|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 02 2013 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program. I sure hope so  You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago. I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created. CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue.
It's not a trap. The issues they talk about show that the program is filling a void left in the current public/private welfare programs. These people don't have "honest" options for supporting themselves and their families.
|
On May 02 2013 03:42 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program. I sure hope so You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago. I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created. CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue. It's not a trap. The issues they talk about show that the program is filling a void left in the current public/private welfare programs. These people don't have "honest" options for supporting themselves and their families.
Exactly. Every example that NPR bit brings up links the use of disability funds to societal/job market issues, and to approach the issue as though disability is the problem is to misunderstand what is going on. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bloat, as tends to be the case with government programs, but these people are trapped on disability no more by the strictures of the program than the places in which they live and the lack of resources available to them.
|
On May 02 2013 03:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 03:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program. I sure hope so You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago. I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created. CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue. It's not a trap. The issues they talk about show that the program is filling a void left in the current public/private welfare programs. These people don't have "honest" options for supporting themselves and their families. Exactly. Every example that NPR bit brings up links the use of disability funds to societal/job market issues, and to approach the issue as though disability is the problem is to misunderstand what is going on. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bloat, as tends to be the case with government programs, but these people are trapped on disability no more by the strictures of the program than the places in which they live and the lack of resources available to them.
I think you guys are missing the point. Disability is preventing the underlying problems from being addressed. Disability doesn't give people new skills nor does it reduce a local area's real unemployment problems. It just gives people a small check and declares the problem solved.
|
On May 02 2013 04:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 03:50 farvacola wrote:On May 02 2013 03:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program. I sure hope so You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago. I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created. CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue. It's not a trap. The issues they talk about show that the program is filling a void left in the current public/private welfare programs. These people don't have "honest" options for supporting themselves and their families. Exactly. Every example that NPR bit brings up links the use of disability funds to societal/job market issues, and to approach the issue as though disability is the problem is to misunderstand what is going on. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bloat, as tends to be the case with government programs, but these people are trapped on disability no more by the strictures of the program than the places in which they live and the lack of resources available to them. I think you guys are missing the point. Disability is preventing the underlying problems from being addressed. Disability doesn't give people new skills nor does it reduce a local area's real unemployment problems. It just gives people a small check and declares the problem solved.
But to pretend that it is disability holding them in place as opposed to the lack of real opportunity is simply disingenuous. Cutting disability doesn't magically make education more accessible to these people, nor does it do a thing in terms of improving the job market. It just decreases quality of life. Reductions in disability ought to be part of moving forward, but not as the primary step.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
developmental trap is certainly an issue here. however, the idea of 'disability' makes productive training etc kind of impossible without first finding the frauds. once found, it would look incredibly bad on the resume for someone to go on disability then suddenly come off of it as though the disability didn't exist. so this trap is kind of worse than other forms of easy and distorting income.
the localized nature of some of these clusters of fraud suggests a local government complicity
|
On May 02 2013 04:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 04:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2013 03:50 farvacola wrote:On May 02 2013 03:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program. I sure hope so You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago. I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created. CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue. It's not a trap. The issues they talk about show that the program is filling a void left in the current public/private welfare programs. These people don't have "honest" options for supporting themselves and their families. Exactly. Every example that NPR bit brings up links the use of disability funds to societal/job market issues, and to approach the issue as though disability is the problem is to misunderstand what is going on. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bloat, as tends to be the case with government programs, but these people are trapped on disability no more by the strictures of the program than the places in which they live and the lack of resources available to them. I think you guys are missing the point. Disability is preventing the underlying problems from being addressed. Disability doesn't give people new skills nor does it reduce a local area's real unemployment problems. It just gives people a small check and declares the problem solved. But to pretend that it is disability holding them in place as opposed to the lack of real opportunity is simply disingenuous. Cutting disability doesn't magically make education more accessible to these people, nor does it do a thing in terms of improving the job market. It just decreases quality of life. Reductions in disability ought to be part of moving forward, but not as the primary step.
Yeah, I don't really see an easy exit from disability. Simply booting people from the rolls won't really work (was this suggested?). But as is it's a one way street and there needs to be a meaningful attempt at fixing that.
At the very least it's making the much ballyhooed welfare reform look better than it really was
|
On May 02 2013 04:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 04:13 farvacola wrote:On May 02 2013 04:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2013 03:50 farvacola wrote:On May 02 2013 03:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program. I sure hope so You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago. I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created. CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue. It's not a trap. The issues they talk about show that the program is filling a void left in the current public/private welfare programs. These people don't have "honest" options for supporting themselves and their families. Exactly. Every example that NPR bit brings up links the use of disability funds to societal/job market issues, and to approach the issue as though disability is the problem is to misunderstand what is going on. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bloat, as tends to be the case with government programs, but these people are trapped on disability no more by the strictures of the program than the places in which they live and the lack of resources available to them. I think you guys are missing the point. Disability is preventing the underlying problems from being addressed. Disability doesn't give people new skills nor does it reduce a local area's real unemployment problems. It just gives people a small check and declares the problem solved. But to pretend that it is disability holding them in place as opposed to the lack of real opportunity is simply disingenuous. Cutting disability doesn't magically make education more accessible to these people, nor does it do a thing in terms of improving the job market. It just decreases quality of life. Reductions in disability ought to be part of moving forward, but not as the primary step. Yeah, I don't really see an easy exit from disability. Simply booting people from the rolls won't really work (was this suggested?). But as is it's a one way street and there needs to be a meaningful attempt at fixing that. At the very least it's making the much ballyhooed welfare reform look better than it really was
Well, I trust that you have enough good sense to not recommend such a thing, but it isn't a stretch to assume that many conservative minded folk hear those numbers and immediately think, "cut the leeches and let em burn!".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 02 2013 04:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 04:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2013 04:13 farvacola wrote:On May 02 2013 04:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2013 03:50 farvacola wrote:On May 02 2013 03:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program. I sure hope so You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago. I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created. CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue. It's not a trap. The issues they talk about show that the program is filling a void left in the current public/private welfare programs. These people don't have "honest" options for supporting themselves and their families. Exactly. Every example that NPR bit brings up links the use of disability funds to societal/job market issues, and to approach the issue as though disability is the problem is to misunderstand what is going on. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bloat, as tends to be the case with government programs, but these people are trapped on disability no more by the strictures of the program than the places in which they live and the lack of resources available to them. I think you guys are missing the point. Disability is preventing the underlying problems from being addressed. Disability doesn't give people new skills nor does it reduce a local area's real unemployment problems. It just gives people a small check and declares the problem solved. But to pretend that it is disability holding them in place as opposed to the lack of real opportunity is simply disingenuous. Cutting disability doesn't magically make education more accessible to these people, nor does it do a thing in terms of improving the job market. It just decreases quality of life. Reductions in disability ought to be part of moving forward, but not as the primary step. Yeah, I don't really see an easy exit from disability. Simply booting people from the rolls won't really work (was this suggested?). But as is it's a one way street and there needs to be a meaningful attempt at fixing that. At the very least it's making the much ballyhooed welfare reform look better than it really was Well, I trust that you have enough good sense to not recommend such a thing, but it isn't a stretch to assume that many conservative minded folk hear those numbers and immediately think, "cut the leeches and let em burn!".
that won't be a problem as long as the disabled folks are not black.
|
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."
Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.
"In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.
The Times Herald noted that in "subsequent comments," Toomey "tried to walk that remark part-way back by noting he meant to say Republicans across the nation in general, not just those in the Senate."
Last week, Toomey placed more of the blame on the president himself, telling the Morning Call, "I would suggest the administration brought this on themselves. I think the president ran his re-election campaign in a divisive way. He divided Americans. He was using resentment of some Americans toward others to generate support for himself."
Source
|
On May 02 2013 10:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."
Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.
"In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.
The Times Herald noted that in "subsequent comments," Toomey "tried to walk that remark part-way back by noting he meant to say Republicans across the nation in general, not just those in the Senate."
Last week, Toomey placed more of the blame on the president himself, telling the Morning Call, "I would suggest the administration brought this on themselves. I think the president ran his re-election campaign in a divisive way. He divided Americans. He was using resentment of some Americans toward others to generate support for himself." Source
Its been a common problem in American politics imo.
There so busy fighting each other that when something comes along they both support they refuse to vote for it since its coming from the other party.
When fighting the president becomes more important that the will of the people and the need of the state something is deeply wrong.
|
During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015.
Source
|
On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source
Time to cut more!
|
On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source
Can we just have a thread where Stealth comes in and copy pastes interesting shit? Like just have his own forum no one can post in where he just alerts us to all of the interesting things going on around us.
On May 02 2013 10:48 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Time to cut more!
The more you cut in an economy the slower that economy can turn it's gears and get running again. It's a fine line between cutting to much and having no consumer trust in your market and it collapse from lack of capital gain.
|
But uhhh, what about......uhhhh......food stamps......poor people.....I bet someone in the White House wastes a lot of paper, someone better get on that.
|
On May 02 2013 10:49 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Can we just have a thread where Stealth comes in and copy pastes interesting shit? Like just have his own forum no one can post in where he just alerts us to all of the interesting things going on around us. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 10:48 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Time to cut more! The more you cut in an economy the slower that economy can turn it's gears and get running again. It's a fine line between cutting to much and having no consumer trust in your market and it collapse from lack of capital gain.
But cuts equals jobs because job creators have confidence in the government's commitment to debt control!
|
On May 02 2013 12:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 10:49 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Can we just have a thread where Stealth comes in and copy pastes interesting shit? Like just have his own forum no one can post in where he just alerts us to all of the interesting things going on around us. On May 02 2013 10:48 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Time to cut more! The more you cut in an economy the slower that economy can turn it's gears and get running again. It's a fine line between cutting to much and having no consumer trust in your market and it collapse from lack of capital gain. But cuts equals jobs because job creators have confidence in the government's commitment to debt control!
That has never once happened at all... Do you think any business owner has confidence in a society cutting its social structure? Less structure, less money in consumers pockets, less sales.
Anyone who thinks cuts equal more jobs is foolish at best and anyone who thinks it increases market trust and job creators interest in the specific market is even worse. Perhaps, however, you can name a single time a federal cut in any country has resulted in business confidence : P, I can't think of one.
Cut's are designed to stabilize a market which eventually will encourage growth afterwards but during a federal cut your market trust is always going to be at an all time low and generally after it's a slow climb.
|
On May 02 2013 10:49 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Can we just have a thread where Stealth comes in and copy pastes interesting shit? Like just have his own forum no one can post in where he just alerts us to all of the interesting things going on around us.
Please no. His links and actual news are the only thing that makes this thread tolerable. The constant arguments of definition and armchair-economists must be vanquished by StealthBlue!
|
On May 02 2013 10:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."
Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.
"In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.
The Times Herald noted that in "subsequent comments," Toomey "tried to walk that remark part-way back by noting he meant to say Republicans across the nation in general, not just those in the Senate."
Last week, Toomey placed more of the blame on the president himself, telling the Morning Call, "I would suggest the administration brought this on themselves. I think the president ran his re-election campaign in a divisive way. He divided Americans. He was using resentment of some Americans toward others to generate support for himself." Source
Consider how gung-ho the Obama administration was for an assault weapons ban or military-style weapons ban in the wake of the Newtown killings. After it became apparent that passage would not happen, they back down from that and stick to a tame background check change. The opposition is not in the business of handing every political opponent a save-face coupon. If you've won the issue, act like you've won the issue. The President and some democrats wanted vastly increased gun control legislation and did not get it, and acting otherwise is deceiving yourself.
Personally, I think Toomey is way off on this. He's not seeing the big picture properly.
|
On May 02 2013 13:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 10:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."
Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.
"In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.
The Times Herald noted that in "subsequent comments," Toomey "tried to walk that remark part-way back by noting he meant to say Republicans across the nation in general, not just those in the Senate."
Last week, Toomey placed more of the blame on the president himself, telling the Morning Call, "I would suggest the administration brought this on themselves. I think the president ran his re-election campaign in a divisive way. He divided Americans. He was using resentment of some Americans toward others to generate support for himself." Source Consider how gung-ho the Obama administration was for an assault weapons ban or military-style weapons ban in the wake of the Newtown killings. After it became apparent that passage would not happen, they back down from that and stick to a tame background check change. The opposition is not in the business of handing every political opponent a save-face coupon. If you've won the issue, act like you've won the issue. The President and some democrats wanted vastly increased gun control legislation and did not get it, and acting otherwise is deceiving yourself. Personally, I think Toomey is way off on this. He's not seeing the big picture properly.
The big picture is he is suddenly a very popular republican in a blue leaning state because of this whereas his colleagues who voted against it are becoming very unpopular. If anything he is seeing the big picture a lot better than his party is because in the end the big picture is to get re-elected and not let legislation that you cant really come up with a none conspiracy theory reason to oppose hold you back from that.
The people who voted against it who previously said they would vote for it are making the judgment that its safer to side with the NRA and trust that its not an important enough issue for voters to cost them an election but opposing it could cost them enough support that it could cost them an election.
|
On May 02 2013 13:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 10:49 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Can we just have a thread where Stealth comes in and copy pastes interesting shit? Like just have his own forum no one can post in where he just alerts us to all of the interesting things going on around us. Please no. His links and actual news are the only thing that makes this thread tolerable. The constant arguments of definition and armchair-economists must be vanquished by StealthBlue!
Well it would be nice if he for once would give his own opinnion and vieuw as a comment on all the news links he posts.
Just posting the news here for all your people who to lazy to read the news themselves,just to keep the thread going is apreciated but it would be alot more interesting if he would also give his own opinnions and vieuws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
