"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's also one of the uglier side effects of an undergraduate education. You understand shit, and that occasionally translates into a need to talk about it.

Is it still a side effect if it's intentional? Because I'll be the first to admit that my college turned me into an insufferable bore.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It also needs workers, many of whom can be quite, and comfortably, risk-averse. Taking a general preference for a system that's been in place for decades, and extrapolating that to society's pathetic and inevitable decline, isn't really warranted, because that argument suggests that we've just been asking for it since the 1930s.

Ah, but we're not in a time where everyone has the option of being risk averse. When there's less profit to be made, the first thing axed is the worker. And when the cure for the bad effects of that is greater and greater entitlements, the cost of which strangles the entrepreneurs, well, you have a vicious cycle on your hands. I'm not saying we're there, but lets just say, unless there's an amazing bubble out there on the horizon, we're in for some bad times in the near term for anyone who doesn't understand how to manage his finances, so why not allow people to take the ball and run if they want to? How can people argue with a voluntary option program letting those who want to do so control a bit of their financial futures?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Is it still a side effect if it's intentional? Because I'll be the first to admit that my college turned me into an insufferable bore.

It's better than having 20 IQ points shaved off by those four years.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Is it still a side effect if it's intentional? Because I'll be the first to admit that my college turned me into an insufferable bore.

I think there's a middle mind that gets screwed up in business. The truly brilliant and the dumb but streetsmart/tenacious seem to often be successful, while people who are in between can get caught up in not being dumb and risky enough to move quickly and get lucky and not being brilliant enough to move shrewdly and hit paydirt.

To anyone who'll cite exceptions and call this ridiculous, please, don't be stupid enough to not realize this is off the cuff and possibly trending into a platitude.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You realize that's pathetic, and that such a mindset being embraced by our broader society pretty much answers the question "How did we come to where we are?"

Wihtout embrace of risk, there's nothing but a future of dominishing retruns. The wealth disparity in this coun try derives as much from risk aversion as it does tax policy or any of the other bogeymen offered up by the Left on the issue.

I don't understand how an advocate of free markets can turn around and say that people who want to buy insurance are pathetic. They're just maximizing their own utility.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't understand how an advocate of free markets can turn around and say that people who want to buy insurance are pathetic. They're just maximizing their own utility.

That's not insurance, that's how I can say that. That's giving up a potentially better return in exchange for the guaranteed return.

You're right. In a free market, that's a choice. But when it's born of ignorance or fear, I'm not so sure. And my guess is, the rallying against Bush's Social Security reforms weren't from the voters themselves so much as interest groups who didn't like the idea and pushed their representatives to kill it. If put to a referendum, I'll bet 20-40% of the public would take Bush's offer. And that would give them a new experience and knowledge and better our country.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On the SS issue, I think Bush's failure is the saddest reflection of our sorry state. .... Yes, I know sometimes a little knowledge is worse than none at all, but I believe a lot more people would be improved than hurt by the exercise.

Privatizing social security is a very bad idea. Most retail investors are very bad investors because they are so irrational. Too many people will blow their money with bad investment decisions, and then the government will end up bailing them out. So we'll have to subsidize these people twice: first with deductions, credits or matching on the front-end, and second with welfare type benefits on the back end.

It is far cheaper to reform social security by increasing the eligibility age and imposing means testing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bling trade
Privatizing social security is a very bad idea. Most retail investors are very bad investors because they are so irrational. Too many people will blow their money with bad investment decisions, and then the government will end up bailing them out. So we'll have to subsidize these people twice: first with deductions, credits or matching on the front-end, and second with welfare type benefits on the back end.

It is far cheaper to reform social security by increasing the eligibility age and imposing means testing.

Put a cap on losses. You lose money three years in a row, you're out of the scheme. And you don't get a bailout for what you lost.

We tattoo that rule on the back of the hands of those who opt in ("3 STRIKES, OUT, W/NO REMEDY"), so they can't say no one told them that's how things worked when they made their decision.

The means test would offend a lot of people for good reason.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The means test would offend a lot of people for good reason.

Means testing shouldn't offend anyone. Social security started out as welfare for the old. And that's all it should be. The rest of the program should be scrapped.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Until the cost of labor abroad meets the cost of domestic labor we are not going to create any new low skill jobs. And we're going to lose more. And more than that, less jobs will be created because business will naturally create them offshore.

And Barrack Obama can say he's going to fix it all day long, but that's impossible.

Obama and Congress could fix it. They just need to be as aggressively mercantilistic as the Chinese and other export dependent countries. This would require the US to withdraw from a lot of trade agreements that the government signed up on a one-sided basis, giving a lot more than the US received in exchange. I mean, who actually believes China, India, etc are as easy to export into as the US? Whoever believes that is criminally retarded.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bling trade
Means testing shouldn't offend anyone. Social security started out as welfare for the old. And that's all it should be. The rest of the program should be scrapped.

I agree that it should be limited to that. And accordingly, what we all pay into it should be downgraded to reflect the lower costs of its limited intent. As long as it remains as ambitious as it is, and costs as much as it does, there should be no means test.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bling trade
Obama and Congress could fix it. They just need to be as aggressively mercantilistic as the Chinese and other export dependent countries. This would require the US to withdraw from a lot of trade agreements that the government signed up on a one-sided basis, giving a lot more than the US received in exchange. I mean, who actually believes China, India, etc are as easy to export into as the US? Whoever believes that is criminally retarded.

India and China could drop all restrictions and tariffs and whatever they have in place, but that's not going to come anywhere near bridging the cost of our domestic production vs. foreign labor production. Our companies are always going to shop for the cheapest production.

And though I don't know, I'd wager China and India don't need what they get from us 1/10th as much as we need what we get from them.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
India and China could drop all restrictions and tariffs and whatever they have in place, but that's not going to come anywhere near bridging the cost of our domestic production vs. foreign labor production. Our companies are always going to shop for the cheapest production.

And though I don't know, I'd wager China and India don't need what they get from us 1/10th as much as we need what we get from them.

That's not true. If Japan, India, China, and the Middle East stopped stockpiling US dollars, the cost of imports from those countries would increase by like 30%, so imports from those countries would fall. Costs in Asia would increase dramatically if countries there enforced patent and copyright law, instead of allowing rampant piracy, so Asian countries had to pay for IP or invest in R&D instead of just stealing from US companies.

And 30% makes a big difference. For example, WSJ coverage says that engineers in India are now making 70% of what engineers in the US do.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bling trade
That's not true. If Japan, India, China, and the Middle East stopped stockpiling US dollars, the cost of imports from those countries would increase by like 30%, so imports from those countries would fall. Costs in Asia would increase dramatically if countries there enforced patent and copyright law, instead of allowing rampant piracy, so Asian countries had to pay for IP or invest in R&D instead of just stealing from US companies.

And 30% makes a big difference. For example, WSJ coverage says that engineers in India are now making 70% of what engineers in the US do.

So we'd succeed in causing imports from those countries to fall. But how does that bring jobs back to this country when the US manufacturers who compete with the companies in those countries importing to us still employ large workforces overseas?

If I'm a US company building chainsaws in a Mexican factory, why would the fact that I don't have to compete as much with Japanese chainsaws in the US market cause me to shift my labor force to the US at a huge cost increase? Why wouldn't I exploit having the best of both worlds?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've already explained and given good support for why his 1) is wrong.

Where did you get your education? Do you know the difference between a primary souce and secondary source? and the differece from fact and opinion? You cited an article that said "Democrats cut Spending" and I cited an actually primary source the showed federal outlays during those fiscal years. Are you trying to say that your article that says "Democrats cut spending" without actually citing any numbers trumps or is any way equivalent to my cite that shows actual government expenditures from an official govenrment document? Has everyone on this board completely lost all sense of reality?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Characteristically, he didn't bother to respond to it, and went and found another piece of evidence that says something else.

Didn't respond to it? I cited an actual primary soucre that showed your article to be FLAT OUT WRONG. Another pice of evidence?????? I pointed to a primary souce. Your "piece of evidence" was about as valuable as a fart in the wind. My post showed that your cite was about as reliable as all the blogs you always cite.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Many others, yourself included, have similarly pointed out what he's missing. I don't feel like repeating myself ad nauseum, since he's not trying to engage. If that's victory, and not obduracy, he can have it.

I state facts, you state they are wrong by citing to opinions that have no evidence to back them up, and you claim I am being stubborn? What Planet do you guys live on?
__________________________________________
Here is Ty's Post:

Try this for size:
Bill Clinton, unlike most other recent presidents, demonstrated that he would immerse himself in the details of the budget. Despite the fact that it was not an issue that he emphasized while running for the presidency in 1992, Clinton demonstrated willingness early in his presidency to reduce the deficit. It was widely held that if Clinton was to get a handle on the deficit as he promised, he must do so in the first year of his presidency, when his political capital was at its peak (Hager and Cloud, 1993a).

In a joint session of Congress on February 17, 1993, President Clinton unveiled his budget proposal that included deep spending cuts, but which relied overwhelmingly on tax increases to bring the deficit downward. At the same time, Clinton proposed to quickly boost short-term job creation by pumping billions of dollars into new spending programs. Clinton's deficit-cutting plan was the largest in history, proposing to save nearly $500 billion over four years. Of that amount, roughly two-thirds would go to reduce the deficit, while another third would be used to pay for increased job creation and long-term investment spending, making net deficit reduction at the end of the four years of the plan about $325 billion (Hager, 1993).

The deficit-reduction package proposed a cut of $493 billion over four years, $247 of it coming from spending cuts and $246 billion from tax increases, almost exactly a 1-to-1 ratio. The ratio of tax increases to spending cuts quickly emerged as the major conflict point in congressional reaction to the plan. Republicans and conservative Democrats were upset that the ratio of cuts to taxes was much less than the 2-to-1 ratio that Panetta had advocated during his confirmation hearings. Though the deficit-reduction plan made notable spending cuts, its heavy reliance on tax increases displays the difficulties the Clinton economic team had coming up with acceptable spending cuts.

Clinton's call for a tax increase was a direct repudiation of the economic philosophies of his two Republican predecessors. By aiming the taxes primarily at corporations and the well-off, Clinton was suggesting that the programs of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, which were designed to stimulate economic growth through tax cuts, came at the price of high deficits. Clinton believed that he could convince the American public--and a majority in Congress--that the economic expansion of the 1980s held negative consequences in the long run. Clinton proposed to raise most of the new revenue with an array of higher taxes on upper-income Americans and corporations, including $126.3 billion over six years mainly through a new top income tax bracket of 36 percent and a surtax on income over $250,000. Overall, more than half of the new taxes were projected to fall on families making more than $200,000 a year (Cloud, 1993). Table 1 shows the distribution of tax burden by income group.

President Clinton's proposed budget faced its biggest obstacle in Congress with the vote on the budget reconciliation bill. The budget resolution only locked in the broad deficit-reduction numbers, but left virtually all of the specifics to the reconciliation process. The reconciliation bill was designed to reconcile tax and spending policy with deficit-reduction goals outlined in the budget resolution. The measure was the heart of Clinton's plan to reshape the nation's economic policy.

In the end, Clinton's economic plan emerged victorious, though just barely. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was approved in August 1993 without a single vote to spare in either chamber: it passed 218-217 in the House and 51-50 in the Senate (with Vice-President Al Gore making the tie-breaking vote). The measure passed without any Republican votes, the first time in postwar congressional history and possibly the first time ever that the majority party has passed major legislation with absolutely no support from the opposition (Hager and Cloud, 1993b).
_______________________________________________
My Post:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budge...08/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 52

Total Federal Outlays in millions of dollars:

1992: 1,381,649
1993: 1,409,522
1994: 1,461,907
1995: 1,515,884
1996: 1,560,608

Clinton may have proposed spending cuts, but congress insured that federal spending increased during all these years. Like I said, there were cuts, but the spending increases out weighed them.
________________________________________________
Ty could you please point out the facts in your article (primary souce or not) that show that Clinton and Congress cut Federal Spenging in the 93 budget plan, and point either why my cite does not show that the 93 Budget plan did not actually decrease federal spending, or why my facts are not reliable. And if you can actually find any facts in your arctile (I see a lot of statements of intention) that actually contradict the facts that I cite?