Comments on: More Budget Foxes, Fewer Hedgehogs

By: Worth Reading | Above the Market

Worth Reading | Above the Market — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:06:22 +0000

[...] Donald Marron, in The Christian Science Monitor: “More Budget Foxes, Fewer Hedgehogs” Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

By: jimmy Kay

jimmy Kay — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:50:35 +0000

This entire argument is nonsensical in an economy predicated on fiat currency. We can simply print more than enough money to pay for any program. We could print enough “dollars”, though they are most likely only electronic credits, to pay off our national debt tomorrow.

The entire global economy is merely a facade based on confidence and ponzi schemes. When merely swapping paper and electronic credits between corporations and proxies is considered investment, then certainly we can solve debt problems by creating more fiat debt.

Don’t be constrained by your education, try to understand the world. When they educated you, they taught what not to think, as well as what to think. Perhaps the answers lie in the realm forbidden. Seek knowledge, don’t hide from it.

By: foosion

foosion — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:56:05 +0000

>>Because of an aging population and rising health-care costs, spending on Social Security and federal health programs will explode. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next 25 years spending on these programs will rise from roughly 10 percent of the economy to almost 17 percent.>>

It’s highly misleading to include Social Security with health programs.

Social Security has dedicated funding, so it doesn’t hit the budget, can pay full benefits for the next 25 years and 80% thereafter. The gap is relatively small as a percentage of GDP. We could easily fill the gap with an amount equal to the cost of the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 or the cost of our wars or by raising the limit on income subject to Social Security taxes.

When Social Security was revised by the Greenspan commission, they made predictions about aging, lifespan, funding, etc. The only reason their fix might fall a bit short 25 years from now is that they assumed 90% of national income would be captured under the limit on income subject to SS. Due to rising inequality, only 83% of income is subject to the cap, so funding is lower than assumed. In other words, more upper income earning is escaping SS than anticipated because upper income earners are keeping a larger share of the national pie

It’s also highly misleading to talk about federal health programs.

The problem is healthcare costs, not the federal programs. Healthcare costs are exploding. Federal programs are rising slower than private. The CBO found (when examining the Ryan budget) that shifting costs from the Federal govt to seniors would increase national healthcare spending.

We have to get healthcare spending under control, not shift the burden onto seniors. It doesn’t help the average person to save $1 in taxes and spend an additional $1.10 (number for illustration) in healthcare or insurance.