Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
One percent puppet heard from
Comments
-
Inflation has pretty much been artificially done away with for several years. We're going to have to pay that piper tooWilburHooksHands said:
How does it track with inflation/costs? Honest question.MikeDamone said:
It’s embarrassing to think that government revenue is a problem. It’s not.2001400ex said:
Damoan hates context. Doesn't realize how embarrassing it is to say federal revenues are at an all time high and can't have an effect on the deficit.MikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate. -
Hondo loves to lie.2001400ex said:
Again Bob hates context. What is the cost per participant? Dontcha think there was a few more people on the program in 2017? Not to mention inflation.SFGbob said:
Feel the cost cutting:2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Medicare Spending was $502 Billion in 2008 in 2017 it was $702 Billion. Medicaid Spending was $374 Billion in 2008 in 2016 it was $553 Billion. Feel the cost cutting.
This is like when Hondo blow Obama for his "fiscal austerity" because he reduced multi trillion dollar deficit spending to spending that was only $600 billion in deficit spending.
The fact that Obama jacked it up to over a trillion dollars a year in the first place is never mentioned
You seriously are an idiot. -
Less is moar POTD.RaceBannon said:We're too big to fail
-
You also need to figure in about 40 years of interest as well. If you net $100k you should be paying around $6200 per year towards social security. After 40 years that amounts to $248k. That by itself would pay monthly benefits for close to 10-12 years. After factoring interest over 40 years of compound interest of around 2% would put that value at around $382k, which would extend the payout value to around 16-17 years. If retirement age is 65, then that pays you until 81-82 years old. As of today the average US life expectancy is 78.5 years old. By just investing social security in minimal risk short term bonds, the US government on average would have enough money to pay and then some.YellowSnow said:
Yes and no. I'd be curious to see the data on what the average SS recipient paid in to the system vs what they received in benefits. Guess some of it has to do with how long you live.greenblood said:
People like to call Social Security an entitlement. SSI is, but standard Social Security is paid for through years of payments. It’s their fucking money, and they should get it.2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
But obviously this never happened. Imagine if we had competent people in office -
And I blame both sides for this bullshit. Compound interest in low risk investments would have made social security completely solvent.RaceBannon said:
The money you pay in is not actually put in the Al Gore lock box where it can compound for 40 years like your private account. So the answer is if you live you'll get more than you pay, It was based on people dyingYellowSnow said:
Yes and no. I'd be curious to see the data on what the average SS recipient paid in to the system vs what they received in benefits. Guess some of it has to do with how long you live.greenblood said:
People like to call Social Security an entitlement. SSI is, but standard Social Security is paid for through years of payments. It’s their fucking money, and they should get it.2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Mitch is still a worthless piece of shit though. Bears repeating -
We? should give away heroin and fentanyl so the dreck of society will OD and die faster.YellowSnow said:
Instead of taxing cigarettes we should give them away like the army used toRaceBannon said:
The money you pay in is not actually put in the Al Gore lock box where it can compound for 40 years like your private account. So the answer is if you live you'll get more than you pay, It was based on people dyingYellowSnow said:
Yes and no. I'd be curious to see the data on what the average SS recipient paid in to the system vs what they received in benefits. Guess some of it has to do with how long you live.greenblood said:
People like to call Social Security an entitlement. SSI is, but standard Social Security is paid for through years of payments. It’s their fucking money, and they should get it.2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Mitch is still a worthless piece of shit though. Bears repeating
Not a call for genocide. Don’t twist. -
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet. -
Ok Bob. Explain what my lie is.SFGbob said:
Hondo loves to lie.2001400ex said:
Again Bob hates context. What is the cost per participant? Dontcha think there was a few more people on the program in 2017? Not to mention inflation.SFGbob said:
Feel the cost cutting:2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Medicare Spending was $502 Billion in 2008 in 2017 it was $702 Billion. Medicaid Spending was $374 Billion in 2008 in 2016 it was $553 Billion. Feel the cost cutting.
This is like when Hondo blow Obama for his "fiscal austerity" because he reduced multi trillion dollar deficit spending to spending that was only $600 billion in deficit spending.
The fact that Obama jacked it up to over a trillion dollars a year in the first place is never mentioned
You seriously are an idiot. -
Can we focus on me and Bradley Cooper for a minute
-
Big part of J's health care plan, as well as gutting medicare. Let old people die and help them get there like real TUFF Americans.YellowSnow said:
Instead of taxing cigarettes we should give them away like the army used toRaceBannon said:
The money you pay in is not actually put in the Al Gore lock box where it can compound for 40 years like your private account. So the answer is if you live you'll get more than you pay, It was based on people dyingYellowSnow said:
Yes and no. I'd be curious to see the data on what the average SS recipient paid in to the system vs what they received in benefits. Guess some of it has to do with how long you live.greenblood said:
People like to call Social Security an entitlement. SSI is, but standard Social Security is paid for through years of payments. It’s their fucking money, and they should get it.2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Mitch is still a worthless piece of shit though. Bears repeating -
Heathcare NEEDS old people to be hooked on numerous prescription drugsPurpleJ said:
Big part of J's health care plan, as well as gutting medicare. Let old people die and help them get there like real TUFF Americans.YellowSnow said:
Instead of taxing cigarettes we should give them away like the army used toRaceBannon said:
The money you pay in is not actually put in the Al Gore lock box where it can compound for 40 years like your private account. So the answer is if you live you'll get more than you pay, It was based on people dyingYellowSnow said:
Yes and no. I'd be curious to see the data on what the average SS recipient paid in to the system vs what they received in benefits. Guess some of it has to do with how long you live.greenblood said:
People like to call Social Security an entitlement. SSI is, but standard Social Security is paid for through years of payments. It’s their fucking money, and they should get it.2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Mitch is still a worthless piece of shit though. Bears repeating -
If I send you $81 when can I get my SFJ 2020 bumper sticker?PurpleJ said:
Big part of J's health care plan, as well as gutting medicare. Let old people die and help them get there like real TUFF Americans.YellowSnow said:
Instead of taxing cigarettes we should give them away like the army used toRaceBannon said:
The money you pay in is not actually put in the Al Gore lock box where it can compound for 40 years like your private account. So the answer is if you live you'll get more than you pay, It was based on people dyingYellowSnow said:
Yes and no. I'd be curious to see the data on what the average SS recipient paid in to the system vs what they received in benefits. Guess some of it has to do with how long you live.greenblood said:
People like to call Social Security an entitlement. SSI is, but standard Social Security is paid for through years of payments. It’s their fucking money, and they should get it.2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Mitch is still a worthless piece of shit though. Bears repeating -
Doctors already have you coveredPurpleThrobber said:
We? should give away heroin and fentanyl so the dreck of society will OD and die faster.YellowSnow said:
Instead of taxing cigarettes we should give them away like the army used toRaceBannon said:
The money you pay in is not actually put in the Al Gore lock box where it can compound for 40 years like your private account. So the answer is if you live you'll get more than you pay, It was based on people dyingYellowSnow said:
Yes and no. I'd be curious to see the data on what the average SS recipient paid in to the system vs what they received in benefits. Guess some of it has to do with how long you live.greenblood said:
People like to call Social Security an entitlement. SSI is, but standard Social Security is paid for through years of payments. It’s their fucking money, and they should get it.2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Mitch is still a worthless piece of shit though. Bears repeating
Not a call for genocide. Don’t twist. -
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from. -
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from.
-
How about we retrofit every building in America with green power?YellowSnow said:
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from. -
RaceBannon said:
How about we retrofit every building in America with green power?YellowSnow said:
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from.
-
On what level or metric do you base this on? Personal computers have probably generated a lot more economic growth in the last 40 years than HVAC has in the last 100.YellowSnow said:
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from.
You know we defunded our own partially built super collider? Would have cost less than just the CA high speed rails planning so far.
There are things the government does effectively. Let them do that. We have the money to invest. Not to is lost opportunity cost. -
You serious Clark? Long term economic growth in this country was way higher during the period 1870 to 1970 that it's been in the PC era. I read it an economis book a few years back.UW_Doog_Bot said:
On what level or metric do you base this on? Personal computers have probably generated a lot more economic growth in the last 40 years than HVAC has in the last 100.YellowSnow said:
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from.
You know we defunded our own partially built super collider? Would have cost less than just the CA high speed rails planning so far.
There are things the government does effectively. Let them do that. We have the money to invest. Not to is lost opportunity cost.
-
The efficiency of a PC is astounding. Add on phones and other devices that are all linked and you can run a bidness from home if you're like me and not some cubicle monkey like @MariotaTheGawdUW_Doog_Bot said:
On what level or metric do you base this on? Personal computers have probably generated a lot more economic growth in the last 40 years than HVAC has in the last 100.YellowSnow said:
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from.
You know we defunded our own partially built super collider? Would have cost less than just the CA high speed rails planning so far.
There are things the government does effectively. Let them do that. We have the money to invest. Not to is lost opportunity cost.
I only leave the house to visit sites and it is by far the least efficient use of my time which is quite valuable unlike some cubicle monkey like @MariotaTheGawd
We've gone from having a secretary errrrrr administrative assistant taking shorthand and typing correspondence to me and spell check sending out millions of dollars of business while posting on Hardcore Husky
Instant communication with the field. Instant response to the customer - the reason they all love me btw. It also helps that they have very little actual contact with me other than electronic. I am a millennial in that regard.
I was always a one man show even in the dark ages of fax machines and land lines. It just took me a lot longer. I was great value to the company and now still am with less time on my end and still no support staff taking up overhead
I love it -
Recovery from a civil war, shift from agrarian society, etc. There's plenty of finer points to hash. Economis, as ever, is a multivariable bitch of a mistress. Doesn't really matter to the original point though.YellowSnow said:
You serious Clark? Long term economic growth in this country was way higher during the period 1870 to 1970 that it's been in the PC era. I read it an economis book a few years back.UW_Doog_Bot said:
On what level or metric do you base this on? Personal computers have probably generated a lot more economic growth in the last 40 years than HVAC has in the last 100.YellowSnow said:
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from.
You know we defunded our own partially built super collider? Would have cost less than just the CA high speed rails planning so far.
There are things the government does effectively. Let them do that. We have the money to invest. Not to is lost opportunity cost.
You are also looking at this from a % perspective. The US economy did after all, grow more last year as a raw number than all of the entirety of the GDP produced in 1870. Even if that growth was somewhere around only 2-3% of GDP.
I mean, if you want to really argue with me that tax breaks are a better use of essentially our fiscal largess I'm not going to argue the point. Pure fiscal conservatism without realizing the US is in a unique global and historical situation is myopic though. -
I don't disagree with you at all that we are in a unique situation globally via-a-vis borrowing. And yes, there are many facets to why growth was higher (than now) during the period that I am referring to other than just the inventions piece. I am simply less optimistic than you.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Recovery from a civil war, shift from agrarian society, etc. There's plenty of finer points to hash. Economis, as ever, is a multivariable bitch of a mistress. Doesn't really matter to the original point though.YellowSnow said:
You serious Clark? Long term economic growth in this country was way higher during the period 1870 to 1970 that it's been in the PC era. I read it an economis book a few years back.UW_Doog_Bot said:
On what level or metric do you base this on? Personal computers have probably generated a lot more economic growth in the last 40 years than HVAC has in the last 100.YellowSnow said:
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from.
You know we defunded our own partially built super collider? Would have cost less than just the CA high speed rails planning so far.
There are things the government does effectively. Let them do that. We have the money to invest. Not to is lost opportunity cost.
You are also looking at this from a % perspective. The US economy did after all, grow more last year as a raw number than all of the entirety of the GDP produced in 1870. Even if that growth was somewhere around only 2-3% of GDP.
I mean, if you want to really argue with me that tax breaks are a better use of essentially our fiscal largess I'm not going to argue the point. Pure fiscal conservatism without realizing the US is in a unique global and historical situation is myopic though. -
Now that I'm no longer a cubicle monkey, I expect my HH productivity to soar back to 2016- 17 levels.RaceBannon said:
The efficiency of a PC is astounding. Add on phones and other devices that are all linked and you can run a bidness from home if you're like me and not some cubicle monkey like @MariotaTheGawdUW_Doog_Bot said:
On what level or metric do you base this on? Personal computers have probably generated a lot more economic growth in the last 40 years than HVAC has in the last 100.YellowSnow said:
Fusion would be a game changer and save the world. A lot of the cool shit of the past 20 years though hasn't really created the same levels of economic growth at the shit that was invented from 1870 to 1970. Indoor plumbing, HVAC, automobiles, planes, etc were far bigger game changers than anything of late.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, it's also because of anemic growth rates. Chicken and Egg.YellowSnow said:
A lot the Euro fag and Japan debt issues are related to low growth because they stopped making babies.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why we should be investing in things that grow production. Think of it like taking out loans for medical school or an MBA. Sure, your short term debt to income ratio will suffer but your long term earnings increase dramatically.YellowSnow said:
Yes, I'm well aware of all of the above. But I am concerned that it can't go on forever my fren. What happens when debt hits 200% of GDP and the foreigners want more interest to buy our? t-bills? To date, we've been able to service our massive debt on the cheap, but if the interest we have to pay starts to increase dramatically the slice of the pie going simply to debt service is going to get ugly.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So, here's the thing, I'm against government largess for reasons of efficiency, free markets, blah blah blah and I think anyone who has spent time in the tug knows I'm no tax and spend liberalYellowSnow said:
You've oft stated Damone that #taxationistheft . And to some extend I'd agree with you. But I tell you what - if we keep running these massive deficits - and at this point they are a bi-partisan problem - and the guvmint has to use MMT to inflate the problem away I'm gonna be pretty god damned pissed. #inflationisthefttooMikeDamone said:
Federal revenue is at an all time high... But yeah, tax cuts!2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
buuuuuuutttt we've essentially convinced the rest of the world to use our currency as the world reserve currency(for historical reasons we are probably the only meaningful country to never default on its debt, thank you George Washington). That means that we are effectively able to finance our debt at negative rates while the rest of the world gets a safe haven for their stored value.
This is like boosters offering recruits loans at negative interest rates, we can use it to buy a new camaro, a sound system, strip clubs, etc. or we could also use it to pay our tuition, buy a house, or start a business.
Sure, we can spend the excess cash on entitlements to short-term boost the consumption of a select group of citizens, or we can invest the money in areas the government is actually an effective agent at growing long term productivity(R&D for example), which will further spur GDP growth which will ultimately reduce our debt to income ratio as well.
Paying down the current debt would be much more painful than simply growing our way out of it. Why do you think our current debt to GDP ratio is so much healthier than most of the developed world?
Also, as I said, that's why entitlements are much more dangerous than investments. You can fairly easily quit further capital investments. Ending entitlements produces riots.
But again we’re dealing in hypotheticals here and I think we’re past our point of growing our way out of this problem. We’ve done it twice in our relatively recent history - i.e., post WWII and in the 90s. Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former, the only entitlement was SS and most peeps died in their early 60s. In the latter we got a major boost from Moore’s Law productivity growth and Race wasn’t an AARP member yet.
So, because we have real world examples of doing it twice relatively recently in our history, it's a bad policy. Come again?
It's not as if these are random spontaneous events sprouting from the forehead of Zeus.
Shit, who in the 80's would think the internet would create the economic boom that it did? DARPA funding and research...
Or before that, personal computers. Investment and research in micro processors...
Think of the economic growth fusion, or safe fission, or true renewables would create.
AI could remake all kinds of sectors of the economy in a similar fashion.
Quantum computing, 3D printing, Biotech and bioprinting, augmented reality, private civilian rocket travel, etc.
There's plenty of places the next economic revolution could come from.
You know we defunded our own partially built super collider? Would have cost less than just the CA high speed rails planning so far.
There are things the government does effectively. Let them do that. We have the money to invest. Not to is lost opportunity cost.
I only leave the house to visit sites and it is by far the least efficient use of my time which is quite valuable unlike some cubicle monkey like @MariotaTheGawd
We've gone from having a secretary errrrrr administrative assistant taking shorthand and typing correspondence to me and spell check sending out millions of dollars of business while posting on Hardcore Husky
Instant communication with the field. Instant response to the customer - the reason they all love me btw. It also helps that they have very little actual contact with me other than electronic. I am a millennial in that regard.
I was always a one man show even in the dark ages of fax machines and land lines. It just took me a lot longer. I was great value to the company and now still am with less time on my end and still no support staff taking up overhead
I love it
-
You white people and your indoor plumbing
-
And it's a documented fact that Trump's team met with a Russian team to discuss giving DNC emails and Hillary emails to Trump.2001400ex said:
Ok Bob. Explain what my lie is.SFGbob said:
Hondo loves to lie.2001400ex said:
Again Bob hates context. What is the cost per participant? Dontcha think there was a few more people on the program in 2017? Not to mention inflation.SFGbob said:
Feel the cost cutting:2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Medicare Spending was $502 Billion in 2008 in 2017 it was $702 Billion. Medicaid Spending was $374 Billion in 2008 in 2016 it was $553 Billion. Feel the cost cutting.
This is like when Hondo blow Obama for his "fiscal austerity" because he reduced multi trillion dollar deficit spending to spending that was only $600 billion in deficit spending.
The fact that Obama jacked it up to over a trillion dollars a year in the first place is never mentioned
You seriously are an idiot. -
Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former
We spend a smaller percentage of our GDP on defense then we have at anytime since the end of WWII. While defense is a big budget item it is one of the programs that's actually in the Constitution and not something that people can provide for themselves.
Both Medicare and Social Security are both programs designed to pay for things that people really should be paying for themselves, and along with welfare spending, and yes Hondo Medicaid is welfare spending, they are bankrupting us. Take a look at the growth in entitlement spending and the percentage it represents of our GDP and then take a look at what we spent on defense in the 1950s and you'll see where all the money is really going. -
I don’t even think we could pay for a large Euro and Asian war at the same time anymore. Sad.SFGbob said:Both periods involved massive defense spending cuts. In the former
We spend a smaller percentage of our GDP on defense then we have at anytime since the end of WWII. While defense is a big budget item it is one of the programs that's actually in the Constitution and not something that people can provide for themselves.
Both Medicare and Social Security are both programs designed to pay for things that people really should be paying for themselves, and along with welfare spending, and yes Hondo Medicaid is welfare spending, they are bankrupting us. Take a look at the growth in entitlement spending and the percentage it represents of our GDP and then take a look at what we spent on defense in the 1950s and you'll see where all the money is really going. -
So you called me a liar but won't actually say what I lied about. Pussy.SFGbob said:
And it's a documented fact that Trump's team met with a Russian team to discuss giving DNC emails and Hillary emails to Trump.2001400ex said:
Ok Bob. Explain what my lie is.SFGbob said:
Hondo loves to lie.2001400ex said:
Again Bob hates context. What is the cost per participant? Dontcha think there was a few more people on the program in 2017? Not to mention inflation.SFGbob said:
Feel the cost cutting:2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Medicare Spending was $502 Billion in 2008 in 2017 it was $702 Billion. Medicaid Spending was $374 Billion in 2008 in 2016 it was $553 Billion. Feel the cost cutting.
This is like when Hondo blow Obama for his "fiscal austerity" because he reduced multi trillion dollar deficit spending to spending that was only $600 billion in deficit spending.
The fact that Obama jacked it up to over a trillion dollars a year in the first place is never mentioned
You seriously are an idiot. -
I quoted what you lied about liar.2001400ex said:
So you called me a liar but won't actually say what I lied about. Pussy.SFGbob said:
And it's a documented fact that Trump's team met with a Russian team to discuss giving DNC emails and Hillary emails to Trump.2001400ex said:
Ok Bob. Explain what my lie is.SFGbob said:
Hondo loves to lie.2001400ex said:
Again Bob hates context. What is the cost per participant? Dontcha think there was a few more people on the program in 2017? Not to mention inflation.SFGbob said:
Feel the cost cutting:2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Medicare Spending was $502 Billion in 2008 in 2017 it was $702 Billion. Medicaid Spending was $374 Billion in 2008 in 2016 it was $553 Billion. Feel the cost cutting.
This is like when Hondo blow Obama for his "fiscal austerity" because he reduced multi trillion dollar deficit spending to spending that was only $600 billion in deficit spending.
The fact that Obama jacked it up to over a trillion dollars a year in the first place is never mentioned
You seriously are an idiot. -
Oh so that's what you were talking about. So I am right that you are an idiot and lack context on your "facts". Thanks for clarifyingSFGbob said:
I quoted what you lied about liar.2001400ex said:
So you called me a liar but won't actually say what I lied about. Pussy.SFGbob said:
And it's a documented fact that Trump's team met with a Russian team to discuss giving DNC emails and Hillary emails to Trump.2001400ex said:
Ok Bob. Explain what my lie is.SFGbob said:
Hondo loves to lie.2001400ex said:
Again Bob hates context. What is the cost per participant? Dontcha think there was a few more people on the program in 2017? Not to mention inflation.SFGbob said:
Feel the cost cutting:2001400ex said:He is partially right. Medicare and Medicaid had cost cutting moves under Obamacare. Social security needs to be tackled now. But all three are increasing drastically because of baby boomers.
He does leave out the moves the last two years that have hurt the deficit. Being the tax cuts, increase in military spending, repealing the individual mandate.
Medicare Spending was $502 Billion in 2008 in 2017 it was $702 Billion. Medicaid Spending was $374 Billion in 2008 in 2016 it was $553 Billion. Feel the cost cutting.
This is like when Hondo blow Obama for his "fiscal austerity" because he reduced multi trillion dollar deficit spending to spending that was only $600 billion in deficit spending.
The fact that Obama jacked it up to over a trillion dollars a year in the first place is never mentioned
You seriously are an idiot.
