The united states of America has spoken

[WillisNYC]

On nearly every other topic I am strongly libertarian and I do agree that 'economically', lurtsman's argument makes sense. Freakonomics laid it out quite clearly. There is a direct correlation between crime levels and the implementation of abortion in the US. I get all that, but I can't get past the fact that the aborted 'fetus' is clearly a baby that often could live outside the womb if given modern medical attention. Too me, abortion is murder, no matter how you put it. Now I don't want to impose that view on others because of my libertarian leanings, but anyone that has ever seen a sonagram of a 'fetus' calls it a baby and knows it is alive! It just is not outside the womb yet! I have seen sonograms of all my daughters and saw how they looked just like miniature babies even at 3 months or so.

Regardless, the deficit is out of control, the real deficit is 5 or 6 times the GDP and it is just a matter of time til the currency crisis hits. Lurtsman, what is your answer when interest rates simply go up to 'normal' levels of say 6 or 7%? The interest on our outstanding debt will be over a $trillion per year. Add that to our current deficit and how do we pay for it? There are only two exits from that scenario. One is to grow the economy a LOT before that happens or you debase the currency and create hyperinflation to pay the interest on the debt. Obama is preventing any fast economic growth with his promises of higher taxes and greater regulation. So that leaves hyperinflation. All those seniors on social security get screwed tremendously! All the savers for their retirement lose those savings. Does society break down at that point? Is that what you want? Or do you have some magic plan to save us from this 'totally screwed' scenario? I would love to hear a serious answer, not some bs that says that there is no problem and does not address the balance between spending and 'income' aka taxes. And no raising taxes on the rich to even 100% of their income will not raise enough money... so what is your solution?

[caserri]

-Ron, you probably typoed it as H O M O, and the filter is set to be very sensitive. It might be sensitive enough to edit H M O as a possible variation. It will probably censor my posts for words like "va-gina", which are NOT dirty words.

Sorry, its a work in progress. There are hundreds of words in the filter. I don't even know what most of them mean. I've been editing the list on a word by word basis but it takes a long time.

[ronsidney]

the arguments about government makes my head hurt..wherever you live at and people you know and see regularly totally influence what you support.

My wife is from Los Angelas, I am from Tennessee,"map dot ,stop sign on some blacktop" ...and even though what happens either way will affect us the same as we are same household we can argue to the sun comes up about politics. Her preaching liberal California views and me arguing conservative views..

the funniest part is when i read a total liberal view article from a democrat and then before i read it say its a republican article ,before i get finished she is arguing saying how dumb it is!!

fact is we are the "divided states of america" and both parties are in the same bed , they have a list of points to argue and get the public riled up and they sat down and decided which side gets which. Obama won and so be it..It wouldn't have been any different in Romney would have. Obama has already abandoned a lot of the interest groups he courted in the election, Romney would have done the same.

funny about some points is this..Liberals basically want to have freedom to do whatever they want and its nobody's business so leave them alone,just give me same rights as everybody else..but when they can bend it to say a environmental concern they preach "you don't have the right to do that if it harms me or the public" ..so really liberals should have really been saying "Its your right to do whatever you want" and standing up for say a landowners right to his land, or a mans right to free speech....

thats where i get my wife on some articles,, It will be a republican slanted article about a person's right to sell his property or something saying even thought there is say some endangered species living on his land and he wants to sell it to a big mining outfit that its his right because he bought and paid for the land..she gets all fired up about the mans rights to do what he wants, but if you read the other liberal slanted article about some endangered species losing habitat because of mining then she is fired up about "we need to protect the endangered species"...

its funny really how we "sheeple" will follow whatever is convenient.

truth is the parties are put in place to make us think we are a democracy and we have a choice, we keep arguing about the issues and the politicians get rich and play golf.

[Action Vending]

I've noticed a strong correlation between proper grammar/syntax and logical argumentation.

There is still a great deal of hyperbole. Democracy is not in tatters or destroyed if your candidate loses. If the person with more votes wins, then democracy is working. The larger irony is the sheer amount of money that was spent on Romney failing to reach the white house.

Yes, insurance companies are raising premiums. It isn't strictly Obamacare, it is because they have an opportunity to do it. I replaced my 25 cent mechs with 50 cent mechs, should I blame Obamacare? I did it because I could. The lack of competition within the industry is a driving factor of cost increases.

Arguments against providing free birth control are as ill informed as arguments against providing free police protection. Society benefits. When a woman does not want to have a baby, do you want her to have one against her will? Wouldn't it be better if she could opt out? You can scream that it's only 9 dollars a month, but that's a lie. Lies do not help. It also requires doctors visits and exams to be legally allowed to purchase the pills. The result is that the cost is closer to thirty dollars a month.

Which women do you think are most likely to avoid spending the time and money to get on birth control when they intend to be sexually active and do not want a child? If you guessed women that are poor, young, and uneducated, you would be right. You can scream at them, you can label them with nasty names, and you can make a real A-hole out of yourself. But when they have the child they didn't want, and don't have the resources or desire to raise it, you'll be left with a young criminal. That criminal will need to be caught, prosecuted, and jailed. Clearly, several poor children survive a bad environment. However, the percentage of them that end up in a life of crime is dramatically higher than those born to parents who were ready, willing, and able to take care of them.

I don't care if some woman, whom I do not know, has sex. It is NOT my right to know. I'm not paying her nine dollars (or thirty) a month to have sex or not have sex. I'm contributing to a fund that is preventing the creation of unwanted children who are at high risk for abuse, neglect, and criminal behavior. I'm contributing because as a society it is vastly cheaper to pay the price of providing birth control to thousands of women than to have one additional career criminal born.

Some women who are not sexual active use the birth control pills to regulate their bodies natural cycle. If the cycle is not functioning correctly, it can create problems in their life. If a man's ankle does not work, I would expect health insurance to cover a correction to his ankle. Some women who are on birth control are staunchly pro-life. They live in a bad neighborhood and know that each day is a risk. If they are assaulted and ****d, the birth control can prevent conception. No abortion. People who are staunchly pro-life should support the availability of a service that can proactively help rape victims prevent unwanted pregnancy. Are they so pro-life that they would root for a pregnancy in that situation?

I don't get offended by many things, but the sheer ignorance of right wing attacks on birth control is enough to set me off. If you believe you have a right to tell a woman what she does with her vagina, go out on the street and say it to her face. Health insurance already covers ED. If a man can't get his penis to function the way he wants, he deserves medication. If a woman can't get her reproductive organs to function the way she wants, she gets labeled a ****. ED and pregnancy are both entirely natural functions of the body through the course of human life. Suggesting that one deserves medication and the other does not is moronic and I strongly doubt the IQ of anyone who maintains that position after serious consideration. People who truly want a free market would argue that neither deserves coverage unless the insurance company wishes to provide that product. Unfortunately, as long as employers are involved in health insurance it will not be a decision between one customer and one insurance agency.

-Ron, you probably typoed it as H O M O, and the filter is set to be very sensitive. It might be sensitive enough to edit H M O as a possible variation. It will probably censor my posts for words like "va-gina", which are NOT dirty words.

Cant agree with you more about the birth control issue. Bottom line is; now that Obama is still the president he needs to lead the country in the right direction. The republicans and democrats in the house and the senate need to put their differences aside for once and do what is best for the u.s. economy and the nation. I am sure that what I just said is a dream and wont happen but that is what needs to be done. Oh yea we need term limits for congress too. If you see congress on tv it is like seeing people at a nursing home, because many of them have been there so long they are old and a liability to the U.S. taxpayers.

[lurtsman]

On nearly every other topic I am strongly libertarian and I do agree that 'economically', lurtsman's argument makes sense. Freakonomics laid it out quite clearly. There is a direct correlation between crime levels and the implementation of abortion in the US. I get all that, but I can't get past the fact that the aborted 'fetus' is clearly a baby that often could live outside the womb if given modern medical attention. Too me, abortion is murder, no matter how you put it. Now I don't want to impose that view on others because of my libertarian leanings, but anyone that has ever seen a sonagram of a 'fetus' calls it a baby and knows it is alive! It just is not outside the womb yet! I have seen sonograms of all my daughters and saw how they looked just like miniature babies even at 3 months or so.

Regardless, the deficit is out of control, the real deficit is 5 or 6 times the GDP and it is just a matter of time til the currency crisis hits. Lurtsman, what is your answer when interest rates simply go up to 'normal' levels of say 6 or 7%? The interest on our outstanding debt will be over a $trillion per year. Add that to our current deficit and how do we pay for it? There are only two exits from that scenario. One is to grow the economy a LOT before that happens or you debase the currency and create hyperinflation to pay the interest on the debt. Obama is preventing any fast economic growth with his promises of higher taxes and greater regulation. So that leaves hyperinflation. All those seniors on social security get screwed tremendously! All the savers for their retirement lose those savings. Does society break down at that point? Is that what you want? Or do you have some magic plan to save us from this 'totally screwed' scenario? I would love to hear a serious answer, not some bs that says that there is no problem and does not address the balance between spending and 'income' aka taxes. And no raising taxes on the rich to even 100% of their income will not raise enough money... so what is your solution?

Willis,

I'm going to respond quickly because I'm limited on time and you've raised several questions.

Abortions? My only reference to abortions is that the widespread availability of birth control reduces abortions. Even people that are pro-choice do not want abortions. Without full context, I can only hope this means that you agree with me about the need to spread birth control.

You said "The real deficit is 5 or 6 times GDP". This statement is false. I'm not sure what statement you meant to make, but I believe this is a terminology mix up. A deficit is temporary and refers to an accounting cycle, rather than an enduring debt. The national debt is around 16 trillion (last I looked, it keeps going up), but that debt was created over generations. Deficits are generally the difference between income and expenses within the year. The government spends something like 22% of GDP. Perhaps you meant debt, but that will be an enormous burden to prove as you'll have to contradict several economic agencies. Rather than attack this point as invalid, I'll wait for you to clarify what you meant. Since I don't know what you meant, it is wrong for me to tackle it.

Does the economy need to grow. Yes, it does. Do lower taxes promote economic growth? In general, they do. Does that mean that lower taxes are ALWAYS an improvement? No. If we had no taxes, we would have no military, and we would not control this country. So some middle ground must be established. We should be able to agree that 0% is too low, and 100% is too high.

When interest rates go up to "normal" levels, we are dealing with two terms that need more definition. Interest rates in the private economy, or the interest rate the government pays? You've defined normal to be 6 to 7 percent, which is a healthy interest rate in an economy running 3% inflation. The government will pay lower rates. Right now the TIPS (treasury inflation protected securities) is selling at a negative yield. That means if you give the government one thousand, they will pay you back less than one thousand dollars adjusted for inflation. They are able to pay LESS than the rate of inflation. Long term treasury bonds with fixed yields are also recording very low numbers. Will the rate the government pays go up? Some day, but the current low interest rates are a creation of the federal reserve rather than the free market.

Seniors on social security are receiving a payment that is tied to inflation. The only way they get screwed is by invisible inflation, which means they can't eat an iphone. If people don't understand that, ill go into it later. The "savers" often have their money in assets that will rise with inflation, but some may be kept in cash. The value will be decreased, but not wiped out. The vast majority of the wealth that is being affected is concentrated in the hands of the super wealthy.

If I were building a plan, I would implement several changes. Free birth control, revamp unemployment to require manual labor, revamp welfare and food stamps (you want the money, you get to do work!), remove tax subsidies for the ultra rich (poor man pays very little taxes, middle class man pays 20%, upper middle class pays 45%, ultra rich pays 15%. This system is complete trash.) . Do I have a candidate who does everything I want? No, I don't. I was given a choice between Obama and Romney. I had to pick which of those two men I thought would be a better leader.

How should the budget be "balanced"? In the long term, we need several cuts. I would want to see a scaling back of the social security, medicare, and medicaid programs as well as cuts to our military. (We have nearly half the worlds military spending. We are fighting against people that are illiterate. This war is absurd.) As Ron Paul suggested, we could be safer with a smaller budget by bringing our men and women home. We have them positioned all over the world. We are LESS safe because we spend lavishly on being the police of the world. By bringing our men and women home, we would have the resources to respond to real threats.

Medicare and medicaid provide medical coverage to people that would never purchase it with their own money and consequently waste it in enormous amounts. Insurance as a whole is thoroughly broken. Lobbying is a huge loss for the country.

So I do see the problems, and I'd like to see them fixed. Romney wasn't going to fix them, he would've made them worse. Obama will not fix enough. There was no third option.

Do you have suggestions to fix the problems we face? Revamping the entitlement programs and allowing the ultra rich to pay tax rates at the same level as the nearly rich seems like a step in the right direction.

[lurtsman]

PS. I do believe that the republican party will need to move beyond a stance of "lets have a nanny state in our neighbor's bedroom". However, that move will discourage several religious voters whose primary motivation in voting is asking the government to dictate their religion's value onto their neighbor. I believe that is theocracy, it is oppression, and it has no place in a free country. Until the republican party makes a shift (possibly towards libertarian principles), the democrats will hold office.

In short: Democrats want government involvement in finance, and none in personal life.

Republicans want government involvement in personal life (theocracy--the principles they want are religious in nature), and not in finance--except for classifying their income as being too good to be taxed.

[WillisNYC]

PS. I do believe that the republican party will need to move beyond a stance of "lets have a nanny state in our neighbor's bedroom". However, that move will discourage several religious voters whose primary motivation in voting is asking the government to dictate their religion's value onto their neighbor. I believe that is theocracy, it is oppression, and it has no place in a free country. Until the republican party makes a shift (possibly towards libertarian principles), the democrats will hold office.

In short: Democrats want government involvement in finance, and none in personal life.

Republicans want government involvement in personal life (theocracy--the principles they want are religious in nature), and not in finance--except for classifying their income as being too good to be taxed.

Unfortunately lurtsman, you seem to have allowed the Democratic party to define what the Republican party stands for. Yes the far right GOP would ban abortion and overturn ROE v Wade. That is maybe 20% of the GOP. Most of us, even such as I who think abortion is murder are content to allow the law of the land to stand on that. Most of the GOP is sincerely interested MAINLY in economic and tax reform. All the other issues like 'war on women' are total smokescreens set out by the Dems to confuse people about what we (GOP) really care about.

The root of the problem in the country is two fold. The deficit, if you accounted for it like all the corporations in America are required to account for on their 'balance sheets', would be 5-6 times GDP. The 'official' debt is $16 trillion as you stated. That does not account for the future payments of programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Any corporation that had such liabilities, would have to set aside additional funds to pay for those programs. The US govt does not set aside any money to pay for these future obligations. Al Gore's 'lockbox' does not exist! This is why every year you get a report from our government saying that Social Security will run out of money in 2030 or whatever number the actuaries decide is correct. The last numbers I saw for Medicare and Medicaid say they will run out of money before 2020!

The current annual deficit the government runs is a little over $1 trillion per year and has been so for the last 4 years. Under Obama for the next 4 years I expect that to continue. So our current official TOTAL deficit will be $16 trillion plus at least $4 trillion more by the time he leaves office in 2016. Just do the math on interest to be paid on $20 trillion in debt. At 1% interest it is $200 billion per year. This is in real money, not negative interest as you claim above. This number is similar to the real interest paid on our current debt. (It is actually a little higher because the govt issues short and long term bonds whose combined net interest rates are going to be a little higher than the 1% I use in my example. But this is complicated enough without going into such details. 1% is about our current average.) When I say rates will have to normalize, I am referring to the rate the govt has to pay which is always 3 or so points lower than what people pay for things like mortgages. Current mortgages are around 4% and the govt is paying an average of 1% on the debt. So lets assume that rates 'normalize and go back up to where people pay 10% for a mortgage rate and the amount the govt pays goes up to 6%. I am sure everyone here can remember that interest rates of this amount were common in the 80s and 90s. Some years higher, some lower, but pretty steady in this range for most of that time. Interest alone on the govt debt of $20 trillion would amount to $1.2 trillion per year with 6% interest rates. That number is $1 trillion higher than we currently pay in interest. In addition, without reform the ongoing payments due to beneficiaries of Soc Sec, Medicaid, and Medicare will continue to go up because we have set $0 dollars aside to pay those obligations. It would not be hard to imagine those payments needing to be $300 billion higher in 4 years than they are today. Especially since Ocare adds lots of people to Medicaid and the baby boomers are starting to retire in large numbers adding to the costs of the other two programs.

We have a current deficit of $1 trillion, where do we get an additional $1.5 trillion in 4 years?

The additional $1.5 trillion is a realistic scenario, but lets assume a goldilocks scenario where we don't have those increased expenses in the next four years. That leaves us a deficit of roughly $1 trillion. Obama and you say lets raise rates on the rich raising $1.6 trillion. However that increase is spread over 10 years and only raises $160 billion per year roughly. (Of course that is assuming a static economy where the rich do not respond to the changes in tax law. History shows the rich do respond and the revenue estimates will be less than actual of course, but that is another arguement.) So that still leaves a $840 billion hole in our budget. You also advocate cutting defense. The automatic cuts that many folks call 'draconian' are scheduled to come on Jan 1 cutting roughly $100 billion a year from our budget. Now philosophically I am opposed to both these things, but lets assume that Obama gets his way due to the election results. We still need $760 billion in cuts or revenue increases.

Philosophically I am very much in favor of cutting spending to solve this problem, but I think the Democrats in charge, ie Obama do not want any spending cuts that affect entitlements as you call them. However, 60% or so of the budget is tied up in the three spending programs that I outlined above. Means testing is probably going to be required, as is raising the eligibility ages for soc security and Medicare. Expanding Medicaid as Ocare does is wasteful and ultimately unsupportable, but the Ocrats insist.

Lastly, a strong argument can be made for spending cuts as the solution to our problems. So called 'austerity' measures consisting primarily of tax increase in the European union and no real spending cuts. (They only cut the rate of increase in spending there slightly! Yet the cuts were called draconian!) This has resulted in very slow growth or no growth across Europe. Germany grows at .2 percent in the latest quarter and France at .1 percent. Greece and the other 'troubled' economies are contracting. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111612-633818-europe-recession-shows-flaws-of-obama-tax-plan.htm This provides strong evidence that trying to tax our way out of this mess will be counterproductive. Taxing wealthy individuals more might be considered 'fair' in your opinion, but it will only hurt the economy. (Personally I prefer a flat tax paid equally by all, but that will never happen in our current environment!)

One thing that would help our problems immensely would be to stop a mischievous govt invention called baseline budgeting. Our budgets include automatic across the board increases every year of about 7%! So anytime anyone speaks of cutting spending, unless they cut more than 7%, they are only cutting the rate of growth in all these programs. A true cut of 1% a year in every govt progam, not allowing for this automatic 7% increase every year would bring our budget in balance in 7-10 years! The likelihood of this passing this plan is depressingly, clearly not even in the ballpark of discussions had by our political leaders in either party.

Sadly, I see taxes being raised and spending cuts will be promised but will never materialize and our country will wait like sheep to be slaughtered until interest rates do raise and we will be unable to increase payments to our debt owners or our social security payees fast enough to keep up with the resulting inflationary spiral. I see HUGE inflation in our future similar to the German Weimar Republic in the 1920s. THAT is when our retirees and ANY savers in our country get totally screwed as the currency becomes essentially worthless. I am talking about inflation in the 1000% or more range per year, not just the hideous 15-20% we endured under Carter in the late 1970s. Sadly I don't see our political leaders being fearful enough of this scenario. If they were, they would get serious about getting our budget in order. Instead they dawdle and impose small marginal cuts when massive surgery is required to save the patient.

[lowcountry Dan]

First of all, I believe that Mr. Obama cares about only one thing, government. Everything else is secondary to him. Also I have noticed a hero worship that many have for him that is quite disconcerting. Many Democrats seem to cling to their beliefs as if it were their Faith (religion) . I voted for Bush, but saw his shortcomings and did not agree with all he did. Many Republicans voiced displeasure with Bush and Romney. Obama supporters often think that he can do no wrong. It is truly the cult of personality. That is scary to me. Just my observation.

[lurtsman]

Intelligent response Willis.

I believe that if people like you were leading the republican party, we would see more intelligent nominees. I base my view of republicans on those I know, not on the democratic view of them. However, those that I know, would immediately seek to overturn Roe V Wade. They saw a Romney victory as a chance to get three appointments to the supreme court and challenge Roe V Wade. To them, the importance of overturning that law is higher than the importance of long run stability in our country. They would vote for whichever party suggested they could overturn it. It is true that some of the republicans I know are what you would consider "hard right".

You mentioned mortgage rates coming back to more "realistic" levels, but it has been 20 years since we saw those levels. I agree that the current rates are absurdly low, but I also believe the federal reserve will hold to those rates for a few years at least. It is true that the government will be required to pay a set interest rate, but using the word "real" when talking about costs usually infers the accounting and economic definition of interest minus inflation. You are talking about nominal costs. It is true that nominal costs will have to be repaid and will require dollars, however paying just the interest in an inflationary environment results in the outstanding balance suffering the consequences of inflation. We can agree that rates will go up. We may be stuck disagreeing about the nature of real vs nominal costs.

Present spending creates future debts though, and the governments spending (except for TIPS) is largely in locked rate maturities. If the rates go up to 6%, the deficits will be unsustainable. However, the rates going up to 6% will not raise the rates of previously issued maturities. Mortgage rates for those with excellent credit are running 3.375 to 3.50. In ten years, when rates may be substantially higher, those people will still be paying less than 4 percent. In the same way, the current deficits can be financed at current rates locked in across future periods.

You suggested some reductions to entitlements, and I agree with most of your reductions. While I don't view government spending as necessarily bad, I do agree that a significant portion of it is wasteful and distorts effective economic use of resources. You suggested raising the retirement age for social security. I agree one hundred percent. The current age has been largely unchanged for several decades while the estimated life span has been increased by about a decade. People aren't living massively longer while being sick, they are being healthier into old age. There is no reason that retirement should be extended by ten years when life is extended by ten years. The right to be lazy is not a god given right, and it is not a constitutional right. I believe our current social security eligibility age should be raised by five to seven years. Since this will come as a shock to many, it should be done across the span of two decades, however, those decades will also see a need for their own raise, so the total should probably be seven to ten years.

Despite the fact that some may paint me as a liberal or Obama worshiper, I am neither a democrat nor a large fan of our president. I do believe that entitlements need to be cut, and SS, medicare, and medicaid are at the top of the list. I don't believe Romney would have trimmed a dime off any of them. I would like to see major revisions to all of the big spending programs, because I do not believe they generate a reasonable return for the country. The point of social security, as I understand it, was to provide a safety net to help old people who had not budgeted for inflation to be able to have food and electricity. Now it has become the primary retirement resource, and it sickens me. I see people retiring in their sixties with less than fifty grand in retirement accounts and their house paid off. They think social security should allow them to maintain a high quality life style. Ironically, these people by and large are republicans voting to cut all spending except social security--which they believe is their god given right since they paid into it. I am part of a generation that will be told to **** off and die. We will be taxed to support social security, and we are unlikely to ever get a dime out of it.

So you want reforms, and I want reforms. You want to see the major entitlement programs that reward people for not contributing (social security payouts are reduced if you take a job and continue to work) be reduced, and I want to see them reduced. I don't think people should be homeless as a penalty for not saving for retirement, but there is no reason to have more than two cars. If they don't save, I don't see why they "need" money before they sell down to one old commuter car. I don't see a "need" for people to be able to retire in san francisco, just because they've lived their. I believe entitlements should be restricted to the bare necessities of life, so we may be on very similar pages.

You want a flat tax, and I've argued for a modified flat tax for the last decade. I'd love to see a flat 20% tax on all income with exactly two exemptions. The first would be for retirement accounts--as an economic incentive for people to put aside money (around 5,000/year into a roth account), and an exemption for the first 10,000 for each individual.

My reasoning for exemptions at the bottom (which every American would receive) is that people earning less than 10,000 per year are getting very little out of our economic system. The people who benefit most should pay the most. A flat tax would on all income over the poverty line would do that. The current system clearly fails because the ultra wealthy are paying below 15%. I think Romney's effective tax rate was around 13.9%. I don't "have it out" for the ultra wealthy, but I think they should pay the same percentage on their wealth that I pay on mine.

Clearly, Germany's hyperinflation would completely decimate all savings measured in dollars, and that would be a tragic event. I don't want to see the currency destabilized either, but I think we need a combination of revamping the tax code in a way that would raise effective tax rates on the ultra wealthy (13.9% is too low), and lower them on the middle class (40%+ is too high). After an exemption for $10,000, we would see rates of around 16-18% for the middle class and 20% for the rich. The rich oppose this adjustment because they understand how to structure earnings to receive lower rates. By removing all other deductions, we would raise the effective tax rates and create an economy that was closer to a free economy because it would not create perverse incentives for structuring earnings to reduce taxes at the cost of wealth creation.

I don't think we are so far apart. It seems to me our only real differences are measuring interest in nominal or inflation adjusted terms and perhaps having different stances on how much Romney would have reduced the deficit. I'm not convinced that he would run a smaller deficit than Obama. I believe his policies regarding war, defense spending, and protecting entitlements for older republicans as well as creating new tax breaks might lead him to run equal deficits with the beneficiaries under Romney being those with more wealth. On social policies, (*** marriage, birth control, who should receive the benefits of tax breaks) I felt that Obama was the better candidate. Normally I would favor republicans for financial restraint, but Romney lost that edge by failing to produce a credible budget and tax plan. "Wait and see" is not an answer I will accept from a man asking to be the commander in chief.

If we can agree on 80 to 90 percent of the issues, I'd say we are similar than different. Judging by the technical nature of the things we disagree on, I'm pleased to be able to have an intelligent and reasoned debate. Often, the people I would debate with could not fathom the arguments you have presented in a logical manner. It is a pleasure to discuss the implications of the election with you.

[musser]

Thanks, its nice to see real thoughts. I mostly disagree on your Social Security view. SS was created because millions of people believed that the work of a life time, invested in stocks, bonds, property etc was safe. The great crash of 1929 took everything from people. Social Security was enacted so people would not starve. These people were not slackers or bums but hardworking conservative folks that lost everything.

Do we "need" social security Today? I think so as a safe guard.

[lurtsman]

What level of payment is required to not starve? I agree that they should not go hungry, but a "safe guard" or "safety net" should not be lucrative for people driving large new trucks. Having it exist solely as a safety net would create a perverse incentive to understate assets (if it was means tested). I think people should know that they need to pay off the house before retiring. Outside of medical bills, cost of living is not very high. My wife and I got by on 1800/month with about 780 going to rent. We had one busted up old car to share. So I struggle to understand why social security is paying out thousands per month to couples. It doesn't cost that much to live, and a safe guard shouldn't be paying for people to go to movies, drive fancy cars, or go out for dinner. It's true that the crash decided finances for many people, but the damage was magnified by buying stocks on margin. There are regulations in place to prevent the risky behavior that amplified the crash. Most financial planners will recommend older customers keep the vast majority of their money in bonds for stability with a healthy share in cash reserves.

[The Mage]

The crash was only one sign of the Great Depression. The general public was not invested in it like they are today.

But while there was a crash, if is often not mentioned there was a big run up in the stock market right before the crash. As such, it makes great news to take the top number and mention how long it took to get back to that number. Similarly people are now mentioning how far houses have dropped from the ridiculous highs that existed in the housing market. Neither really gives an honest view of what actually happened.

Social Security was created to entice the older workers out of the work force, making more room for the younger workers.

One of the big drawbacks of Social Security is that it makes people think they don't need to prepare for retirement. Many people are not aware that Social Security's average rate of return is 1.23%. Since this is less then inflation, it is effectively a negative return.

[lurtsman]

If social security was created to entice older workers to leave the workforce, it was a very poorly designed system. Money represents a claim on the assets of a nation. Paying people to encourage them not to work is counter productive. If there is a lack of jobs, it should be tackled directly rather than by taxing those that work to pay others not to work. If nothing else, those on social security that are still capable of working could continue to work and produce tangle or intangible assets.

A worker's labor is similar to a machine's production. Both create products or services that people can consume to have a higher standard of living. Paying to have a factory not produce items would be absurd. In the same way, paying people to encourage them to stop working and producing assets is foolish. At the moment, we have a severe shortage of jobs. However, that was not always the case. Yet when unemployment was at record lows, we did not reduce our payments made to people who were capable of work, but deciding not to contribute.

Yes, the return on social security is terrible, unless you are relatively poor. Since the scale for social security's returns are tied to contributions with a sliding scale, the richest who pay into it (top of the middle class / bottom of the upper class) receive back less dollars than they paid in unless they live a longer than average life. However, even the poor have a fairly modest return before accounting for inflation.

The problem is really compounded because the entire system is a ponzi scheme. People are in jail for creating private companies that function the same social security functions. They use current sales to pay off past customers because the fund is insolvent. If it was not insolvent, it would be possible to allow all working adults to opt out and use the savings to pay off retired "investors". Since the initial money was handed out to people who put nothing in, the entire system has been flawed from the start. The value of the system as a form of welfare net aside, financially, it is a ponzi scheme with mandated contributed from all but the upper upper class. (Cap gains/dividends are not assessed taxes to pay for these funds) Each generation has been ripped off, and then paid off by stealing from the next. The only generation not to be ripped off were the ones who took without paying. Eventually, someone gets left out when there is no longer a "bigger fool" to step up. I strongly believe my generation will be the first ones to not receive a pay out. Therefore, I am trying to restructure my position in society to rely largely on dividends, interest, capital gains, and a moderate amount of labor for institutions that are exempted from social security.

The incentive system as a whole is largely counterproductive and participates in a destruction of wealth on a national level. With an hour, I could prove it to be a global level, but I think that is beyond the point. Paying assets to remain dormant is a terrible system, and doing so requires taxing productivity. If the workers were capable of working and wished to do so in the private sector, the funds could be spent on hiring the unemployed to create public goods. (Roads is my default example, perhaps because I grew up in an area with too few of them.) Spending to create nothing is the worst kind of spending. Republicans can decry spending to create infrastructure, they can suggest that the government stop building roads, dams, libraries, etc, but the argument will have few teeth. When the government pays people NOT to produce those assets, then the republicans are precisely on target.

Quick example to make this more personal and less theoretical. Bob is an older worker. Sean is a younger worker. The government offers Bob social security to retire from his job working the front desk at a hotel. Sean gets the job that Bob has vacated, but Sean and several other workers must be taxed to pay for Bob's social security.

A better system. Unemployment is high and more jobs are needed. Instead of paying Bob to stop doing a job he has mastered, the government uses the same monthly funds and pays a local construction company to build a new road. The construction company has increased demand for projects, so they hire Sean to participate in the building of roads.

The second system is better because with the same amount of money the public would receive the benefits of Bob's service at the hotel and Sean's service building roads. As a result, the city now has more roads. Additional roads decrease the time spent on the road because driver's are able to travel faster with less congestion. People living in the city benefit from spending less on gas and less time driving, which is an improvement in their standard of living. When Bob is no longer able to work, it makes sense for social security to provide benefits to ensure he is able to eat and have a roof over his head. Until then, it is not the governments job to ensure that people have a retirement paid for by the public.

[shepherdsflock]

Lurtsman, the only problem I see with your second scenario is that corrupt and morally bankrupt people are bound to infiltrate the positions that distribute where and how these projects would be allotted. You end up with a "good ole boys" club like we have here in Cedar Rapids, IA, where the city counsel members are notorious for giving projects to high bid companies from out of town simply because they have a personal interest in seeing those companies receive revenue. The local companies who bid lower and are perfectly capable of completing the job correctly and on time are disqualified for dubious reasons and the work is given to contractors who take the revenues out of the community.

This is the crux of the problem, in my opinion. There have been many theoretically valid solutions offered to our problem, and some have been tried, but they always fail. They don't fail because there is some inherent flaw in the system itself, they always fail because at heart, people aren't perfect. Even "good" people do some incredibly dumb things, and sometimes they are even tempted to do bad things. Look at Petraeus. For the most part, I think he had a decent track record as a general. But one selfish folly, namely adultery, brought shame and potential danger to our nation. This is our nature as human beings, and why we can never achieve our social ideals; because there is always a weak link in our systems, and that weak link is us.

[lurtsman]

There is a risk for corruption. If it could not be mitigated, the money could be used to hire directly rather than relegate it through a private company. There are plenty of eligible people, including every person collecting unemployment. The government already has a list of people seeking a job from which they could hire the labor. I've also noticed several places where it was clear the local government was doing a poor job subcontracting duties. (Every road construction project in north liberty or iowa city would serve as good example)

[WillisNYC]

Lurtsman, you must be a midwestern Democrat, because the eastern Liberals that I deal with in NJ and NYC are so far to the left of you that they would group you with me for your views that definitely don't sound progressive. Unfortunately, I think the current US govt is dominated by the Eastern Liberal typified by NYC or San Francisco. Think Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. They are unwilling and certainly unlikely to cut ANY spending in our budget except for defense! Entitlements is where the bulk of the spending is and where the cuts MUST come if we are to avert going into a 'bankruptcy' type situation in the next few years. We also disagree on whether Obama or Romney would be the bigger spender. I thought Romney would spend less, but he was the most 'spend happy' of the GOP candidates who ran for office. Many of the others like Gingrich, Santorum and Cain would have made significant spending cuts. Like you, I was/am suspicious of Romney but I KNOW I am quite likely to get a continuation of the $1 trillion plus budget deficits for the next four years under Obama. With Romney I think it was less likely.

As far as the social issues go, I could care less. No one cares that I maltreat their dog when their house is burning down. They don't care that I held it by its tail as I exited the burning house because I saved its life. They only care if I carry the dog that way during 'normal' times. Right now our country's house is burning down and the 'war on women' and abortion and birth control is like complaining about the way I carry the dog! Dammit, the house is burning down and if you don't get the hoses out and spray it down pronto, it will all be gone and the dog will have no where to live. (In addition to all of us that actually live in the house in addition to the dog!) So I found the Dems arguments about these topics to be meaningless and worse than pointless to me! After all, I only wanted to hear how we were going to save our burning house. The Dems were bringing a squirt gun (higher taxes on the rich) to put out the flames and seemed more concerned about how I was treating the dog (women) than with putting out the fire. The GOP at least promised to bring a fire truck (stimulate the economy with lower taxes and spending cuts). Thus I was astonished to hear that the GOP lost the election and seemingly because many of the women in the country could care less about their house burning down! They were worried about how I treated the damn dog! (Abortion and birth control!) I doubt that many of these women and minorities even have a clue that the house is on fire. They only see me abusing the dog and vote against me. Damn I am frustrated with the results. However the Dems now 'own' the economy like never before and when it all crashes and our house burns down, I think they get the blame and finally get put on the ash heap of history with the other socialists like Stalin and Mao!

Now that is not to say that you belong in the same category lurtsman, you sound like a sane reasonable individual. But you voted for guys who think Mao was great, as well as Castro and Chavez! Obama doesn't directly reference these guys but I can send you links to MANY of his cabinet appointees who do. I believe actions (appointments) always speak louder than words, especially concerning politicians.

[Action Vending]

Lurtsman, you must be a midwestern Democrat, because the eastern Liberals that I deal with in NJ and NYC are so far to the left of you that they would group you with me for your views that definitely don't sound progressive. Unfortunately, I think the current US govt is dominated by the Eastern Liberal typified by NYC or San Francisco. Think Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. They are unwilling and certainly unlikely to cut ANY spending in our budget except for defense! Entitlements is where the bulk of the spending is and where the cuts MUST come if we are to avert going into a 'bankruptcy' type situation in the next few years. We also disagree on whether Obama or Romney would be the bigger spender. I thought Romney would spend less, but he was the most 'spend happy' of the GOP candidates who ran for office. Many of the others like Gingrich, Santorum and Cain would have made significant spending cuts. Like you, I was/am suspicious of Romney but I KNOW I am quite likely to get a continuation of the $1 trillion plus budget deficits for the next four years under Obama. With Romney I think it was less likely.

As far as the social issues go, I could care less. No one cares that I maltreat their dog when their house is burning down. They don't care that I held it by its tail as I exited the burning house because I saved its life. They only care if I carry the dog that way during 'normal' times. Right now our country's house is burning down and the 'war on women' and abortion and birth control is like complaining about the way I carry the dog! Dammit, the house is burning down and if you don't get the hoses out and spray it down pronto, it will all be gone and the dog will have no where to live. (In addition to all of us that actually live in the house in addition to the dog!) So I found the Dems arguments about these topics to be meaningless and worse than pointless to me! After all, I only wanted to hear how we were going to save our burning house. The Dems were bringing a squirt gun (higher taxes on the rich) to put out the flames and seemed more concerned about how I was treating the dog (women) than with putting out the fire. The GOP at least promised to bring a fire truck (stimulate the economy with lower taxes and spending cuts). Thus I was astonished to hear that the GOP lost the election and seemingly because many of the women in the country could care less about their house burning down! They were worried about how I treated the damn dog! (Abortion and birth control!) I doubt that many of these women and minorities even have a clue that the house is on fire. They only see me abusing the dog and vote against me. Damn I am frustrated with the results. However the Dems now 'own' the economy like never before and when it all crashes and our house burns down, I think they get the blame and finally get put on the ash heap of history with the other socialists like Stalin and Mao!

Now that is not to say that you belong in the same category lurtsman, you sound like a sane reasonable individual. But you voted for guys who think Mao was great, as well as Castro and Chavez! Obama doesn't directly reference these guys but I can send you links to MANY of his cabinet appointees who do. I believe actions (appointments) always speak louder than words, especially concerning politicians.

When Obama first got in office where did he go? Iran, north korea, cuba, venezuela. What do these countries have in common? They all hate America and they are all lead by dictators.

Also it is hard for a GOP canidate to compete against free gifts brought to people who are two ignorant to tie their own shoes and paid for by the taxpayers. I think you dont pay taxes you shouldnt be able to vote.

[mission vending]

It's been previously mentioned that Romney failed to put forth his plan for spending reductions. To some degree he did by bringing in Ryan and by extension the Ryan plan. At best though they did a very poor job of saying that they would adopt Ryan's plan to balance the budget, if that was the intent. Again a very poor job of expressing exactly what they would do. Thought it would be interesting to add the Ryan planned spending cuts that were sent to me some time ago, interesting reading

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.

* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.

* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.

* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.

* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.

* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.

* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.

* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.

* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.

* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.

* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.

* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.

* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.

* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.

* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings

* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.

* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.

* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.

* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..

* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.

* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.

* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.

* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings

* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.

* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.

* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.

* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.

* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.

* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.

* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..

* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.

* Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.

* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.

* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.

* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.

* Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.

* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.

* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.

* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

* Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings.

* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.

* Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.WHAT???

* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.

* Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings

* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.

* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.

* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.

* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.

* Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs-- $900 million savings.

* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..

* HUD Ph.D. Program.

* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

* TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

[moondog]

Well,

It's pretty much unanimous as we all agree. If the GOP just wants to win the Presidential election they should get 100,000 GOP Californians to move to Florida, Virginia and Ohio - our votes haven't been worth jack for years. Unfortunately our problems run too deep for that to be much of a coup. What's the old saying? "Socialism works great as long as you don't run out of somebody else's money"

As a side note: There were eight precincts in Philadelphia that didn't register one single vote for Romney, Ohio had several precincts that had a 140% plus voter turnout and we've been seeing this in California (the most bankrupt state in the Union) for the past twenty years.

Ps. Don't get me started

[Action Vending]

Well,

It's pretty much unanimous as we all agree. If the GOP just wants to win the Presidential election they should get 100,000 GOP Californians to move to Florida, Virginia and Ohio - our votes haven't been worth jack for years. Unfortunately our problems run too deep for that to be much of a coup. What's the old saying? "Socialism works great as long as you don't run out of somebody else's money"

As a side note: There were eight precincts in Philadelphia that didn't register one single vote for Romney, Ohio had several precincts that had a 140% plus voter turnout and we've been seeing this in California (the most bankrupt state in the Union) for the past twenty years.

Ps. Don't get me started

ya I heard that too. Out of 21,000 votes not a single one for romney. That is mathmatically impossible so im wondering how obama got 100% of that vote?

[Jax Snacks]

As a side note: There were eight precincts in Philadelphia that didn't register one single vote for Romney, Ohio had several precincts that had a 140% plus voter turnout and we've been seeing this in California (the most bankrupt state in the Union) for the past twenty years.

Ps. Don't get me started

That's what happens with the lax voter ID laws or the existing laws are not enforced. Where is the "unbiased" media on this one??

We need ID to do anything else in this country, but I guess the illegals and deceased have the right to vote as well!!!

[musser]

"I strongly believe my generation will be the first ones to not receive a pay out", Lurtsman. Well, I think I finally see the problem, the pay off. I understand your position completely and sympathize. Let me explain.

You see I have been paying employment taxes for a pretty long time, nearly 50 years! And I will tell you this, the percentage of my income that I paid in taxes years ago were FAR higher than what most folks here will ever pay. And what did those taxes pay for? I will tell you; Roads I will never drive on, Schools I will never attend, Airports I will never use, Parks I will never visit, don't get me started on the moon landing. Heck, I helped defend the country, build hospitals where most of you were born, build ports so cheap Chinese goods can more easily get to our markets. I even helped develope the food you eat, cloths you wear, medicines you use.

You already enjoy a payout. You use an infrastructure, enjoy freedom, enjoy the lowest tax rate since 1953, attend schools, are protected by the worlds greatest military, have a life that was unimaginable to people a short 50 years ago, ALL built by those who came before you. These are gifts to you, free, for your use.

Now, I could have been drawing Social Security for some time,I don't, I am waiting till I can get the biggest payout. The actuaries will tell you that statistically the SSI payout is the same in total, on average, no matter if you grab it at 62 or wait till 70. But I have a good income so I am putting drawing off. I guess that makes me some sort of low life slacker commie that is ruining the country. Hey, I have paid my dues, its your turn, stop whining about it.

[WillisNYC]

"I strongly believe my generation will be the first ones to not receive a pay out", Lurtsman. Well, I think I finally see the problem, the pay off. I understand your position completely and sympathize. Let me explain.

You see I have been paying employment taxes for a pretty long time, nearly 50 years! And I will tell you this, the percentage of my income that I paid in taxes years ago were FAR higher than what most folks here will ever pay. And what did those taxes pay for? I will tell you; Roads I will never drive on, Schools I will never attend, Airports I will never use, Parks I will never visit, don't get me started on the moon landing. Heck, I helped defend the country, build hospitals where most of you were born, build ports so cheap Chinese goods can more easily get to our markets. I even helped develope the food you eat, cloths you wear, medicines you use.

You already enjoy a payout. You use an infrastructure, enjoy freedom, enjoy the lowest tax rate since 1953, attend schools, are protected by the worlds greatest military, have a life that was unimaginable to people a short 50 years ago, ALL built by those who came before you. These are gifts to you, free, for your use.

Now, I could have been drawing Social Security for some time,I don't, I am waiting till I can get the biggest payout. The actuaries will tell you that statistically the SSI payout is the same in total, on average, no matter if you grab it at 62 or wait till 70. But I have a good income so I am putting drawing off. I guess that makes me some sort of low life slacker commie that is ruining the country. Hey, I have paid my dues, its your turn, stop whining about it.

This post perfectly encapsulates what is totally wrong with our tax system. It pits one generation against the next and neither sides thinks that it is a fair system. However the younger generation, my children of 21 and 23 years old will totally get the shaft designed and built by the generation retiring in earnest now. The older generation will actually get a small increase in payout of their soc security dollars over what they paid in. If they live long enough, they could see 3% returns on their money which about matches inflation. This is what money managers call a bad investment because it existed for 50 years and made no money. However my children will be lucky to get a 1% return on investment for their soc security money. This is called a REALLY, BAD investment becuase due to inflation, you lose money! Both generations get screwed by the low life politicians who designed this Ponzi scheme. And make no mistake, it is a ponzi scheme where the current 'investors', young people are paying for the retirement of the folks who are retiring. This is because there is no investment of our soc security money, there is no lock box. Only politicians who have spent this money for the last 50 years to hide the true deficit that they created with their massive spending. The US is by far the richest country in the world and it spending itself into bankruptcy! So yes musser you 'paid your dues' but the politicians you have been electing since before I was born have screwed you, me and my children out of the 'inheritance' that you so richly claim to have contributed to! SO sad to see the disillusionment now, just wait until inflation robs an entire generation of its wealth. I hate to see where that anger takes our country!

[musser]

Well, SSI was never meant to be anything other than Old Age Disability. I will agree that politicians have indeed greatly subverted the plan. I even agree with "Lurts" that benefits should be means tested. And yes, under the current law I will try to get back what I have paid in.

However my point is ( maybe poorly put out) that we ALL have been at the same party, we have ALL overindulged, and we ALL have a hangover, (some who exercised a little moderation not so much). The real solution is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. At least let taxes go back to pre Bush and enact a surcharge (like we paid after Vietnam to pay for tat war) until the war debt is paid. Spending cuts: why not just say hey, next year we spend 1% less across the board? 1% won't end any program or starve anyone. Not going to see it are we?

Lets put the blame where it really lies, on all of us, there are no innocent parties. We all benefited by the credit bubble, we should all pay for the mess created.

PS, I only voted for the good politicians.

[mission vending]

After listening to the news today it seems that there are a number of spineless Republicans ready to cave in on not raising taxes. I agree with musser that we are ALL to some degree responsible for this fiscal mess caused in part by the American public not being engaged enough in the process to pay attention to what our elected leaders were doing to us trying to buy our votes. I disagree that raising taxes is the solution, the Reagan tax cuts while initially raising the deficit lead to the longest sustained period of economic growth this country has ever seen. The problem arose when our elected leaders chose to not control spending when the huge additional increases in tax revenue came to the treasury.

From the English version of the Russian Newspaper Pravda:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/