86M Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers

[Knowing]

Debt stood at under $1T when Reagan took office. It stood at $4.4T when GHWB left office., $6T when Clinton left, and $12T when GWB left.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Simple facts. The deficits of both the Reagan & Bush eras were driven by military expenditures & tax cuts.

I didn't deny that the republicans spent money. Both parties are spending money like it's going out of style. Obama's position on the debt ceiling evolved when he found it necessary to spend and as far as I'm aware hostilities continue in the middle east despite AQ being "on the run."

Deficit spending, and the seemingly unchecked growth of entitlement spending is going to require bipartisan effort.

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't deny that the republicans spent money. Both parties are spending money like it's going out of style. Obama's position on the debt ceiling evolved when he found it necessary to spend and as far as I'm aware hostilities continue in the middle east despite AQ being "on the run."

AQ has nothing to do with the topic at hand, despite your need to duh-vert.

Deficit spending, and the seemingly unchecked growth of entitlement spending is going to require bipartisan effort.

Entitlement spending is a social necessity, the direct result of enormous & explosive inequality achieved thru the application of deregulated trickle down Reaganomics over the last 30+ years. That's the root cause, and no other. It's difficult to see any bipartisanism in solving that.

Today's deficits are the result of decades of serial tax cuts & deregulation combined with the need to address the greatest Repub policy induced economic disaster since 1929. The ownership society was the greatest speculative bubble in the history of finance, enabled & cheered on at the highest levels of the Bush Admin.

Deficits under both Reagan and the Bushes were largely achieved through enormous military spending rather than much needed relief for American families. The results would have been enormously inflationary if dollars weren't rushing offshore & being locked up in the hands of the financial elite faster than they could print them.

 

[Knowing]

Entitlement spending is a social necessity, the direct result of enormous & explosive inequality achieved thru the application of deregulated trickle down Reaganomics over the last 30+ years. That's the root cause, and no other. It's difficult to see any bipartisanism in solving that.

Supply side isn't limited to republicans. If entitlement spending is a social necessity, then our congress is going to need to figure out how to pay all of our other bills when entitlements swallow the budget whole.

Today's deficits are the result of decades of serial tax cuts & deregulation combined with the need to address the greatest Repub policy induced economic disaster since 1929. The ownership society was the greatest speculative bubble in the history of finance, enabled & cheered on at the highest levels of the Bush Admin.

So you don't see in the graphs where entitlement spending is overtaking discretionary? It's all dastardly republicans spending money on wars that have 0 cost now that democrats are prosecuting them.

Deficits under both Reagan and the Bushes were largely achieved through enormous military spending rather than much needed relief for American families. The results would have been enormously inflationary if dollars weren't rushing offshore & being locked up in the hands of the financial elite faster than they could print them.

Yes, QE infinity and the obfuscation of the M2 supply along with paying banks not to lend will have interesting implications in the future. Just like the 2004 Bankruptcy reform that was an unprecedented shift of power from debtors to lenders and gave derivatives special privileges in bankruptcy. Weird then that no one knew what derivatives were in 2007. Then there's the amazing transformation of "Too big to fail" (which was terrible), in to "Too big to jail."

I disagree with your position, I also don't think that the parties are as far apart on this as you think they are or the democrats would do more than give lip service to the horrible inequality you think drives their every decision.

 

[Texashiker]

Just out of morbid curiosity, is there some ratio of maker to taker at which you might be concerned, or are you another Eskimospy, absolutely convinced that we can all ride the dole with borrowed money forever and ever? It seems rather axiomatic to me that if there's one guy with a job and 310,999 expecting a check things might get a bit strained. If true, then surely there is some curve on which things become increasingly problematic.

Last week there was news from the federal reserve saying there is no way QE is going to end.

There is no recovery, the jobs have gone to china, the only solution is to continue to print money out of thin air.

 

[Jhhnn]

QE & govt deficits are entirely different things.

Projections don't necessarily become reality. Mitt was gonna win, remember?

And, uhhh, "They're just as Bad!" is mere obfuscation.

 

[Texashiker]

QE & govt deficits are entirely different things.

Where is the money coming from for the QE?

 

[IGBT]

along with fed / state withholding get ready for obama care withholding to join the mix. Sure is handy to have the IRS enforcing all that revenue collection.

 

[Knowing]

QE & govt deficits are entirely different things.

So what you're saying is that a wealth transfer from the people to the banks has nothing to do with the economy or the deficit or the institutional inequality that you claim to be worried about?

Projections don't necessarily become reality. Mitt was gonna win, remember?

What does Mitt Rmoney have to do with anything?

And, uhhh, "They're just as Bad!" is mere obfuscation.

They are just as bad, if not worse. I don't understand your loyalty to the democrats, just like I don't understand why you think I must be a republican to criticize them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Where is the money coming from for the QE?

From the FRB, who can print money, buy & sell assets as allowed by law. It's been that way for 100 years. Without it, we'd likely be well down the slope of a debt deflation spiral as in the early 1930's. Back then, they had conservative ideological constraints. Under Mellon's leadership, they did exactly the wrong things.

They can eat losses with impunity & all profit goes to the govt.

 

[MongGrel]

AQ has nothing to do with the topic at hand, despite your need to duh-vert.



Entitlement spending is a social necessity, the direct result of enormous & explosive inequality achieved thru the application of deregulated trickle down Reaganomics over the last 30+ years. That's the root cause, and no other. It's difficult to see any bipartisanism in solving that.

Today's deficits are the result of decades of serial tax cuts & deregulation combined with the need to address the greatest Repub policy induced economic disaster since 1929. The ownership society was the greatest speculative bubble in the history of finance, enabled & cheered on at the highest levels of the Bush Admin.

Deficits under both Reagan and the Bushes were largely achieved through enormous military spending rather than much needed relief for American families. The results would have been enormously inflationary if dollars weren't rushing offshore & being locked up in the hands of the financial elite faster than they could print them.

Bravo sir.

:thumbsup:

*golf claps*

 

[Jhhnn]

So what you're saying is that a wealth transfer from the people to the banks has nothing to do with the economy or the deficit or the institutional inequality that you claim to be worried about?

What transfer?

What does Mitt Rmoney have to do with anything?

Projections, same as your graph.

They are just as bad, if not worse. I don't understand your loyalty to the democrats, just like I don't understand why you think I must be a republican to criticize them.

I criticize them as well, but not for he same reasons. We need a new New Deal, not cuts to entitlements. It's not the entitlements that are a problem, anyway, but rather the interest paid to bondholders. If we want to borrow less, we raise taxes, particularly at the tippy top, which also slows runaway inequality. There's no lifestyle difference between paying 15% on $500M and 50%. It's just numbers on the balance sheet, and the power to buy political clout.

 

[Jaskalas]

Entitlement spending is a social necessity...

The best thing for that policy is to drive prices to the absolute minimum. I'm talking deflationary policy. An end to economics as we understand it today.

 

[Jhhnn]

The best thing for that policy is to drive prices to the absolute minimum. I'm talking deflationary policy. An end to economics as we understand it today.

Yeh, just like the early years of the Great Depression.

Deflation serves only the Rich, the holders of great liquidity. There's no need to risk, to invest, when money gains value stuffed into figurative mattresses. With a collapsed economy, the only way to recovery is through investment & job creation, something that deflation stops in its tracks.

It brutalizes debtors, because the more you pay the more you owe in terms of value, particularly when wages plummet as part of the package.

It also inhibits commerce- why buy today when you know it'll be cheaper tomorrow?

Has it occurred to you that you have no idea what you're talking about?

 

[shortylickens]

We have a ticking time bomb.

Can you imagine 20 years from now?

 

[Knowing]

What transfer?

The debt that is being created in our names and given to banks as part of QE infinity, while they take that money and hoard it because the FED is paying them not to lend.

I criticize them as well, but not for he same reasons. We need a new New Deal, not cuts to entitlements. It's not the entitlements that are a problem, anyway, but rather the interest paid to bondholders.

So what you're saying is that over the past 40 years, mandatory spending, driven by entitlements has not slowly taken over the budget despite the evidence I've posted. Okay.

If we want to borrow less, we raise taxes, particularly at the tippy top, which also slows runaway inequality. There's no lifestyle difference between paying 15% on $500M and 50%. It's just numbers on the balance sheet, and the power to buy political clout.

The highest quintile already pays the most taxes. Percentiles within the highest quintile pay progressively more.

Further, taxes have never been sustained at greater than 20% of GDP.

Still, if you have any super rich friends that don't know how to use a computer and desperately want to pay more taxes, this link has some handy information. Also, since no one seems to have this information I think a 10% gratuity would be appropriate remittance to yours truly. PM me for payment details.

 

[Texashiker]

From the FRB, who can print money,

In other words, print money out of thin air.

 

[Jhhnn]

In other words, print money out of thin air.

No. They buy assets, providing banks with liquidity, money to lend. All dollars originate from the FRB. Their balance sheet and that of the federal govt are not the same thing.

 

[Matt1970]

Entitlement spending is a social necessity, the direct result of enormous & explosive inequality achieved thru the application of deregulated trickle down Reaganomics over the last 30+ years. That's the root cause, and no other. It's difficult to see any bipartisanism in solving that.

.

It has been proven to you time and time again that it started back in the 70's. Reaganomics over the last 30+ years being the root cause, and no other is total bullshit and you know it. Once again, note the steady decline in wages since 1970, you know, when Reaganomics started.

 

[Jhhnn]

The debt that is being created in our names and given to banks as part of QE infinity, while they take that money and hoard it because the FED is paying them not to lend.

Banks make money from lending & securitizing debt, selling it to investors. When investors don't buy, they run out of money to lend & cashflow to keep the doors open, a la the banking crisis of 2008. When the FRB buys those assets, those securities, banks get money to lend, same as if investors buy those securities. The FRB isn't paying banks not to lend, at all. The proposition is absurd.

So what you're saying is that over the past 40 years, mandatory spending, driven by entitlements has not slowly taken over the budget despite the evidence I've posted. Okay.

The evidence you've posted is projections into the future, based on current circumstances. It does not show entitlements as driving mandatory spending, but rather debt maintenance. What has driven debt acquisition more than entitlements is Neocon militarism.

The highest quintile already pays the most taxes. Percentiles within the highest quintile pay progressively more.

Incorrect. Federal income taxes, and all consumption taxes are regressive at the tippytop. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than upper middle class people. They hide in the top 1%.

Further, taxes have never been sustained at greater than 20% of GDP.

So what? You offer no indication whatsoever that higher rates are unsustainable, particularly wrt people whose share of national income has doubled in 30 years. The top .1% share of income is nearly that of the 1.0% in 1980, and most of that growth is concentrated in the top .01%.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf

Mitt paid 13% for the years he disclosed and for the income he was forced to disclose. He didn't take all the deductions he was entitled to so as to make it that much, given he was running for President. His returns have likely been amended after he lost.

Still, if you have any super rich friends that don't know how to use a computer and desperately want to pay more taxes, this link has some handy information. Also, since no one seems to have this information I think a 10% gratuity would be appropriate remittance to yours truly. PM me for payment details.

The People, through their representatives, have the Constitutional right to invoke income taxes as they see fit. Prior to the Reagan era, those at the top paid much higher rates than today, and they were, nonetheless, Rich. Their enterprises paid a much larger % of receipts as wages to American workers, as well.

I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

 

[werepossum]

Last week there was news from the federal reserve saying there is no way QE is going to end.

There is no recovery, the jobs have gone to china, the only solution is to continue to print money out of thin air.

This is probably true, but the Fed has done something I would not have believed possible: They have largely monetized our debt without rampant inflation. We may have inflation later, but the Fed, being the people hurt worst by inflation, are very, very good at fighting it. In the mean time, they have transferred the profit from a significant portion of our debt from foreign lenders to American bankers without actually putting up any of their own money, allowing them to invest their own money as well as the bond profits into the stock market.

It has been proven to you time and time again that it started back in the 70's. Reaganomics over the last 30+ years being the root cause, and no other is total bullshit and you know it. Once again, note the steady decline in wages since 1970, you know, when Reaganomics started.

If it were pretty much anyone else I'd agree with the bolded, but in his case he may well be so stupid and so consumed with rage that he really doesn't know it. Good info for the rest of us though, thanks.

 

[Jaskalas]

Has it occurred to you that you have no idea what you're talking about?

The Great Depression is nothing compared to the grand schemes you and all these brilliant minds you hide behind are trying to achieve. Best case scenario for the economy as we know it today, we struggle tooth and nail to afford current entitlements. Expanding them to what our people ACTUALLY need is pure fantasy.

Fact is, all the projections show the pyramid schemes collapsing. They REQUIRE population growth, or the nation defaults on _everything_. All you are doing is playing a shell game to pay for today with tomorrow. Yet it is conditional. Tomorrow will not always be able to afford this scheme.

An inflation based economy has its limits.

I am quite saddened that you do not realize what I propose. The idea begins with a simple truth. Labor is losing its value. This, by itself, dooms every notion we've ever had regarding entitlements. As the value of labor continues to decline, the world is going to change. We will need more entitlements with a smaller tax base to pay for it. Far as I see it we're all getting poorer, not richer.

Do you believe in trickle down economics? Those ivory towers on Wall-Street will not save us. You can bail them out and keep inflation for their benefit, but they cannot save the value of labor.

Two things are hitting us.

1: China, and global markets. You are competing with slave labor. You lose. If you are paid anything more than slave labor your product will be more expensive on American shelves. You and your employer will soon be out of business. Wages and benefits are a race to the bottom.

2: Automation, loss of jobs. As the population grows, jobs will not keep pace. Modern technology is going to continue to chip away at the number of available positions leaving us with an employer's market and not enough of them to go around. There will be legions of unemployed. I expect that number is going to slowly rise for the remainder of our life times.
​

How do you maintain an inflation based economy, without the foundation on which it stands? If you'd like to refute that we are getting poorer, or that labor is losing its value, then by all means, I'd like to see the basis of my theory defeated.

But if you agree with me so far, then something radical has to be done.

 

[Knowing]

Banks make money from lending & securitizing debt, selling it to investors. When investors don't buy, they run out of money to lend & cashflow to keep the doors open, a la the banking crisis of 2008. When the FRB buys those assets, those securities, banks get money to lend, same as if investors buy those securities. The FRB isn't paying banks not to lend, at all. The proposition is absurd.

It is absurd. It also is happening.

The evidence you've posted is projections into the future, based on current circumstances. It does not show entitlements as driving mandatory spending, but rather debt maintenance. What has driven debt acquisition more than entitlements is Neocon militarism.

The evidence I've posted starts in 1970. The evidence I've posted shows debt maintenance as interest and it shows social security, medicaid, and medicare as social security, medicaid, and medicare.

Incorrect. Federal income taxes, and all consumption taxes are regressive at the tippytop. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than upper middle class people. They hide in the top 1%.

So you're right and the congressional budget office is wrong? Neat.

So what? You offer no indication whatsoever that higher rates are unsustainable, particularly wrt people whose share of national income has doubled in 30 years. The top .1% share of income is nearly that of the 1.0% in 1980, and most of that growth is concentrated in the top .01%.

No indication that higher rates are unsustainable? You mean like historically they never have been? You mean like proof that they don't result in more revenue? Because that's what I posted. Also from your own tax foundation link: "the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011"

Mitt paid 13% for the years he disclosed and for the income he was forced to disclose. He didn't take all the deductions he was entitled to so as to make it that much, given he was running for President. His returns have likely been amended after he lost.

And Mitt is one person in more than three hundred million. If the US government seized the total net worth of the 15 American billionaires listed on wikipedia (536.2 billion), it would fund the government which spends roughly 10.33 billion per day for... 51.9 days. Are you trying to solve a problem or punish a very small population of people you hold responsible?

The People, through their representatives, have the Constitutional right to invoke income taxes as they see fit. Prior to the Reagan era, those at the top paid much higher rates than today, and they were, nonetheless, Rich. Their enterprises paid a much larger % of receipts as wages to American workers, as well.

Were that true, there would be no need for the AMT.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

Send that link I posted in my last reply to Mr. King, and extend him my hearty thanks for the 10% finders fee.

 

[werepossum]

The Great Depression is nothing compared to the grand schemes you and all these brilliant minds you hide behind are trying to achieve. Best case scenario for the economy as we know it today, we struggle tooth and nail to afford current entitlements. Expanding them to what our people ACTUALLY need is pure fantasy.

Fact is, all the projections show the pyramid schemes collapsing. They REQUIRE population growth, or the nation defaults on _everything_. All you are doing is playing a shell game to pay for today with tomorrow. Yet it is conditional. Tomorrow will not always be able to afford this scheme.

An inflation based economy has its limits.

I am quite saddened that you do not realize what I propose. The idea begins with a simple truth. Labor is losing its value. This, by itself, dooms every notion we've ever had regarding entitlements. As the value of labor continues to decline, the world is going to change. We will need more entitlements with a smaller tax base to pay for it. Far as I see it we're all getting poorer, not richer.

Do you believe in trickle down economics? Those ivory towers on Wall-Street will not save us. You can bail them out and keep inflation for their benefit, but they cannot save the value of labor.

Two things are hitting us.

1: China, and global markets. You are competing with slave labor. You lose. If you are paid anything more than slave labor your product will be more expensive on American shelves. You and your employer will soon be out of business. Wages and benefits are a race to the bottom.

2: Automation, loss of jobs. As the population grows, jobs will not keep pace. Modern technology is going to continue to chip away at the number of available positions leaving us with an employer's market and not enough of them to go around. There will be legions of unemployed. I expect that number is going to slowly rise for the remainder of our life times.
​

How do you maintain an inflation based economy, without the foundation on which it stands? If you'd like to refute that we are getting poorer, or that labor is losing its value, then by all means, I'd like to see the basis of my theory defeated.

But if you agree with me so far, then something radical has to be done.

Well said. I will say though that Chinese wages are not necessarily slave wages. One reason that appliance manufacturers are bringing back some appliance manufacturing is that in larger cities, wages for skilled labor such as appliance manufacturing workers are approaching parity with American workers, so that once one figures in shipping, the difference is not worth the aggravation and loss of flexibility.

Contrast that with low skilled manufacturing like Nike - I believe the labor cost they quoted as sufficient to close down a Nike factory is 25 cents per hour. Consequently Nike factories will always pay slave wages, but that isn't the case for all Chinese industry. Our labor is being devalued by automation and global arbitrage, certainly, but that's not the complete case in every sector. Regulations also are a major difference; we don't want to live in a polluted hellhole, but with global arbitrage that makes us less competitive with countries willing to take the plunge into hell. And our labor is also being devalued by our importing large numbers of low skilled, poorly educated workers. It's many things coming together.

It is absurd. It also is happening.



The evidence I've posted starts in 1970. The evidence I've posted shows debt maintenance as interest and it shows social security, medicaid, and medicare as social security, medicaid, and medicare.

So you're right and the congressional budget office is wrong? Neat.



No indication that higher rates are unsustainable? You mean like historically they never have been? You mean like proof that they don't result in more revenue? Because that's what I posted. Also from your own tax foundation link: "the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011"



And Mitt is one person in more than three hundred million. If the US government seized the total net worth of the 15 American billionaires listed on wikipedia (536.2 billion), it would fund the government which spends roughly 10.33 billion per day for... 51.9 days. Are you trying to solve a problem or punish a very small population of people you hold responsible?



Were that true, there would be no need for the AMT.



Send that link I posted in my last reply to Mr. King, and extend him my hearty thanks for the 10% finders fee.

Also well said. It's truly frightening how much our federal government alone spends compared to the wealth of people who seem wealthy beyond comprehension.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is absurd. It also is happening.

That link a hogwash, because reserves are not loanable funds, by definition. It's just that simple. They serve as a buffer against loss, maintain bank solvency if things go wrong. The FRB sets reserve requirements for member banks. There's a mathematical relationship between reserves & the amount of money a bank can lend under fractional reserve principles. When reserves exceed those mathematical requirements for a time, they're called excess reserves. Paying interest on them just makes member bankers happier with the reserve requirements, raised in the wake of the 2008 debacle.

Lowering reserve requirements probably isn't a good idea in that context, so the FRB makes more loanable funds available with QE, buying securities that member banks create, putting the money right back in the hands of bankers to be lent out again. If they were paying bankers not to lend, if that were the objective, then QE wouldn't exist at all.

Making money available to banks is what they can do to hold interest rates low to encourage borrowing, but they're pushing on a string with tapped out consumers & business suffering from lack of demand.

The rest of your reply suffers from similar misconceptions & distortions, apparently induced by more of the same sort of propaganda.

 

[werepossum]

It is absurd. It also is happening.

SNIP

See, your problem is that you started out quoting him Business Insider. Had you linked to "Marxist Insider" or "Foaming Madness Monthly" he'd have ceded your point, but citing him an actual capitalistic business publication is like beating a rabid dog with a live cat. It just never ends well.

EDIT: In the comments, Henry Blodget makes a good point that this isn't just the banks being rewarded for not lending money, but is also a way of encouraging the quiet rebuilding of the FDIC reserve. He also points out that a better solution would be to not count Fed deposits in the FDIC fee calculation, although were that done, banks might well not replenish the FDIC reserve but choose to invest in more risky measures now that Glass-Steagall is gone and we've established that for "too big to fail" institutions, it's their profit but our risk.