UK, I suspect the market will find ways around ObamaCare. We will end up having a two tier system. The one for the poor slobs who are forced into ObamaCare and the one for people who choose to purchase private health care outside of the exchange system. My guess is that the latter will eschew insurance altogether for routine care.

That makes no sense. People who get their insurance through their employer will still be stuck with whatever plan it is that their employer offers. Those who purchase through the exchange will have a number of options that will cover every person's need. The insurance is not being sold by the government. While there are a number of requirements, the benefits will cover anything a person may need.

 

[Obamanation]

NFL players have a career that lasts 8 years if they are lucky. They have to ensure that either the money they make will last a lifetime or that they have other skills that will support them in later life

You are no different. If you have a job that you know you cannot do in your 50s and 60s you need to plan ahead. Put more money aside in your 401k. Have plans where you can do less strenuous jobs when you get older

To say that the entire Social Security program must compensate for you is ridiculous.

Might as well just do away with it...

I could start investing the same money today - retire when I was ready (instead of waiting til 70) and still come out ahead and I'm in my 40s...

Social Security is a joke. Just like every other gov't run social program.

It is true that many people might actually do better investing the payroll tax privately, although there would be greater risk. What gets missed here is that just because it works for you, it wouldn't work for everyone. Millions of low income earners would be left out in the cold, because they would never put the money away into a savings plan. We would end up with tens of millions of retirees with no income at all. Then guess what would happen? The government would still have to support them in one form or another costing us trillions of dollars.

Now you have come up with the perfect solution to actually get the gov't to help...

The gov't could require private investment on income. They keep their hands off our money, just offer a system that enables/requires workers to invest in their own retirement.

 

[Flopper]

In response to the OP: No.

But just as Private Insurance is flourishing in the UK, I suspect the market will find ways around ObamaCare. We will end up having a two tier system. The one for the poor slobs who are forced into ObamaCare and the one for people who choose to purchase private health care outside of the exchange system. My guess is that the latter will eschew insurance altogether for routine care.

That makes no sense. People who get their insurance through their employer will still be stuck with whatever plan it is that their employer offers. Those who purchase through the exchange will have a number of options that will cover every person's need. The insurance is not being sold by the government. While there are a number of requirements, the benefits will cover anything a person may need.

If your employer offers healthcare plans, then it will probably be to your advantage to stick with an employer offered plan. If you reject your employers plan in favor of buying on the exchange, then you will lose any contribution your employer makes to the plan and you will not be able to claim the tax credit.

The exchanges are designed for individuals that do not have access to an employee plan, Medicare, or Medicaid and employers with less than 50 employees. It's estimated that only 20% of the people will get their insurance through the exchanges.

If competition between insurances on the exchanges drives down premiums, then we could see people leaving employee plans and purchasing on the exchanges.

 

[Flopper]

Might as well just do away with it...

I could start investing the same money today - retire when I was ready (instead of waiting til 70) and still come out ahead and I'm in my 40s...

Social Security is a joke. Just like every other gov't run social program.

The key to retirement is not putting your eggs in one basket

A balanced retirement will have a guaranteed annuity, savings, healthcare and a paid off house. You will be able to face any crisis

Nobody gives an annuity anymore. Trying to compensate with savings leaves you vulnerable to an economic collapse like we saw six years ago

Social Security is a safety net and it works

Social Security is a rip off. The vast majority of Americans will never get back what they put in, let alone see gains on their investment. You push it to 70 --- that many fewer Americans will see the benefits.

The "collapse" did very little to hurt investments long term. ...and putting the same money under your mattress for your worklife would give you more options and typically more money TO SPEND in the long run.

Social Security is much more than a retirement plan. It provides disability benefits and life insurance with benefits for spouse and children. Benefits are guaranteed and adjusted for inflation. Even if the stock market crashes in the year you retire, your benefits will not be effected. However, Social Security is no replacement for a retirement plan. The benefits provide only a safety net which means for most people just enough to survive.

 

[Obamanation]

The key to retirement is not putting your eggs in one basket

A balanced retirement will have a guaranteed annuity, savings, healthcare and a paid off house. You will be able to face any crisis

Nobody gives an annuity anymore. Trying to compensate with savings leaves you vulnerable to an economic collapse like we saw six years ago

Social Security is a safety net and it works

Social Security is a rip off. The vast majority of Americans will never get back what they put in, let alone see gains on their investment. You push it to 70 --- that many fewer Americans will see the benefits.

The "collapse" did very little to hurt investments long term. ...and putting the same money under your mattress for your worklife would give you more options and typically more money TO SPEND in the long run.

Social Security is much more than a retirement plan. It provides disability benefits and life insurance with benefits for spouse and children. Benefits are guaranteed and adjusted for inflation. Even if the stock market crashes in the year you retire, your benefits will not be effected. However, Social Security is no replacement for a retirement plan. The benefits provide only a safety net which means for most people just enough to survive.

You are right! It's a terrible con game --- and we are the marks!

 

[Bfgrn]

T. Roosevelt....................
38%

Taft................................
40%

Wilson ...........................
52%

Harding...........................
49%

Coolidge.........................
48%

Hoover............................
42%

F. Roosevelt.....................
50%

Truman...........................
50%

Eisenhower................ ....
57%

Kennedy.........................
30%

Johnson..........................
47%

Nixon..............................
53%

Ford................................
42%

Carter.............................
32%

Reagan............................
56%

GH Bush..........................
51%

Clinton
..........................
39%

GW Bush........................
55%

Obama.............................
8%

George Bush, the man with the third most private sector experience on this list, had abysmal job creation and was in office when both the housing and financial sectors were destroyed, initiating the greatest economic downturn in since the 30s.

To get out of his recession and boost employment and meet his policy goals Reagan added 258,000 workers to the federal workforce. He expanded government like no human on god's green earth.

Clinton reduced the federal workforce by 307,000.

Bushed increased it by 52,000

Obama has only increased it by 2000.

Reagan also kept funding open to the states so they coud maintain cops, firemen, teachers (all of whom, because they had jobs, pumped money into their local economies so more jobs could be saved). Obama, on the other hand, was forced to cut aid to the states.

I like your contributions. And I agree with some of them, but it looks like you are recycling cliches that have been around since Reagan - and not really adding to them, or explaining some of the problems that have happened by letting business run government, which is what we now have. Energy policy is written by big oil. Drug policy is written by big pharma. And ObamaCare was written with and for the large health insurance carriers. Crusty government supported monopolies are now in control of most major sectors. Big government and Big Business have become one. If you don't understand this, than you need to do more research on lobbying and the influence of money on the political process, including election funding. Most congressmen have very cushy lobbying jobs waiting for them when they leave office. Why do you think Fannie/Freddie paid Gingrich so much money for access to the Republican Congress during the Bush years? The private sector pays trillions of dollars a year to gain access to the centralized power of the federal government. Don't kid yourself my man, the free-market was killed along time ago.

FYI: I'd take Eisenhower and Nixon over anyone on your list, not because they had business experience (which I admit is a plus) - but because they believed in the power of big government to grow the middle class. And once you have a large middle class of consumers (with extra spending money to be captured), capital has an incentive to invest, innovate and add jobs. If the government (through enlightened labor policies and entitlements) puts more money in middle class wallets, than business will drive over the bones of the living and the dead to get at that money. This is why the 50s thru 73, during the height of postwar Keynesianism, saw greater economic growth than any period thereafter.

But, lez-be-honest bro-nameth. Reagan - mr. private sector himself - grew the federal government more than anyone in living memory, and then he and his movement lied about it. Also, his private sector job growth was in concert with the greatest expansion of credit in history to that date. Starting in the 80s the American family went on a 30 year spending orgy financed by easy credit. Morning in America was brought to you by MasterCard, Visa and American Express. Do some of your own research on this stuff. Try to isolate the historical period when the American consumer went from wage based consumption to debt-based consumption - and why... Turn off Hannity and Limbaugh. Go to a library.

And don't kind yourself about Reagan. The man grew government more than anyone in my lifetime.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the data for how much each president grew or reduced the federal workforce is:

I see you need help with accurate facts....no surprise there....eh what!


"Since the beginning of the last recession (December 2007) the private sector workforce has shrunk by 6.6% while shedding more than 7.5 million jobs. Over that same time period, the federal government workforce (excluding Census and Postal workers) has grown by 11.7% while adding 230,000 jobs."


Federal Workforce Continues to Grow Under Obama Budget | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

Read more: Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter

BULLSHIT. You can go the FRED to get graphs on almost any information.

Categories of Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed

 

[kaz]

Millions of Social Security recipients do not consider themselves to be parasites. Paying into the program for 50 years will do that

Not thinking of yourself as a parasite makes you not a parasite. Got it.

And paying into a program for 50 years that didn't save any of the money doesn't make you entitled to other people's money.

We're learning from each other here today, RW...

God, I love conservatives.

They manage to offend all Americans while clinging to their indifference. Social Security ensured the retirement of millions of Americans where formerly they worked till they dropped

75 years later, they still don't get it

You're a left winger who calls yourself "right winger"

I'm a libertarian and you call me a "conservative."

When you figure out which way is up, get back to me.