The Debt Limit Debate

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:29 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE

F

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:33 pm

GIThruster wrote:...She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ’ Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? ‘

I said, ‘Welcome to Conservatism.’ Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.

Much Applause.

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:38 am

GIThruster wrote:’Wow…what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that! You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.‘

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ’ Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? ‘

Interesting. But are you actually offering the job?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:25 pm

I found that little story on the web. It's not a personal story. More a fable I should think.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:31 pm

Actually that doesn't seem as bad as I thought, 72K more in benefits (for the men, 119K for the women) including medicare that you paid into. Not good maybe, but not as hopless as I thought, thanks again for the information. Seems like you could tweak that by raising retirement age a few years and yes bumping up taxes.

You would expect a bigger payout than pay in. It is called investing. In T bills if you like.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:18 pm

Except when the promised returns are impossible to support.
I demonstrated this with rough numbers above in my previous posts.

Shrinking contribution pool, growing recipient pool, unrealistic promises of payouts...

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:27 pm

ladajo wrote:Except when the promised returns are impossible to support.
I demonstrated this with rough numbers above in my previous posts.

Shrinking contribution pool, growing recipient pool, unrealistic promises of payouts...

You are mixing investing with politics.

But I get it. The USG can no longer afford to pay interest on T bills.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:30 pm

Yes, it is absolutely a mixing of investment with politics. It can be no other way in the system we have. I do not agree with it, but as long as the government deals with money, in any sense, it will be.

Maybe I misunderstood your intent.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:57 pm

ladajo wrote:Yes, it is absolutely a mixing of investment with politics. It can be no other way in the system we have. I do not agree with it, but as long as the government deals with money, in any sense, it will be.

Maybe I misunderstood your intent.

I was involuntarily made to invest in T Bills. A modest return on that investment ought to be expected.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:01 pm

I agree with what has to be done. All I'm saying is that a modest return on investment is not unreasonable. Esp given inflation.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:17 pm

Yes, I agree. Make promises you can keep.

Don't tell lies to get votes.

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:22 am

GIThruster wrote:I found that little story on the web. It's not a personal story. More a fable I should think.

It gets a point across, but it leaves a pretty important open question: jobs.

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:10 am

Teahive wrote:... it leaves a pretty important open question: jobs.

People with money will hire when they can get value worth the money. Government getting in the way, dictating what an employer must pay and provide, imposing costs to comply with ill conceived regulations, taxing a sizable portion of revenue generated, all increases the costs of hiring an employee and render some people unemployable.

Government making "welfare" payments reduces the incentive to find work, especially if the pay is comparable to or less than the government benefits lost.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:43 pm

hanelyp wrote:
Teahive wrote:... it leaves a pretty important open question: jobs.
People with money will hire when they can get value worth the money.

Times like this when unemployment is very high are good times for employers to get great value for their human investments, because they don'[t need to pay nealry as much fior skilled labor. UNskilled labor that is down near minimum wage is generally uneffected, but that is n9ot where we need to see growth.

The problem is rather that peopole don't want to invest in expansion when no one knows just how much OBamacare is going to cost. There have already been three official government reports out explaining how it is going to cost much more than anyone was told when it passed. Big surprise. We're talking about the bill Pelosi famously explained "you have to pass it to find out what's in it" and accountants have been working ever since and still don't understand what it all intails.

It's not hard to sympathise with investors and corporations who have to decide whether to build a new store in Michigan or build it somewhere outside the US. I hate to note it but this is a great time for investment in Central America, Africa and Southeast Asia. With all this nonsense here, why should peopole create jobs in the US?

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:57 am

hanelyp wrote:
Teahive wrote:... it leaves a pretty important open question: jobs.
People with money will hire when they can get value worth the money. Government getting in the way, dictating what an employer must pay and provide, imposing costs to comply with ill conceived regulations, taxing a sizable portion of revenue generated, all increases the costs of hiring an employee and render some people unemployable.

Government making "welfare" payments reduces the incentive to find work, especially if the pay is comparable to or less than the government benefits lost.

All these things play a role, but even if you abolished welfare you still would have significant unemployment because creation of jobs depends on demand, expected or real. Where is that demand going to come from in an economy with growing wealth inequality?