I think my girlfriend would be less pissed if I married you.
ditto.
less pissed? hell, we could sell them tickets to the honeymoon.
ok actual on-topic comment:
i watched it all the way through, and though he presents some interesting points, it reeks through and through of the old "social spending too big! no way to afford it at all, ever! baabbbyy boooomeerrss!" bit.
it costs a lot of money to provide for the health and welfare of the citizens of a large first-world nation.
but, imo, if the rest of your budget isn't ruined by pork, wars and tax-cuts-uber-alles it's actually pretty doable. you just need to have a population that accepts taxation as something that helps provide for them and a government that actually makes it happen.
and katie: i think the delay caused by boomers losing their savings will just give us time to dig ourselves a deeper hole for them to bury us in.
^^^Eh, pork spending really isn't that all that much, it's just a favorite whipping boy of politicians to make an opponents look bad before getting some of their own... I guess it's symbolic of crooked politics, so there's no reason it shouldn't go (although some projects actually are worthy). Entitlements are going to go through the roof, but part of that is the rising cost of health care (and the fact that there is going to be a significant increase in the volume of recipients over the next several years will compound the issue). Alas, it is not the boomers fault for getting older, rather it's that of the government which has failed to plan effectively or properly regulate the economy. You're spot on with the wars and tax-cuts, enough! (Although a stimulus for those in need isn't such a bad idea right now, though I do think those who made out like bandits through capital gains should be taxed doubly...)
DJForce said:
Personally, I think anyone who is in favor of higher taxes can lead the way by donating to the IRS.
Can you at least try to make a logical argument? It's not like most of us don't already know your position, but "donating" to the IRS? That doesn't even make sense. You'd probably get fined for it, actually, with the overage being returned to you or held in limbo.
If you think you're cleverly illustrating some great point, you weren't.
DJForce said:
Personally, I think anyone who is in favor of higher taxes can lead the way by donating to the IRS.
Can you at least try to make a logical argument? It's not like most of us don't already know your position, but "donating" to the IRS? That doesn't even make sense. You'd probably get fined for it, actually, with the overage being returned to you or held in limbo.
If you think you're cleverly illustrating some great point, you weren't.
How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
I am guessing that most Government Agency's are in Virginia due to the fact that A. Virginia acted as our capital before Washington DC was designated so they have a history of being the place for Federal Government and B. it is very close to Washington DC.
A frightening prospect, if true. However, here is an alternative view:
DEFICIT REDUCTION COSTS JOB
Each $10 billion of deficit reduction means 100,000 more unemployed.
The "deficit" consists mainly of the excess of outlays that are disposable income to recipients over taxes and other payments out of disposable income.
$10 billion less of deficit means $10 billion less of disposable income, and $8 billion or more of a reduction in purchases and sales in the private sector.
$8 billion less of sales means ultimately $8 billion less in production and a loss of at least 100,000 jobs.
A balanced labor market, in which there are as many unfilled openings as there are unemployed seeking work, is far more important than a balance in some figures concocted in the Congressional Budget Office.
Achieving a balanced labor market would largely eliminate "welfare as we know it." Government would be downsized.
A balanced labor market need not entail exacerbated inflation, but even if it did, ten percent steady inflation with one percent unemployment would be a prosperous economy.
Unemployment as a prophylactic against inflation is a remedy far worse than the problematic disease.
Alexander Hamilton once wrote that a national debt, if it be not excessive, would be a national blessing. In today's demographic and technological circumstances, a debt growing in proportion to, or slightly faster than, the GDP, so as to fill the growing gap between desired provision for retirement and the ability of the private sector to supply assets, is not merely a blessing but a prerequisite for a prosperous economy. With full employment, reduced needs for welfare payments and increased tax revenues, meeting debt service would be no problem.
When can we be weaned from the mindless devout pursuit of the Holy Grail of the balanced budget, a quest urged most assiduously by those in little danger of suffering from the proposed austerity?
William Vickrey
Columbia University
October 5, 1996
I should also point out that credits and debits often get confused and put in the wrong column, mistaking investments for expenses. Education, for example, is an investment, but it gets counted as an expense.
silversoul7 that only works for as long as other nations think we can pay back our debt. The problem now is that other nations and people are waking up to the fact that we can't pay back our debt and as such they don't want to loan us much more money nor buy dollars. So yes it is beneficial in the short term but its playing with fire in a fireworks shop... eventually its all going to blow up.
Each $10 billion of deficit reduction means 100,000 more unemployed.
The "deficit" consists mainly of the excess of outlays that are disposable income to recipients over taxes and other payments out of disposable income.
$10 billion less of deficit means $10 billion less of disposable income, and $8 billion or more of a reduction in purchases and sales in the private sector.
$8 billion less of sales means ultimately $8 billion less in production and a loss of at least 100,000 jobs.
A balanced labor market, in which there are as many unfilled openings as there are unemployed seeking work, is far more important than a balance in some figures concocted in the Congressional Budget Office.
Achieving a balanced labor market would largely eliminate "welfare as we know it." Government would be downsized.
A balanced labor market need not entail exacerbated inflation, but even if it did, ten percent steady inflation with one percent unemployment would be a prosperous economy.
Unemployment as a prophylactic against inflation is a remedy far worse than the problematic disease.
Alexander Hamilton once wrote that a national debt, if it be not excessive, would be a national blessing. In today's demographic and technological circumstances, a debt growing in proportion to, or slightly faster than, the GDP, so as to fill the growing gap between desired provision for retirement and the ability of the private sector to supply assets, is not merely a blessing but a prerequisite for a prosperous economy. With full employment, reduced needs for welfare payments and increased tax revenues, meeting debt service would be no problem.
When can we be weaned from the mindless devout pursuit of the Holy Grail of the balanced budget, a quest urged most assiduously by those in little danger of suffering from the proposed austerity?
William Vickrey
Columbia University
October 5, 1996
Vickrey was writing in another context.
There's a tendency for some to take ANY sign of a deficit as a bad thing -- that budgets must always be balanced. I agree with Vickrey that this is wrongheaded.
But the US government finances are in a terrible shape. I've written about this here before.
OhSoOrdinary said:
West Virginia? Why is it in west Virginia of all places.
abbazappa said:
I am guessing that most Government Agency's are in Virginia due to the fact that A. Virginia acted as our capital before Washington DC was designated so they have a history of being the place for Federal Government and B. it is very close to Washington DC.
West Virginia is on the opposite side of VA as DC. You might even say it's another state.
FreakPirate
Canada
November 2002
JAN 13, 2009 09:33 AM