Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 142

Thread: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

  1. #131
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Now, i agree that the congress can abolish the Fed. However, that does not mean they "have the keys to the printing press."
    The constitution disagrees with you. The power is granted by the Constitution to Congress, and is plenary. That Congress delegates this power in no way removes this power from congress any more than you letting your kid borrow your car mean that it is no longer your car.

    But, you may continue to embarrass yourself at your lesiure - you were wrong, I corrected you, we both know it. Get over it, and move on.

  2. #132
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The constitution disagrees with you. The power is granted by the Constitution to Congress, and is plenary. That Congress delegates this power in no way removes this power from congress any more than you letting your kid borrow your car mean that it is no longer your car.

    But, you may continue to embarrass yourself at your lesiure - you were wrong, I corrected you, we both know it. Get over it, and move on.
    Goobie: Controlling monetary policy (the central theme in this discussion) is not the same as being able to abolish the Fed.

    The fact that you cannot accept (admit is a better word) this is actually quite telling.

    So lets test it.

    Does congress control the money supply at this point in time? If you answer no, then they do not. If you answer yes, then you are a fool.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #133
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Goobie: Controlling monetary policy (the central theme in this discussion) is not the same as being able to abolish the Fed.

    The fact that you cannot accept (admit is a better word) this is actually quite telling.

    So lets test it.

    Does congress control the money supply at this point in time? If you answer no, then they do not. If you answer yes, then you are a fool.
    Or, you can decide to -not- get over it and continue to embarrass yourself.
    Your call; I'm going home.

  4. #134
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Or, you can decide to -not- get over it and continue to embarrass yourself.
    Your call; I'm going home.
    That would probably be best.

    I guess alcohol is still illegal (or is it ) since they "have the authority" to amend the constitution.

    You should really stick to your day job.... We refer to people like you as "logic failures".
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #135
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Politically impossible. Congress will never do this.
    The Senate recently voted to do exactly that in their health care bill. They're a vote short now, but it's hardly unthinkable that some version of an independent Medicare/Medicaid commission could pass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?
    You dispute that raising the retirement age will save money? If the retirement age is 68 instead of 65, then everyone aged 65-67 who would otherwise be getting social security will not be. The savings seem pretty obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    And what about the negative consequences for doing so?
    Will the AARP ever allow such a thing?
    They'll certainly be against it, that's for sure. It just becomes a question of how much they're willing to fight a Democratic president on something that won't take effect for 10 years (and therefore won't affect many of their current members), how many Democrats are in Congress in the next session, and how much the Republicans (and hopefully the president) are actually willing to push the issue.

    But social security is on a relatively manageable track anyway; Medicare/Medicaid are the entitlement programs that really have the potential to be a financial time bomb.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?
    And what about the negative consequences for doing so?
    The meaningful savings come from the fact that catastrophic health plans are more likely to reduce health care costs overall, as opposed to comprehensive plans. The problem with comprehensive plans is that the people using the service has no incentive to keep his costs down, because he doesn't pay for them (other than a small co-pay). That's why I'd rather transition to a catastrophic health insurance system. That way, no one would go bankrupt when they had a health emergency, but overall costs could be kept down for routine/common procedures.

    As for the negative consequences of doing so...I can't really think of many. A few people who are already sick would probably be worse off for the first few years under the new system since they'd have higher deductibles (or higher taxes if they stuck with their old plans), but in the long run this would balance out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    Do those that are means-tested out have to pay into the system?
    If the answer is no, will the AARP ever allow such a thing?
    Yes, they would still have to pay into the system. The solutions I provided are for a specific goal: Balancing the budget. I'm not interested in dismantling social security just for the sake of dismantling social security, I'm focusing on balancing the budget. If you reduce expenditures AND receipts, that isn't necessarily going to help the budget. My idea with this solution was to reduce expenditures while keeping receipts constant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?
    And what about the negative consequences for doing so?
    I can't show you ironclad empirical data for this one since the economy is different than it was in the 1990s. But that's the closest we have: When the Bush tax cuts went into effect, it turned a small surplus into a large deficit. If taxes were raised a couple percentage points, it should have a similar reverse effect. The exact amount of this is impossible to measure though.

    As for the negative consequences of doing so, assuming the economy recovers by 2012 they should be relatively minor. The economy did OK during the 1990s when income taxes were a couple percentage points higher.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    Politically impossible. Congress will never do this.
    These types of commissions already exist for things like military base closures. They just need to be expanded to the entire DoD.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #136
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I would start by identifying and establishing strict criteria for distressed or vulnerable demographics - children, the infirm, the elderly - and restructuring social programs so as to specifically target these demographics and them alone. Everyone else would just have to do what every other able-bodied adult in the history of mankind has done - take personal responsibility for your own well-being. If you can't do this on your own, then you probably deserve to die anyway.
    First of all, thank you for offering actual solutions, although I disagree with some of them. It's nice to see someone who actually cares about the deficit instead of merely blaming Obama for the deficit.

    Regarding this point: I mostly agree. Social programs should primarily be geared toward the poor. I don't mind if wealthier people use government services as long as it's something they directly pay into in the form of user fees (e.g. the post office, public universities, a public health care option), but I agree that social programs - especially social security - are far too broad in their scope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I would initiate tort reform in health care and allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. I would also remove regulations from health insurance companies that mandate certain types of coverage. It's common knowledge that the least regulated sectors of the health care industry have seen a decline in prices along with an increase in quality; think plastic surgery and laser eye surgery.
    I completely agree. I'm skeptical that tort reform will actually generate much in the way of savings, but it's a good idea nevertheless. I'm also a big fan of lowering regulations on the types of coverage that are mandated. In fact, I would go a step farther and actually use the tax code to ENCOURAGE people to get catastrophic plans instead of comprehensive plans. If people get taxed on their employer's health insurance, expensive health insurance plans will be much less appealing to the average person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I would eliminate the minimum wage and eliminate any sort of "fair trade" agreements.
    Agreed. While this would help grow the economy in the long term (and thus increase the tax base) I'm hesitant to include these kind of solutions in deficit projections, since they involve a lot of speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I would identify all non-essential foreign military bases and decommission them.
    Agreed, although I suspect our definitions of non-essential probably differ quite a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I would cut foreign aid by at least 50%.

    I would legalize marijuana and tax it. I would rescind all Federal drug laws, permitting states and municipalities to regulate as they see fit, and taxing them accordingly.

    I would eliminate all funding for the NEA.

    I would eliminate public financing of political campaigns.
    Meh...I think the overall impact of all of these things on the federal deficit would be approximately nil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I would retain the unspent stimulus money and use it to pay down the debt.
    I'd rather pump money into the economy now and worry about the deficit once we're back on track. We still have double-digit unemployment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I would cut taxes.
    This would have exactly the opposite effect, unless the tax cuts are geared toward specific things that demonstrably generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. And there aren't many taxes that fall into that category. The corporate tax MAYBE...but certainly not the income or payroll taxes.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #137
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    That would probably be best.

    I guess alcohol is still illegal (or is it ) since they "have the authority" to amend the constitution.

    You should really stick to your day job.... We refer to people like you as "logic failures".
    Ah -- there's the puerility I was expecting. Thanks for not disappointing!

    Fact of the matter is you cannot in any way refute what I said, and you know it.

  8. #138
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The Senate recently voted to do exactly that in their health care bill. They're a vote short now, but it's hardly unthinkable that some version of an independent Medicare/Medicaid commission could pass.
    What you suggent is different, however, in that it deals with the cash cow that is medicare/medicaide. These things garner far too many votes for Congress to give up control.

    You dispute that raising the retirement age will save money?
    I asked you to support the claim. You may begin when you are ready.

    They'll certainly be against it, that's for sure.
    Pretty big stumbling block there.
    You also havent discussed the negative consequences.

    The meaningful savings come from the fact that catastrophic health plans are more likely to reduce health care costs overall, as opposed to comprehensive plans.
    Yes, that's your claim. Support it. Show the savings and how they are significant.

    As for the negative consequences of doing so...I can't really think of many.
    Convenient. I'll try that next time.

    Yes, they would still have to pay into the system.
    And so, the AARP would agree to this?
    Doesnt it then reduce SocSec to just another program designed to redistribute wealth?

    I can't show you ironclad empirical data for this one...
    So you cannot show the meaningful savings or the negative consequences.

    These types of commissions already exist for things like military base closures. They just need to be expanded to the entire DoD.
    These commissions then have their fidnings voted on. That's not what you suggested. You also ignored the idea of expanding them to other spenidng programs.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 02-03-10 at 01:48 PM.

  9. #139
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Ah -- there's the puerility I was expecting. Thanks for not disappointing!

    Fact of the matter is you cannot in any way refute what I said, and you know it.
    Your own statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Irrelevant to my response - the fact remains that Congress already has the keys to the printing press.
    Definition of has: Third person singular present tense of have.

    Definition of have: To be in possession of

    Using the same example from a previous post, if they gave the keys away, then they do not have them. Understand the how the english language works? Have signifies possession. Until they abolish the Fed, Congress does not have the ''keys to the printing press."

    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #140
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Your own statement:
    Definition of has: Third person singular present tense of have.
    Definition of have: To be in possession of
    Using the same example from a previous post, if they gave the keys away, then they do not have them. Understand the how the english language works? Have signifies possession. Until they abolish the Fed, Congress does not have the ''keys to the printing press."
    Were you -trying- to illustrate that puerility? If so, bravo!
    Oh well - we all have our flaws. Enjoy yours.

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •