Sustainability

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

I should have noted that I would have no qualms about electing a Republican to perform these tasks, if they come to a more reasonable stance on the issues I mentioned that I have with them in my OP.

Just like any good bubble, you need to deflate it slowly and not pop it. So far it doesn’t seem we have been able to learn our lesson and accomplish that.
[/quote]

It’s a bubble not a balloon. When you try to slow it down, it just slows down recovery. What is this the New Deal? Thought we learned our lesson with FDR and his socialism.[/quote]

The bubbles usually happen after the recovery is already complete. Can you think of a single bubble that occurred in the time of economic crisis and slow growth?

The problem with bubbles is that they eventually pop, creating a large and sudden shift in cash flow. If they are allowed to wind down gracefully (though politically unpopular) the economy would not suffer as greatly when they bust.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
leaving the workforce

[/quote]

You’re regurgitating a talking point on the downward unemployment rate without understanding the argument you’re engaged in. Jobs growth is not directly affected by workforce dropout. This is as simple as economics can get.

Hard to make the distinction, I know.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
leaving the workforce

[/quote]

You’re regurgitating a talking point on the downward unemployment rate without understanding the argument you’re engaged in. Jobs growth is not directly affected by workforce dropout. This is as simple as economics can get.

Hard to make the distinction, I know.[/quote]

Its cool, its easy to get them confused when you’ve just heard your parents talking about it at the dinner table.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]

[/quote]

Good article, and supportive of my original assertion that the programs need to be tweaked to be sustainable in the long term. My post that you quote above was in response to Brother Chris’s radical proposal that they need to be eliminated entirely.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]

[/quote]

Good article, and supportive of my original assertion that the programs need to be tweaked to be sustainable in the long term. My post that you quote above was in response to Brother Chris’s radical proposal that they need to be eliminated entirely.[/quote]

If by sustainable you mean seriously cut benefits, sure.

“tweaked” lol

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

A restructuring of the entitlement programs (I really hate that term but I guess that is what they are, as long as you are distinguishing them from actual welfare) is in order, but I am not even going to pretend to know how to address that. I have not seen viable solutions coming from either side.[/quote]

How about removing them, since no one is actually entitled to someone else’s property given to them from the government?

[/quote]

LOL You do realize we are talking about Medicare and Social Security here with the word “entitlement” right? Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]

To a point. However, they rely on someone else paying.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]

Yes, the more you pay in the more you get back.

However, someone getting 15,500 a year in SS needs two people working at teh limit today to cover his benefits, and would have had to earn about 5 million over his life time in SS taxable wages…

Social Security is a government run ponzi scheme. Yes you are receiving someone else property.

That being said, I’m not in the “end SS” camp. It does need some fixing though.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]

[/quote]

Good article, and supportive of my original assertion that the programs need to be tweaked to be sustainable in the long term. My post that you quote above was in response to Brother Chris’s radical proposal that they need to be eliminated entirely.[/quote]

If by sustainable you mean seriously cut benefits, sure.[/quote]

Current benefits were designed based on an expected revenue stream.

Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t they been running in the black for most of the time in existence and only moved into the red during financial? Of course the pool has been losing water over the past few years because we have been in a recession with massive unemployment. As you dig out and more people come back into the workforce, the revenue stream increases back to previous levels.

That is why I used the term “tweaked” instead of “massive overhaul”.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]

[/quote]

Good article, and supportive of my original assertion that the programs need to be tweaked to be sustainable in the long term. My post that you quote above was in response to Brother Chris’s radical proposal that they need to be eliminated entirely.[/quote]

If by sustainable you mean seriously cut benefits, sure.[/quote]

Current benefits were designed based on an expected revenue stream.

Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t they been running in the black for most of the time in existence and only moved into the red during financial? Of course the pool has been losing water over the past few years because we have been in a recession with massive unemployment. As you dig out and more people come back into the workforce, the revenue stream increases back to previous levels.

That is why I used the term “tweaked” instead of “massive overhaul”.

[/quote]

You have a demographic problem about to explode medicare and you think it’ll only need a tweak? This isn’t about this recent economic downturn. It doesn’t help, but it’s not the problem. This is about a graying population.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

This is in addition to the fact that we have had 32 straight months of job growth after a massive (8 million+) period of job contraction. I feel that Obama has us back on the track for economic growth and sustainability. I am willing to overlook the massive spending in that time because the Keynesians say that’ what it takes and have a successful track record with economic recoveries.[/quote]

Actually, we have had 32 straight months of people leaving the workforce, not being employed. Hard to make the distinction, I know.

[/quote]

Actually, we have had 32 months of job growth, like I said. Notice I did not say “drop in unemployment” I said “Job growth” which means, there are more new jobs available month over month than there were in previous months (they “grew” if you will). [/quote]

Yes, I understand this. However, it does not change the fact that unemployment increased.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
leaving the workforce

[/quote]

You’re regurgitating a talking point on the downward unemployment rate without understanding the argument you’re engaged in. Jobs growth is not directly affected by workforce dropout. This is as simple as economics can get.

Hard to make the distinction, I know.[/quote]

That’s great, jobs have been created. That doesn’t change the issue that when unemployment is going up, more people are not actually working, less are.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

This is in addition to the fact that we have had 32 straight months of job growth after a massive (8 million+) period of job contraction. I feel that Obama has us back on the track for economic growth and sustainability. I am willing to overlook the massive spending in that time because the Keynesians say that’ what it takes and have a successful track record with economic recoveries.[/quote]

Actually, we have had 32 straight months of people leaving the workforce, not being employed. Hard to make the distinction, I know.

[/quote]

Actually, we have had 32 months of job growth, like I said. Notice I did not say “drop in unemployment” I said “Job growth” which means, there are more new jobs available month over month than there were in previous months (they “grew” if you will). [/quote]

Yes, I understand this. However, it does not change the fact that unemployment increased. [/quote]

LOL

How about we discuss what I actually say and not what you “kinda hope you think I say because it would be easier to argue against”, shall we?

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
leaving the workforce

[/quote]

You’re regurgitating a talking point on the downward unemployment rate without understanding the argument you’re engaged in. Jobs growth is not directly affected by workforce dropout. This is as simple as economics can get.

Hard to make the distinction, I know.[/quote]

Its cool, its easy to get them confused when you’ve just heard your parents talking about it at the dinner table.[/quote]

Lol. Yes, I’m sure my degree in Economics and my work as an intern at BLS has nothing to do with it. I’m sure sitting at my apolitical father’s table six years ago did it for me.

I have come to accept the simple premise that what cannot be sustained will not be sustained.

I iz wise beyond my years.

Seriously, that is something a lot of people seem to be having problems wrapping their head around.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

This is in addition to the fact that we have had 32 straight months of job growth after a massive (8 million+) period of job contraction. I feel that Obama has us back on the track for economic growth and sustainability. I am willing to overlook the massive spending in that time because the Keynesians say that’ what it takes and have a successful track record with economic recoveries.[/quote]

Actually, we have had 32 straight months of people leaving the workforce, not being employed. Hard to make the distinction, I know.

[/quote]

Actually, we have had 32 months of job growth, like I said. Notice I did not say “drop in unemployment” I said “Job growth” which means, there are more new jobs available month over month than there were in previous months (they “grew” if you will). [/quote]

Yes, I understand this. However, it does not change the fact that unemployment increased. [/quote]

LOL

How about we discuss what I actually say and not what you “kinda hope you think I say because it would be easier to argue against”, shall we?[/quote]

I wasn’t “kinda hope you think I say because it would be easier to argue against” I was talking about you are looking at a statistic that does not look at what is the issue.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
leaving the workforce

[/quote]

You’re regurgitating a talking point on the downward unemployment rate without understanding the argument you’re engaged in. Jobs growth is not directly affected by workforce dropout. This is as simple as economics can get.

Hard to make the distinction, I know.[/quote]

Its cool, its easy to get them confused when you’ve just heard your parents talking about it at the dinner table.[/quote]

Lol. Yes, I’m sure my degree in Economics and my work as an intern at BLS has nothing to do with it. I’m sure sitting at my apolitical father’s table six years ago did it for me.[/quote]

Sorry bro I was just trying to help you out in explaining why you might possibly be getting so confused when discussing the simple topics. Carry on with your strawmen.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I wasn’t “kinda hope you think I say because it would be easier to argue against” I was talking about you are looking at a statistic that does not look at what is the issue.[/quote]

So availability of jobs is not an issue? That is great news for everyone!!!

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
leaving the workforce

[/quote]

You’re regurgitating a talking point on the downward unemployment rate without understanding the argument you’re engaged in. Jobs growth is not directly affected by workforce dropout. This is as simple as economics can get.

Hard to make the distinction, I know.[/quote]

That’s great, jobs have been created. That doesn’t change the issue that when unemployment is going up, more people are not actually working, less are.[/quote]

Yes, that is indeed the definition of unemployment.

I was specifically addressing your apparent confusion regarding the difference between jobs growth (which is what was being discussed) and workforce dropout (which you brought up as though it disproved the (true) statement in question).