patrick.net

shrekgrinch says

Has nothing to do with the stock market. Sorry if you are on Planet Whatever, as usual.

When FDR took office, most of the capital was already gone. Investment was dead. This happened long before FDR took office, and before Hoover's tax rate changes.

shrekgrinch says

What historical revisionism? Business investment didn’t pick up by any appreciable degree until WWII started. The taxes weren’t responsible for all of that — FDR’s jihad against business via non-tax means did its part just as badly.

BUSINESS INVESTMENT HALTED BEFORE THE TAX RATE CHANGES.

That is the historical revisionism I'm talking about.

If you want to argue that the tax rates didn't help, sure, that was clearly the case, at least under Hoover, but to claim that they halted investment is an outright lie. Investment was already halted.

shrekgrinch says

On Planet Whatever, maybe. But on Planet Where People Live Who Know What The Hell The Are Talking About, not always

I can't believe I'm even having this argument. Please look up the definition of recession and recovery.

shrekgrinch says

Not when the only results that mattered to everyone was the NET difference compared to what the economy was before. By that measure, FDR was a disaster. It is also the same measure the voters applied to the Democrats this past November, in case you have been missing out on recent events as you do on basic logic and history.

Yes, the NET DIFFERENCE from January 1933 to November 1936 was that the unemployment rate was down 10 points and GDP was up 35%. FDR won in a fucking landslide, because his policies were working.

I mean. Really. Jesus.

No, FDR did not single handedly put things back the way they were in 1920s by 1936, but to claim that the "net difference" wasn't a dramatic improvement from when he took office is simply a lie.

Obama and the dems didn't have anywhere close to the results that FDR had, and they spent a hell of a lot less (relative to GDP).

shrekgrinch says

Nope. I’m not your Google Bitch. If you don’t know what disastrous effects New Deal legislation had on business even on a basic level as determined by unbiased economists, then it worthless to waste my time on you. Ever hear of the Undistributed Profits Tax? No? Case in point.

Oh, I'm quite familiar with legislation that was enacted during the New Deal. You're discussing legislation that was created during the new deal that created disinecntives here, not legislation that removed disincentives. Like I said -- please cite one disincentive that FDR removed. Just one would be fine.

shrekgrinch says

They could have cut from anywhere. They get elected to make those choices, after all.

Again, where? How? Where were the votes? Who would support it?

It doesn’t matter where with regards to what we were discussing what the cause of deficit spending is.

But it does. Deficits don't exist in a vacuum. Cutting one program may make the deficit worse, cutting another may make it better.

As regards to bolstering the economy, that has nothing to do with this point either. Nice red herring attempt. Won’t work.

It's not a red herring, it's a serious question. Your entire argument is that they should have cut, but you can't make an argument as to how that would have helped the economy. Americans want, and expect the federal government to make the economy better. That is job number one.

You can make the argument that American's are wrong for wanting their government to have this job, and that's fine -- but that's not the reality. Job creation, wage growth, quality of life improvements. That's what the people want, and that is exactly what congress thinks it's trying to do.

Again, if both the credit and printing presses weren’t available to them suddenly what would have happened? They would have been forced to only spend that which they had money for - as per my example.

More likely we'd default and the entire country would collapse.

shrekgrinch says

Uh, if you don’t have many options on the revenue side (income) to increase it, which we assume is the case in both your example, my example and the reality of governments collecting revenues, then yes…you have a spending problem. Adding on a debt problem only exacerbates the spending problem in the long run.

Like I said, very, very interesting viewpoint.

If you're starving in the streets, with no money at all, and you borrow a dollar from your mother so that you can eat, you have a spending problem? That eating lets you have enough energy to get a job, that job lets you make more money.

But, please, continue this line of thinking. It's utterly fascinating and explains so much about everything else you've said. You can't understand the difference between living beyond your means and having your means suddenly and rapidly cut out from under you (or not even having any means to start with...). I'm guessing you've never had to work your way up from nothing.

shrekgrinch says

What does business activity/unemployment have to do with governments spending more than they take in? If they are spending more than they have (regardless of the reasons), then they are engaging in deficit spending. Period.

Yes, they are engaging in deficit spending. The WHOLE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT is that deficit spending is a way (and a very effective one if the spending is done right) to improve your overall economic standpoint.

At the micro level this might mean buying a house now and paying it off over 30 years rather than saving for 20 years and then buying a house. It might mean getting a loan for a car so that you can drive to your new job instead of having to take a lower paying job that you can walk to.

That you don't understand, or choose to ignore, this reality, is amazing to me.

shrekgrinch says

No I am not. What the debt is used for or not has no bearing on whether someone/entity is engaging in deficit spending or not. We are debating over a definition, remember?

No, we're not debating over a definition, and I have no idea why you believe that to be the case. The debate, this thread, is about the debt that congress has taken on in recent years. Nobody is arguing about "the definition of deficit spending" except for you, because you can't seem to make actual arguments about the actual topics at hand.

shrekgrinch says

No, it isn’t. Or rather, it is not a causal distinction but rather a symptomatic one of outcome from the true root causes that create first world vs third world nations.

It's funny that the ability to get credit is one of the few things that pretty much all economists, regardless of their stances on anything else, agree on as a primary driver for economic growth.

If it would largely solve our economic problems, I would just send in my 10K. I guess the trick would be that I would need some assurance that everyone else would, too.

I don't comment enough to be facile at quoting. One of you was talking about a 100% tax rate. The thing I see there is that I would likely stop gong to work. I would need to I would think so that I could come up with things to barter. I suppose I might be able to barter some of my services at work, but at some point I could see that getting dicey. At what point would that high tax rate be useful if everyone quit working?

I am a pretty socially liberal person. I think I would be fine cutting the budget to match the amount we have to spend. I guess I am socially liberal and more financially conservative. It seems like politically, people just aren't ever going to make the sweeping changes that would be needed to fix this.

WHen people talk about American's being stupid and appearances being reality, I think you are probably right. I don't want to see it that way, but I just fear you are right.

pw says

If it would largely solve our economic problems, I would just send in my 10K. I guess the trick would be that I would need some assurance that everyone else would, too.

A few problems with this:

1. Each person's share of the debt is ~$45,000, not $10,000. $10,000 is just recently acquired debt.
2. Assuming that everyone equally owes $45,000 is ridiculous. A newborn child certainly doesn't owe the same as a 90 year old man.
3. Most people couldn't possibly pay off $45,000. If I were to pay off my share, my wife's, and each of my children's, it would run $225,000. That's most of my net worth, and I'm far better off than the majority of people.

I don’t comment enough to be facile at quoting. One of you was talking about a 100% tax rate. The thing I see there is that I would likely stop gong to work. I would need to I would think so that I could come up with things to barter. I suppose I might be able to barter some of my services at work, but at some point I could see that getting dicey. At what point would that high tax rate be useful if everyone quit working?

Several problems with this, too:

1. You, personally, would never be affected by such a tax rate. When people talk about 100% tax rates, they're talking about top marginal rates in general. The point of such high rates (whether it be 90 or 100% is irrelevant) is not to extract more revenue, it's to encourage certain behavior. If you have a system that taxes idle profits at 100%, but does not tax profits that are reinvested or distributed, you encourage reinvestment and paying of dividends.

2. In a 100% taxation situation, people would simply lie about their income, and do things off the books.

I am a pretty socially liberal person. I think I would be fine cutting the budget to match the amount we have to spend. I guess I am socially liberal and more financially conservative. It seems like politically, people just aren’t ever going to make the sweeping changes that would be needed to fix this.

Several problems with this, too.

1. How much do we have to spend? Budgets don't work that way. You mostly guess how much money you'll bring in and guess how much you'll have to spend.

2. Debt is not an inherently bad thing. High, unsustainable levels of debt are. Would you really not want the government to be able to take on debt in the event that we were invaded by another country, or if there was a massive natural disaster?

I don't consider myself to have any strong ideology about economics except for my strong scientific ideology. Rather than rhetoric and bullshit, we should look at facts and figure out what actually produces the best outcome. If government spending at zero produces the best outcome, that's what we should do. If government spending at 100% of GDP produces the best outcome, that's what we should do.

Most people talk about economics entirely on an emotional and ideological level, and it's ridiculous. Ideology doesn't put food on my table or clothes on my back.

WHen people talk about American’s being stupid and appearances being reality, I think you are probably right. I don’t want to see it that way, but I just fear you are right.

I don't actually think that Americans are stupid (or, at any rate, any stupider than people anywhere else). What I do think is the case is that our politicians have gotten very good at creating a narrative that is counter to reality, and it plays on American's innate optimism. We keep saying that if we just grow the economy everything will be fixed, while the reality is that when the economy is as large as it is today, it's very, very difficult to make it have significant growth.

The growth lie is something that probably works fine in India or China, but, barring some massive revolution in technology, economic growth in the US is going to be very slow.

Mark_LA says

E-man says

Katy Perry says
Or do what my single 40 yr old friends do and spilt the $1800 rent on a 4/3 in Riverside four ways. thats $450 a month each. save the rest and buy once, when cash is really king (five years from now IMO)
Katy, you’re too practical. Most people don’t want to make this short-term sacrifice for long-term gain. That’s the problem.

I lived like that in college!
Given that your friends are 40 yrs old doing this tells me they’re slackers and will never, ever save money to pay cash for any home, unless it’s a mobile home. They’ll just use the low $450 monthly rent payment as an excuse to work less, have less ambition, less stress, like most hippies love to do. Either that or they’ll spend more on bar tabs or useless junk.
The most important thing I learned from my human resources class in school: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Careful with your stereotypes. I did this during my graduate training. I continue to live small and save a big portion of my income. It doesn't mean people are slackers or that people have been living small to be wasteful.

I am going to invest in my kids' educations. Also, in repairs to my old house, repairs to my old vehicles, glasses for my old eyes, and thyroid replacement pills for my old dog.

There's an interesting article about the simple tactic of buying on the last day of each month and selling on the 1st. Thus holding stocks for only 1 day, and that it's been a winning strategy versus buy & hold:

CNBC: How to beat the market? Only stay a day at a time

What about potato futures?

I am surprised to find there is a "cannibal anarchist" license plate.

Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Kevin says

pw says

If it would largely solve our economic problems, I would just send in my 10K. I guess the trick would be that I would need some assurance that everyone else would, too.

A few problems with this:
1. Each person’s share of the debt is ~$45,000, not $10,000. $10,000 is just recently acquired debt.
2. Assuming that everyone equally owes $45,000 is ridiculous. A newborn child certainly doesn’t owe the same as a 90 year old man.
3. Most people couldn’t possibly pay off $45,000. If I were to pay off my share, my wife’s, and each of my children’s, it would run $225,000. That’s most of my net worth, and I’m far better off than the majority of people.

I don’t comment enough to be facile at quoting. One of you was talking about a 100% tax rate. The thing I see there is that I would likely stop gong to work. I would need to I would think so that I could come up with things to barter. I suppose I might be able to barter some of my services at work, but at some point I could see that getting dicey. At what point would that high tax rate be useful if everyone quit working?

Several problems with this, too:
1. You, personally, would never be affected by such a tax rate. When people talk about 100% tax rates, they’re talking about top marginal rates in general. The point of such high rates (whether it be 90 or 100% is irrelevant) is not to extract more revenue, it’s to encourage certain behavior. If you have a system that taxes idle profits at 100%, but does not tax profits that are reinvested or distributed, you encourage reinvestment and paying of dividends.
2. In a 100% taxation situation, people would simply lie about their income, and do things off the books.

I am a pretty socially liberal person. I think I would be fine cutting the budget to match the amount we have to spend. I guess I am socially liberal and more financially conservative. It seems like politically, people just aren’t ever going to make the sweeping changes that would be needed to fix this.

Several problems with this, too.
1. How much do we have to spend? Budgets don’t work that way. You mostly guess how much money you’ll bring in and guess how much you’ll have to spend.
2. Debt is not an inherently bad thing. High, unsustainable levels of debt are. Would you really not want the government to be able to take on debt in the event that we were invaded by another country, or if there was a massive natural disaster?
I don’t consider myself to have any strong ideology about economics except for my strong scientific ideology. Rather than rhetoric and bullshit, we should look at facts and figure out what actually produces the best outcome. If government spending at zero produces the best outcome, that’s what we should do. If government spending at 100% of GDP produces the best outcome, that’s what we should do.
Most people talk about economics entirely on an emotional and ideological level, and it’s ridiculous. Ideology doesn’t put food on my table or clothes on my back.

WHen people talk about American’s being stupid and appearances being reality, I think you are probably right. I don’t want to see it that way, but I just fear you are right.

I don’t actually think that Americans are stupid (or, at any rate, any stupider than people anywhere else). What I do think is the case is that our politicians have gotten very good at creating a narrative that is counter to reality, and it plays on American’s innate optimism. We keep saying that if we just grow the economy everything will be fixed, while the reality is that when the economy is as large as it is today, it’s very, very difficult to make it have significant growth.
The growth lie is something that probably works fine in India or China, but, barring some massive revolution in technology, economic growth in the US is going to be very slow.

This is why I never debate with Kevin, too many fact based statements....I'd rather watch and learn...:)

Oh man, are you still on about this stuff?

shrekgrinch says

Thus, it happened under their watch. That’s all John Q Public understands and reacts to. Like they say, “In politics, perception IS reality”. This is true no matter how many excuses folks on here make for them.

That admission in post # 2 is the end of your argument right there. Amazing that you keep on.

Good luck...

Well Shrekgrinchonemanarmy, you acknowledge right there that the financial problems started prior to O and state that the problem is one of perception. PR. Yet you still continue to argue as if O was the financially responsible party.

But its no surprise, as near I can tell you haven't the slightest interest at all in actual financial issues, its just a screen & platform for attacking O/democrats and I wish you'd just admit it and start going for the throat instead of tracing around with these invented half-true/hyped issues. ...which O bears some responsibility, sure, but more to the reality of the situation both parties are responsible for and a broader system should be attacked. So may I suggest you replace all the text in your monster posts with "blah blah blah blah".

If you want something real & recent to scream about here's a few items:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576049651801089800.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/157560.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27158.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27160.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/02/austan-goolsbee-debt-ceiling_n_803307.html

Anyway, I didn't notice you praising O on the recent tax cuts. Maybe I missed it?...

In a Moral Bankrupt society, paying back debt,(You can't afford to pay back) should be less thing on anyone's mind. It's not like there's not ample example from the top, on how exactly to navigate bad credit. Run Don't Walk!

Chasity, Chivalry and Prudence is dead. If society isn't judging you on how you repay debt, why give a Crank what the bank thinks?

"Do you swear to pay back this debt?"

Real answer:"Yes as long as my salary dictates that I can..."

I don't really know what Shrek is talking about anymore since I started ignoring him a while back, but it's pretty clear that the dude has no real interest in debating real issues on their merits, he'd rather hold to some ideology and rail against anything that contradicts his world view.

This whole thread has gone like this:

Shrek: Look at all the deficits these guys are accumulating!
Others: Yeah, here's a nuanced view as to why they accumulated those deficits and the relative merits or problems with doing so.
Shrek: BUT THEY WERE ACCUMULATING DEFICITS, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Others: Yes, we understand. Here are some more nuanced views on the subject of deficits from a historical perspective.
Shrek: BUT DEFICITS! THEY HAVE DEFICITS AND ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A DEFICIT IS!
Others: [ignore]

But he knows on a deep level how wrong we are, he really does, and how our point of view CAN NOT be legitimate. Do you have any idea how irritating we must be to him ?

Yeah, I learned a long time ago that people overwhelmingly hold the belief that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. This way of thinking is most prevalent amongst the poorly educated and outright stupid (see also: every book Glen Beck has ever written). Educated people, regardless of their opinion on an issue, generally acknowledge their opponents arguments and give rational reasons for disagreeing with them.

Two smart people may have wildly different conclusions on an issue, but they will at least agree on the facts.

Debt is the legal way to have indentured servants.

On a bright side I don't think any sane human thinks that debt is great, except for those who directly benefit from it.

Debt is bad, yes.

That's why the Democratic Congress passed the tax rises in 1993 that balanced the budget in Clinton's second term.

You know how the voters thanked them for that in 1994?

Then Bush was voted in in late 2000 and the first order of business was abandoning the general fiscal discipline that Clinton maintained in the 90s.

Federal Debt Held by the Public (FYGFDPUN)

Parallel to that malfeasance they also allowed a $3T debt bubble to blow, 2002-2004:

Household Sector: Liabilites: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding (CMDEBT)

Combining the two into one chart (red is treasury debt and blue is household debt).

Yes, debt is bad. Where the fuck were you in 2002? Household debt should be around $11T now, but instead it's $14T. The entire Bush economy was built on this $6T debt bubble.

I don't like how the national debt has jumped from $5T to $9T since 2008, but the one thing we have -- and need to do -- is weaken the dollar by printing our way out of this debt hole.

But that path is also fraught with hazards.

This nation simply has to start paying its bills. We were doing so in the 90s, but then we elected idiots that failed to govern responsibly.

Kevin says

This way of thinking is most prevalent amongst the poorly educated and outright stupid (see also: every book Glen Beck has ever written).

It's called arrogance. But who knows, cut him some slack, maybe the guy keeps a tight lip most the time, and never gets a chance to express his "know it all side" to "liberals" except when does get to here, anonymously.

Naaaah, he's probably that way all the time.

By the way Shrek, nobody thinks that the deficits are sustainable. It's just not a good time to cut too much. Cutting spending excessively right now, when unemployment is 9.6 (while if you count underemployed it's closer to 20%), would be far more counterproductive to the economy than letting high incomes tax rates expire would have been.

Why is that relevant ? Because it seems hypocritical to say (as many republicans do) that economically we can't afford to let those tax rates go back to what they were, but at the same time we need to cut spending sharply right now, spending that clearly goes in to our domestic economy far more than tax cuts to the rich do. There is a balancing act going on now, but also big danger looming with States and municipalities facing serious financial risks. It seems to me that cutting spending aggressively at this moment would be like an attack by the federal government on many cities and states. Then again, maybe they are thinking sure, bring everything down, the fed will probably have to bail out states and cities at least to an extent either way, sure lets destroy the economy.

It would help make Obama less reelectable, but at what price ?

marcus says

It’s just not a good time to cut too much. Cutting spending excessively right now, when unemployment is 9.6 (while if you count underemployed it’s closer to 20%), would be far more counterproductive to the economy than letting high incomes tax rates expire would have been.

I'm actually going to disagree with that, at least partially.

I see plenty that could be cut from the current budget, particularly the incredible amount of waste in the military and in medicare.

Cutting itself isn't even what I'm arguing against.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that cutting is something that politicians can just do, or that there's some magical salve to fix it all. There are massive repercussions for any major changes in the budget, and pretending like cuts exist in a vacuum is naive at best.

I'm also arguing against the notion that just because tax revenue fell that you should immediately cut spending. Spending for spending's sake rarely works. Spending for directed, functional, productive uses most definitely helps the economy more than deficits harm it.

So, really, what I'd like to see happening right now is cutting wasteful, inefficient spending in military and health care, and direct that money towards things that boost job growth. Low interest loans for small businesses, public works programs, R&D funding, etc. These are all productive ways to inject money into the economy that businesses have removed from it because of their own fear about the economy.

That innovative, powerful, large companies aren't really spending money is the biggest problem in the economy right now. Apple is now the largest non-energy company in the world, and they're hoarding in excess of $50B in cash. Google and Microsoft are in similar positions, as are countless other companies.

We absolutely need to find ways to either force those companies to spend their money, or have the government do it instead. That is the engine that will drive growth and truly fix the economic situation.

marcus says

Why is that relevant ? Because it seems hypocritical to say (as many republicans do) that economically we can’t afford to let those tax rates go back to what they were, but at the same time we need to cut spending sharply right now, spending that clearly goes in to our domestic economy far more than tax cuts to the rich do. There is a balancing act going on now, but also big danger looming with States and municipalities facing serious financial risks. It seems to me that cutting spending aggressively at this moment would be like an attack by the federal government on many cities and states. Then again, maybe they are thinking sure, bring everything down, the fed will probably have to bail out states and cities at least to an extent either way, sure lets destroy the economy.

It would help make Obama less reelectable, but at what price ?

There are three groups with this "lower taxes, higher spending" mentality:

1. True believer Keynesians, who think that America is still capable of double-digit GDP growth despite controlling a quarter of the world economy. These people are foolish.

2. People who simply don't know the realities of the budget and think we spend more money on foreign aid than we do on the military. These people are ignorant.

3. People who are attempting a "starve the beast" strategy, because they believe that dealing major harm to America's overall prosperity is acceptable if it means that states, religion, and corporations become more powerful. These people are either ideologically naive (they ignore the reality of other powerful nations that will crush us if this comes to pass) or downright evil.

3/4ths of congress are in one of these categories, both current and incoming.

God I love quotes of quotes of quotes. The article is BS. Why not quote the original Christian Science Monitor article? Or maybe the original article which the CSM doesn't bother to footnote or attribute, nice journalism ethics. Here's an article that talks about what actually happened as opposed to what the tea baggers and rushbots would like everyone to believe happened. http://blogs.wsj.com/new-europe/2010/11/24/hungary-forces-private-pension-fund-members-back-to-state-scheme/

Yes Hungary is trying for force private pensions back into the public system. It's a return to what existed prior to 1997. However, nothing was confiscated. No one was forced to do anything. If you return to the state pension fund your private pension will be held in a separate account. If you don't you give up your right FUTURE state pensions. I have relatives in Hungary, they were very surprised to have me ask about this and were amazed to read the bs CSM article.

No one was scheming to force IRAs, 401(k)s into bonds held and managed by ss. That's also just BS as has been documented many times.

Get a life beyond Rush Limbaugh and the NRO.

shrekgrinch says

I’ve had to state a lot of things because you keep going off on unrelated tangents. So what?

The point is that you blow your whole argument right there. I may not know as much as you apparently do about economics, shrekgrinchonemanarmy, but at least I know simple logic and can follow a properly constructed argument. Or not.

Hey, give me some background on yourself: are you an accountant? An economics professor? A plumber? Whats your path to the great expanse of economics knowledge you contain?

Here's a tangent, bad me, but this is the song I imagine you singing yourself to sleep with every night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PiqCeLEmM

shrekgrinch says

Uh no. Smart doesn’t equate with brainwashing, which is what most of you received in lieu of true education.

Smart people disagree on the ‘facts’ all the time. In fact, they do so constantly.

Please explain about your true education and how everyone else on the planet missed out.

Yawn...

That doesn't stack up well against the Realtor Robot video last week.

The Tech bubble, was not a bubble, it was "America's brightest Business CEO's and money profesionals" that missed the boat. While Marge the receptionist was became an over night Gazillionare day trading.
It was Sabotaged, by Greenspan, under Bush.

Destroyed so that the current players, could acquire them for a tenth of a penny on the hundred dollar.

The Tech industry/market, has never been stronger. It never missed a beat. The only thing that changed is, Al used a Big greasy pole to pry all of the amateur cretins off, he hosed it off, and handed it over to the Pros that deserve that kind of status and money. CEOs on Wall Street!

Most "Keynesians" do not follow Keynes.

Just to take the simplest point, he said it was essential to save enough in the good times to pay for the bad times that are inevitable. So the stimulus spending he advocated would have been provided for. This of course does not fit the financial "innovation" mindset, so they freely lean on Keynes when needed for stimulus, yet absolutely oppose the idea of saving any acorns for winter.

What a joke. This is shreks idea of critical thinking skills? At least is was in a format (cartoon) that shrek could relate to. Dreck and bap both really need a hobby.

Name one administration democrat or republican since keynes published (1930's) that actually practiced what he advocated. Like trickle down economics it's all just a smokescreen for politicians being whores.

shrekgrinch says

Seems I touched a nerve, though. I wonder why…

The only nerve you hit is you are just tiring with all your idiot blathering keynes, keynes, keynes without a clue what he wrote. Just for the record I don't believe in Keynes because his theories will never work in real life. No politician will ever save up for a rainy day. I support a balanced budget amendment.

Critical thinking means I can separate the theory of keynes from the political whore mongering that hides behind his name. The man was a critical thinker with a well thought out but unrealistic view of economics. Something which you are totally incapable of grasping.

Did you ever graduate third grade? If you keep repeating the bs from the csm it doesn't make it true. Read the article I posted if you have the literary skills and reading comprehension to manage it.

"The assets of those who decide to return to the state scheme will be kept in individual accounts and will remain inheritable by the spouse, Mr. Matolcsy said." Motolcsy is the economic minister. Do you grasp this, even though it conflicts the the article you are so enamored with? Where is the sources for the csm article? Who are they quoting?

As per scheming to confiscate ira's did your read your own article from the "carolinajournal" (a world famous leading edge journalism source for sure, right up there with NYT and WSJ in terms of jounalistic credibility). It says that

“The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.”

That's your own quote. Are you capable of understanding it? One unknown professor (I have a hard time taking anyone from NY named Ghilarducci seriously anyway) from some unknown place called the new school for social research (sounds like a day care to me) proposed this plan before one congressional committee. This is your grand scheme? If you own a dictionary look up the word scheme. You do realize that many people testify before congressional committees don't you? One person throwing something out doesn't make it a done deal policy wise. Don't bother to answer you'll just embarrass yourself further.

Reputing paranoid bs isn't being a liberal shill. I did a write in vote for Ron Paul so my liberalism is pretty limited. I never said thing's like forced conversion ira's to ss bonds couldn't happen. It's just not happening now or in the way you are ranting about. Since you are not capable of providing a cognitive well reasoned discussion on the subject I won't bother arguing with you about how and when it actually could happen. That being said I have moved my ira's offshore just in case.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Ron Paul is a pinko tool. He is taking money from an illegal government. And takes Medicare payments for his medical practice. He is a screaming commie. A real proponent of Freedom would demand the end to ALL taxation and ALL government. But Paul hates Freedom, too, and is just another sell out to the stalinists and al qaeda operatives running this country.

I love it. This is great stuff. Very funny. Are you the guy who bought the unibombers house by any chance? Are you related to Tim McViegh?

Being a dirty harry man of action type (you're not just some internet poser who is actually a milk toast walter mitty type accountant are you? I would be very disappointed.) when do you plan on acting on your convictions by moving to somewhere that has abandoned all government and taxation. Like Somolia or Nigeria.

shrekgrinch says

Ghilarducci advocated the same thing. Oh, and you did claim (your words) “No one was scheming to force IRAs, 401(k)s into bonds held and managed by ss. That’s also just BS as has been documented many times. ” Ghilarducci exposed just how much full of shit you are on that claim.

But you can’t see that in your zeal to be a mindless whore for the liberal bandwagon, can’t you? So then you go in this tirade to assault Ghilarducci as a ‘nobody’ which has nothing to do with disproving that you are full of shit in your statement you bravely declared, does it?

Remind me again exactly what position in the Obamacrats administration Ghilarducci holds (hint none)? Actually, remind me about Ghilarducci's distingushed career accomplishments (hint none). Pretty funny to see you leaping to the defense of a Berkeley educated super liberal think tank wonk. Be careful, one is judged by the company they keep. People might think you're a Berkeley liberal kind of guy.

One person advocating their position (actually more like hawking her book) at a congressional committee meeting isn't scheming no matter what it seems like to the paranoid delusionals like you. I guess you didn't go look up what scheme and scheming mean.

Yes, others will determine that you are a complete idiot. Just think 15 years of primary school education wasted.

shrekgrinch says

But you can’t, because all you can do is lash out against the threat that your precious worldview is at stack by not ripping into me despite the fact that you only prove you’re out to lunch

can anyone translate this sentence into english?

"At stake."

What would be more accurate, the projector or the projectionist ?

I have never seen him in an argument (that I read) where he wasn't the first one to lash out, thus terminating the discussion before it could be determined who was right. An extremely consistent pattern.

When he resorts to calling you uneducated, illiterate or an idiot, you know that he is standing on very weak ground. Or that he is simply too impatient, too lazy or possessing the exact characteristics he is projecting above, to try to understand what you are saying**. Maybe just lacking the social skills to communicate in a respectful way with another person who obviously also thinks they are right.

**Note, this is a guy with a supposed degree in CS who should be able to comprehend poorly commented code.

It's absurd to say that the U.S. "FAILS MISERABLY at almost any objective test you can apply to our society."

No, clearly the U.S isn't number one in every single category that you can compare countries against one another, but to call that "FAILS MISERABLY"? Really?

"more people in prison per-capita than any despotic state"? What does that have to do with whether or not we're failing? Maybe we should aspire to be like Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, or Sudan? They have very low incarceration rates.

"regularly test near the bottom in language, science and math"? Really? TIMMS in 2007 rated the U.S. 7th in math -- not a SINGLE European mainland country was in the top 10, and Japan and the UK were the only other wealthy countries that were. (same story for science)

This is a MASSIVE improvement over the last 10 years, where we weren't even in the top 20.

And, of course, TIMMS (and various European and Asian studies with the same methodology) are widely derided as flawed for only analyzing rote math and science. Unsurprisngly, Asian and Eastern European nations do the best on these tests, and yet it's mainland European and North American (supposedly "failing" educational systems) that consistently produce the most Nobel Prize winners.

The U.S. has plenty of flaws, as do *ALL* countries. To pretend that things are meaningfully better elsewhere is absurd.

It's downright baffling that you can claim that it's the "WORST place to live if you're working class". I can name at least 170 that are definitively worse. Yes, Europe is probably better if you are very poor, but not necessarily if you're middle class (except maybe switzerland). I'm pretty sure that any of those places is better than just about anywhere in africa, south america, or mainland asia.

bob2356 says

Remind me again exactly what position in the Obamacrats administration Ghilarducci holds (hint none)? Actually, remind me about Ghilarducci’s distingushed career accomplishments (hint none). Pretty funny to see you leaping to the defense of a Berkeley educated super liberal think tank wonk. Be careful, one is judged by the company they keep. People might think you’re a Berkeley liberal kind of guy.

Bad ideas have to start somewhere. The fact that the person actually presented this to the government is enough for me to raise an eyebrow - regardless of the "presenter". Even if this never happens, it becomes the new "extreme" and pushes everything else from the kooky fringe towards the middle. Perhaps first it is an optional government "IRA" targeted at the poor (who doesn't want to help the poor?), then you can roll your private funds into it, then a portion is mandated ... It is much easier to boil a frog if you start with cold water, no?

EightBall says

bob2356 says

Remind me again exactly what position in the Obamacrats administration Ghilarducci holds (hint none)? Actually, remind me about Ghilarducci’s distingushed career accomplishments (hint none). Pretty funny to see you leaping to the defense of a Berkeley educated super liberal think tank wonk. Be careful, one is judged by the company they keep. People might think you’re a Berkeley liberal kind of guy.

Bad ideas have to start somewhere. The fact that the person actually presented this to the government is enough for me to raise an eyebrow - regardless of the “presenter”. Even if this never happens, it becomes the new “extreme” and pushes everything else from the kooky fringe towards the middle. Perhaps first it is an optional government “IRA” targeted at the poor (who doesn’t want to help the poor?), then you can roll your private funds into it, then a portion is mandated … It is much easier to boil a frog if you start with cold water, no?

A reasonable response. Read my earlier post. I think it very well could happen and have already acted on that assumption. My point was (dreckfinch hysterics aside) that I just don't think that:

A) one person's private testimony in one committee meeting rises anywhere near the level of what reasonable people would consider "scheming" by the administration to confiscate (didn't happen in Hungary either) billions of dollars in pension funds.

B) one person's private testimony in one committee meeting is "essentially the same deal" as another country, Hungary, actually changing their laws and revamping their entire pension system.

Bad idea's float around everywhere all the time. There are plenty of people out there who constantly advocate the violent overthrow of the federal government leading to anarchy and have been since the dawn of the republic. There are people who strongly advocate communism for the US. It doesn't represent anything. The kooky fringe will always be there. Many, many very bad ideas have been presented in congressional committee meetings. It's just political theatre anyway. Watch one sometime on CSPAN or worse go to some as I had to at one point in my career. Root canals have more appeal. It's all about scoring soundbites, nothing else. The deals are already done, the meetings are just a smokescreen.

marcus says

When he resorts to calling you uneducated, illiterate or an idiot, you know that he is standing on very weak ground.

I consider being called an idiot by someone like dreck a badge of honor with great distinction. Unfortunately for my pride he has called everyone on the entire forum an idiot at one time or another so I am just part of the pack. Pity, I was so hoping to be a standout.

Even if this was true which it's not clear it is , it's within the rights of the government.

If you don't like the government intruding in your life start your own movement to dissolve the current government.

Armando148 says

If you don’t like the government intruding in your life start your own movement to dissolve the current government.

The problem is not government, the problem is the corporations that OWN the government, lock, stock and barrel. If you cannot understand that, nobody can help you.

Put it this way. The best colleges and Universities in the US, which are still the best in the world, are not at a loss for extremely well prepared domestic applicants.

But yes, we need to do way better, and raise the bar for all the students who are going to junior colleges and 3rd tier schools. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that kids in this country grow up slowly. Some are still working on high school level work, after high school (in community colleges).

One other tidbit, that might get you thinking. The college counselor at my school was telling me a few years ago that kids need to take AP Calculus to get in to UCLA as an English major. Now, he was exaggerating, but not much. Meanwhile, the junior colleges and community colleges are overflowing. That is some kids have a hard time getting in to a full program.

My point being, if we start doing a way better job with elementary and HS education, it will raise the level of all those universities and colleges, but won't we also need to build a lot more higher ed facilities ? People like to say it's not a question of resources and money. I'm not so sure.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

f you’re dying and can’t afford to buy a hospital or something you need to ask yourself why you refused to become a billionaire like so many other Americans.

Roger that. I haven't been buying lottery tickets b/c it's always been my stance that they are a tax on people who don't understand statistics. I might have to rethink that and start playing for the MegaMillions. I better start small, like with scratch offs.

artistsoul says

And infant mortality rates? Please. Our care rocks in this area. We are victims here of BETTER healthcare. Think I jest? Infant mortality stats higher here b/c we have a lot more premature births….b/c we do a lot more fertility treatments. And….what does reproductive technology result in? Multiple births (twins or more). And multiple births are at greater risk of premature delivery. Did you know that there are actually legal restrictions throughout Europe to curb use of fertility treatment. The result is this whole new “IVF Tourism” market for wealthy Europeans. Further, what about mothers who smoke, are obese or lack education. Do you think they have the same outcomes as others? Again…not a healthcare system issue. A societal issue. The other issue with the infant mortality stat is how we count a live birth. We count any sign of life in a premature birth. European nations have all these rules about size & what is counted as stillbirth v life birth. In some nations, fetus has to be over a one lb, in Switzerland, fetus has to be > 2″, etc. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm *I will be honest here (as I always try to be) to say our healthcare system may contribute to the high infant mortality stat *a little* in this area b/c we OVER provide. We are so rich that we have too many NICU’s. Probably need to consolidate those into larger more centralized hospitals where the NICU is dealing with a higher volume and therefore has a better trained more dedicated staff.

"infant mortality rates please". The usnews story cherry picked the cdc 2008 report. The people at cdc are very smart researchers. They did look at the differences in reporting methodology and concluded that it was NOT the primary reason for the US low international ranking.

There are legal restrictions on IVF around the entire first world. If it is unlikely to succeed the state won't pay for it. Not an unreasonable stance. There are plenty of mothers who smoke, are obese, and lack education everywhere in the world. Most of Europe has much higher smoking rates and drinking during pregnancy is a lot more common.