Who is going to pay the debt?

The Republicans held the presidency and both houses of congress for 6 years in the 2000s. They had complete control. You cannot blame the democrats for Medicare expansion. You cannot blame the democrats because the republicans did not cut social spending while they were in power. It may be that 80% of social spending was originated by the democrats but the republicans had 6 years to change that and not only did not cut social spending but increased it without bothering to find the revenues to do so. They also made sure that the bill would not come due until after Bush left office.

The democrats may be despicable communists but at least they are up front about it. Republicans are just so disingenuous, such two faced liars it is very hard to believe them. It does not help that they are so mean to other people and so intransigent in their views except when it is election time.

The US was founded on the ideal of everyone getting along. Significant compromises were made to get the nation founded and the Constitution written and adopted. There is nothing American about an uncompromising bigot, which to me is what the republican party has become.

Our social policies have no beneficial effect???
Please elaborate.

 

Economics is not a zero sum game. The rich can get richer without taking it from the poor. During periods of strong economic growth, especially in the market which is invested around the world via its corporations, there is the opportunity to create large sums of value for people who have the money to buy in. Thank goodness we have them! Economies that lack competitive capital are nonstarters. The poor saw a great improvement in their lives during this time, because of efficiencies in the market and delivery of new and improved goods. Not because of government. Social welfare usually doesn't do much for the poor, despite it good intentions. The rich can either invest their money that grows the pie and reduces costs, (or increases value) through efficiencies (or improvements), spend it on consumption, (which tends not raise prices for goods that are necessities, ie Bill Gates may be a yacht, but not likely to buy a million gallons of milk necessarily.)Since they can handle money, as evidenced by their ability to get it, I think they should be trusted to spend it. We had the greatest social mobility when spending to GDP was 5%.

Anyway, let me know if you agree that wealth is not a zero sum game. I feel like no leftists believe this, but it is very easy to prove with math if you would like, I am just a bit lazy today.

 

Gets more complicated. Democrats blocked Social Security reform. Certainly if that went through everyone would be much richer and spending debts would have been slashed by a large margin. Hard to blame Democrats stubbornness on this issue on Bush. You seem smart enough, you think our current system is a disaster of public policy too right?

The Republicans don't get credit for the balanced budget they forced on Clinton. No President had done more up until that time to block a bill, but they got it. Welfare reform too. Bush did expand medicare, but the Paul Ryan plan now to turn it into a voucher system, (like some other countries have that works well), would slash costs... etc.. Also it is not just direct spending. Obamacare forces Americans to spend large amounts in additional coverage they don't need, and paying into regressive risk pools etc... That should rightly be considered taxing and spending. (A tax if they dont get insurance, a tax expenditure as Obama calls it if they do). Supreme Court says it is a tax, and they are right.

By social program failure, take the war on poverty for example. We could have bought those people a way out of poverty for what we spend on it. The agencies now get more then the beneficiaries.

Or school sex ed to prevent teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of wedlock. Apparently telling a bunch of 13 year olds to give each other BJs leads to sex. Who knew?

etc...etc...
College tuition subsidies hurt the poor, they do not help them. Probably our most regressive expenditure.

All discrimination in employment acts which tend to cause discrimination b/c of fear of a lawsuit. Americans with Disabilities act is the most blatant example, hiring of the disabled declined by nearly 40% in its wake. (It was at 51% and went to 33% I think. Close enough anyway...)

ANyway, I would do away with all of it, and institute a different approach I have outlined here a few times. I would love your opinion, just search "negative income tax" to see it. The idea is to get rid of the waste and inefficiencies of our current programs. Any gaps you see let me know, I can try to explain how a NIT would be better then the current plan. The problem with poverty is money, this solves that, it doesn't seek to regulate the behavior of the recipient.

 

The rich can get richer without taking from the poor but do they?
Over $500Billion is extracted from sub-Sahara Africa each year and 80% of the population is impoverished.
Employees of Wal Mart avail themselves to over $2Billion in public and private charity each year while their owners rake in $3Billion in profits.

It seems to me that the rich may be able to make money without taking it from the poor but they certainly do not mind doing so, or letting others care for their poor workers that they deliberately under employ.

Social welfare is the only thing that allows companies like Wal Mart and every other company that underpays and under employs people to stay in business. Social welfare programs are, more than anything else, business subsidies.

 

The poor get much more value for their labor thanks to Wal Mart. They are richer because of them. Many people who were on welfare before welfare reform found jobs at Wal Mart who is willing to hire unskilled workers. Like everyone else those people are free to leave their jobs, but choose to stay in them for whatever reason. Maybe they need job skills and are trying to acquire them.

You make a good argument that the social welfare state allows businesses to pay less. Without it, all adult employees at least would have to demand more, and the supply of jobs below a livable income will dry up to at least some extent, putting upward pressure on wages. I definitely look at what is costs to live, and median incomes and the like when setting salaries and trying to keep up with COLA etc..But then again that is b/c I desperately do not want to lose any of my employees. They are skilled, and in demand. Most Wal Mart employees that people complain about are in entry level positions, and get paid the same amount there, or at Winn Dixie, or Target, or at CVS, or Walgreens etc... There are career jobs at Wal Mart too, in my county we have a distribution center, employs hundreds of people who can all afford a 2300 sq foot house and live comfortably just on their own salaries. Port Saint Lucie housing prices are low b/c very little building rules. Taxes are low, cost of living low etc... They can do just fine on 45k. That is good money in FL. But in NY it means you are starving and poor in a 500 sq foot apartment that is old. Anyway, if it was all about the company I think you would here about attorneys, engineers and the like making little, but they do not. Only unskilled workers make lower incomes, (or people who choose to for flexibility etc.. reasons, but they are not part of our discussion), and then you get to the real problem, which is there is usually a lack of job skills among the poor.

The Africans get capital. That is what they need. So they become richer in theory. Often is squandered by their governments. Botswana is a good example there that honest leadership and limited government in the economy are making them richer.

 

I only blame the right for claiming to believe in Capitalism, while resorting to the coercive use of force of the State to prosecute wars on abstractions through central forms of planning; simply because they are unwilling to take morals tests or drug tests before making such proclamations from public venues.

 

I believe we can blame both parties, not only because we are really all just Klingon at heart, but because supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, using existing infrastructure and existing laws.

 

How much travel related infrastructure has the government done in the last 4 years? How much did that reduce the cost of travel?

Welfare spending reduces crime? Have you spent any time in the projects?

Education has shown no gains since the 70's, despite tripling the cost per student.

Where does the money for entitlements come from? Can you say "Robbing Peter to pay Paul?"

The Republican have been horrible, only surpassed by a huge margin by the Democrats. I'm a Libertarian.

 

without welfare , there wouldn't be projects. they would have burned to the ground.

 

The rich get richer by from the middle class and higher, not from the poor.

I don't know about your company, but mine, and all it's customers will not by materials that are traced to conflict areas. The population is impoverished due the crooks running the country, funded by sales of natural resources .

Here is Walmarts 10K report to the SEC. Walmart had $469B in sales, $3B is a profit of 0.7%.

http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC.Enhanced/SecCapsule.aspx?c=112761&fid=8721155

Under employ? Anyone that is truly underemployed is working for Walmart because they can't find a job using their skills. Should Walmart pay for skill they are using?

A family plan medical insurance costs a company ~$15K a year, over $7 an hour.

Again, is that Walmarts doing?

 

The rich can get richer without taking from the poor but do they?
The rich get richer by from the middle class and higher, not from the poor.
you've obviously never owned a used car lot near an indian reserve.

 

Sorry, the only Indian reserves around me have large casino's on them.

Those car dealer get "rich"? They must sell a boatload of junkers....

 

news for ya, the ordinary indian sees little of that. and yes they do

 

This is one of the four reservations near me:

What do you call rich?

 

good for that reserve. go visit some in northern Canada.

 

What do you call rich?

 

rich people

 

Are you dodging on purpose, or have you forgot the question?

If I own a used car dealership next to a reservation.

How much money do I make per year?
How many cars do I sell per year? That will tell me how much I have to net on each car.

 

I know how to pay the national debt:

Have all the men donate sperm, have all the women donate eggs, and create a massive population of slave laborers.

This seems to jive with left wing reason. . .

 

Keynesianism sees no reason to pay the debt. Spend to prosperity until the end of time......

 

that's not true

 

Nah, wouldn't work.

The 1% would take the profits from the slaves and cut taxes even more and we'd still be running up more debt.

 

That could work if all of our public policies generated a positive multiplier effect on our economy, there wouldn't be much debt to pay down, in a manner analogous to Hoover Dam.

 

Sure it is reset our currency and clear the debts, the debt then hits $0 and is therefore good on the books. We are largely able again to meet our needs internally we have ample empty and unused buildings for housing, food production is high, our nation easily defensible and add to that rich natural resources we may need to give up using private cars and make some changes that's all. Just move to an internal domestic economy for say fifty to a hundred years.

WW2 rationing systems would work for essentials and rations of food to citizens.

We will never pay off the debt there is not other option when the time comes.

 

I believe that we need roads and aqueducts more than we need to finance a War on Drugs.