Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Sept 8, 2011 7:55:59 GMT -5
Even the much demonized Paul Ryan plan started off a baseline inflated by the past stimulus bill. Spending this year is the highest as a percentage of GDP outside of WWII - without looking it up I think it is over 22% versus a norm of around 18% - something like that.That "norm" you got comes from (most likely) the Paul Ryan plan and requires a timeline longer than most on this board have been alive. As for the debt problem, I'm glad to see the serious Republican candidates taking a lax and practical solution to it as net migration is one of the easier ways to grow your way out of debt. Third point, if we're referring to Obama's as a $300B plan in foregone tax revenue and new spending, do we lump those two together when we talk about Republican proposals now, too? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 8, 2011 8:00:52 GMT -5
Even the much demonized Paul Ryan plan started off a baseline inflated by the past stimulus bill. Spending this year is the highest as a percentage of GDP outside of WWII - without looking it up I think it is over 22% versus a norm of around 18% - something like that.That "norm" you got comes from (most likely) the Paul Ryan plan and requires a timeline longer than most on this board have been alive. As for the debt problem, I'm glad to see the serious Republican candidates taking a lax and practical solution to it as net migration is one of the easier ways to grow your way out of debt. Third point, if we're referring to Obama's as a $300B plan in foregone tax revenue and new spending, do we lump those two together when we talk about Republican proposals now, too? I don't know what any of that meant. All I know is that today, I am supposed to be repeating the words "Ponzi scheme" over and over and over again. Because that's what the people on TV told me I should be doing. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Sept 8, 2011 8:37:10 GMT -5
OK - so I went and did look it up. I was conceptually correct but off on my numbers. Not as old as Easy Ed but my memory does get hazy on the specifics sometimes.  Spending for 2011 is around 25% of GDP and the norm would be around 21% of GDP - looking at the last 20 years. Around 20% if you look at the last 10 years. link - www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/government-spending-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-2/Point still is correct that there is a large government spending level baked into the current baseline that no one has really proposed we cut immediately. And glad Boz got the message on Ponzi schemes. I will make a wild prediction that you may see that line a few times in Obama ads over the next year or so |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 8, 2011 9:10:38 GMT -5
Even the much demonized Paul Ryan plan started off a baseline inflated by the past stimulus bill. Spending this year is the highest as a percentage of GDP outside of WWII - without looking it up I think it is over 22% versus a norm of around 18% - something like that.That "norm" you got comes from (most likely) the Paul Ryan plan and requires a timeline longer than most on this board have been alive. As for the debt problem, I'm glad to see the serious Republican candidates taking a lax and practical solution to it as net migration is one of the easier ways to grow your way out of debt. Third point, if we're referring to Obama's as a $300B plan in foregone tax revenue and new spending, do we lump those two together when we talk about Republican proposals now, too? I'm sure the fact that US GDP was in decline until recently isn't affecting that 22% statistic, either. Thankfully, the super-committee is meeting today, so I'm sure we'll have a bipartisan plan we can all agree on by tomorrow. |
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Sept 8, 2011 11:03:02 GMT -5
The Ponzi Scheme controversy is entirely of Perry's own doing. When you're a "shoot-from-the-hip" guy, you're going to end up making some provocative statements that people latch onto. Tossing around words like "treason" and "Ponzi Scheme" and comparing AGW to geocentrism are going to get people's attention, and mostly not in a good way.
I'm disappointed that it seems Obama won't be talking about tax reform at all; considering Prater's inclusion in the super-committee talks suggests that will likely end up being a substantial part of the super-committee's revenue-based solutions.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 8, 2011 11:50:58 GMT -5
I hate to hijack this thread, but why is calling it a Ponzi scheme a bad thing? I'm in my mid-thirties, and I can't believe that Social Security will be around in its current form when I'm 70, if it's still around at all. I am thus paying money into a system that's unsustainable and will break the promise it made to me.
Isn't that the definition of a Ponzi scheme?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 8, 2011 12:10:51 GMT -5
I hate to hijack this thread, but why is calling it a Ponzi scheme a bad thing? I'm in my mid-thirties, and I can't believe that Social Security will be around in its current form when I'm 70, if it's still around at all. I am thus paying money into a system that's unsustainable and will break the promise it made to me. Isn't that the definition of a Ponzi scheme? No. Shut up! Go away! You are being too provocative!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 8, 2011 12:25:12 GMT -5
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 8, 2011 12:46:06 GMT -5
I hate to hijack this thread, but why is calling it a Ponzi scheme a bad thing? I'm in my mid-thirties, and I can't believe that Social Security will be around in its current form when I'm 70, if it's still around at all. I am thus paying money into a system that's unsustainable and will break the promise it made to me. Isn't that the definition of a Ponzi scheme? I'm not counting on SS, but I don't know that I agree. But the real reason why calling SS a Ponzi is a bad thing is because you're obviously trying to score points rather than actually address an issue. Saying that you don't think it's sustainable and that it needs to be addressed gets your point across and is much more likely to advance the discussion. Saying it's a Ponzi scheme makes you feel cool but is basically part of the reason there's very little real political dialogue in this country right now. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 8, 2011 12:47:39 GMT -5
You can go ahead and count on SS being there when you retire. I'm not. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 8, 2011 12:55:16 GMT -5
You can go ahead and count on SS being there when you retire. I'm not. I'm not either (read my comments in the thread I linked to), just attempting to provide another perspective for discussion. On Edit: FWIW, I am still not sure why the federal government should pay me anything when I retire. I agree with the idea of a social safety net for those who need it, but many people receiving SS checks don't. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 8, 2011 13:55:15 GMT -5
You can go ahead and count on SS being there when you retire. I'm not. I'm not either (read my comments in the thread I linked to), just attempting to provide another perspective for discussion. On Edit: FWIW, I am still not sure why the federal government should pay me anything when I retire. I agree with the idea of a social safety net for those who need it, but many people receiving SS checks don't. I'm OK with the same thing. My issue continues to be with the fact that my Social Security statement every year lists an amount of money that I'm scheduled to receive. I'm convinced that I'll never get close to that when I retire, if I get anything. It's not unsustainable. Unsustainable is me spending $21K a month on living expenses. It crosses into Ponzi territory with the government taking my money and telling me that it's OK, I'll get money when I retire. People have referred to social security as unsustainable for years. Maybe if it's referred to as a Ponzi scheme, people will get the message. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2011 14:08:00 GMT -5
Don't be troubled. Your "Federal Family" will never let you down.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Sept 8, 2011 15:14:49 GMT -5
Don't be troubled. Your "Federal Family" will never let you down. But what is a more reliable savings mechanism for old age? Relying solely on 401k products (in a nation where >50% of adults don't understand even simple financial concepts such as interest)? Stuffing cash/gold/bottlecaps in the mattress? The answer is probably how old people have survived for all of human history: forcing their kids to take care of them. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 8, 2011 15:42:58 GMT -5
Don't be troubled. Your "Federal Family" will never let you down. But what is a more reliable savings mechanism for old age? Relying solely on 401k products (in a nation where >50% of adults don't understand even simple financial concepts such as interest)? Stuffing cash/gold/bottlecaps in the mattress? The answer is probably how old people have survived for all of human history: forcing their kids to take care of them. Nah, we still have Medicare/Medicaid to pay their nursing home fees. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 8, 2011 16:46:06 GMT -5
Most old people in the past just died.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 8, 2011 17:23:33 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2011 20:43:17 GMT -5
I know. We can spend our way out of debt. No one's ever tried that before. The definition of insanity is expecting diferent results from the same actions. A pox on both their houses if this plan is passed into law.
At least for the Democrats it makes sense. Bigger government plus mor public works projects doled out to overpriced union labor equals more campaign money extorted via union dues.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 9, 2011 6:51:05 GMT -5
That chart clearly shows a coming shortfall. But according to your link below, SS does not have any problems.  |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Sept 9, 2011 9:49:04 GMT -5
It seems we should wait on his September 19th debt reduction plan that will cover the cost of this jobs proposal before fully passing a verdict.
I'm still young and admittedly naive, so I like to come here and read differing opinions from older and wiser people and I consider the people on this board to be well versed on the issues. So I'd love to hear pro's and con's of this plan from both sides.
|
|
Spending for 2011 is around 25% of GDP and the norm would be around 21% of GDP - looking at the last 20 years. Around 20% if you look at the last 10 years. 
