Budget Time: Still Broke
Offline http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2013-BUD
Oh goody, Bama's new budget proposal is out. Last years budget was only off by $226 billion which I have to admit is pretty good. For our government it is a mere rounding error. It also happens to be almost the exact size of the net worth of the 7 richest people in America. So we can simply seize 100% of the assets of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Charles Koch, David Koch, Christy Walton and George Soros and it will turn out that the prediction of a mere $1.1 trillion deficit would have been right on.
The new budget calls for $3.803 trillion in spending ($12,200 for every citizen, including infants so I would say that if you pay less than $12,200 in taxes this year you are not paying your "fair share".) Only 3 countries have a gdp higher than $3.8 trillion- Japan, China and the US. And it proposes we run a deficit of $900 billion, mostly due to tax increases and growing economy bringing in an estimated $433 billion more in revenue than last year.
Last years proposed budget projected we would only run a $768 billion deficit for FY2013 but hey, rounding error. (For those interested in the historical accuracy of these long term predictions, the 2010 budget proposal estimated our FY2012 deficit would be $828 billion- it will be closer to $1.3 trillion but hey, rounding error)
So what is the bottom line? Like usual I will pretend that the CBO's estimations are based in reality even though I find the idea that we are going to be experiencing 4.5%-5% GDP growth in the near future and for the next few decades highly unlikely. I also have a hard time imagining the government only raising spending a couple hundred billion a year. But I'll live in fantasy land for a moment.
Assuming everything happens exactly as Bama claims it should and the CBO's optimism is correct we will add "only" $10.124 trillion to our debt over the next ten years. Add to the estimated $16.3 trillion debt at the end of 2012, we will owe approximately $26.4 trillion. The interesting thing about this budget is the 10 year projections also happen to end the year that the Medicare trust fund is projected to be bankrupt. So in addition to dealing with the $26.4 trillion in debt (around $800 billion in interest spending alone) our general funds will have to start picking up the tab for Medicare and within another 10 years for Social Security as well. I don't think you need to be an economist to realize that is going to be a big problem.
10 years isn't that far into the future but our elected officials are doing nothing. The are arguing over a fucking tiny $100 billion payroll tax cut while real financial problems face our country. Don't think I'm picking on Bama, there is plenty of blame to go around and no person in office (or running for office) has even proposed a realistic solution. I don't know if it is a case of normalcy bias or if everyone in office is crooked, but if you are someone who is going to be royally screwed when the government runs out of money I suggest you take steps to protect yourself because I don't see how our government going broke is anything other than a question of when and that when looks like it will happen in the next 20-30 years at best.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
What's your opinion on a 'Flat Tax' as a solution?
With your permission, I'd like to borrow this and post it to another board (and under the same username, no less...)
A "tax" is not a solution, imo this is simply of question "Hey! Live within your means until you pay off the friggin debt!".
Apparently, this is a concept that defies human understanding... at least in the states. Apparently... the concept of "pay the fucking bills already and sort out names later" is lost on more than just the government. Of course, any basic concept of meritocracy is practically dead in the states and in much of Europe as well, at present. For the first time in I forgot how long, the US has presented itself as unable to pay it's bills on time and... at the same time, everyone eligible for "benefits" who lives in a nation that gives government handouts left and right is bitching about their gov't entitlements nonstop.
...
I can only laugh at the immense irony. The concept of moving somewhere else is dead in the water because if this 'evil', semi-market nation known as the United States implodes there isn't a single industrialized nation that is too far behind. Sucks, doesn't it? We've become such a 'link' in the chain of supply-side economics that no one can afford to live without us.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The U.S. relies on imports for the most part. China is ahead of us, most European nations are slamming us in education, health care and atheism and Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear superpower not to mention that it's relations with our country are so strained that all it takes is one push to send us spiraling into WWIII since Russia, China and Saudi Arabia will support Iran if we even try to declare war. Shit is fucked up and the rest of the world is giving us the big "fuck you" in terms of our products, trade agreements and economics.
Yes, I was saying... consumeristic-America's consumers buy all the stuff that only a privileged few in the rest of the world can buy.
I would like to see the evidence in favor of whatever war you are purporting with Saudi Arabia since it is rather easily outmatched by us and our allies (UN -for what little it is worth-, NATO.)
To put it another way... Turkey, Morocco, Taiwan, Mexico and Canada are all equally "in bed with (us)" as Saudi Arabia... and, though I loathe to make the argument... there is Israel's military and missile silos.
There's also what happened to the last superpower that fought an "undeclared" war with us... they lost. I do not know what type of "race to the bottom" argument you are trying to make, but I have significant doubts you can actually make it... even after grasping at every pedantic/semantic straw available.
Frankly, my money is on Iran not firing a single missile unless it becomes suicidal.
(which isn't to say it won't)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
...dude, I said Saudi Arabia, China and Russia would SUPPORT Iran; I never said anything about going to war EXCLUSIVELY with them.
No need to sound like a dick about this.
Sorry this global dept crap is bullshit. It is one thing to pay back someone, it is another when ANY country is so far gone that it silly to try to collect it when all that is going to do is make things worse globally. I think it is far better for the lenders AT THIS POINT to take the loss and let that society start over. Maybe the corporate goons who caused this global mess should think about what they did so they DONT repeat their criminal actions.
I am so sick of the stupid idea that credit is the most fucking important thing in the world. Selling this shit is exactly what got us into this mess. I pay cash for everything. We don't reward that anymore. Big business wants you on that perpetual cash cow via minimum credit payment mentality. They have no incentive to kill that cash cow.
This bullshit is sold by the assholes who wrecked the car. I say don't pay these assholes a dime let these credit scam artists who are nothing but glorified pick pockets who sit in corporate offices thinking of ways to fleece the public, and win even when they lose, and dump their loses on the tax payer. I SAY FUCK YOU.
We don't need to pay off the dept, the dip shits who caused the mess DO!
ENOUGH! The poor me corporate martyrdom crap, is just as absurd as theocratic bullshit, falsely claimed by the bullies who caused this mess IS NOT GOING TO WORK anymore.
Money equals power and as long as that is the case, just like political and religious monopolies, the private sector that has the most power should have a check on it like any other group. IF the corporate dickheads cared about anti monopoly, they would not be under the microscope they are under now. Crying foul now is a little too late.
But as long as all they give a shit about is maintaining the status quoe and dumping their bad behavior on the rest of us, I am going to care as much about their wishes as they do mine. GO FUCK YOURSELF
WHAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN anymore is the bullshit lie that everything is the fault of the middle class and working poor. BULL FUCKING SHIT!
Not buying your bullshit anymore.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Of course. I carry no attachment to my ramblings/grumblings.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Oh? I thought you and I were jus sorta engagin' on a mutual penis measuring contest here in int'l politics... you tryin' to squeeze an extra inch or two by saying it's NOT mutual out of nowhere?
All in all, you ring in as about the most talented nondebater on the forum, barring even Vastet. Pointless semantics, appeals to respect, passive appeals to acquaintance... everything except "Sorry... I'm too much of a person to actually defend my positions (rather than toy with the opposition!) so I appeal to subjective morality and semantic debates"
Vastet has done that last one quite a few times already, but I'll be damned if I can't sniff it out a mile away.
(Maybe he was more talented with pointless semantic debates in his youth, but no one here will ever know, yeah?)
If you ask me (and you haven't
), a Sam Jackson phrase from the movie 187 comes to mind immediately. It reads (and I quote) "Don't be half-way stupid, Cezar... BE ALL THE WAY STUPID!!!"
I'm thinking it applies to this rather meaningless conversation/chest-thumping contest you seem content to engage in all of the sudden, but I can't quite figure out how.
If that doesn't whet your appetite maybe this will...
"You just ain't ready for me, kid"
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
It isn't really a solution to this particular problem. I do think a flat tax or a consumption tax would be more fair, personally I favor a consumption tax. It is ridiculous how many people are net takers to the government and I think more people need to be paying their fair share for the government services they use. Also, I think more people would be concerned about our government being so irresponsible if they were paying the bill. It is easy to support any number of government programs if you know that you will never be the one having to pay for it. But as far as simply having a responsible budget, I don't think changing to a more sane tax system is a requirement. It really is simple budgeting, the government needs to start living within its means and can get there through cuts or raising more revenue. I support cuts, but would be willing to seriously consider any rational plan that seriously addresses the long term structural problems with the budget.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
If you think that you would not be negatively affected if the government simply decided not to pay back the debt you are delusional. Isn't your mom a retired teacher? Where does her pension money come from? I guarantee that a good portion of that pension fund is.... yep US treasuries, the debt. Your bank probably has money in US treasuries. State and local governments often purchase US treasuries. The social security "trust fund" has a couple trillion in US treasuries. So what happens if the government simply declares it isn't honoring the debt? Think about it.
First, interest rates skyrocket. No one is going to loan the US government money after it flagrantly fucks over the lenders unless it promises a significant interest rate. Borrowing by the government gets more expensive making the deficit worse. Most likely extreme cuts would have to happen quickly. No government check would be good. Any person receiving a government check would have problems from federal employees to social security recipients. Our government can't pay very many of them without borrowing, and if the government can't borrow, it can't pay.
Pension funds would lose value overnight. Some might be ok, but many are already having difficulty meeting their promised obligations. If US treasuries suddenly became worthless many of those funds would go under. Chances are that people like your mother would suddenly be left without their pension check because the money simply wouldn't exist.
Banks would have problems as well. Again, some of the larger ones would survive, but others would have serious cash flow problems. Since most smart people would get their cash out of their banks ASAP, many banks would have trouble meeting the deposits. We would see a huge run on banks, and what happens when your bank doesn't have the funds to cover your deposit? FDIC insurance would mean nothing because the government is out of money and can't borrow it.
I don't have time to go more in depth now, I might later. But the bottom line is that the government simply refusing to pay the debt isn't going to harm only the evil rich. Lots of people would be completely fucked over and your precious poor are the ones who would starve. Those of us who have access to physical assets would be able to trade them for food. Those with no assets would be fucked. We would find ourselves in the middle of a massive depression and probably take a good portion of the world down with us.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I actually haven't engaged in anything. My response was to the tune of throwing in my two cents on the way trade and future political alliances will affect this country and what we may expect to happen, not to start a non-existent pissing match that you have somehow conjured up in that screwed up cortex of yours.
If you want to make a semi-sociopathic attempt to point out my short comings, that's fine; you don't know me and I don't know you so don't try to over analyze something that you may be wrong about (hint: you're way off base about me in every regard).
I'll admit the "chest thumping" had me laughing because I'm not sure how you got all that from a generalized post regarding my opinion on certain world issues that wasn't even a hostility-induced debate catalyst to begin with. If you're off your meds, so be it, but don't attempt to try and profile me.
Boring.
Apparently in response to
Which itself is in response to
So again, you either enjoy not putting forth any arguments, or you enjoy not putting forth any arguments. I'm a bit skeptical of how you jump to
but I suppose it's simply a case of "agree to disagree"... until one considers the subject of the "Wikileaks cables". Than a different picture than the one you generically describe emerges. Far different, I might add. Maybe you're a fan of hyperbole in politics?
cj's Al Franken quote is useful for situations like these, so I state thusly "We are entitled to our own opninions... we are not entitled to our own facts."
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
...and you're connecting dots when there aren't any.
You obviously ignored what I said in my latest post so, let me spell this out for those carrying an obviously unbalanced load; I. was. making. a. generalization. Nothing I said was a challenge to you, a threat, a cause for debate or a hidden causality for you to suddenly sink your teeth into my jugular and start going off on what you think you know about me or my behaviors.
For the sake of burying this bloody hatchet that you seem to have in your hands at the moment, let's play a game called "conversation breakdown."
This is my original post. It was an extremely non-abrasive response to part of your opening post regarding the OP which is as follows:
This was not addressed at me, but I felt the need to add what I thought was going on in the world as far as trade and the political sanctions regarding Iran and other nations that may support it. Also, my general outlook on what direction the U.S. may be heading if shit gets any worse. I thought it was pretty straight forward, neutral and just went nicely with what you had to say. So, in response, I get this crap from you:
You accuse me of not having the ability to be able to defend myself, not being able to provide one shred of evidence and coming off as an arrogant piece of filth. The above are YOUR words, not mine. I never hinted that you were "pedantic/semantic" or any other insulting variation thereof not to mention not being able to defend your view adequately. To me, that's a clear sign of disrespect in the highest regard debate material or not which is not something I wanted to get into. If I wanted to debate, pal, trust me, my responses would have been much more than just my opinions or as you say "pedantics/semantics."
My response to your insults was pretty straight forward:
You came off as a stand-offish prick, not as someone that's debating ANYONE and I told you in a way that maybe you'd understand. It was like you had a male period and I caught you at the peak of your hormonal imbalance. Kind of creepy.
...but, no, you did this garbage...
You gathered your intel the way a sociopath would examine it's next victim; on the fly, indirect, shallow observations, mirroring a portion of what they are afraid to show others and a desire to inflict an emotional response in those without disorders. I mean, it's funny to see that done to me especially when it's by someone that has never seen me or knows me outside of the internet or even my first name for that matter. A professional would have a hard time getting a reading on me so don't feel too bad when I say that your predication of what I act like, especially on a forum, is so far off the mark that it's amusing. Can't hurt to try, though, right?
My last response was to inform you of what you were trying to do and how puzzling it all was:
Maybe you'll pay attention to that quote this time. Or not...
So, you respond to all of this in any fashion that you want which I assume you probably will regardless of what I have to say on everything mentioned. I will end with this, however, and that is before you start to blithely dissect a person whom you have no connection to or physical history with, keep this in mind; there's what you want to see and what people won't show you. I reveal only what I feel deserves to be revealed and on a place like this, I keep most of my strongest arguments, rebuttals and other unorthodox methods of dealing with situations for reality where it actually counts. It's the internet; don't take it too seriously.
Making a post that wasn't intended to be challenged on grounds of objectivity or evidence on a forum largely based on such concepts does reveal quite a bit more than I... think... you care to admit, but you have something of a point. I did overstep my bounds a bit in attempting to provoke something other than 'pointless, intellectually lazy 1-post monologue-cum-diatribe about international politics', but... mea culpa.
I mean, it is the "internet", correct? You shouldn't take my light-hearted jabs to SRSly, right? I mean... the nature of RRS is to make a claim and be challenged on it. Apparently you weren't expecting your generic-assertion friendly first post to be challenged in any significant manner, or... ??? I'm at a loss for any other explanation.
In any case, I love it when people make my points for me while not intending to.
It doesn't have to, but now we argue semantics a third time.
Insert coin, try again. (?)
I hate to disappoint...
...but your wild fantasies about politics that I see little or no evidence for do not "(go) nicely with what I have to say". It's not that I am easily offended or anything... I'm just not fond of largely imaginary assertions of fact that can't actually be backed up with a cite, a source of information, or a supporting argument.
At least, not when I have had my fair share of challenges on my claims while here.
Fair's fair, right?
(By the way... yes, I absolutely have no moral conscience to speak of whatsoever. In fact, I still steal candy from babies simply because I can. Not that you passively suggested as much just now, or anything.
)
Awwww... why so false dichotomy? You read as a person that likes publishing opinions on the web with "comments" disabled by default. I couldn't help but notice that you also made your own attempt at "blithely dissect(ing)" most of my responses here.
Oooohhh... an ad hom!
Does this mean you aren't going to support or stand behind your claims here? That's just... fucking terrible.
Believe me when I say... "I don't recall doing as much".
At the same time... I was just beginning to enjoy myself.
Note:
(No, the tired old meme about arguing and special olympics doesn't apply so much on RRS, I think
)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The reason this conversation sux is that I can do most of this with my eyes closed. I really... want someone I can have fun with.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Oh! So that's why the girls won't date me... just too creepy.
(bitter experiences with Mom does render me a mysogynist at particularly strained moments, but still... where do you come up with this?!
)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Continue being a sociopath, dude. If that floats your boat and convincing yourself that I'm not challenging enough to spar with your vastly superior mental comprehension, be my guest. I've said my peace.
Ok, I do believe I've turned Beyond's thread about state finances into a steaming wreck... but twas worth it.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Amen to that Brian37. This BS Americans just accept about their credit score being so damn important. It's a number banks use to determine if they can fuck you or if they'll likely get fucked.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
What do you suggest? I've moved assets overseas.
Government has become nothing more that tool for people to have all their live choices subsidised by others. It is all set up for nothing but continual greater demands from those that receive and few people willing to pay the bills.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
"live choices"??
Folks... let's cut the irrational "the end is nigh!!!1" bull for a sec. If you want people to partake in your business, you have to sell to those willing to buy whatever the hell it is that you offer.
"At the right price", obviously, but also in the right place and time and on the conditions desired. Americans still have lots of money, but they aren't "picky eaters". Frankly, without some far-fetched "impending doom" on the way, the proverbial Lion's Share of consumption will remain on American soil. The question remains thus; are you even in our market range? Cuz if not... well... you better hope to go public with a generous offering in terms of international trade.
Frankly, EXC... I don't believe you are cut out to "outsorce" to the lowest bidders of the world; merely pretend to move tangible business resources around until the collective finance crisis levels out and stops becoming a problem.
Also, I don't think you've EVER forwarded an argument for fee-based governance other than "OMFG I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THIS!!!"
That argument isn't working on Americans, as of late... because they don't want to pay for corporate handouts and tax shelters anymore themselves. At that, there is always going to be money made in selling to America without the usual envisioned apocalyptic bull.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I've already moved some assets to Latin America and Asia. What is the BFD?
We'll since the National Debt is 16T(actually more like 100T) and growing exponentially, my argument is also "OMFG NO ONE WANTS TO PAY FOR THIS!!!"
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
The big frikkin deal is that cheap labor in the 3rd world is a very likely Snake Oil Investment Bubble. What do you do about peasants demanding thicker coffers/wallets?
Aside from moving all of your collective business to Bhutan; not much, I'm afraid
. And, of course, you're going to want to sell to Americans somewhere along whatever "supply chain" you currently have setup amongst the world.
I'm willing to bet most Americans would prefer to buy domestic, provided that it is affordable. Alas... who can have their cake and eat it, in this crazy-ass, royally fucked up system of international commerce currently setup about the globe?
Than I suppose it's Big Trouble in Little China. Yes, US Gov't spends money on a LOT of stupid shit, and has most of it's labor and consumer protections hijacked by corporate interests. Fees aren't going to stop that, but they might create an even less lawful plutocracy than the one America currently has.
Frankly, I prefer 'evolutionary' thinking as opposed to "REVOLUTION(ary)!!!" thinking. A "get (exactly?) what you pay for" system of government will never work because nobody besides clueless ideologues vee for it. Granted, babyboomers have placed an unforgivable pricetag on social safety nets, but even their own children quietly wait for them to die. Of course, it doesn't help that medicine is so damned expensive here in the states, but that is because only rich people (flat tax or no) can pay for it.
"Yay! The crabby ol bitch is dead! MEGAHAPPYFUNTIME galore! I'll go notify the kids on facebook."
So... any old farts here want to wager that someone, somewhere won't be relieved at the thought of their death? That's something to consider before ranting about wanting to abolish the Medicaid "(your) family worked so hard to pay for".
Yeah I'm jaded with the pro-entitlement attitude found amongst seniors these days, but I come by it honestly.
edit: At that, the "bootstrap yourself up" attitude would be a pleasant change of pace for most in the developed world, but it'll never happen as well.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
If you're poor, you can't really afford to buy weapons can you? You just have to make sure the army doesn't go hungry. Besides the peasants in America seem pretty restless as well, and they were able to get their guy in as commander in chief already.
Oh and the current system is working so well. I think technology will eventually enable pay go. It will be just too easy to move means of production and wealth, governments will have to operate just like the private sector and not charge people for little or no service or loose their best paying people.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I'll take that bet. I'm willing to bet that most Americans don't give a flying fuck where the product comes from, they will pick the one with the prettiest, trendiest packaging every time prices being equal. If the prices are different they will buy the cheapest one if it is something boring like paper, and the most expensive one if it is blue jeans or shoes.
Don't believe me? Look at all the geniuses lining up to pay $220 for a Nike sneaker and the ones paying $1000 because they didn't want to wait in line. http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/blog/morning_call/2012/02/nike-sneaker-release-prompts-riot.html I've never seen that happen for a Red Wing boot even though for $220 you could buy something far higher quality that is made in the USA.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Hence why some call America "advertising hell".
"Buy American" is a concept lost on most Walmart shoppers, but it's still just a commercial trend.
edit; "Buy chinese" is mostly about convenience, rather than pricing efficiency. I wonder what most of the MEGAcorporations will do when China catches up to the US in terms of inflation, purchasing power parity, etc.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Out of curiosity, what weapons can you afford and what means to do you have to implement them effectively?
"Pay go" does not work for military and intelligence unless you have an 'innate love' of what is known as "the mercenary attitude".
A mercenary does as little as possible to get paid, essentially.
Operating "like private sector" is idyllic, but it also creates lawless plutocracy. Any suggestions for circumventing this?
edit: I really hate this buggy-ass netbook keyboard some days
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
It is already starting to happen. It doesn't have to reach a level equal to ours because there is expense in transportation and shipping plus the increased dangers of fraud and theft when dealing across international lines. Foxconn has raised wages three times in the last two years and I'm not talking about token 5% raises. The one last week was 16-25% the one before that was around 30%. China's inflation rate is 4-4.5% so that is an increase in wealth in real terms for the workers. When there is only one factory in town they can pay whatever they feel like, when there are several and workers can choose where to work there is a natural pressure for wages to rise. China has a ton of people, but it seems that they are starting to reach the point where they have some choice of where to work.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-hp-dell-apple-idUSTRE81M06V20120223
The result will be that some companies will branch into other poor countries that have large idle labor pools. Others will make investments here and attempt to keep production prices low through automation, which will have a heavy front end cost but can provide a much more stable production cost long term. Others will simply raise prices or accept a slightly lower profit. Apple for example probably isn't leaving China anytime soon. They have put a lot of money into branding themselves in China and in addition to providing cheaper labor, China now also provides Apple with a fairly substantial consumer base. Besides, Apple is already overpriced compared to their competitors so adding a few dollars to the price of their product is unlikely to lose too many sales.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46567354
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Not sure how much going overseas helps because if the US does default it is going to affect every country in the world. Most likely, the default is going to take the form of a strategic default where the US will promise to pay a percentage of what is owed on the treasuries. The real devastation is going to be caused by the number of people reliant on government checks that will find substantially reduced benefits in the form of extreme austerity measures and probably significantly higher tax rates as well. At that point the only possible result is a substantial depression with severely reduced demand.
To put it in perspective, the entire housing crises resulted in the estimated loss of $9 trillion in value and we have seen the affect that has had even though a substantial portion of houses that lost value wasn't a real loss because the people who owned them never intended to sell in the first place. Now consider the effects of the government being forced to cut benefits/increase revenues by at least $3 trillion a year and probably more while trying to find a way to pay off a $30+ trillion debt. However that debt is dealt with will result in losses in the US economy of actual money and expected value of benefits that will make the housing crises look like the dot com bubble.
So to protect yourself the logical thing to do is to take steps to ensure that you will not be reliant on government benefits in 20-30 years. Make sure you have the liquidity to pay for your own medical care and retirement needs. Most likely the government will try to pay off the debt with inflation so it will be necessary to be prepared for rapidly increasing prices. The kicker is that staying liquid can cause you to miss out on great value because I do expect our economy to boom for a bit when the government allows the housing market to fully correct or it corrects despite the government.
So to get maximum value you will want to invest and be the first to liquidate when the shit gets close to hitting the fan. I'm guessing that in about 20 years it will be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the government isn't going to meet its obligations, but greed and normalcy bias will keep things going for another 10-20 years until the government literally has no choice and creditors simply refuse to loan money without austerity measures being implemented. When that happens, those who are liquid will do well, those who are going month to month and in debt are going to be fucked.
In the short term, it doesn't matter where you invest as long as you invest and build up a decent sized portfolio and are getting a decent return. Sit down with a financial planner and create a comprehensive plan to build up a solid investment plan geared towards growing and then cashing out in 30 years or so. It is difficult to predict exactly when the shit will hit the fan. It could be 20 years, it could be 50 years. But as time goes on I would lean towards investing in companies that habitually "hoard" their cash and have limited exposure to US treasuries. I would also lean towards using banks and financial institutions that start moving away from US treasuries. That movement hasn't started yet, but in 10 to 20 years there will probably be a few that will quietly start reducing their holdings of treasuries. Those are the banks that will be more secure.
From a business standpoint, try to orient your business so that you are not reliant on a customer base that relies on government checks. Be prepared to build up large cash reserves when we get closer to the crash. Ideally, when the crash starts you want to be the business with more than enough in the bank to take losses for a couple years without having to compromise your operation then as your competitors go out of business you can buy them up for pennies on the dollar and have the surviving customer base consolidated to you. Again, it is a question of timing, but if you know the crash is going to happen you can watch for signs. Pay attention to reductions in treasury sales, when financial institutions start moving away from US treasuries and political talk goes from random talk about strategic default by fringe kooks to serious contemplation. When those things start happening, you want to be in a position to liquidate quickly.
For those who don't have the disposable funds for serious investing I suggest you start saving something now. Estimate how much you will need to live in 30 years and figure out how you will get that much cash. Unless you want the government telling you to "take a pain pill" when you need a pacemaker you need to make sure you are self sufficient. If all else fails you can always hope your kids or grandkids are successful, just make sure you're nice to them. If you are relying on government benefits as your retirement and you are under 50, they aren't going to be there at least not at the level they are now. And if your employer offers retirement benefits like a pension or promises of medical insurance, don't count on it because employers making those promises are likely to run out of money and go bankrupt. If you are sitting there in 30 years and government cuts in benefits substantially hurt your lifestyle you have no one to blame but yourself. Substantial cuts are coming, it is only a question of when. We could do it sooner which could significantly minimize the harm and make discussion of US default academic but I'm betting our politicians are not that rational and will wait for the last moment. I have seen no evidence that anyone in office is even willing to discuss real budget cuts, at most they promise vague cuts will be done by a future congress.
Live your life like these government programs don't exist and when they don't you won't find yourself in an impossible situation. If I'm wrong and somehow they continue, well you will just be that much better off. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Of course, you could help prevent the worst by holding politicians feet to the fire and forcing them to deal with our budget issues now, but most Americans seem more content to buy into the class warfare bullshit and completely ignore our federal budget under the imaginary belief that someone else will pay the bill.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Well I suppose if I dedicated myself to it, I could get just about any weapon I wanted. My point is that the poor really only have one weapon-propagand and public opinion.
Well who doesn't? Pay go is going to be the only sustainable system for funding police and military. Our police and military are going to walk off the job when they no longer have food and shelter thanks to debt.
Why is it that the most essential service you require, food, is supplied by the private sector? If this was run as a 'public service', we'd see quickly how much you actually believe this BS.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Right, but the effect could be positive in many countries. Get out ahead of the curve before more Americans try to move their assest and drive up the price.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen