changed to "wealth inequality"

[JohnRoberts]

It's funny how the deficit no longer matters now that a R is in office.

Funny I was just talking to my neighbor earlier today about our ($800B?) deficit...  Not as a republican/democrat thing, but because now that we have a relatively strong economy we should be reducing the national debt (different from deficit), but I have written about this here at length too.

carry on... 

vote in NOV for the party you trust with the economy more.

JR 

 

[john12ax7]

vote in NOV for the party you trust with the economy more.

That's kind of the problem.  Neither of the 2 major parties actually does what they claim to be for. Until the majority of people finally decide to vote 3rd party not much will actually change.

 

[JohnRoberts]

That's kind of the problem.  Neither of the 2 major parties actually does what they claim to be for. Until the majority of people finally decide to vote 3rd party not much will actually change.

Balancing** the budget was one of President Trump's campaign promises that he didn't (couldn't) keep. He (they) have managed to squeak out more GDP growth that is helping, but I share your concern. President Trump has made some confusing public statements conflating the central bank interest rate with debt (perhaps he is thinking about "debt service" that will increase as interest rates rise, but probably not).

It is the nature of politicians to operate short term and kick long term problems into the future for somebody else to deal with. We as a nation need to address entitlement spending, that will consume more and more of the federal budget if left unchecked.

None of this is easy, I see some growth in the conservative wing of republican party that are more fiscally responsible, but not strong enough (yet) to control entire party and federal budget. So yes elections matter and it will take multiple 2 year cycles to flush more profligate spenders out of the swamp (legislature).

President Trump is not behaving like a typical politician (more like a businessman) so may surprise us again with some fiscal restraint, but really hard to get the swamp to stop spending. Like it's their job to spend money, and they embrace it with gusto. 

[edit- just saw a sound bite with President Trump calling for across the board 5% federal budget reduction next year.... easier said that done, and he already waffled on cutting the defense budget that much... but at least talking the talk. [/edit]

JR

PS: The economy is on a sugar high and we should be storing acorns for the winter that always comes, but we'll see. As the tide of liquidity goes out we are revealing some weak sisters in the business community. I am seeing other long ignored problems finally getting addressed so remain optimistic that this may get addressed too (I hope).

**** I wouldn't mind a balanced budget amendment, if that is what it takes to enforce fiscal discipline but A) a modest annual deficit is supportable by GDP growth (hard to explain to voters), and B) we have needed deficit spending multiple times in our history to pay for wars, but this is unsustainable for normal peace time budgeting... let's outlaw war while we're at it.  : This chronic world wide anti-terror effort is hard to end neatly, but I see progress there in several areas too.

 

[cyrano]

This year, for the first time in history, the US will be spending more on interest payments on debt than on the defense budget...

Have a look:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[JohnRoberts]

This year, for the first time in history, the US will be spending more on interest payments on debt than on the defense budget...

Have a look:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You will get no "resistance" from me... I have been complaining about national debt for years (even under President Bush).

From your link they show "net interest on debt" is $352B, and "defense/war" is $624B  so more like half, than larger.  BUT as interest rates normalize, this debt service will increase faster than other budget items.

Not to mention that medicare/medicaid and Social security are both larger than defense budget and combined almost 3x defense spending.

President Trump called for 5% across the board federal budget cut next year, and maybe another 5% the following year, BUT I expect he is being overly optimistic... (he always aims high in negotiation). Defense is the largest "discretionary" budget item (not mandatory like SocSec or medicare) so actually possible to reduce. President trump has already demurred on reducing defense his own 5% target, so total budget reduction will be much lower with the top three expenses items not included (he said defense could be cut some just not 5%).

Any federal budget reduction is an improvement compared to recent history, but we still have to do the really heavy lifting, address mandatory entitlement spending. Nobody is going to touch that before 2020. Maybe not after   

We need to delay retirement age in consideration of longer life expectancy, etc.

JR

 

[dmp]

The Republican plan seems to be to run the Government into deficit by revenue cuts and then force a 'bipartisan' cut of social security and medicare.  McConnell said as much this week.
5% discretionary cuts is a silly distraction.
Why Republicans are so hell bent on ending the social safety net for young people is a mystery to me. Of course they aren't talking about cutting entitlements for themselves (i.e. 60+ yrs old) only for the next generations.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The Republican plan seems to be to run the Government into deficit by revenue cuts and then force a 'bipartisan' cut of social security and medicare.  McConnell said as much this week.
5% discretionary cuts is a silly distraction.
Why Republicans are so hell bent on ending the social safety net for young people is a mystery to me.

a mystery to me too...  :

Of course they aren't talking about cutting entitlements for themselves (i.e. 60+ yrs old) only for the next generations.

So 60+ YO are all republicans?

Historically when things like retirement age get tweaked you phase in the change over time, rather than just deny a large group of likely voters an entitlement they planned on.

If I was a young person proficient in math, I would lower my expectations for government largess.  Bernie Sander's medicare for all bill would cost >$32T . The spin suggests that "Medicare for all" could save $2T in healthcare expenses so we only need to come up $30T  .  For those challenged by large numbers, that is more than our entire GDP.

Math and politics rarely intersect...

JR

PS: This week the Trump administration called for drug TV ads to reveal prices. The drug industry is pushing back pretty hard because they don't want consumers involved in knowing what stuff costs, allowing market forces to influence sales.

 

[dmp]

So 60+ YO are all republicans?

Average age of a Congressional Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61.  Younger generations are disproportionately under represented.
In 2010 (a decisive midterm election) the voter turnout for 65+ yrs was 80%, 18-29 yrs was 24%, 30-44 yrs was 30%,  45-64yrs was 54%

Is it any wonder the priorities of the country have shifted to benefiting the old over the young? Look at any number of issues: Infrastructure spending, education,  public debt, housing values, etc
Voting matters, tremendously.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Average age of a Congressional Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61.  Younger generations are disproportionately under represented.
In 2010 (a decisive midterm election) the voter turnout for 65+ yrs was 80%, 18-29 yrs was 24%, 30-44 yrs was 30%,  45-64yrs was 54%

ding ding ding.... yes, old people vote, so legislators pay more attention... young people typically don't so get what they deserve.

Is it any wonder the priorities of the country have shifted to benefiting the old over the young? Look at any number of issues: Infrastructure spending, education,  public debt, housing values, etc
Voting matters, tremendously.

Young people don't seem that abused to me... especially compared to when I was young,,,  How many here have been drafted into the army? That ruined my day for a couple years.

I couldn't get a mortgage until I didn't really need one...(I assumed the mortgage on an inexpensive house in nowhere MS. I bought out the previous owner's equity with cash I had on hand.)

There were years in-between with too easy college loans, too easy home mortgages, too easy almost everything lending related... we are still waiting for that tide to go out and reveal the shoals.

Sorry if you think my generation is oppressing yours. I won't tell you what my generation thinks of young people today. That would only make you angry. In my judgement young people are just a product of the education they received (or didn't) and modern cultural influences.

In addition to racial and class warfare we now have age enmity too?  I have some news, old people wish they were young again (just knowing what we know now).  8)  Young people need to appreciate what they have, while they have it. It will be gone soon enough.

JR

 

[dmp]

Well I am in my early forties - not in the 'young' generation. But trying to point out some disappointing trends in the national direction. It's possible to be a critic / advocate of change without being 'angry' or 'creepy'
I certainly feel wiser now than when I was 20.

ding ding ding.... yes, old people vote, so legislators pay more attention... young people typically don't so get what they deserve.

My point was not only do old people vote in higher numbers, but they also vote predominantly for old people.  The Gov is predominately tilted to favor the interests of the older generations.

I read this the other day - the older generation gets to make decisions but the younger generation will get to write their obituaries. 

There is nothing new about low voter turnout among younger people.
What sets this current generation of 60-70 yr olds apart is the national shift of policy that comes at the expense of future generations. Maybe it is a lack of awareness - I think most people would want to leave things better for the next generation.

Young people don't seem that abused to me... especially compared to when I was young,,,  How many here have been drafted into the army? That ruined my day for a couple years.

Were you "getting what you deserved" when you were drafted and sent to war? Especially when socio-economic status determined eligibility (like Trump's four deferrals for bone spurs)? Seems like something worth protesting 
I am certainly glad there was never a draft in my youth.
And yes, I agree things were pretty bad then too,  if I were to think about being drafted for Vietnam, the oil/inflation crisis of the late '70s, the Nuclear fears of the cold war, etc...
How did you feel about the draft considering Congress did not declare war (as the Constitution requires)? I think there was an interesting SCOTUS decision on that at the time, dismissing a lawsuit against the Gov. 

 

[john12ax7]

Defense spending was recently increased and part of the reason for rising deficits.  Any talk of cuts to it is rather disingenuous.

Things like social security need to be addressed,  raising the retirement age seems a reasonable solution.

The biggest problem is that in the US  you get nothing for your tax dollars. An actual free market with very low taxes would solve a lot.  The German system of 40% tax where you actually get services,  infrastructure,  education,  health care,  isn't so bad either.  The US system of 35% with nothing in return is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[dmp]

Things like social security need to be addressed,  raising the retirement age seems a reasonable solution.

The biggest strain will come from the age wave as Baby Boomers retire and the # retirees per prime age worker increases. But they aren't talking about having this affect baby boomers - they are specifically saying they won't have it affect them. So I think it is disingenuous.
And although people are living longer, I'm not sure that means they will necessarily be able to work much longer.

How about means testing? i.e. reduce the benefit to people who are wealthy? 

I don't think the data supports the belief that the gov spends too much:
gov expenditures:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Been pretty consistent over the decades other than wars and recessions.

The problem has been lower revenue - tax cuts for the very wealthy.

The biggest problem is that in the US  you get nothing for your tax dollars. An actual free market with very low taxes would solve a lot.  The German system of 40% tax where you actually get services,  infrastructure,  education,  health care,  isn't so bad either.  The US system of 35% with nothing in return is absolutely ridiculous.

You get this dumpster fire of political entertainment, don't you? haha
These elected reps aren't working for free.

 

[Matador]

If I was a young person proficient in math, I would lower my expectations for government largess.  Bernie Sander's medicare for all bill would cost >$32T . The spin suggests that "Medicare for all" could save $2T in healthcare expenses so we only need to come up $30T  .  For those challenged by large numbers, that is more than our entire GDP.

Math and politics rarely intersect...

Do you really believe that we 'need to come up with' $30T?

You do realize that, RIGHT NOW, even if costs are frozen at 2017 levels, that private insurance premiums paid by individuals (through payroll deductions), and paid by businesses on behalf of employees, would eclipse $38T over that same 10 year period?  And if you assume the average 4.5% annual increases that we have already experienced, would amount to nearly $45T?

So under what calculus does the argument $30T is far far worse than potentially $45T make sense?

And just so it's clear, the total GDP of the US is far greater than this:  over the same period it would be $30T against about $200T.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Do you really believe that we 'need to come up with' $30T?

You do realize that, RIGHT NOW, even if costs are frozen at 2017 levels, that private insurance premiums paid by individuals (through payroll deductions), and paid by businesses on behalf of employees, would eclipse $38T over that same 10 year period?  And if you assume the average 4.5% annual increases that we have already experienced, would amount to nearly $45T?

So under what calculus does the argument $30T is far far worse than potentially $45T make sense?

And just so it's clear, the total GDP of the US is far greater than this:  over the same period it would be $30T against about $200T.

My bad, I thought the Bernie plan was $32T per year not over 10 years.

Only $3.2 T a year is still real money.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think there needs to be a balance of sorts when generalizing ages.... I remember when being older meant being wiser and it could be said that what the younger generation thinks they know is disproportionate to what they do....

as the old joke goes, the older we get, the smarter our parents seem...  :

JR

of course my son would argue this with me....lol

But I get the point.... It just sounds creepy in some ways to me.... or maybe because I'm almost there......

 

[Matador]

My bad, I thought the Bernie plan was $32T per year not over 10 years.

Only $3.2 T a year is still real money.

JR

Yes it is real money, but it's still less than the current spending, and covers millions more people.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes it is real money, but it's still less than the current spending, and covers millions more people.

I will do a deeper dive to see if this comparison is apples to apples... I am not a fan of single payer that around the world has led to some declines in health care delivered, but indeed we need to provide some kind of safety net for those among us who need help.

mo later  (not tonight.. it's after beer oclock).

JR

 

[cyrano]

Solidarity is what you need. Not competition.

An example: for pensioners in Spain, all healthcare is absolutely free. No bill to the pensioner, it all goes straight to the govt. And atm, Spain has the highest life expectancy in the entire world.

When it comes to jobs, if you consider automation, there will be a lot more jobless people in the near future. Do you want all of them to be homeless, or criminals? Cause those are the two options if you have no chance at a decent job.

What's the problem with medicare in the USA, is that the medical industry can set their own prices. Drugs are at least twice as expensive in a lot of cases. The US govt is driven by lobbyists from the pharma industry. In a lot of other countries that have medicare, the govt negotiates prices with big pharma and drives these prices lower.

A sad side effect is that some pharmaceutical companies are less performant because of this and get scooped up by bigger, mostly US conglomerates.

Fortunately, these conglomerates find out pretty soon rules are different in other parts of the world and sell these scooped up companies, or close them down, creating opportunities for smaller, leaner and smarter startups.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes it is real money, but it's still less than the current spending, and covers millions more people.

OK  this is pretty much the same single payer (medicare for all) democratic legislation that has been in the house since 2003. It is likely being raised now as a wedge issue for the mid term to get voters out...

[edit] I don't want to suggest that this first started in 2003. For those who recall the President (Bill) Clinton administration he (they) proposed a universal coverage health care plan in 1993. First Lady Hillary Clinton spearheaded the (secret?) "task force on national healthcare reform".  Despite taking office with democratic majorities in house and senate, this was rejected like a bad taco and by the '94 mid term there was a significant push back against "big government". But that was then and this stuff is still kicking around on their wish list. [/edit]

I have been writing about health care right here for probably that long and won't rehash everything. Single payer like communism, looks good on paper. I have been looking at other country's healthcare systems for more than a decade and most have different pros and cons. Generally more people get access but the quality of that care suffers due to finite resources and rationing.

Bernie Sanders (senator from VT) should know better. I think it was the governor of Vermont who several years ago was elected on his campaign promise to institute single payer health care in the state. After he was elected and did the math, he determined that Vermont's economy could not afford the cost of single payer health care  so he reneged on his campaign promise.  :

=====

I do not pretend that there is a simple easy alternative.  When the ACA was passed I was angry because it kicked actually solving this problem a decade or more into the future. My local clinic doctor (not very old) has already retired. The healthcare industry has already changed dramatically in response to ACA.

I am kind of glad I am old, but a little sad for everybody who isn't. Don't buy the political candy corn of simple answers*** for complex issues. 



JR

**** I hate the price practices of big insurance to obfuscate hospital costs with self dealing hidden discounts. That doesn't mean the solution is to replace a big insurance bureaucracy with big government bureaucrats. I can see how people who think government is the answer for everything would embrace that.... I do not.

 

[fazer]

That doesn't mean the solution is to replace a big insurance bureaucracy with big government bureaucrats

I’m starting to think the that the ACA was designed to blow up the system.  Now Pandora’s box is open and the only way is single payer like the rest of the world.  There is just no way to think big  hospitals, insurance, Pharma is going to do anything but gouge .  Gov bureaucrats are a problem but not being to bulk buy with Medicare is a complete farce for Americans.

I’m also ready for USPS to handle consumer banking and separate investment banking or at least reinstate Glass Stegal.