Stimulus or austerity?

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Having health care does not enable anyone to find a job. All it does is enable them to see a doctor when they get sick and have it paid for. While being healthy is beneficial in being able to work, it does not mean that said person could actually do the work. Having the proper training means that they can do the work and that I have no problem with, after all, the old saying of "give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime" holds true. The problem is, way to many people want a fish for a day and a visit to any social services department shows exactly that.

theone86

I'm not saying that having a healthcare means being able to get a job, but it's hard to get a job when you get sick and have no healthcare.

I'm having a hard time what social services you're referring to. If we're in agreement that social security, medicare, and unemployment all provide services that benefit society, then as far as I can tell all that's left is medicare. As I said, this improves the health of low-income workers and people searching for jobs, so that leaves only poor individuals who are physically unable to work and people gaming the system. If you're saying we should go after the latter then I agree, so that leaves two possibilities. Either you're dismissing completely the claim that medicaid doesn't aid in finding and keeping employment, or you don't mind that people with serious disabilities simply go without healthcare, or both.

Most of this is kinda moot, anyways, as I'd prefer some form of single-payer to both medicare and medicaid, but as it stands I think medicaid is preferable to nothing both from a pragmatic and humanitarian standpoint.

There are many different social services that are used. I have no problem with teaching someone a job skill, if the person is willing to apply themselves and make a go of it once training is finished. Said person becomes a productive asset to society. I am talking about the ones who sit around and do nothing yet just take from the system.

Social Security is something that I have to pay into, thus I expect to get money when it is my turn to receive it (and I am closer to having to receive it than I want to be, but you can't stop growing older). Anyone who pays into SS deserves to get their money back. I have no problem with SS as long as those who pay in receive what they pay into it back.

It's the other social services that people can get that stay on it without doing anything to stop using said services that I have a problem with. It's one thing to help someone who is willing to help themselves so they can get back on their feet, it's entirely something else to rely on just those services to live, hence the fish anology. Those people do not pay into the system and the system ends up broke (see Greece). It's one thing for sevices to be there for when it is really needed, but another to be using without working for it.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

You're more than willing to pay for SOME things you directly benefit from, others not so much.

Balanced budgets led to the financial meltdown?

airshocker

No, I'm willing to pay for all of the things I directly benefit from. I don't benefit from SS, so I don't want to pay for it. I don't benefit from medicare, medicaid, thus I don't want to pay for it.

I'm willing to pay for roads, since I use them. In fact I pay a lot for them and I get a pretty crummy return on my investment. I'm willing to pay for emergency personnel, I'm willing to pay for schooling because I benefit from an educated populace. I'm willing to pay for services like water, electricity and trash removal.

Oh you! :lol: Don't pretend like you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Extrapolate your position to all citizens and the system becomes unworkable.

Balance spending cuts and tax increases. It's not that hard. Stimulus spending now, including some modest tax cuts until the economy is going, then cut spending is necessary areas.

In '09? Stimulus. At this point we should be gradually easing towards austerity.

Increasing handouts does not help save money/resources, it merely prolongs the inevitable. The only way the world can recover from this economic mess is to only consume as much as we produce, both at an international, and national level. The "first world" lifestyle is not currently sustainable, unless we can harness nuclear fusion and find a way to manufacture heavier elements from lighter ones.Zeviander

THIS IS AN AWFUL POST AND MADE ME RAAAAAAAAAAAAGE IRL. ENERGY IS NOT THE ISSUE BEHIND CURRENT ECONOMIC WOES AT ALL. FUSION WILL NOT CURE THEM. FUSION PROBABLY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE NEXT HALF-CENTURY. STIMULUS != HANDOUTS.

You suck at science and economics and somehow manage to interrelate the two in the worst possible way imaginable.

F uck austerity, some shock therapy is needed on alot of countries.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

You're more than willing to pay for SOME things you directly benefit from, others not so much.

Balanced budgets led to the financial meltdown?

SUD123456

No, I'm willing to pay for all of the things I directly benefit from. I don't benefit from SS, so I don't want to pay for it. I don't benefit from medicare, medicaid, thus I don't want to pay for it.

I'm willing to pay for roads, since I use them. In fact I pay a lot for them and I get a pretty crummy return on my investment. I'm willing to pay for emergency personnel, I'm willing to pay for schooling because I benefit from an educated populace. I'm willing to pay for services like water, electricity and trash removal.

Oh you! :lol: Don't pretend like you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Extrapolate your position to all citizens and the system becomes unworkable.

Balance spending cuts and tax increases. It's not that hard. Stimulus spending now, including some modest tax cuts until the economy is going, then cut spending is necessary areas.

jimkabrhel

There was a stimulus already. Did that actually help? If so, why is the economy still in the crapper? The Dow Jones (a good indicator of how well the economy is doing) is still way below the record levels that were prevelant during the Bush years, which was better than the so called prosperous years of the Clinton administration. If a stimulus really worked, we would have had unemployement drop from the levels it was. While the unemployment rate has dropped, I would venture a bet that the rate has dropped due to people running out of benefits and not being counted anymore over the fact that jobs have been added in the amount to cause such a large drop.

The government does need to cut back on their expenses somewhere and the first place I would look are their salaries, for all federal govenrment employees and especially in Congress and the Presidency (a 5% cut isn't that bad). I would also have Congress give up their cushy perks such as private gyms that they do not pay for the use of. Make them share in their health care expenses instead of relying on the taxpayer for it all. They wanted the job of representing us, fine, but do so without requiring us to bankroll everything that they need.

Cut back on services (I said this before) and get stricter on them so it isn't so easy to work the system and one is not on them forever. Social services should allow a person to get back on their feet and not be the only means of survival which is what many people prefer unfortunately. I have no problem helping people who are willing to help themselves, but those who aren't, do not rate any help. Teach a man to fish is still applicable today as when it was first mumbled many years ago.

Yep. I don't understand how someone fails to see this while making the argument. mattbbpl

Then the system needs to end. It's that simple.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Yep. I don't understand how someone fails to see this while making the argument. airshocker

Then the system needs to end. It's that simple.

I dont know. Perhaps, neither. Maybe just not cutting every government service would be the way to go. We dont necessarily have to go out and have the govt. try to spend trillions to stimulate the economy, either.

sonicare

yeah, that really wouldn't help

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Yep. I don't understand how someone fails to see this while making the argument. mattbbpl

Then the system needs to end. It's that simple.

He thinks that a system based solely self interest can work:lol:

Consequently, he is arguing that the current system which is designed to deal with matters of collective interest should be changed.

In other words, he does not have an answer for the flaw in his belief system. Therefore he is suggesting the system (of governance & decision making) itself should be changed.

Of course this is absurd, since it undermines the fundamentals of society. But he has been socialized with certain ingrained beliefs about individualism and self interest.

It is a chicken and egg failure as he will never be able to describe a self interest system that adequately deals with matters of collective interest...yet he will go to his grave believing that self interest is the most efficient driver of the (any) system.

Both. Not sure why politicians seem to think it is either/or. Probably because they are stupid; which seems highly correlated with 'politician'.

SUD123456

"Bring in the chicken!"... [lame South Park reference].

Please, spend some fvcking money on the infrastructure. We desperately need it. l4dak47

Balance seems most logical.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"].....then stop voting in the same politicians every damn time.l4dak47

I'm not. I'm voting for Romney who has said he's going to do something about it.

Ah, oh no it's the three-faced shape-shifting president:

No matter which mask the puppet wears, it still answers to the same puppeteer

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Middle class, sure. Rich class can definitely pay more, though. airshocker

That's not really the issue, though. At least not for me. The issue for me is the government's inability to use our tax dollars wisely.

Well, it's not meant to be an issue. It's something we can do to improve the situation. Bring in some cash...

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

OHMAGERD, I FORGOT A SPACE IN BETWEEN ANY AND MORE!

I thought it was plainly obvious that I meant any more additional taxation.

theone86

A. It wasn't.

B. The best fiscal governance in recent years has been accompanied by the highest tax rate. George Bush slashed taxes, left two wars and a medicare spending bill off the books, and presided over the financial meltdown. Bill Clinton had a higher tax rate, but ran the government at a surplus and required that any spending be offset by other spending cuts or new taxes. New taxes aren't necessarily an indicator of poor governance, in fact tax cuts have often been an indicator of poor governance.

Balance seems most logical.

lo_Pine

[QUOTE="theone86"]

A. It wasn't.

B. The best fiscal governance in recent years has been accompanied by the highest tax rate. George Bush slashed taxes, left two wars and a medicare spending bill off the books, and presided over the financial meltdown. Bill Clinton had a higher tax rate, but ran the government at a surplus and required that any spending be offset by other spending cuts or new taxes. New taxes aren't necessarily an indicator of poor governance, in fact tax cuts have often been an indicator of poor governance.

airshocker

That's only because you've got a terrible memory. We've had this discussion many times. I'm more than willing to pay taxes for things I directly benefit from.

First off, again, you're being facetious when you blame Bush for the financial meltdown. The meltdown only happened because of policy Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo initiated.

I'm sorry, I will never support a highly-taxed, oppressed society. It won't happen.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts would also increase the "marriage penalty". It is actually quite unfair for married people to have to pay more money because they file their taxes jointly.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Both. Not sure why politicians seem to think it is either/or. Probably because they are stupid; which seems highly correlated with 'politician'.

radicalcentrist

Of course you can. You sound like a politician :) Overly simple response...it must go up or it must go down. Actually, no.

There are always 4 options:

1. do nothing

2. increase total spending

3. decrease total spending

4. decrease total spending that does not directly contribute to economic activity in the short term and simultaneously increase total spending that does directly contribute to economic activity in the short term. The result is the same spending level with more immediate economic benefit.

And of course with options 2 and 3 you can make all sorts of tradeoff decisions.

Politicians are simple beasts, so they reduce things to the lowest common denominator. More spending vs less spending. The reality is always far more complicated, but they treat citizens like they are morons.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Then the system needs to end. It's that simple.

SUD123456

He thinks that a system based solely self interest can work:lol:

Consequently, he is arguing that the current system which is designed to deal with matters of collective interest should be changed.

In other words, he does not have an answer for the flaw in his belief system. Therefore he is suggesting the system (of governance & decision making) itself should be changed.

Of course this is absurd, since it undermines the fundamentals of society. But he has been socialized with certain ingrained beliefs about individualism and self interest.

It is a chicken and egg failure as he will never be able to describe a self interest system that adequately deals with matters of collective interest...yet he will go to his grave believing that self interest is the most efficient driver of the (any) system.

The US should just print 100 trillion dollars and get all the unemployed and poor people in the world to make a massive statue of Obama.

The US should just print 100 trillion dollars and get all the unemployed and poor people in the world to make a massive statue of Obama.

Storm_Marine

What system are you referring to?mattbbpl

We were talking about social security, correct?

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

The US should just print 100 trillion dollars and get all the unemployed and poor people in the world to make a massive statue of Obama.

whipassmt

He thinks that a system based solely self interest can work:lol:

Consequently, he is arguing that the current system which is designed to deal with matters of collective interest should be changed.

In other words, he does not have an answer for the flaw in his belief system. Therefore he is suggesting the system (of governance & decision making) itself should be changed.

Of course this is absurd, since it undermines the fundamentals of society. But he has been socialized with certain ingrained beliefs about individualism and self interest.

It is a chicken and egg failure as he will never be able to describe a self interest system that adequately deals with matters of collective interest...yet he will go to his grave believing that self interest is the most efficient driver of the (any) system.

SUD123456

Disagreeing with me doesn't make my thinking flawed.

Secondly, any reasonable person who sees how inefficient the government is would want it to change. I've had first hand experience being in both the military, and a patient of the VA.

Society won't disappear when those people who can be responsible are forced to be responsible for themselves. I dare say it might make it a little bit better.

The big question facing the world's economy today is how to get out of our current malaise.

On one side, we have the republican party, the German government, and the European Central bank saying that governments need to cut their deficits through tax increases and/or cuts in spending on social services, preferably a balanced approach that is tilted in favor of spending cuts. The theory behind this is your basic classical story: huge spending on social services today financed by debt will necessitate large taxes in the future, which discourages long-term investment. Spending cuts are better because they are supposed to address the source of the problem, which is future growth in spending on social services ("The US Federal Government is basically an insurance company for old people with an army on the side")

On the other side, we (used to) have the democratic party, the Italian and Greek governments, Francois Hollande, and a large part of the economics profession saying that governments need to spend more and central banks need to print more money because the ultimate cause of our current crisis is a shortfall in demand on the part of consumers and investors. Investment demand will not pick up any time soon unless consumption increases because interest rates are zero, and investment is a function of interest rates.

OT, I ask you, should OECD governments be following stimulus or austerity?

radicalcentrist

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

I think we may need to adopt a more austere lifestyle at the individual level, where people tighten their belts and give up some of their luxuries.

theone86

I wouldn't disagree with this outside of the context of a discussion on macro economics. However, this recession wasn't caused by people spending luxuriously, and belt-tightening (which is going on anyways) isn't going to solve it. In fact, this recession spun out of control due to a lack of consumer demand, i.e. people spending less.

Everyone is hit in a depression. We can't spend now and pay it back latter. We have to pay it back now. We will just be in a deeper hole. The government causes these depressions. It is the biggest spender in the US. And where does it get the money from I wonder? The Federal Reserve makes money and loans it out to it's friends overseas. Just a mere 12.3 trillion in 2010.

Saving on an individual level is good for the individual. It doesn't effect the economy, unless it is done right on mass scale. What we can do right now is stop buying from China. Stop going to stores who sell China products and the US needs to start making goods pronto. But that is after and during depression.

The economy never has to dip to recession like lows if the population keeps growing and government stops spending. The useless wars that don't make America safer would be a start. Oh, and never to bail out another corporation again.

That's the beauty of capitalism. The opportunity of success, while the bankruptcy of failure. And that's were welfare is their to save you. Oh yeah, and cut the minimum wage law so you can get out of welfare.

You're bias hate against the rich is blinding you.

Which is austerity, ceteris paribus

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]4. decrease total spending that does not directly contribute to economic activity in the short termSUD123456

Which is impossible. All spending by the government contributes to economic activity. Every dollar spent by the government is income for someone else, and when any spending is cut by the government, those persons spend less. There are positive and *negative* multipliers to government spending decisions.

and simultaneously increase total spending that does directly contribute to economic activity in the short term. The result is the same spending level with more immediate economic benefit.SUD123456

And of course with options 2 and 3 you can make all sorts of tradeoff decisions.

Politicians are simple beasts, so they reduce things to the lowest common denominator. More spending vs less spending. The reality is always far more complicated, but they treat citizens like they are morons.

SUD123456

Which is austerity, ceteris paribus

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]4. decrease total spending that does not directly contribute to economic activity in the short termSUD123456

Which is impossible. All spending by the government contributes to economic activity. Every dollar spent by the government is income for someone else, and when any spending is cut by the government, those persons spend less. There are positive and *negative* multipliers to government spending decisions.

and simultaneously increase total spending that does directly contribute to economic activity in the short term. The result is the same spending level with more immediate economic benefit.SUD123456

And of course with options 2 and 3 you can make all sorts of tradeoff decisions.

Politicians are simple beasts, so they reduce things to the lowest common denominator. More spending vs less spending. The reality is always far more complicated, but they treat citizens like they are morons.

SUD123456

Which is impossible. All spending by the government contributes to economic activity. Every dollar spent by the government is income for someone else, and when any spending is cut by the government, those persons spend less. There are positive and *negative* multipliers to government spending decisions.

radicalcentrist

So you're saying government creating government jobs is a good thing?