SouthernYankee Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 When Medicare was introduced in the 1960's, they estimated that it would cost $12 Billion come 1990. That year came, and it cost over $100 billion. Paul Ryan's assumptions may be off (per Krugman), but the United States government's assumptions are usually WORSE, and I am being charitable when I say that. This government is a classic example of how people spend other people's money! It is always EASIER to spend! And to echo RRJ, but not too assume he is on my side, I don't mind reading a liberal viewpoint, but I will probably argue against it. And if I am not courteous, please tell me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Ya this is quickly devolving. I think everyone has their mind made up. Southern is fairly convinced of the answers to all the questions. We should keep these conversations on other boards, myself included... The real question is how do you separate politics from Macro? Given whats going. I bore of right and left debates because as someone else said no one is really open. Southern now wants me to mount a defense of Medicare, Medicaid, and Government all together. Something I find annoying and boring. Fact is the programs are around and must be paid for..... I think both parties have lots of issues, but also pride myself on calling a spade a spade. In this case, one party is really the cause of this manufactured crisis. Macro is key inmo and worth discussing. The new normal inmo is real, and ubuy2wron inmo is headed towards the right direction. 70% of the economy is consumption, and the consumers are tapped out and paying off debt. Not sure how you solve that problem. I would prefer to discuss this and aspects around it vs argue the merits of Individualism, New Deal Policies, and the Evils of Big Government. Those are all abstract and wont change. My primary goal is to further my understanding of politics / economics - not to defend the left and attack the right. jjsto - Nice way to bring facts into the discussion. I agree, but was too lazy to bring up the data because I know it will be ignored. Ideology trumps facts in these types of discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Myth, With all due respect, my mind could be changed, if presented with compelling evidence. Those facts that I laid out before, if I am wrong, please show me where I am wrong. I never claimed to be a know it all, which is one of the reasons I do not like to tell others how to spend their money! Cheers, SouthernYankee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Myth, Ezra Klein's facts are one of the reasons why changes need to be made. Social Security is a program designed inthe 1930's for retirees at a time when the average life expectancy was 59!!!!! Which means that most people NEVER reached it. NOTHING TO CHANGE HERE! Medicare is a 50 year old program whose assumptions were off by factors of 10! They are PONZI schemes, far worse than Madoff's. If these are not facts, please let me know. Cheers, SouthernYankee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Myth, With all due respect, my mind could be changed, if presented with compelling evidence. Those facts that I laid out before, if I am wrong, please show me where I am wrong. I never claimed to be a know it all, which is one of the reasons I do not like to tell others how to spend their money! Cheers, SouthernYankee I edited my prior post, before you posted. Also I dont think so. I have done this for years. You seem like a convinced Libertarian / Anti Government Republican. I dont have time or energy to debate Free to Choose, Ayn Rand, or other philosophical, intellectual, or hypothetical situations. People tend to lean left, or right and I believe its largely based on upbringing and orientation. Both sides have good ideas, but have basically for the last 30 years conspired to bankrupt the country. You want to blame one side and cheer-lead for your side. That's fine, but its a distraction. One side spends, one side cuts taxes. Well both sides spend - one on wars and tax cuts, the other on programs for the people. I wont pretend though that both parties are just as bad as each other or that this manufactured crisis isnt being perpetuated by one party against the country for political reasons. We all Suffer from Commentator’s Disease, I am aware of it and prefer not to do the dance - Commentator’s Disease. - http://www.fredoneverything.net/Commentators.shtml I often see victims of Commentator’s Disease arguing against the minimum wage on abstract grounds of economic theory. It is what commentators do—bandy abstractions, railing for or against Keynes, assaulting their ideological opponents with pointed phrases. They have never had to do the arithmetic of forty times the minimum wage minus taxes minus bus fare minus rent and gotta pay the cable because it is the only thing they have after work. They have never had to choose between the electric bill and a new coat as winter comes on. The commentators don’t realize that not everybody is like them. Those with IQs of 140 and up (130 gets you into Mensa, I think) unconsciously believe that anything is possible. Denizens of this class know that if they decided to learn, say, classical Greek, they could. You get the book and go at it. It would take work, yes, and time, but the outcome would be certain. They don’t understand that the waitress has an IQ of 85 and can’t learn much of anything. Conservatives think in terms of merciless abstractions and liberals insist that everyone is equal. Not even close. Further, people with barely a high-school education and low-voltage minds regard any intellectual task with utter discouragement. Some commentators urge letting people invest their Social Security taxes in the stock market. To them it is a question of abstract freedom and probably the Federalist papers. The commentators are smart enough to invest money. I’ll guess that at least half the population isn’t. Go into the tit bar (does it still exist) in Waldorf, Maryland, and ask the dump-truck drivers and nail-pounders what NASDAQ is.Liberal commentators want everyone to go to college, when about a fifth of people have the brains. Conservatives think that people can rise by hard work and sacrifice as certainly many people have. Thing is, most people can’t. Commentators only see those who made it. The tendency of the Beltway 99th to live in an imaginary world, of conservatives to think that everybody can be a Horatio Alger, of liberals to believe that inequality arises from discrimination, guarantees wretched policy. Those who can do almost anything need to recognize the existence of those who can do almost nothing. Few of the latter are parasites. The waitress has worked all her life, as has the truck driver. They ended up with nothing. Which is easy to do. A girl marries her high-school sweetheart in Busted Hump, Tennessee and he goes to work for the local pickle-bottling plant, which switches to hiring people as independent contractors to avoid paying benefits. Neither of the pair is real bright, just ordinary Americans trying to make a living. They live paycheck to paycheck because they don’t know how not to. Neither is lazy. They just don’t know how to start the next Microsoft. He dies of a heart attack at 45, she can’t make the mortgage, and…she is well and truly screwed. At the Zoo Bar, they have great wings and some really good walk-in blues bands, and what you have to understand about Keynes is…. --------------- If you really want to learn here is a good site with pretty good counter arguments to many Right / Libertarian philosophies - http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm -------------------------------- I do however like discussions of macro but would prefer them to be econ based and not just right vs. left. I find that Jim Rogers has been the most right about this whole situation. We are in for slow growth and out of bullets no matter how you slice it. I also think our engine (middle class consumption) is broken and will be in the shop for another 5 years. Not sure who will pick up the slack once the backup car (Government spending) is also put in the shop. ---- Southern you post facts. But they are straw men. You are trying to bait me into defending social security and medicare. The reality is these programs are here, and liked by and large by most of the citizens. If your argument is to cut them, then your team should run on that. I predict losses. Given that situation we should just make the people pay for the programs. You have grand ideas on how things should be run and what the government should do. I dont care, I just ask that when people get something its paid for in full. You preach freedom, but all I really see from Libertarians / Hardcore Republicans is control. They want the rest of the country to agree with them through hell or high water. Polls show people like these programs.... I dont plan on using any of them, but if they are going to exist they should be paid for in full using open and honest accounting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 "I dont plan on using any of them, but if they are going to exist they should be paid for in full using open and honest accounting." Well said, I agree with you! (I will be doing more jobs for cash up front, and will take advantage of every loophole these politicians put in place.) Long live the Tea Party! Let the Republican Party wither on its vines! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRJ Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Just so we all know how "crazy" and "irresponsible" and "uncompromising" all the House Republicans are, here is Harry Reid talking in 2006. President Obama said the same exact thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELkbDdPeL7I&feature=youtu.be Where you sit depends entirely on where you stand I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 "I dont plan on using any of them, but if they are going to exist they should be paid for in full using open and honest accounting." Well said, I agree with you! (I will be doing more jobs for cash up front, and will take advantage of every loophole these politicians put in place.) Long live the Tea Party! Let the Republican Party wither on its vines! Cheers! I think you have made my point better then I could. Back to the world of investing..... Just so we all know how "crazy" and "irresponsible" and "uncompromising" all the House Republicans are, here is Harry Reid talking in 2006. President Obama said the same exact thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELkbDdPeL7I&feature=youtu.be Where you sit depends entirely on where you stand I guess. Politicians posture? No surprise. Making a speech and a protest vote that everyone knows wont matter is a bit different then whats going on today isnt it? Where you sit depends on where you stand especially when you only look for things that confirm your thoughts. Good old Harry and Barry would have caved by now dont you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 I will find the link to the Treasury where all those who love giving their money to the US GOV'T can make their donations. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 I will find the link to the Treasury where all those who love giving their money to the US GOV'T can make their donations. Cheers. Southern I now believe you are simply a troll... A good one none the less. Congrats well played.... http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.somethingimpressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/successful-troll-is-successful.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2346009/1/&h=441&w=300&sz=39&tbnid=_KIYR6gnlAfZxM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=66&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsuccessful%2Btroll%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=successful+troll&docid=EpyJ1DkfAs2hmM&sa=X&ei=l0UzTpzfNIHhsQLKnrj9Cg&ved=0CCoQ9QEwAg&dur=780 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 I have been called many things, just don't call me "late for dinner"! http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/25932 Here is that link, with a little extra irony! Should I be smiling when our President isn't sleeping? Cheers, and have a great weekend!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanMaestro Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Southern I now believe you are simply a troll... A good one none the less. Congrats well played.... Took you a while Myth :) A couple of months ago I did not think moderator tools were needed. Now I think the time has come. All these politics threads started by just a handful new members is well beyond the mission of B&F Corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Southern I now believe you are simply a troll... A good one none the less. Congrats well played.... Took you a while Myth :) A couple of months ago I did not think moderator tools were needed. Now I think the time has come. All these politics threads started by just a handful new members is well beyond the mission of B&F Corner. Im a little slow but I come around lol. You have my vote, and regardless I will avoid feeding..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Partner24 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 All these politics threads started by just a handful new members is well beyond the mission of B&F Corner. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer16 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 I disagree. I think one positive about B&F is that we can discuss and use the same logic for choosing stocks (dealing with emotional bias, considering both sides of an issue, etc.) in making decisions in other spheres. My only problem is when folks start to call each other names and discussion devolves. Myth brings up a great point about average folks and how do they fit into a society that more and more rewards the talented. Something the conservatives need to consider. And does the other side have a plan beyond the status quo. Another consideration for liberals is how to deal with a "new normal" and its implications about spending. One observation, the 2 areas that have the higherst levels of inflation are two areas that have the largets gov't subsidies/involvement - education and health care. Packer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubuy2wron Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Just so we all know how "crazy" and "irresponsible" and "uncompromising" all the House Republicans are, here is Harry Reid talking in 2006. President Obama said the same exact thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELkbDdPeL7I&feature=youtu.be Where you sit depends entirely on where you stand I guess. In 2006 they should have been reducing the debt in 2011 they should be increasing it. It is Keynes in reverse what has happened and what is proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubuy2wron Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 I disagree. I think one positive about B&F is that we can discuss and use the same logic for choosing stocks (dealing with emotional bias, considering both sides of an issue, etc.) in making decisions in other spheres. My only problem is when folks start to call each other names and discussion devolves. Myth brings up a great point about average folks and how do they fit into a society that more and more rewards the talented. Something the conservatives need to consider. And does the other side have a plan beyond the status quo. Another consideration for liberals is how to deal with a "new normal" and its implications about spending. One observation, the 2 areas that have the higherst levels of inflation are two areas that have the largets gov't subsidies/involvement - education and health care. Packer The two books that had the most influence on how I think today are Atlas Shrugged which I read in university and The Bell Curve which has been villified by many. The authors of the Bell Curve discuss in length the emergence of the cognative elite and suggest that one of the thornier issues facing modern economies was how to deal with this . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRJ Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Another consideration for liberals is how to deal with a "new normal" and its implications about spending. One observation, the 2 areas that have the higherst levels of inflation are two areas that have the largets gov't subsidies/involvement - education and health care. Packer This is a very good point. There is no way these two areas could continue to raise prices like they have if they were not subsidized so heavily. It seems like most things government touches end up like this. It's the law of unintended consequences on steroids. Politicians try to " help" a bad situation and it always makes it worse. Yo now have a whole generation of college and grad school graduates who have leveraged their future with student loans that are subsidized by the government, and the schools were therefore able to keep raising tuition FAR in excess of the rate of inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer16 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Maybe the gov't should develop a metric to determine if these subsidies are providing more of or an improvemnt in a product or service or just driving up the price and try to set the subsidy level to increase the former as much as possible without increasing the later. In other words, cap the subsidy and let the market participants compete to bring the price down. Packer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Packer as with most things in life there are 2 options. Government can take over healthcare or education and drive the price down (Denmark, Sweden, Norway). Or Government can pull back, offer a small subsidy, and let the market and supply and demand take care of the rest. What happens in the US is some sort of crappy compromise which features the worst features of both options.... We have grade inflation in education and everyone believes sending a child to college (regardless of major, intelligence, or ability) is a ticket to the middle class. Now we have too much demand on education and not enough supply.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer16 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 You are correct about the two ways to approach it. Historcially, the US has used the markets and Europe the gov't to control costs and the current middle way is allowing the lobbyists to take control. As to too much demand, I think in some areas you are correct (math, science, engineering, etc.) but in others we have too much supply (communications, english, sports medicine, etc.) and the gov't subsidy is the same for both. So what you get is a surplus of majors who cannot afford the debt payments and a shortage of the folks that are really needed. What you need to do is to cut the subsidy to the surplus fields and either increase or keep the subsisidy to the shortage areas then students will adapt to the economics. You also are correct college is not necessary for everyone and pretending it is leads all kinds of bad side effects like high cost trade schools (for profit education). Packer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I think the demand is people seeking education. These people really shouldnt be and should be funneled into trades or low level jobs where they can still earn a living (like in Europe education is free, but you most qualify). Due to this countries idiotic focus on education (most presidents seem to think everyone in the country needs a college degree), universities have expanded to develop programs for these students who probably arent served well by college. The issue though is finding a job without a college degree, even a crappy one, is tougher and tougher so the kids and parents in some ways are acting rationally. Yes I believe the lobbyists and special interests are getting the profits of the market model with the subsidies of the European model. Its an unholy alliance to bankrupt the country. Either model works well, but mixing of both is disastrous. Its why I think compromise is overrated. In reality the voters need to choose one option, and pay for it or receive the low taxes as a result of their choice. My issue with most Republicans is they ignore the public's choice and simple opt for low taxes to force the issue. Its undemocratic, and inmo unpatriotic. People like something for nothing which is what modern right leaning politicians promise. Lets have a real debate, High taxes and high quality services (properly run), or low taxes and reduced services. I dont really care and will do well with either option. I personally think society is better served by the Northern European model (perhaps I am jaded though having seen the worst of our model and best of theirs, the US model worked surprisingly well in the 60s when one could work a summer to pay for a school year and graduated with little debt). Education like Housing has a powerful unnatural grip on people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer16 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Like you said the US model is neither market or gov't based. It would be nice to see a state experiment with a market-based subsidy capped model to see if prices would come down and educational resources prioritised to meet market (employer) demand. Packer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 The world economy seems to be a house of cards built upon a necessity of ever increasing demand which in turn inspires ever increasing debt. Do we eventually reach a saturation point where the house of cards will fall? We did and it did -just a couple years back - yet we are right back at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now