3 ms·

elections have consequences...

by bijowo1676 7mo ago

laughing_man 7mo ago
[flagged]
- rapind 7mo ago
  This glosses over what Bush was handed from the previous guy and then what he left behind for the next guy.
  - laughing_man 7mo ago
    The "previous guy" was constrained by a once-in-a-lifetime Congress that was serious about deficits, and he also benefited by another once-in-a-lifetime spurt of economic growth that dramatically increased tax revenue. As soon as Congress realized they'd been handed a deficit-free budget they went about spending with wild abandon. And anyway, since that guy we've had two presidents over three terms where the other party controlled the presidency and they didn't and they certainly didn't break the pattern. Let me ask you this: If you wanted to vote for a guy (or gal) who was serious about reducing the deficit instead of someone who doesn't care as long as the wheels don't come off during his term, who would you vote for?
    - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
      Here's the better question: If you were serious about reducing the deficit, what would you cut? It should be possible to reduce Medicare costs significantly by going after healthcare costs in general, i.e. create a ton of new medical residency slots and train a lot of new doctors, and make the healthcare companies actually compete with each other. The AMA and healthcare companies are going to fight you hard. We currently make large social security payments to affluent retirees who paid in less than we're paying them out. We could reform the system to cost less, i.e. not pay out as much to people who don't need the money. The AARP isn't going to like it. The DoD budget is pretty big and a lot of it is waste or corruption. But to do this well you have to be good at identifying which parts, you still can't eliminate all of it because some of it is pretty important, and this one is the smallest of the three. And the defense contractors will try to stop you. To make a meaningful dent in the deficit you would have to do at least two of those but no one is willing to do any of them.
      - laughing_man 7mo ago
        Agreed. This should have been addressed decades ago, and every year that goes buy it will get harder to deal with. Me, I'd cut everything. Right now, when interest rates are relatively low, we're spending more to service the debt than we're spending on defense. This isn't a problem we can address with half measures.
        rapind 7mo ago
        The giant sacred cows are Defence (War) and Social Security. Could probably solve the deficit pretty quickly by getting money out of politics, especially defence contractor and AIPAC money. That would require a significant political overhaul though.
- aloha2436 7mo ago
  > More importantly, in the context of this discussion, every president since Bush's first term has had larger deficits than any previous president, regardless of party. Taking on long term debt at or below the risk free rate _is the point._ It didn't devalue the currency because the global economy was structured around buying that debt. You just need to not jeopardize that second point.
  - laughing_man 7mo ago
    It's a snowball rolling downhill that's reached the point where it is out of control. We cannot stop taking on more debt, which is, let's face it, just printing money electronically. At some point everything will blow up. I just hope it doesn't happen until I'm gone.

elections have consequences...

laughing_man 7mo ago

[flagged]

rapind 7mo ago
This glosses over what Bush was handed from the previous guy and then what he left behind for the next guy.
- laughing_man 7mo ago
  The "previous guy" was constrained by a once-in-a-lifetime Congress that was serious about deficits, and he also benefited by another once-in-a-lifetime spurt of economic growth that dramatically increased tax revenue. As soon as Congress realized they'd been handed a deficit-free budget they went about spending with wild abandon. And anyway, since that guy we've had two presidents over three terms where the other party controlled the presidency and they didn't and they certainly didn't break the pattern. Let me ask you this: If you wanted to vote for a guy (or gal) who was serious about reducing the deficit instead of someone who doesn't care as long as the wheels don't come off during his term, who would you vote for?
  - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
    Here's the better question: If you were serious about reducing the deficit, what would you cut? It should be possible to reduce Medicare costs significantly by going after healthcare costs in general, i.e. create a ton of new medical residency slots and train a lot of new doctors, and make the healthcare companies actually compete with each other. The AMA and healthcare companies are going to fight you hard. We currently make large social security payments to affluent retirees who paid in less than we're paying them out. We could reform the system to cost less, i.e. not pay out as much to people who don't need the money. The AARP isn't going to like it. The DoD budget is pretty big and a lot of it is waste or corruption. But to do this well you have to be good at identifying which parts, you still can't eliminate all of it because some of it is pretty important, and this one is the smallest of the three. And the defense contractors will try to stop you. To make a meaningful dent in the deficit you would have to do at least two of those but no one is willing to do any of them.
    - laughing_man 7mo ago
      Agreed. This should have been addressed decades ago, and every year that goes buy it will get harder to deal with. Me, I'd cut everything. Right now, when interest rates are relatively low, we're spending more to service the debt than we're spending on defense. This isn't a problem we can address with half measures.
      - rapind 7mo ago
        The giant sacred cows are Defence (War) and Social Security. Could probably solve the deficit pretty quickly by getting money out of politics, especially defence contractor and AIPAC money. That would require a significant political overhaul though.
aloha2436 7mo ago
> More importantly, in the context of this discussion, every president since Bush's first term has had larger deficits than any previous president, regardless of party. Taking on long term debt at or below the risk free rate _is the point._ It didn't devalue the currency because the global economy was structured around buying that debt. You just need to not jeopardize that second point.
- laughing_man 7mo ago
  It's a snowball rolling downhill that's reached the point where it is out of control. We cannot stop taking on more debt, which is, let's face it, just printing money electronically. At some point everything will blow up. I just hope it doesn't happen until I'm gone.