This is Total Insanity

[Musburger1]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-social-security-retirees-get/article/2590078

 

[UTChE96]

It's only insane if you are sane to begin with. The US is the Titanic heading towards a massive iceberg of debt. Anyone who wants to steer away from the iceberg is called a heartless racist *******. Maybe I am being hyperbolic. I mean the US like the Titanic is unsinkable.

 

[Musburger1]

In a twisted way, there may be some logic as to the establishment interests that are benefitted.

1. Democrat Party - no explanation needed
2. The economy - If you ignore the long-term damages inflicted by rising debt, the additional debt spending flows into the economy. The "free benefits" end up as payments to the health care industries, owners of Section 8 housing, etc. This process enriches some of the crony capitalists and also the liberal democrat party. The debt and social instability will only haunt the country at some unknown time down the road.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's only insane if you are sane to begin with. The US is the Titanic heading towards a massive iceberg of debt. Anyone who wants to steer away from the iceberg is called a heartless racist *******. Maybe I am being hyperbolic. I mean the US like the Titanic is unsinkable.

We should be cutting spending across the board: Entitlement programs, military, everywhere. Unfortunately, everyone has their pet interest so nothing significant gets cut. You can't only trim the other teams pet interests.

 

[Musburger1]

We should be cutting spending across the board: Entitlement programs, military, everywhere. Unfortunately, everyone has their pet interest so nothing significant gets cut. You can't only trim the other teams pet interests.

In theory, I agree with you. You might call making these cuts reform.

In reality, these programs and expenditures, just like the too big to fail banks, are now too systemically large to reform. Any significant reform measures (e.g. cuts) would have cascading effects which would unleash a psunami of deflation; not just prices at the store, but an implosion of stock market and real estate values.

So we have this dilemma.
1. Continue the status quo of ever increasing stimulus in the form of debt expenditures where systemically important institutions are bailed out (pension systems, banks, and eventually state budgets) until the system implodes. Along the way wealth inequality expands, social unrest increases, and corruption becomes even greater.

2. Implement reform and accelerate a collapse because the economy that once was stable has morphed into an unstable ponzi that requires exponential debt to sustain itself.

 

[Musburger1]

I no sooner than hit the post reply button than Jack Lew has pleaded with Congress for a taxpayer funded bailout of Puerto Rico.

My guess is there may be a bridge loan followed by political theatre and then a last minute bailout. Illinois and New Jersey might have a year or two and then it will be their turns.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ilout-puerto-rico-or-risk-chaotic-unwinds-cas

 

[Seattle Husker]

In theory, I agree with you. You might call making these cuts reform.

In reality, these programs and expenditures, just like the too big to fail banks, are now too systemically large to reform. Any significant reform measures (e.g. cuts) would have cascading effects which would unleash a psunami of deflation; not just prices at the store, but an implosion of stock market and real estate values.

So we have this dilemma.
1. Continue the status quo of ever increasing stimulus in the form of debt expenditures where systemically important institutions are bailed out (pension systems, banks, and eventually state budgets) until the system implodes. Along the way wealth inequality expands, social unrest increases, and corruption becomes even greater.

2. Implement reform and accelerate a collapse because the economy that once was stable has morphed into an unstable ponzi that requires exponential debt to sustain itself.

I don't have quite the dire forecast but I'm an eternal optimist. It's possible to wean ourselves through phased changes. For example, social security can be fixed by raising the eligibility age, structurally changing it for those under 50. Other changes can be phased in without our system crashing down. The changes will be painful but not sky is falling painful.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I no sooner than hit the post reply button than Jack Lew has pleaded with Congress for a taxpayer funded bailout of Puerto Rico.

My guess is there may be a bridge loan followed by political theatre and then a last minute bailout. Illinois and New Jersey might have a year or two and then it will be their turns.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ilout-puerto-rico-or-risk-chaotic-unwinds-cas

Yeah, the states are the biggest challenge. They've been underfunding unemployment for years.

 

[Horn6721]

Social Security must be changed and if we had started this 13 years ago the program might be well on its way to stable
Reading the article in the OP as well as recent articles on BO looking to ways around Congress to pay to bring more "refugees" or migrants ,whichever word applies should concern most
We have already run out of other people's money even though tax revenues are way up.
Maybe we should stop for awhile,regroup,improve our vetteing systems then begin with letting people in who will not be a drain on services and who will not be the start of a chain migration of others who will also take away services needed.
We could spend a fraction of the money helping those in need stay in their own country .

 

[Seattle Husker]

Social Security must be changed and if we had started this 13 years ago the program might be well on its way to stable
Reading the article in the OP as well as recent articles on BO looking to ways around Congress to pay to bring more "refugees" or migrants ,whichever word applies should concern most
We have already run out of other people's money even though tax revenues are way up.
Maybe we should stop for awhile,regroup,improve our vetteing systems then begin with letting people in who will not be a drain on services and who will not be the start of a chain migration of others who will also take away services needed.
We could spend a fraction of the money helping those in need stay in their own country .

Example 1...other peoples pet projects. Thanks for demonstrating why politics gets in the way of fixing this.

 

[Horn6721]

Social Security is EVERY ONE'S project
Or should be
For way too many it is their only retirement fund
Helping those in other countries should also be any caring person'ss concern.
Helping hundreds of thousands live in their own country instead of only helping thousands should appeal to any caring person
Not sure what your pet projects are Husker . If you do not think we need to find a way to keep SS going especially for the ones who have no other retirement or if you do not want to help as many in need in other countries with as efficient use of very scarce dollars what is an important project for you?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

We should be cutting spending across the board: Entitlement programs, military, everywhere. Unfortunately, everyone has their pet interest so nothing significant gets cut. You can't only trim the other teams pet interests.

Seattle, that is the truth. The first POTUS candidate to disavow omnibus spending bills and baseline budgeting will immediately win my steadfast loyalty (unless I believe they are just pandering). The first candidate to propose actual cuts, not reductions in planned future increases, will likewise win my loyalty.

The federal budget should be somewhere around 16% of our GDP, not the disastrous 20%+ it has been ever since President Obloatedbama took office.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3Djg

 

[Clean]

As the article notes, Obama's "budget" faces Congressional Approval. We'll see if the Repubs have enough cojones to fight it.

The Dems ultimately want the U.S. subsumed into a global society. The Repubs, well they talk the talk, but in the end, they usually cave in and contribute to the problem because they can't fade the heat the media puts on them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Social Security is EVERY ONE'S project
Or should be
For way too many it is their only retirement fund
Helping those in other countries should also be any caring person'ss concern.
Helping hundreds of thousands live in their own country instead of only helping thousands should appeal to any caring person
Not sure what your pet projects are Husker . If you do not think we need to find a way to keep SS going especially for the ones who have no other retirement or if you do not want to help as many in need in other countries with as efficient use of very scarce dollars what is an important project for you?

I've stated my SS plan above: raise the eligibility age, needs based and fundamentally restructured (or eliminated?) for those that still have time to get their retirement plans in order. My pet projects? I'm ready to put everything on the table. Of course, any solution needs to be a combined plan of cutting budget/services and raising taxes. I think this current debt is THAT important to pay down, for our children and our childrens' children. There has to be no sacred cows.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
I agree, everything should be on the table including raising taxes. Would you raise taxes on everyone including the 47% who pay zero taxes now?
Would you consider eliminating giving refunds to people who had paid no taxes?
Again I agree reducing our debt must be a priority.
BO seems intent on spending as much as fast as he can in his remaining months. Using executive power to spend millions and millions more is IMO indicative of his lack of regard for our future.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I've stated my SS plan above: raise the eligibility age, needs based and fundamentally restructured (or eliminated?) for those that still have time to get their retirement plans in order. My pet projects? I'm ready to put everything on the table. Of course, any solution needs to be a combined plan of cutting budget/services and raising taxes. I think this current debt is THAT important to pay down, for our children and our childrens' children. There has to be no sacred cows.

Personally, I disagree that tax increases are a meaningful answer from a policy standpoint. However, even if they aren't part of the policy solution, they are likely part of the political solution. I'm getting sick of the "no new taxes" mantra used as a weapon to stop spending cuts.

When Democrats threw out a compromise option of ten dollars of spending cuts for every one dollar of new taxes, I think the GOP was stupid not to go along. For the record, I don't think Democrats really wanted such a deal, but they knew they could suggest it to make themselves sound magnanimous and reasonable, because they knew the GOP would kneejerk reject it. I think the GOP should have called their bluff and passed a balanced budget plan built around such a compromise. It would have forced the Dems to either go along, which would have been a major victory for the country, or they would have had to go back on their own suggestion, which would have made them look like disingenuous pricks.

As for the actual tax increases, I'd want to see loopholes closed and preferential rates eliminated before any actual rate hikes were on the table