Sorry, Kids. We Ate It All

[AntiChrist]

Good read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/opinion/friedman-sorry-kids-we-ate-it-all.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[AntiChrist]

And, FYI, Obamacare is just another policy that will transfer wealth from young to old.

[AntiChrist]

I would suggest watching the video, too, but it's pretty long.

[Trainwreck2100]

Boomers are fucking us, these are things we know

[AntiChrist]

Really surprised Fuzzy has no opinion. This issue is near and dear to his bleeding heart, and rightfully so.

[ElNono]

good read, thanks for passing it along

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really surprised Fuzzy has no opinion. This issue is near and dear to his bleeding heart, and rightfully so.

I haven't read it yet. I only have time to post inbetween turns. I read it later and comment just for you, Darrin.

[AntiChrist]

I haven't read it yet. I only have time to post inbetween turns. I read it later and comment just for you, Darrin.

Just remember that Paul Ryan was torched for pissing on the "third rail".

[ElNono]

Just remember that Paul Ryan was torched for pissing on the "third rail".

Paul Ryan ran on gutting Medicare for those 50 and younger. When it came to caving to the baby boomers, he was first in line.

[boutons_deux]

Friedman, like Kristol, is ALWAYS wrong.

the problem isn't spending, but why the spending is so high: ripoff costs of all medical care.

The national debt, and wealth inequality, are at record levels due to tax cutting policy going back to the late 1970s, but tax cutting really got going after St Ronnie got into office. The tax cutters in the 70s and 80s weren't boomers. The were boomers' parents, The Greatest Generation.

Corporate Tax Revenues Nearing Historic Lows As A Percentage Of GDP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/corporate-tax-revenues-ne_n_830361.html

as a result, corporations are sitting on $2T+ cash, not invested.

the "deficit/debt hawking" is VRWC propaganda to cut ONLY social safety net spending. the wealthy/VRWC reallize, now that they have have sucked in and continue to suck in a hugely disproportionate share of US wealth, they must propagandize to cut the social safety net. that's why assholes like Ryan and BishopGecko and St Ronnie slander, criminalize the poor as Randian takers, moochers, to justify pushing them deeper into poverty.

[MannyIsGod]

Just remember that Paul Ryan was torched for pissing on the "third rail".

Nope

[MannyIsGod]

Under Ryan’s plan, seniors currently in Medicare stay in the existing system. But in 2023, people over 65 would pick an insurance plan in a new Medicare exchange system, with Medicare competing with other insurers for their business.

http://news.yahoo.com/understanding-paul-ryan-medicare-reform-plan-three-minutes-144610365.html


So tell us again about Paul Ryan, Darrin. Please.

[Winehole23]

Darrin does glib, almost exclusively. Expecting details and depth is too much.

[AntiChrist]

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://news.yahoo.com/understanding-paul-ryan-medicare-reform-plan-three-minutes-144610365.html


So tell us again about Paul Ryan, Darrin. Please.



Yes, reforming something does mean making changes to it.

[AntiChrist]

But, elections have consequences, so I'll just keep stashing away my money while your gen. helps pay for my mom's health care and SS.

Thanks guys.

[MannyIsGod]

But, elections have consequences, so I'll just keep stashing away my money while your gen. helps pay for my mom's health care and SS.

Thanks guys.

You should be sure to show this post to your kids. At least you admit your living off the back of younger generations. Next time someone rants about your shitty generation, don't get all butt hurt. Remember this post.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, reforming something does mean making changes to it.

...

[AntiChrist]

You should be sure to show this post to your kids. At least you admit your living off the back of younger generations. Next time someone rants about your shitty generation, don't get all butt hurt. Remember this post.



Not reforming entitlements = your generation screwed. Don't blame me.

[Th'Pusher]

Not reforming entitlements = your generation screwed. Don't blame me.

Remind us again what you like so much about Paul Ryan's entitlement reform 'plans' and why you think they'd be successful.

[spurraider21]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWzhqTOCEAAmAIB.jpg:large

[MannyIsGod]

Not reforming entitlements = your generation screwed. Don't blame me.

LMAO YOUR generation is the one in power now. You are so fucking dumb.

[MannyIsGod]

I mean have you even bothered to look at the population breakdowns of this country, Darrin? Do you know why the generation is called the baby BOOMers? Do you understand the idea of why entitlements are failing now at all? Do you grasp any part of this problem at all or are you just parroting shit that you obviously don't understand?

[boutons_deux]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWzhqTOCEAAmAIB.jpg:large

Now, list us all the cuts AND new revenue YOU would make to bring the spending/revenues into balance:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

come on, man up, or girl up, or STFU

[AntiChrist]

LMAO YOUR generation is the one in power now. You are so fucking dumb.

I'm not a boomer, dumbass.

[spurraider21]

Now, list us all the cuts AND new revenue YOU would make to bring the spending/revenues into balance:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

come on, man up, or girl up, or STFU
What's your point. Are you suggesting its fine to spend out of your ass? How about military. How about obamacare. Those are 2 big chunks for starters. Foreign aid especially israel

[spurraider21]

White House elevator operator making 200K :lol

[boutons_deux]

What's your point. Are you suggesting its fine to spend out of your ass? How about military. How about obamacare. Those are 2 big chunks for starters

my point is list your cuts, duh.

right wingers love cuts, but when it comes time to cut, they don't want any cuts that affect them.

[spurraider21]

Quit generalizing you lazy fuck. I gave a small list for starters all of which would be substantial

[boutons_deux]

Quit generalizing you lazy fuck. I gave a small list for starters all of which would be substantial

you lazy fuck, how much off the DoD annual budget of about $700B?

according to your bubba poster above, we need to cut $1.6T to balance. So where do you cut $1.6T?? come on, man/girl up, or STFU

[spurraider21]

Federal employee pensions

[spurraider21]

What's your bright idea? Keep doing what were doing? Wake up

[Jamtas#2]

1) Remove deductions and institute a flat tax system where everyone pays into it and having money doesn't allow you to skirt paying, but making sure everyone has to pay into it so it isn't politicians promising to deliver services/goods to you while others pay for it. Everyone has skin in the game, no one gets out of paying due to fancy legal tricks or having their vote bought.
2) Remove ability for politicians to participate in sponsored events/junkets. No need to go to Jamaica to meet with/get educated by a company/group. That's why taxpayers provide you with an office. Many companies don't allow employees to receive gifts from vendors due to the conflicts of interest that can arise.
3) Term limits. Don't think elaboration needed there
4) Public financing for candidates. Focus on issues not on fundraising during campaigning
5) Insider knowledge applies to everyone - politicians included. No special rules for trading.
6) There is no misspeaking - there are lies. Being caught is an ethics violation. Welcome to morals clause in all of your contracts with the USA. See ya for violations.
7) Must spend in accordance to what we bring in. Some leeway must be here I recognize that, but can't keep punting tough cuts down the road for someone else to deal with.
8) No borrowing against other programs (SSI, etc). Those programs are there with a promise to pay in and get something out a later date.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not reforming entitlements = your generation screwed. Don't blame me.

DoK lumped the early half of Xers in with the boomers and I can see why by your example. Complete lack of accountability.

You are supporting the notion here and undoubtedly support the candidates that push this shit. I know you supported Ryan last election just as you are here.

[boutons_deux]

Who Should Young People Throw Under the Bus: Granny or Billionaire Hedgie Stan Druckenmiller? (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/who-should-young-people-throw-under-the-bus-granny-or-billionaire-hedgie-stan-druckenmiller.html)

I pointedly avoid New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman; you can glean everything you need to know about him from the official Thomas Friedman Op/Ed Generator (http://thomasfriedmanopedgenerator.com/about.php) or some of Matt Taibbi’s lambastings (see here (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/no-kidding-the-most-incoherent-tom-friedman-column-ever-20120725), here (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/contest-come-up-with-the-ultimate-thomas-friedman-porn-title-20130502), and here (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/rewrite-thomas-friedmans-syria-column-win-a-free-hand-grenade-20121114#ixzz2Ce3dmiZZ) for examples).

So without attempting to wade too deeply into the goo of Friedman’s latest column, let’s limit ourselves to the the fact that Friedman is running PR for former Soros Fund Management lead investor Stan Druckenmiller. The column also serves to illustrate how Serious People like Friedman were ready to jump on the deficit cutting bandwagon once the shutdown/debt ceiling drama was put to rest for a bit.

Druckemiller’s latest cause is to foment generational warfare. He’s going to college campuses and telling students that things suck (which they know full well) and they need to go after Boomers who are gonna get too much in entitlements if things don’t change. Now from what I can infer, the presentation is sophisticated, since Druckenmiller throws other big Federal spending items into the mix, like defense. But the fact that he depicts tax rates as a problem is a major tell.

Curiously, for someone who says he’s a friend of Druckenmiller, Friedman is remarkably circumspect about Druckemniller’s political history. Druckemniller has not only been one of two or three biggest Republican donors for the better part of two decades, he’s been firmly aligned with the aggressive “shrink government/cut taxes” effort, back to being a strong ally of Newt Gingrich. For Druckemmiller to point at Boomers and act as if he’s part of the solution, as opposed to one of the long-standing proponents of tax cuts, which among other things were one of the big causes in the rise in government debt levels under George Bush, is remarkably disingenuous.

Back to the current post. So why are the young people Druckeniller trying to incite against their elders in such terrible shape? There’s an immediate factor and a longer-term trend. The immediate one is the aftermath of the global financial crisis, which has produced disastrously high levels of unemployment for the young, particularly college graduates. And Druckemmiller doesn’t bear some vague general guilt as a member of the financial services industry that emerged more powerful as a result of this event; he actually bears considerably more responsibility than most by having taken out huge bets against subprime that drove demand to the worst sort of mortgages and had way too many fragile, levered, critically positioned financial institutions on the wrong side of the trade. For instance, on of the parties on the other side of Druckenmiller-style bets were monolines. When they went seen as being at risk, the auction rate securities market froze because monolines were also guarantors of municipal bonds, and everyone knew this short-term muni paper would fall in value as the monolines were downgraded. The result was that interest rates jumped to the parties that had issued this paper, helping to wreck the budgets of cities and transit authorities. That’s only one example of the many sorts of collateral damage that resulted from the remarkably lucrative subprime short bet.

And if you widen the frame, this country has been through a protracted and successful campaign to revise the social contract to favor capital over labor. You can see its success in the accelerating rise in income inequality, the lack of economic mobility, and the huge corporate profit share. Warren Buffet claimed that a level of over 6% of GDP wasn’t sustainable; depending on how you measure it, it’s currently at over 10%, some peg it as high as 12%.

That rise in corporate profit share has come at the expense of employment and wage growth. The policy shift started under Carter, but the old model of having companies share the benefit of productivity gains and basing overall prosperity on wage growth was abandoned in the Reagan/Thatcher era for one that favored asset price growth and used rising levels of consumer leverage to mask stagnant wages. Druckenmiller was a huge backer of the politicians that promoted those programs. Yet he has the temerity to try to turn young people against ordinary folks in their 50s and 60s, most of which who never had any political influence, when he was a major sponsor of the very policies that have helped impoverish American youth. Perhaps Druckenmiller is making such an aggressive and public disinformation tour because he knows that if young people were to turn on the old, he’d be one of the most deserving targets for their vengeance.

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/who-should-young-people-throw-under-the-bus-granny-or-billionaire-hedgie-stan-druckenmiller.html#uKPoJoxYHA1uhOud.99

Like Peterson's the Fix The Debt scam, the Boomers-screwed-the-young project is also propaganda and LIES by the 1%.

[ElNono]

lol household budget analogies... smh

[Trainwreck2100]

lol household budget analogies... smh

They always ignore the idea of introducing more money in into the household which in this analogy would be taxes

[ElNono]

They always ignore the idea of introducing more money in into the household which in this analogy would be taxes

How does issuing some more money enters the household analogy, tbh?

[Trainwreck2100]

How does issuing some more money enters the household analogy, tbh?
new revenue stream, daddy gets a 2nd job. Cutting not enough, you have no choice to bring money in another way

[ElNono]

new revenue stream, daddy gets a 2nd job

But it isn't new income, it's new currency. It's more like "daddy gets a photocopier" and a pass from the Secret Service...

[Trainwreck2100]

But it isn't new income, it's new currency. It's more like "daddy gets a photocopier" and a pass from the Secret Service...

How is raising taxes new currency? Instead of a guy paying $5 to the gov. he pays $6 Same currency but taxpayer has less. The gov has an extra dollar in it's account.

[ElNono]

How is raising taxes new currency? Instead of a guy paying $5 to the gov. he pays $6 Same currency but taxpayer has less. The gov has an extra dollar in it's account.

But the fed gov doesn't need to do that. The fed government can just issue more money. They're actually the only ones that can do that. Which is why you would never confuse the fed government with a household.

[ElNono]

As a matter of fact, the debt-ceiling is exactly that: how much more can the fed expand the monetary base.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not a boomer, dumbass.

And? YOUR generation is the one in power along WITH the boomers. Are you trying to say that my generation - with lower population numbers and less money - have more influence than your generation then you're out of your fucking mind. If you want to say we've had more time to fix the problem then you're even worse at math than I already think you are. If you want to say my generation has more representation in elected office than your generation does then you're still a fucking moron.

So tell me, exactly how is it my generation's fault, Darrin?

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously - outside of some serious delusion - how the fuck can anyone put this country's problems on MY generation. Would love the explanation here. When have we had more voting power than older age groups? When have we had more money or more representation?

[AntiChrist]

Seriously - outside of some serious delusion - how the fuck can anyone put this country's problems on MY generation. Would love the explanation here. When have we had more voting power than older age groups? When have we had more money or more representation?

Your generation is the one being robbed. Who's blaming your generation for the problem?

Your generation needs a movement that is much more organized and much less misguided than OWS.

[MannyIsGod]

You should be able to enact your will even though every other generation has more power in every measurable form. Its your fault. I like blaming the victims as I reap the benefit because I'm a first class ****. Even when the victims are my own children!

[spurraider21]

lol household budget analogies... smh
obviously it's not meant to be taken literally, tbh :lol. but the concept of spending vs income is something many have forgotten when it comes to the government

They always ignore the idea of introducing more money in into the household which in this analogy would be taxes
yeah but how much more are you going to tax? not even the most extravagant taxes would make up for our freakishly large annual deficit

check this out. its a couple of years old, but i bookmarked it

http://therightscoop.com/awesome-mark-steyn-puts-taxing-the-rich-in-absolute-perspective/

[spurraider21]

But the fed gov doesn't need to do that. The fed government can just issue more money. They're actually the only ones that can do that. Which is why you would never confuse the fed government with a household.
printing currency to pay off debt kills the value of the dollar, which fucks over people like you and i that use dollars, tbh. it also makes the US much less credible as a borrower and will probably get the country's credit rating even lower. especially when you consider how astronomical the debt is.

thats what zimbambwe did a couple of years back. they were in debt to the world bank/imf and other countries and they just printed so much that their currency essentially died and lost all value. not saying that would happen to the dollar, but its the principle, el

heck, nothing is stopping the treasury from printing a bunch of 1 trillion dollar bills. its within their power and they could pay of our debts overnight! why don't they, tbh?

[spurraider21]

instead, if feels like people's mentality towards the debt is indifferent, just because we haven't felt all the negative effects yet. a lot of shortsightedness.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

printing currency to pay off debt kills the value of the dollar, which fucks over people like you and i that use dollars, tbh. it also makes the US much less credible as a borrower and will probably get the country's credit rating even lower. especially when you consider how astronomical the debt is.

thats what zimbambwe did a couple of years back. they were in debt to the world bank/imf and other countries and they just printed so much that their currency essentially died and lost all value. not saying that would happen to the dollar, but its the principle, el

heck, nothing is stopping the treasury from printing a bunch of 1 trillion dollar bills. its within their power and they could pay of our debts overnight! why don't they, tbh?

The inflation argument is at lest a step in the right direction but considering how much debt most americans have devaluing the dollar is a good thing. It's only the people that it hurts are people that are sitting on static assets. The guy that has $75k in student debt or still owes $100k on his house? Not so much.

The amount of people retiring still underwater on their mortgages is going up as well.

[ElNono]

printing currency to pay off debt kills the value of the dollar, which fucks over people like you and i that use dollars, tbh. it also makes the US much less credible as a borrower and will probably get the country's credit rating even lower. especially when you consider how astronomical the debt is.

thats what zimbambwe did a couple of years back. they were in debt to the world bank/imf and other countries and they just printed so much that their currency essentially died and lost all value. not saying that would happen to the dollar, but its the principle, el

heck, nothing is stopping the treasury from printing a bunch of 1 trillion dollar bills. its within their power and they could pay of our debts overnight! why don't they, tbh?

I agree that inflation is the boogeyman in that situation, and the *main* reason you want to slowly at least balance the budget. Which again, has nothing to do with a household faces when their debt bottoms out.

What's stopping treasury from printing a bunch of 1 trillion bills in one instant and declaring the debt paid is indeed massive inflation. But they don't have to do that, since the world is still very much hungry for Treasuries, and the slow, controlled yearly inflation slashes a good chunk of debt every year.

zimbambwe owed in US dollars. Countries that don't control the currency of their debt are a completely different story, as we discussed with angrydude a few days back.

There's one more thing to think about... right now the US, due to the standard of living, isn't competitive with other economies in certain areas like manufacturing and the like. Barring imposing artificial solutions such as tariffs, either our standard of living will have to progressively come down or the other economy's standard of living has to come up in order to compete. The US can either wait it out for the other economies to prop up the standard of living, or progressively deteriorate it's own (through like you said, inflation). I'm not advocating either, but it's something else to think about.

[boutons_deux]

"printing currency to pay off debt kills the value of the dollar"

myth, where is the devalued dollar while the Fed and treasury continue to pump $Ts into the economy, have been for 6 years?

devalued dollar? inflation? nowhere to be seen.

[The Reckoning]

econ 101: wealth is a constant in the long term. there will be inflation unless the govt can rein it in through quantitative easing.

[boutons_deux]

"wealth is a constant in the long term"

so wealth can't be created? wealth doesn't increase? :lol

[spurraider21]

"printing currency to pay off debt kills the value of the dollar"

myth, where is the devalued dollar while the Fed and treasury continue to pump $Ts into the economy, have been for 6 years?

devalued dollar? inflation? nowhere to be seen.



:lol you can't he serious

[spurraider21]

I agree that inflation is the boogeyman in that situation, and the *main* reason you want to slowly at least balance the budget. Which again, has nothing to do with a household faces when their debt bottoms out.

What's stopping treasury from printing a bunch of 1 trillion bills in one instant and declaring the debt paid is indeed massive inflation. But they don't have to do that, since the world is still very much hungry for Treasuries, and the slow, controlled yearly inflation slashes a good chunk of debt every year.

zimbambwe owed in US dollars. Countries that don't control the currency of their debt are a completely different story, as we discussed with angrydude a few days back.

There's one more thing to think about... right now the US, due to the standard of living, isn't competitive with other economies in certain areas like manufacturing and the like. Barring imposing artificial solutions such as tariffs, either our standard of living will have to progressively come down or the other economy's standard of living has to come up in order to compete. The US can either wait it out for the other economies to prop up the standard of living, or progressively deteriorate it's own (through like you said, inflation). I'm not advocating either, but it's something else to think about.
How long until we actually address the debt though? Even putting the current debt aside (laughably) the way our budget is set up, it's going its keep climbing astronomically. It's easy for us to ignore it now and "wait for other countries standards of living to go up" because you and I haven't felt the effects of the debt yet. If we aren't in the position to pay the debt at the moment, the least we could do is stop piling it on

[boutons_deux]

:lol you can't he serious

show me you data, joker

when Dems were trying to pass a stimulus (a bigger one would have helped much more), the Repugs were screaming "hyper inflation", but it never appeared, as consumer demand increased a little AND cost-push hyper-inflation hasn't arrived, either.

so, where's your evidence?

[spurraider21]

show me you data, joker

when Dems were trying to pass a stimulus (a bigger one would have helped much more), the Repugs were screaming "hyper inflation", but it never appeared, as consumer demand increased a little AND cost-push hyper-inflation hasn't arrived, either.

so, where's your evidence?
basic laws of supply and demand, tbh

[spurraider21]

germany post ww2

[spurraider21]

zimbambwe recently

[spurraider21]

i mean, if you work hard at your job and make 100k a year, and tomorrow they just print 4 trillion dollars, it sorta makes it a big joke doesn't it? use your head

[ElNono]

How long until we actually address the debt though? Even putting the current debt aside (laughably) the way our budget is set up, it's going its keep climbing astronomically. It's easy for us to ignore it now and "wait for other countries standards of living to go up" because you and I haven't felt the effects of the debt yet. If we aren't in the position to pay the debt at the moment, the least we could do is stop piling it on

We addressed it in a bipartisan way a mere 13 years ago. It wasn't a full blown solution, but a great, great start. Then we took a shit on it, but it goes to show that if there's a will there's a way.

tbh, this country has been much deeper in debt when it comes to production/debt ratio (see post WWII). Treasuries are still in very high demand. IMO, that's why addressing the debt long term has to be done, but this thing of shutting down the government/defaulting over it, is just crazy stuff.


i mean, if you work hard at your job and make 100k a year, and tomorrow they just print 4 trillion dollars, it sorta makes it a big joke doesn't it? use your head

You need to state why would the treasury do that, and how much do other countries print themselves. The value of the dollar isn't only determined by how many are issued, but also how does it compare against other currencies.

[m>s]

yeah money supply expansion is just a hidden inflation tax aimed at the middle class, since taxes are unpopular they just do it subtly instead of openly

and the inflation rate is NOT at 1.9% or whatever like they say it is

[ElNono]

yeah money supply expansion is just a hidden inflation tax aimed at the middle class, since taxes are unpopular they just do it subtly instead of openly

and the inflation rate is NOT at 1.9% or whatever like they say it is

And lower class too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

germany post ww2

germany didn't control their debt. we are just going in circles at this point.

[spurraider21]

We addressed it in a bipartisan way a mere 13 years ago. It wasn't a full blown solution, but a great, great start. Then we took a shit on it, but it goes to show that if there's a will there's a way.

tbh, this country has been much deeper in debt when it comes to production/debt ratio (see post WWII). Treasuries are still in very high demand. IMO, that's why addressing the debt long term has to be done, but this thing of shutting down the government/defaulting over it, is just crazy stuff.



You need to state why would the treasury do that, and how much do other countries print themselves. The value of the dollar isn't only determined by how many are issued, but also how does it compare against other currencies.
A country that is doing well economically has the luxury of not having to print as much currency, which aids in its values. Your ability to repay debts is also key as it makes your currency and bonds more covetable. I absolutely agree the shutdown was moronic. But there is going to have to be some serious policy change to get back to a budget surplus or at least minimize the monstrous deficit we keep finding ourselves in

[spurraider21]

germany didn't control their debt. we are just going in circles at this point.
I brought this up as an example of printing currency deflating value of currency.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I brought this up as an example of printing currency deflating value of currency.

But the two issues go hand in hand. We owe our debt in dollars so when we print money we get a 1:1 return on it. Germany would print money and that would devalue the currency proportionally relative to whatever exchange they were using. The moneychanger was aware of what they were trying to do so of course they wanted more marks for a pound of gold.

In our case there is no moneychanger. There is inflationary pressure sure but people are still buying the debt at the same rates so it's not as mucha s you think. This goes back to why we fuck ourselves if we default. That will devalue the dollar at it's core.

[AntiChrist]

Maybe a bunch of you kids could move to Detroit and rebuild that mofo

[ElNono]

Maybe a bunch of you kids could move to Detroit and rebuild that mofo

See, there's a great example: States can't issue money. That's why they get in the mess they do.

[AntiChrist]

Printing money isn't a good thing, Elnono

[ElNono]

Printing money isn't a good thing, Elnono

What do you mean? This country has been printing money since pretty much forever. A small amount of inflation actually brings a lot of positives to the economy.

The problem is high inflation or even hyperinflation.

[boutons_deux]

that's not evidence, tbh

[ElNono]

that's not evidence, tbh

There's plenty of evidence on the effects of high inflation or hyperinflation on nations, if you care to look.

You were asking a different question (why QE didn't bring either of those?), and there's plenty of reasons for that too.

[boutons_deux]

There's plenty of evidence on the effects of high inflation or hyperinflation on nations, if you care to look.

You were asking a different question (why QE didn't bring either of those?), and there's plenty of reasons for that too.

so the Repugs were screaming hyperinflation to kill or reduce the stimulus, while there were plenty of reasons the stimulus and QE wouldn't produce hyperinflation. Excellent!

[AntiChrist]

I guess this guy wasn't impressed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/stanley-druckenmiller-social-security_b_4133863.html


EDIT> "billionaire" -- 6 matches
"entitlements" -- 1 match (but it a quote from another article)

[boutons_deux]

I guess this guy wasn't impressed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/stanley-druckenmiller-social-security_b_4133863.html


EDIT> "billionaire" -- 6 matches
"entitlements" -- 1 match (but it a quote from another article)

The Peter Petersons want SS privatized to the financial sector, where SS's trillions would have $100Bs extracted yearly in fees, much like investors in 401K and hedge funds get hit with fees annually, often hidden and unknowable.

[boutons_deux]

How Deficit Hawks Are Pitting Millennials Against Seniors to Attack Social Security and Medicare


Generational grievances pitting struggling young millennials against supposedly better-off seniors is creeping back into American politics, fanned by a new wave of deficit hawks who want to undermine public confidence in Social Security and Medicare—as the first step in cutting the social insurance programs.

In a string of recent examples— rants (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/54799629/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#54799629) from MSNBC’s wealthy young commentator, a notorious elderly-attacking (http://www.nicktroiano.com/) House candidate, think tanks promoted (http://www.npr.org/2014/03/04/285581006/millennials-to-bear-burden-of-boomer-s-social-safety-net) on NPR—generational warfare cheerleaders are proclaiming that America is heading toward an epic and immoral conflict as better-off seniors are robbing millennials of shrinking federal dollars because retirement programs cost too much. That’s simply false, as Social Security is solvent (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/) through 2033, and spending on all mandatory programs as a percentage of GDP is close to (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-abby-20140328,0,5688966.story#axzz2xDPOmNVj)where it’s been since 1975, at 21 percent.

This spat captures the contours of an old and still looming political fight where centrist Democrats and most Republicans refuse to fortify America’s most popular and widely used social insurance programs by a mix of (http://www.alternet.org/economy/why-expanding-social-security-crucial-addressing-inequality-america-2014?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark) simple tax increases and more realistic cost-of-living increases. More than 80 percent (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ss-2011-03.pdf) of Social Security benefits go to people with incomes of less than $30,000—and most average less than $12,000 a year. Yet faces are appearing on America’s airwaves posing a false analysis and choice: that federal finances are a mess; and that the only fix is depriving seniors of earned social insurance benefits so those funds could be diverted to struggling youths.

Pew isn’t the disinterested wise observer that’s NPR presents. It and the right-wing Laura and John Arnold Foundation have lead a tag team effort (http://ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Plot-Against-Pensions-final.pdf) to cut back government employee pensions. They recite austerity frames—talking about slashing spending and avoiding other options where wealthy interests would pay more. Taylor is a bit too black and white when he says “everyone” in Washington knows that a retirement safety net crisis will explode in 15 or 20 years. That’s not how liberal economists see it.

When you peel back the details, what’s going on here is simple and not new. Right-wingers—starting at the libertarian Cato Institute which doesn’t want federal social insurance programs to work, going next to Wall Street firms that see a gold mine from privatizing Social Security, and continuing to today’s spokespeople for these interests—want to undermine public confidence in government and push for-profit substitutes. They know that seniors and near-retirees won’t buy into any of this, which is why they have tried for decades—as Republican Congressman Marino’s fundraising letter noted—to create generational grievances pitting America’s young against its elderly.

Their best strategy, as laid out (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/11/cj3n2-11.pdf) in the fall 1983 Cato Journal, was seen as fomenting a generational divide fighting for a shrinking slice of the federal pie. At the same time, they also began to push businesses to replace employee pensions with individual retirement accounts, which, as AlterNet’s Lynn Stuart Parramore hasdescribed (http://www.alternet.org/print/economy/401k-revolution-and-inequality) in detail, have produced far less for retirees.

Their best strategy, as laid out (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/11/cj3n2-11.pdf) in the fall 1983 Cato Journal, was seen as fomenting a generational divide fighting for a shrinking slice of the federal pie. At the same time, they also began to push businesses to replace employee pensions with individual retirement accounts, which, as AlterNet’s Lynn Stuart Parramore hasdescribed (http://www.alternet.org/print/economy/401k-revolution-and-inequality) in detail, have produced far less for retirees.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-deficit-hawks-are-pitting-millennials-against-seniors-attack-social-security-and?akid=11656.187590.NVFmua&rd=1&src=newsletter976247&t=5&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

It's all about shifting SS $Ts to Wall St, where the $Ts will be sucked deeply for $100Bs of fees.

[Bill_Brasky]

Pretty tired of these old coots fucking things up for my generation, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Pretty tired of these old coots fucking things up for my generation, tbh.

... because you've been suckered by the 1% propaganda to believe that the deficit/SS hawks give the tiniest shit about you.

if you think old coots fuck it up, wait till the financial predators/frauds/grifters get their hands on your retirement.

"It's all about shifting SS $Ts to Wall St, where the $Ts will be sucked deeply for $100Bs of fees." per year.

[boutons_deux]

Ronald Reagan and the Great Social Security Heist


Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.

Let’s have a look at the events leading up to this proposal. Reagan and the government had big financial problems. Supply-side economics was not working like Reagan had promised. Instead of the lower tax rates generating more revenue as the supply-siders claimed would happen, there was a dramatic drop in revenue. Something had to be done, so Ronald Reagan set for himself a new mission. He would have to figure out a way to get the additional revenue he needed from another source.

The mechanism, which allowed the government to transfer $2.7 trillion from the Social Security fund to the general fund over a 30-year period, was the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his advisers, especially Alan Greenspan. Greenspan played a key role in convincing Congress and the public to support a hike in the payroll tax. A few years later, Reagan appointed Greenspan to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve System. Since Greenspan’s new job was one of the most coveted positions in Washington, many observers have wondered whether or not this appointment represented, at least in part, payback for the role Greenspan had played in making vast sums of new revenue
available to the government.

President Reagan and his advisors knew, from the very beginning, that the government would soon face a severe cash shortage. Budget Director, David Stockman, had deliberately rigged the computer at the Office of Management and Budget to generate bogus revenue forecasts in an effort to convince Congress to enact Reagan’s unaffordable proposed tax cuts. When Stockman first fed the data from Reagan’s economic proposals into the computer, he was shocked. The computer forecast that, if Reagan’s proposals were enacted into law, massive budget deficits would loom ahead for as far as the eye could see.

Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:

As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.


Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:

The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.


Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road. In addition to the long-term problem of the baby boomers, the Commission found a possible short-term problem for the years 1983-89. But the outlook improved and became favorable for the 1900s and early 2000s. The possible minor problem for the years 1983-1989 was based on very pessimistic economic assumptions. So, at the time Reagan informed Congressional leaders that Social Security was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the actual condition of Social Security funding was fairly sound for the next two decades.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/09/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/

[boutons_deux]

REPUGS St Ronnie wasn't, and Greenspan, Stockman, who setup the heist of SS funds into the govt general fund, are not "boomers".

They seriously cut taxes on the 1% (eg, themselves) that caused the big drop in "trickle down" govt revenues which they compensated for by raising regressive (SS) taxes to pay for cutting taxes on the wealthy.