4 ms·
Do you have some kind of similar study that doesn't come out of the Republican Party? Maybe something a little more non-partisan? An example of the flaws of th
by dangus 4y ago
Do you have some kind of similar study that doesn't come out of the Republican Party? Maybe something a little more non-partisan?
An example of the flaws of this argument/article is how Social Security is self-funded, and not in any financial jeopardy on its own. [1] Some of the other entitlement programs on the list also work that way.
Regardless, my understanding is that a government's budget never has to be balanced. It doesn't operate like a family household. Oftentimes, national debt is used for pursuits that return on their investment, just like how startup companies operate at a deficit on purpose to prioritize growth that will make the company more valuable in the long term. Inflation also lessens the value of the national debt over time.
I quite like one of those options: taxes on the wealthy and ultra-wealthy have a lot of room to rise. Jack them up, billionaires shouldn't exist, and people like Jeff Bezos shouldn't have a single-digit tax rate.
The other part would be looking at government inefficiencies and flawed policies that aren't on your list, the kind that result in wasted spending that's hard to demonstrate tangibly. For example, should we not talk about how suburban development and the interstate highway system is a monetary drain on wealth for the majority of the country?
It's really obvious to me how building more sewer, road, and utilities per person and forcing everyone to own one car per capita or more is a dumb waste of money on a national level. Our government on every level plays a heavy hand in subsidizing that development pattern.
It would be really easy to afford my tax rate increasing to a much higher level if I wasn't forced to own more than one car just to get myself to work. It would also be easier for me to afford housing if a bunch of single family home owners weren't preventing dense housing from being built, and then all that extra money I saved could go toward something more economically productive than a parking lot.
The average American spends somewhere between $5,000 to $10,000 per vehicle annually. Imagine a USA where everyone could go down to one car per family and how the rest of that money could be used.
But no, instead let's add one more lane and make our retirees work until they're 85 rather than fixing our structural problems that make America a very expensive and energy-wasteful place to live.
Because, when you think about it, national wealth is basically access to energy, and America is squandering their own wealth by dumping it into their GMC Yukon Denali Ultimate that gets 14MPG.
I don't understand why there's a temptation to jump to the conclusion that the answer is to make people retire later in life or cut safety net programs, which are often investments with ROI (e.g., hungry kids learn poorly, hungry kids result in reduced workforce education and productivity).
Are 70 year old employees particularly productive for the economy in the first place? It seems like there are smarter ways to save wealth or earn more wealth for the nation.
[1] https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10...
- supernova87a 4y ago> "Do you have some kind of similar study that doesn't come out of the Republican Party? Maybe something a little more non-partisan?" Not sure what your point is. I'm not sharing the article/infographic and animated budget scenarios as "this is what needs to happen" from some party's perspective. The point is a graphical display of the size of different buckets (which I take as fact) and the sliders that you can play with. The cases being presented are just examples. You can mentally slide the bars / cut line and see how much is required. > "I also find it funny how the infographic doesn't show a scenario where only defense cuts are made, because it would show us how cutting defense spending is a really simple path toward a balanced budget without changing anything else. I don't know if you have looked at it, but the defense bar is as big as each of the Medicaid, other mandatory, and "all other" spending bars each. You would have to cut the entire defense budget and still not solve the problem, and only make a fractional share of what is achieved if you implemented cuts to those other programs. > "Another example of the flaws of this argument/article is how Social Security is self-funded, and not in any financial jeopardy on its own. [1] Some of the other entitlement programs on the list also work that way." Maybe you have to redefine your definition of self-funded. Sure it is self-funded, as long as taxes increase a lot, given the demographic wave coming. If taxes don't increase, or one of these other options, it will run out of funds. If we don't agree on that, we have a problem. This is the entire debate about the problem we face. > "Regardless, my understanding is that a government's budget never has to be balanced. It doesn't operate like a family household...." Well, correct, but the question is how deep do we go into the hole. If you read the story, and the charts, you can see the projections of debt going to 200% GDP. At that point we will be paying enough interest on our debt to have funded several large programs themselves. > "You're saying our only options are for taxes to rise, benefits decreasing, increasing retirement age, or snowballing debt. But why are those our only options?" And the other options are? > "The other part would be looking at government inefficiencies and flawed policies that aren't on your list. For example, should we not talk about how suburban development and the interstate highway system is a monetary drain on wealth for the majority of the country?" Sure, talk about it, but can you change the bulk of the US to capture whatever benefit you can from that change, within 50 years to save the programs needing the money? > "I know I've spent a lot of time on this one issue as a specific example, but it's really just one of many ways in which being smart and efficient about the use of the vast wealth generated by the US would go a long way...." The talking is all good, but the bottom line is will your proposals come up with the money in time?