http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/194639-senate-proposal-to-adjust-cola-for-seniors-gains-momentum The so-called chained CPI is a loser politically, but that doesn’t prevent deficit hawks from touting it as a “painless” entitlement reform measure. Voters across the board hate the idea of any SS/Medicare/Medicaid cuts (including the chained CPI) and have repeatedly said so in numerous polls. Democrats and Republicans on the Super Committee still support it presumably because it appears in proposals from Rivlin-Domenici and the Simpson-Bowles report among others.
The link above contains an article about an older, carefully researched idea for a special “elder” CPI (CPI-W) which incorporates the increased medical expenses seniors routinely encounter. It’s an idea with a large following and is a sure-fire winner with voters. Remember them? They’re the people who put Congress where it is today. Or, next time out, NOT — as the case may be. NancyO
you still believe that elections have anything to with the voters.
or that politics has anything to do with reason.
the point about ANY COLA for SS is that the workers pay for it. it doesn’t cost the government a dime one way or the other. If you want a “more affluent” retirement, you don’t need a “more accurate” CPI.. you just have to pay for the one you want.
The chained-CPI is a fraud and offensive on that account. It says that when you can no longer afford chicken and switch to cat food, we will reduce your pension because your cost of living has gone down.
SS benefits are barely adequate as they are, cutting them would make SS unable to provide what it is intended for: the ability to retire at a reasonable age.
but before you get to switching to a more generous CPI make sure that YOU are willing to pay for it.
I think you should be. But too many folks think SS is some kind of present from god or the government. That is bad thinking whether you use it as a reason to cry about “huge deficits” or a reason to demand “more benefits.”
After several days on the seminar circuit there is very little good news:
1. CPAs see very little cause for optimism on the economy 2. health care organizations are preparing contingency plans to cut workers due to Medicaid and Medicare cuts 3. DHHS-CMS is making a huge snarl of the health care system, resulting in more administrative costs. 4. Lawyers specializing in health care are shopping for bigger houses, nicer cars and bigger boats – courtesy of government regulatory schemes.
Well, Coberly, I paid my Medicare tax without complaint and I would like it if Congress took account of that fact. Paid, as in, with my money that I earned. Earned by working–to be specific. I have years now in which I hit bad patches with medical expenses and as I get older the out-of-pocket pay out gets larger. The catastrophic limits on my HI policy are quite high, of course, since I’m the only insured person.
It gets expensive and in years with no COLA it’s quite a bite. Of course, I’m still paying my bills and eating food other than Purina Kitteh Feast (pricey stuff when you consider the portion size.) Therefore, I think the CPI-W is equitable for a large number of retirees. Besides, Coberly, you know I’m good for it. Of course, gotta set up my appt with the tax lady here pretty quick–and no, I’m not gonna like what I hear. I promise not to kvetch on AB. NancyO
Is Alice Rivlin the democratic cover for the Domenici and Simpson? The Obama administration may fool some Democrats, but not all. The whole administration is right wing, no one on the left in sight, at least no one I can see.
not that we dont know how they’re voting already.. LAT: Scalia, Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers – The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court. The occasion was last Thursday, when all nine justices met for a conference to pore over the petitions for review. One of the cases at issue was a suit brought by 26 states challenging the sweeping healthcare overhaul passed by Congress last year, a law that has been a rallying cry for conservative activists nationwide. The justices agreed to hear the suit; indeed, a landmark 5 1/2-hour argument is expected in March, and the outcome is likely to further roil the 2012 presidential race, which will be in full swing by the time the court’s decision is released. The lawyer who will stand before the court and argue that the law should be thrown out is likely to be Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.
Rivlin is a carry-over from the Clinton administration in which she served as Director, OMB. Her focus is fiscal policy and budget, specifically. She is now with Brookings and retains a good reputation in official circles in Congress and the WH. She is notably conservative fiscally as you can see from her and Domenici’s deficit reduction plan. You know, I guess that Clinton would probably have ended up being a lot like this President had the economy tanked back then. A big reason for my view is that Rivlin, never a fan of deficit spending, would have moved heaven and earth to prevent it IMHO.
I haven’t got a clue why this WH thinks we ordinary voters think that their advisors are on our side. Google makes it incredibly easy to trace the footprints of Rivlin and other former cabinet officers in the sands of time back as far as we want to go. Well, Rivlin was tight alright as I remember from my days in good ole SSA. But, it could have been worse. Clinton could have been Bush I. We had to resuse photocopy paper in the reign of the first George Bush. We fared better under Clinton except in staffing. Oh well. You can’t win ’em all. NancyO
The “accuracy” of one CPI or another doesn’t matter. You want an adjustment that you can live with on either end … pay for it as a worker, pays you as a retiree. Accurate doesn’t mean a damn thing. “enough” is the key. but not “too much”… unless you as worker are willing to pay for it…as i think you ought t be, unless it gets unreasonable.
Cutting the “inflation adjustment” doesn’t save “the government” a dime. The workers pay for their own benefits. Directly. That is critical for the workers to understand. Not in the sense that the right would have us believe” : “oh my god it’s me paying for someone elses SS benefits”.
No. it’s you paying for your own SS benefits. Make sure you understand the arithmetic… because the arithmetic is not what the lying bastards say it is when they say “its just math.”
Essentially, every dollar you pay into SS each month gets you about 10 dollars each month when you retire. That’s because your boss matches your dollar for two. Then because two workers pay for each reitree (or each worker pays two years for every year he is retired… same thing) two becomes four. Then you are paying over a period of forty years during which time the inflation and real wage increase more than doubles the real value of what you put in, plus pays for inflation… which you would have to do even if SS did not exist in order to pay for a basic retirement when you get old.
Oh, and because the increase in the tax is phased in you get an even better bargain than that. Plus the dishonest CPI will cut the real value of your benefits as you get older so that when you are 85 you will lose about a thousand dollars a year… real dollars… from your benefit… just when you don’t really need it… or so they say.
i think the supremes will find it constitutional… they know where the money is and the health care industry really wants the mandate.. even as they raise prices as fast as they can.
and don’t think the supremes, however much they go on about “liberty” really give a damn about your constitutional rights. the only constitutional rights they care about are the rights of big money.
I’m wondering what the Supremes would do for a living if they rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. A good deal of the Court’s jurisdiction over contract and business cases comes from the commerce clause. On the face of it, the ACA is good for the insurance industry which could fall on hard times were there a public option or single payer health care system. Can’t see what any particular justice has to gain from being out front on this issue. Then again, I presume that we wouldn’t know who benefits from the eventual ruling unless either Antonin or Clarence should suddenly retire to join a legal firm operating in Washington. NancyO
my personal opinion is that the commerce clause doesn’t reach that far. or if it does, there is nothing the congress can’t do under claims of “commerce”, which in fact is what these guys already decided.
fortunately the law is so clear and logical, we can hope another SC, or this one if they can only think of a “distinction” (they can. it’s what they are paid for), can turn it on a dime (so to speak).
Rivlin is just as ready to take down SS as Simpson and Dominice. Clinton raised taxes and did the budget cuts long before Gingrich came. The Democrats did the heavy lifting then and they will do it again.
It is interesting to go back in time, there is also an article from the Heritage Foundation ,April 27, 2001 by D. Wilson and Wm. Beach, The Economic Impact of President Bush’s Tax Relief Plan. All about the wonders the tax cuts would do, the humming economy and the millions of new jobs and increased income and savings, just heavenly results.
Coberly, I think you are right. According to the news, when Gingrich lobbied for the industry he posted on his web why the mandate is the right thing to do. He compared it with car insurance, people earning $50K or more should have to post a bond if they do not buy health insurance. That is where the industry stands, maybe that explains why Obama made the turn after he had said no when Hillary was for it, and why it will not be a big deal during the election campaign. Makes sense.
Nancy, My dirty little mind tells me, we have exactly the HC reform the HC industrial complex permits us to have, Romney just did the practice run. The SC will know what the corporate masters expect. Thomas and Scalia could excuse themselves and the out come will be the right one.
Oh, they certainly will know what the MOTU’s want! But, a 7-judge decision would not be binding in all federal circuits, if I understand it correctly. So, they can get by easily with dissenting opinions, I suspect, and the desired result will obtain while they get to keep on being right-wing conservative heroes. NancyO
well, maybe there is hope for a change after all: (from Reader Supported News)
By Rebecca Traister, The New York Times Traister writes: “Embracing Warren as the next ‘one’ is, in part, a way of getting over Obama; she provides an optimistic distraction from the fact that under our current president, too little has changed, for reasons having to do both with the limitations of the political system and the limitations of the man. She makes people forget that estimations of him were too overheated, trust in his powers too fervid. As the feminist philanthropist Barbara Lee told me of Warren, ‘This moment of disillusion is why people find her so compelling, because she brings forth the best in people and she brings back that excitement.'” READ MORE
A war mongering Somalia which runs the world, with nukes and police batons.
It is right and fitting for the (poor) people to live a short Hobbesian existence for the corporations owners’ militarized state.
What do they need SS or Medicare for in the New Corporatist Police State is debatable.
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks], will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson
ilsm, I haven’t thanked you recently for your contribution here. As you point out, it is never a good idea to ignore the police. I am surprised that they will attack people who offer them no threat. I suspect that the drug war may have had some influence on their approach to a crowd. Police have been shooting people, their kids and their dogs with regularity with no warrant and at the wrong address.
So now the Oakland cops, always known for their quick trigger fingers, have become part of a wave of violence directed at seated people. Other cops have followed their lead on the West Coast, pepper spraying people linking arms, people retreating from them and the like. The Supreme Court has a word for this–they call it excessive force. It will interesting to see how much of these cases make it to the Supreme Court. I hope Thomas and Scalia call in sick those days. NancyO
Europe is on the brink of financial collapse. This is going to get real ugly, few have noticed, until now. Governments cannot borrow infinitely- there are consequences.
Governments with their own fiat currency and a central bank which balances price levels with employment can borrow further toward the “quantum limitations” than Italy and Spain whose governments can go bankrupt like NY City in 1977.
If the ECB don’t concern itself with employment in Spain and Italy then there is a brink.
At our current rate of debt growth, slow economic growth, future entitlements – we are approaching a zone that will be problematic. Increasing tax rates will not solve the problem – just kick the can down the road a few years. If there is an increase in interest rates, then we are really in trouble. Remember, the “temporary” stimulus is permanently part of the budget. Permanaent Fed monetization will help in the short term but kill us longer term. The latter applies to the ECB too.
Many Europeans will get their fiat currency back very soon. Permanent monetization only alleviates temporary problems, and is not feasible long term. The Germans will get screwed if the ECB just opens the printing press. Further, the PIGS and others will just spend and have zero austerity. Why bother when the money is free. There are ample historical examples out there for what is happening, few ended well.
Also the ECB has been buying like crazy and it’s not working. How much is the ECB going to buy every year? A half trillion in soveriegn debt, a trillion. Sorry these are big numbers, not some little backwater country at a few billion.
The is no such thing as a free lunch or perpetual motion machine.
Social Security can pay for itself forever as long as the people have any incomes at all.
Medicare could be the same way…if it were not partially welfareized. Cut it and all you do is kill off the old people who can’t afford private insurance. That will be many more than you expect.
Taxes could easily be raised back to pre Bush levels.
So you are just reciting a catechism and don’t have a clue about what the real financial possibilities are. The can that is being kicked down the road is “tax cuts forever.” That is insane.
Coberly, in a vacuum SS is fine. But the entirety of the budget is not sustainable at the current pace, even with taxes higher than pre-bush levels. At some point the debt will impoverish us through high taxes on everyone, a stagnant economy, or high inflation, or all the above. Luckily we are not in the worst shape amongst the debt addicted world, so we are getting capital inflows to keep rates low.
Yes the tax rates are insane, but so is the amount of debt we are issuing.
no doubt the debt is insane. but we need to begin by paying our bills. and that means taxes. on those who have the money.
meanwhile “entitlements” have not caused the debt. ss will never cause “debt” and medicare should not if it is paid for “pay as you go” as originally designed.
short of complete collapse of the country, SS and Medicare, if self financing, can pay for themselves forever.
the debt is between you and the pentagon and wall street.
Why not talk about the grotesque elephant in the corner?
Cut war (military industry congress complex) down to German size, that is about $600B less a year, and still out spend the next ally by more than 150%.
Last year the US spent more on war [20% of US G outlays] than on SS.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/194639-senate-proposal-to-adjust-cola-for-seniors-gains-momentum
The so-called chained CPI is a loser politically, but that doesn’t prevent deficit hawks from touting it as a “painless” entitlement reform measure. Voters across the board hate the idea of any SS/Medicare/Medicaid cuts (including the chained CPI) and have repeatedly said so in numerous polls. Democrats and Republicans on the Super Committee still support it presumably because it appears in proposals from Rivlin-Domenici and the Simpson-Bowles report among others.
The link above contains an article about an older, carefully researched idea for a special “elder” CPI (CPI-W) which incorporates the increased medical expenses seniors routinely encounter. It’s an idea with a large following and is a sure-fire winner with voters. Remember them? They’re the people who put Congress where it is today. Or, next time out, NOT — as the case may be. NancyO
ah, Nancy, my friend,
you still believe that elections have anything to with the voters.
or that politics has anything to do with reason.
the point about ANY COLA for SS is that the workers pay for it. it doesn’t cost the government a dime one way or the other. If you want a “more affluent” retirement, you don’t need a “more accurate” CPI.. you just have to pay for the one you want.
The chained-CPI is a fraud and offensive on that account. It says that when you can no longer afford chicken and switch to cat food, we will reduce your pension because your cost of living has gone down.
SS benefits are barely adequate as they are, cutting them would make SS unable to provide what it is intended for: the ability to retire at a reasonable age.
but before you get to switching to a more generous CPI make sure that YOU are willing to pay for it.
I think you should be. But too many folks think SS is some kind of present from god or the government. That is bad thinking whether you use it as a reason to cry about “huge deficits” or a reason to demand “more benefits.”
After several days on the seminar circuit there is very little good news:
1. CPAs see very little cause for optimism on the economy
2. health care organizations are preparing contingency plans to cut workers due to Medicaid and Medicare cuts
3. DHHS-CMS is making a huge snarl of the health care system, resulting in more administrative costs.
4. Lawyers specializing in health care are shopping for bigger houses, nicer cars and bigger boats – courtesy of government regulatory schemes.
Bummer.
Well, Coberly, I paid my Medicare tax without complaint and I would like it if Congress took account of that fact. Paid, as in, with my money that I earned. Earned by working–to be specific. I have years now in which I hit bad patches with medical expenses and as I get older the out-of-pocket pay out gets larger. The catastrophic limits on my HI policy are quite high, of course, since I’m the only insured person.
It gets expensive and in years with no COLA it’s quite a bite. Of course, I’m still paying my bills and eating food other than Purina Kitteh Feast (pricey stuff when you consider the portion size.) Therefore, I think the CPI-W is equitable for a large number of retirees. Besides, Coberly, you know I’m good for it. Of course, gotta set up my appt with the tax lady here pretty quick–and no, I’m not gonna like what I hear. I promise not to kvetch on AB. NancyO
Is Alice Rivlin the democratic cover for the Domenici and Simpson? The Obama administration may fool some Democrats, but not all. The whole administration is right wing, no one on the left in sight, at least no one I can see.
not that we dont know how they’re voting already.. LAT: Scalia, Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers – The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court. The occasion was last Thursday, when all nine justices met for a conference to pore over the petitions for review. One of the cases at issue was a suit brought by 26 states challenging the sweeping healthcare overhaul passed by Congress last year, a law that has been a rallying cry for conservative activists nationwide. The justices agreed to hear the suit; indeed, a landmark 5 1/2-hour argument is expected in March, and the outcome is likely to further roil the 2012 presidential race, which will be in full swing by the time the court’s decision is released. The lawyer who will stand before the court and argue that the law should be thrown out is likely to be Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.
Rivlin is a carry-over from the Clinton administration in which she served as Director, OMB. Her focus is fiscal policy and budget, specifically. She is now with Brookings and retains a good reputation in official circles in Congress and the WH. She is notably conservative fiscally as you can see from her and Domenici’s deficit reduction plan. You know, I guess that Clinton would probably have ended up being a lot like this President had the economy tanked back then. A big reason for my view is that Rivlin, never a fan of deficit spending, would have moved heaven and earth to prevent it IMHO.
I haven’t got a clue why this WH thinks we ordinary voters think that their advisors are on our side. Google makes it incredibly easy to trace the footprints of Rivlin and other former cabinet officers in the sands of time back as far as we want to go. Well, Rivlin was tight alright as I remember from my days in good ole SSA. But, it could have been worse. Clinton could have been Bush I. We had to resuse photocopy paper in the reign of the first George Bush. We fared better under Clinton except in staffing. Oh well. You can’t win ’em all. NancyO
Nancy
I certainly don’t disagree with you.
All I was saying is
The “accuracy” of one CPI or another doesn’t matter. You want an adjustment that you can live with on either end … pay for it as a worker, pays you as a retiree. Accurate doesn’t mean a damn thing. “enough” is the key. but not “too much”… unless you as worker are willing to pay for it…as i think you ought t be, unless it gets unreasonable.
Cutting the “inflation adjustment” doesn’t save “the government” a dime. The workers pay for their own benefits. Directly. That is critical for the workers to understand. Not in the sense that the right would have us believe” : “oh my god it’s me paying for someone elses SS benefits”.
No. it’s you paying for your own SS benefits. Make sure you understand the arithmetic… because the arithmetic is not what the lying bastards say it is when they say “its just math.”
Essentially, every dollar you pay into SS each month gets you about 10 dollars each month when you retire. That’s because your boss matches your dollar for two. Then because two workers pay for each reitree (or each worker pays two years for every year he is retired… same thing) two becomes four. Then you are paying over a period of forty years during which time the inflation and real wage increase more than doubles the real value of what you put in, plus pays for inflation… which you would have to do even if SS did not exist in order to pay for a basic retirement when you get old.
Oh, and because the increase in the tax is phased in you get an even better bargain than that. Plus the dishonest CPI will cut the real value of your benefits as you get older so that when you are 85 you will lose about a thousand dollars a year… real dollars… from your benefit… just when you don’t really need it… or so they say.
rjs
i think the supremes will find it constitutional… they know where the money is and the health care industry really wants the mandate.. even as they raise prices as fast as they can.
and don’t think the supremes, however much they go on about “liberty” really give a damn about your constitutional rights. the only constitutional rights they care about are the rights of big money.
I’m wondering what the Supremes would do for a living if they rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. A good deal of the Court’s jurisdiction over contract and business cases comes from the commerce clause. On the face of it, the ACA is good for the insurance industry which could fall on hard times were there a public option or single payer health care system. Can’t see what any particular justice has to gain from being out front on this issue. Then again, I presume that we wouldn’t know who benefits from the eventual ruling unless either Antonin or Clarence should suddenly retire to join a legal firm operating in Washington. NancyO
nancy
my personal opinion is that the commerce clause doesn’t reach that far. or if it does, there is nothing the congress can’t do under claims of “commerce”, which in fact is what these guys already decided.
fortunately the law is so clear and logical, we can hope another SC, or this one if they can only think of a “distinction” (they can. it’s what they are paid for), can turn it on a dime (so to speak).
Everybody ought to watch this. All 8 minutes.
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/18/police-pepper-spraying-arrest.html
Clearly abusive pepper spraying of non-violent protestors by police followed by an excellent and victorious non-violent response.
Rivlin is just as ready to take down SS as Simpson and Dominice. Clinton raised taxes and did the budget cuts long before Gingrich came. The Democrats did the heavy lifting then and they will do it again.
It is interesting to go back in time, there is also an article from the Heritage Foundation ,April 27, 2001 by D. Wilson and Wm. Beach, The Economic Impact of President Bush’s Tax Relief Plan. All about the wonders the tax cuts would do, the humming economy and the millions of new jobs and increased income and savings, just heavenly results.
Coberly,
I think you are right. According to the news, when Gingrich lobbied for the industry he posted on his web why the mandate is the right thing to do. He compared it with car insurance, people earning $50K or more should have to post a bond if they do not buy health insurance. That is where the industry stands, maybe that explains why Obama made the turn after he had said no when Hillary was for it, and why it will not be a big deal during the election campaign. Makes sense.
Nancy,
My dirty little mind tells me, we have exactly the HC reform the HC industrial complex permits us to have, Romney just did the practice run. The SC will know what the corporate masters expect. Thomas and Scalia could excuse themselves and the out come will be the right one.
Oh, they certainly will know what the MOTU’s want! But, a 7-judge decision would not be binding in all federal circuits, if I understand it correctly. So, they can get by easily with dissenting opinions, I suspect, and the desired result will obtain while they get to keep on being right-wing conservative heroes. NancyO
well, maybe there is hope for a change after all: (from Reader Supported News)
By Rebecca Traister, The New York Times
Traister writes: “Embracing Warren as the next ‘one’ is, in part, a way of getting over Obama; she provides an optimistic distraction from the fact that under our current president, too little has changed, for reasons having to do both with the limitations of the political system and the limitations of the man. She makes people forget that estimations of him were too overheated, trust in his powers too fervid. As the feminist philanthropist Barbara Lee told me of Warren, ‘This moment of disillusion is why people find her so compelling, because she brings forth the best in people and she brings back that excitement.'”
READ MORE
Having seen the clips from Zuccotti Park………………
A war mongering Somalia which runs the world, with nukes and police batons.
It is right and fitting for the (poor) people to live a short Hobbesian existence for the corporations owners’ militarized state.
What do they need SS or Medicare for in the New Corporatist Police State is debatable.
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks], will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson
ilsm, I haven’t thanked you recently for your contribution here. As you point out, it is never a good idea to ignore the police. I am surprised that they will attack people who offer them no threat. I suspect that the drug war may have had some influence on their approach to a crowd. Police have been shooting people, their kids and their dogs with regularity with no warrant and at the wrong address.
So now the Oakland cops, always known for their quick trigger fingers, have become part of a wave of violence directed at seated people. Other cops have followed their lead on the West Coast, pepper spraying people linking arms, people retreating from them and the like. The Supreme Court has a word for this–they call it excessive force. It will interesting to see how much of these cases make it to the Supreme Court. I hope Thomas and Scalia call in sick those days. NancyO
Which snarls are worse……………………………….
DHHS or insurance “service” plans to profitably deny patients’ health?
Check the image……………………………..
I found this today…………………………
We cannot make the future, we can be for non violent change.
Europe is on the brink of financial collapse. This is going to get real ugly, few have noticed, until now. Governments cannot borrow infinitely- there are consequences.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/complete-and-annotated-guide-european-bank-run
Mcwop
governments cannot borrow infinitely.
we are not approaching infinity.
and when you have already borrowed, the answer is to raise the taxes that you lowered to get there.
not drown the country in the bathtub.
Mcwop,
Governments with their own fiat currency and a central bank which balances price levels with employment can borrow further toward the “quantum limitations” than Italy and Spain whose governments can go bankrupt like NY City in 1977.
If the ECB don’t concern itself with employment in Spain and Italy then there is a brink.
The flogging will continue until morale improves.
At our current rate of debt growth, slow economic growth, future entitlements – we are approaching a zone that will be problematic. Increasing tax rates will not solve the problem – just kick the can down the road a few years. If there is an increase in interest rates, then we are really in trouble. Remember, the “temporary” stimulus is permanently part of the budget. Permanaent Fed monetization will help in the short term but kill us longer term. The latter applies to the ECB too.
Many Europeans will get their fiat currency back very soon. Permanent monetization only alleviates temporary problems, and is not feasible long term. The Germans will get screwed if the ECB just opens the printing press. Further, the PIGS and others will just spend and have zero austerity. Why bother when the money is free. There are ample historical examples out there for what is happening, few ended well.
Also the ECB has been buying like crazy and it’s not working. How much is the ECB going to buy every year? A half trillion in soveriegn debt, a trillion. Sorry these are big numbers, not some little backwater country at a few billion.
The is no such thing as a free lunch or perpetual motion machine.
Faith based.
For logic to be “sound”……………….
truth in premises is required.
“Validity” is also problematic here……………
the GOTea Party will believe.
Dogma.
“Crazy”, was a Patsy Cline song in the 50’s.
See below.
Mcwop
Social Security can pay for itself forever as long as the people have any incomes at all.
Medicare could be the same way…if it were not partially welfareized. Cut it and all you do is kill off the old people who can’t afford private insurance. That will be many more than you expect.
Taxes could easily be raised back to pre Bush levels.
So you are just reciting a catechism and don’t have a clue about what the real financial possibilities are. The can that is being kicked down the road is “tax cuts forever.” That is insane.
Coberly, in a vacuum SS is fine. But the entirety of the budget is not sustainable at the current pace, even with taxes higher than pre-bush levels. At some point the debt will impoverish us through high taxes on everyone, a stagnant economy, or high inflation, or all the above. Luckily we are not in the worst shape amongst the debt addicted world, so we are getting capital inflows to keep rates low.
Yes the tax rates are insane, but so is the amount of debt we are issuing.
mcwop
no doubt the debt is insane. but we need to begin by paying our bills. and that means taxes. on those who have the money.
meanwhile “entitlements” have not caused the debt. ss will never cause “debt” and medicare should not if it is paid for “pay as you go” as originally designed.
short of complete collapse of the country, SS and Medicare, if self financing, can pay for themselves forever.
the debt is between you and the pentagon and wall street.
Why not talk about the grotesque elephant in the corner?
Cut war (military industry congress complex) down to German size, that is about $600B less a year, and still out spend the next ally by more than 150%.
Last year the US spent more on war [20% of US G outlays] than on SS.
ilsm
i happen to agree with you. but i’d be happy enough to let them spend their money on military toys… if they paid for them.